I accept the linguistic convenience of masculine pronous for the discussion of God, but to attribute masculinity to God or femininity for that matter is to be guilty of creating God in our own image.

I accept the linguistic convenience of the masculine pronouns in the discussion of God, but to attribute masculinity or femininity for that matter to God is to be guilty of creating God in our own image.

wikianswers.com states the following about the gender of God

The early church struggled with the question and the best answer I found was that the Greek language uses the masculine as a default and therefore God is called a “he” since He is a Spirit and is genderless (just as the angels and other spiritual beings). It would have been improper to use the word “it” since God is a person, or “she “ since it would have made God a female ( a Goddess). The personal pronoun “he” is the only one that can be used without creating theological problems. Consider the following sentence: “When a person comes in, he always sits down.” This sentence can be applied to both men and women. Modern English has tried to get rid of the default by using “he or she” or the grammatically incorrect “they.” Koine Greek was a male-oriented language, but to allow a grammatical construction, created by fallen humans, to define a theological truth is not sound hermeneutics.

The debate whether God is male echoes the KKK claim that God is white. God is not white, nor is He male, for He is not a created being. The human tendency to make God be like us in order to create a false preeminence, belongs to the sinful desire of humanity to rule and be served, instead of serve others in love and recognize them as our equals. On the other hand, If God is male, then all women are above God, since they are something God cannot be. Since God is omnipotent and nothing is impossible for Him, it is hardly a plausible claim.

This link Is God male? has some more to say on the subject also. (a snippet -

Who is God?
The Bible has a lot to say about the nature of God. God is personal and emotional. In fact, in the phrase, “God created mankind in His image,” it is generally accepted that the characteristics that distinguish us from other animals are those that reflect the nature of God. If the Bible were referring to only physical characteristics when it states that man was created in the image of God, it would not say many of the things it does about His nature. For example, the Bible states that both males and females are created in the image of God. Unless God were a hermaphrodite (having both male and female sexual organs), this phrase could not refer to purely physical characteristics. In addition, there are numerous other verses in the Bible that describe God as having non-human physical characteristics, such as feathers and wings.  Should we think of God as being an overgrown chicken? Certainly not! God is so unlike humans, that the Bible often paints word pictures to give us a glimpse of what God is like.

God in three persons
The Bible says that God exists in the form of three persons, although He is one God. These three persons are said to be the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. According to the Bible, nobody has ever seen the Father, except the Son and the angels. The Father is the fully-expressed glory of God in heaven. The Son is the image of God expressed in bodily form, who existed in eternity past as part of the Godhead, but voluntarily gave up some of his glory to come to earth as a Jewish male. In this sense, the representation of God on earth could be said to be male. Likewise, every time “The Angel of the Lord” appeared on earth in the Old Testament, He appeared as a male. Most Christian theologians interpret the appearance of God in the Old Testament as the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. The third person of the Godhead is the Holy Spirit, who works through believers, but has never appeared on earth in human form.

Is God in heaven male?
When most people think of God, they think of Him in His glory in heaven. So, the question, “Is God male” usually refers to God as He exists in heaven. The Bible always refers to God using male pronouns. Does this mean that God is physically male? In other words, does God have male sexual organs? Surprisingly, the Bible does address this question indirectly, through a number of different statements about the nature of God and what He is like. Jesus said that God is “spirit.” Although not defined extensively in the Bible, a spirit is an entity that has no physical body. After His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples that He had returned in bodily form, saying, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” If God is a spirit as the Bible says, and a spirit has no flesh or bones, then God cannot be male in physical form

Melinda Seed - 28 April 2008 08:41 PM

Quoting Antony
God made man first .. suppose for there to be something identified as male, we must have female- for there is no point classing someone (gender/sex/race/...) or something, when there is nothing comparable to it/

Antony, are women created in the image of God?

Also as a slight aside, what is the signficance of man being created before woman, the animals were created before man, so it would seem if there was some sort of a hierachy in creation order then women would be higher than men, if there was a consistent logic.

