Accessibility of God's Name

Sallie McFague states that this transition from monarchial to more inclusive metaphors of God focuses not on "the power of control through either domination or benevolence but the power of response and responsibility--the power of love in its various forms" (McFauge 85). These inclusive terms include mother, lover and friend. McFague discusses how valuable these metaphors are due to their nonhierarchal nature (McFague 85-6). I think that God as mother is a comforting image which draws support from the innately intimate bond between mother and child. This nurturing, protector is less authoritarian than the father or king figure.

I think that for many modern day people of faith the idea of God as lover is a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps, this is due the way God has been presented historically; the people are on earth and God is up in heaven. The presentaion of God as lover provides humans with an unprecedented intimant relationship with God. This oneness with God, found in God as lover, is radical, yet appealing because humans yearn to be in perfect union with the sacred.

I think that the God as friend metaphor places on the same level as humans, because friendship is an exchange in which both parties support each other. The idea of God as a trustworthy confidant makes humans feel that they can be close to God.

Each of these metaphors, mother, lover and friend are a great deal more accessible titles for God than the traditional king and ruler terms. I agree with McFague's argument that these type of patriarchal metaphors are exclusive and that a discussion needs to be had to address the issue head on. If religion continues to breed sexism, then society will continue to be exclusive. This is not acceptable, because everyone deserves access to the divine.