De-Gendering God, En-Gendering Godde

This is a sequel to my post on Recapturing the Feminine in God: Does God Have a Penis? This post stems from the call for a formulated statement from various sources, the online and face-to-face dialogues with people around my usage of “S/He” and “Godde” as opposed to “He” and “God” with reference to the deity behind early Judaism and Christianity. I’ve taken the title from a friend’s suggestion.

I should add that this is version 1.0 and I’ll like modify it after feedback

Fuzzy Subjects and Scripture

A number of fuzzy issues, for example ethical issues, do not find direct textual support in the form of proof texts. Rather, we reason from the Scriptures. Given that we consider Scripture as our point of departure, serving as the ‘yardstick’ for our faith and practices it is important that we clearly interpret and wisely apply Scriptural teachings. The application of Scripture requires knowing the context in which we apply it so that we pass on the truth rather than memorialise an historical expression thereof.

Hence our approach to this topic should not be defined by a ‘number of texts’ game. Rather, we will use the Biblical creation myth as our primary point of departure, specifically Genesis 1:26-27. The underlying premise to this text, is that male and female both fully reflect the image of Godde and are derived from Godde. As the maleness of the historical Jesus along with the His relationship to Godde the Father is often used to support the idea that we are to use male-centred in reference to Godde we explore both the Fatherhood of Godde as well as the gender of Jesus as the Risen LORD.

1. The creation myth
2. The gender of the Risen LORD
3. The metaphorical use of language in Scripture
4. The implications for our language use

The creation myth

By choosing the creation myth, particularly Genesis 1:26-27, as our point of departure we frame the issue against the notion of the image of Godde rather than the gender of God.

Though at first glance this text is relatively straightforward the reality is that it is rich and complex. Firstly there is a discrepancy between the use of the plural and the singular with reference to Godde; secondly there is the notion of people patterned after or being created as the image of Godde as both male and female.

• Singular or plural? The following translations the King James Version (KJV), the Message (TM), the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translation (NLT) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) unanimously use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 where there is a dialogue between as yet unidentified persons and unanimous in their singular reference to Godde in Genesis 1:27 when Godde is doing creation.
• Humanity as the image and likeness of Godde.  All translations make use of “image” which may be used as “resemblance” and “idol”, though the latter is usually pejorative. Two translations don’t use “likeness”. The Message uses “make them reflecting our nature” (plural) and the New Living Translation uses “to be like ourselves” (plural).
• It is commonly understood that the image of Godde is individual and collective. Humans are still understood as the image of Godde after The Fall (see Genesis 5:2 and 9:6). Both males and females are images of Godde and are so individually and collectively. Here the creation of masculine and feminine gender and male and female sex organs go hand in hand and both reflect Godde.
• The notion of an image (and idol) was that it was less the representation of a deity than it was meant as the dwelling-place of the spirit of the deity thereby enabling the god/-ess to be physically present in many different places simultaneously. The image is understood as ‘projection’ or ‘embodiment’ of the deity (DJA Clines Image in New Bible Dictionary 3^rd Ed. pp.498-500). People (individual and collective, male and female) are the place where Godde is to be found. This notion is in keeping with the idea of the giving of the Spirit to believers and the presence and activity of the Spirit in and through the church in the NT.
• As both male and female are the image of Godde they both individually and collectively reflect and represent Godde. This conclusion fits with the broader revelation of Scripture where both men and women serve in full and equal capacity as Godde’s prophets, leaders and apostles.
• This means that Godde is not male or female, nor is S/He primarily male with secondary female elements; Godde is fully male and fully female.

I would suggest we translate this text as follows:

Genesis 1:26-27 “Then Godde said, “Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. The will be masters over all life – the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.” So Godde created people in Godde’s own image; Godde patterned them after Goddeself; male and female S/He created them (NLT tweaked).

The gender of the risen LORD

Many objections to using feminine or inclusive language references to Godde derive their authority from referencing the masculinity of Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus, considered fully human and fully Godde, was male.

