Is God He, She or It?

For the past couple of years, since worshiping at my local United Church of Christ, I’ve been reading the Daily Devotional on the UCC website…nearly daily.  I like it, I learn some things, it inspires my prayer life, at times.

Alas, it has also made me more aware of an aversion I have to referencing God as “She” or using “Her” as a possessive for God.  Many of the contributing pastors/ministers use this “She” reference quite often; at this stage in my walk of faith, I find this to be both inaccurate and driven by a form of “political correctness.”  I may be wrong but my current studies support my discomfort with this practice of calling God, “She.”

1. I believe that the Bible contains, if not the words of God, the Word of God.  I believe that the  “authors” of the books chosen for the Christian Bible(s) were inspired by God to write what they wrote.  I believe that the message of the Word transcends the time period in which the Word was written, although that time period is definitely a part of the nature and “sense” of the writing.

2.  Jesus consistently refers to God as his “Father.”  Jesus never refers to God as his mother, sister, aunt…you get the idea.  Jesus refers to God as “Lord”…never as “Lady.”  As most Christians recall, in Matthew Jesus told us to pray, “Our Father…”.  Additionally, Jesus refers to God as, “Abba”…typically this is translated as “daddy”, I believe.

3. For centuries, we have referred to the Triune God as, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Ghost).”  As I read the Bible, God reveals Himself and His nature principally through the masculine – as a Father, as a Son (who did for a brief period in history take on a human body and did therefore for that time have a gender) and of course God also reveals Himself through the Person of the Holy Spirit – for Whom there is no direct, human equivalent. The one thing that He does not do in Scripture is to reveal Himself through a feminine Person in the Trinity (remembering that as well as the feminine noun in the Old Testament, in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is referred to variously as the Comforter/Advocate who is just like Jesus – the masculine noun parakletos - and further through the representation of moving air or rushing wind – the neuter noun pneuma John 14:16, 17, 26). As I inferred earlier, some would argue that this revelation of God as Father, Son and Spirit came through a patriarchal culture and therefore is informed and indeed constrained by culture. That’s no doubt true, timeline-wise… and yet God is sovereign over all things – including culture. Had God wanted to reveal Himself differently, He could readily have chosen a different time and place to do so, I submit.  Are there feminine images used of God in the Bible? Yes there is a relatively small number of them – Deut 32:18, Psalm 22:10, Psalm 131:2, Is 42:14, Is 49:15, Is 66:13 and Luke 15:8-10 to name the most commonly cited – there are others. But my hunch is that these serve no more to reveal Him as “She”, than the image of God as having wings (Psalm 36:7 and elsewhere) reveals Him to be a Bird.

4.  A simple search in the Bible makes it abundantly clear that “God” and “God’s name” are nearly inseparable from references to “He”, “Him”, etc.  This leads me to believe that God not only takes his name very seriously but reveals his name in “masculine” formats and situations to present to us a very specific identity.  This does not diminish the “feminine” qualities of God’s interactions with us…I would expect those qualities in Him (as I would in any other man or woman created in God’s image) because he directs those qualities in me…us…male and female.

5.  As most active church-going Christians my recall, over the past 15-20 years Christian churches have made efforts to remove, eliminate or diminish any historical direct reference to “Man”, “Men”, etc., in prayers, documents and encyclicals.  Perhaps this is to help women feel more inclusive in churches.  Perhaps this is to “update” the writings of “male dominated societies.”  Perhaps this is because it is politically correct.  Perhaps this is because it is less offensive to women.  Perhaps for these reasons and more…I don’t know.  I am confident of this, however:  God historically revealed Himself to us as a "He", and we ought not to dismiss that and pretend that we know how to interact with God in ways that are superior than the way that God chose to reveal Himself to us.

In sum, this is where my understanding and study has led me over these past 60 years.  So I ask myself:  What am I missing…what do I need to learn or consider, in this matter?

When will the Lord’s (Lady’s ??) Prayer begin with, “Our Mother, who art in heaven…”?  Or will it?

Does it even matter, in your opinion?

Why do I think that my understanding of God's nature captures the complete essence of God?

For the past 30 years, I have been a practitioner of Tai Chi.  As you may know, Tai Chi and Taoism have a very unique bond.  This being said,  I have been studying Taoism for quite some time.  The Tao Te Ching, “written” by Lao Tzu, is the legendary formal beginning of Taoism, as I understand other studies.

