Gender Language for God
A couple of weeks ago, CBMW (a complementarian advocacy organization) took a pot-shot at Beth Allison Barr because her husband is pastor of a church where the church’s statement of faith referred to God as “Godself” at one point (although it was later changed).
According the article:
First Baptist Church of Elm Mott, whose pastor is the husband of Baylor professor and feminist historian Beth Allison Barr. … On FBC of Elm Mott’s “What We Believe” page, their statement of faith includes the following confession: the Bible – We value the Bible as the divinely inspired record of God’s revelation of Godself to us. It serves as the authoritative guide for life and ministry.
Now personal pronouns and gendered language for God are messy and get people angry. I wouldn’t abandon titles like Father and Son, but I don’t think descriptions like “Godself” are entirely bad depending on the context. So let me offer a few thoughts on God, gender, and language.
Scripture does refer to God speaking and being described in male/patriarchal categories of Father, Son, king, mighty warrior, jealous husband, and more. If so, does that mean that maleness is a part of God’s essence, his being, or his nature? Does that make men more in the image of God than women because men bear the image of the male deity? Does Christianity have, as one famous preacher said, a masculine feel? In response to all this, feminist theologian Mary Daly made the provocative comment: “If God is male, then the male is God.” Ouch! What do we say to that?
First, we have to remember that all theological language is analogical. That is to say, our finite language can never fully capture the infinite being of God. All language about God, scriptural and theological, is at best an approximation to what God is like, and is not a univocal description of his being. Even the language of divine fatherhood is only an analogy and is not an absolute specification of God’s being. While God reveals himself as Father, and that image has positive meaning, it is not part of God’s essence. Fatherhood is an analogy for God’s operation as the sovereign one and for our relationship with God as his children.
Second, as Elizabeth Achtemeier said: “The Bible uses masculine language for God because that is the language with which God has revealed himself.” Fatherhood is part of God’s revelation of himself even though it does not exhaust everything to be said about God's character. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to replace “Father” with “divine monad without a gonad.”
Third, it is worth pointing out that, even with the prevalence of paternal language for God, there is also a sizeable number of places where God is described in maternal imagery. As the Creator, God fathers and mothers creation, begetting it and birthing it (Job 38:28-29). God is like a mother who birthed the nation of Israel (Deut 32:18; Isa 42:14) or else a midwife guiding new life into the world (Isa 66:9). The love of God is compared to the love of a mother for her child (Ps 131:2; Isa 49:15; 66:13; Hos 11:3-4). God is compared to a woman searching for a lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). God’s wisdom is considered one of the primary personifications of God’s work in the world (e.g., Prov 8:1–12; Jer 10:12; 51:15) and it is expressed in words that are grammatically feminine in both Hebrew (ḥokmâ) and Greek (sophia). Jesus could even depict himself like a mother hen protecting her chicks from a barnyard fire (Matt 23:37) and Paul can describe his frustration with the Galatians like a mother having to go through the travails of child-birth all over again (Gal 4:19). So rather than replace “Father” with “Mother” as some feminist theologians do, a better option is to appreciate and appropriate biblical presentation of God’s maternality. African theologian Charles Nyamiti says that “motherhood can be ascribed to the three Persons together, to the divine essence, as the source of life, as infinite goodness and love.”
Fourth, I would also urge against the danger of essentializing gender. We should not stereo-type gender as if masculinity is domination and femininity is nurturing. Masculinity is more than ruling and fighting and femininity is more than mothering and caring. Women can lead and fight (e.g., Deborah [Judges 4–5]), while men can nurture and care (e.g. Paul in Thessalonica [1 Thess 2:7-8]).
Fifth, I know some people associate male authority figures with abandonment and abuse, I am intimately familiar with this complaint. However, it should go without saying that father-ness can also be associated with notions of love, closeness, and protection as well. Fatherhood is not all patriarchy and power, anger and abuse, control and coercion. Fathers do love their children and they constitute an important source of joy and strength in a child’s development (I know, I’m a father, and my kids seem to like me). If there is anything good about human fathers then there is something infinitely good about God’s fatherhood. For those of us who had bad fathers, no fathers, or lost our fathers, God the Father is the only father we have might ever have. While God’s fatherhood is a source of derision for some, it is a source of encouragement for others, that should be remembered and respected.
Read more about this in my book Evangelical Theology.
How dare you make so much sense.
Mike thanks for this. I think that these ideas make sense. I would add - as the product of two generations of female-headed households (grandmother and mother) - that I found the notion of F/fatherhood quite complex (having no positive resonances in my lived experience) until my early forties. This was true after wars for many children (no longer as true today with the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations). To "exposit" texts by reaching into my experience to explore Fatherhood makes no sense to me. However this method is pervasive in most male preachers, almost without exception. A nuclear family "background" often assumed and projected as "normal". This always makes sermons about Jesus at 12 in the Temple - which is a Father narrative - as mainly about regular trips to Jerusalem - think church picnic. Actually, for me, it is about Jesus' initiation into the temple context! (Is that where he swapped numbers with Nicodemus?). I hope this is helpful to some readers. On another aspect: "Godself" is an awkward construct. I don't know a simple way of dealing with this in contexts like websites and summaries of faith. I do want to honour the intentions of all who seek to open their doors was wide as possible.