God: Woman, Man, Both or Neither?

[Amos14]

Hi there! I'm new to the forum, so I apologize in advance if this isn't an appropriate topic (or a good way to send a question to Scott and Emery). I've been enjoying the podcast on-and-off for the past two years or so, and I've noticed a pattern: both Scott and Emery seem to consistently use male pronouns when referring to God (ex: He, His, Him). I was wondering how Scott and Emery felt about inclusive language and why they don't use it. I'm not attempting to do any male-bashing here. It's just that I have grown to feel that inclusive language is important, so I tend to notice when others aren't using it. Thanks for providing a great podcast with interesting discussions.

[Dr Mundo]

Hi there! I'm new to the forum, so I apologize in advance if this isn't an appropriate topic (or a good way to send a question to Scott and Emery). I've been enjoying the podcast on-and-off for the past two years or so, and I've noticed a pattern: both Scott and Emery seem to consistently use male pronouns when referring to God (ex: He, His, Him). I was wondering how Scott and Emery felt about inclusive language and why they don't use it. I'm not attempting to do any male-bashing here. It's just that I have grown to feel that inclusive language is important, so I tend to notice when others aren't using it. Thanks for providing a great podcast with interesting discussions.

In general they are talking about the Christian God. The character of Jesus was male. So when they refer to the God of the bible, Jesus and Yahweh are both referred to as male in the scriptures. Yahweh wouldn't be biologically classified as a male. (As claimed by its believers he has no biological properties.) But in the colloquial use of the word at the time. The father was typically the head of the house. So it would stand to reason for the people back then writing the bible, that they referred to their leader in the masculine. That is probably why. At least that is how I make sense of it.

[mitchellmckain]

God is the origin of all masculinity and the origin of all feminity. He does not have any limitations in that regard. The Bible does seem to cast God in to various masculine relational roles, such as to the church or in the saving relationship to human beings, but I think these are merely analogies. Since I think God created the physical universe as a womb of life you could also say that God and "mother nature" also play masculine and feminine relational roles to some degree in the creation of life.

Indeed the male and female difference is really a relational thing anyway. You could say that we all have our masculine and feminine sides to some degree or other. Many of the difference between men and women are with regards to statistical mean, and I am sure that in every one of them there are women who are more (stronger, agressive, etc.) than I am. I personally very much dislike most of the stereotypes and downright hate the habit of railroading people into gender roles.

I find absolutely nothing offensive in refering to God in the feminine gender. Mother God will do just fine for me, but I do refer to God as Father because that is tradition of church and scripture and it is how Jesus refered to God as well. But it is more a matter of why not do it the same way because I don't think it really matters and so you will never hear me arguing that anyone should use the masculine gender either because that is the way the Bible does it or because Jesus did or any other reason.

[Amos14]

Having never posted anything before, I didn’t know what to expect. I was surprised today when I saw two very thoughtful responses! Thank you for responding to my post.

Personally, I believe that using inclusive language when referring to God is important. I think it’s important for both theological and scriptural accuracy. Also, I believe that there are many good pastoral reasons to use inclusive language.

I’ve heard the argument that Jesus was male. However, I do not believe that Jesus’ gender was what the New Testament writers were interested in. I think it was Jesus’ humanity (not his masculinity) that was lifted up as the model for all human beings – male and female alike. The gender of Jesus (during the time that Jesus was in flesh-and-blood form) does not represent the gender of God because although we are made in God’s image, God is not made in the image of any earthly creature.

It is difficult to speak about God with the limits of human language, and much of our language about God is metaphorical. I think that when Jesus talked about God as Father, he was using analogical language from human experience in order to talk about the kind of relationship that exists between those two members of the Trinity.

In a private context, I think that people should be encouraged to refer to God in a way that they feel comfortable. But my curiosity has been peaked by Scott and Emery’s use of the male pronoun simply because they are participating in a public broadcast.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Are you familiar with this
It is a characteristic of God to overcome evil with good.

Jesus Christ therefore, who himself overcame evil with good, is our true Mother. We received our ‘Being’ from Him ­ and this is where His Maternity starts ­ And with it comes the gentle Protection and Guard of Love which will never ceases to surround us.

Just as God is our Father, so God is also our Mother.

And He showed me this truth in all things, but especially in those sweet words when He says: “It is I”.

As if to say, I am the power and the Goodness of the Father, I am the Wisdom of the Mother, I am the Light and the Grace which is blessed love, I am the Trinity, I am the Unity, I am the supreme Goodness of all kind of things, I am the One who makes you love, I am the One who makes you desire, I am the never-ending fulfilment of all true desires.

