Who is God and Why Does it Matter?

Mara Stoll
12-7-19
Christian Doctrine
 Ever since the feminist theology movement, largely tied to women’s liberation, there

have been discussion of the use of male language for God. For many, it was thought that male

language should be eliminated completely. There were others that thought that in order to change

the way people think about God, both male and female language should be used. Of course, there

are also those who believe that the use of any language other than male for God is unacceptable.

All of these are perfectly understandable standpoints for a person with a relationship for God to

have, but which one is best for everyone? While there is no way to make everyone happy, there

is a chance that everyone gets an opportunity to hear language that reflects their experience of

God.

What’s the Big Deal with God Language Anyway?

This issue is fundamentally a debate over the Doctrine of God. Who is God, and what is

he like? There are many possible facets to this question, however theologians tend to focus on a

few key features. God is defined as both transcendent and imminent. Transcendency is God

being far away and unknowable while immanency God being close to us and knowable. While

this is a completely paradoxical concept to a non-Christian, this kind of definition is par for the

course for the everyday Christian. Next to the Doctrine of the Trinity, this kind of idea hardly

requires any mental gymnastics.

Beyond transcendency and immanency, there is an even more fundamental question.

How does God reveal God’s nature to us? There are four general options for this called the

Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The four corners are scripture, tradition, experience and reason. These
are categories used to describe how Christians learn about God.1 If one solely uses tradition and

scripture to understand God it can be difficult to see God as anything other than male. However,

denominations like the United Church of Christ started using reason along with their own

experiences to understand God in a different way. If you study the bible carefully, there are

places where God has more nurturing, feminine traits that can back up a vision of God as female,

which, combined with reason and experience, create a whole new image of who God is.

Now where does this debate come from? What’s the big deal about God as father? As

women began to make names for themselves as theologians, and certain churches started to

become more progressive, it was recognized that the way Christianity talks about masculinity

and men as superior could have contributed to the subjugation of women in society. Feminist

theology is rooted in the need to bring female issues and women themselves into the forefront of

Christianity. While there have been feminist theologians since the 17th century, they did not call

themselves such until the 1960s.2 At this point it was theorized that calling God exclusively

Father combined with misogynistic interpretations of the bible adopted by the church were

contributing to the way women are treated, so going as far to blame the high rates of violence

against women on this practice.3

Denominations, especially those more liberally leaning, heard this call for a different way

of talking about God and started developing something called inclusive language. Inclusive

language began as a way to diversify language about God in the church but has since morphed

1
Anizor, Uche. How to Read Theology: Engaging Doctrine Critically and Charitably. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.
2
V C. Phillips, “Feminist Interpretation.” In Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, edited by John
H. Hayes. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.
3
Jann Aldredge-Clanton, “Inclusive Language Is Still Important: Basics,” Christian Feminism
Today, May 1, 2018, https://eewc.com/inclusive-language-still-important/)
into an attempt to make sure that everyone of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and levels of

physical and mental abilities feels included in worship. The manner in which they have done this

when talking about God is to avoid any gendered language whatsoever in a church setting. There

have been bibles and hymnals written to reflect this philosophy that are used in many churches

within the United Church of Christ and other denominations almost exclusively. 4 This is quite a

polarizing topic that even within the UCC is met with resistance. In the 17th General Synod in

1989, the vote on a resolution to expand the inclusive language system was met with 350

endorsements and 290 oppositions which is a pretty close vote for something that is so prevalent

throughout the denomination. The solution to the volume of nay-sayers was to focus on

providing resources to clergy instead of suggesting that congregations expand their use of

inclusive language.5 General Synods are largely attended by lay-people, so it is interesting to

note their reactions when faced with an issue that is not they are not vocal about in their own

churches. They are happy to have it implemented in their churches by the pastors but aren’t as

interested in directly influencing its use within their own churches.