What...Melinda, of course I believe women are created in the image of God- in that they are spirit. If I offended you, I am sorry. But I don’t believe I said anything wrong?

And pardon me, but your jump to talking about “hierarchy” is quite defensive. We are all equal, but we all have different roles. And that kind of logic is faulty. It immediately presumes the new is better. Animals being before us is irrelevant- I mean what if male animals were made before female or something lol- maybe the argument would be the earlier the better- but I digress. Further, Melinda, even in the paternalistic society of the Jews, the Prophetess Miriam was almost equal to Aaron, but she did not have the priesthood. If the priest is the representative of God, a sort of “mediator”, don’t you think that an all male priesthood contributes a little to our understanding. Even if you see females had a specific duty and males had a specific duty- what makes you think that certain men were ascribed that duty?

I think the last post that explained more the problems of language (that I touched on, and others like yourself have), and I was just trying to think why would God be considered “male”. Not say that He is.

As I said, I tried justifying God as Father, as God created first a father? God came as man. to redeem mankind. He established a paternalistic order in Israel. The post above mentioned a “goddess” would be heretical? I wonder why.

But, I am not trying to say in any way that God *is* male- but that it makes sense to describe him in those terms. And Christ did call Him Abba.

Secondly, Biblically, let’s speak of 1 Cor. 11:7 and its context.

Man ..is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels…

Now I don’t bring this up to say that women are inferior! St. Paul goes on to say that “even so man also comes through women; but all things are from God”.

So, if men have the likeness of God (c.f. Genesis 1:26, 7) in that they have dominion over the earth; if men are have dominion in the theocentric society of the Israelities, would it not be safe to see that the metaphor of God being a Father is more fitting- but I agree inaccurate and still inadequate.

The thing about head covering shoes that men were still have authority over females, as personified by the emblem?

Bengel says (I don’t really agree or disagree): As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God’s face is uncovered; angels in his presence are veiled (Isa. 6:2). Man’s face is uncovered; woman in his presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, by its indecorousness, offend the angels. She by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought therefore, so be the more careful not to offend them....By rejecting the emblem of subjection, she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels.

I don’t understand the argument, since we all do directly communicate with God (like Prophetess Miriam, Ruth, Mary etc.). But it does ground further that God is better considered Father, rather than Mother, if women were supposedly suppose to communicate to God through men and angels? Can someone explain more about the Church fathers comments about this chapter?

Quoting Antony
What...Melinda, of course I believe women are created in the image of God-
in that they are spirit. If I offended you, I am sorry. But I don’t
believe I said anything wrong?

And pardon me, but your jump to talking about “hierarchy” is quite
defensive. We are all equal, but we all have different roles. And that kind
of logic is faulty. It immediately presumes the new is better. Animals being
before us is irrelevant- I mean what if male animals were made before female
or something lol- maybe the argument would be the earlier the better- but I
digress. Further, Melinda, even in the paternalistic society of the Jews,
the Prophetess Miriam was almost equal to Aaron, but she did not have the
priesthood. If the priest is the representative of God, a sort of
“mediator”, don’t you think that an all male priesthood contributes a
little to our understanding. Even if you see females had a specific duty
and males had a specific duty- what makes you think that certain men were
ascribed that duty?

I think the last post that explained more the problems of language (that I
touched on, and others like yourself have), and I was just trying to think
why would God be considered “male”. Not say that He is.

As I said, I tried justifying God as Father, as God created first a father?
God came as man. to redeem mankind. He established a paternalistic order in
Israel. The post above mentioned a “goddess” would be heretical? I wonder
why.

But, I am not trying to say in any way that God *is* male- but that it
makes sense to describe him in those terms. And Christ did call Him Abba.

I’m not in the least bit offended by views that disagree with my own, just trying to understand exactly what you are saying and follow through the logic as it wasn’t very clear to me, at least.

