Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters2
The central task of theology, talking about God and discussing the nature of true talk about God, is difficult. How can one express the ineffable? One cannot hold the infinite within human language. Theologians and Pastors have used a number of approaches to their impossible task.
The central task of theology, talking about God and discussing the nature of true talk about God, is difficult. How can one express the ineffable? One cannot hold the infinite within human language. Theologians and Pastors have used a number of approaches to their impossible task.3
One approach, the Via Negativa, proceeds by saying what God is not, which can only ever be part of an answer, because God is obviously more than not-something. This argument says that since human language fails, let us not have pictures of God based on what humans are like. Much classical theology did this, stripping away what is inadequate before true talk of God can begin. The method that interests us here, by contrast, is analogy. An analogy says that the thing we do not understand is like something we do understand. It takes things in creation as pictures that “illustrate” aspects of the creator. The Bible and our worship songs are full of such picture language.
One approach, the Via Negativa, proceeds by saying what God is not, which can only ever be part of an answer, because God is obviously more than not-something. This argument says that since human language fails, let us not have pictures of God based on what humans are like. Much classical theology did this, stripping away what is inadequate before true talk of God can begin. The method that interests us here, by contrast, is analogy. An analogy says that the thing we do not understand is like something we do understand. It takes things in creation as pictures that “illustrate” aspects of the creator. The Bible and our worship songs are full of such picture language.4
As well as lords and masters, lions, lambs and rocks, “father” is a popular picture; Jesus used this picture often. It also answers deep needs within the human psyche. Most of us comfortably call on “our father”, though the words do have problems. A human father may wound his son or daughter’s capacity to use this language. He may have abused, been absent for work, or separated from the child’s mother. The idea of authoritarian fathers, which lingers in our culture, also limits ways people can relate to God. Some fathers are distant in manner and yet stern in disciplining their children. These fathers present a poor picture of God’s tender and intimate love.
As well as lords and masters, lions, lambs and rocks, “father” is a popular picture; Jesus used this picture often. It also answers deep needs within the human psyche. Most of us comfortably call on “our father”, though the words do have problems. A human father may wound his son or daughter’s capacity to use this language. He may have abused, been absent for work, or separated from the child’s mother. The idea of authoritarian fathers, which lingers in our culture, also limits ways people can relate to God. Some fathers are distant in manner and yet stern in disciplining their children. These fathers present a poor picture of God’s tender and intimate love.5
If “father” is part of normal human experience, understanding the meaning of “mother” is an even more universal for humans. Yet few of us are familiar and comfortable with talk of God as our “heavenly mother”. We are so unfamiliar with the motherly language for God in the Bible or the writings of early theologians, that we often explain it away or deny it. Fifty years ago, Christians rarely talked of God as mother. The great CS Lewis assumed the very idea was shocking, and the mere thought sufficient to demonstrate that women could not be priests (as Anglicans name their pastors), since they could not “represent” a God whose name was “father”.1
If “father” is part of normal human experience, understanding the meaning of “mother” is an even more universal for humans. Yet few of us are familiar and comfortable with talk of God as our “heavenly mother”. We are so unfamiliar with the motherly language for God in the Bible or the writings of early theologians, that we often explain it away or deny it. Fifty years ago, Christians rarely talked of God as mother. The great CS Lewis assumed the very idea was shocking, and the mere thought sufficient to demonstrate that women could not be priests (as Anglicans name their pastors), since they could not “represent” a God whose name was “father”.17
The liberal feminist may promote a notion of the “Great Mother”, or speak of “Gaia,” a kind of modern Mother Earth. Evangelicals who believe that “father” alone is the biblical usage, deny all possibility of mother language, though of course people vary within these groups. One variety of liberal seeks to avoid the question, while remaining egalitarian and politically correct, by avoiding sexist language. Like the grammar checker in Microsoft Word, they reject all gender specific terms. Going further than the grammar checker, they even exclude “father” and “mother.” However, when people pray using this “PC” thinking, the prayers lack warmth and may not sound convincing, for example, “God, Godself, is the creator and sustainer of all life.” In my view, God does not create such lifeless prayers!
