DISQUS

SaraHarding · 1 year ago

Speaking as a woman, I personally think it offensive to refer to God in the feminine gender. Jesus called him father, he is my father and is as no other father.

Much honor is given to women in the Bible, and there is a constant subversiveness to all human strength, represented by the male gender. In Genesis, salvation comes through the "seed of the woman", though the ancient civilizations didn't believe women even possessed a reproductive "seed". In Judges victory is given to Deborah, Jael, and the woman who dropped the millstone. God also repeatedly diminishes male victories by supernatural intervention. In the gospels we have great honor given to Jesus' mother Mary, also Martha's sister Mary is commended by Jesus for breaking social barriers and sitting down in the men's area to hear his teaching, and the gospel of the resurrection is first revealed and entrusted to women- they were the first apostles, also unheard of in that day. Paul also breaks norms when he instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church by laying down their lives. This, I think, would have been the opposite of what was expected in cultures where wives were seen as servants. Wives are called to submit, yes, but not because the male dominated culture forces them to, it is because all are called to submit to Christ's liberating lordship. Militant feminism is just as forbidden as male domination, because liberation only comes by following the suffering Servant-Lord.

Traditions have, unfortunately, downplayed this trend, and made Paul out to say just the opposite of what was intended. But let's not make the mistake of swinging the pendulum too far the other way, lest we diminish the beauty of the differences of roles between the sexes. Yes, God has feminine characteristics, but there is a reason why he is called father, and this is in no way demeaning to motherhood. Perhaps one of the reasons is so that human fathers cannot claim a monopoly on reproduction and other power related issues, God has the prior claim to ultimate fatherhood. Also, there is value in retaining terminology that connects us to our Christian roots, as we locate ourselves within the Israel/Jesus narrative.

dave · 1 year ago

Speaking as a woman, I personally think it offensive to refer to God in the feminine gender. Jesus called him father, he is my father and is as no other father.

There are numerous Biblical examples of referring to God with "feminine" language.

Further... do you really think that Jesus's reference towards "father" was not at all cultural?

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

Speaking as a woman, I personally think it offensive to refer to God in the feminine gender.

Medieval mystics did it on a regular basis in the process of producing some of the most intense devotional material in the history of the church.

The Hebrew word for "spirit", ruach, is feminine, so you could even read a feminine title for God every time you see "Spirit of God" in the OT.

El-Shaddai literally means "God with strong breasts", and breasts is feminine, and a strong mothering image.

And dave, Jesus' reference to God as "Father" may have had more to do with establishing Jesus' own identity as God's Son, the Davidic Messiah, than with establishing a conscious gender connection with God. So... I might say it's more "historically-literary" than cultural, but it was certainly culturally-conditioned.

I think it's more helpful to see God as embodying and even going beyond the best possible characteristics of both parental roles, and for that to inform our understanding of God's parenthood regardless of the language choice. But it can only be a language choice if we are aware of the different streams of language that seek to sweep us up into them, and do not uncritically assume either of them is inherently "good" or "bad". And the real possibility of multivalency in our God-gender-language needs to show up in our discourse and our worship.

SaraHarding · 1 year ago

"There are numerous Biblical examples of referring to God with “feminine” language."

"Medieval mystics did it on a regular basis in the process of producing some of the most intense devotional material in the history of the church.

The Hebrew word for “spirit”, ruach, is feminine, so you could even read a feminine title for God every time you see “Spirit of God” in the OT.

El-Shaddai literally means “God with strong breasts”, and breasts is feminine, and a strong mothering image.."

wow, I didn't know that. I stand corrected. The scriptures are more subversive of male dominance than I thought. While I would still pray to "our father which art in heaven", there are many other possibilities. So, how is El Shaddai normally translated? "Lord of Hosts" or "God Almighty"? Maybe I'll begin to mentally insert Mother Almighty instead, or something like that.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

This is the issue exactly. God is not exclusively male or female, but if we only allow ourselves to understand and communicate our understanding of God as masculine, then we limit God to a narrow set of culturally defined gender stereotypes.

In addition, the implications for Christian behavior flow from that understanding of God. There is no question that the traditionally male attributes of God and by extension, the church, are relevant. They are merely incomplete, and that loss is a loss to the church and to the world as a whole.

Sometime this weekend if I have time I'll pull together some of the other scriptural background for this and post it in the comments here.

dave · 1 year ago

wow, I didn’t know that. I stand corrected. The scriptures are more subversive of male dominance than I thought.

You really should read Paul R. Smith's Is it Okay to Call God Mother? (which was kind of referred to above). It is a brilliant look the "feminine" attributes of God.

Michael Cline · 1 year ago

I need like three good days to get myself together in time to come back to this post. Let me think on this. Mark, keep this post up for a few days. This one could get fun.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

That's why I posted it, Mike. I think Jordan raises some very interesting questions worthy of exploration.

Joel · 1 year ago

"The Hebrew word for “spirit”, ruach, is feminine, so you could even read a feminine title for God every time you see “Spirit of God” in the OT."

Just because some languages use masculine and feminine forms does not necessarily mean that the object of that word takes on purely masculine or feminine characteristics. Many objects that have absolutely no gender specific characteristics may take a male or female tense so I'm not sure that I would consider that a solid argument.

"El-Shaddai literally means “God with strong breasts”, and breasts is feminine, and a strong mothering image."

The term breast is not a purely feminine term. I can't tell you how many times you can find the term breast used in the bible when speaking about men. Probably more times than it is used for women. It is used mostly to reference the general chest area. Again, not a solid base for an argument.

I do believe that God is neither male or female. I have a bit more that I would like to write about this but I don't have the time right now so I will have to post again later.

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

The term breast is not a purely feminine term.

