Divine gender

[Hans Deventer]

Kathy Jones posted the following on the Bresee board. But it seems not too many people read that anymore these days and I really felt this was a good question. So I'm posting it here as well:

I am puzzled.

Heretofore I have associated the idea of God as female with new age. But lately I have run across some serious references to "She" and "Her" made by supposedly learned--and somewhat influential--folks of our own denomination.

Being no theologian I prefer to err (if it is error) on the conservative side, leaning on Scripture and tradition where all references are to "He" and "Him". I cannot comfortably embrace the other concept.

I realize that "God is a spirit..." and I assume that spirits are genderless. I also make the assumption that those who penned the original scriptures knew whereof they spoke.

Someone is eventually going to confront me with the question and I simply don't know what to think--or say.

What is "our" thought on this?

Thanks.
Kathy

[Hans Deventer]

Kathy,

Man and woman were both made in His image. There you got the whole riddle in one sentence. The first part would suggest God has both these sides, the last part still addresses God as "Him".

I think seeing God as "Him" has the weight of tradition and probably also convenience behind it. Yet, we should always remember God is no more "male" than "female". I see no reason in the Scriptures to considere "female" as something inferior to "male", hence there is no reason not to see both genders in God, though as you already suggested, in a more spiritual way.

It does speak loudly about the truth of "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him", which I think goes the other way around as well. Man and woman are meant to complement each other, as only together, they reflect the image of God, who has both these sides.

The tendency to refer to God as "Her" is not something I will follow, however. I understand we men have a terrible burden of guilt on our shoulders in this respect, and I understand why feminist theologians would want to counter that. Yet, as long as Jesus refers to God as "Father", so will I. But I won't be so foolish as to think that God is actually somehow more male than female.

[Bruce Carriker]

While at NTS I thoroughly enjoyed and learned much from the lectures of Joe Coleson, who spends a lot of time in Old Testament Theology on the feminine images of God in the OT.

The simple fact is, God transcends gender and defies our efforts to define/describe him/her(?). Having said that, I'm still perfectly comfortable with masculine language for God and mean it in no way to be disparaging or dismissive of women.

[Michael R. Gentry]

I believe we do need to refer to God in some way as "he" or "she." As has been stated, he does have qualities of both maleness and femaleness. Perhaps the addressing God as "he" comes also from the fact the Old Testament world and for the most part New Testament world seemed to favor men with more respect than women ... as women it seems were more often than not thought of as property rather than a help mate.

I am not sexist at all in thinking men are superior to women; we do need some gender way to describe him. For instance, it would be strange to refer to God in some other manner, such as "it." Example: "God really helped me this week, 'It' came along at a time when I really needed to feel 'It's' presence." It just seems better to say: "God really help me this week, 'He came along at a time when I really needed to feel 'His' presence."

Just a few thots!

[BobHunt]

Hey we agree? We use "He" or"Him" because of our small knowledge but I think God transcends gender.

[Stephen Kerr]

I think this is an excellent question but I am troubled by most of the answers here.
Perhaps we are wanting to appear relevant to changing societal norms? Might there be theological difficulties with changing our language in reference to God to be gender inclusive? What is the motivation to change the language? Is it really because we are wanting to come to a clearer revelation of God and to know God better?
Please do not misunderstand me, I certainly would not argue that male and female are not equal as Paul makes quite clear in Galatians. That simply will not hold up and we are quite correct in observing that humanity created as male and female represent the image of God. Nonetheless, if language does express something real and true (and as Christians I think we must acknowledge the true reality behind the word) then what we say and how we say it becomes extremely important. Language/words/phrases/letters/grammar become symbols pointing to a higher reality and, as such, they somehow participate in that reality*. It would then follow that our references to God as either he or she make a great deal of difference and I think I would want to err on the side of the historic church's proclamation as well as the Biblical witness. We should remain consistent with the Biblical witness of God.
Also, the Triune nature of God is best described in this masculine sense. Jesus referred to the Father. Jesus Himself is the incarnation of God (He didn't come as a lady but was born of the virgin) It will be argued that this was societal. Do you really think so? Why then is Jesus considered the second Adam? Why Is He referred to as the Groom and we the church are the bride? He is, after all, the head of the Church? See Ephesians 5.
On the otherside, God is more "maleness" and more "femaleness" than we are. Nonetheless, He has chosen to reveal Himself in language that means something-- the language that is used really does refer to a higher reality, a truth.
One final note. I think that the testimony and witness of the historic church ought to play a real role in this discussion. Our faith has been handed down to us for 20 centuries and "have we so come of age"^ -- are we now so grown up and mature-- that we dare to change all of it in such a short time?
Sorry for the long answer and I would certainly like to here a reply.
I probably shouldn't have stuck my neck out so far on my first post.


