A Gender-inclusive God

KrystalZ

In this post, I will argue that Christians should refer to God as gender-inclusive. My argument will be as follows:

1. If Christians should refer to God with exclusively masculine terms or feminine terms, there is an implication of gender inequality between male and female.
2. The implication of gender inequality between male and female is morally impermissible.
3. Christians should not refer to God with exclusively masculine terms or feminine terms. (1, 2 MT)
4. Therefore, Christians should refer to God with both feminine and masculine terms. (3 N)

God, in Christians’ view, is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being who creates the world and gives birth to all creatures. Hence, God is the symbol of supreme power and knowledge. If Christians only refer to God as exclusively masculine terms, then it will give female Christians the message that male has the superiority over female since it indicates that only masculine terms are qualified to be used to describe God. There will be the same implication if Christians refer to God with exclusively feminine terms. This implication of gender inequality goes with both directions and can lead to numerous problems. Above all, it’s morally impermissible to support gender inequality. Giving an implication of gender inequality to Christians can be regarded as a practice that supports gender inequality. Female Christians will receive a false and misleading message that they are inferior to male if they realize the oddness of a fixed masculine God image and vice versa. If we hope to eradicate gender inequality in our society, Christians should definitely refer to God as both masculine and feminine terms.

Some may argue that my conclusion doesn’t follow from (P3) since there is another option that Christians can refer to God without gender pronouns. In other words, Christians can call God simply “God” and “Godself.” However, this will lead us to several problems as well. If Christians refer to God without gender pronouns, they will end up representing God as more of a principle than a person as mentioned in the handouts due to the fact that most human beings now cannot conceive a genderless person as a practical matter. Gender is a socially-constructed identity and this is one of the many ways we perceive ourselves as social beings. It’s intrinsic to one’s identity but is only an identity that is defined by the society as gender and serves to explain the inherence physical and mental differences between male and female. Consequently, since there is no such a genderless and socially constructed identity, the task of conceiving a genderless person is like conceiving a person of no ethnicity or a circle of no shape, which can only be conceived as a principle without a practical corresponding matter in reality.

Possibility

↪KrystalZ

God in modern theological discourse is more of a concept, the attributes of which include ‘personal’ - in that God ‘knows, loves and relates to us all’ (David Bentley Hart). Most people find this particular attribute of God difficult to grasp unless God has some form of ‘personhood’, hence the pronoun.

So personhood as an essential attribute of God is a distortion of modern theological description, yet this mistaken assumption continues to form a fundamental part of Christian doctrine. That we can relate to God AS a person does not mean that God IS a person - but this distinction is inconsequential to practical religion (and also complicates the already contentious issue of the Trinity).

The gender problem persists from the pulpit and in Christian apologetics as a result of this assumption of personhood that is not only perpetuated by bible literalists, but also fails to be corrected in Christian doctrines - seemingly because it unnecessarily complicates a key component of Christianity: that of personally relating to God.

Of course, traditional Christianity is also run by old men with little if any understanding of women, and is institutionally resistant to change - so there is that...

Hassiar

yeah, i've been exposed to christianity a lot and ultimately decided to go with a more coherent belief system based on the holy bible itself. for example, christians will say that god is omnipresent, but then what would be the point of an angel (messenger) if god is right there to begin with? there are many other critiques based on that line, but to the o.p. i'm wondering if this post is even really directed toward somebody who claims to believe what the bible says? because this post could just as easily be directed at somebody who espouses any kind of monotheism. (unless the nt = new testament and m = gospel of matthew, but that much is quite unclear at this point) so please use some more specifics to engage the topic more.

also, the language of "inclusive" seems to be biased towards acceptance out of a grander sense of hospitality as a virtue. would somebody who disagreed therefore be considered unreasonably harsh? i have some ideas as to the topic, were it to be openly explored in a more engaging way, but i'm left looking for that point of entry at this moment.

3017amen

↪KrystalZ

I would add or edit your reasoning to include one or two propositions relating to Spirituality.

For example, early Christianity in the OT suggested God is Spirit (also see, Gnosticism & Gospel of Thomas), and in NT/Gospel of John. Take a look-see into those... .

Pfhorrest

unless the nt = new testament and m = gospel of matthew, but that much is quite unclear at this point — Hassiar

OP wrote "MT" and "N", which are shorthand for modus tollens and negation, the rules of inference used in the argument.