No, but shad, from which Shaddai is derived, is. Furthermore, -ai is an archaic feminine ending. It is further derived from the Hebrew verb which means "to pour forth". In the scholarly literature you will often see it translated as "God-the-sustainer" or "God-who-nourishes" in addition to "God-almighty".

I know that masculine/feminine forms of word does not make them "purely" male or female (as if anything was "purely male" with no feminine characteristics, or vice versa), but there is a long, long strand of tradition connecting the Spirit of God and Holy Spirit with the wisdom of God, which in Greek is sophia (the Greek for "spirit" is neuter) and considering it a feminizing counterpart to the perceived masculinizing "Father". As I mentioned above, recognizing and meditating on God's "feminine side" was prevalent in the medieval period, but the association of "Spirit" with femininity goes all the way back to the intertestamental period, before Christ's time. It's not just that the Hebrew word is feminine, it's that the concept associated with it has traditionally been considered in a sense feminine.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

First off, there is an assumption established in this article: that is an assumption that God is not explicitly male. We can go through belief statement by belief statement but I think you'll find the majority do not espouse this view.

If that needs to be a subject of discussion, we can make it one, but that was not the intent of the article. Let me precede that discussion first with the negative responses people have to this concept, and their background. These are drawn from the book Dave mentioned above.

Smith describes:

1. Culture Shock: Comparable to a traditionalist witnessing the raising of hands (biblical) or the healing of the sick (also biblical) when both actions were out of his/her comfort zone and previous experience.
2. Fear Of Heresy: This is probably the best concern, and it should be a concern. If something comes out of left field your first response should not be to accept it unquestioningly. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that with a thorough analysis of the scriptures you will come to see this is far from it. We will continue this discussion.
3. Misunderstanding the role of Mother: First and foremost, the concept that the role of mother is a static one applying to all times and places is an absurd one, although there are similarities that are reframed for differing contexts. In addition, like the gut revulsion that those who were abused by a father can feel for God the Father, a negative or even weak mental understanding of motherhood can impact carrying the concept over to God.
4. Invalidating Prior Ministry: I've known several female pastors; in my church, in my extended family, and other places. Not all experiences have been good ones, but all have shared one thing in common: they have had to conform to a largely masculine understanding of leadership. To say that it was not necessary except by misunderstanding can be offensive and threatening to those who have put in the blood, sweat and tears as square pegs in round holes.
5. Fear of Losing God as Father: The addition of God as Mother is not intended to diminish or do away with God as Father, but rather they are complementary concepts that rely upon one another.
6. The Image of Women as evil or weak: Possibly less of an issue in North America although this is rampant worldwide. Influencial Christians such as Tertullian and Aquinas held rabidly anti-women views, with Tertullian naming them the "devil's gateway", on whose account Christ had to die - insinuating a 'greater sin' somehow than Adam. This leads into the next point...
7. Rejecting the feminine: Because of the pathetic perspective many culture have held and do hold, there is a despising of attributes associated with the gender. Sir Francis Bacon relegated feminine status upon Nature, describing a need to rape and conquer it, and become its master, and that disrespect of the feminine led to a disrespect for that associated with the feminine, or else a disassociation with the feminine.
8. Principalities & Powers: It's not all in your head; you battle not against flesh and blood. C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters shows many examples were 'good' thinking would turn a blessing into a perversion, and the alienation that single-gender language regarding God can bring is one. When the word 'man' actually meant humankind to the popular mind, it was appropriate to use it as such; it means this no longer, therefore we must rephrase ourselves.

Peace

Andrea U · 1 year ago

Thank you Jordan! An article that makes you think is a wonderful article indeed. I myself have had trouble seeking God as a genderless being. As I studied religion in college I spent some time researching the Wiccan faith and stood intrigued and awed at the feminine nature of their beliefs. If someone asked me, I would say God is neither male or female, yet all our liturgy refers to God as "He" and "Father." I am very interested in reading more on this and finding how my perspective on God can grow from being able to truly look at God in new ways.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Not to get nit-picky, but I don't think that God is "genderless." Instead God is MORE than male and femaie. God is gender-ful. Or perhaps it is better to say that God is supergendered.

Ben · 1 year ago

Or, as I once put it, "divinely engendered".

Too frequently other terms seem to conjure up grotesque images of hermaphrodites or asexual creatures.

The mystery of God's full-gendered-ness should be emphasized in what ever terms we use.

Michael Cline · 1 year ago

The way I see it, there are three options, and every option has a common denominator:

(1) We use original Biblical language when speaking about God in any way, shape, or form. This would reduce about 75% of what takes place in most sunday morning sermons/worship services. The option requires a huge does of education of clergy and laity in the fact that the Biblical language does not point towards God having a set of particular physical features or genitalia. Ekklesia (church or assembly) is a feminine word in the Greek, but it doesn't mean the Church is made up of women or can get pregnant.

(2) We use inclusive language as much as possible, referring to God as both mother and father. This requires just as much education to dispel rumors that once again, God is literally either or that your experience of "father" and "mother" necessarily pertain to God's divine characteristics/image.

(3) We use "sterile" language, referring to God as much as possible with terms like God, Yahweh, etc... One major problem with this view is the impersonal nature it gives to God. If God is a personal God, intimately involved in humanity, this method seems inadequate. The Incarnation happened. God came in flesh, human flesh. Again, education needed.

The bottom line: We need to educate our friends circles and audiences despite what method we choose about the nature of God and our inadequate language. There is not option of not speaking. The Incarnation necessitates translation of the divine into the human messiness of language, art, etc... I'm obviously a fan of option #1 or #2. I feel free to mix it up depending on the sensitivities of the crowd I am in. This is not a hill I'm willing to die on. People who are dogmatic on this issue (Grudem, Poythress on one side...TNIV die hards on the other) seem to care more about their preferences than about the people who need to encounter the gospel in our daily interactions.