Jesus was born as a boy and grew into a man. He was Fathered by Godde and born like each and every other human being. It was He who taught us to pray to Godde as “Father” and who solely referenced Godde as Father. Add to that the language of sonship and adoption into sonship and it sounds like there’s a strong case for arguing that it is unscriptural, wrong, to refer to Godde feminine and inclusive senses.

The story of Jesus does not end with the historical man alone as the story continues with Jesus the risen LORD. The death and resurrection of Jesus changes everything, literally. It is Jesus the risen LORD that concerns us.

There are numerous references to people being raised from the dead both in Scripture and history. The OT points toward the idea of resurrection as universal eschatological event (Ezekiel 37; Daniel 12:2; Pss. 16:10; 49:14ff.; Job 19:25-27; Isaiah 26:19). As such the references to people being resurrected in Scripture differ in that they happen ahead of time and in that people die again. Hence we refer to them as ‘resuscitations’. The resurrection of Jesus, however, is different. Jesus was raised in a transformed sense. As such, the resurrection of Christ serves as a prequel, an early showing, of what the OT points toward.

When questioned about marriage Jesus notes that there will be no marriage in heaven (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). At the resurrection we will be like Jesus is now (1 John 3:2), having flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) but not subject to the present limitations (Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:42ff.) no sexual function. The angels have no physical body as they are spiritual and not physical beings. Hence we may take Jesus as meaning we will retain similarities to what we are now and be enhanced to include similar to the angels.

As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does He transcend the male gender He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not continue according to what we presently understand it to mean. What that means is ultimately a guess as we cannot speak for certain about the resurrection body.

It seems that the way I put this initially led several people to take this as meaning that I reject the masculinity of Jesus. I don’t. This is not a rejection of His masculinity but rather the recognition that He was not merely resuscitated but actually transformed into humanity 2.0.

In the original paragraph, the one being quoted as a reference the evils of emergent and postmodern hermeneutics (something I’ve never personally laid hold of, but anyway), I said the following:

“As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as S/He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does S/He transcend the male gender S/He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not.”

My usage here of “S/He” was to emphasise that His ongoing humanity differsf rom our current maleness and masculinity.

I, along with many others, take it to mean that our current order is not the order of tomorrow. If we are going to be physical beings who’re like the angels, neither given nor taken in marriage, it follows that sex and procreation – as we know it now – are not part of the coming economy (Tim Victor: 05/11/08 ).Jesus was physically raised from the dead and transformed and glorified. What He is now we will one day be too. What that is, we don’t fully know. What do we take from Jesus saying that we will be like the angels, neither given nor taken in marriage?

 

The metaphorical use of language in Scripture

Scripture uses a number of literary devices to communicate truth to us – poetry, narrative, legal, prose, metaphor, parable, etc. When speaking about Godde Scripture uses metaphorical and analogous language. For example, is also referred to as a she-bear (Hosea 13:6-8), a rock and a fortress (Psalm 31:13), and S/He is referred to in parental terms in the same sense.

Though the OT uses both masculine and feminine (Psalm 131:2; Isaiah 42:14; 46:3-4; 49:15; 66:13; Hosea 13:6-8; Jeremiah 31:20) references to God the vast majority of references to Godde in the masculine are found in the NT. No reference to God as Mother is found in the NT.

The concept of Godde as Father is used in four distinct senses in Scripture (JD Douglass God in New Bible Dictionary 3^rd Edition 1996 pp. 418-420):

• Creational Fatherhood of humanity in general (Heb.12:9; 16:22)
• Theocratic Fatherhood between Godde and the Jewish people (Exod.4:22-23; Mal.1:6; cf. 2:10; Is.64:8)
• Generative Fatherhood between Father and Son (John 20:17)
• Adoptive Fatherhood of those who come to faith in Christ (Gal.3:26; John 1:12-13; Rom.8:17; John 8:44).

The reference to the church in the feminine is one example of the metaphorical use of language. The church is referenced as the bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2). Though Paul is here speaking to a particular group of people we may safely understand this to reference the church universal. Here both the men and women, plural, are referred to in the singular, as a bride. Metaphorical language is being used to describe the eschatological fulfilment of the relationship between Christ and the Corinthians and by implication all the church. Surely no one believes that the metaphorical use of language here make males into females or the plurality and diversity of the individuals comprising the church universal into a single individual woman?

Kresel makes the following statement:

When the Torah and liturgy speak of G-d’s mercy, the usual metaphor is of G-d as Father. Certainly it is true that the quality of mercy is maternal as well, but the important lesson is the parental metaphor, not the gender. To make an issue over the grammar is to miss the point entirely. A person would learn far more about the Nature of G-d by contemplating the intangible elements of the metaphor, such as the relationship between parent and child and the characteristic of mercy in general. Stretching our minds to envision a reality beyond the physical will bring us closer to G-d.

When Godde is spoken of in Scripture in ways that we can understand it is usually in referential and analogous terms “the ineffible one may be understood as a parent, a father, a mother, a fortress, a healer, etc.”. None of these terms are seeking to define Godde but rather to describe a relational experience. The usage of male and female imagery for Godde does not make Godde one or the other and especially does not make Godde primarily male with one or two very secondary female elements. Rather, the language usage here is metaphorical.

The Fatherhood of Godde does not make Godde male just as being the Bride of Christ does not make males into females.

Gender Inclusivity and Objections to It 

 Kimbrough notes the trend toward gender-inclusive language in our culture. Though he speaks specifically of a North American context toward gender inclusivity this is relevant to us in South Africa too.

To answer this I’m going to quote another post related to pastoring:

The meaning, connotation, and nuance of language often change from one historical period to another…

In twentieth century North America, a social revolution is taking place for women which has initiated concerns in the religious community for inclusive language about God, the assembly of faith, and humankind as a whole. One such concern has to do with the use of the masculine pronouns, “he,” “him,” and “his,” when referring to God in Scripture, liturgy, and general speech. It must be clear that this is a concern which our social context brings to the language of Scripture. However, one must move from Scripture and its language base outward to our time, not merely transplant one language base with another. Otherwise, one bypasses completely the history of language and ideas. The contemporary inclusive language argument too easily assumes, for example, that all third person masculine singular pronoun references to God in the Hebrew scriptures imply the opposite of “she”; that is, that the use of masculine pronouns infers God is male. If this is so, we are forced to decide whether God’s “maleness” is a linguistic accident, a peculiarity of the Hebrew language, or a specific intention of the Hebrew writers. But the question simply goes away when we realize that there is no philological evidence that the writers of the Hebrew scriptures intended the opposite of female by the use of third person masculine singular pronouns.

There is no neuter pronoun in Hebrew. Therefore, God is never referred to as “it.” In spite of the use of the plural form of ‘Elohim (”God”) with singular pronouns, the Hebrew writers did not characteristically refer to the God of Israel as “they,” for this would have had antimonotheistic implications. So, the singular pronoun expresses, at most, a monotheistic concern.

All language for God, including pronouns, is symbolical, albeit highly meaningful and divinely revealed. Symbolical language is used when the reality cannot be fully expressed. Some such language reveals more about God in the Scriptures than other language. What do the third person masculine singular pronouns reveal about God? To answer “Nothing” would be misleading, since they are a part of the language and shape the overall language picture one receives in reading. But to assume that they present a false representation of God as male is untenable.

This shift in society is important and reflects something of the intent of Scripture, which addresses male dominance and continuously lends rights to women that they don’t have in the OT or NT context. In light of the gender progressiveness of Scripture I find it odd that contemporary evengelical Christians, smug in their theological correctness, continue to object to Scriptures teaching.

I don’t think I could say it better than Austine Cline so I’ll just quote him verbatim instead on the Christian objection to gender inclusive references:

If the use of “he” were genuinely the non-problem that believers so often portray it, then they wouldn’t mind if people used “she” instead. Female pronouns are indeed used in reference to persons, so they don’t suffer from the same alleged drawbacks as the use of “it” does. Female pronouns should be no more or less of a problem than male pronouns, but so many believers still object when they are used. Not all object, to be sure, but many do — and with great indignation.

Such anger makes little sense unless, on some level, perhaps people really do imagine God to be male and are offended at the idea of a male God being portrayed as female. Another possibility may be that they really do think that God is genderless, but regard male portrayals as positive or neutral while female portrayals are negative.

Either way, the reactions suggest prejudice against women, thus lending credence to the argument that continued references to God as male are simply part of a larger situation in which religion serves to perpetuate stereotypes about and discrimination against women. Arguably, gender-neutral language about God would serve to reduce the prevalence of both stereotypes and discrimination, goals which should be important for religious organizations.

 

 

Male domination and female subordination are images tightly woven into Western cultures, both religious (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) and secular (Greek, Roman and Enlightenment). The re-thinking of male and female must begin with these roots, with our religious and philosophical traditions that underlie “how the world works.” For even as women have gained greater power in many religious organizations, the fundamental image of God/the divine as male has not changed.

Despite the acceptance of ordination for women (in some traditions), this change should not be mistaken for the real revolution that still must cake place at a deeper level; the fundamental acceptance of females as equal to males in the very nature of humankind a nature established and blessed by God/the divine.

Exploring male dominance challenges religious educators and leaders to ask tough questions. These questions become difficult and upsetting as they go to the very nature of divinity and how it is reflected in social and political relations. We may start out asking questions about male images in the media or in society at large but in the religious community we have some deeper work to do:

• What does it mean to call God “father?” Why is it unsettling to call God “mother?”
• What is the implicit message in praying for “mankind?”
• What is the continued impact of hymns or prayers that focus on male images of leadership and divinity?
• How does the image of God as male reinforce and perpetuate the dominance of males and the subordination of females in everyday personal relationships and the very structures of society?

Implications for us

There are a number of implications here for us:

1. Our primary point of departure ought to be Scripture and not the culture of the church and exegeting Scripture requires distinguishing between Scripture, tradition and contemporar context. Primacy must be placed on Scripture and not the mores of Christian tradition.
2. Godde cannot be understood as male alone nor can S/He be understood as female alone for both male and female, men and women, are the image of Godde.
3. Godde chose the medium of humanity, male and female, to represent Godself and makes use of both men and women as leaders and representatives.
4. Humanity, including gender and sex are created by Godde as the image of Godde.
5. That Godde chose to use male and female images of Godself means that masculine and feminine references to Godde are suitable.
6. As risen LORD Jesus continues as fully human and fully Godde; Jesus is eternally human but not eternally male.
7. The language usage of Scripure is a medium that may be considered inclusive of male and female, when the Bible references Godde in the masculine it is understood as including masculine and feminine. Remember, Hebrew has no ‘it’ and so uses ‘he’ as the default! The Scriptures clearly address male dominance, though from within a sexist framework, and continually moves toward an equality between the sexes that is not inherent in the Biblical and historical cultures. In our language, English, male-centred terms have been shown to both embody and reinforce gender biases and stereotypes. The reaction of many Christians to gender inclusive and feminine references to Godde highlights their sexism and is not faithful to the biblical revelation.
8. It is inappropriate to continue using masculine references for Godde if by doing so we are relegating feminine references to an inferior or worse, e.g. ungodly, place. It is especially in light of this that we ought to take up the contribution from our culture, the contribution of gender-inclusive language, as a vehicle for communicating Godde clearer.

It is in light of this that I chose to at first switch between the masculine and feminine in reference to Godde during the period of 1995 and 2006. In 2007 I chose to reference Godde solely using feminine references as remedial practice. From the beginning of 2008 I’ve chosen to use “Godde” instead of “God” and “Goddess” and “S/He” instead of “He” and “She”.