This video was originally posted on Dave's sight
90 Seconds of Dave. As are most of Dave's videos this one is beautifully created and received many encouraging comments and praises. The first time I watched it I noticed not just the beauty of the work but also the statements made and questions posed. Some of these questions made reference to God using the female pronoun she. The following is the comment I left Dave on his blogger regarding this video and another comment made in response to my comment left for Dave which was written by
Andrew.
Dave gave permission to post this video here we both thought this might be a better forum for discussing this topic than in the comment section of his vlog.
Anthony said:
"As usual, Dave, your creativity and use of this medium is awe inspiring. And contained within this 320x240 box is message and meaning. These are more than just visual candies, it seems. Here there are also questions posed, and also statements made. Yes, we are many. Yes, we are so close. Yes, you matter. Yes we all matter. And we matter because we matter to God. I was reminded of this recently when reading this quote "Our greatness rests solely on the fact that God in His incomprehensible goodness has bestowed His love upon us. God does not love us because we are so valuable; we are valuable because God loves us." Yes God loves us and whether He laughs with or for us I believe it matters how we represent God. I must say that I am disappointed with the way God was represented in this video. I don't see it as keeping with the way He has made Himself known to us through the Bible. Using the word she to refer to God is simply not an accurate biblical representation.
Again thank you Dave for sharing with us your creativity and art, your thoughts and your questions. I think we have gotten to know each other enough for me to post this here and for you to know that I do so with love, care, and respect for you. Thank you for sharing this."
Andrew said:
"Dave, I agree with Anthony that this video is amazing. As always I love being amazed by your work. In keeping with the theme of this video in asking questions I would like to ask some as well. This post is a response to Anthony's post above.
First of all Anthony, I can see that you have posted your comment in the vein of love, sensitivity and honesty. I greatly respect that and for your relationship with Dave. I hope I can come across to you the same way. I do not want to come across as trying to call someone out, because my questions truly stems from a genuine curiosity to your question of how God was represented in this video. I am a laymen when it comes to theology and other deep things. I'm just a person trying to live my life with the examples set by Jesus the best I can----fumbling along the way.
I am interested with your uncomfortableness with God being called "she" and represented here as a woman. The question I wonder is why that is? Would the Bible be all that different if the language of the Bible was written as such to imply that God was a woman? Would the core messages of the gospel be all that different? What about Jesus? If Jesus happened to be a woman, would that change the meaning of his teachings and love? I understand that if Jesus were actually a woman rather than a man it would change some aspects of the story and how she would have been treated and related differently in line with the cultural norms and political situation of that time frame. This is not what I mean. I'm talking about the core messages (the ones that are truly important). Would that change if God was a woman? Perhaps it would. Would it make it worse? better? just different? In all sincerity, I am curious as to why it bothers some people.
Again I hope have I come across in this post with the same honesty and sensitivity as you have."
Tagged: conversationGod 
Track with co.mments 