Michael Cline · 1 year ago

"God is supergendered." Hmm...not sure how I feel about that.

It makes God seem like a "super-human." I'm reminded of something Barth once said about how Jesus is not "humanity, but said with a shout." He is more than that. The goal of the Christian life is not to be superhuman, but to be properly human, in the manner showed to us in the life of Christ.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

Building on Michael Cline has been describing (which is great), there are two issues in my mind.

1. On the one hand, it doesn't really matter if an individual refers to God as Father. Ideally, however, this is not due to cultural conditioning but rather due to individual revelation.
2. Corporately, diverse understandings of God are an asset; it allows the sharing of individual revelations of God in a context that allows others to draw from and grow with them. The antitheses of this means that people may feel the need to shunt their understandings in order to be more in line with what is being taught from the pulpit.

This language issue affects more than gender. Some of the lay African leaders that Kwame Bediako describes in "Jesus & The Gospel in Africa" are doing the exact same things; understanding God in their context, and then learning from others' understandings.

What to describe God is important, but I don't think language is a measuring tool that is adequate for realistically describing God. Therefore any answer to the gender/race/class/etc questions will be insufficient and vary by context and circumstance.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Mike, I'm not saying Jesus is super-gendered or super-human. He is human. He is a man. But God? God is more than man. More than woman. But who he is includes masculine and feminine. Maybe supergendered isn't the right word. But neither is genderless. That was the only point I was trying to make.

somasoul · 1 year ago

This is shaky, almost heretical stuff. Good stuff to debate.

I worry that this "God as mother" has more to do with America's understanding of feminism (or the modern woman's role or whatever) than it does in theology.

The Bible's use of Father is pretty clear. The "Mother" stuff........a little more vague.

Jesus came as a MAN. If HE, as the SON (a MALE) called God "FATHER" because of cultural norms............well then, I don't buy it. Jesus frequently broke cultural norms. Breaking cultural norms was HIS bit. It's what pissed people off. Why stick with this one?

I don't claim to have laid eyes on God. I didn't birth Him. I'm not his internist. I can't claim to know firsthand his gender. But the Bible seems pretty clear on the subject. Jesus, HIS SON, came as MALE, did pretty MANLY stuff, hung out with a bunch GUYS who HE charged with continuing HIS ministry.

If Jesus is God. And if Jesus is Male. Well then.......I'm going to start assuming some things. Namely, Jesus ain't birthing or nursing children anytime soon.

Call me sexist.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Ok sexist. ;)

Jesus is God. Yep. But that don't mean that God the Father or the Holy Spirit has a penis. Even if Jesus has one, which he probably still does.

Here's the deal: The vast majority of Biblical language about God is masculine. But not all. For example:

Deuteronomy 32:11-18: God is a mother eagle, and God gives birth

Isaiah 42:14: God is like a woman in childbirth

Isaiah 46:3-4: The image of God as the mother of the house of Jacob

Isaiah 49:14-15: God is compared to a mother who will not forget the baby at her breast

Isaiah 66:9-13: God will comfort Jerusalem as a mother comforts her child

Hosea 13:8: God is like an angry momma bear.
Luke 13:20-21: Jesus compares God’s kingdom to a woman that mixes yeast into dough. Doesn’t this compare God to a bakerwoman?

Luke 15:8-10: This time Jesus compares the kingdom to a woman who finds a lost coin. Doesn’t this compare God to a woman who loses a coin?

1 Peter 2:2-3: Being a baby that tastes spiritual milk means that we have tasted that the Lord is good. This means that it was God who was doing the breastfeeding.


This isn’t to mention the numerous times (especially in the Psalms) where it says we take refuge in the shadow of God’s wings, or be covered under his wings—which is an image of a mother bird who gathers young under her wings.

What is the point? Well, if only 2% of biblical imagery is feminine, does that mean that we can only use feminine imagery in our day 2% of the time? Or do we have liberty to use it more frequently, given our different cultural context? I think we should be gracious in where we draw that line. It would be one thing if absolutely all imagery of God in the bible were masculine. Even then, it isn't to say that it would be heretical to use feminine imagery for God. Just like it wouldn't be heretical for me to refer to God as "The Absolute One" or the "Supreme Being" or "the Prime Mover" or "Cosmic Master" or "Divine Master" or "President of the Universe." None of these phrases are in the Bible.

Since all language about God is metaphor, and cannot contain God, I think we need to be gracious in whatever language people use to refer to God, so long as it isn't dishonest or incorrect. So, if my cousin Sam or my friend Karen wants to primarily refer to God as "Mother" or "One who Gave Birth to Israel" I might have some discomfort, but I have to acknowledge that it is Biblical. There isn't anything untrue about it.

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

If Jesus is God. And if Jesus is Male. Well then…….I’m going to start assuming some things. Namely, Jesus ain’t birthing or nursing children anytime soon.

Jesus was a Jew. Does that mean God can't be related to Poles, Zulu, or Cantonese?

Jesus was a carpenter. Does that mean God can't be expressed in terms that electricians, masons, or businesspeople can't identify with?

If the person whom the Word was made incarnate has an identity that completely exhausts the identity of God, then an awful lot of us are in an awful lot of trouble. And I don't recall any of the Biblical authors identifying Jesus as God in a way that makes it untenable for us to utilize the Bible's legitimate feminine imagery regarding God in a positive sense.

somasoul · 1 year ago

Okay, you can use the God has wings verses to support your argument that God has a female side. But I get to use the same verse to support my opinion that God is also an Ostrich.

God is an ostrich.

