God's gender

[MattY]

It may feel that these questions are akin to how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. But, for some, ultimately the question is, are women, and the feminine gender expressions, created in the image of God? And it feels to me that that is a legitimate question...can we affirm female traits as just as much expressions of God's traits as male traits?

A common view in the Middle Ages was that women are, in fact, not created in God's image - only men are. This is a gross and sinful expression of male privilege and prejudice, arising from Aristotelian (pagan) biology, and should be 100% avoided in the church. Aristotle defined females as "defective" or "impotent" males because they lack the necessary "heat" to produce semen, contributing only material matter, not the active "soul" or form, in reproduction. Influenced by this, medieval scholastics debated if a female was a "defective" (misbegotten) creation, a failure to produce a male. This is obvious balderdash according to what we know now.

[JohnH]

It may feel that these questions are akin to how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. But, for some, ultimately the question is, are women, and the feminine gender expressions, created in the image of God? And it feels to me that that is a legitimate question...can we affirm female traits as just as much expressions of God's traits as male traits?

A common view in the Middle Ages was that women are, in fact, not created in God's image - only men are. This is a gross and sinful expression of male privilege and prejudice, arising from Aristotelian (pagan) biology, and should be 100% avoided in the church. Aristotle defined females as "defective" or "impotent" males because they lack the necessary "heat" to produce semen, contributing only material matter, not the active "soul" or form, in reproduction. Influenced by this, medieval scholastics debated if a female was a "defective" (misbegotten) creation, a failure to produce a male. This is obvious balderdash according to what we know now.

Which is entirely irrelevant to anything now; one might as well start discussing alchemy. None of the above makes God female.

[MattY]

It seems obvious to me that God reveals himself using male pronouns and as a father and son. But I think it's presumptuous to determine from that data that he is male in the human sense.

Jesus (who is God) was (and is, and will be) most certainly male in the human sense.

He is male in his human nature, but not according to his divine nature, which does not have a gender in the human sense. God has condescended and accommodated Himself to us, explaining Himself and His actions to us in ways that we can understand. How else could Infinity communicate and be understood by finite creatures? His greatest condescension was of course becoming a man Himself, the second person of the Trinity literally becoming human. But God Himself remains transcendent and infinite in ways that we cannot fully understand. We can get the point; for example, God is good, and we think we know what goodness means based on our experience. But God's goodness is so much greater than ours, not just in quantity (God is more good than we are), but in quality (God's goodness is different than the goodness of creatures). But His goodness is not arbitrary or completely different than ours; there is enough similarity that we can have communication between God and ourselves and get the point. Or for other analogies, God can reveal himself as a king or a shepherd, and we can understand what He means by analogy. The analogies are not arbitrary (equivocal) but neither are they exactly the same (univocal). So when we use male terminology for God, such as calling Him "Father", we are not saying that He is male, but we are using an analogy or metaphor for His roles in relation to creation (creator, sustainer, protector, leader).

[HondurasKeiser]

It may feel that these questions are akin to how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. But, for some, ultimately the question is, are women, and the feminine gender expressions, created in the image of God? And it feels to me that that is a legitimate question...can we affirm female traits as just as much expressions of God's traits as male traits?

A common view in the Middle Ages was that women are, in fact, not created in God's image - only men are. This is a gross and sinful expression of male privilege and prejudice, arising from Aristotelian (pagan) biology, and should be 100% avoided in the church. Aristotle defined females as "defective" or "impotent" males because they lack the necessary "heat" to produce semen, contributing only material matter, not the active "soul" or form, in reproduction. Influenced by this, medieval scholastics debated if a female was a "defective" (misbegotten) creation, a failure to produce a male. This is obvious balderdash according to what we know now.

Wasn’t this Milton’s take in Paradise Lost? Eve comes across as both conniving and a bimbo in that story.

[JohnH]

It seems obvious to me that God reveals himself using male pronouns and as a father and son. But I think it's presumptuous to determine from that data that he is male in the human sense.

Jesus (who is God) was (and is, and will be) most certainly male in the human sense.

He is male in his human nature, but not according to his divine nature, which does not have a gender in the human sense. God has condescended and accommodated Himself to us, explaining Himself and His actions to us in ways that we can understand. How else could Infinity communicate and be understood by finite creatures? His greatest condescension was of course becoming a man Himself, the second person of the Trinity literally becoming human. But God Himself remains transcendent and infinite in ways that we cannot fully understand. We can get the point; for example, God is good, and we think we know what goodness means based on our experience. But God's goodness is so much greater than ours, not just in quantity (God is more good than we are), but in quality (God's goodness is different than the goodness of creatures). But His goodness is not arbitrary or completely different than ours; there is enough similarity that we can have communication between God and ourselves and get the point. Or for other analogies, God can reveal himself as a king or a shepherd, and we can understand what He means by analogy. The analogies are not arbitrary (equivocal) but neither are they exactly the same (univocal). So when we use male terminology for God, such as calling Him "Father", we are not saying that He is male, but we are using an analogy or metaphor for His roles in relation to creation (creator, sustainer, protector, leader).