Our highest Father, God Almighty, who is ‘Being’, has always known us and loved us: because of this knowledge, through his marvellous and deep charity and with the unanimous consent of the Blessed Trinity, He wanted the Second Person to become our Mother, our Brother, our Saviour.

It is thus logical that God, being our Father, be also our Mother. Our Father desires, our Mother operates and our good Lord the Holy Ghost confirms; we are thus well advised to love our God through whom we have our being, to thank him reverently and to praise him for having created us and to pray fervently to our Mother, so as to obtain mercy and compassion, and to pray to our Lord, the Holy Ghost, to obtain help and grace.

I then saw with complete certainty that God, before creating us, loved us, and His love never lessened and never will. In this love he accomplished all his works, and in this love he oriented all things to our good and in this love our life is eternal.

With creation we started but the love with which he created us was in Him from the very beginning and in this love is our beginning.

And all this we shall see it in God eternally.

From “Revelations of Divine Love” by Juliana of Norwich (1342-1416), (LIX, LXXXVI).

[yjoeyh]

Personally, I believe that using inclusive language when referring to God is important. I think it’s important for both theological and scriptural accuracy.

Hi Amos!
I'm curious as to what exactly you feel is important about using inclusive language? I certainly think it's important to understand that gender is, by definition, a limitation of created things, so God is necessarily without gender in reality, so that is one thing, but other than that, what advantage do you think there is in avoiding gender-based language?

Personally I have learned to really appreciate and celebrate the differences between men and women and I think the Bible gives a lot of insightful information about God and about human beings by not only outlining those differences, but also by use of gender-based terms, which are unfortunately lost in English translations, but very much a part of the original Hebrew and Greek languages. (It is interesting, appropriately enough, that Greek contains a third 'neutral' gender that Hebrew did not, considering that the NT, written mostly in Greek, adds a component of gender-neutral themes that the OT, written in Hebrew, didn't seem to do as much.) So I would say that the English language is already far too gender neutral to begin with, let alone try to make it more so.

For me, being raised in the 70's, by a very strongly female-dominated family, which had some pretty progressive ideas about the liberation of women from traditional roles, I had a particularly difficult time coming to terms with it being okay to even acknowledge that men and women were different. I was raised to view gender identity as a line that needed to be blurred, rather than underlined. Even into my mid 20's and during my much more 'conservative' Christian days, I thought that it was taboo, and even morally unacceptable to talk about the differences between men and women because it perpetuated stereotypes that were limiting and harmful. I also tended to equate patriarchy with misogyny.

Later, I met, (and ended up dating a few) Christian women who really changed my whole way of thinking on this issue. They were incredibly intelligent, talented and insightful and were in no way threatened by gender-specific language or roles, but rather viewed them as positive and empowering. I specifically remember my girlfriend at one point and time asked me directly how I felt about women pastoring churches (because I mentioned I went to a Methodist church when I was young and my pastor's wife, pastored another church) and I basically told her that I didn't have a problem it (which at the time I didn't.) She then went on to give some very insightful reasons why she opposed it, and coming from her(being a very strong and confident women) really made me think and helped open my eyes to the problems at the time with my way of looking at gender differences entirely.

What I really had learned was that my old way of thinking was actually very disrespectful to women, because as a male, I treated women more or less like other men, considering their feelings, thoughts, reasoning, abilities, were not all that fundamentally different. But that was wrong, because clearly they are very different at the most basic levels. Not only that, by muting those differences, I was missing out on some of the most important life lessons about God, my relationship with him and the human experience overall.

[mitchellmckain]

For me, being raised in the 70's, by a very strongly female-dominated family, which had some pretty progressive ideas about the liberation of women from traditional roles, I had a particularly difficult time coming to terms with it being okay to even acknowledge that men and women were different. I was raised to view gender identity as a line that needed to be blurred, rather than underlined. Even into my mid 20's and during my much more 'conservative' Christian days, I thought that it was taboo, and even morally unacceptable to talk about the differences between men and women because it perpetuated stereotypes that were limiting and harmful. I also tended to equate patriarchy with misogyny.

Later, I met, (and ended up dating a few) Christian women who really changed my whole way of thinking on this issue. They were incredibly intelligent, talented and insightful and were in no way threatened by gender-specific language or roles, but rather viewed them as positive and empowering. I specifically remember my girlfriend at one point and time asked me directly how I felt about women pastoring churches (because I mentioned I went to a Methodist church when I was young and my pastor's wife, pastored another church) and I basically told her that I didn't have a problem it (which at the time I didn't.) She then went on to give some very insightful reasons why she opposed it, and coming from her(being a very strong and confident women) really made me think and helped open my eyes to the problems at the time with my way of looking at gender differences entirely.