And that kind
of logic is faulty. It immediately presumes the new is better

I totally agree and that was my problem with your initial post and to my reading you are repeating it here

I tried justifying God as Father, as God created first a father

This sentence is making a case for God as father on the basis of order of creation.  You are asserting that “old” is more God like, how is that logic any more sustainable than “new is better”? 

If the priest is the representative of God, a sort of
“mediator”, don’t you think that an all male priesthood contributes a
little to our understanding.

No, one might just as well say that God must be Jewish because the OT priests were all Jewish.
I do not believe in the Priest as the representative of God, Jesus opened the way for us to approach God directly, hence doing away with the idea of Priest as mediator, so the traditions of the old Covenant do not contribute to my understanding of how I should relate to God now.

Hmmm...but God created man for His glory, and then created woman to accompany him at first.

Secondly, in the new covenant, the presbytery was clearly male-dominated, with females serving only as deaconesses.

You committ a logical fallacy by using this type of argument:
1) God makes men priest, God might have a reason, God must be man
2) God chooses Jewish people to be choosen, God might have a reason, God must be Jewish.

Firstly, God does not change, so the old covenant should still, and always will give valuable insights (if understood still in the context of the new covenant). You agree that the new covenant is superior, and should make our basis, but you cannot understand the new covenant without the old. For instance, you would lose most of the NT because it makes references to prophesies, and you would not understand what in the world NT was fulfilling?

Secondly, I will humour that chain of argument. We have been told why God chose the Israelities out of all the tribes of the earth, and we do know why God still gave and gives grace to the Gentiles. Understanding the Jewish people would still give insights to God, though. I don’t disagree. You thought that was outrageous. Something about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob should give us understanding about God, since He established a covenant with these patriarchs.

Even in Christian thought Melinda, we see that the fathers in the family are to emulate Christ, having to lay their lives for the family and wife. And that the wife must submit to the husband, as the church to Christ. These roles surely must contribute to our understanding of God role- if our relationship to Christ is how we are in a relationship with the Father.

I sound like a chauvinist, don’t I? But such labels don’t help when trying to seek out the truth. My mum is a professional. I am looking for a wife in my field. I love speaking to intelligent women, and hearing their ideas and I know that they have as much to contribute as men. But in the role of a family, it is undeniable that the model presented to us in the NT gives a clue to the family of the universe.

Perhaps, I am trying to say argue how God is a “Father” as oppose to the role of “Mother” more than a “man”. as oppose to “woman” The latter is not helpful to me, for the reasons that there is no woman god, and God is spirit and has no body in essence. But the former is more significant, because our relationship with our parents is invaluable to understanding God.

Christ uses parables such as the prodigal son to illustrate as much. Also, many of the famous atheists in history suffered abuse or had some bad relationship with their father.

God bless.

Antony it seems to me you are using a circular logic to base your view of God based on gender roles and then using that view of God to justify your view on gender roles.  It can be argued that gender roles are mandated in the bible but I don’t think the case is very strong to use the gender roles that God has created to try to tell us something about God, that is just not biblical.

I’m not really interested in discussing gender roles, or whether or not you sound like a chauvinist (I didn’t think that btw, merely misinformed).  I suggest that you start a new thread if you want to talk about these issues, my interest was in people’s view of a male/female or genderless God.

So I’ll bow out of this discussion unless it gets back on track.

Am I incorrect in saying that Roman Catholics have a goddess in heaven. Mother Mary.

I wonder whether she was given that role by men (priests), to give women someone to relate to, rather than God the Father?

Are some Anglicans desiring a mother goddess to relate to, because they are in favour of women’s rights?

As my earlier post indicated, the sex of God will be manufactured by us sinful people, wanting God to be like us; and not someone who is incomprehensible in all His greatness and His power.

I think it is wise, and Christian, to follow Jesus’ words that we relate to God as our Father. That simplifies things.

How easily we get side-tracked.  This thread was about the appropriateness or not of using gender-specific terms to refer to God.  The danger that is posed by gender-specific terms is that we then overlay gender-related attributes on God who, of course, transcends all things, is neither male nor female, and indeed is beyond analogy in the human realm - at least that final clause is a logical conclusion to be made about “god-ness”.