Opposing Viewpoints:

There are a variety of opinions on Father language for God across Christianity as a

whole. There are some who think that both male and female language should be used while

others think that while perhaps using female language for God is acceptable, the content of the

Bible should not be changed to include a more feminist message. Karen Leigh Stroup expresses

4
Craig D Atwood, Frank S Mead, and Samuel S Hill, The Handbook of Denominations in the
United States, 13th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010))
5
“General Synod Inclusive Language.” United Church of Christ. Accessed December 8, 2019.
https://www.ucc.org/worship/inclusive-language/general-synod-inclusive.html.
the first of these opinions in her article entitled “God our Mother: a Call to Truly Inclusive God

Language”. She begins by discussing the status of inclusive language as it is typically used in

church settings. She described what was discussed above: the de-gendering of God. She then

goes on to make a different suggestion: that both genders be used in worship. This suggestion is

not just made on a whim, she has a very well-developed reason for this. Christians have been

brought up to think of God as male only. Stroup hypothesizes that the only way to change this

perception of God is to introduce people to God as female during worship. When neutral words

are used, people just fill it in with whatever pronoun they’re used to in their mind (most likely

masculine) and therefore are not challenged in any way. Additionally, Stroup suggests that it

might be necessary to use female language more that male at first to counteract preconceived

notions of an exclusively male God. 6

One of her other main points it to mention the metaphorical nature of calling God Father.

By doing so we do not say God is father in a literal sense. God does not embody all of the

characteristics of fathers we have encountered in our lives but is a father to us in as perfect a way

possible. Because of western society, when we speak of God as Father, we are emphasizing

certain masculine characteristics of God but when we put more emphasis on these specific

characteristics instead of the fullness of God we commit a kind of idolatry. The ultimate goal of

using bother genders when speaking about God is not to create two gods, male and female, but to

create an image of one full, all-encompassing God who is all things combined. 7

6
Karen Leigh Stroup, “God Our Mother: a Call to Truly Inclusive God Language,” Lexington
Theological Quarterly27, no. 1 (January 1992): pp. 10-15)
7
Karen Leigh Stroup, “God Our Mother: a Call to Truly Inclusive God Language,” Lexington
Theological Quarterly27, no. 1 (January 1992): pp. 10-15)
 On the other hand, there are those who are concerned by the lengths gone to to create a

more feminine image of God, specifically when this involves altering scripture. Ted Peters in his

article “On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible” shares these concerns. He has no problem with

making women feel more included in theological spaces but has an issue with changing the

Doctrine of God as presented in the Bible to do so. He also does not agree that doing so is

actually helpful for women. He is specifically concerned with the Inclusive Language Lectionary

and its efforts in this area. Peters begins his argument by taking on the idea that male God

religions contribute to the patriarchy. Actually, he notes, in societies where goddesses were the

main objects of worship, the patriarchy was just as prevalent. So, it can be hypothesized that the

origins of the patriarchy are not rooted in religion. He also takes issue with the idea that adding

more metaphors to the description of God will create a gender-equality that humanity can copy.

He says that by making God more transcendent we really create a God who is ineffable and

therefore can’t be copied. If you believe that humans reflect what they think their God does,

creating something that is able to be imitated, humans will just continue to do what they always

have done. 8

Peters would like to tell us that there is plenty of equality and freedom from oppression in

the Bible already. He would say that if we really study the God who raised Jesus from the dead

and discover the relationship between God and Jesus, and in turn humanity, we would see a God

who is loving a nurturing, without adding feminine language. By no means is Peter supporting

those who want to go back to the oppressiveness of the old patriarchy, he is simply calling into

question the methods in which feminist theologians have attempted to end the patriarchy

8
Ted Peters, “‘On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible,",” Currents in Theology and Mission27,
no. 1 (October 1986): pp. 276-284)
theologically. He would like us to recognize that we create our own sense of right and wrong.

