The Use of Male God-Language in Christianity

Sophie Kanter
A thesis submitted to the faculty of Guilford College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Religious Studies degree
Religious Studies
April 23, 2008
Committee:

________________________________
Eric Mortensen, Chair

________________________________
Jane Redmont

_________________________________
Shelini Harris

1
Sophie Kanter’s Senior Thesis
Religious Studies department
“The Use of Male God-Language in Christianity”

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….page 3
Traditional Conceptions of God and the Feminist Critique……………………page 14
Metaphor and the Problem of Male God-Language……………………………page 22
Re-thinking God-Language…………………………………………………….page 27
Sophia: An Alternative to Male God-Language………………………………..page 40
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...page 59

2
 Introduction

Man corrupt everything, Shug say. He on your box of grits, in your head, and all over the
radio. He try to make you think he everywhere. Soon as you think he everywhere, you think
he God. But he ain’t. Whenever you trying to pray, and man plop himself on the other end of
it, tell him to git lost, say Shug.
- Alice Walker, The Color Purple

The language we have is inadequate to express our truest sentiments about

God. This language simply does not hold the capacity to express the transcendent,
incorporeal, divine nature of God. Not only is the language we use inadequate for
human expression of divine experience, but the male-centered God language
abounding in Christianity is inadequate for women who wish to express such divine
experiences and to feel connected with a divine presence. In a traditional sense, the
Christian God is often pictured as an old white man who reigns from above. This
representation of God is only a partial picture of the divine, and the exclusive nature
of male language and imagery used for God leaves out women (and others) who do
not fit into this male model.
In recent decades, women’s voices have surfaced against this traditional
notion of God. Feminist theology has been perhaps the biggest force in the movement
towards new, more inclusive language for and metaphors and images of the divine.
Many claim is that the specifically and exclusively male God-language is not
inclusive of women. By using exclusively male language for God, women are
excluded from the spiritual and religious community. After all, “man” was made in
the image of God. If the word “man” is used to represent “human being,” it is no
wonder that women feel excluded.

3
 The very language that we use—for example, “man was created in the image
of God”—implies that women are not made in the image of God. For some women,
this stifles their ability to feel personally connected to God. Additionally, the use of
this kind of language implies that women are not a part of the human community
because “man” has such a specific definition, whereas “human” includes a wider
range of individuals. According to Elizabeth Johnson:

Whether consciously or not, sexist God language undermines the human equality of women
made in the divine image and likeness. The result is broken community, human beings shaped
by patterns of dominance and subordination with attendant violence and suffering.1

As we shall see, this sentiment has been echoed by other women who feel that a male
God is not conducive to the creation of an inclusive religious or secular community.
The use of “man” instead of “person” or “human” might seem arbitrary, but
language is integral in shaping our worldview, and the words we use can have a great
impact on how things are categorized and viewed. We might question whether
language impacts the way we view things, or if it is really the other way around. Lia
Litosseliti, in her book Gender and Language, notes that:
language does not simply reflect social reality, but is also constitutive of such reality, in other
words, it shapes how we see ourselves and the world. If language is constitutive rather than
indexical, then it has the potential to help establish and maintain social and power relations,
values and identities, as well as to challenge routine practice and contribute towards social
change.2

If language has both the ability to reflect the worldview of those who use it, as well as
constitute that reality, this means that it works in both directions: language and social
reality have an impact on each other.
The words we use are symbols of what they represent. Each word—mother,
father, daughter, son—is a symbol for what it represents—actual people who have
certain gender or family roles. In this way, language is reflective of our reality, in that
the words we use represent the relationships (such as in the family) or objects
(persons, things, actions, etc.) that exist in our lives. But the connotations or meanings
of these words have the ability to shape our views of what the actual people or things

1
Johnson, Elizabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. New
York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992, 18.
2
Litosseliti, Lia. Gender and Language: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press,
2006, 9.

4
the words represent should be or should do. For example, a father is a male human
being who begets children with a human female through intercourse. But a father is
much more than this: a father, at least in most Western patriarchal societies, has a
certain role and certain responsibilities within society and within the family in
particular. This role might include being the head of the family, being in charge of
others, being the breadwinner of the family, being in charge of the finances of the
family, being able to control his female partner in sexual and other ways, and so forth.
The word ‘father’ does not just make us think of a male human being who has
children, but brings to mind a whole host of things that are tied up in gender
stereotypes and gendered expectations of behavior.
In this way, the word ‘father’ itself, with all its associated meanings and
connotations, shapes how we see actual male human beings who happen to be fathers.
In addition, the gender stereotyping inherent in the connotations/meanings of the
word ‘father’ serve to maintain the gendered hierarchy of the family structure (father-
mother-children). Because the family is often referred to as the smallest unit of
society, and therefore a model for relations on a larger societal scale, the gendered
hierarchies within the family carry over into non-familial relations. Because of this,
the word ‘father’ plays a part in maintaining the gendered hierarchies of the larger
society. This is how language both reflects and constitutes (or constructs) reality.

Religious Symbolism & Language

A more concrete example of the symbolism of language is that of religious

symbols. These are concrete and widely understood images that clearly represent a
concept or thing. For example, the cross, one of Christianity’s most recognizable
symbols, most obviously represents the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, but on a deeper
level, additionally represents salvation, worship, forgiveness, and so on. Like
religious symbols, words function as symbols within our language system. These
symbols “are significant and powerful communications through which a…community
expresses a sense of itself and its universe.”3 The symbols “give resonance and
authority to a community’s self-understanding and serve to support and sustain its
3
Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai. San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1990, 125.

5
conception of the world.”4 In addition to the cross and other Christian religious
symbolism, the word ‘God’ is a symbol itself, representing a divine being. God is a
symbol because of the associations it brings up when it is read, thought, or spoken
aloud. It makes us think of a man with a white beard, passages in the Bible, our
(positive or negative) experiences in the church, the times we have spent in worship
or prayer, Christ, the Trinity, and other associations.
If observations about the impact of language on our understanding of the
world are accurate, then language plays an extremely important role in the formation
and transformation of the reality of our lives. As such, sexist language must be
critically examined. Gender biases in language are often subtle and unarticulated, and
therefore hard to identify. Patriarchal society makes these gender biases invisible due
to the seemingly natural or ordinary use of words that focus attention on men. This
observation makes apparent the place of language in supporting a patriarchal social
order which has as its priority the the superiority of men. As with any system of
oppression, making the privilege of the dominant group seem like a result of the
‘natural’ social order is the key to the functioning of such a system. As long as
everyone within the system—both the oppressed and oppressor groups—believe in
the system as the ‘natural social order,’ the system continues to function as before. If
these people were to realize this social order was, in fact, not natural at all, the system
would be forced to change, if not fall apart.
Language plays an integral role in the maintenance of such a system. If the
observation about language and reality affecting each other equally is true, then
language that serves to support structures of domination and oppression must have
arisen from a social reality in which gender biases were already present. Gender
biases are therefore written into the system and serve to support a social order in
which gender inequality is rampant. Some scholars, feminists among them, have
developed a theory of social constructivism in which the importance of language in
maintaining a patriarchal world order has been recognized. Such language includes
God-language, which has been deemed exclusive and oppressive by many women:

4
Ibid.

6
 To even the casual observer it is obvious that the Christian community ordinarily speaks about
God on the model of the ruling male human being. Both the images that are used and the
concepts accompanying them reflect the experience of men in charge within a patriarchal
system. The difficulty does not lie in the fact that male metaphors are used, for men too are
made in the image of God and may suitably serve as finite beginning points for reference to
God. Rather, the problem consists in the fact that these male terms are used exclusively,
literally, and patriarchally.5

The exclusively male God-language used in the Christian tradition today is

often taken for granted or even seen as neutral or not particularly noteworthy. Many
people do not even think about it, but recite the prayers or read the biblical passages
that include the words “Lord” or “King” to refer to God, without blinking an eye. If a
coming to consciousness occurs, especially in women, the realization may arise that
this male language is not neutral, but is there for a reason. Carol Christ recounts this
moment when she ‘came to consciousness’:

Gradually, it began to dawn on me that the image of God as Father, Son, and Spirit was at the
root of the problem. No matter what I did, I would never be “in his image.” While I had hoped
to find in God a father who would love and accept my female self, it seemed that “he,” like
my father and most of my professors, liked boys better. I decided that unless we could call
God Mother as well as Father, Daughter as well as Son, women and girls would never be
valued.6

During her revelation, Christ was able to articulate her discomfort with the use of
exclusively male God-language. She made the connection between this male
language for the divine and a devaluation of her own body and mind as a woman.
This shows that there is a direct correlation between (God-)language and gender
stereotypes, patriarchal structures, and a general devaluation of femininity.
There are many institutions in the world in which we live that support a
patriarchal world order. Language is the overarching system that connects these
institutions and holds them to a common goal. One such institution is religion, which
can be said to be one of the most powerful institutional forces in the lives of many
people today. Religious language, although encompassing a much more specific
discourse than language used outside of religion, still includes many gender biases

5
Johnson (1992), 33.
6
Christ, Carol. Rebirth of the Goddess: Finding Meaning in Feminist Spirituality. New York:
Routledge, 1997, 2.

7
that are suspect. Religious language reflects the social order by including these
gender biases in liturgy, prayer, and scripture.

The Nature of Male God-Language in Christianity and its Relationship to Patriarchal

Structures

One of the most powerful religious images is that of God. Traditionally, the
Christian God is imaged as a powerful male figure in heaven. Since masculine
characteristics are valued in our society, these characteristics, when applied to God,
give them even more power and value. God is the ultimate figure, supposedly after
which all human life is modeled; therefore, if God is valued for being masculine, then
masculinity will be valued in humans as well. Male (or masculine) language for God
is almost overwhelming in the Christian tradition. Where gender is not specified in
liturgy or scripture, “He,” “Lord,” “King,” or other male language has been
substituted in translation. Despite efforts to be gender-inclusive by many Christian
communities or individuals, “biblical G*d-language is overwhelmingly androcentric
and its patriarchal bias is all pervasive.”7
Many feminists have argued that images of God are both ‘models of’ and
‘models for.’ According to Judith Plaskow, “religious symbols express both the
sensibility and moral character of a people and the way in which it understands and
structures the world.”8 These symbols are “models of a community’s sense of ultimate
reality and models for human behavior and the social order.”9 In other words, the
symbols and language we use for God tell us about our concept of God itself as much
as it tells us about the community which creates, transforms, and reinforces such
images of the divine. By recognizing the power of language and the connectedness of
language, symbol, and metaphor we can conclude that:
7
Schussler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007, 200.
8
Plaskow, Judith. The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 1972-2003.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2005, 60.
9
Ibid., emphasis original.

8
 Religious symbols are significant and powerful communications. Through them, a
community expresses its sense and experience of the world. The maleness of God is not
arbitrary—nor is it simply a matter of pronouns. It leads us to the central question, the
question of the Otherness of women, just as the Otherness of women leads to the
maleness of God.10

Plaskow makes the connection between the maleness of God and the
Otherness of women because of the definition in Western society (and its
corresponding religions) of maleness as the norm. This means that femaleness is
deviant in comparison. If maleness is the norm and a male deity represents the
ultimate reality of an entire society and its religious traditions, the relationship
between a male God and the female ‘other’ is very apparent. This is evident from the
use of the word ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ to represent both men only, and both men and
women (humans). This use of generic language, or using masculine words or
pronouns to refer to both sexes, often goes unnoticed, but is important to point out
because it shows the bias inherent in language towards maleness. Litosseliti refers to
the:
problematic use of pronouns, particularly the (arguably) generic use of ‘he’, ‘him’, ‘his’ to
refer to both men and women. Feminists...believe that language is man-made, with male
forms being seen as the norm and female ones as deviant. Some have claimed that the use of
generics ‘he’/‘him’/‘his’, as well as ‘man’/‘mankind’ and expressions like “the man in the
street”, to refer to both men and women, reinforces this binary understanding of norm and
deviance, promotes male imagery, and makes women invisible. These claims exemplify the
‘dominance approach’…in that the use of generic expressions is seen to be preventing women
from expressing and raising consciousness about their own experience, and perpetuating
men’s dominance and exploitative behavior.11

Generic language use not only leaves women out, but it reinforces male power over
women. Oppressive structures remain invisible if we do not point out the biases
inherent in our language which support these structures.
Because of the dichotomous discourse that frames all of the meanings our
language takes on, using words that come in opposite pairs, such as public/private,
male/female, and so forth, recognize the dichotomy and, in a sense, reinforce its
validity as an appropriate framework. If we use the word ‘margin,’ we are
acknowledging that a ‘center’ exists; if we use ‘black’ to describe those with darker
skin, we recognize that ‘white’ is its opposite (often in more ways than just skin

10
Ibid.
11
Litosseliti (2006), 13-14.

9
color). The question is: How can we talk about these issues, using existing language,
without reinforcing the status quo?
In many ways, pointing out these systems of domination and oppression,
which often remain invisible as they manifest in our everyday lives, can be extremely
useful. At the same time, by using the words we are given, we reinforce a system of
oppression by contextualizing our conversation in terms of its dichotomizing and
oppressive framework. In a sense, the very framework that holds up these oppressive
systems is the language itself. If language both reflects and constitutes our social
reality, then the words we use and the systems of domination that exist reinforce each
other. Because our social reality is contextualized in a single framework, many must
struggle to find the ability, or the language, to imaging anything different.

