© 2000 Richard I. Bain
© 2000 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
In an article entitled “Whither Goest Thou, Woman?” in The Fellowship Herald (Spring, 1999) Jeanne Melchior takes the authors of The Urantia Book to task for showing gender bias in their writing. She says that the gender biased language of the book casts doubt on the book’s revelatory status. She is so distressed by it that she is setting the book aside in favor of less biased spiritual writings. Are her criticisms valid? If so, what can we or should we do about it?
Ms. Melchior first attacks the concept of God the Father; she claims that this gender-biased concept taints the content of the whole book. So why did the authors choose “God the Father” to indicate the first person of the Trinity? And why did Jesus call God “Father?” Ms. Melchior points out that God was known by feminine names in many early cultures. But, as I recall, these were agrarian cultures which tended to have feminine deities because of their connection with the soil and the importance of the concept of fertility for a good harvest. By contrast, the ancestors of the Hebrews were wandering herders who related to a masculine deity who was like a strong tribal leader. I think we need to consider that God the Father was the next evolutionary step in the God concept of the Hebrews. We can follow the God concept in the Old Testament as this concept evolved from a stern and vindictive God into the God of love presented by Jesus. Jesus himself spoke about the evolution of the God concept on UB 159:4.5.
Ms. Melchior quotes Jesus on UB 124:4.4-9 where he uses the concept of the earthly family as an illustration of the heavenly spiritual family. Jesus refers to the human father as the head of the family in this quote. Consider this: Jesus did not come to radically transform society, but to give as full a revelation of the Father as was possible in the culture of his day. In Jesus’ day, the father was the head of the household. The role of the father as head of the household is a good illustration of the role God the Father plays in the household of the universe. But I don’t think that either Jesus or the authors of The Urantia Book ever said that God the Father is a male figure. They wanted to convey that the first person of the Trinity is primal in the universe; he is the First Source and Center and is ancestral to all other personal beings. In the period when the Urantia Papers were received, as in Jesus’ day, the father was generally acknowledged as the head of the household.
Possibly the authors foresaw the rise of feminism and the distress that the gender biased language of the book would cause some people. They had even greater problems with the English language, but they were “restricted to the use of the circumscribed language of the realm.” When the Urantia Papers were indited the common practice was to use “man” as a generic term for both men and women.
It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning. (UB 0:0.2)
Would they have been wise to present a neutral or hybrid Mother/Father God in a culture that knew God as “Our Father which art in Heaven?” Perhaps that is further reason that the authors chose the same option as Jesus: Use the images of the prevailing culture that best describe the nature of God.
Ms. Melchior also has a problem with the designation “Sons of God” being applied to both men and women. Was it a mistake to closely link the hierarchy of the spiritual government to the human family? It is ironic that most of the beings denominated as of the order of Sons of God are non-sex beings. What meaning could the term “Sons of God” have when applied to non-sex beings? And even the angels, who are not sexual creatures, are called “Daughters of God.” In this case, there may be a basis for using this term; artists of past eras have often portrayed angels as feminine. It seems obvious to me that the authors again were trying to use existing human concepts to explain the relationship of the various orders of beings at the various levels of the universe. They may also have had the motive of trying to be consistent with Jesus usage where feasible. (UB 141:2.2, UB 178:1.2, UB 178:1.11)
I do agree with one of Ms. Melchior’s objections about the mention of women in The Urantia Book. I think all of us would enjoy hearing more about the women’s evangelistic corps that ministered to and witnessed to women. Surely there were some worthy stories to be told about this corps. Ms. Melchior may see Jesus as guilty of gender bias, but consider how radical an action it was in his culture to commission a women’s evangelistic corps and authorize them to preach the gospel to their sisters. Under Judaism, the teaching of religion was almost exclusively the province of men. Women were not even allowed to sit with their husbands in the synagogue. It is also sad that the woman’s corps received only one brief mention in the Bible. (Luke 8:2-3)
I know that the gender bias issue is a concern for a number of women in the Urantia community. But not all women object to the language of the book. To decide how much of an issue we should make of masculine language in The Urantia Book, I believe we need to ask ourselves what the intent of the authors was in using such language.