The liberal feminist may promote a notion of the “Great Mother”, or speak of “Gaia,” a kind of modern Mother Earth. Evangelicals who believe that “father” alone is the biblical usage, deny all possibility of mother language, though of course people vary within these groups. One variety of liberal seeks to avoid the question, while remaining egalitarian and politically correct, by avoiding sexist language. Like the grammar checker in Microsoft Word, they reject all gender specific terms. Going further than the grammar checker, they even exclude “father” and “mother.” However, when people pray using this “PC” thinking, the prayers lack warmth and may not sound convincing, for example, “God, Godself, is the creator and sustainer of all life.” In my view, God does not create such lifeless prayers!8
Some evangelicals note small signs of God being motherly or feminine while seeing both God and Christ as male. This leaves us with a male God, but a somewhat feminized male! I do not find the view satisfying. Others, rightly, preferring to risk the human end of the equation, occasionally hint timidly that God may be like a mother to us as well as our Heavenly Father.
Some evangelicals note small signs of God being motherly or feminine while seeing both God and Christ as male. This leaves us with a male God, but a somewhat feminized male! I do not find the view satisfying. Others, rightly, preferring to risk the human end of the equation, occasionally hint timidly that God may be like a mother to us as well as our Heavenly Father.10
In order to avoid some extremes of politically correct Christianity, and lacking understanding of historic and biblical background for a theologically sound talk of God as mother, many evangelicals speak of God as male. Yet there are pastoral, theological and cultural reasons to broaden our God-talk.
In order to avoid some extremes of politically correct Christianity, and lacking understanding of historic and biblical background for a theologically sound talk of God as mother, many evangelicals speak of God as male. Yet there are pastoral, theological and cultural reasons to broaden our God-talk.11
All talk of God is picture language; it cannot be literal. “No one has seen God,” as the Bible puts it.2 God the maker of universes is so far beyond the capacity of human experience and language that only metaphor and analogy can provide ways of talking about “him”. And yet all pictures have some deficiency. Picture language depends on our experiences, comparing with some aspect of life to give it the power to be useful. But sadly, many people have not had good fathering, and some fathers abuse their children. Children may grow up in one-parent families. Father may be a distant and less loving figure than mother, and some children prefer one parent more than the other! Boys may be closer to mother and girls may prefer father.3 A God who is father, not mother, risks being lopsided, and potentially unavailable to people who most need to experience divine love.
All talk of God is picture language; it cannot be literal. “No one has seen God,” as the Bible puts it.2 God the maker of universes is so far beyond the capacity of human experience and language that only metaphor and analogy can provide ways of talking about “him”. And yet all pictures have some deficiency. Picture language depends on our experiences, comparing with some aspect of life to give it the power to be useful. But sadly, many people have not had good fathering, and some fathers abuse their children. Children may grow up in one-parent families. Father may be a distant and less loving figure than mother, and some children prefer one parent more than the other! Boys may be closer to mother and girls may prefer father.3 A God who is father, not mother, risks being lopsided, and potentially unavailable to people who most need to experience divine love.12
Despite the numerical prevalence of women in most congregations, many women feel on the margins of church life. The amount of male imagery for God is not the only reason for this, but it contributes. The Bible teaches (Genesis 1:27) that God created both men and women in the image of God. Yet using almost exclusively masculine pictures of God may encourage women to feel (or fear) they are less “in God’s image”. Men have sometimes believed this.