Beyond God the Father12

The most obvious solution to the problem of male God-language is simply to

change the language. Many feminist theologians have taken this avenue in
reimagining or renaming the divine, whose current conception they find to be lacking
or inadequate. Judith Plaskow, reflecting on her experience at the Re-Imagining
Conference, which began in 1993, suggests some alternative words for God, which
came from the mouths of women: “changing, creating, enabling, nurturing, pushing,
calling into question, suffering, touching, breaking through.”13 Mary Daly
reconceptualizes God as a genderless Being, transforming the concept of God from a
noun to a verb, stating that the latter is “infinitely more personal” and appropriate for
the divine being because it is “the most active and dynamic of all” word forms.14
Others suggest that a comparable divine female image will alleviate the dominance of
the concept of a male God. One popular and powerful female image of the divine is
Sophia, the Goddess of Wisdom, whose presence in the Hebrew and Christian
scriptures and power to transform or supplement an exclusively masculine God will
be discussed later.

12
Borrowed from Mary Daly’s book of the same title (Beacon Press, 1973).
13
Plaskow (1990), 144. See also Re-Imagining book.
14
Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1973, 33-4.

10
 Although exploring the alternatives to male God-language is important, is
simply changing the language we use for the divine enough? One foreseeable
problem is that the new images and language may not be accepted into the
mainstream. It is important to note who gets to decide what new images are
appropriate for everybody else. If changing male God-language is to be an endeavor
into making such language more inclusive and affirming for a wider range of people,
then we cannot exclude people in transforming and forming anew language for and
about God. Of course, subverting male God-language to female (or other) God-
language does have the power to transform the system altogether, rather than uphold
it. But we must be careful not to keep intact the oppressive and exclusive system that
exists when we reimagine God in some way. We must recognize that even within
Christianity, there is a multiplicity of personal and communal conceptions of the
divine, and work with this idea.
Another solution to the problem of exclusive male God-language would be to
leave it completely up to individuals or communities to form their own concept of the
divine. This would leave room for creativity and imagination, as well as deeper
religious reflection and connection with the divine. But it could also be problematic,
since without a common understanding of God, we cannot communicate to each other
our ideas about such a subject. There needs to be a communal notion of God, even if
very basic, to promote communal understanding. This basic image should allow for
personal interpretation beyond exclusively male imagery. We have to be more
creative in our conception of and imagination about God, rather than simply going
along with the tradition of using male God-language. We must create a communally
understood image of the divine that at the same time allows for personal
interpretation. Because language forms much of the support structure for the
overarching patriarchal system that encompasses institutions such as religion, we can
change the language to change the system. If Litosseliti is right in her observation that
language both reflects and constructs reality, then as religious language changes, the
religious institution, or reality, will change. This process can continue, seemingly
endlessly, with both the language and the institution constantly shifting to reflect the
changing reality of the other.

11
 Images of and language about God, if proven to be inadequate, can and should
be changed. God is something that is beyond human conception because it is greater
than all of us. This has been recognized throughout the history of Christianity as well
as other religions around the world, evidenced by descriptions of God as beyond
human conception or as beyond gender. Because God is at once so transcendent and
personal, the concept of God has the ability to both confuse and guide people in their
spiritual journey through life. This is why people have constantly questioned God’s
existence, and why they are constantly seeking new conceptions of the divine that
better reflect their own personal and social realities.
If we are seeking a concept of God that can fairly and accurately represent a
wide range of people with a variety of religious beliefs, we will surely be hard-
pressed to find one, even within a Christian context. Perhaps we cannot say what God
is or what God looks like, but we can articulate our own interpretations of God. We
can imagine a God, and a corresponding theology or worldview, which brings people
together rather than tears them apart by imagining a more inclusive God that goes
beyond male-only language. This is not to say that we get to “create” God, because a
major theological claim of Christianity is that God exists entirely independently of
human beings. But we can reinterpret the tradition, using any existing material in the
Hebrew or Christian scriptures we can find. For example, there are many passages in
both Testaments of the Bible that refer to God as a woman, but God is traditionally
thought of as exclusively male in Christianity. In other words, we can change the
representations of how God is experienced, thereby influencing ideas about human
society (who counts as ‘human,’ who should be in power, whose identities are
included in the mainstream discourse, etc.). The current mainstream Christian
conception of God is exclusive and does not include all human beings in the image of
God.
I want to make a note about the terms used in this paper. I am talking about
‘women’ in ‘Christianity,’ which both represent groups of people who are easily
homogenized. But we must be careful of false universalization because it takes a
particular truth and blows it up into the whole truth. The issues discussed here will be
relevant for some women in some denominations of Christianity. A black Baptist

12
woman will have different feelings about gendered God-language than a white
Catholic woman. Each woman has her own truth or feelings in regards to God-
language which are different from other women’s feelings about this subject. What I
discuss here has, for the most part, been a prevalent discussion among white women
in the Catholic church15, although it has shown up in other denominations. These are
women who have picked up on the trend of talking about how particular gendered
language functions, and this is what I intend to discuss. But even within this group,
women do not all feel exactly the same about this issue. I will do my best to do an
overview of the situation, including as many viewpoints as possible, but it is simply
impossible to include all opinions.
The feminist sources I examine here rely heavily on a theory of social
constructivism. They assert that gender is a socially constructed reality. This means
that the terms “male” and “female,” along with their definitions and connotations, are
constructed entirely by human beings. What it means to be a man or a woman is
constantly changing as the meanings of these terms, as well as the relationship
between the two genders, change. The theory of social constructivism is not meant to
dismiss the reality of a concept in the everyday lives of people. Simply because we
acknowledge that, for example, gender is a socially constructed concept, does not
meant that gender realities do not have an impact in the lives of men and woman on a
daily basis—in fact, just the opposite is true.

15
Discussions of the issues surrounding the actual language that connotes the maleness of God have
not been as prevalent in black or Hispanic feminist communities as it has been in white feminist
circles. The discussions in these communities have focused mainly on the oppression of black/Hispanic
women in connection with a God (and relatedly, Jesus Christ) of the oppressed (often called ‘liberation
theology’) rather than on specific aspects of God language. These womanist/mujerista theologians
focus on liberation theology (Introducing Liberation Theology, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff, Orbis
Books, 1987), claiming that if God/Jesus Christ is on the side of the oppressed, there is no way that
they can be a white, patriarchal, dominating figures, but that white male culture has co-opted them to
be just this. For more on this issue, see The Color Purple by Alice Walker; Sisters in the Wilderness:
The Challenges of Womanist God-Talk by Dolores S. Williams (Orbis Books, 1995); A Black Theology
of Liberation by James H. Cone (Orbis Books, 1990); God of the Oppressed, James H. Cone (Orbis
Books, 1997); Introducing Womanist Theology by Stephanie Y. Mitchem (Orbis Books, 2002); A
Reader in Latina Feminist Theology: Religion and Justice ed. María Pilar Aquino et. al. (University of
Texas Press, 2002); La Lucha Continues: Mujerista Theology by Ada María Isasi-Díaz (Orbis Books,
2004). There has also been some work done on the issue of the maleness of God (in addition to the
‘God of the oppressed’ issue) from the point of view of “Third World” feminists: see Feminist
Theology from the Third World: A Reader, ed. Ursula King (Orbis Books, 1996).

13
 In this paper, I discuss the issues surrounding exclusively male God-language
and alternatives to it. I explore feminist critiques of the traditional Christian concept
of God as male, pointing out that imagining God as male provides only a partial
picture of the divine. I then explore alternatives to the concept of a male God,
including Mother God, other feminine images, and genderless images. Finally, I
suggest the concept of Sophia (also called Chokhmah or Wisdom), or Divine Woman
Wisdom,16 as an alternative or complement to God the Father. Sophia is extremely
prevalent in the Christian scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, and is
referenced as God’s partner or co-creator, as well as mother, lover or teacher figure to
the people of Israel. In addition, Sophia is sometimes seen as embodied in Jesus
Christ, creating a male-female divine figure called Jesus-Sophia, who is the ultimate
embodiment of wisdom. As I will discuss in the section on Sophia, she is most likely
modeled after ancient Egyptian-Hellenistic goddesses such as Isis. Like these ancient
goddesses, her stories and power have been lost over the centuries in favor of a male
god. Restoring Sophia to a more prominent place in Christianity has the power to
change our concepts of God and, more broadly, the social structures in which we
interact with one another.

Traditional Conceptions of God and the Feminist Critique

A very significant way in which theology reflects male experience is through the use of male
God-language. Even though we all know that God “really” transcends sexual differentiation,
we talk about him in male terms. And it is not just that we use masculine pronouns because
we lack gender-neutral ones. We also image God in terms of taken from the male side of
stereotypic masculine/feminine polarity. Thus God is Father, Lord, King, Shepherd, but never
Mother, Lady, or Queen. While we know that these images are “only” symbolic, they are
nevertheless more basic than our efforts to specify and control them through
conceptualization. They function for us imaginatively with tremendous power.

– Judith Plaskow, The Coming of Lilith

In the current global context, we find ourselves in increasingly complex

relationships with one another. One of the ways many people deal with this
complexity is with a spiritual relationship with God. This divine being provides

16
A phrase I am borrowing from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.

14
comfort, acceptance and direction when these things cannot be found anywhere else.
But because our relationship with other human beings is a model for our relationship
with God, and vice-versa, the divine-human relationship shifts, even if imperceptibly,
with each new discovery we make about ourselves or about the world.
Although to many the Bible (and other sacred texts) is a holy document,
recorded directly from the mouth of God, we can safely say that whoever transcribed
the divine word into the document it is today was rooted in their own historical and
cultural context. Whether or not the Bible is actually the word of God is not important
to this discussion. What is important is that we look at this text as a product of its own
time, and note that the current time period is much different than the time of the
original authorship of such a sacred document. Taking this into consideration, we
cannot expect the same lessons, laws, relationships, or even images of God to be
exactly as relevant as they were before— although they are important and can inform
our current situation.
Carol Christ suggests that human beings are “active processes ever changing
in relationships.”17 Similarly, “[the] divine power also changes and enters into
relationships”18 and is changed by these relationships. She concludes that
“Goddess/God is the most related of all related beings and the most sympathetic of all
sympathetic powers in the universe.”19 Christ’s vision of God as infinitely related to
the world goes against the traditional Christian notion of a disconnected, static God
who is abstracted into another plane of the universe separate from human beings. In
opposition to this, Christ’s Goddess/God concept implies that as we change, God also
changes, and therefore the situations in which we name God and the language we use
must also change.

Problems with Male God-language

Now I will explore the more traditional Christian conception of God, which is
directly opposite to Christ’s divine power (Goddess/God). The traditional Christian

17
Christ, Carol P. She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003, 46.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid., emphasis added.

15
conception of God is often imaged as a man who is “big and old and tall and
graybearded and white,” as Alice Walker’s character Celie articulates.20 This image
pervades mainstream Christian and secular American culture, despite the fact that
God is supposedly beyond all images—and more importantly, beyond all gender—in
the Abrahamic traditions. Whether or not God was traditionally imagined as a male
being, currently this idea is extremely powerful and seems to dominate much of
religious discourse.
In the past few decades, many feminists have become aware of the
problematic nature of God’s maleness and have voiced their concerns. They argue
that because God is male, human men are given special authority over women,
children, the earth, and so on. They see a parallel between a male as divine authority
and male leaders on earth. As Mary Daly puts it, “if God is male, male is God.”21
Many feminists see the authority of a male God as a legitimating factor in the
dominance of men over women (and everything else). The counter-argument here
would be that God is not really gendered, and even if we refer to God as male, it is
only a metaphor and “he” is not really a man. Even if God is not ‘really’ a man, the
metaphor of a male God makes us forget this fact. The nature of metaphor will be
discussed in the next section to clarify this point.
There are several distinctions to be made here: first, between sex and gender;
and second, what we actually mean when we call God a man or use a masculine title
for God. The difference between sex and gender is that sex refers to the actual
biological characteristics associated with being male or female. Gender, on the other
hand, is often referred to as a social construction, or the roles, expectations, modes of
dress, or behaviors that are associated with being either male or female. According to
Ruth Duck, the association between maleness and male sex characteristics can be
problematic when referring to God:

Because the word sex and the terms male and female have to do with biological
characteristics, it is right said that God has no sex and that God is neither male nor female. At
the same time, a society’s gender expectations come into play whenever God is described
under masculine or feminine pronouns and metaphors. Metaphors for God such as “Father,”
20
Walker, Alice. “God is Inside You and Inside Everybody Else.” in Diana Eck, Encountering God: A
Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993, 102.
21
Daly, Mary. (1973), 19.

16
 “King,” and “Lord” are thus “masculine” and not “male,” for they refer to gender, to socially
learned behavior, and not to biological sex. When masculine metaphors are used in speaking
to and about God, they do not refer to sex (as if God had sex organs or male chromosomes),
but to gender (by associating “God” with some role, trait, or behavior usually expected of
human males).22

According to Duck’s analysis, sex and gender are related—one’s sex

determines one’s gender, and therefore also determines the roles, traits, and behaviors
expected of a particular person, depending on their sex and gender. By calling God a
man, we are associating stereotypically masculine characteristics, behaviors, and roles
with the divine. Therefore, by calling God a man, we expect God to behave in certain
masculine ways. In addition, we expect God to look like a man. This does not happen
through some mysterious process—we are socially trained to associate biological sex
with gendered expectations of behavior. I use the term ‘male God-language’ to
emphasize the fact that the association is made between the word ‘He’ (or some other
male title) and an actual male figure, with stereotypically masculine characteristics
(such as a beard) or behaviors (such as aggression or control).
The problem with male God-language is not simply that it favors men and
masculinity, but that the image of God as male is so dominant that it excludes other
ways of thinking about the divine. At the same time that God is claimed to be beyond
gender, the divine has been interpreted as male over and over again. Although the
image of God the Father is so dominant in the Christian tradition, there are only
twelve direct references to God as Father in the Old Testament:

Five of the references to God as father concern the special relation of God to the king (2 Sam
7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; Ps 89:26; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6) and thus do not apply to the ordinary person.
The other seven references (Ps 103:13; Dt 32:16, 18; Jer 3:4-5; 31:9; Is 63:16; Mal 1:6) all
refer to God in the context of Israel’s sin, repentance, and restoration and God’s endless
forgiveness. The father metaphor in the Old Testament is nowhere used to present God as a
patriarch dominating the people or exercising coercive power over them.23

On the contrary, the father image is used in Scripture as “a paternal rather than
patriarchal figure who is in no way a model for or legitimation of patriarchy.” While
it is important to note the intention of characterizing God as male, the effect is what
especially matters to this analysis.
22
Duck, Ruth C. Gender and the Name of God: The Trinitarian Baptismal Formula. New York: The
Pilgrim Press, 1991, 33.
23
Schneiders, Sandra M. Women and the Word: The Gender of God in the New Testament and the
Spirituality of Women. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986, 29-30.