Begin debate.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

That's precisely the point. God is a bird, in the same sense that God is a lion (of Judah) or a (sacrificial) lamb.

They are human ideas used to understand a portion of God (cf. the blind men and the elephant).

The difference between animal and gender labels is that you & I don't relate as strongly to lions as we do to male/female imagery. If I were a turtle I may feel differently, but as I am not, I work most with what I know most; the anthropomorthic God.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Ok Soma, scratch the birds have wings argument. There are others that directly come out and refer to God as a mother.

I don't have some sort of strong need to make God into a chick so that she'll be more appealing to women. I almost always refer to God as HE. Because of Jesus' practice. I've had people get upset with me for it and I say: I appreciate the freedom in Christ for others to refer to God in feminine language, but please appreciate the freedom in Christ that I have to refer to God as my Father.

What's the big problem, somasoul? Look over my list of verses and tell me if I'm treating Scripture with disrespect. I think you are reading some sort of liberal agenda behind any and all uses of feminine language to describe God. If that's the case, then some of the Old Testament prophets were feminists. C'mon man, lighten up.

Danny · 1 year ago

Thanks for this post. I really enjoyed it. I think that this bias is very nuanced, and most people would not come out and say it, but it affects our lives everyday as Christians.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

As I read over my last comment, I realized it could sound a bit scolding, when I meant it a bit playfully. So Somasoul, when you read it, realize that I'm not trying to lay into you. I'm trying to banter with you a bit.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

Clearly, God has male and female attributes as Jordan's introductory reference to Genesis 1:27 indicates. Hopefully, there isn't any debate about this. (This verse has huge implications as it relates to marriage, by the way, but that's another topic.)

The crucial issue here is how God wishes us to relate to Him, and in this matter what we call Him is of supreme importance. As Anabaptist Christians we look to Jesus as our model in matters of faith and practice. Jesus referred to the first person of the Holy Trinity as the “Father” (“pater” in Greek), or “Heavenly Father”. (“Anybody who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9.) A simple reading of the four Gospels bears this out.

Now, if one wishes to argue that Jesus' use of “Father” was a cultural affectation and not a theological conviction then they need to prove this. There is always a danger in blaming the cultural context for parts of Holy Writ that we don't like.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the treatment of women thru the centuries then we don't need a reinterpretation of Scripture to deal with that injustice; we just need to follow the commandment of Jesus, “love your neighbor as yourself”.

somasoul · 1 year ago

Okay Mark, here goes:

*Leaves all bird/aniaml/ostrich verses out*

Isaiah 42:14 is describing what God is doing, not his physical descriptive features.

Isaiah 46:3-4 Why use this? God tells Isaiah, "I am he" in these verses. Like, duh. (Playful banter. Not mean-ness.)

Isaiah 66:9-13 Descriptive language on what God is doing, not who He is.

Luke 13-20-21. I don't know who the woman is in the analogy. You get this one.

"Luke 15:8-10: This time Jesus compares the kingdom to a woman who finds a lost coin. Doesn’t this compare God to a woman who loses a coin?"
No, the woman is a woman is finds salvation. She does not represent God.

1 Peter 2:2-3: I'll share this one with you. On the one hand this verse is telling us to grow up. I believe that it is simply saying "Rise in maturity" and uses descriptive language. However, it also tells us that the word is like milk which could be feminine. (but not human milk, perhaps this is an animal verse???).

Didn't Jesus call God "Daddy"?

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Sure, I agree that Scriptural language makes it a bit difficult to build a case for calling God "mom." But the case isn't so strong that I think it is even close to heretical--or even super problematic--to call God "mother" or "mom."

So, I'm going with the old, "if it isn't really spelled out that it is bad, we should give liberty" approach.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

What one does in personal devotion, or what kind of private revelation one has on this issue is not my business. There is ample Scriptural support to prove that God has both female and male characteristics. This seems to me to be a pastoral issue, not a doctrinal one.

The fact that God has male and female attributes, however, does not make it doctrinally correct to refer to God as "mom" and I think doctrine is really what we're talking about here. I prefer to follow Jesus example on this one and refer to the first person of the Trinity as "Father". Jesus' mother, after all, was Mary.

My 13 year old son just asked me two questions. Didn't Jesus call God "Heavenly Father" and if Jesus called Him "Heavenly Father" shouldn't we do the same?

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

As long as calling God "Heavenly Father", and using exclusively masculine terminology does not cause you to think 'he' is a man and a Father in the sense that we experience it on earth, you're good. It is a description designed to illuminate some of 'his' characteristics, but is hardly comprehensive; I doubt we have the mental capacity and verbiage to describe God. (The kabbalists out there may challenge me on that one, but oh well.)

My argument is more that, while you may be mature enough to make that distinction, weaker believers may not. Therefore while I see no issue with it in private use, in public use I would recommend a diversity of descriptions or else an explanation for the homogeneity. :)

I've really been enjoying the comments, thank you.

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

I think, given the historic suppression of femininity within the church (or perhaps more often, equating femininity with inferiority), it is of utmost importance that we publicly recognize God's male and female attributes in our worship. Does that mean we have to call God "mother"? Not necessarily. Nor am I necessarily comfortable with language that seeks to make God gender-neutral. But God is clearly described with feminine metaphors several times throughout the Bible (one reason for this may be that Israel did not have a counterpart female deity to Yahweh, so Yahweh - who may originally, in the history-of-religions approach, been explicitly male - took on both masculine and feminine attributes). If we are to be faithful to God's femininity, and to the image of God that resides in our sisters, we have to positively engage the feminine metaphors for God and the tradition of divine femininity that exists within the stream of historical Christianity.