I do not believe that either Jesus or the authors of The Urantia Book intended to denigrate women by their choice of language. Jesus realized that he couldn’t suddenly change the attitudes of his culture overnight; social change takes time. (He tried to change the phrase “Kingdom of God” to “Family of God” without success.) He did the best he could to begin that process in his ministry. I believe that he did his best to accord women as much equality as was possible under the circumstances. To have made the gender bias of his culture an important issue in his ministry could have alienated the people he was trying to reach with his message. And after all, his was an exclusively spiritual mission, not a social one.
I do not believe that either Jesus or the authors of The Urantia Book intended to denigrate women by their choice of language.
It appears to me that the authors of The Urantia Book decided to follow Jesus’ lead in avoiding social issues. They don’t address social issues such as abortion and homophobia. I can see that they faced a dilemma; should they try to use new models for the Gods and the spiritual hierarchy? If so, what would be appropriate models for God the Father, for the Sons of God, for the Daughters of God? Would their attempt to incorporate these new models have been helpful in getting across the ideas, or would promoting the new models have interfered with the message?
Nevertheless, as the songwriter tells us, “the times they are a changin’.” Women are assuming their rightful places beside men in industry, in government, and in some religious institutions in our culture. Despite the fact that Jesus and the authors of The Urantia Book did not intend to place women in a lesser status, the fact remains that the language does appear sexist. What can we do about this?
Some with strong feminist feelings have suggested that we rewrite The Urantia Book to eliminate the gender bias. Perhaps it is a possibility, but I can foresee decades of haggling over appropriate terminology. And it is difficult to imagine a group of Foundation Trustees that would go along with such a plan. If someone did undertake such a plan, they would have to exercise due care. Much as in the process of translation from English to another language, the rewriters must take great care to see that the essential message is preserved. Could we relate to God the Head of the Household in the way we do God the Father? What of the Eternal Son and Infinite Spirit? Would they become the Subsidiary but Co-equal heads of Household? I would not object to God the Father becoming the Universal Parent and God the Son becoming the Co-eternal Parent. I guess the term “Infinite Spirit” is genderless enough that that term could stay. In addition, we have no nonsexist pronouns for “he/she” or “him/her.” But while we wait for possible agreement on the new terminology, what do we do in the meantime?
I am certain that the authors of The Urantia Book anticipated that this situation would arise. I suspect that they hoped we would read the book with an eye to the concepts embodied in the words, rather than concentrate on the language used to convey the concepts. Of course, if we disagree with the concepts themselves, that is quite a different matter. If we think that God the Father is not the head of the celestial family, or that a Creator Son should not be the ultimate authority in a local universe, then we have serious philosophical differences with the authors of The Urantia Book. In such a case, we might indeed wish to set the book aside and seek for a spiritual philosophy we find more agreeable. But if we do accept the ideas behind the words, then I believe we should translate the words into their intended or highest level meanings as we read them, just as we have to do with the Bible or the Declaration of Independence.
Consider the Declaration of Independence. It tells us, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” What, only men? Can we know what the authors of this document, purportedly written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, had in mind? Whatever Thomas Jefferson’s ideal may have been, I’m sure that he was pragmatic enough to know that inclusive language would bring controversy into the picture, and might have shattered the unity of purpose of those wishing to break with England. Or perhaps they didn’t even consider gender issues, but today we recognize that a true democracy must ultimately be inclusive if it is to grow and prosper. The seeds of real equality are at least implied in the words of the Declaration. And who among us would wish to go back and alter such a great historical document in the name of gender issues?
The authors intended The Urantia Book to aid our individual spiritual growth and to act as a catalyst for the spiritual progress of the world. We can either use our time fussing about the gender issue in The Urantia Book, or we can use our time and energy learning and living the spiritual principles contained in this book. As for myself, though I acknowledge that The Urantia Book has some flaws, I cannot conceive of abandoning a book that contains such beautiful and powerful spiritual truths. The language may be dated, but the concepts are sublime.