17
 Male God-Language and the Authority of Human Males

Many feminists have made the connection between a male God and the
authority of human males. The claim is that God as male, dominating, and
authoritarian provides a model for human hierarchy and leadership. Because God is
male, and is associated with stereotypically male characteristics like control and
dominance over others, a hierarchy already exists among God and humans, with God
at the top of such a hierarchy. This provides a model for human relationships—since
God is the ultimate and most perfect being according to Christianity—which also
become set up in hierarchical ways. The hierarchy not only includes God and humans,
but gets further subdivided. The hierarchy, very simply, looks something like this:
God, males, females, children, animals, nature.24 Susan Thistelwaite claims that the
“absolute power of God legitimates the power of the father priest, the father of the
country, the father in the family, and so on.”25 Elizabeth Johnson echoes this
sentiment, explaining that:

by drawing imagery and concepts for God almost exclusively from the world of ruling men,
inherited speech functions effectively to legitimate structures and theories that grant a
theomorphic character to men who rule but that relegate women, children, and other men to
the deficient margins. Whether consciously or not, sexist God language undermines the
human equality of women made in the divine image and likeness.26

Exactly how the authority of a male God is reflected in hierarchical relations

on earth is difficult to pinpoint. Since we don’t have much quantifiable or empirical
evidence of the connection between these two things27, and any such evidence can
24
Of course, this is complicated by other interlocking oppressions, such as race, class, sexual
orientation, ability/disability, etc.
25
Thistlewaite, Susan. Sex, Race and God: Christian Feminism in Black and White. New York:
Crossroad, 1989, 121.
26
Johnson (1992), 18.
27
One may wonder what empirical evidence exists that proves the strong connection between
godliness and maleness. Rachel Ann Foster and John P. Keating did a study that was published in 1992
measuring the androcentrism (male-centeredness) in the Western God-concept. They found that, when
asked to describe God, the study participants overwhelmingly used male language. “The majority (45
subjects, 79%) referred to God in the masculine form, while none of the subjects referred to God as a
woman, and only 4% (two subjects) used inclusive pronouns (he/she). Those subjects describing God
in the masculine did so either directly ("God is a man who is everywhere"), as "father," or by use of

18
easily be discounted or ignored, the connection is often doubted. To critique any
system of oppression which remains invisible, such as sexism, is always difficult.
One can theorize on the effects of such a system of oppression, domination, or
discrimination, but its effects are merely felt, making it impossible to provide any
evidence besides one’s feelings. This is problematic since feelings and emotions are
heavily distrusted in the scientific disciplines, especially since these disciplines have
been historically male-dominated, where emotional responses have been pushed out
in favor of more ‘masculine’ qualities such as objectivity. Since the effects of a male
God on human society, particularly those who are not male, are not quantifiable, we
have to rely on the feelings of those who are affected and hope that their conclusions
are truthful and genuine. In addition, we are often unaware of the effects of such
language, since its purpose is to remain invisible in order to support an oppressive
system. Judith Plaskow articulates this difficulty:

The way in which male God-language continues to legitimate male authority are difficult to
demonstrate, for this language has become so familiar, it is simply taken for granted. Since we
“know” that male language is generic, and we subject God-language to many layers of
translation, it is difficult to imagine that the literal level of images has any effect. As Mary
Daly argued years ago, however, the symbol of the father God—or the godfather as she calls
him—is rendered plausible by patriarchy and, in turn, authorizes male-dominated social
structures by making women’s oppression appear right and fitting.28

Imagining God as a man reinforces power structures that favor men. The fact that
God is imagined as a man—especially because ‘His’ actions, behaviors and
characteristics are held up and valued above others—makes men the ‘natural’ rulers
of the human realm.

Metaphor

One way to explore the connection between the divine and human realms is to
discover the ways in which metaphor operates. God as male is only one of the many
metaphors that the Christian tradition has created for God, yet it has taken precedence

masculine pronouns. Twelve percent (seven subjects) used no pronouns and made no reference to
gender, while three subjects (5%) referred to God as "It." The data from both phases indicated that the
majority of these subjects either.” (Foster, Rachel Ann and John P. Keating, “Measuring Androcentrism
in the Western God-Concept.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31:3 (Sept 1992), 366-375.)
28
Plaskow, Judith. Standing Again at Sinai, 126.

19
over all other ways of imagining the divine. Take, for example, the metaphor of “God
the Father.” Thinking about God as a father can be useful for many people. The image
of a parent can be comforting to us, and is also something that almost every human
being can directly relate to. In many ways, we need a metaphor like God the Father to
anchor our belief in an amorphous, transcendent divine in something concrete and
familiar. Although God the Father can be a useful and familiar metaphor, we must be
aware of the way in which it has been used to legitimate a patriarchal hierarchy.
There are other metaphors which are already present in both Testaments of the
scriptures which we can explore further. God as Father is only a partial image of the
divine. By using more than one image, it is possible to “[enrich] the understanding of
and response to God.”29 Other images include mother, potter, healer, nurturer,
lactating pregnant woman, spring of water, fire, shield, rock, and so on.30 These
images can add to the richness of the divine, adding dimensionality and helping to
affirm a wider range of experiences of self and of the divine.
The experience of God, according to Elizabeth Johnson, is always mediated
through the self.31 Therefore, a God that has female characteristics acknowledges that
women exist and are worthy of sharing some characteristics with a divine being. The
current model of a male God is modeled after men and masculine characteristics—
this also works the other way around, and men are partly modeled after God.
Femaleness needs to be better reflected in the divine because women are an integral
part of human society and are, too, created in the image of God.
The problem of exclusively male God-language is not just a linguistic one;
many would claim that the maleness of God has “deeply wounded women,”32 and has
actually had lasting and harmful effects on women related to their spirituality and/or
their sense of self. Because human beings were made ‘in the image of God,’ if that
image is exclusively male, then it suggests that males are the only ones who are truly
made in God’s image, and therefore the only ones who are truly human.

29
McEwan, Dorothy, et. al. Making Liturgy: Creating Rituals for Worship and Life. Cleveland: The
Pilgrim Press, 2001, 13.
30
Ibid.
31
Johnson, Elizabeth A. She Who Is. 65
32
Reilly, Patricia Lynn. A God Who Looks Like Me: Discovering a Woman-Affirming Spirituality.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, 63.

20
 As a result of our immersion in male names and images of God, we [women] have been
excluded from the divine. God and humankind (“mankind”) have been imagined as male.
Therefore men have been considered representative of a full and complete humanity. They are
divine and their experience is normative. We are not divine and our experience is considered
peripheral. Thus we have been barred from full participation in family, world, and church.33

If women (and people with identities other than ‘male’) were reflected in the divine,
more members in the human community would be fully affirmed in whatever identity
they choose to adopt.
This does not mean that “[the] concept of God as father [must] be banished
totally,”34 but it must at least be expanded to reflect other identities besides ‘male.’ It
should be noted that God the Father is a useful and affirming image for many people
today, even within the Christian faith, regardless of their gender. Many people truly
believe that God is male and that is the way it will always be. The discussion of the
‘problem’ with male God-language must be navigated carefully to avoid false
universalization, realizing that not all Christians believe in a male God, or that not all
women find male-centered God imagery problematic or hurtful. While this is true,
there is a fairly strong argument for the connection between exclusive male God-
language and the devaluation of femininity. Dorothy McEwan echoes the authors
quoted above by saying:

[M]any people believe that because we speak of God as ‘He’ and ‘Father’, the divine must be
male. It is important to widen people’s understanding and to see that these are all only partial
images. To use a wide variety of scriptural images enriches the understanding of and response
to God.35

There are many other images in the Bible and elsewhere that people can draw upon to
find their own unique and affirming picture of God. These images will be discussed in
detail later, but include, among others, mother and other feminine imagery as well as
genderless images, like Mary Daly’s ‘Verb.’
All images or words we use to describe God are metaphors. In the next
section, I discuss the nature of metaphor—how it functions and how it is used,
especially as this relates to God language. As mentioned, there are a multitude of

33
Ibid., 65.
34
McEwan, 13
35
Ibid.

21
metaphors that are already written down that can be used to describe God. These
metaphors, when used in combination with each other, create a fuller and more
inclusive portrait of God.

Metaphor and the Problem of Male God-language

To speak of God is among the most difficult and audacious things that humans do. To address
God is even more difficult…The essential difficult of God language is that it proposes to talk
about that which is absolutely transcendent—that which is not encompassed by or contained
within any of the categories that point to it. The paradox, the linguistic impossibility, of
words such as absolute, transcendent, or infinite, combined with their linguistic necessity, is
the embarrassment of all religious language.

–Rita Gross, “Female God Language in a Jewish Context” in Womanspirit Rising

It is important to note that all images of God are simply metaphors. They do
not describe, nor can they ever describe, a complete picture of the divine. God is an
amorphous, transcendent being for which no human language could ever be adequate.
All of our images and concepts of God have in front of them an ‘as if’ or ‘as it were,’
“although this is often ignored.”36 Rita Gross argues that this aspect of metaphor is
“fundamental to the religious experience,” and if ignored, “worship becomes
idolatry.”37 For example, the image of ‘God as father’ is meant to be ‘as if God were
father’ rather than ‘God is father.’ In the ‘as if’ statement, a comparison is made
between God and a father, suggests that God can act as a loving parent or caretaker.
In the second statement, however, a connection is made between everything that a
father is (supposed to be): male, head of household, dominant sex, etc. These
associations, along with hundreds of others, spring up in our minds whenever we hear
‘God the Father,’ or even just the word ‘God,’ because we forget the ‘as if’ and turn it
into an ‘it is.’
Metaphorical language is meant to approximately describe something
unfamiliar in terms of something familiar, or to relate two familiar terms. A metaphor
is not “a precise description of reality”38 but rather an approximation or “suggested
36
Gross, 169.
37
Ibid.
38
Bloesch, Donald G. The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate Over Inclusive God-Language. Ann
Arbor, MI: Vine Books, 1985, 14.

22
likeness.”39 A metaphor only “brokenly reflects what it is intended to signify”40 and
can be misleading and/or imprecise. A “metaphor is a strategy of desperation, not
decoration; it is an attempt to say something about the unfamiliar in terms of the
familiar, an attempt to speak about what we do not know in terms of what we do
know.”41
Metaphors will always be inadequate descriptions of the divine, but we can
strive for new language, stretching our imaginations and our understandings of God,
to try and formulate more complete and more inclusive concepts. As Judith Plaskow
argues:
These problems with traditional images of God generate a need for new language that can
better express the meaning of God for a pluralistic and responsible community. But the move
to new images, as well as feminist criticisms of traditional God-language, presuppose an
understanding of what images of God are about that needs to be made explicit before we can
turn to construction…Everything we say about God represents our human efforts to create,
recapture, and evoke experiences of God sustained within linguistic and cultural frameworks
that already color our experience and interpretation. All our images have an “as if” or “as it
were” in front of them that reminds us they are to be taken neither literally nor as final, but as
part of an ongoing quest for language that can provide a framework for meaningful living and
give expression to our experience.42

The last part of Plaskow’s statement is the most important: the ‘as if’ implicit in all
metaphors for God that we create “reminds us they are to be taken neither literally
nor as final.”43 We should always be striving for new language that expresses our
experience of God, using whatever language we feel is appropriate and meaningful
for our particular situation. Because we are always changing, our relationship to the
divine is always changing—neither we nor God are static entities, but are always
evolving in relationship to each other. Therefore, the language we have, however
inadequate, must always evolve with this relationship. If it does not, we may feel that
there is something lacking because we have changed and new expressions for our
experience have not developed alongside a change in ourselves.
Changing Male God-language

39
Ibid.
40
Ibid., 17.
41
McFague, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1987, 33.
42
Plaskow (1990), 134.
43
Ibid.

23
 If male God-language, as discussed above, really is the problem, how do we
talk about the divine? What words do we use instead of Lord, King, Father, etc.? We
have mostly become accustomed to using these words, and it will take time to change
them. But because language is integral in not only reflecting reality, but also
constituting (or constructing) it, changing language means changing (or at least
attempting to change) the concept with which there are issues, and in turn, altering
reality. If the connection between male God-language and the oppression of women is
a true connection, even if it is somewhat loosely connected, then changing the
language could change the reality of the situation of women.
Although changing the language we use to talk about God may seem like an
overwhelming task at first, we can take comfort in the fact that many before us have
already thought of alternative words to use. The words we can use for the divine
experience in our own lives are endless, because our personal relationship to God is
entirely unique and cannot be described by anyone else. One of our options for
challenging the stronghold that masculine words and phrases have on God-language
is to use feminine words and phrases. In fact, many such images of God as a woman
already exist in the Scriptures. In Exodus 19:4 we find a description of God as a
mother eagle; in Isaiah 42:14, God is a woman in labor; Isaiah 49:15 finds God as an
attentive mother; Hosea 13:8 describes God as a mother bear committed to her cubs;
and Luke 15:8-10 shows that God is a woman searching for what is lost.44 Obviously
parental images are abundant in the Scriptures, and rightly so—having parents is one
thing that all human beings hold in common, making God as parent an easy metaphor
to understand across a wide range of people. Metaphors are an important part of our
description and understanding of the divine because these metaphors, such as God as
parent, provide context and familiarity to something that is beyond imagination.
The concept of a father is familiar to us—in fact, having a father (or mother,
or other parental figure) might be the one experience that all human beings have in
common. Even if our father was not present in our lives, or present for very little of
our lives, we still have a father. The concept of God is unfamiliar, even though many
claim to have a personal relationship with God. Without the metaphor of a father,
44
Adapted from a list found in Patricia Lynn Reilly’s A God Who Looks Like Me: Discovering a
Woman-Affirming Spirituality. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, 89.