Except for details like it being in the 70's, a female-dominated family, and dating Christian women, your experience is very very similar to mine. I was born in 1961, my whole family was just extremely liberal and it was my relationship with the japanese woman who became my wife that challenged my ubringing that there were no difference between men and women.

What I really had learned was that my old way of thinking was actually very disrespectful to women

I wouldn't go that far. The closest I can come to that would simply be to say that western culture has been rather disrespectful to the traditional women's roles of mother and housewife, and so there can be no suprise that many more women are not satisfied with such roles because of this, and those women in the west who do want such roles often have low self-esteem because of our culture. BUT both men and women should be completely free to choose whatever path they want in life and railroading either into fixed roles regardless of their talents and interests just isn't right.

But that was wrong, because clearly they are very different at the most basic levels. Not only that, by muting those differences, I was missing out on some of the most important life lessons about God, my relationship with him and the human experience overall.

ALL human beings are very different at the most basic levels! YES there is a difference between men and women, but it is largely a statistical one between the means. Yes it is wrong to institute the kind of equality that forces everyone into the same path in life, but this applies to everyone regardless of gender and we should not be ignoring ANY of the difference between individuals.

[mikedsjr]

Hi there! I'm new to the forum, so I apologize in advance if this isn't an appropriate topic (or a good way to send a question to Scott and Emery). I've been enjoying the podcast on-and-off for the past two years or so, and I've noticed a pattern: both Scott and Emery seem to consistently use male pronouns when referring to God (ex: He, His, Him). I was wondering how Scott and Emery felt about inclusive language and why they don't use it. I'm not attempting to do any male-bashing here. It's just that I have grown to feel that inclusive language is important, so I tend to notice when others aren't using it. Thanks for providing a great podcast with interesting discussions.

The podcast is not an spiritual person and an atheist, but a Christian and an atheist. The Bible says He. God is called Father - not mother. God became God in flesh in the form of a man - not a woman. There are places in scripture where new Bible have try to be more gender equal where Scriptures intent is meant to express all people. I've got nothing against that. However, I do prefer a version that strives to be accurate to the originals and to do that requires having "man" used when the term "man" means "humanity". I prefer them because I want accurate word for word translations. However, God is clearly defined as a He in Scripture, and for a Christian, should be respected as such.

[Rian]

I don't think that God is male in the sense of he has a beard and likes to watch football. It's clear in Genesis that both the man and the woman are created in the image of God. Clearly, female is part of God.

Also, there are verses that describe God taking a female role:

Isaiah 66:13 : "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem."

Psalm 27:10 : "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, But the LORD will take me up."

Psalm 131:2 : Surely I have composed and quieted my soul; Like a weaned child rests against his mother..."

Matthew 23:37 : Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."



However, I don't think that we should change a word to "she" when it's a "he", and I think that there's a reason that God is presenting the male aspect of who he is in the Bible.

Women are (no matter what the PC people say) in their very physical essence, lifegivers and nurturers (womb and boobs ) Of course not every woman can give birth to a child, but the physical essence of a woman is a womb and breasts. Men are, in their very physical essence, strong. Of course, not every man is stronger than every woman, but certainly on average men are stronger than women, at least physically. And together, they make up the perfect image of God.

We already have life - God has shown that aspect of his character by creating us. What we need (and I'm talking Christian worldview) is salvation, and that takes strength. I think that's why God represents the male aspect of himself in the Bible.

Anyway, just some thoughts to share - maybe we should move this to the Christian forum, since I don't want to debate whether or not God exists. So to answer the OP question, I'd say it's both, except I think it's also not merely or simply both - I think there's more to it. But I think I can see a good reason why God was mostly represented with the male aspect of who he is (the verses I quoted being the exception - they show the female part).

edit - also, given the time period in which he came to earth, a male would have more access to things. But I think the essential reason is the strength/salvation bit.

ps - Hi Amos! Welcome, and I hope you enjoy it here!

[Keep The Reason]

Well it's not clear. In the first version of the story, it sayd male and female he created them, but in the second story, hew took woman out of man -- one step removed.

It doesn't much matter though. The gender of a fictional character seems like a pointless discussion.