* Paul Tillich is the one who refers to symbols in this manner and I am not a big fan of Tillich. But I do think his idea of the symbol does apply to language. If language can be switched about and changed then does it really mean anything at all?
^Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Letters and Papers from Prison has much to say on this concept of a world come of age and of the church's response.

[Hans Deventer]

Stephen,

I'm not quite sure I understand why you are troubled by the answers. No one is advocating using female language for God?

[Bruce Carriker]

Just to make sure I understood, I read you post three times, Stephen. Then I went back and read all of the previous posts in the thread. I can't find where anyone has advocated the use of gender inclusive language to refer to God. Can you help me out here?

[Ian Gentles]

God made man in His image, He made woman from man. Here is something we dont like to grasp for fear of appearing sexist. Scripture clearly tells of the male role being dominant but only in loving equal partnership, something else we often dont fully grasp. At no place doese God take on a feminine role..out of man he made a perfect partner for man! Woman is the child bearer due to Eves particular sin. We need to stop listening to modern theologies efforts to embrace modern oppinions, Oppinions come and go, Gods Word stands forever!
I prefer "vive la deferonce" (Frech spelling?), lets rejoice in sex differeneces, I sure do! Be happy to be sons and daughters of God the Father. As many will know, we dads are more soft on our daughters! ;)

[Stephen Kerr]

Perhaps I misunderstood the statements above mine. That is certainly possible. I found the above statements to be insisting that there is no real reason to the language that we use and that it is merely a matter of preference, tradition, or convenience. I think there is more to it and hence my post. Also, at NTS there were those who advocated a language change to IT or Mother or S/He.
If I have misunderstood the above statements I apologize. I would still be interested in a response to the theology and reasoning of my initial post.

[Hans Deventer]

God made man in His image, He made woman from man. Here is something we dont like to grasp for fear of appearing sexist. Scripture clearly tells of the male role being dominant but only in loving equal partnership, something else we often dont fully grasp. At no place doese God take on a feminine role..out of man he made a perfect partner for man! Woman is the child bearer due to Eves particular sin. We need to stop listening to modern theologies efforts to embrace modern oppinions, Oppinions come and go, Gods Word stands forever!


I understand from Scripture that humans are made in his image.

GE 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In the three main Dutch translations, "man" in v 26 is humans and is plural, and the text clearifies in the last part of v27 that obivous fact.

If man is to be dominant, it is the dominance of Christ, laying down His life for us. I don't think history shows that kind of dominance, so we as men have loads of guilt and shame on our shoulders and very little cause indeed to boast about our place. Through history, women have been and often still are, terribly abused.

Ian, I am shocked by your statements here. Whatever may have been customary in old cultures, the gospel is clear:

GAL 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I'll stick to those, and will only claim my "dominance" if I am willing to lay down my life for Hannie.

As to Gods Word, it will stand, that much is clear. It also stood when Jesus walked this earth, yet those who claimed to know it so well, turned out to be completely wrong about it. So the statement that Gods Words still stand says nothing whatsoever about the value of your interpretation. Or mine, for that matter:basic01

[Mark Metcalfe]

If I may borrow from myself: (cross posted)

Human viewpoints often see human relationships as a model for who God is and how God behaves, but this is backward! We are made in God’s image, and as such, we need to carefully explore God’s nature to see how we are supposed to reflect Him and not the other way around.

What is the spiritual application that God is showing us through the union of man and woman? To answer this question we need to take a closer look at what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. The following table shows attributes of the complementary sexes.

Masculinity/Femininity
God/Israel
Jesus as husband/Church as bride
Authority/Submission
Male/Female
Husband/Wife
Physically penetrative; creativity is active (sperm)/Physically receptive; creativity is passive (egg)
Convex/Concave

The union of the masculine and the feminine is a reflection (a metaphor) of the spiritual union God has with us, which involves the following attributes:

Faithfulness: Becoming a Christian means pledging faithful love to God. God is a jealous (lover) God. Having another God is spiritual adultery. (first commandment)

Mutual Trust and Consent: God initiates the call (love never forces itself) to relationship. We respond with an invitation to come into our hearts.

A Creative Exchange: Love produces offspring; the more it is given, the more you have. Two people join together, and become three (or more!).