24
mother, or other image, it is more difficult to describe God in a concrete manner.
While this image can be powerful, it is completely foreign to us. To make the concept
of God more concrete, we use metaphors, the most prominent one in most Christian
traditions being ‘God the Father.’
New Testament and spirituality scholar Sandra Schneiders points to what she
calls a “linguistic tension” inherent in metaphors that makes it easy for us to forget
the ‘as if’ that Plaskow claims is missing in the metaphor of God the Father. Since
metaphor relates two (sometimes entirely) unrelated things, the mind is in limbo
between these two things, such as God and Father, and gets stuck in the abstract. This
is often uncomfortable and confusing; in order to relieve these feelings, the mind
often searches for something more concrete, “literalizing” the metaphor. Schneiders
explains:
The linguistic tension that constitutes metaphor destabilizes the literalistic mind. This is its
purpose and power. But because the destabilization is uncomfortable, keeping the mind “in
motion” when it would like to “land” in literalistic concreteness, there is an inveterate
temptation when confronted with metaphor to literalize it. A powerful example of how the
literalization of a metaphor can wreck intellectual and affective havoc in the religious
imagination is the metaphorical proposition “God is our Father.” Obviously, God is not
literally a father because God is not a male sexual being who copulates with a female sexual
being to beget offspring. God does not literally beget, generate, or father. But so imaginatively
entrenched in the literalization of father, a necessarily masculine metaphor for God, that most
Christians are genuinely shocked by the use of feminine metaphors, such as mother, for God.
The idolatrous result of this literalization can be traced through church history in the
patriarchalization of Christian faith.45

We need to be careful when creating new metaphors so that they cannot be so easily
literalized.
The process of association through the use of metaphorical language may
seem harmless, and even helpful. But words are symbols, by representing an object or
idea with language, and symbols are metaphors, by associating two concepts or
objects. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for the divine being, just as ‘father’ is a symbol
for a male human in a specific stage of life. As Judith Plaskow says, “metaphors
matter…on both an individual and social level.”46 The metaphors we create impact
our understanding of the things they represent. “God is a model for the many schemes

45
Schneiders, Sandra M. “The Bible and Feminism.” in Freeing Theology: The Essentials of Theology
in Feminist Perspective, ed. Catherine Mowry LaCugna. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993,
38-9.
46
Plaskow (1990), 125.

25
of dominance that human beings create for themselves,” making it easier to legitimate
“the subjection of women.”47 Our understanding of God is forever impacted because
of the association between this symbol, God, and maleness, which is associated with
fathering, “sovereignty, lordship, kingship, and judicial and military power.”48 The
metaphor of ‘God the Father’ matters because of what stands at the other side of the
metaphor—Father. This word functions as a symbol for a whole host of things, which,
by their association with God, immediately come to mind when the word ‘God’ is
mentioned. God is then given the characteristics associated with ‘father,’ which in
turn reflects back on human society and creates a model for fathers and other males.
Because of the associations mentioned above, the metaphor ‘God the Father’
“[evokes] images of arbitrary and autocratic rule”49 that, in addition to being created
by humans, serve as models for the human world. These metaphors matter because:

God as ruler and king of the universe is the pinnacle of a vast hierarchy that extends from God
“himself” to angels/men/women/children/animals and finally the earth. As hierarchical ruler,
God is a model for the many schemes of dominance that human beings create for
themselves.50

Because of the hierarchies inherent in our conception of God, hierarchies are created
among human beings. Our concept of God and our concept of ourselves both serve to
reinforce each other in a never-ending circle—if hierarchical rule is present in the
human realm, God also must be a hierarchical ruler, which in turn serves to legitimate
human hierarchies.
Would all of this be true if we thought of God as female? If we thought of
“God the Mother” instead of “God the Father,” would this female divine still
legitimate hierarchical rule and domination among human beings? At times some
feminists and other scholars hold up a concept of God as Mother, either as it
supposedly was in the past or as it could be in the future. While God the Mother
seems like an awfully tempting concept, since it is so opposite of the dominant
concept as of now, we must be careful. We must be careful not to keep intact existing
hierarchies, but to destroy them and replace them with a more equal system of

47
Ibid., 132.
48
Ibid., 131.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid., 131-32.

26
relation between human beings. It is also important not to only use stereotypically
feminine characteristics when celebrating a Mother God. We must remember that, as
with the concept of God the Father:

“God is mother,” is not to define God as mother, not to assert identity between the terms
“God” and “mother,” but to suggest that we consider what we do not know how to talk about
—relating to God—through the metaphor of mother. The assumption here is that all talk of
God is indirect: no words or phrases refer directly to God, for God-language can refer only
through the detour of a description that properly belongs elsewhere. To speak of God as
mother is to invite us to consider some qualities associated with mothering as on partial but
perhaps illuminating way of speaking of certain aspects of God’s relationship to us. It also
assumes, however, the many other metaphors may qualify as partial but illuminating grids or
screens for this purpose. The point that metaphor underscores is that in certain matters there
can be no direct description.51

We can never fully or adequately describe God, but we can strive for terms or names
for the divine that are more relevant and inclusive.
In the next section I will explore some of the alternative concepts that have
been discussed by feminists in the past few decades. These concepts include God as
female, as genderless, as abstract, or as an inanimate object.

Rethinking God-language

I believe that all the world’s religions share, at their core, a desire to find a transporting
metaphor. When you want to attain communion with God, what you’re really trying to do is
move away from the worldly into the eternal…and you need some kind of magnificent idea
to convey you there. It has to be a big one, this metaphor—really big and magic and
powerful, because it needs to carry you across a mighty distance. It has to be the biggest boat
imaginable.
– Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat, Pray, Love

Because the metaphor of God the Father has been deemed by many as
unhelpful and even harmful, perhaps other metaphors could serve as more positive
representations of God. After all, a whole host of metaphors already exist in
Scriptures that we could draw from, including parental images, feminine images,
genderless images, etc. These images have been forgotten or ignored in favor of male
images for God. In the Scriptures, there are only twelve direct references to God as
Father:
51
McFague (1987), 33-34.

27
 God is actually referred to as father only twelve times in the Hebrew Scriptures and never in
direct address…Five of the references to God as father concern the special relation of God to
the king (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; Ps 89:26; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6) and thus do not apply to the
ordinary person. The other seven references (Ps 103:13; Dt 32:16, 18; Jer 3:4-5; 31:9; Is
63:16; Mal 1:6) all refer to God in the context of Israel’s sin, repentance, and restoration and
God’s endless forgiveness. The father metaphor in the Old Testament is nowhere used to
present God as a patriarch dominating the people or exercising coercive power over them. On
the contrary, the father metaphor is evoked precisely to describe the compassionate love of
God who is like a parent spurned by ungrateful children but who is endless in patience and
loving-kindness toward a rebellious people. The God who is presented is the like the father in
the Old Testament parable of the prodigal son, a paternal rather than patriarchal figure who is
in no way a model for or legitimation of patriarchy.52

If there are so few references to God as Father, and is meant in a more paternal way,
how did the father metaphor become such a powerful and overused image within
Christianity?

God as Mother

We could easily replace the metaphor of God as Father with that of God as
Mother, since it is in keeping with parental imagery for the divine.

The model of “Father” only connotes that God acts in a fatherly way, but this leaves us room,
on the basis of the biblical testimony as well as religious experience, to affirm that God also
acts in a “motherly way.” We are therefore free to call God Mother as well as Father and to
refer to God as “she” as well as “he.”53

In order to imagine God as Mother, we need only look as far as the Scriptures
themselves, for here there are a multitude of images that refer to God as a mother
figure. God is described as a woman: “But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a
weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me”
(Ps.131:2); as a woman who gave birth: “You were unmindful of the Rock that bore
you; you forgot the God who gave you birth” (Deut. 32:18); as a woman in labor:
“For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.” (Isa. 42:14); and as a
nursing mother: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for
the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” (Isa. 49:15).
These images are incredibly powerful, and can reflect an experience that is integral to
52
Schneiders (1986), 29-30.
53
Bloesch (1985), 16-17.

28
many women’s lives.
Some feminists (and other scholars) have pointed out a major problem with
parental images of God. Because of the association with real relationships to one’s
own parents that these images of God imply, “early interactions with parents, which
results in both positive and negative memories and representations of oneself and
one’s parents, are the primal stuff that gets worked into God representations or God
imagos.”54 Because of the high prevalence of negative experiences with parents,
namely child abuse, in the United States, parental images of God could bring up
negative or painful memories of one’s actual parents. “Regardless of gender of the
parent or child, physically or psychologically violent parenting will result in a child’s
formation of a cruel and exacting representation of authority and therefore God.”55 If
someone doesn’t have a healthy and positive relationship with their human parent(s),
they will not have a healthy and positive relationship to a Father or Mother God. As
long as God is presented in a parental manner, these images could spark negative
associations with one’s own parents.
In addition, there are other problems with parental imagery for God.
Rosemary Ruether suggests that it sets up a parent-child hierarchy, in which the
children (human beings) are always at the mercy and command of the parent (God).
In this relationship:

God becomes a neurotic parent who does not want us to grow up. To become autonomous
and responsible for our own lives is the gravest sin against God. Patriarchal theology uses the
parent image of God to prolong spiritual infantilism as virtue and to make autonomy and
assertion of free will as sin. Parenting in patriarchal society also becomes the way of
enculturating us to the stereotypic male and female roles. The family becomes the nucleus and
model of patriarchal relations in society. To that extent parenting language for God reinforces
patriarchal power rather than liberating us from it. We need to start with language for the
Divine as redeemer, as liberator, as one who fosters full personhood and, in that context,
speak of God/ess as creator, as source of being.56

Ruther suggests that a parent-child relationship could stunt the growth of human
beings into full adulthood or consciousness, and hinder their liberation. In addition,

54
Saussy, Carol. God Images and Self-Esteem: Empowering Women in a Patriarchal Society.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, 47.
55
Ibid., 51.
56
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1983, 68-9.

29
the parent-child model “reinforces patriarchal power rather than liberating us from
it.”57 Therefore, the parent-child model for our relationship with God is not helpful as
long as our goal is to move away from a patriarchal, dominating God who has power
over us.
If parental images for God are problematic, then we can explore other images
which could be more helpful. Many have suggested that using female images for the
divine could be a helpful way to balance out the exclusive use of male images. In
addition, female images could help include women in the divine image, and therefore
in the Christian community and their spiritual/religious communities as well.

Other Female Imagery

There are many theories surrounding the use of female imagery for God.
There exist a number of such images in the Bible itself: Hosea 11:3-4 describes God
as a mother; Hosea 13:8 images God as a mother bear; in Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God
is a mother eagle; Deuteronomy 32:18 finds God as a mother who gives birth; in
Isaiah 66:13 God is a comforting mother; Isaiah 49:15 compares God to a nursing
mother; Isaiah 42:14 finds God as a woman in labor; in Psalms 131:2 and 123:2 God
is imaged as or compared to a woman; Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 describe God
as a mother hen; and Luke 15:8-10 recounts Jesus telling the parable of the woman
searching for her lost coin. If female images clearly abound in scripture itself, why
are they not used more often in worship, song, or prayer?
As tempting as it is to simply use female images and language for God instead
of male images and language for God, there are problems with this approach. First of
all, the exclusive use of either gender to describe God does not provide a full picture
of the divine. If human beings were created in God’s image, then God is clearly more
than only male or only female. In addition, we must be careful not to stereotype
women when using female characteristics for God. Just as with male language,
certain behaviors or traits that are stereotypically female, such as mothering, caring,
nursing, etc., while important to celebrate, often are taken for granted as part of every
woman’s essential nature. While some of these characteristics are part of a
57
Ibid.

30
fundamental experience of being a woman (although not for all women), they are also
traits and behaviors that are labeled “feminine” by patriarchal oppressive structures.
While some of these characteristics are inherent to femaleness because of the biology
of our bodies (i.e., being pregnant, having children, nursing, etc.), others are simply
constructions of what it is to be female, and are not necessarily inherently or
biologically female (caring for others, sacrificing oneself for others, and other
stereotypically feminine behaviors.). As Gail Ramshaw notes, “[if] only images of
motherhood are granted female pronouns, we remain impoverished.”58
These constructed traits and behaviors put women into a box, making it
impossible for them to define their identities for themselves. If stereotypically
feminine traits or behaviors are reflected in the divine, as with male characteristics,
they become somewhat sanctified and an even more rigid and powerful definition of
what it means to be female. Feminist scholar Catherine Madsen notes an experience
she had where she found one such stereotypically feminine image, the goddess as
nurturing, particularly objectable:
[T]hroughout the conference, I heard only about God the Mother as nurturer, healer, caretaker,
peacemaker, as though no other attributes were permitted God once she was fitted with a
female pronoun. Rather than expanding the idea of God to include women’s knowledge—the
knowledge of unending responsibility, of the ambiguity and necessity of relationships, of
being surrounded by people yet at the same time far from help—these definitions narrow
God’s role to the traditional feminine virtues: as though the Goddess were God’s wife and our
mother and her job was to clean up after all of us, and console us too.59

It would not be particularly helpful to simply reinforce stereotypically feminine

characteristics in a female divine, as is already done with masculine ones in the
Christian male God. In addition, using female language, while more inclusive, has the
possibility of being only slightly incorporated into the existing male God-concept
rather than abolishing it altogether. This is problematic because it creates a
predominately male image of the divine which is only “tempered by the ideal
feminine, so that believers need not fear or rebel against a crushing paternalism.”60

58
Ramshaw, Gail. “The Gender of God” in Feminist Theology: A Reader, ed. Ann Loades. Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, 171.
59
Madsen, Catherine. “If God Is God She Is Not Nice.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 5:1
(1989), 103-5.
60
Johnson (1992), 48.

31
 If male language is problematic, and female language is problematic as well,
what kind of language should we use to describe the divine? It seems that the only
other option is neuter language. While this may seem like a good option, as it avoids
using gendered pronouns and getting ourselves into trouble altogether, there are
several problems. First of all, using genderless pronouns may seem impersonal or
strange. Instead of ‘He’ or ‘She,’ the only other option in our language is ‘It.’ This
provides an abstract and impersonal, although genderless, vision of God. Secondly,
using genderless language for God does not necessarily solve the problem of
inequality between the sexes. If anything, according to Judith Plaskow, this “prevents
us from speaking to God, and at the same time permits us to hide our sexism behind
abstractions.”61
The options we have when speaking about or referring to the gender of God
point out an important fact about our language system. This system operates on the
basis of a gender binary, which offers three options: male, female, neuter. So it is not
surprising that when confronted with the problems of the exclusive use of male God-
language, some will automatically shift over to the exclusive use of female God-
language, which doesn’t really solve the problem in many cases. While including
female language can be important, going to the opposite end of the gender binary
doesn’t provide any fuller a picture of God than the exclusive male language that is
used in the first place. Johnson explains the difficulty of this “rigid binary system”62
in relation to the image of God:

Enormous diversity is reduced to two relatively opposed absolutes of masculine and feminine,
and thus is imposed on the infinite mystery of God. The move also involves dubious
stereotyping of certain human characteristics as predominantly masculine or feminine. Even
as debate waxes over the distinction between sex and gender, and about whether and to what
extent typical characteristics of men and women exist by nature or cultural conditioning,
simple critical observation reveals that the spectrum of traits is at least as broad among
concrete, historical women as between women and men…Masculine and feminine are among
the most culturally stereotyped terms in the language. This is not to say that there are no
differences between women and men, but it is to question the justification of the present
distribution of virtues and attributes and to find it less than compelling as a description of
reality. Such stereotyping serves the genuine humanity of neither women nor men, and feeds
an anthropological dualism almost impossible to overcome. Adding “feminine” traits to the
male-imaged God furthers the subordination of women by making the patriarchal system less

61
Plaskow (1990), 136.
62
Johnson (1992), 48-9.

32
 threatening, more attractive. This approach does not, then, serve well for speech about God in
a more inclusive and liberating direction.63

Solutions to the problem of gendered God-language in general either include using

completely equal and inclusive language for the divine or knocking down the gender
binary system altogether. The latter option does seem tempting, but is an enormous
task that would involve much more than simply questioning the gender of God. A
relatively good solution for the time being, until the gender binary is done away with
or reimagined, is to use equal amounts of female and male God-language in order to
create a more holistic and inclusive picture of God.

Other Images of God

Feminist theologian Mary Daly suggests an interesting alternative to gendered

God-language which she calls “Verb.” She asserts that because “God is Being” (a
being, as in the noun, and being, the verb), God is the most basic or pure verb of all.
She asks:

Why indeed must “God” be a noun? Why not a verb—the most active and dynamic of all?
Hasn’t the naming of “God” as a noun been an act of murdering the dynamic Verb? And isn’t
the Verb infinitely more personal than a mere static noun? The anthropomorphic symbols for
God may be intended to convey personality, but they fail to convey that God is Being. This
Verb—the Verb of Verbs—is intransitive. It need not be conceived as having an object that
limits its dynamism. That which it is over against is nonbeing. Women in the process of
liberation are enabled to perceive this because our liberation consists of refusing to be “the
Other” and asserting instead that “I am”—without making another “the Other.”64

Feminist scholar and writer Sara Maitland echoes Daly in imagining God as “pure
verb of being-ness.”65 The verb form implies transformation rather than fixedness,
relating to Christ’s vision of an interdependent and interrelated God with all of
creation. Maitland envisions God as represented by an active verb form, embodied in
the statement ‘I AM.’66 She implies that this can be a powerful concept for women,
especially as they come into consciousness about the issues of male God-language
and male domination in general, and as the assert themselves as women. Stating ‘I

63
Ibid.
64
Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1973, 33-34.
65
Maitland, Sara. “Ways of Relating,” 155-56.
66
Ibid.

33
AM’ can be incredibly powerful, especially when you know that statement is echoed
in the very nature of the divine.

Is Eliminating Gendered Pronouns Enough?

In this section, I have explored many options for naming or articulating the
divine. Although there are problems with each option, perhaps a combination of
several differently gendered images can lead to a fuller picture of the divine. But we
must be careful still: even if we are extremely cautious about using gender-inclusive
or gender-neutral language, God the Father or God as male can still be smuggled into
our minds when even hear or think the word ‘God,’ even if we do so outside of a
religious context. Despite our best efforts:

it is important to recognize that, even when very abstract conceptualizations of God are
formulated in the mind, images have a way of surviving in the imagination in such a way that
a person can function on two different and even apparently contradictory levels at the same
time. Thus one can speak of God as spirit and at the same time imagine “him” as belonging to
the male sex.67

Even mentioning the word ‘God,’ which seems gender-neutral and therefore
relatively harmless, can bring up a whole host of associations in the mind, which
happen without notice for the most part. The word ‘God,’ because it has been
associated with masculine characteristics and behaviors for so long, is essentially
ingrained in us as a masculine word, or at least a word that connotes masculinity. This
is why even attempts to make the concept of God gender-inclusive often fail.

The metaphoric status of masculine language for God is forgotten, leading to such nonsensical
statements as “God is a Spirit. He is neither male nor female.” The statement “neither male
nor female” acknowledges that God is not male in sex; but the pronoun “he” attributes
masculine gender to God.68

This is how our understandings of masculinity often get smuggled into the concept of
God, no matter how hard we try to make this concept gender-neutral.
Some of the problems with the exclusive use of male God-language may lie in
the translation of Scripture from ancient languages into, for example, English. These

67
Daly, Mary. “After the Death of God the Father.” in Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in
Religion, ed. Judith Plaskow and Carol Christ. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979, 56.
68
Duck (1991), 33.

34
ancient languages most likely had an entirely different system of grammar and
sentence construction, in addition to a way of gendering or of not gendering certain
words. A language essentially represents the world-view which is held by the people
who speak it—if gender dualisms are inherent to the world-view, they will be
prevalent in the language, like they are in English. In translation of the Scriptures, a
focus on the gendering of God may have become common practice where it had not
previously been emphasized. After all, God is that “Something beyond human
conception”69 and our language can only do so much to express our understanding of
the divine. Feminist scholar Val Webb, who was raised in the Christian fundamentalist
tradition, expresses the indescribable nature of the divine by noting that:
GOD has to be confined within our linguistic rules and terms and there lies our problem. Even
to say “GOD” is limiting, because it simply regurgitates in hearers’ minds whatever humanly
constructed images they hold for that word rather than Reality-in-itself…Religion is about
language, explanations of GOD’s thoughts and ways that, in the end, may be nothing more
than letters strung together with little reference to, or knowledge of, what they signify. In the
English language, if something is not a being, it is a thing (which actually may describe the
Divine more accurately than grey beard and wrinkles), but this less-than-human designation
“It” was thought demeaning for the Divine even when the Bible was first translated into
English. “He” was used instead, even though the translators agreed that GOD was not a
human being.70

Assigning God a gender makes the concept of the divine much more
accessible to human beings, and it can therefore be an important move. But some
feminists have pointed out that using only one image of God is exclusive and
idolatrous. Using gender-inclusive language can be an important way to avoid
religious idolatry.
If we use only the male pronoun, we fall into idolatry, forgetting that God is beyond male and
female—a fact that the use of both pronouns brings home to us…If we refuse to use any
pronouns for God, we court the possibility of concealing androcentric assumptions behind
abstractions. If we are, then, to be concrete, personal, and nonidolatrous in our talk about God,
we have no alternative but to speak of God in female as well as male terms, to use “she” as
well as “he,” and to realize that in so doing we are not attributing passive and nurturing
qualities to God any more than we are attributing active and powerful qualities. Or to say it
differently, we are attributing human qualities: we are imaging God on analogy with human
beings, and so far that is all that we are doing: God is she and he and neither.71

69
Webb, Val. Like Catching Water in a Net: Human Attempts to Describe the Divine. New York: The
Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2007, 29.
70
Ibid.
71
McFague, Sallie. “God As Mother.” in Plaskow, Judith and Carol P. Christ, eds. Weaving the
Visions: New Patterns in Feminist Spirituality. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1989, 140-
41.

35
 Oftentimes attempts to use inclusive language amounts to using the word
‘God’ instead of using ‘He,’ ‘She,’ ‘Lord,’ or anything else that could connote gender.
But as mentioned above, the word God itself does connote gender, and a male gender
at that. So what word do we use to refer to God if not any of these? As long as we
recognize that whatever word we choose to represent the divine is not the only
possible word to represent such a being, we are not being idolatrous. We need to
choose our words wisely, while at the same time acknowledging that our words will
never be enough. We must constantly question ourselves, reflecting on whether we
are falling into idolatry by using one word or concept exclusively. We should
recognize that we will always be searching for the right words, for more perfect
language to express an experience that is beyond language altogether.
And yet, religious symbols (or any other symbols, for that matter) are not
entirely useless or harmful. They can be positive in some ways, such as with
metaphor, whose role is to put something unfamiliar in the context of the familiar.
Theologian and United Church of Christ minister Donald Bloesch reminds us that:

we must not jettison symbolism of faith in our theologizing but instead seek always to
interpret it. The symbol still continues to have a normative authority to which conceptual
thinking is subordinate. At the same time, conceptual thinking enables us to determine which
symbols are really germane to faith and which are inauthentic or peripheral.72

What can be problematic is our interpretation of the symbols we have, rather than our
actual use of them. Symbols can be powerful metaphors, whose interpretation can
bring us to new levels of (religious) understanding. For example, the symbol of God
interpreted as a female divine figure might have the possibility of a person’s bringing
their faith or religious devotion to new levels of understanding.
The Power of Naming

It is also important to note who holds the power to name certain things. Here I
use ‘to name,’ as in ‘naming God,’ to mean ‘to interpret,’ as in ‘interpreting God.’
This is important especially in the context of religion because a relationship with God
can be an intensely personal experience. And yet, people rarely get to interpret God
for themselves; it is most often done for them. Who does the naming or interpreting?
72
Bloesch (1985), 17.

36
Who does this naming or interpreting benefit? Who does it exclude? It is clear from
the story in Genesis that Adam (‘man’ in Hebrew), and therefore all men after him,
have this power. Genesis 2:19-20 tells us:

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field…

Adam (again, “man”) had the power to give animals whatever name he saw fit. A
name is not just something you call a person or an animal, but it is in a way a
definition, and defines that person or animal for the rest of their lives. The story of
Adam naming the animals can be interpreted to tell us that all men who come after
Adam have the power to name or interpret everything around them, and these names
or interpretations are to be used by everyone else.
We name ourselves by defining our own identities, by putting forth our own
interpretation of ourselves. This process of self-naming or self-definition is an
affirming one because it gives us sovereignty over our own lives and bodies, which
boosts our ego (to a healthy level, for most) and makes our lives and our bodies for
us, rather than for someone else. But if the opposite happens, if we are defined by
others, we only see ourselves through their definitions of us, never having the chance
to name or define ourselves. The dominant group in Western society (men), for the
most part, has the power of naming, although this is complicated by certain
inequalities among different types of men. But men as a general group have the power
to name and define things in our society, including other people. Women, children,
animals, and other oppressed or subordinate groups have not been able to go through
this self-naming process for themselves, but have had their identities defined for
them, by men. This means that the identities and bodies of these subordinate groups
are for men, rather than for themselves. This is why the exploitation of subordinate
groups, on both mental and physical levels, happens in Western societies, because the
identities and bodies of these subordinate groups are arranged for (sometimes quite
literally) the dominant group.73
73
For a further discussion of this phenomenon, see Marilyn Frye’s The Politics of Reality (Crossing
Press, 1983). Frye’s discussion of “the arrogant eye,” or the dominant male gaze, pertains to my
discussion here (see especially 66-72).