The essence of the Tao can be found in the opening lines of Verse 1:
The Tao that can be told is not the universal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the universal name.
In the infancy of the universe there were no names.  Naming fragments the mysteries of life into ten thousand things and there manifestations…

The verse goes on and says, essentially:  If you think that you can name/define/describe the Tao (the Path) then you don’t know the Tao…the essence of the Tao.

Reading this, I have come to believe that I know so little about God (and the Tao) that being biblically “literal” regarding the pronoun(s) being used for God may be another sign of my egotism.

Although I do not have, in fact reject, a God-In-A-Box faith or understanding about God, I may need to review/pray about my aversion to the use of “She”, “Her” and “Mother” by fellow Christians when “naming” God.  

The devil’s advocate in me might say: To other people, I may present both male and female thoughts, emotions, actions…characteristics…at different times, in varying situations during my life.  Those could be construed as some of the “essence” of  who I am.  But my name does not change, he is Bill.  But my gender does not change, I am male.

Of course (at least I believe at this point in my Christian journey), although God does have a name, God does not have a gender in the strictest sense of the word (Word) unless one considers “Creator” to be God’s “gender?”  Jesus’s gender is male, the Holy Spirit’s “gender” is spirit?

You know what, Reader?  As I read and reread my post…all of this stuff about “gender” and names and pronouns…it is becoming apparent to me that they have NOTHING to do with faith in our Triune God and God’s love of his creation…nothing. 

So I reread John, Chapter 1:  In the beginning was the Word… I don’t notice any gender in those words, in that chapter.

Perhaps I have become guilty of playing mental gymnastics so as to feed my ego.

This being said, I apologize for dragging you into my lack of openness to others’ beliefs…and hope that writing this post has given me something to continue to think (or un-think) about!

Is Pregnancy A Women's Health Issue?

Let’s image that a man and woman decide to have unprotected sex.

Is that a health issue or a bad decision?

Now, let’s imagine that this same man and woman become pregnant because of their unprotected sex.

Is that a health issue or a biological possibility after engaging in unprotected sex?

Finally, let’s imagine that this woman has decided that she wants to terminate the pregnancy (for any number of reasons) but does not have the resources to pay for the abortion.

Suddenly, lobbyists, politicians, women’s groups, and some churches call this “dilemma” a “women’s health issue” that is the financial responsibility of the federal government.

Let’s review:

1.       The government did not encourage or perform the unprotected sex.

2.       The government has no control over the woman’s biological results.

3.       The government did not make the decision that the pregnancy was unwanted and should be terminated.

4.       The woman’s financial position was not determined by the government.

Why, then, should the federal government be financially responsible for the decisions of this woman?  

How does her inability to pay for an abortion make her desired abortion a “women’s health issue”?

Isn’t this merely poor planning and a lack of financial resources to pay for an item on her Wish List?

So, who should fund the abortion for this person? 

Perhaps:

1.       The church groups, women’s groups and/or activists who believe that it is a “community” issue.

2.       Planned Parenthood (for example) via a telethon or Go-Fund-Me page type of approach.

3.       The woman’s parents, relatives, friends and “boyfriend.”

Why do some women demand that the government leaves their bodies alone…unless it “requires” an abortion?  

A “women’s health issue”…I don’t think so…

WHO WON THE 2017 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

                AND THE PRESIDENTIAL WINNER IS...

I don’t know about “Fake News” or what people mean by the term.  (Perhaps “news” that presents an event that did not happen or a story or event that took place but is not really “news” however it is being used to incite a reaction.)

I can’t be sure what others mean by “Alternate Facts” but in my life there is such a phenomenon.  (EG, “Red wine is good for a man’s heart thus extending his life.” VS “Too much wine can lead to alcoholism, liver failure and death.)

I am very confident, however, that news sources use certain facts that could be considered both “Fake News” and “Alternate Facts.”

Take, for example, this fact that certain news sources like to inject into news stories:  “Hilary Clinton, who won the popular vote by 3 million votes…yada, yada, yada…”  Typically, the fact is used to justify a disagreement that the news source has with a President Trump action and how upset Americans have become.

One “Alternate Fact” to this statement is that Hilary beat Donald by a sum of 4 million votes in just two States: New York and California.  In the remaining 48 States she lost a total of 1 million of those votes.  (Remember, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.)  Stated in another way, in the 29 States that Hilary lost, she lost by 1 million votes.