Passion and Pleasure: There is joy in relationship!
Sometimes joy is in the comfort of being in the presence of the one you love, and other times it is mind-blowing passion!

Communion: Becoming one even though you are two persons. One Flesh!

The spiritual reality of uniting the masculine and the feminine is reflected in many verses, including the following:

“If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified: That you bear much fruit; so shall you be my disciples.” John 15:7-8

When we abide together, fruit comes of the relationship.

The physical union of a husband and wife is a wonderful and healthy part of the marriage relationship, and a healthy marriage relationship participates “regularly” in intimacy. However, the union between two persons must go beyond the sexuality of marriage. “One flesh unity” must exist in unity of purpose, unity of child-rearing, and unity of decision-making. (This does not mean that you will agree with every decision! But you should agree on decision-making so that decisions can be made and followed.)

Remember, the physical relationship between a husband and wife is
intended to reflect the spiritual relationship between God and you
and me. When we abide in Him (are connected with Him - not to Him)
it will create new and good things.

The reason, I think, we have objection to referring to God with
a gender term is because we have applied our experiences (good
and bad) to God rather than applying who and what God reveals of
himself to our lives and experiences.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

Hey, youngster! :basic03 Good to see you posting here!

[Mark Metcalfe]

Hey, youngster! :basic03 Good to see you posting here!

It's been busy for me; no other reason.
Took me a while to sign up to the new forum and get my legs under me.

I helped my Dad with his avatar (choosing a picture from when he was
6 or 7-years old). I think my avatar has me at about4-years old.

I thought it a poignant reminder that we were once innocents.

Mark

[Barbara Moulton]

God made man in His image, He made woman from man. Here is something we dont like to grasp for fear of appearing sexist. Scripture clearly tells of the male role being dominant but only in loving equal partnership, something else we often dont fully grasp. At no place doese God take on a feminine role..out of man he made a perfect partner for man! Woman is the child bearer due to Eves particular sin. We need to stop listening to modern theologies efforts to embrace modern oppinions, Oppinions come and go, Gods Word stands forever!
I prefer "vive la deferonce" (Frech spelling?), lets rejoice in sex differeneces, I sure do! Be happy to be sons and daughters of God the Father. As many will know, we dads are more soft on our daughters! ;)

I just don't know what to say to all this Ian. I don't expect you to understand me...you probably think I am just spouting new theologies. But you seem to contradict yourself. How can man be dominant and yet in a loving equal partnership? They would seem to be mutually exclusive realities.

The things is...we can say "vive la difference" (and I do) without accepting that woman is to be in a subservient role.

God says in Isaiah 66:13
"As a mother comforts her child,
so will I comfort you;
and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."

Sounds like God has no problems describing the divine nature in feminine terms.

Having said that, I usually describe God as my Father. That's how I most frequently relate to Him and I do believe it is a Biblical metaphor for God. But I see this as a metaphor. God is also described as a bird, a singer, a shepherd and a mother etc. All of these metaphors can be helpful in understanding God's nature. But that does not mean that God is only a bird or a singer or a shepherd or a mother etc. He is also not only a father. He is far beyond any of these descriptions.

Since Scripture tells us that both male and female are created in God's image, I have to believe that the attributes that we think of being "female" and those we think of being "male" are all present in God. But in Him, they are not assigned as part of gender traits. And although God is neither male nor female, in whatever respect one gender tends to be better, in that respect that gender better reflects the nature of God. So the aspect of "provider" that seems prevalent in men is a reflection of the faithful provision of God. The aspect of "nurturer" that seems more prevalent in women, is a reflection of the gentle care of God.

I love Zephaniah 3:17 which speaks of God rejoicing over us, quieting us with his love, sing over us.

But tell me…is that a masculine or a feminine image? Although it is often the woman that often sings over their child in the middle of the dark night, I remember watching with joy as my husband sang to our children.

I rejoice in the male/female differences and am filled with awe to think that my God encompasses them all. We see God directing, comforting, protecting, guiding, consoling, singing over, quieting, loving, forgiving, teaching, gathering together and nurturing His children.

When it comes to dominance. God rules the world because God is God. Not because God is male.

To extrapolate from the masculine images of God in Scripture, an implication that man should rule woman is unacceptable to me.

My husband does not want to be dominant. Neither do I. We are equal partners, each submitting to each other in our areas of strength. And when we nurture the best of God's nature in ourselves and within each other, differences of sex add to our enjoyment….they don’t create a system where one rules over the other.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Barbara

We tend to look at attributes and assign them to a gender.