However, as someone earlier has rightly stated, the pronoun “it” is total inadequate because when we talk of God we are talking of a person not a thing.

I generally try to avoid gender-specific terms for God, even though there is much Biblical warrant for it, but I have no problem with the linguisitc convenience of referring to God as “he”.  I would even go further and dispute an earlier assertion in the same post I referred to that “she” is not appropriate because that would make God a Goddess.  God is not God or Goddess.  God is Yahweh.  The great I Am.  While these clearly have neither gender, they can also have either gender.  It is neither more nor less appropriate to refer to God with a masculine or a feminine pronoun.

The bottom line for this thread is, I think, that we do God a disservice when we try to limit the nature of his/her engagement with humanity in gender-specific terms.  It is making the infinite finite.  In earlier times in the church it was regarded as a heresy.

Cheers Melinda

You are wrong, Ken.  Mary may be venerated by Catholics, but not worshiped as God.  I think the comment is tawdry.

Melinda Seed - 27 April 2008 01:51 PM

Quoting Gordon

A right understanding of what it means to be a man comes about because we know that God is a Father.

Can you elucidate on that point Gordon?

How does us knowing that God is “a Father” give us a right understanding of what it means to be a man?

Sorry to be a bit slow getting back to you Melinda. I’ve been thinking about this question on and off for the last few days.

The broad outline of an answer would be that it is impossible to understand our humanity (either as male or female) without reference to God, if we accept the starting point that

“God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”

All our ideas and notions of what it means to be human have to be tested against what it means to be in the image of God. And we know that God as he is in himself is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, which language for God Jesus expressly endorses in his command to his disciples in Matthew 28:18.

If God in himself is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, it necessarily follows that he has always been like this, since before the creation of the world. That is, he is in the words of the Nicene Creed, “God the Father Almighty”, and his eternal nature as the Father is highlighted in the same creed by the statement concerning Jesus that he is ”eternally begotten of the Father”.

His Fatherhood is, in other words, intrinsic to his nature and expressed both in his eternal relationship to his Son, Jesus, and in his creation of the world. Which is why Paul of Acts 17:28 that “we are indeed his offspring” (referring to all of humanity, not just those who believe in God the Father through the Son).

Granted, the language of Fatherhood comes subsequent to God himself and his creation of the world, but before the creation of the world “I am”, and so he has always been Father.

So it follows that any application of the word ‘father’ to a male of the species has to be understood in the light of God’s Fatherhood. We earthly fathers are not the same as God the Father in every respect, but it is still legitimate to call us fathers too. A good example of how this works is when Jesus says in Luke 11:1-13:

11 What father among you, if his son asks for [4] a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

That is to say, earthly fathers are (in Jesus’ view) like the Heavenly Father in some ways; unlike him in others. But God the Father has always been God the Father, is now, and always will be.

That makes sense to me :). But the problem is if we are to understand fatherhood from the fatherhood of God, where hence do mothers understand theirs’

And you could easily apply Luke 11:11-13 to mothers....

The danger that is posed by gender-specific terms is that we then overlay gender-related attributes on God who, of course, transcends all things, is neither male nor female, and indeed is beyond analogy in the human realm - at least that final clause is a logical conclusion to be made about “god-ness”.

If this is the case why does the bible use so many gender-related analogies and metaphors for God?

I would like to caution against using our own ideas and thoughts to describe God, but when his word the bible does so, where’s the problem?

Thanks for the reply Gordon.

It seems to me that if I accept your reasoning about the relationship between descriptions of God, Godly traits and human roles, it leads me to conclude that as “fatherhood” is intrinsic to God’s nature (as opposed to “motherhood") then human fathers must be more like God than human mothers.

Have I got this right or can somebody explain to me how I can accept Gordon’s line of reasoning but conclude someting different about mothers and fathers?