We have the ability to change the way we behave all on our own without changing God. There

was no way for there to be feminist language in the Bible at the time it was written. Such things

didn’t exist. However even at the time, Jesus was treating women with a dignity that was wholly

unprecedented. That is the kind of thing we can look for in the Bible as proof that the God

Christians already follow is equal towards women and men. There is a responsibility in

recognizing humanity’s shortcomings in interpreting Jesus’ attitude towards women. To change

what the bible said would be to pretend that we always got it right.9

What Does This Look Like in 2019?

I have been a part of two very different UCC churches throughout my life, both with their

merits and respective issues, and Inclusive Language has been a very important theological issue

for me because of it. The church I grew up in was a relatively traditional German church in the

suburbs of St Louis. This church was an Evangelical Reformed Church founded in 1912, some

40 years before the merger occurred to create the UCC. Although founded on relatively liberal

theology, the church really had not progressed a lot in their theology even in the early 2000s

when I was developing my foundational theology as a child. All of this is to say that I learned

about God as a man. We sang and talked about God as he in worship and I never felt excluded by

this. I learned to love the traditional language of the hymns and scripture and that became a huge

part of how I felt the reverence and awe of being in the presence of God.

9
Ted Peters, “‘On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible,",” Currents in Theology and Mission27,
no. 1 (October 1986): pp. 276-284)
 As I grew older my theology became much more progressive, but I never questioned the

gender of the God I worshipped. I certainly don’t have an issue with those who see him as

anything other than male, but it just isn’t my experience of God. When I was 14 my family

moved to a different UCC church in the St Louis area. This one is vastly more progressive in its

theology and along with that, uses inclusive language. The scripture is inclusive and modernized,

and so are the hymns. Over the past few years I have really struggled with this as it relates to my

faith. While I know there are a lot of factors involved, since being at this church my personal

connection to God has faded to almost nothing. I find it difficult to connect to a God who has no

relation to me. How do you feel protected and loved by an it?

It may come as no surprise, then, that I agree with Stroup. While I would not choose to

call my God “she” or “Mother”, I understand why it is necessary to introduce that language into

our church settings. For a lot of people, calling God “Father” leaves out half of the picture and is

unfulfilling to them. I know that a large part of the reason my church uses inclusive language is

because there are those in the congregation for whom calling God “Father” is painful because of

past personal experiences. I think what Stroup has to say about metaphors and idolatry is very

helpful here. To call God “Father” is not to call him “your physical father”. He does not embody

your father and treat you the way you father did, just as you would not expect my father to be

exactly like your father. God may embody some fatherly traits, and that is what we are choosing

to focus on in this moment by using that language.10 It is always interesting to me how these

sensitivities win out, when, while not psychologically triggering, it is completely unfulfilling to

me and others to hear God referred to as God and nothing else.

10
Karen Leigh Stroup, “God Our Mother: a Call to Truly Inclusive God Language,” Lexington
Theological Quarterly27, no. 1 (January 1992): pp. 10-15)
 Peters also makes some valid points. I really don’t think that reference to God as “Father”

in the Bible is the origins of the patriarchy. There was patriarchy long before there was the Bible.

People construct their religions based on their social norms, not the other way around. Jesus has

been interpreted to devalue women because that is how the people doing the interpreting thought.

I also agree that to teach only a Bible that has been altered to add in feminine characteristics is to

deny the equal and loving God that already existed. It also denies some of the brutal history that

misogynistic interpretations of the Bible have caused. There are some things in the Bible that

were absolutely products of its time that need to be acknowledged and taught as what they were.

We cannot bring children up in a bubble of perfect theology that doesn’t acknowledge the

church’s history.11

However, in liturgy, and even hymns, I understand the need to include female imagery of

God because that is how some people understand God and they deserve to hear that in worship. I

think that can be done without altering the entire message or text of the piece. I think it would

also be wonderful if new hymns and worship songs could be written with this in mind, so it

doesn’t feel like the pronouns are just being substituted to make a statement and appease people.