37
 The same goes for the naming of God. Even though the word ‘God’ is
sometimes thought of as a generic, genderless word for the divine, it actually has
many meanings beyond just the definition of the word itself, as has been discussed so
far. The word itself, and all its associated meanings, has been defined by men. Just as
Adam named the animals, men have been in a position in which they have the power
to name God. Women and other subordinated groups have been using this dominant
definition for centuries, never getting a chance to define or interpret God for
themselves (perhaps except for in private). Johnson remarks that the process of
women’s subordination:
is strongly aided and abetted by male-centered language and symbol systems, key reflections
of the dominant group’s power to define reality in its own terms and a powerful tool of its
rule. Women have been robbed of naming, of naming themselves, the world, the ultimate holy
mystery, having instead to receive the names given by those who rule over them. Since
language not only expresses the world by helping to shape and create it, learning to speak a
language where the female is subsumed grammatically under the male gives girl children
from the beginning the experience of a world where the male is the norm from which her own
self deviates…In sexist civil and religious society, women’s basic human experience of
uniqueness becomes an experience of otherness, of being alien and not fitting in, of being out
of place and of little consequence.74

The very definition of God includes masculine characteristics and a general sense of
maleness, which women obviously do not have. In addition to supposedly not being
made in the image of God, since women do not have the characteristics of a male
God, they must use the male-defined terminology in order to express the divine. This
takes away their authority to name or interpret their God and their selves. As Johnson
says:
Both the images that are used and the concepts accompanying them reflect the experience of
men in charge within a patriarchal system. The difficulty does not lie in the fact that male
metaphors are used, for men too are made in the image of God and may suitably serve as
finite beginning points for reference to God. Rather, the problem consists in the fact that these
male terms are used exclusively, literally, and patriarchally.75

Therefore, if the very word “God” is problematic, not only because of its
association with maleness, but also because of its definition exclusively by men, how
can we define God in a more positive way? In the next section, I will explore the
concept of Sophia, a biblical figure who many women find themselves religiously
attracted to because of her femaleness and because of her seeming equality with God

74
Johnson (1992), 26-7.
75
Ibid, 33.

38
in some scriptural texts. Some Christians believe her to be the Goddess of Wisdom,
while others think of her as the feminine aspect of God (and others still do not believe
in her). I will explore not only who she is in the scriptures, but also how she is related
to other important aspects of Christianity such as the concept or role of Jesus Christ
and her place in the Holy Trinity. Many feminist biblical scholars, theologians and
liturgists have been engaged in a retrieval of Sophia for at least two decades. An
example of this is the Re-Imagining Conference of 1993, which gathered Christian
feminists of all denominations to do just this: retrieve Sophia from where she is
buried in biblical texts by reflecting on their experiences as Christian women and
creating rituals, poetry, and other experiences, some of which used Sophia as their
inspiration.76 I will discuss, through the work of these scholars, how Sophia can be a
powerful female divine figure who can alleviate God’s overwhelming maleness in the
Christian tradition. The concept of Sophia, if used in the right way, can be a powerful
alternative to an exclusively male God in Christianity. First I will discuss conceptions
of Sophia in Hebrew Wisdom literature, then talk about how she was adapted into the
New Testament writings.

Sophia: An Alternative to Male God-language

The first man knew her not perfectly: nor more shall the last find her out. For her thoughts are
more than the sea, and her counsels profounder than the great deep.
-Sir. 24:28-9

76
See Berkening, Nancy J. and Pamela Carter Joern, eds. Re-Membering and Re-Imagining.
Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1995. In particular, Nancy Fitzgerald’s “Preparing to Leap” (page 11-12) and
Hilda A. Kuester’s “Creating the Sophia Ritual” (page 18-20).

39
 In both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, Sophia77 is mentioned—either
directly by name (Sophia or Wisdom) or indirectly by the mention of wisdom—as a
female counterpart to the male God. Wisdom literature found in the Hebrew Bible
speaks of her as God’s partner in the creation of the world and his “wife.” Chapter 8
of Proverbs speaks of Sophia as being created by God before the creation of the
world, and as a partner to God in the latter creation.

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,

the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first,
before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth;
before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deeps,
when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master workman;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the sons of men. (Prov. 8)

This passage is an autobiography that tells of the origins of Sophia from her own
perspective. It seems to imply that Sophia was God’s first creation, before the skies,
the sea, or anything else was created. It also seems that Sophia is God’s assistant or
77
Sophia is Greek for “wisdom.” In Hebrew, “wisdom” is Chokhmah. Sophia is the common name
used by many feminist biblical scholars and feminist theologians today to refer to what is biblically
referred to as Wisdom or Chokhmah. Sophia is mainly found in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew
Bible. Wisdom literature refers to all the texts which speak of Wisdom-Sophia, including Ben Sirach
(or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, Proverbs, Psalms, the Book of Job, and the Song of Songs
(or Song of Solomon). The Wisdom literature texts are Deuterocanonical, meaning that they are not
canonical for Jews, Protestants, and other denominations of Christianity. They are mainly used by
Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican Christians and can be found in the New Revised Standard Version of
the Bible. For a description of the contents of these texts, see Rabbi Rami Shapiro’s The Divine
Feminine in Biblical Wisdom Literature: Selections Annotated & Explained. Woodstock, VT: SkyLight
Paths Publishing, 2005, xxv-xxxix. For additional resources on feminist liturgies or liturgies having to
do with Sophia, see Prayers to Sophia by Joyce Rupp (Innisfree Press, 2000); Dissident Daughters:
Feminist Liturgies in Global Context, ed. Teresa Berger (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001); In Her
Own Rite: Constructing Feminist Liturgical Tradition by Marjorie Procter-Smith (OSL Publications,
2000).

40
even co-creator, especially from the line “when he marked out the foundations of the
earth,/then I was beside him, like a master workman.” Sophia also has knowledge (or
wisdom, as it were) of God’s creation, because she was there beside him when it was
all happening.
In addition to being God’s partner or wife, Wisdom literature describes Sophia
as God’s daughter, God’s lover, a feminine side or aspect of God, the Holy Spirit, and
even the mother of Jesus. She appears throughout the Bible as ‘wisdom’ or ‘Wisdom’
(the Hebrew original did not include capitalization) and is mentioned in sections such
as Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and other books. For
some scholars, Sophia is clearly a carry-over from earlier goddess-based religions
(especially Egyptian-Hellenistic ones), and has similarities to ancient goddesses such
as Isis.78 Feminist theologian and feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza describes Sophia as having evolved from the language and beliefs of earlier
goddess cults that was later integrated into Jewish theology:
[Several] scholars have suggested that such Wisdom theology is best understood as reflective
mythology. This is a type of theology that uses elements from G*ddess language and cult to
speak about the loving care of G*d for her people Israel as well as for all of creation.
Chokmah/Sophia is the personification of G*d’s saving activity in the world, of Israel’s
election, and of the salvation of all peoples.79

In this way, Sophia, borrowing certain elements from ancient goddesses such as Isis,
is the embodiment of God’s wisdom and salvation on earth.
In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is described in various ways that allude to
her power and association with divine nature:

Divine Sophia has her residence in heaven. She is the glory of G*d (Wisd. 7:25-26), mediator
of creation (Wisd. 8:5-6), and shares the throne of G*d (Wisd. 9:3). She rules over kings and
is herself all powerful. She makes everything, renews everything, and permeates the cosmos
(Wisd. 7:23, 27, 8:1, 5). “She is but one, yet can do everything; herself unchanging, she
makes all things new” (Wisd. 7:27). She is “intelligent and holy, free moving, clear, loving
what is good, eager, beneficent, unique in her Way” (Wisd. 7:22). She is a people-loving spirit
(Wisd. 1:6) who shares in the throne of G*d and in the ruling power of G*d (Wisd. 9:10). She
is an initiate into the knowledge of G*d, collaborator in G*d’s work, the brightness that
streams from everlasting light, a pure effervescence of divine glory, and the image of G*d’s

78
Isis See Satoko Yamaguchi’s “Father Image of God and Inclusive Language” in Toward a New
Heaven and a New Earth: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed. Fernando F. Segovia.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003, 137 and 147; Matthews (1991), 11; Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth.
Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Theology. New York: Continuum,
1994, 137.
79
Schussler Fiorenza (1994), 137.

41
 goodness. In short, Divine Wisdom lives symbolically with G*d (Wisd. 8:3f; 7:26). Kinship
with Divine Wisdom brings immortality and friendship with her, resulting in pure delight
(Wisd. 10:17).80

From this we can see that Sophia may have had a high standing in the Jewish
religious community and was at one point thought of as having equal status with God
as well as creative powers of her own.
In addition to being associated with God and the creative powers of a divine
nature, Sophia was related to the people themselves, inspiring wisdom in them and
guiding them through life. This led to the creation of a mother-child relationship
between Sophia and the people of Israel. In fact, “[many] among the Jewish people
seem to have conceived of themselves as the children of Sophia, gathered under her
wings and sent out to the world as her messengers.”81 According to Schüssler
Fiorenza, “One of the oldest Jesus sayings is that “Sophia is justified by her children”
(QLk 7:35).”82 Therefore, Sophia was a mixture of a mother figure and a lover to the
people of Israel, and in both roles provided comfort and strength to her people.
Because Sophia is the embodiment of God’s wisdom on earth and acts as
God’s messenger to the people of Israel, she came to be seen in early Christian
communities as embodied in Jesus Christ—he is often referred to as her child. Jesus
is Sophia’s messenger, and through her carries out the will of God.

Some of the earliest traditions of the Jesus movement understood the mission of Jesus as that
of a prophet of Sophia sent to proclaim that the Sophia-G*d of Jesus is the G*d of the poor,
the outcasts, and all those suffering from injustice. It is likely that these early Jesus traditions
interpreted the Galilean mission of Jesus as that of Divine Sophia because Jesus of Nazareth
understood himself as a messenger and child of Sophia…As Sophia’s messenger and prophet
Jesus not only proclaimed the basileia of G*d [reign of God] to the poor, the hungry, and the
excluded of Israel but also made it experientially available to all in his miracles and ministry.83

Therefore, Jesus Christ as Sophia’s messenger both carries out the basileia (in Greek,
“kingdom”) of God and brings the wisdom of Sophia to the people of Israel. Jesus’
message can be seen as one of inspired or divine wisdom (or Sophia-Wisdom), since
it is considered so revolutionary and different from other messages of his time.

80
Ibid., 135-36.
81
Yamaguchi, “Father Image of God,” 210.
82
Schüssler Fiorenza (1994), 140.
83
Ibid.

42
Wisdom in the Hebrew Testament

In the Hebrew Testament, Sophia is most importantly mother, lover, and

teacher. Her role as Woman Wisdom can be read as suggesting equality with God (for
example, through references to the sharing of the divine throne). In Judaism, Sophia
was seen as partnered both with human beings and with God, and the texts often
hinted at romantic relationships with both. In the Hebrew scriptures, Sophia can be
seen as a carry-over from Egyptian-Hellenistic goddess worship, due to her
similarities to earlier goddesses like Isis.

Sophia as Mother and Lover

Parts of the Bible such as the Wisdom of (Jesus) Ben Sirach, or Ben Sirach for
short (also called Ecclesiasitcus) and Wisdom of Solomon use metaphors such as
lover and mother in order to emphasize the importance of having wisdom at or on
one’s side. In the beginning of Ben Sirach, Wisdom is imaged as a mother and hinted
at as a lover:
Wisdom raises her sons to greatness
and cares for those who seek her.
To love her is to love life;
to rise early for her sake is to be filled with joy.
The man who attains her will win recognition;
the Lord’s blessing rests upon every place she enters.
To serve her is to serve the Holy One,
and the Lord loves those who love her. (Sir. 4:11-14)

The fact that Wisdom “raises her sons to greatness” suggests that she is a mother to
all those who believe in her. The pairing of mother and lover appears in later chapters
as well. By believing in Sophia, one takes her as a bride. This imagery is very
prevalent throughout the texts in which Sophia is mentioned. If one seeks out
Wisdom, one can take her as their bride or lover, in a metaphorical sense. The
coupling of a human being and divine Wisdom is seen as very auspicious in Wisdom
literature. “To fall in love with Sophia is to fall in love with Wisdom itself.”84 A
particular passage in the Wisdom of Solomon indicates both a romantic partnering
with humans and a partnering with God:

84
Grey, Mary. Introducing Feminist Images of God. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press,
2001, 104.

43
 Wisdom I loved; I sought her out when I was young
and longed to win her for my bride,
and I fell in love with her beauty.
She adds lustre to her noble birth,
because it is given her to live with God,
and the Lord of all things has accepted her.
She is initiated into the knowledge that belongs to God,
and she decides for him what he shall do. (Wis. 8:2-5)

The lover metaphor is most likely used because of the generic language used in the
Bible (“man” instead of “person”) and points to the heteronormativity of the Bible.
Sophia could be imaged as a lover or partner to all peoples, men and women, but by
using the word “man,” the authors of these texts make the lover metaphor more
plausible within the historical context of the time in which the texts were written. But
this metaphor is nonetheless important in describing the role of Sophia in Jewish and
early Christian communities.
In the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, Sophia is also imaged as
mother, and the people of Israel who seek her counsel are her children. This is
extremely similar imagery to the traditional Christian God, who is a parent (father) to
his children, the Israelites. This suggests a similar conception of God and Sophia, and
that they may have been at some time one and the same.
The man who fears the Lord will do all this,
and if he masters the law, wisdom will be his.
She will come out to meet him like a mother;
she will receive him like a young bride.
For food she will give him the bread of understanding
and for drink the water of knowledge. (Sir. 15:1-3)

The pairing of images of mother and bride in the same sentence makes for an
interesting juxtaposition. But the point of these metaphors is to emphasize the kind of
close relationship one can have with Wisdom-Sophia if one believes in her.

Sophia as Teacher

One of Sophia’s most important roles is that of teacher. She is constantly

crying out to the people, inviting them to her table, or imploring them to listen to her.
If you do listen to her, you will be rewarded and happy; if you do not, you will not be

44
punished and unhappy. In chapter 1 of Proverbs, Wisdom is described as teacher,
asking the people to listen to her so that she may impart on them her knowledge.

Wisdom cries aloud in the open air,

she raises her voice in public places;
she calls at the top of the busy street
and proclaims at the open gates of the city:
‘Simple fools, how long will you be content with your simplicity?
If only you would respond to my reproof,
I would give you my counsel
and teach you my precepts. (Prov. 1:20-23)

That those who listen to Sophia and heed her instructions will be rewarded is
especially emphasized in a later chapter of Proverbs:
Now, my sons, listen to me,
listen to instruction and grow wise, do not reject it.
Happy is the man who keeps to my ways,
happy the man who listens to me,
watching daily at my threshold
with his eyes on the doorway;
for he who finds me finds life
and wins favour with the LORD,
while he who finds me not, hurts himself,
and all who hate me are in love with death. (Prov. 8:32-36)

As teacher, Sophia is acting as a divine instructor, which is basically the role of God
throughout both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments. In this way, Sophia shares in
the power of God to lead her people by teaching them her wisdom.