Another “Alternate Fact” is that, since we do not elect our presidents by the popular votes but by electoral votes, Hilary did very poorly in the 2017 election…except on the coastal States.  Hilary actually won only 21 States while Donald won the remaining 29 States, including nearly all of the “Heartland” and “swing” states .  Because of the States that Hilary won, she did not have enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

A third “Alternate Fact” is that half of Hilary’s electoral votes came from only four States:  NY, CA, MN and IL.  The other 17 States that she won produced the other half of her electoral votes.  In other words, on 25% of the States that she won provided 50% of her electoral votes.

A fourth “Alternate Fact” is that if Hilary had not won in both NY and CA then she would not have even been in the race.

A fifth “Alternate Fact” is that if the US elected our president with the popular vote then the President of the United States would have been elected by only two states:  New York and California.  What this would mean, of course, is that the rest of the country would have no representation in the presidential election process or the American government (Presidential Branch) for at least four years.

In my view, at this point in time in my life, the Electoral College process is genius.  It provides the opportunity for all 50 States to participate in the selection of our President.  It eliminates that possibility that a minority of states with the largest populations would select the President and thus determine the fate of the rest of the United States based upon the desires of those few States.  (Remember the cause of the Boston Tea Party?)

This post has nothing to do with Hilary or Donald.  It has almost everything to do with supporting a balanced representation in our government of all 50 States of the United States of America, as determined by the Electoral College.  This post has something to do with how our “news sources” (often) attempt to persuade us to accept their version of “news” and how the world should be.

BUILDING GINGERBREAD HOUSES

12/24/16  BUILDING GINGERBREAD HOUSES...and more...

My daughter and her Girls have some unique and memorable Christmas traditions;  one of those activities is building gingerbread houses.  As this photo illuminates, building these houses is no small task, requires a shopping bag of supplies and is very intense.  The Girls are not only creative they are (all three being multi-sport athletes) also very competitive thus elevating the concentration and emotional input of the event.

This year Cindy and I had the pleasure of spending 6 or 7 weeks with the Girls and their parents (from Thanksgiving week through Christmas week) enabling us to be a part of this tradition.  The Girls love all things home-cooked and home-baked.  What that meant for the Gingerbread House Project, this year, was the addition of homemade gingerbread;  I thought that, since the Girls like to build their houses with all-things-edible (one of the qualifiers for the competition/tradition), homemade gingerbread would be a nice twist.

After a couple of hours of design, fabrication and decorating, the Girls created this Christmas neighborhood:

They created wreaths, icicles, candy shrubs, snow...just an unbelievable and creative inventory of candy Christmas decorations.  Notice the detail?

What the photos aren't able to present are the sounds of the tradition.  Girls laughing and teasing one another.  Sisters playfully diss-ing each other and whining about sharing the supplies.  Girls offering supportive, "Oh-that's-cute"s to their sister. Girls attempting to hide there over-the-top gingerbread house deal closer and adding, "Stop looking...you're cheating!"

Unfortunately, the photos lack the capacity to present the emotions of the family tradition:  the "good" kind of pride for a job well done, the joy of creating a unique Christmas decoration, the family love strengthened by Sisters being sisters.

Imagine the precious Christmas blessing we received while witnessing this family tradition!  We could see it, we could hear it...God is with us, Emmanuel.

DECISIONS ARE EXCLUSIVE

During the past New Year's Week I've been reading a lot about "inclusion."  It appeared a couple of times on a daily devotional blog that I visit.  "Inclusion" was discussed on a spiritual leader website that I visit.  It was discussed in print on a Taoist/Retirement blog that I have been reading.

As I read and think about "inclusion", I am drawn to think about "choices" and decision making and evaluating the pros and cons prior to moving forward on something.  I am inclined to think many people associate the word/action "inclusive" to mean we have a duty to include (and welcome) anyone, everyone, into our personal and societal circle regardless of their beliefs, actions, motivations.

I am beginning to sense that there is a movement in churches, spiritual persuasions and certain (political) community centered organizations that regards "inclusion" as a minimum requirement for defining the validity and authentication of the organization's motives.

To me, at this stage of my life and evolution, this is flawed, idyllic thinking.  To me, this sort of thinking trend is more about avoiding the appearance of being prejudice than it is about being "inclusive."  To me, the choice of being "inclusive" is actually choosing to avoid taking a stand or making a decision that best defines the organization's or person's reason for being.