Despite the numerical prevalence of women in most congregations, many women feel on the margins of church life. The amount of male imagery for God is not the only reason for this, but it contributes. The Bible teaches (Genesis 1:27) that God created both men and women in the image of God. Yet using almost exclusively masculine pictures of God may encourage women to feel (or fear) they are less “in God’s image”. Men have sometimes believed this.13
We cannot think or speak of God without using pictures. Even speaking of God as “creator” conjures up images of “forming mountains” or of “the hands that flung stars into space.” Yet there is a danger in picturing God, the risk of half a picture. If we speak of the divine as rock and fortress, excluding personal imagery, we risk relating to God impersonally. If we picture God as father, but not as mother, we risk relating to God asymmetrically.
We cannot think or speak of God without using pictures. Even speaking of God as “creator” conjures up images of “forming mountains” or of “the hands that flung stars into space.” Yet there is a danger in picturing God, the risk of half a picture. If we speak of the divine as rock and fortress, excluding personal imagery, we risk relating to God impersonally. If we picture God as father, but not as mother, we risk relating to God asymmetrically.15
In view of this pastoral need, we may ask why we evangelicals do not talk of God as motherly. Does some clear and strong reason prohibit this? A number of admired evangelical thinkers believe there is. Alongside the feminist argument for equality in God-talk, an opposing literature claims this is unChristian.4 Key figure Elizabeth Achtemeier, a respected evangelical biblical scholar and teacher of preaching, posed a case against speaking of God as mother.5 She claimed, along with others, that the Bible uses “father” not merely as a picture but as a name, so that to speak of God as mother speaks of another God, different from the God of the Bible.
In view of this pastoral need, we may ask why we evangelicals do not talk of God as motherly. Does some clear and strong reason prohibit this? A number of admired evangelical thinkers believe there is. Alongside the feminist argument for equality in God-talk, an opposing literature claims this is unChristian.4 Key figure Elizabeth Achtemeier, a respected evangelical biblical scholar and teacher of preaching, posed a case against speaking of God as mother.5 She claimed, along with others, that the Bible uses “father” not merely as a picture but as a name, so that to speak of God as mother speaks of another God, different from the God of the Bible.16
Below, in the section “Yahweh or Baal” in Chapter 5, I argue that her conclusion is precisely the wrong way round. Those who speak of a God who is father rather than mother talk of a different god. Baal the Canaanite god was a male figure, as were half of the gods of the pagans. The biblical God is no more male than “he”6 is female!
Below, in the section “Yahweh or Baal” in Chapter 5, I argue that her conclusion is precisely the wrong way round. Those who speak of a God who is father rather than mother talk of a different god. Baal the Canaanite god was a male figure, as were half of the gods of the pagans. The biblical God is no more male than “he”6 is female!17
2 This is quite striking in John 1:18, even though “God the only son” (Jesus) “has made him known”, it is still true that “no one has ever seen God.” (In Greek as in English “see” is used more widely of understanding and experience and not merely of visual sighting). In other words, even when God was revealed in Christ, eyewitnesses still only knew God through a picture. Even though in this case the picture is God himself in human flesh, they still could not “see God”.
2 This is quite striking in John 1:18, even though “God the only son” (Jesus) “has made him known”, it is still true that “no one has ever seen God.” (In Greek as in English “see” is used more widely of understanding and experience and not merely of visual sighting). In other words, even when God was revealed in Christ, eyewitnesses still only knew God through a picture. Even though in this case the picture is God himself in human flesh, they still could not “see God”.21
6 I will put gender-specific pronouns for God in inverted commas, indicating that, though the use of “he” is traditional for God, this implies nothing about God’s nature. “S/he” and “her/his”, or an impersonal pronoun – the worst alternative for the living God – seem clumsy. Quotation marks are intrusive, slowing reading, but this lets us examine our unrecognised prejudices.
6 I will put gender-specific pronouns for God in inverted commas, indicating that, though the use of “he” is traditional for God, this implies nothing about God’s nature. “S/he” and “her/his”, or an impersonal pronoun – the worst alternative for the living God – seem clumsy. Quotation marks are intrusive, slowing reading, but this lets us examine our unrecognised prejudices.Tags: bible, feminine, gender, god, image, mother, picture language, theology
