I wanted to let you know that I am Wiccan, and my tradition uses the term ‘godde’ as follows (footnote)
“4. The ‘Godde’ refers to all possible archetypes that could be imaged as a Goddess or God ‘face’ – inferring a collective unit of/emanating–from the Divine, containing an infinite number of distinctive ‘faces’/images.” (from my writings at
http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/FacesoftheGoddess.shtml )

Thanks for your encouraging comment

I have no problem with the risen Christ remaining male either, I just believe that His updated humanity differs from ours and what ‘male’ and ‘female’ means in the re-Creation likely differs from the here-and-now.

I’d love to hear more about your experience of Godde as female! I’m currently planning a research paper on our experience of Godde.

Have you looked at http://www.dfv-nt.com yet? It’s still a work in progress site.

I personally don’t have a problem with the risen Christ remaining male, as I believe I shall remain female in my risen body (not that I know what that will look or feel like) and hate the thought of losing that essential part of my self and my holiness/Godde image. But perhaps that is because my personal experience of Godde the parent/loving source/first Person as well as the Holy Spirit are thoroughly female!

Thanks for the positive comment.

I’d also be keen to do some further dialogue. I’ll email you and we can pick it up from there.

I don’t often read blogs, so please feel free to e-mail me directly if you’d be willing to correspond about the issue.

Spoken it comes out as “God”.

I find that in non-Christian circles it is quite safe for those who hear “Godde”, particularly those for whom the idea of “God” is unsafe.

In Christian circles I’m finding, on an ongoing basis, that “Godde” is unsafe, but for different reasons. I find it unsafe for me as the user of it as it leads to personal attacks from people who feel that the masculinity of Godde is in jeapardy.

I enjoyed your handling of this topic, it was refreshing

The drawback, I guess, is that “Godde” doesn’t produce an image of anything, really, and it seems that the benefit of speaking of god as male (and as female) is that the masculine and feminine metaphors evoke emotions and ideas in our brains that we then associate with the idea of deity. So an ostensibly gender-neutral word might be more safe, but it might not be as evocative.

Thanks for the encouragement!

I see you registered http://www.godde.com Feel free to make use of anything I’ve put forward here. You may also wish to make use of some the dialogue taking place on Aratus’ blog on the gender of the creator. It’s certainly in keeping with the story on your blog and one record of a conversation with other Christians that saddens me deeply.

I was really encouraged to read these comments, which proceed along lines of thinking that I have been following myself.

Personally I always use the spelling ‘Godde’ to signify a holy one who transcends gender while fully comprehending and feeling and expressing both the male and the female.

I have started to develop my own thoughts on this at my little websites – http://www.Godde.com and http://www.christianblog.co.uk

Thank you for your own thoughts and explorations!

Gender and sex are tied together in each and every one of us and both run very, very deep. Jung definately touched on something that I haven’t gone into here. For me this is more of a “chapter 1″ than a full conclusion.

I hope to encourage more to take the step and tried for a “biblical” starting point rather than a psychological, feminist or politically correct point of departure. I’m going to read more on the subject myself, including Jung.