One of the great discoveries of my adult life has been that the Bible does include me, that while Victorian hymns may intone, "rise up ye men of God," or, "sons of men and angels sing," the Bible addresses both the men and the women of God. I'm thrilled that new and more accurate translations of the Bible (such as the New Revised Standard Version and the forthcoming New International Version) are using inclusive language while remaining faithful to the text.
Many people have a well-earned suspicion of those who want to use language in a way that excludes women. Years of research has shown many instances of texts being subverted by the biases of translators. A word that is translated "quietly" when describing how men ought to work is translated "in silence" when it describes how women are to worship. A word that is translated "minister" when describing a male church leader is translated "helper" when it describes a female church leader. Language has long been used to keep women in their place.
In this light, a recent cover article in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today brought some surprise and regret. The article, titled "Why God Is Not Mother," was an argument against inclusive language that focused particularly on feminine references to God. According to the author, Elizabeth Achtemeier, "The Bible's language for God is masculine, a unique revelation of God in the world."
In the introduction to the piece, the CT editors allowed that, "Fortunately most evangelical feminists are more interested in fairness than in revising names for God." How can anyone think that language is unrelated to "fairness" or justice issues? One only has to look at our society's treatment of African Americans to see that if a people's humanity can be defined away, they can be denied all their rights. Biased translations have long laid the foundation for theologies that keep women from fully participating in church life.
Why did the Christianity Today writer argue against something as healing as inclusive language? Why define God as solely masculine? Her main concern seems to be that inclusive language may be linked with goddess worship and neopaganism.
While it must be true that women involved in goddess worship use feminine language to describe their deity, it does not follow that Christians who use inclusive language are goddess worshipers. The use of feminine language for God is not necessarily a withdrawal from worshiping the Creator God--the God of the Bible. In fact, I would argue that it is an attempt to know that God more fully.
The idea that feminine language for God is "almost automatically" identified with some kind of idolatry is one that evidently was not shared by biblical writers. For example, in Isaiah 66 the prophet begins with a strong warning against idolatry. The chapter then describes how the people will be treated if they remain faithful to God. "As a mother comforts her child," God says, "so will I comfort you" (66:13).
CONCERN about the encroachment of any kind of idolatry in the church is legitimate, but envisioning God as a white male is also a form of idolatry--and one more commonly practiced. God is more than male or female, and yet encompasses what it means to be male and female. We are told in Genesis 1 that "God created humanity in God's own image; male and female God created them." Part of what this teaches us is our interdependence--our need for one another.
A pastor once reflected on Genesis 1, saying that when he looked in a mirror with his wife at his side, he more closely reflected God's image than when he saw only himself. This is also true of the church--as men and women together we represent God to the world, together we become Christ's body. We want to affirm and celebrate God's image in each other as it appears in myriad shades of skin, age, size, and in both sexes.
We should not be seeking to eradicate male references to God from church practice. At the same time, it is worth remaining deeply suspicious of anyone who wishes to ban all female references to God from our worship.
When Quaker leader George Fox argued against those who were forbidding women to speak in the church, he said, "Is not the spirit of Christ in the female as well as in the male? Who is it that dare limit the Holy One of Israel?" Add to that, "Who dares limit the ways God has chosen to be revealed?"
In the gospels we are told that Jesus cried over Jerusalem, "How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings." We are also told that since earthly parents wouldn't give their children a stone if they asked for bread, "How much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts."
These passages describe the deep kind of love that God has for us. This is a God who is like a father to us and who is like a mother to us. This is a God who is head of a church of both sexes. We must be faithful to the whole biblical message about who God is.
Sharon Gallagher was a Sojourners contributing editor, editor of Radix magazine in Berkeley, California, and adjunct professor of media and women's studies at New College Berkeley when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!