I would generally hold to orthodox views about the nature of Jesus and thus would hesitate to try to separate the divine and human natures of God; the hypostatic union of Jesus means he is both fully God and fully man, and that includes fully male as well.

God the Son is not an analogy.

[Neto]

For the last day or two I've been trying to remember what characteristic of God The Father once came across to me as a normally female trait, but I cannot be sure now what it was. Some might say that Jesus sometimes responded to the needs of other people in a feminine way, such as weeping as he was going to Lazarus' tomb. But I do not personally think that it is "un-masculine" to cry, or even to weep. (As Max often said, Your Mileage May Vary.)

So the main thing that comes to mind, and this is very likely not that to which I referred above, is that a first-born son is determined to be such in relation to his mother, not to his father. (That is, a first born son is one who 'opens the womb'.) So in that sense, God the Father is in some way identified in terms of female characteristics, at least in terms of how a first born son is defined in the Law, as God gave it to Moses.

Jesus also compared Himself to a mother hen, in an illustration of his desire to shelter his people, something that he also wept about, as I recall (that is, the fact that they didn't allow him to do that for them). But this also is not what at some distant time in the past struck me about God's motherly characteristics. Maybe it will come to me yet, but my memory is not what it used to be, so I may never remember.

[MattY]

Jesus (who is God) was (and is, and will be) most certainly male in the human sense.

He is male in his human nature, but not according to his divine nature, which does not have a gender in the human sense. God has condescended and accommodated Himself to us, explaining Himself and His actions to us in ways that we can understand. How else could Infinity communicate and be understood by finite creatures? His greatest condescension was of course becoming a man Himself, the second person of the Trinity literally becoming human. But God Himself remains transcendent and infinite in ways that we cannot fully understand. We can get the point; for example, God is good, and we think we know what goodness means based on our experience. But God's goodness is so much greater than ours, not just in quantity (God is more good than we are), but in quality (God's goodness is different than the goodness of creatures). But His goodness is not arbitrary or completely different than ours; there is enough similarity that we can have communication between God and ourselves and get the point. Or for other analogies, God can reveal himself as a king or a shepherd, and we can understand what He means by analogy. The analogies are not arbitrary (equivocal) but neither are they exactly the same (univocal). So when we use male terminology for God, such as calling Him "Father", we are not saying that He is male, but we are using an analogy or metaphor for His roles in relation to creation (creator, sustainer, protector, leader).

I would generally hold to orthodox views about the nature of Jesus and thus would hesitate to try to separate the divine and human natures of God; the hypostatic union of Jesus means he is both fully God and fully man, and that includes fully male as well.

I agree! Since Jesus is one person, not two separate people, what can be said about him in his humanity can be said about his whole Person as God, and vice versa. E.g., God was born as a baby. Mary is the mother of One who is God. God died on the cross. A man forgave sins. And so on.

And yet this does not mean that everything that can be said about Jesus post-incarnation can be said about God the Father or about the divine nature. Just because Jesus has arms and legs does not mean that it is intrinsic to the divine nature to have arms and legs. It was not a change in the essential nature of God. The properties of His humanity are not the properties of His divinity - the two natures are not confused (that would be the error of Eutychianism).

Therefore, just because Jesus is a man, it does not follow that God is male in His divine nature, the way that humans are male and female.

God the Son is not an analogy.

And yet, God the Son's relationship to his Father is analogous to our relationship to our fathers, not exactly the same. Our relationships to our fathers are created, temporal, and hierarchical; Theirs is eternal, equal, and consubstantial. The relationship of Father and Son in the Trinity is analogous to our relationships with our fathers, not exactly the same (thankfully). If the language we use to speak about God were exactly univocal, then we could comprehend everything about God intellectually, reducing Him to the level of creatures.

[Anthony]

I can affirm femininity is equally as important as masculinity, i am not willing to say God has equal masculine/feminine traits. That is clearly not at all supported by scripture.

Does it not follow then that masculinity is more godly, as in, like God, than femininity?

Yes

It may feel that these questions are akin to how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. But, for some, ultimately the question is, are women, and the feminine gender expressions, created in the image of God? And it feels to me that that is a legitimate question...can we affirm female traits as just as much expressions of God's traits as male traits?

A common view in the Middle Ages was that women are, in fact, not created in God's image - only men are. This is a gross and sinful expression of male privilege and prejudice, arising from Aristotelian (pagan) biology, and should be 100% avoided in the church. Aristotle defined females as "defective" or "impotent" males because they lack the necessary "heat" to produce semen, contributing only material matter, not the active "soul" or form, in reproduction. Influenced by this, medieval scholastics debated if a female was a "defective" (misbegotten) creation, a failure to produce a male. This is obvious balderdash according to what we know now.

Thankfully now that we have a enlightened modern view of sex and less men believe in a patriarchical, masculine God, misogyny is less prevalent and hostilities between both genders has decreased…