[Amos14]

yjoeyh -
I’d like to start by saying that it seems like you’ve done a lot of thinking about the differences between men and women, and it also seems like you desire to respect women (and not show disrespect towards them). I commend you for that - truly. I agree with you that there are definitely differences between people. However, I’m leery of pinning down specific differences between men and women (other than physical ones), and I would venture to say that listing differences could possibly lead to stereotypes. Also, when things like this are listed out, there are some who would automatically create a hierarchy of qualities, and that’s where I can see problems starting. You mentioned that the Bible gives a lot of insightful information about human beings, gender-based terms, etc. And I would agree with you to an extent. However, I personally believe that the Bible contains instances of relationships and gender roles that should not be lifted up as examples to follow. Take, for example, the story of Hannah. She was just one of Elkanah’s wives (polygamy), and she was barren. At the time, a barren woman was looked down on and considered to be less of a woman just because she could not bear children. For me, the story of Hannah is not one I would use to base my relationships on. All that being said, you asked why I think inclusive language is important. I think it’s important for a variety of reasons: scripturally, theologically, and pastorally. Scripturally because I know that the Bible contains both male and female metaphors about God. Theologically because I do not believe that God can be put in the “box” of being a male. And pastorally (when speaking about God in a public setting) because there are some who cannot relate to God in such a specific way. For example, I volunteered to do a Christian Bible Study with a group of teenagers in a juvenile detention facility. The chaplain asked me not to say The Lord’s Prayer with them or to pray to God as “Father” with them. He explained that in the past when this was done, it caused many problems because so many of the teens had been abused by their fathers. They were not at a place in their lives where they could view the term “Father” as a positive one. I was more than happy to help the boys find other names for God that they could use and with which they could be happy.

Moonwood the Hare -
Thank you for reminding me of that book! I actually own it and have read it, but it’s been so long that I’ve forgotten wonderful passages such as the one you shared.

mitchellmckain -
Agreed! Thank you for your input.

mikedsjr -
You are certainly allowed to have your opinions, but I have to disagree with you! You mentioned that you want “accurate word for word translations.” I’m not sure what you mean when you this, but for me, “original” refers to the Hebrew (Old Testament) and the Greek (New Testament). There are parts of the Old Testament where the first member of the trinity is referred to as Elohim. This is a masculine plural in the Hebrew. Rather than being literal about the translation of this word, most scholars would say that by assigning it the plural form, the author is showing respect and greatness. So this is to say that a literal translation does not always get at the meaning. In addition, the word for Spirit in Hebrew is Ruah, and Ruah is feminine. The word for Spirit in Greek is Pneuma, and Pneuma is gender neutral. You also mentioned that “God is clearly defined as a He in Scripture,” and I must challenge you on that a bit more, mikedsir. In addition to the original Hebrew and Greek language that I just mentioned, I would also invite you to read Isaiah 66:12-13, Isaiah 49:14-15, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34, 1 Corinthians 1:24 (the word “wisdom” is feminine), and Isaiah 42:14. I also must mention that it’s difficult to decipher tone in a message typed on a forum, but you seem a bit angry at the very idea of God as female. If this makes you angry, I would encourage you to explore why. For example, do you think it’s demeaning to refer to God that way? If so, then perhaps you should reexamine your ideas about women and realize that calling God “She” is no more of a compliment or less of a compliment than calling God “He.”

Rian -
Thank you for your comments. Being new, I didn’t realize I posted in the wrong section! If I need to somehow move this topic, please let me know how and where. I was hoping that Scott and Emery would say something about their views on this subject, but perhaps I didn’t post it in a way that they would see and respond. Anyway, thanks for your help

Keep The Reason -
Even if you are not a Christian, I would think that the discussion is not a pointless one, particularly because the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible has had such an influence on society in general (and especially with gender roles, I think). I have to admit that I liked the fact that you brought up both creation accounts. In the first one, God creates male and female in God’s image. But in the second account, God creates Eve out of Adam’s rib. Most scholars agree that there’s about a 500 year difference between the writing of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Unfortunately, the account in Genesis 2 has been used to promote inequality between the genders. Most of this has to do with Genesis 2:18 which says that God plans to make Adam a “helper.” This word “helper” has been described as a “lower” role in humanity. However, the Hebrew word used here for helper is azer. And azer is used 19 times in the Old Testament. 2 times, it relates to a woman. 1 time, it relates to a king. And 16 times, it relates to God. Therefore, the word is not demeaning at all - it’s complimentary, not less than. Thank you for inadvertently sending me on that interesting word study!