On which point

↪KrystalZ

, the negation of "refer to God with exclusively masculine terms or feminine terms" isn't "refer to God with both feminine and masculine terms" because there are terms besides masculine and feminine; one could refer to God as "it" or "they", for instance, and comply with the edicts of line 3, while never using "he" or "she" and so violating line 4.

hachit

↪KrystalZ

nicene creed. Then Galatians 3:28. That is all

Ferzeo

↪KrystalZ

I disagree with your first premise. To counter this implication, I would refer to the Garden of Eden. In the Garden, Eve refers to God as masculine, but there is commonly believed to have been no immorality in the Garden. So, my counterexample would run something like this:

1. There was no morally impermissible behavior in the Garden of Eden.
2. If God is referred to in exclusively masculine terms, then there is morally impermissible behavior.
3. God was referred to in exclusively masculine terms in the Garden of Eden.
4. Therefore, there was morally impermissible behavior in the garden of Eden. (2,3 MP)

I used your natural conclusion, that referring to God in masculine terms LEADS to morally impermissible behavior because I agree that implications of gender inequality are morally impermissible. From this argument, we can see a clear contradiction in the first premise and the conclusion. I also understand that many people would argue that Genesis is not to be taken literally and so there was no actual “garden”, but even if it is a metaphor for a time before sin, the contradiction remains. The fact that God is referred to in masculine terms, before the Fall of humanity, shows that these morally impermissible conclusions are not caused by how we refer to God. You also say that “gender is a socially-constructed identity and this is one of the many ways we perceive ourselves as social beings” and heavily imply that gender how we identify ourselves. Throughout all of scripture, God is only referred to in masculine terms, even when identifying himself. Furthermore, Jesus calls God “our Father” and never “our Mother”. My counterexample can be used again here, by replacing “the Garden of Eden” with “Jesus”.

There are, again, people who could say that the bible should not be taken literally or that Jesus was just doing what was culturally acceptable. However, I think that because of the overwhelming number of times God is depicted as masculine and the fact that people all throughout the Bible go against cultural norms, that these two objections hold little water.

I like sushi

↪KrystalZ

A hard sell given the scripture and the simple fact that men and women are actually different in some respects. Of course we should strive for equal opportunities, but the simple truth is that we differ and cannot all be seen, or treated, on equal terms after chance plays out.

There are some ‘Chiristian’ sects (‘cults’) that talk of God and his Wife. I’d also be careful about conflating man and woman with masculine and feminine - Greta Thunberg, as Zizek points out, displays some clear masculine traits (he actually used the term ‘toxic masculinity’).

Undoubtedly The Bible displays women as subservient to me, over all. As far as I know all religious ideas show a clear understanding that men and women are different - some embrace pantheons that have powerful male and female roles, but most generally project men as the ‘ruler’ (which appears to make sense give human history and the rule of kings, emperors, etc.,.)

CFR73

↪KrystalZ

Hi!

Thanks for your argument, this is very interesting. I worry though that the conclusion does not follow from premise 3, like you mentioned, and that there is more that is required to be demonstrated in order to arrive at your conclusion.
It seems that we cannot infer that we should prefer your conclusion, using both masculine and feminine pronouns to refer to God, simply because we have arrived at a conclusion that we should not exclusively use one over the other. All premises 1 through 3 show is that we should not exclusively use masculine or feminine pronouns, but it does not give us which option we should prefer. We could use both, true, but we could also use neither, or we could even use a different set of pronouns or introduce new genders other than masculine or feminine. I have also heard it argued, and quite well at that, that God himself is genderless but using both masculine and feminine pronouns are the best way we can communicate and relate to God, a similar but still different conclusion to yours.
This is all just to say that there seems to be several options not accounted for in your argument and that it takes an invalid inference from 3 to 4.
While I have given a few different of these options specifically, the specifics are besides the point. It is clear that there are indeed more options than just using both masculine and feminine pronouns and because of this the argument should show why we should prefer that option over the others. Overall, I like where the argument is headed, but I do think that it requires more than it currently gives and would be interested to see a more encompassing and compelling argument for why we should refer to God with both masculine and feminine pronouns as are primary way of communicating to and about God.

A Gender-inclusive God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions