Masculine God, Feminine Spirit? (Should we think of God as male or female)

John Piper, at a recent pastors conference, declared, "God has given Christianity a masculine feel." This is based, for Piper, on several things: God is revealed in the Bible in male images (king and father). The second person of the Trinity is named as "Son" and is incarnated as a man. The 12 apostles were men, and men are declared to be the heads of the church and home.

But has God really "given Christianity a masculine feel"? Or has Christianity given God a masculine feel?

Granted, there are plenty of male-oriented images, allusions, and references in Scripture that are male-oriented. (And it doesn't surprise anyone to learn that the Bible's authors are mostly if not exclusively men writing in mainly patriarchal contexts). "Father" and "Son" are unmistakably male references. The term "masculine," however, is an ambiguous, socially constructed, and culturally dependent concept. As Scot McKnight points out, the Greek word for "masculine" (andreia) never properly appears in the New Testament.

But I want to focus on another issue. Piper rests his argument on the idea that God is revealed in male terms and images. God (Yahweh) is the eternal "Father" and the eternal "Son of God" becomes incarnate as a human male in Jesus of Nazareth. What do we make of this language? Is "Father" and "Son" supposed to be interpreted literally, or do these terms denote the familiarity and intimacy of the relationship itself? Here we are flung headlong into a debate regarding the nature of religious language. Piper's literalistic hermeneutic involves a univocal view of language, whereby "Father" becomes exclusive of anything "feminine" and is used to prioritize the male over the female. It's a handy move if you want to retain patriarchy.

But is God actually gendered as male and therefore exclusively or primarily masculine (whatever that might actually mean)? Any literal ascription of gender to the eternal divine being (think "ontological Trinity") has generally been ruled quite out of bounds in Christian orthodoxy. Notions like divine simplicity, unboundedness, and incorporeality, long have prevented theologians from taking gender references to God literally.

In the incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity quite literally becomes in-fleshed in the Jewish, male body of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians rightly take joy and comfort in the particularity of the incarnation for, in Jesus, God was and is healing and reconciling the world. What is not assumed is not healed; therefore God becomes a particular human being in order to redeem humanity. The Jewish flesh of Jesus makes sense given that Jesus was to be the Messiah and his mission was to announce and embody the kingdom for Israel and on behalf of the world. But nothing suggests that the incarnation required male flesh for our salvation. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Logos became a man because, to become incarnate as a woman, and to sacrifice oneself for the world as a woman, would have been rather unsurprising and unremarkable to first-century observers. That's just what women do. But when this Jewish Rabbi willingly set aside his "rights" and his power for the salvation of humanity, he made quite an impression (Phil 2:1-11).

Furthermore, according to orthodox theology, we must be careful when conceptually transferring from the human particularity of Jesus to his divine nature. The Council of Chalcedon asserts the two natures of Jesus are related "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence." The human nature of Jesus, having the particularity of male humanity, does not imply that the divine nature of Jesus became distinctively male -- or most certainly—"masculine." The incarnation, by the logic of the creed, does not imply that "God is male." Furthermore, we should keep in mind that Jesus' male body was resurrected and ascended to God. Do we have any idea what bodily resurrection and ascension imply for gender particularity?

Also, has Piper forgotten the Holy Spirit? Irenaeus suggested memorably that the Son and the Spirit are the two hands of God in the world. If the Son causes us to think of God in terms of maleness and "masculinity" (which, again, is a constructed notion), then the Spirit might draw our attention to more "feminine" aspects of God. The Spirit (ruach in the Old Testament and pneuma in the New) suggests creative and re-creative (nurturing, sustaining, and life-giving) activities. "Ruach," in fact, is grammatically feminine. In Genesis 1, the Spirit hovers over the waters and gives life to human and animals. The Spirit re-creates the earth (Isaiah 44:3), the Spirit comforts (Jn. 14), teaches (Lk. 12:12) and heals. Images of the Spirit in the Bible include breath, wind, and wisdom (the latter is often personified in Scripture as female).

The prevalence of what could be seen as female allusions in Scripture's depiction of the Spirit led some early Christians to refer to the Holy Spirit in explicitly female language. Consider this one: "By baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, and at that moment when the priests invoke the Spirit, she opens the heavens and descends and hovers over the waters, and those who are baptized put her on" (Aphrahat's Demonstration 6:14). Several medieval theologians were rather creative with gender distinctions in the Godhead, certainly allowing for a female dimension in God. But while some early Christians were happy to speak of the Spirit as "she," the Spirit is conveniently neglected in these discussions of "God and masculinity." As Elizabeth Johnson pointed out in She Who Is, the marginalization of the Spirit in the church corresponds to the marginalization of women in the church.

So, if one wants to speak in terms of "masculine" and "feminine" traits in Scripture and in God, one should do so hesitantly. Our talk about God must always take into account the mystery of God and the anthropomorphic nature of theological language—yes, even Scripture's inspired language. To the degree that the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are helpful distinctions, the two hands of God in Jesus and the Spirit ought to inspire gender inclusivity and equality. We should not make a habit of saying that God is, in any literal sense, either male or female.

In any case, if one wants to insist that Jesus was "masculine," remember that Jesus redefines what it means to be a human, and therefore what it means to be male and female. We dare not define Jesus' "masculinity" in the image of our culture's ideals. Furthermore, if Jesus is "masculine," then let's agree that the Spirit is "feminine." We, male and female together, are created in the image of the Triune God; God is not created in our image.

God has not given us Christianity with a masculine feel. Rather, Christianity has created a God with a masculine feel, to the extent we have forgotten that (1) God is not literally gendered (except in the incarnation) and (2) The Spirit and the Son—the two hands of God—suggest an inclusiveness that affirms the diversity in human creation and values equally, not just both sexes, but all configurations and combinations, in individual persons, of what society has traditionally called "feminine" and "masculine."

-- Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Lead Faculty of Christian Thought, Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN). He researches and writes on issues related to the intersection of theology, philosophy, and culture

Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".

One reason would be God's revelation of Himself, through Jesus Christ, as "Father." Clearly the distinction was important enough to Jesus that he used a word with gender (in the grammatical sense) rather than "parent," "ancestor," "progenitor," or another word of neuter gender.

A non-Christian believer in God, of course, would probably not find this point very relevant!

> I would submit to you that the only consistent threat to
> the faith is a lack of Biblical literacy.

With that I can agree 100%.

But, Faith is not based on scholarly dissection of the Bible or any "system". It is rather by introspective and prayerful reading thereof that we grow in Faith. The Biblically astute will not be swayed by the signs and wonders crowd (A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign) or the cultists and false prophets.

While there were many "systematic theologian" who were champions of living Faith, and who doubtless were filled with the Spirit, there are also many who were bloody tyrants and cult leaders.

I just read the Bible. I try to do what I can understand. What I don't understand, I leave to the Holy Spirit to reveal in His Time. And He does, a little bit at a time.

Let me quote from the Pilgrim Fathers who wrote the Mayflower Compact.

It is great arrogance for any man or Church to think that he or they have so sounded the word of God to the bottom as to be able to set down precisely a Church's practices without error in substance or circumstance, and in such a way that no one thereafter may digress or differ from them with impunity.
[Emphasis mine]

From Of Plymouth Plantation, by William Bradford.

G-d does not have a body so G-d cannot be a male or a female. G-d is unseen. This is spelled out clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures.

G-d is not a MAN that He should lie,nor a mortal that He should change His mind.(Numbers 23:19)

You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens,with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the L-rd spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw NO IMAGE; there was only a voice. (Deut.4:11-12)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.