As I've said above, Jesus' use of the term "Father" for God (and Abba does NOT mean "Daddy" - it's a more familiar term for father in Aramaic than Av, from which it is derived, but not equivalent to "daddy") can be well-described in terms of Davidic messianic imagery from the Old Testament and intertestamental traditions that emphasized the Davidic kings and coming Messiah as the titular "Son of God", a tradition reflected in Psalm 2:7. It does not refer to God being male by nature. So just because Jesus called God "Father" does not mean it is the one and only, true, authorized appellation for God. It had a specific meaning for Jesus, and I rather suspect that this is the same reason the early Christians (being Jews who would have been quite familiar with this traditional usage) used "Father" to describe God.

By the way, the word "God" actually derives from a proto-Germanic word that was gender-neutral. That doesn't necessarily mean anything for this discussion, but it's certainly interesting.

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

Oh, one more thing. Somasoul, you said:

Why use this? God tells Isaiah, “I am he” in these verses. Like, duh. (Playful banter. Not mean-ness.)

Not in the Hebrew, he doesn't. It's simply "I am". There is no masculine pronoun.

No, the woman is a woman is finds salvation. She does not represent God.

Nearly every commentator in the history of the church has disagreed with you there.

That being said, I do think Mark's wrong in implying that in the Leaven parable God is compared to the bakerwoman. The point of contact is between the kingdom and the leaven, the woman is basically a supporting character in the parable. But that's the only one I'd dispute with him in his whole list.

The point about the verses is not that they describe who God "is" in terms of his intrinsic being. They describe how God relates to us. How again is that any different than the way "Father" is used as descriptive of God? God is not our father in the sense that he functions in that role as the one from whose loins the seed came that fertilized the egg to make the embryo that grew into the fetus that is you, me, or any other person on earth. His fatherhood is metaphorical, a way that God relates to us - as a Father who teaches, disciplines, guides, and bestows an inheritance. That isn't really any different than the way the other images are used - just that the father image gets used more, and by Jesus. Does that give it some kind of primacy over other images? Sure, I'd say it probably does, because it's the most prevalent image in the New Testament. But that doesn't mean God is actually male any more than the other images mean God is a bird, or has breasts, or is a door, or is on fire. And if the father image is to be used faithfully, it has to be used in a way that does not reinforce male domination in the church. We weren't created for domination/submission relationships, we were created for relationships of reciprocal mutuality. As far as I'm concerned, if living redemptively regarding gender relations involves describing God with mothering metaphors, then that's a-ok with me.

Joel · 1 year ago

Wow, a lot of great discussion has taken place on this topic since I was last able to post here. Many of the points I wanted to make have been made by others so there is no reason for me to make them again. I do, however, have a little to add.

All the arguments made here against calling God "father" can also be used to argue against calling God "mother". If calling God "father" is flawed, then so is calling God "mother". God is all inclusive. God is not white, black, hispanic, asian, male or female. God is all of these things together plus infinitely more.

Perhaps we should focus on educating our brothers and sisters on what God really is. This could prove to be a bit problematic since I don't believe that any of us can fully comprehend what God really is. So, we will just have to do our best.

As for what to call God... Jesus saw fit to call God "Father" exclusively and called upon us to call God "Father" as well. That is good enough for me. But that does not mean that God is exclusively male. I think an acurate description of God is simply beyond our thinking and definitely beyond the limits of our human languages.

Michael Cline · 1 year ago

Someone mentioned earlier that Jesus came as a MAN, which apparently means that masculinity was valued over femininity or something like that. I wish I had my early church fathers down more, because there is a great one floating out there (perhaps by Athanasius) that tackle that very question: Why did Jesus come "have" to come as a MAN (I'm guessing it's in his "On the Incarnation of the Word." Check it out whoever is interested.

Joel--"Perhaps we should focus on educating our brothers and sisters on what God really is. This could prove to be a bit problematic since I don’t believe that any of us can fully comprehend what God really is. So, we will just have to do our best."

Regardless of our option, education in our churches and on the grassroot level is the key! I absolutely agree!

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

Joel, I think, has hit the mark. As my 13 year old son said last nite, "do we really know what God is like?" He is beyond our understanding and the ability of our language to fully describe Him. So, yes, feminine metaphors are used to describe God, but one cannot logically conclude from that, or Scripture, that calling Him "heavenly mother" is OK. We need to obey Jesus in the matter.

If there are issues about how we view God this is best dealt with as a pastoral matter and not thru doctrinal, or linguistic manipulation. (no pun intended).

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen... This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven..."
Matt 6:6,9

"...but you received a Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry Abba, Father."
Rom 8:15b

"...the Spirit who calls out Abba, Father."
Gal 4:6b

There is a reason Jesus used masculine language to refer to the first person of the Trinity. The only question that matters here is how God wants us to relate to Him, therefore how we address Him is no small matter.

This brings me back to my son's question, ''if Jesus called Him “Heavenly Father” shouldn’t we do the same?"

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

But Jesus never tells us to ONLY call God our father. I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscicence, so long as they don't reject the idea that God is Father. Certainly Jesus called God his Father. And we are to call him father as well...but this wasn't a limiting statement, but an opening up to the possibility of calling God somethign much more intimate and meaningful than simply calling God by one of his titles.

Let me put it another way. Jesus tells his discipels to call God "Father." We don't assume that he would be cross with his disciples for sometimes referring to God as "Adonai," do we? Nor should we be restrictive about someone calling God: "The One who nurtures and cares for me like a mother" or "Nurturing Giver of Life" of "The One who birthed me."

So, to answer your question: We should do the same. We should call God our father. But that doesn't mean that is the ONLY thing we call God. No Christian has ever held that belief, I think.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

"I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscience, so long as they don’t reject the idea that God is Father."

Mark, I agree with this. Like I said earlier, if one has a personal conviction or revelation about this, it really is none of my business and they are free to follow their conscience. Controversy arises when a personal revelation or conviction is advanced as doctrine.

Jordan's article brought up some good issues, particularly as it relates to the Church's historical subjugation of women. This issue certainly needs further discussion.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Indeed. This raises the question: How do we affirm our sisters in Christ? How can we shape our imagination in new ways so that we move away from subjugation, control, and marginalization and into mutual submission, liberty, and a recognition of the ways in which the Spirit can work through our sisters?

Renascent · 1 year ago

Tricky issue. But I really like this comment:

"But Jesus never tells us to ONLY call God our father. I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscicence (sic), so long as they don’t reject the idea that God is Father. Certainly Jesus called God his Father. And we are to call him father as well…but this wasn’t a limiting statement, but an opening up to the possibility of calling God somethign (sic) much more intimate and meaningful than simply calling God by one of his titles."

I think a lot of conservative Christians will, on one hand, absolutely affirm that God is genderless (or, in Mark's words, "genderful") and yet on the other hand absolutely deny that we can call God "Mother," simply because there is so little Biblical warrant for it. I think I find myself in the same place; I'd be very hesitant to pray "Our Mother, who is in Heaven...." But again, Jesus never said we can't address God as "Our Mother." So I'd be willing to leave it up to individual conscience...as long as no one is claiming that God is specifically one gender or another.

Kris · 1 year ago

Before plunging into such a difficult topic, I suggest that if you have not first done proper research and reading you hold any drastic opinionated statements..I say this humbly.

I'm currently writing a thesis paper on medieval christian women and their contribution to the church, and how their gender identity did not inhibit them as the Church is historically misogynist, but women are called to minister just as men are, because we are spiritually equal. You can read some of my biographical sketches and thesis questions on my website.

I believe that God mainly revealed 'him'self as Father and masculine, because He is a begetter. One should understand the difference between gender and sex. God has neither testicles, but as far as Spirit, has attributes that are considered mainly feminine...like nurturing, et-cetera...although men can exhibit those qualities, just as women can exhibit a traditionally masculine trait like leadership or strength. We should look to God as the begetter, and man and woman as complementary halves to discovering each other as what God is whole. That infant statement can be revised or discarded, it is just my thoughts up to date.

Grace, Peace, and empowerment.

Kris · 1 year ago

P.S. I recommend folks heading to Dr. Keith Drury's website http://www.tuesdaycolumn.com and looking up the section 'women in ministry' to find sound resources in the affirmative for empowering women in the church. the biblical equality website is also a good lead.

somasoul · 1 year ago

There have been several comments indicating that Jesus never told us to NOT call God mother, therefore we can.

Jesus never told us to not baptise cats.
Jesus never told us to not look at porn online.
Jesus never told us to emabrk on squirrell shaving opportunities.

Jesus didn't say lots of stuff. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I wish because Jesus didn't mention it (or the Gospel writers ignored them).

I was talking to a good friend of mine form church, a mennonite. And the issue of homosexuality came up. She said something akin to "I support homosexuals because Christians have done wrong to them over the years."

That isn't a reason to support something (nor is it a reason not to). I get that Christianity has seemed patriarchal. I get it. I really do. But that's just a crappy reason to call God mother. Jesus never called God mother. I won't.

Maybe God is genderless. Maybe He isn't. I dunno. But I'm not gonna flip scripture to be politically correct.

"Someone mentioned earlier that Jesus came as a MAN, which apparently means that masculinity was valued over femininity or something like that."

I said this. I hate women and want to enslave them to do my laundry and pleasure me. (Of course I'm kidding.)

I don't know how calling God "Father" sexist. But I guess it's a brave new world.

I'm Old Skool.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Dude. You're simplifying my argument. The truth is, I can build really good arguments for doing those things (except for the squirrel shaving one). ;)

Here's the argument I'm making:

1) The Bible uses predominantly masculine language for God.
2) But the Bible employs some feminine imagery for God as well.
3) Jesus almost exclusively calls God "Father" though uses additional imagery in parables.
4) Jesus tells his disciples to call God "Father" (I can make some really good speculations about why he does this...but that is for another time). This isn't a command of prohibition (meaning, but don't you dare call him anything else), but one that readjusts their understanding of God in a more intimate way (and of course there is more going on here as well).

Conclusion: Certainly the overwhelmingly dominant thrust is to use masculine language, but there is certainly room for feminine language. Since the Bible doesn't prohibit it, and it isn't heresy, and there haven't been any good theological reasons put forward why someone shouldn't, we MUST give people freedom, otherwise we're just creating a rule simply because we're uncomfortable about where it could lead.

And this is taking a very very conservative read of Scripture. I personally think that there is a time and place for using feminine language in much bolder ways.

This has nothing to do with being political correct. Don't assume that, man. Sometimes Old Skool just means "sticking with status quo because I'm afraid." We shouldn't change our perespective simply because culture changes. But we should always feel liberty to always come back to our deepest held convictions and re-examine them. And, I must say, we do have to let the light of culture shine into Scripture. Why? Because almost every conservative evangelical in America stopped doing that and mistakenly believes that 17th Century theology is orthodoxy.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

Let me affirm Mark here. Changing orthodoxy/praxy simply to conform to culture should be avoided at all costs. In the case of gender identification of God, the orthodoxy has been correct for quite a while, in virtually every belief statement I've come across; none describe God as a 'man' or a 'woman', which is appropriate and theologically correct.

Nevertheless, the orthopraxy has been to identify God as a man. Whether this was deliberate or incidental doesn't particularly matter. The result has been that culture has shifted to the point where that practice does not effectively communicate the theology it is based upon. We miscommunicate the concept of God to a modern (post-modern? whatever) audience when exclusively male terminology is used. And the fears addressed above regarding the potential heresy that could develop if reference is made to God in exclusively feminine terms has already occurred to varying degrees with the masculine.