Sophia as God’s Partner or Equal

Wisdom as God’s partner or equal is most clearly stated in chapter 8 of
Proverbs, as quoted above. The especially important lines that might lead some
scholars to draw conclusions about the equality of Sophia and God are as follows:
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first,
before the beginning of the earth.
…
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master workman;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the sons of men. (Prov. 8)

45
This passage suggests Sophia’s equality with God by the fact that she was: 1) the first
of God’s acts, before the world was created; and 2) beside him during this process,
“like a master workman.” It even suggests that Sophia was God’s helper or partner in
the creation of the world itself.
This conclusion is complicated, of course, by the fact that there exists in many
Wisdom literature texts a seeming contradiction between Sophia’s equality with God
and her subordination to God. It seems as if the texts could have originally been
written with Sophia’s equality in mind and were later changed so that Sophia was
subordinate, leaving behind clues to her previous equal status. Sophia has been
interpreted, from passages in Wisdom literature that suggest her equality with God, as
sharing or being near God’s throne.
Given the history of Christianity, we know that it evolved directly from
Judaism, which drew upon both Greek philosophy and Egyptian-Hellenistic goddess
worship. These two earlier elements seem to always be in tension as they appear in
the Wisdom texts: the first, emphasizing the male as superior, and the latter, praising
the greatness of female power. This can be seen in chapter 9 of the Wisdom of
Solomon. Although Wisdom-Sophia is praised throughout the Wisdom of Solomon,
there is still an understanding of God as male and more powerful. The author of
Solomon pleads God to “give me wisdom,” first praising God’s greatness and “his”
masculinity:

God of our fathers, merciful Lord,

who hast made all things by thy word,
and in thy wisdom hast fashioned man,
to be the master of thy whole creation,
and to be steward of the world in holiness and righteousness,
and to administer justice with an upright heart,
give me wisdom, who sits beside thy throne,
and do not refuse me a place among thy servants. (Wis. 9:10-5)

Wisdom in the Christian Testament

Wisdom is even mentioned in the Christian Testament, such as the Gospels of

Matthew and Luke, which in a few cases match up verbatim. Here, Wisdom-Sophia is

46
not mentioned alone, but as the wisdom of God. In a particular passage in the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke, the wisdom seems to be entirely God’s:

The Son of Man came eating and drinking,

and you say, “Look at him! a glutton and a drinker,
a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!”
And yet God’s wisdom is proved right
by all who are her children. (Matt 11:19, Luke 7:34-35)

The passage does not refer to ‘wisdom’ alone or mention the name Sophia. This might
suggest that either Sophia is denigrated or ignored in favor of God or raised to a level
equal with God. Of course, these issues are still being debated today by feminist,
biblical, and other scholars.

Sophia and the Holy Spirit

In the Christian Testaments, Sophia is also sometimes associated or compared

to the Holy Spirit, as they have similar functions. In these texts, both Sophia and the
Holy Spirit are ‘received’ into the bodies of believers. In this way, both Sophia and
the Holy Spirit are imagined as incorporeal, able to be embodied by human beings.
The “complete unity”85 between the two female divine figures is expressed in the
Wisdom of Solomon:

There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,

unique, manifold, subtle,
mobile, clear, unpolluted,
distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
irresistible, beneficent, humane,
steadfast, sure, free from anxiety,
all-powerful, overseeing all…

Although she is but one, she can do all things,

and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends God, and prophets. (Wis. 7:22-23, 27)

According to Schüssler Fiorenza, “Sophia has here assumed the functions of the
Spirit” and “like the Spirit, [she] can be sent by G*d.”86 Sophia is not only directly
related to God, but also to the “holy souls” of human beings, in whom she instills
knowledge and the spirit of God. Throughout the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is
85
Schüssler Fiorenza (1994), 146.
86
Ibid.

47
described as a figure who saves and comforts through knowledge, an all-knowing
adviser.

With you is Sophia, she who knows your works

and was present when you made the world;
she understands what is pleasing in your sight
and what is right according to your commandments.

Send her forth from the holy heavens,

and from the throne of your glory send her,
that she may labor at my side,
and that I may learn what is pleasing to you.

For she knows and understands all things,

and she will guide me wisely in my actions
and guard me with her glory. (Wis. 9:9-11)

Again, Sophia functions here like the Holy Spirit, being summoned down from the
heavens. She shares in the wisdom of God, and through her, we can know what is
pleasing to God.

Sophia and the Trinity

Given the suggestions of Sophia’s divinity and possibly equality with God, we
must examine how this impacts other aspects of Christianity, especially the Trinity.
Christianity states that God is one being who exists simultaneously and eternally in
three “persons” (often called the ‘Triune God’): the Father (God), the Son (Jesus
Christ), and the Holy Spirit (sometimes Sophia or an ambiguous female figure). They
fall across a spectrum of divinity and gender: the Father is fully divine and male; the
Son is fully divine and fully human, and always male; and the Holy Spirit is a little
more ambiguous in terms of form, but is often imagined as female. Many feminists
have argued that the problem with a male God directly relates to the overwhelming
maleness in the Holy Trinity. Some feminists have pointed out that the Holy Spirit is
an attempt to include feminine characteristics in some way, although the role of the
Holy Spirit is in no way equal with that of God or other male beings/figures in
Christianity.
The reason for the objections to identifying the Spirit as feminine—quite apart from the lack
of weight to this in the tradition—is that it would seem to allocate a token presence of the
female within the divine, as well as restricting the female representation in the Trinity to the
Spirit…The problem is that to identify the Spirit with such roles as ‘comforting’, ‘mothering’,

48
 ‘nurturing’, both latches on to an essentialist view of female-ness, and leaves God the Father
in a masculine, patriarchal world, reinforcing its symbolism. Feminist theology rather wants
to rediscover the richness and diversity of the role of the Spirit of creation, in relationships, in
empowering prophetic movements and in resisting all kinds of oppressive structures, in as full
a manner as possible.87

Some feminists would see the Holy Spirit as relegating females to a role that is less-
than and including stereotypically feminine characteristics, which is problematic. But
seeing the Holy Spirit as a lesser being than the other two figures in the Trinity is
simply an interpretation based on experiences in a patriarchal religion. It would seem
obvious that in such a patriarchal religion, male divine figures would be help up
above female divine figures. Some scholars, such as Caitlin Matthews, would say that
the ambiguity of female divine figures such as the Holy Spirit or Sophia is a
denigration or devaluation of all things female.
The Goddess of Wisdom [or the Holy Spirit] has appeared as an abstraction, a pedestalled
feminization of a universal quality, as a serene Goddess, as a philosophical nicety. When we
enter theological and philosophical ground, we discover continual hair-splitting as to Sophia’s
real identity: she becomes a substance, an energy, an abstraction, or she is an identifiable part
of the Trinity. Theologians and philosophers have gone out of their way to explain her away,
to grudgingly incorporate her into the Divine economy, or else to subvert the orthodox
thought processes of their tradition in order to give her a place. The way that Sophia has been
treated is well paralleled in the manner with which women have been accorded respect or not.
Even today, in most masculine walks of life, woman are considered to be a necessary evil, a
tangle of contradictions which will not accord with the masculine norm, or else, they are a
wondrous species to be pedestalled in some exalted sphere, though robbed of any real
power.88

Because of the patriarchal tradition in Christianity, it would seem that maleness has
been interpreted as better or more divine, while femaleness has been “pedastalled,”
shoved aside, or even denigrated.
However, as Schüssler Fiorenza points out, there is an intended equality in the
relationship between the three “persons” of the Holy Trinity. In addition, these beings
are beyond whatever gendered pronouns we should choose to attribute to them.

In all these attempts to balance the metaphors for the Trinity it should be remembered that, in
theological tradition, there is an equality of partnership among the three members and, though
there is not distinction in their missions, there is no separation. The whole Trinity, as one, both
includes and transcends all the masculine and feminine metaphors we might use. When we
describe the Trinity, it is not sufficient just to add words with traditional feminine overtones.

87
Grey (2001), 101.
88
Matthews (1991), 12

49
 The words used should also be an expression of the nature of God as experienced in the
Christian community.89

Schüssler Fiorenza, by mentioning the true nature of the Trinity, suggests that over
the centuries the genders of the three figures of the Trinity have been emphasized or
interpreted as such. But she also points out that it is “not sufficient”90 simply to
include feminine aspects or characteristics of God, as this perpetuates the notion of an
all-powerful male God with some feminine qualities on the side. The “nature of God
as experienced in the Christian community,”91 whatever gender or qualities that God
is experienced as having, is what should be expressed. Catherine LaCugna echoes
Schüssler Fiorenza’s statement that it is not enough to simply include feminine
aspects in our conceptions of God or the Holy Spirit. She states that there is a
“promising line of thought” in imaging female figures like Sophia or the Holy Spirit
as female, but “a Trinity that is predominantly (two-thirds) male with one feminine
dimension concedes that Father and Son are, or should be imaged, solely as
masculine.”92 A reification of the male divine over the female divine reflects back
onto human society, as explored earlier, and devoting feminine imagery “solely [to]
the Spirit would reinforce the subordination of women in church and society.”93
Schüssler Fiorenza sees feminine symbology, included in the figures of the
Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit, and Sophia, as incredibly powerful in lessening the
intense masculinity of God and, correspondingly, of the Holy Trinity. She sees the use
of feminine and masculine metaphor or imagery as a powerful way to make the
symbol of God, on its own or as incorporated into the Trinity, more inclusive.

[M]any different images of women and variegated symbols of the G*ddess must be applied to
G*d generally as well as to the three persons of the Trinity equally. Just as language about
Jesus Christ does not introduce a masculine element into the Trinity, Marian symbolic
language must not be used to ascribe femininity or motherhood to a G*d whose essence is
defined as masculine…Such a critical-affirmative integration of Marian symbols and
G*ddess-images into Christian discourses about G*d would make it possible for theology to
return Mary to earth. It would allow for her integration into the basileia movement of equals
89
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. “Interpreting Patriarchal Traditions” in The Liberating Word: A Guide
to Nonsexist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1976, 91.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. “God in Communion with Us” in Freeing Theology, ed. C. M.
LaCugna (1993), 105.
93
Ibid.

50
 as a part of the struggling, suffering, and victorious ekklesia of women. At the same time it
would make it clear that women as well as men are images and representations of G*d.94

Rather than allowing female divine figures to function as feminine aspects of an all-
male God, these female deities should exist in their own right and be combined with
male figures to create a more holistic and inclusive picture of God.

Sophia and Jesus Christ

The notion of a female Goddess of Wisdom throws into question aspects of

Christianity such as the Trinity, as we have seen, as well as the maleness of other
divine figures such as Jesus Christ. This is particularly because of Sophia’s
association with Jesus Christ, where he is her son and/or her prophet. The connection
is strong enough that Christ is often referred to as Jesus-Sophia or Sophia-Christ. The
figure of Jesus-Sophia is especially important in Gnosticism, where the two figures
are thought of as one, essentially a male-female divine unit. The concept of Sophia-
Christ has been picked up by many feminist theologians as a way to reimagine Christ
and to infuse the “Son of God” with some femininity. Jesus:
evoked the female divine figure of Wisdom Sophia, who promises rest and shalom to all the
heavily laden, who invites everyone on the street to her abundant table, and who bestows her
life-giving wisdom on the people. Thus, in the Christian Testament, Jesus is described as a
prophet of Sophia.95

Through Jesus Christ, Sophia performs her original functions of teaching wisdom,
imparting knowledge, and calling to her table the people of Israel, this time with a
compassionate focus on the oppressed or underserved.
Some scholars see Jesus Christ, the son of God, replacing Sophia, sometimes
the daughter of God, as embodied or personified Wisdom. Sophia begins as
personified Wisdom and the daughter of God, but is transformed into the mother of
Jesus and is embodied in his wisdom, rather than having and imparting wisdom of her
own. In their book Sophia: The Future of Feminist Spirituality, Susan Cady and her
co-authors suggest that a:

process of repression [continues], with Christ replacing Sophia as personified Wisdom. Paul
identifies Christ with Sophia, and appropriates concepts and terminology of the Wisdom

94
Schüssler Fiorenza (1994), 180.
95
Yamaguchi, “Father Image of God,” 210.

51
 School to speak of Christ. In Matthew, Jesus speaks Sophia’s words, and he takes over her
powers. Although the earlier Q tradition, which accord to Jesus the role of Sophia’s
messenger, is incorporated within the Gospel, this tradition is used to create “a Christology
dependent on the Hellenstic understanding of Sophia, whose powers and attributes are now
seen as incarnate in the man Jesus.” Jesus transforms Sophialogy to Christology by
transferring Sophia’s power and attributes to the Logos [Word], then identifying Christ as
Logos incarnate. Jesus’ speeches in John’s Gospel, both in style and symbolism (“I am…light,
water, vine”) evoke the style and symbolism in Proverbs, Wisdom, and Ben Sirach…to
describe Sophia. In John as well, Jesus becomes Sophia incarnate.96

This is why many scholars claim to see the fall of the goddess and the overthrow of
goddess worship with patriarchal religion when they compare different texts in
chronological order.97 We have evidence that earlier cultures worshipped goddesses or
at least a combination of gods and goddesses. We also know that Christianity is a
patriarchal religion with a male God at its center. But it is possible to see, especially
in Wisdom literature, a “leftover” goddess worship that the authors of the Bible (and
scholars today) struggle to reconcile with Christianity’s androcentrism. It is also
possible that the male emphasis was added in later versions or translations of the
texts.
Sophia’s powers lessened as Christ took her place as a direct descendent of
God, replicating her actions by imploring the people to listen to his (divine) wisdom.
Jesus, rather than Sophia, becomes (God’s) Wisdom personified. This Wisdom is
spoken of in male rather than female terms and serves to further legitimate patriarchal
rule and the subordination of women. But if Jesus Christ was instead Jesus-Sophia
(Sophia-Christ), not having power in his own right but deriving it directly from
Divine Woman Wisdom, then this image “destabilizes the patriarchal imagination”98:

Whoever espouses a wisdom Christology is asserting that Sophia in all her fullness was in
Jesus so that in his historicity he embodies divine mystery in creative and saving involvement
in the world…Such a way of speaking breaks through the assumption that there is a
“necessary ontological connection” between the male human being Jesus and a male God,
leading to the realization instead that even as a human man, Jesus can be thought to be
revelatory of the graciousness of God imaged as female. Likewise, divine Sophia incarnate in
Jesus addresses all persons in her call to be friends of God and can be truly represented by any
human being called in her Spirit, woman as well as men. Not incidentally, the typical
stereotypes of masculine and feminine are subverted as female Sophia represents creative
transcendence, primordial passion for justice, and knowledge of the truth, while Jesus

96
Cady, Susan, Marian Ronan and Hal Taussig. Sophia: The Future of Feminist Spirituality. New
York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 11.
97
See Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
98
Johnson, Elizabeth. “Redeeming the Name of Christ” in LaCugna (1993), p 127.