Permit me to exaggerate "inclusion" in a few extreme directions:  Would you invite (include) the criminal to be involved in the process of determining that criminal's sentence for his crime?  Or, would you (the banker) include the borrower in the decision making process to set the interest on their loan?  Or, would you (parent) include your pre-teen children in the decision making process to determine whether to have green beans or candy as a side dish with your ham and potato family dinner?

The other day I was reading a blog by a blogger that I respect.  She needed to decide whether or not to include a negative reply to her blog to appear in her blog's COMMENTS section.  I understand her struggle with this decision, accept and respect her decision, and am beginning to comprehend her beautiful open "heart door" concept.

My Reply to her quandary was:

Such a dilemma! As you know, anytime one makes any decision one is being "selective", i.e. "prejudice." One is performing an act of exclusion. As you know, far better than me, Acceptance is the key. I am not sure that, in my life at this point, Acceptance requires that I invite the Differing Viewpoint to dine at my table. It does, however, require that I understand that the Differing Viewpoint deserves to dine. somewhere. Perhaps if  we dine at the same table, by chance, we can decide to balance the tension of our "opposing" viewpoints aka yin-yang. 

She responded to my Reply is a very kind and thoughtful manner, after which I replied:

I am humbled that you spent your time to respond to my random thought, thank you. You have given me a better understanding 
 of your "heart door" and how it may lead you to be be even more compassionate, kind, accepting and gentle. I do agree with you that if I allow my "heart door" to open so as to seek and "encourage" me to attain interpersonal balance perhaps, then, I will develop a softer ego and a more inviting, harmonious, connection-driven spirit. Thanks for the reminder. This will take some Practice.

This being said, I firmly believe that "inclusion" is critical when negotiating between or among similar or opposing parties/persons.  I believe that "inclusion" is important as part of a thought process.  I believe that "inclusion" is a critical factor when physically combining elements/items that enhance the process, recipe or function that is being considered.  I believe that inclusion is important when developing a survey, a Pro/Con chart and opinion polls (for example).

Decision making, on the other hand, is definitive.  By definition, decision making requires exclusion. The decision may be a balance between the tension of opposites...but it requires exclusions, all the same.

I pray that, one day, the lambs and wolves will one day lay on the hillside together.  Their place of relaxation and rest will be inclusive when Acceptance is the rule.  When it is time to eat, however, the lambs need to understand that the wolves are meat eaters and plan their menus differently than they plan theirs.

POST THANKSGIVING CLEAN-UP



                                    God made this place beautiful...the Higuera Ranch staff makes it marketable.

11/2016 POST THANKSGIVING WEEK - Kristin had 163 tasks to be completed by the end of Dec. 2106. Together we organized them by Category and Priority, scheduling this new To Do List for completion over a 4 week period.

The week following Thanksgiving, Cindy and I stayed at the Higuera Ranch for some peaceful time as well as time for me to attack the To Do List.  I worked on landscaping, hedge trimming, in-ground sprinkler repair, kitchen faucet repair. Kristin joined us aT the end of that week.  Between the 2 of us, we helped reduce the To Do Lust to about 40 items! Having just been retired 1 NOV 17 the work was welcomed. Working with my daughter made it joyful.

THANKSGIVING SURPRISE 2016

POLICE UBER SERVICES

11/2016 Thanksgiving Week - After driving to Visalia a few days prior to Thanksgiving, Cindy, Kristin and I headed for our Thanksgiving Feast preparations at the Higuera Ranch.

This typically beautiful and uneventful drive became merely beautiful:  Pas Robles held some surprises.  We had a delightful lunch at a French restaurant, stopped for some delicious brown butter cookies on our way back to the car and a $340 parking event.  Imagine seeing your vehicle, formerly parked by the grassy town square, currently perched upon a tow truck bed and surrounded by 4 police officers.

Who saw the "Tow Away Zone" signs…except for the cops? Ever seen the ticket and tow take place 11 minutes after the beginning of the restricted time?  Ever have the police apologize for writing a ticket?  Ever ride in a cop car to pick up your vehicle from the tow truck storage?  Trust me, these are odd and expensive experiences.

Am I responsible for the poor parking decision, technically, "yes."  Is this poor decision planned for and anticipated by the Pas Robles city officials, perhaps.  Did I learn a valuable (rather, actually costly) lesson?  Hope so.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING FROM THE ZIMMERS & PINTERS

(From the Higuera Ranch and Avila Beach)