Therefore, to enforce the practice and theology that God includes aspects of both and is limited to neither, both terms should be used. This applies to all the other descriptions of God mentioned above as well, but to a lesser effect because we are far less likely to fall into issues identifying God as a an animal or inanimate object.

The concerns for racist and classist language are more appropriate, however both have been rather concretely dealt with: despite Jesus being poor and Jewish. The controversy between Paul and Peter over Gentiles and the law and Peter's vision dealt a sound blow to the Jew/Law-centric teachings that arose immediately after Christ. The early church did not seem to have too many issues with class, including everyone from temple prostitutes and tax collectors to business men & women and nobility.

However the gender issue has lasted longer, and there are dozens of historical reasons as to why; that's a good follow up article if anyone's interested (Kris?). This has not prevented women from engaging in ministry, but it has been a far from egalitarian process.

Language is not a cure-all; far from it. But our understanding of reality is often limited to how we can describe it, and it is a simple but powerful first step in taking measures to bridge the gaps between theory and reality in recognizing both male and female aspects of God and of the church body as a whole.

Jordan Peacock · 1 year ago

PS, awesome article that deals a bit with some of the higher-level concepts at work here.

Thoughts on "Reading the Bible with the Damned"

http://ifmercyfalls.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/in...

Joel · 1 year ago

While I feel that a good number of points have been made in this discussion, I think that the topic of what we should call God is being pulled in a direction that it doesn't need to go. The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God. I feel that we could better serve God by actually addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Choosing to call God father or mother is not going to solve any of these problems. In fact, lets suppose that 21st century theology should take up the view that God should be called mother rather than father. Perhaps then the subjugation of men by women would be the result. That would not be any more right than the other way. It certainly won't solve any problems. The simple fact is that we should all submit to each other regardless of gender.

I will choose to call God "Father" because that is what I am commanded to do. I recognize that someone else may choose to call God something else. My calling God "Father" does not mean that I feel that he is exclusively masculine. I accept that God is a synthesis of male and female traits.

This whole discussion of what to call God is beginning to remind me of a quote made earlier on this website.

Jason Barr on January 26th, 2008 8:36 pm
There’s a legend that, while the armies of Mahomet II were preparing to enter Constantinople that Christian theologians spent their time debating questions such as “what color eyes had the Virgin Mary?” and “if a fly falls into holy water, is the water defiled or the fly sanctified?”.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

Well, we certainly opened up a can of worms.

The primary and maybe only important issue here is how God wants us to relate to Him. Scripture and the vast weight of Church understanding on this issue affirms that we are to relate to Him as Father/Abba (even if we call Him Adonai or something else). This was Jesus' point by continually referring to the first person of the Trinity as Father. Certainly Jesus is not prohibiting us from calling God Yahweh, Adonai or some other name, but by calling Him "heavenly mother" you are in danger of missing the Scriptural truth of God's fatherhood entirely. Jesus' repeated use of the term Father and Heavenly Father was deliberate. He was trying to make a point.

We need to be discussing what Godly fatherhood is. This discussion certainly would comprise the feminine nature of God, but in no way does it lead to the logical or Scriptural assumption that He should be called "heavenly mother". If this is your personal conviction fine, but if your desire is to create a new doctrine, or new name for God then you're heading into turbulent waters.

somasoul · 1 year ago

I agree with Casey. His last name also kinda looks like the word "Ostrich".

Extra brownie points.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

Not ostrich, German for ox, (like dumb as...). Yes, you do get extra brownie points.

jurisnaturalist · 1 year ago

The world takes any differences among individuals and generates distinctions which can be manipulated into justifications for discrimination and rules for allocation of power.
The church ought to look upon our differences as manifestations of God from different perspectives.
I think God allows for hierarchy but not superiority. We recognize it within the godhead and He utilizes sex as a tangible reminder to us. The point of all of these distinctions is the same, to demonstrate His ultimate sovereignty. Among Christians we are to recognize no privilege, but we are to respect order. We are not to lord over one another, but we are submit to one another.
I prefer that a pastor be a man, and that a man be the head of a home. The point of this position is not to say that men are stronger or more aptly suited to these positions, but to magnify their inability to meet the requirements of either role despite natural advantage. Each of us ought to say, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," including being a pastor or a head of a family, but we also ought to recognize that God, in seeking His glory, has established order to demonstrate His sovereignty. In other words, it's not all about us.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

somasoul · 1 year ago

ox's aren't as cool as ostriches though they may be superior.

I think I just participated in animalism, where I subjugate one animal and exploit him and think others are better and more therefore better. How does God feel about this?

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

It completely depends upon the ox. For example, Paul Bunyan's blue ox (named Babe) is way cooler than any ostrich that has ever lived.

I know you're being funny, somasoul, but the subjugation of humans by others is something that is sadly too common to ever be funny. And, whether we like it or not, men have fused Biblical language of God's masculinity to support their devaluing of women.

True, true. Our approach should be to teach others to love one another and support women in our churches, rather than trying to change our language about God. I'm certainly not interested in doing that. But I think it is wholly appropriate for Jordan to raise the issue the way he did. The conversation that has resulted has been excellent.

So, here's what I'm taking from this:

I will continue to affirm fatherhood language in relation to God.
I will take care to teach people that they ought to love one-another, being sensitive to correct stupid thinking about the inferiority of women (both in its blatant and subtle forms).
I will extend grace to those who struggle with masculine language in relation to God. This is a pastoral issue that needs long-term sensitivity and care.

