![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/637\/2025\/09\/two-angels-holding-a-shroud-with-the-holy-wound-0cdab9.jpg\")
<\/a>God<\/a> is without gender<\/a>, and yet, we appropriate and apprehend God through various metaphors, various images which point to some element of the divine, including those with gender. Genesis tells us God have made humanity, male and female, in the divine image: \u201cSo God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them\u201d (Gen. 1:27 RSV).\u00a0 There are many ways to interpret<\/a> this verse. For example, one interpretation suggests it means that men and women alike, as men and women, are made in the image of God. That is, men and women are equally made in the image of God, that there is something in both of them which equally imagines God (such as human nature). Another interpretation suggests that this image of God is found only when men and women are viewed together, that is when they are united as one; that is, only when we view them as some sort of amalgamation which unites the to together, do we find how humanity imagines God. In general, the first interpretation is normative, and most interpreters ignore or reject the second. With either interpretation, we learn that it is important for us to consider God through both masculine and feminine images. While Scripture provides several instances where God is imagined with feminine metaphors and images, especially those related to motherhood, in general, Christians have grown accustomed to and use only masculine images for God. This is why many now have been led to think God is male. Obviously, this is a false understanding of God, one which limits our understanding of God as it denies us what can be apprehended about God through femininity. Jesus certainly didn\u2019t limit the divine to masculine representations; this is why, when speaking of himself as God, he talks about the way he had been mothering Jerusalem<\/a> (and all Israel). Thus, it is right to say:<\/p>\n The Abba of Jesus transcends all human gender characteristics, categories and distinctions. And yet, only an image of God that absorbs and incorporates what we traditionally refer to as\u00a0 masculine and <\/em>feminine characteristics can approximate the God whom Jesus experienced. [1]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n God is not male. God is not female. God is not male and female together. God transcends all genders<\/a>, but because of this, all genders have something in them which allows them to represent God to us, and to do so equally. We must find ways to apprehend the truth of God as God is imagined or represented by all genders;<\/a> since we have engaged more through the masculine than the feminine, we need to pursue what we have ignored and discern the way God can be and is imagine by feminine images. In this way, we will be able to overcome the imbalance which has occurred in Christian history and tradition, as feminist theologians point out:<\/p>\n The essence of feminist spirituality, then, is a reclaiming of female power beginning with the likeness of women to the divine, the rehabilitation of the body as the very locus of that divine likeness, and the right of women to participate in the shaping of religion and culture, i.e., of the realm of \u201cspirit.\u201d [2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Historically, it has been common for Christian thinkers (and other philosophers) to equate the spirit with masculinity and material being (and bodies) with femininity. In doing so, this had led to some dangerous conclusions such as men are more important and greater than women as the soul is seen to be greater than the body. Similarly, it is said men should be able to dominate and control women just as the soul is said to control the body. The proper balance between the soul and body has been lost, where the two should come together in harmony. Sadly, due to this, the value and dignity of both women and the body have been undermined by many Christians.<\/p>\n Some Christians suggest we should say God is male because of the incarnation<\/a>: Christ is male, therefore, God is male. Not only does this end up ignoring the distinction of the natures, a distinction which Chalcedon<\/a> indicated must remain affirmed even after the incarnation, it also ignores the way Christ\u2019s humanity is presented by Paul as transcending the various particular distinctions found in society. \u00a0Christ\u2019s humanity is the humanity of every human person so that in him, in his body, Paul says, there is neither male nor female<\/a>. Jerome<\/a> took this up on his writings as can be seen in in his translation of Origen:<\/a>\u00a0 Jerome explained that the use of gender, in regards human language conventions, should not be used to have us impose a gender on God the Word, that is, the divine person who became incarnate:<\/p>\n Rather, although the \u2018Word\u2019 of God is of the masculine gender in Greek, and neuter with ourselves, yet all these matters with which this passage deals must be thought of in a manner that transcends masculine and neuter and feminine, and everything whatever to which these words refer. And this applies not only to the \u2018Word\u2019 of God, but also to His Church and to the perfect soul, who likewise is here called \u2018the Bride.\u2019 For thus says the Apostle: \u2018For in Christ there is neither male nor female, but we are all one in Him<\/em>.\u2019[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As we have been accustomed to look at Christ, as well as God, purely from the masculine point of view, we should look to tradition as the foundation for going beyond this, such as the way Christ is said to give birth<\/a> to the church<\/a> on the cross. When we do so, we will see, time and time again, ways<\/a> in which Christ is shown to have feminine qualities. We can and should use what is found in tradition and develop it further, showing how tradition is to be a\u00a0 living tradition<\/a>, one which grows and works to deal with the needs of the times, needs which today include overcoming sexist talk about God, talk which uses Christianity and its tradition to undermine the dignity and value of the world, the body, and of femininity in general. This is extremely necessary today as we see many who are turning towards Christian nationalism<\/a>, those who give into the temptation of Satan to take control of the world and dominate<\/a> it, trying to pretend what\u00a0 they want to create is a Christian theocracy but in doing so, \u00a0take and promote ideologies\u00a0 which run counter to Christianity and impose them upon society, ideologies<\/a> which include those which devalue the dignity of women, the dignity of the body, and the value of the world at large (as can be seem in their misogyny<\/a>, their willingness to promote torture<\/a>, and their anti-environmental stand<\/a>).\u00a0 Feminist theologians are right in connecting misogyny with hatred to the world, a hatred which approves and accepts environmental harm. Christians must respond to this crisis, making sure that the heresies which are found in Christian nationalism are repudiated, and to do this, they must truly delve into the feminine<\/a>, and embrace the divine feminine, not as an absolute, but as a way to represent the God who is beyond male and female.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Albert Haase, OFM, Living the Lord\u2019s Prayer<\/a> <\/em>(Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 32.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Sandra M. Schneiders, Beyond Patching. Revised Edition<\/a> <\/em>(New York: Paulist Press, 2004), 80-81.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Origen, \u201cThe Song of Songs: Commentary\u201d in Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary And Homilies<\/a><\/em>. Trans. R.P. Lawson (New York: Newman Press, 1956), 201. We know Jerome inserted \u201cneuter for ourselves\u201d into the text because\u00a0 Origen wrote in Greek.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n
\n