You used the terms "provider" (male) and "nurturer" (female), but as you pointed
out, both of these attributes could be displayed by either a man or a woman.
Therefore, this is why it is a mistake to apply the attributes that we believe
are masculine and feminine to men, women, or to God.

The fact that our experience gives us context to understand what God means
when He says, "AS a mother comforts her child..." is God being
helpful to us in understanding His nature. Jesus does not refer to His Father
as "like a father" or "as a father" but as "Father."

The Bible also says that the husband is head of home AS (in the same way that)
Christ is the Head of the Church. How a man can be both the head
AND equal partners (submit to one another) is by permission of the wife
(submission, "as unto the Lord"). A husband has NO AUTHORITY that his
wife does not give to him! (That's power!)

The creative power of the Church is brought into being through the Creative
Initiation of Christ. The church can act independently of the Head (see
Revelation) in varying degrees, showing that this relationship does NOT
diminish individuality. But two people operating as One Flesh occurs
in mutual submission (just as Christ loves the Church sacraficially,
and the Church submits to Christ the Head). Paul says this is a
mystery.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

It may have been on college or other setting, but the question was asked,
"what makes a man a man, and a woman a woman?"

People started out with stereotypical responses, each deftly dismissed by
the professor as being applicable in cases to the other gender.

You know what it actually comes down to? Chromosomes and equipment;
physical differences that occur somewhere back in the womb when a chemical kicks in and says, you're going to be a boy, and you're going to be a girl. (There are genetic mysteries that begin to blur even these.)

I used the terms "convex" (masculine) and "concave" (feminine),
and penetrative (masculine) and receptive (feminine).

Using no more than these terms, they co-exist in reflective relationship,
made for each other. (Just as we are made for God.)

Which of these two parentheses are convex or concave? -> ))
The answer (because I say so) is that the left one is male and the
right one is female. They look the same, however, and it really depends
on whether you look at them from right to left or left to right. My point
is that masculinity and femininity (most particularly in the marriage
relationship) are reflections of how God wants to relate to us.

Mark

[Stan Hall]

I has long been standard practice in the English language (as well as other languages, I believe) to use the male pronoun for non-specific gender. When referring to one of a group of people who may be male or female, "he" is used. I would think this practice is equally reasonable for reference to God whom we can't specifically define as exclusively male or female.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I has long been standard practice in the English language (as well as other languages, I believe) to use the male pronoun for non-specific gender. When referring to one of a group of people who may be male or female, "he" is used. I would think this practice is equally reasonable for reference to God whom we can't specifically define as exclusively male or female.

As much as I like the King James English, the Bible was not written in
English, therefore you cannot apply English rules in this context.
(I think a study of the original languages - using Strongs or Youngs references - will bear this out.)

However, I will agree that God should not be described as male or female,
but He is most definitively referred to in masculine terms. And we (His Church),
and Israel (His people), are described in feminine terms as Bride.

I make a disctinction between male and masculine. Both are nouns, but male is
an animal that produces gametes to fertilize female gametes and cannot
have babies; masculine refers to characteristics associated with (but not
exclusive to) males.

Why split the hairs? Because the masculine characteristics of God must be
applied to us and not our male characteristics to Him!

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

Why split the hairs? Because the masculine characteristics of God must be
applied to us and not our male characteristics to Him!


It seems hard for us to view things out of our own contexts. I am
a male with life experiences, and what I experience of God, I naturally
associate (or not) these things with who God is and what is He like.

It always reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
One grabs hold of the trunk and describes an elephant like a very strong
snake. Another grabs the tail and says, "No, the elephant is like a leathery
rope." Another says, "the elephant is like a great tree" feeling its leg.

Well, an elephant is not very much like a snake, a rope, or a tree, but
to a blind man (vision impaired if you will) that samples only part of the
elephant, these are reasonable assertions.

What we know about God comes from Scripture and experience. Scripture
describes God in masculine terms. Why? (Is it a patriarchal plot? Well, if
you want to discount scripture as a power grab by men, then maybe.)
Before asking why does scripture describe God in masculine terms, let
us find out what scripture says about the masculinity of the Godhead,
and then extrapolate what femininity means to a relationship to God.

In a very real sense, we are all feminine to God - His Bride. It doesn't mean
that men are women. It means that masculine and feminine exist in relation
to each other. God defines the masculine (men don't), and He has
demonstrated masculinity as sacrificial love time and time again. We receive
God's invitation and submit to Him. God's masculinity is not domineering or forceful,
and yet it is powerful. Our submission must be willingly given; He will not take it by force.