[Rian]

Well it's not clear. In the first version of the story, it sayd male and female he created them, but in the second story, hew took woman out of man -- one step removed.

He still created them both.

It doesn't much matter though. The gender of a fictional character seems like a pointless discussion.

Certainly, if you know they're fictional. I don't see how you can think you could possibly know that, though. But you talk like you know for a certainty many things that you can't possibly know.

[Rian]

Rian -
Thank you for your comments. Being new, I didn’t realize I posted in the wrong section! If I need to somehow move this topic, please let me know how and where. I was hoping that Scott and Emery would say something about their views on this subject, but perhaps I didn’t post it in a way that they would see and respond. Anyway, thanks for your help

No, no, it's not necessarily the wrong section at all! It's just that sometimes atheists like to discuss things in the atheist section for ease of discussion, and likewise with the Christians. It's just kind of an interesting topic, and certainly one that assumes the existence of God, so I was just thinking out loud that it MIGHT be better in the Christian forum. But it's your topic - certainly keep it where you want it

[Keep The Reason]

He still created them both.

Yes but the topic is discussing Yahweh's supposed gender, and given that, what matters is the qualifying term "image". So it's unclear given the Genesis account because the account says two things. In one version, females are created out of men, and so are one step removed in terms of whose image they represent. And certainly women have been seen as in an inferior position to men in the patriarchal bible.

Certainly, if you know they're fictional. I don't see how you can think you could possibly know that, though. But you talk like you know for a certainty many things that you can't possibly know.

Again, I, like Richard Dawkins, am a #6:

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Where are you on the scale?

1. Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

[yjoeyh]

I would venture to say that listing differences could possibly lead to stereotypes

Again, that's pretty similar to the way I used to think about it. But at a certain point I had to move past that because, although it's a good thing to avoid prejudice and stereotypes, that not the most important thing. They do still have their place in the choices we make. Sometimes in the process of making good choices, we have to allow for the possibility or even the probability of negative repercussions. That’s just part of the human experience. It’s unfortunate for sure, but that’s life. I don't like stereotypes and I wish they didn't exist, but I'm okay if they happen anyway as a result of the choices I believe to be the right choices to make.

I think it’s important for a variety of reasons: scripturally, theologically, and pastorally. Scripturally because I know that the Bible contains both male and female metaphors about God. Theologically because I do not believe that God can be put in the “box” of being a male. And pastorally (when speaking about God in a public setting) because there are some who cannot relate to God in such a specific way.

I still don’t really get your theological or scriptural reasons. I’m not aware of any direct female metaphors in scriptures, but I can see how some indirect ones can be drawn and applied. I don’t have any problem with that. I just don’t think that’s a good reason to alter the language, or to expect others to do so. As for God being put into the “box” of being male, I’m not sure I get your point. Aren’t you suggesting that we put God in a “box” of being gender inclusive? I don’t see any theological advantage to doing that.

Now for your pastoral reasons, I do kind of understand where you are coming from. I’ve spent a lot of time working with kids coming from abusive homes, and have even had to deal with some of it in my own family. In dealing with people who are coping with serious issues of abuse, I’ve learned you have to be very careful about the language you use. That’s a big part of what I’m getting at. When a woman who has been physically abused by her husband, comes to my wife and I for help, I ought to step aside and let my wife embrace and comfort her, and let her cry on her shoulder instead of mine because she is likely to initially still be threatened by me as a male and reminded of something I represent to her, which is abuse by another man… simply because I am male. Now when my wife, driving a van full of kids, accidentally backs into a guy driving a motorcycle, and he comes yelling and screaming at her pounding on the van acting violent and out of control, I ought NOT to step aside and let her deal with it but rather I need step in and make sure my wife and the van full of kids are safe and try to calm the guy down. I’m morally obligated to do these things. There are moral obligations associated with gender on certain levels. But just like the abused wife or with the teens in your example, we have to be sensitive to their situation at the time, but there is more to it in the long run. It’s not healthy to always live in fear of men because you have been abused, nor is it healthy to allow father-issues to perpetuate into adulthood. Assuming some of them were male, many of these teens you volunteered to help would end up fathers themselves, and need to develop a positive view of the term and the position over time. Like you said, it makes sense to leave out words like “Father” in that situation, I agree, but we have to remember that it seems Jesus was emphasizing God as Father in the model prayer, so getting to the point where that analogy can be realized and understood in the intended context is important.

Again, being happy and comfortable is not what it’s all about. Growing and maturing is rarely an easy process and it does require that we deal with things that make us uncomfortable from time to time.