God is a You, not a He
by Stan Hartman
It may seem a strange question, but why do we not always speak of God in the second person rather than the third? Are we not always in God's presence? When we speak as if we're not, doesn't it encourage us to think we're not? Is it not true that many of our conflicts and other difficulties result from forgetting that God is with us?
How would you like it if your children or friends, in your presence, addressed you not directly, but as "he" or "she"? Imagine what that would feel like. Though God is far above feelings of being slighted and excluded, I'm sure, much less insulted and abandoned, in the way we feel such things, is it not much more respectful and aware to include "him" whenever we speak of "him"? Is it ever appropriate to speak of "him" rather than to "him"? Could this be one of the errors of thought that created a religion about Jesus, for instance, rather than one with him?
Maybe Urantians, at least, could establish a spiritual practice that illustrates a deeper touch with reality and avoids the dilemma of the inevitably masculine or feminine pronoun, by never referring to God again as if you were not always with us, Father.
We bemoan the animosities that plague our "movement" - how we're betraying Jesus' spirit and our own Mystery Monitors in the way we fight among ourselves, gossip about each other, and keep judgmental beams in our eyes - but wouldn't these spiritual failings be made much more difficult to fall into if, looking at each other, we addressed you directly? Would it not be much more difficult to forget our sonship then, not to mention others'? Is this not exactly what we're instructed to do - speak directly to each other's indwelling spirit?
And why do we speak of the Father, instead of Father? Are you not here, Father? Of course you are, but our consciousness too often ignores that you are.
Perhaps, as part of the new cult we're so concerned with establishing correctly, we could establish a practice of at least never excluding you in our conversation, at least with one another. Would we come to include you more in our thinking then as well - and if in thinking, would our actions follow? As Christians have WWJD - "What would Jesus do?" (not a bad question for us as well) - maybe we could have an even more intimate reminder of you, refusing ever to speak of you as if you were somewhere else and could not hear us.
If it sounds awkward or silly to speak of you only in the second person, maybe we can use such feelings to understand what's behind them. Do we really want to practice your presence, not just talk about it? If so, we should explore as many ways as we can to do so and remind each other to. If not, we should find out why. Do we really never want to forget how we're never alone, even in our thoughts? Do we really always want to remember how we're one in spirit? In any case, if we don't like what's happening in our "movement" now, it should be obvious that we need to do something different, and the more fundamental and common the changes we make, the better, is that not so - provided they're in the direction of deeper touch with reality?
Let us pledge never again to say, "The Father is always with us." If we really believe that, how can we express it so?
You are always with us, Father. Help us always know.
A service of
The Urantia Book Fellowship
Serving the Readership since 1955