When these two counterparts (sacrificial love and willing submission) come
together, there is union, joy, and fruitfulness.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

As much as I like the King James English, the Bible was not written in
English, therefore you cannot apply English rules in this context.
(I think a study of the original languages - using Strongs or Youngs references - will bear this out.)

I would like to add that Jesus uses the specific term "Father" which is not to be confused with "parent" (similar to the generic "he" argument).

The thought processes intrigue me that try to render God genderless (because He is spirit, because in Him there is neither male nor female, because of whatever reason). I liken it to some of us who render ourselves
the "chosen people of the new covenant" (because the Jews rejected Christ,
because God adopted us so we are somehow God's new chosen people),
but I think it is attempting to make something of ourselves that we are not.
We are not Jews; we are not part of His chosen people (and yet we are
still loved and adopted into God's family!).

God is masculine, and yet men and women are both part of the Church,
Christ's bride. And with the one-flesh motif, we are one with Christ, part
of His body.

Mark

[Chris Baker]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading in one of my books for seminary that some church fathers frequently referred the Holy Spirit using feminine pronouns. Anyone recall anything like this?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading in one of my books for seminary that some church fathers frequently referred the Holy Spirit using feminine pronouns. Anyone recall anything like this?

I did some google searching and found some interesting results. You will
find people who propose using feminine pronouns, but I have not found any
"orthodox" places (yet) that give it much credence. It seems that people
have to stretch a lot to find rationale for the femininization of the Holy Spirit.

I got into one Catholic Q&A that makes the point that "the Holy Spirit is the
spouse of Mary." While not getting into Marilogy, it is an interesting point that
Jesus (the Son) is concieved of the Holy Spirit.

This same page also said: "... your Priest is correct in saying the Hebrew
word for Spirit is "Ruach" and that it is a female noun in Hebrew. However
that does not make it right to "think of" the Holy Spirit as female. The Italian
word for tiger is TIGRE, a female noun. Does this that mean that we can
assume that this species has no males "

There is a lot more that can be researched on this subject.
But here is a question to ponder:

If God reveals Himself through scripture in masculine terms, then
what is it that God is revealing about masculinity?

Follow-up question might be: If I understand what God is trying to reveal
about the masculine role in a relationship, how do I respond as a male or
as a female to this revelation? (How do I respond to God?) (How do I respond
to my spouse?) (How do I respond to fellow Christians?)

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

Conditional love says, “If she would... then I would.”
By contrast, unconditional love says,
"I understand your difficulty. Therefore, I will...."

Our sense of justice asks, “But what about her obligation and responsibility?”
In a similar circumstance, Peter asked Jesus what would happen to John.
Jesus responded, “What is that to you?” In other words, I cannot be
responsible for the actions of another; I can only be held accountable for
what I do.

That's the paradox about "being in charge" and "submission." I am in charge
(I am responsible) for making the decision as to what I do. The questions
are: what will I do? How will I respond? How does LOVE respond? Is my
response different from Love's response? Do I want my response to be the
same as Love's Response?

I am given the choice to act. I can declare that I don't care and will do what
I want to do in self-reliant defiance of unity. Or, I can declare that I care by
doing you want in self-denying submission. Either way, the power of choice
is mine, and it takes greater power to yield than it does to force.

Mark

[Barbara Moulton]

God is masculine...Mark

God may be referred to in masculine terms (and I have no problem with that...I do it myself) but I do not believe that God is masculine in essence.

[Mark Metcalfe]

God may be referred to in masculine terms (and I have no problem with that...I do it myself) but I do not believe that God is masculine in essence.

I suppose all things of faith come down to two words: I believe.
(We may have a difference of understanding about what "masculine
in essence" means, so I will leave it there.)

Mark

[Paul Whitaker]

Do we refer to the Holy Spirit as It? or He? or She?


I have generally heard the Holy Spirit as It. As in "It is moving in this place"

[Mark Metcalfe]

Do we refer to the Holy Spirit as It? or He? or She?


I have generally heard the Holy Spirit as It. As in "It is moving in this place"

You may have only heard some of the syllables, as in "the SpirIT is moving in this place."

The Holy Spirit is a Person in the Godhead, not a thing (it).
For the sake of avoiding issues, it is best to refer to God the Holy Spirit
as the Holy Spirit, (although we don't hear Holy Ghost too often anymore).

Mark