Casey Ochs · 1 year ago

I will continue to affirm fatherhood language in relation to God.
I will take care to teach people that they ought to love one-another, being sensitive to correct stupid thinking about the inferiority of women (both in its blatant and subtle forms).
I will extend grace to those who struggle with masculine language in relation to God. This is a pastoral issue that needs long-term sensitivity and care

Bravo!

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

I'm not so sure this is the case, though they don't necessarily have to be intrinsically related. If using masculine language can be conceptually divorced from conceiving of God as male, then more power to people who want to use predominantly masculine language (though I would caution against using masculine language EXCLUSIVELY for the simple reason that Scripture does not do so). However, recognizing that the language we use cannot necessarily be so easily divorced from the actual content of our conceptions, I think it's appropriate to utilize a healthy dose of feminine language and imagery in describing God.

Language is such an integral part of how we view the world, I find it incredibly hard to believe there is no relation between the language we use about God and the ways in which we conceive of God.

Joel · 1 year ago

Perhaps I should have phrased this comment like this:
The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up SHOUDL BE totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

James McMahon · 1 year ago

I am a little late to the conversation, but will make a couple of observations.

1) One should not make too much of the gender of words in Hebrew (unless the text itself lends itself to that interpretation). I base this on the fact that while the word for spirit in Hebrew is a feminine word, its equivalent in Greek is neuter. All that is showing us is that the biblical writers were bound to the language rules in which they wrote, i.e. they couldn't really make up nonexistent words and expect readers to know what they meant.

2) I am very hesitant to go beyond God's own self revelation. Consistently throughout Scripture God is revealed as Divine Father, King, Judge, Creator, etc. While there are feminine nuances in Scripture directed towards God, these are exceptions and are usually trying to make a point about the character and nature of God not the identity of God.

3). Paul uses motherly language for himself in how he viewed his relationship to other Christians. Does that mean that Paul was actually female? No, he was using the language to make a point. I think this is probably closest to what occurs in the OT in the small number of feminine references to God.

Could I be wrong? Yes, but I choose to accept Christian orthodoxy until the time when I stand in the presence of the Lord and am shown otherwise.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

I feel uncomfortable with making exclusively masculine language in reference to God's identity part of "orthodoxy." Does it really need to be a matter of orthodoxy?

Jason Barr · 1 year ago

Joel, yeah I'll go with your revised statement to the extent that language can/ought to be abstracted from concrete realities in order to aid our understanding of the world in which we live and the God we serve.

James, I'd go a bit further than Mark does and question your use of "identity" vs. "character and nature" regarding masculine and feminine language to describe God. It seems to me you equate orthodoxy with seeing God identified as male. If that is what you are saying, I find that highly problematic. I rather think instead that God's self revelation includes masculine and feminine aspects and we need to talk about God in ways that are faithful to both. To me it seems entirely plausible that, had the ancient world been more matriarchal as opposed to patriarchal, that God could and would have revealed himself (see how I'm not opposed to using the masculine pronoun) with predominantly feminine imagery. It's not a problem for God, because God is the source of the image that dwells in all humankind, male and female.

And I qualified my mention of ruach as feminine above, and will reproduce it here:

I know that masculine/feminine forms of word does not make them “purely” male or female (as if anything was “purely male” with no feminine characteristics, or vice versa), but there is a long, long strand of tradition connecting the Spirit of God and Holy Spirit with the wisdom of God, which in Greek is sophia (the Greek for “spirit” is neuter) and considering it a feminizing counterpart to the perceived masculinizing “Father”. As I mentioned above, recognizing and meditating on God’s “feminine side” was prevalent in the medieval period, but the association of “Spirit” with femininity goes all the way back to the intertestamental period, before Christ’s time. It’s not just that the Hebrew word is feminine, it’s that the concept associated with it has traditionally been considered in a sense feminine.

Mark Van Steenwyk · 1 year ago

Just to clarify: I affirm that it is orthodox to say: "God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This is certainly at the heart of orthodoxy. I guess my point in my earlier comment is that if someone says "God is my mother" this isn't to say that they are unorthodox, or heretical. Just to be clear.

James · 1 year ago

Orthodoxy is basically what the church across all 'party' lines has consistently held to be true about who God is and what He has done. To move beyond that is heterodox or heretical.

I guess my problem is when WE begin to project our image of who we think God should be in place of how He has actually revealed Himself. God did not come as the only begotten daughter. Furthermore, Jesus consistently calls God, Father, Abba, etc. I don't know about you but I am not willing to go beyond Jesus' own expression of how to address God.

Again, In the rare instances where feminine language is used to describe God it is done within the constraints of the language, because one cannot speak about certain things in a way that requires one to make up words that do not exist. For example, words such as disciples, prophets, etc. in Greek follow patterns that take feminine forms though they traditionally describe masculine 'offices'. My point in all of that is to show that before making too much of gender in Hebrew or Greek one must have a clear understanding of how those languages work (and do not work).

As to the Holy Spirit being equated to Woman Wisdom, I am unaware of any orthodox Christian writings that make that connection. In fact to do so, means that the Word (Jesus) was not present and active in creation as the Gospel of John proclaims, but Wisdom personified was, as stated in Proverbs through symbolic language within the realm of Hebrew poetry. To give weight to such connections creates theological propositions that are untenable within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

When I first posted on this site I stated that I base my theological beliefs within the realm of orthodoxy because in my opinion the problem with Christianity in America today is that Christians have bought into the American ideal of rejecting authority and applied it to historic Christianity to the extent that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes.

Finally, a professor and friend of mine defined the role of theology and the theologian in the following way: "The task of the theologian is to help the church watch its language." Unfortunately, theologians are a very, very small fraction of a minority within the church, which is probably why Christianity in America is an inch deep and a mile wide.