Hi Guys,

I was wondering if any of you have ever grappled with the issue of the gender of the Holy Spirit. I first came across the concept of a feminine Holy Spirit about 2 years ago.

Here are some links which discuss the topic link1a link 1b link 2 link 3 * , though I am not necassarily advocated all that they say, just interested in the fact that they highlight the gender issue.

I also recall that some mystics of the church have considered the Holy Spirit feminine.

Any comments?

I also found quite interesting the link to Mary which I had not considered before.

Regardless of what the links may say about the issue,
I was wondering if it would be doctrinally or dogmatically heretical to consider the Holy Spirit as Female?

Jacques,
I have long regarded the Holy Spirit as the feminine face of God, and so was very pleased to read the links you provided. We often say that God is neither male nor female; I think it is more accurate to say that God is BOTH male and female, and that this is incorportated in the mystery of the Trinity. The Bible is also rich in female imagery for the first person of the Trinity, who is not just Father but Mother. It seems to me that it is only when we embrace the wholeness of God that we can embrace the wholeness that is within us and within the human family.

Ditto to revkah's reflections.

Theologically, it's impossible to ascribe male or female characteristics to any of the Persons of the Trinity, for their full possession of divinity trascends the limitations implied by gender (i.e., male is not female, and so it lacking in what females possess). Also, gender is connected with posssession of a body, and none of the Persons in themselves have such. Even to say that Jesus Christ is male doesn't imply that the Word or Second Person is male.

As revkah noted, however, God's perfection is such that God possesses all the characteristics we would designate as male or female. That's why it is important to use both male and female imagery in reference to God -- maybe not in the same sentence, but on the whole. One way to do this would be to emphasize the feminine more in one of the Persons and the male more in anOther. I can see the sense in that, but it isn't very theologically sound.

You�re right, Phil, it isn�t theologically sound, but it certainly is human nature. We just have a hard time with anyone who bends our understanding of gender (witness our discomfort with gay, lesbian, trans-gendered or intersexed people) and the idea of a Divine Being who is both/neither male and female makes us uncomfortable. So, we may tend to ascribe male qualities to one person of the Trinity and female to another. Dividing God like this is one more way that we try to limit God to the scope of our own understanding.I must admit that it really gave me pause to read Julian of Norwich speak of �Jesus our mother.�

Does it not bear significance that Ruach is feminine noun and not neuter or male?

For what it is worth, I tend to think of divine Personhood as the transcendence and, therefore, also the fullness, of all that is male and female in the human person. Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
[qb] Does it not bear significance that Ruach is feminine noun and not neuter or male? [/qb]

I don't think so. No language seems to be able to convey the reality of personal being apart from gender, hence you get a "him" or "her."

Consider that not only God, but the angels as well are personal beings (consciously intelligent in freedom) without gender. Technically, they are not he nor she, and neither are they "its" (which is impersonal).

What we have, here, is a limitation of language.

Oops! I responded to the wrong response. Sorry!

A bit off the topic, but connected to your post Phil,

if angels are also genderless, how did they come down to earth in Genesis and procreate with humans? or is this not the traditional interpretation of that passage? Also more detail of the incident in the book of Enoch?

It seems to me that God has chosen to reveal who He is as Father, showing predominantly male characteristics of love - provision, guidance, etc - and that his qualities towards us, His children, are mainly, though not exclusively, Fatherly. I know He displays tender motherly qualities too (His love is complete and full) but it is in the context of who He is as Father, Son and Spirit.

We can't experience God personally without this revelation of Fatherhood. How can we as humans have a personal, loving relationship with a genderless being? Fatherliness is an essential part of who God is. Motherliness would be a quality He displays.

That's a good point, Stephen. It's one thing to recognize the theological reality, but the human reality (as alluded above re. language) is that we don't experience the personal except through the medium of gender, and so we have great difficulty envisioning a genderless person.

- - -

Jacques, to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't teach that angels had sex with women. I know the passage (Gen. 6:1-4) about which you speak, but there's considerable diversity among scholars concerning the meaning of the term, "Sons of God." Some do think they were angels, but also state that angels are nonetheless "sexless."
- http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html
- http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/50.html
And, from the UCCB: [1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation--the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.
- http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bi...genesis/genesis6.htm

The traditional understand of angels is that they do not propagate themselves, but are created directly by God and are immortal. Of course, who really knows how things work among the angels.