As progressive as I am, I also have a deep love for liturgical and musical tradition. I think there

is a beauty that can’t be replicated in the old language of the hymns and older translations of

scripture. There are of course many new songs and texts that I love as well, but I don’t see the

need to throw out all of the old stuff. In a church that is so forward thinking and it so radical in

its acceptance of outsiders, it is so curious to me that they are so frightened of offending people

that they don’t really cater to anyone’s understanding of God.

11
Ted Peters, “‘On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible,",” Currents in Theology and Mission27,
no. 1 (October 1986): pp. 276-284)
 What does all of this mean for the future of the Church? Where should they net out on the

“Father” language spectrum? The answer is complicated and could very well vary from church to

church. There are varying reasons to introduce female language into churches, but I think it

could be valuable for all. For some churches, like my first church, it could be helpful to introduce

a small amount of it to shake things up and get them to think about God in a new way. For others

like my current church, it could be necessary to reintroduce all genders in relation to God. There

are already those who think of God as “Mother” and it could be really validating to hear that in a

church setting, but to also hear “Father” so ensure that everyone has a well-rounded image of

God in their heads.

Personally, while combined with other factors, it has become clear that this church is no

longer the right fit for me, and there is a strong chance that it never was. Thankfully, this time

my family and I are on the same page, and perhaps we can embark on this journey together this

time around. It will be a difficult search to find a church that is progressive enough theologically

but handles liturgical language in a way that is fulfilling for all of us. I hope that as someone

involved in church leadership when I’m older, I can help influence churches to change the way

they think about inclusive language so that what they are doing is actually inclusive and invites

everyone to express their image of their God.

 Bibliography

Aldredge-Clanton, Jann. “Inclusive Language Is Still Important: Basics.” Christian Feminism

Today, May 1, 2018. https://eewc.com/inclusive-language-still-important/.

Atwood, Craig D, Frank S Mead, and Samuel S Hill. “United Church of Christ.” and “Disciples
of Christ.” In The Handbook of Denominations in the United States. 13th ed. Nashville:
Abingdon , 2010.

Anizor, Uche. How to Read Theology: Engaging Doctrine Critically and Charitably. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Barth, Karl, and G. T. Thomson. Dogmatics in Outline. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

Bondi, Roberta C. “ ‘BE NOT AFRAID: PRAYING TO GOD THE FATHER.’” Modern
Theology9, no. 3 (July 1993).

“General Synod Inclusive Language.” United Church of Christ. Accessed December 8, 2019.
https://www.ucc.org/worship/inclusive-language/general-synod-inclusive.html.

Green-McCreight, Kathryn. “When I Say God, I Mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit: On the
Ecumenical Baptismal Formula.” Pro Ecclesia6, no. 3 (1997): 289–308.

Feldmeier, Reinhart C. “God (Names and Epithets).” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception, edited by Sebastian C. Fuhrmann and Frauke C. Uhlenbruch, 10:443–45.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. London: Macmillan, 1952.

McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press, 1996.

Peters, Ted. “‘On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible,".” Currents in Theology and Mission27,
no. 1 (October 1986): 276–84.

Phillips, V C. “Feminist Interpretation.” In Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, edited by John

H. Hayes. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Ramshaw, Gail. “De Divinis Nominibus: the Gender of God.” Worship56, no. 2 (March 1982):
117–31.

Russell, Letty. “Inclusive Language and Power.” Religious Education, Yale Divinity School, 10
July 2006, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0034408850800407.
Stroup, Karen Leigh. “God Our Mother: a Call to Truly Inclusive God Language.” Lexington
Theological Quarterly27, no. 1 (January 1992): 10–15.

TRANS Priests for Equality. The Inclusive Bible: the First Egalitarian Translation. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009.

Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1995.

Young, Frances M. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM Press, 1992.