52
 incarnates these divine characteristics in an immanent way relative to bodiliness and the
earth.99

While it is relatively easy to reimagine God as female, it is harder to do so for

Jesus Christ because he is seen as a historical figure. As Catholic feminist scholar
Sandra Schneiders points out: “The problem is not the sex of God (which does not
exist) but our experience of God as masculine; and it is not the masculinity of Jesus
(who is anything but a glorification of machismo) but his male sex.”100 The
masculinity of God and the maleness of Jesus Christ have been seen as further
legitimating patriarchal structures and the subordination of women to men. It also
creates an idea of maleness as normative, making women “derivative and
subordinate.”101
What is emphasized in the life of Jesus Christ is his crucifixion and
resurrection, in which his maleness is heavily focused upon. Therefore, it can be
powerful to imagine Jesus Christ as female in order to subvert Christ’s maleness as a
legitimating factor for patriarchy in favor of mutuality and love.
Writing from the perspective of a lesbian feminist Christian, [Carter] Heyward also rejects the
traditional image of Jesus as heroic individual and emphasizes the primacy of relationships.
She re-images Jesus as “Christa,” communally and personally defined…Jesus is with us, and
we are with Jesus; but Christ/Christa is in us. The value of these relational interpretations lies
in their relocation of power and meaning away from a patriarchal pyramid of dominant-
submissive power in community and relationship.102

A reimagining of Jesus Christ as “Christa” can be powerful in transforming the

overwhelming maleness of this historical figure. In addition, it helps in transforming
our relationship with Jesus to a more intimate one—from “with us” to “in us.” But, in
the same breath, Procter-Smith points out the problems with such a strategy:

However, the risk with all relational Christologies is that they can easily rewrite patriarchal
definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” and thus ultimately fail to challenge patriarchal
power. Therefore, relational Christologies that emphasize Jesus as relational, or that locate
feminist Christology in relationships, are unable to disrupt this conventional and dichotomous
social structure.103

99
Ibid., 127-28.
100
Schneiders (1986), 15.
101
Ibid., 6.
102
Procter-Smith, Marjorie. Praying with Our Eyes Open: Engendering Feminist Liturgical Prayer.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995, 96.
103
Ibid.

53
This approach is problematic because it emphasizes Christ as female and relational,
reinforcing stereotypical notions of femaleness as relational, and maleness as non-
relational. This reemphasizes existing dichotomies which are unhelpful in their
descriptions and definitions of human beings, who are, in these dichotomies, limited
to being defined as either male or female.
Another problem that many feminists have with Jesus Christ as a masculine
figure is the fact that his masculinity is emphasized as part of his role as savior. Some
feminists feel that this reemphasizes the stereotypical notion that women need to be
saved by men. This notion of men (who are in control) saving women (who have no
control or are out of control) reinforces patriarchal hierarchies. This notion is just
another factor that legitimates patriarchy, and many women see Jesus Christ as falling
into this role.
As a result of our immersion in male names and images of God and in the images of saviors
that linger in our memories from fairy tales and Bible stories, the girl-child becomes
convinced of her inability to save herself and of her need of a male savior. Our lives remain
on hold as we wait for the Deliverer to come…From childhood women are taught to look
outside themselves for legitimacy, direction, and salvation.104

Patriarchy teaches women that they are incapable of saving themselves, and that they
are to look to men for “legitimacy, direction, and salvation.”105 This is legitimated
based on the “inferiority” of women and the “superiority” of men in various ways,
including mentally and physically. Although the life of Jesus Christ can be read this
way, and has surely been used to legitimate the inferiority of women in various ways,
the actual teachings and mission of Jesus Christ can be read, as we will see, as a
refusal to comply with patriarchal structures.
Just as it is helpful to use existing passages to displace the maleness of God,
we can look at the texts to see how Jesus is actually portrayed. Rather than
reimagining Christ as wholly female, we can use existing material about his life and
message to transform his maleness from a legitimation of patriarchal structures to an
affirmation of all peoples. Jesus’ ministry included deliberately reaching out to the
poor and oppressed, including women. Women were among his disciples (Mary
Magdalene, and others who remain unnamed) and were witnesses to his resurrection

104
Reilly (1995), 63-4.
105
Ibid.

54
(Luke 23:50-24:12). It is possible to interpret Jesus’ message not as a legitimation of
patriarchy, but rather as a critique of it.
In the feminist perspective, his inclusion of women coequally in the reign of God was part of
the offense he gave. Furthermore, Jesus’ crucifixion is seen as mounting a tremendous critique
against patriarchy. One the cross Jesus symbolizes the exact opposite of male dominating
power. Rather, on the cross power is poured out in self-sacrificing love. The cross is the
kenosis of patriarchy. Looking at the cross, some feminists have reflected that sociologically it
was probably better that the incarnation happened in a male human being; for it a woman had
preached and enacted compassion and given the gift of self even unto death, the world would
have shrugged—is not this what women are supposed to do anyway? But for a man to live
and die this way in a world of male privilege is to challenge the patriarchal ideal of the
dominating male at its root.106

The fact that Jesus was a man and deliberately spoke and acted against the patriarchal
structures and codes of conduct in which he could have easily participated me is
incredibly powerful. It would not have been as powerful a message if a woman had
been in his position. In this way, Jesus Christ is already a relational figure, by the fact
that he made an effort to interact with people from all walks of life. This is the very
opposite behavior of someone who is trying to maintain patriarchal structures. Jesus
doesn’t need to be reimagined as female or as having feminine qualities, because it is
apparent that he already possesses such qualities, such as relationality or caring. As an
example of this, Matthew 23:37 describes Jesus as a mother hen gathering her chicks.
In addition, his association with Sophia, as her son/prophet, also lessens his maleness.
Just as there exists female imagery for God, there exists such imagery for Jesus.

Re-Membering and Re-Imagining:107 A New Vision of Christ

Jesus Christ is, therefore, an important tool in struggling against patriarchal
power. His association with Sophia, or Divine Woman Wisdom, makes him an even
more powerful figure. If we replace Jesus Christ, Son of God with Jesus-Sophia, we
can reconceptualize Jesus Christ from a masculine figure who legitimates patriarchal
structures to a male-female divine figure who is, at the very core, against patriarchy
altogether. I call this a hermeneutic of liberation, meaning an interpretation of Jesus’

106
Johnson, Elizabeth. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Consider Jesus: Waves of Renewal in Christology. New
York: Crossroad, 1990, 110-11.
107
Again, this is taken from Berkening and Joern’s Re-Membering and Re-Imagining, a book which
contains reflections and prayers from the original Re-Imagining Conference in 1993, in addition to
poems and rituals in praise of Sophia composed by the Christian women who attended the conference.

55
biblical message as one of liberation, especially of peoples who are oppressed,
discriminated against, or ignored.
We ourselves can take Jesus’ message to heart and use different strategies both
within and outside of the church to resist patriarchy. One such strategy is
heteroglossia, or praying between the lines. This is an “alternative to univocality” or
praying in “other languages, different tongues.”108
What I call “praying between the lines” is a strategy of survival and resistance. I mean by this
phrase both something quite strategic and also something more metaphorical. As a strategy it
is commonly employed by many women and some men for protecting themselves from
spiritual and psychic (and sometimes professional) damage and for surviving in the church.
As a metaphor, it refers to the struggle for inclusion of certain voices, or certain relationships,
or certain perspectives within the conversation with God that is the purpose of public prayer.
It is another form of “translation” in which women and disempowered men are continually
engaged. It is usually internal (although in a unison prayer or perhaps a sung prayer, and
alternative expression might be voiced). It is a strategy of resistance, and therefore engages us
in discussions about power, both human and divine…This kind of translation challenges,
albeit not always openly, the institutional churches’ preference for unitary, or univocal, prayer,
by praying not from the position of “A”, within controlled limits, but from the position of
“Not-A”, the limitless, the free space of rich and varied heteroglossia. From this position, the
“A” position seems like a strange land.109

Some feminists alternatively call this strategy “using the master’s tools to dismantle
the master’s house.”110 In heteroglossia, one uses the “master’s tools,” or the existing
prayers, liturgies, and other religious language, to transform the tradition into
something that resists the very oppressive structures it creates. Marjorie Procter-Smith
explains that:
In order to be heard, the new voices must do two things simultaneously: create a new
language and seek legitimation for the new language alongside the old, unitary language…For
the new voice to be granted legitimacy, the principle of unitary voice must be abandoned or so
severely redefined that it is scarcely recognizable.111

This strategy consists of more than simply thinking or mouthing different

words along with existing prayers to oneself. It consists of reconceptualizing God,
Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, and other foundational elements of Christianity (or any
other religion or oppressive structure) that legitimate patriarchal rule. In the scriptures
themselves, there are bastions of language that imagine these figures as something
108
Procter-Smith (1995), 30. The categories of “A” and “Not-A” are meant to represent the
dichotomies between male/female, intelligence/emotion, culture/nature, and other binary pairs that are
associated with the construction of gender in Western society.
109
Ibid., 31.
110
Originally coined by Audre Lorde in her book Sister Outsider (Crossing Press, 1984). See the
chapter “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” 110-13.
111
Ibid.

56
other than a legitimation of patriarchy—in other words, these passages have been
interpreted to justify such oppressive structures, even if they were not originally
intended to do so. For example, the concept of Sophia, who is a leftover goddess of
sorts, and Jesus Christ, whose life was spent fighting against oppressive structures
with nonviolence. Satoko Yamaguchi suggests a similar strategy to Procter-Smith by
saying:
To begin with, we need not only to restore female and diverse divine images in the Bible
through translations but also to read between the lines of the kyriarchal biblical texts as well
as noncanonical texts in order to hear whispers of biblical wo/men whose religious languages
were suppressed, were excluded, or failed to survive kyriarchal church history. In addition, we
need to explore and introduce new divine metaphors and images, lest we confine our
perception of the divine to the rhetorical limits of our biblical ancestors. Searching for new
different and diverse divine metaphors and images in the historical contexts of our faith
communities is wisdom, firmly grounded in the biblical faith.112

Yamaguchi argues that we need both to resurrect female images of the divine and
create our own new images. In addition, Yamaguchi emphasizes the importance of
reinterpreting ancient traditions in our own historical context.
[W]hen we receive our religious traditions as historical prototype, Christian faith
communities, inspired by the biblical traditions, have an ethical responsibility to articulate our
faiths with our own words in our own historical contexts. We can also rightly claim that such
a practice is already exemplified among the biblical people, who continuously envisaged G*d
in different images in their historical contexts. So, it is our biblical heritage that we as faith
communities reexamine the adequacy of our use of divine metaphors, lest we fall into
idolatry, and reimagine G*d in new metaphors and images, so that we can ever newly
encounter the G*d who is still beyond the limits of our imagination.113

While historical religious texts are sacred and can inform our religious practice(s)
today, it is also important to put these texts in our own historical context. The
historical and social situation of today is vastly different from the time when Jesus
Christ lived or when the scriptures were actually written down. The authors of these
texts had their own ideas about what is right and wrong according to their own
historical context. This is why reinterpretations of their words and
reconceptualizations of their words, including concepts of the divine, are incredibly
important.
For example, Sophia can be important to spiritual and religious women today
not only because she is a powerful female divine figure, but also because she informs
a reimagining of other divine figures which are at the center of Christianity, including
112
Yamaguchi, “Father Image of God,” 211.
113
Ibid., 215.

57
God and Jesus Christ. In the ancient texts, Sophia associates and is even part of
(sometimes literally) both of these figures. This is where existing material can inform
our own reinterpretations of our own religious traditions. Mary Grey states that:

the remarkable feature about the re-emergence of Sophia in the creative life she inspires in
lovers of God. Sophia as Wise Woman is seen as the one who weaves a quilt from the
fragments of women’s lives…She is the muse of poets and artists, of solitary contemplatives
and the heart and soul of the community, inspiring both silence and joyous celebration.
Sophia-Wisdom encourages us to overcome boundaries and to make connections with all
wisdom seekers and pilgrims. But it is as old Wise Wisdom, who heals the bruised bodies of
violated women, as wise African women, as the powerful mothers of Guatemala who kept the
family together throughout the war, as the Irish Women of Peace—these are Sophia images of
our times. They are the communities of women who give mutual strength and forge a new
unity in difference.114

Not only is Sophia a compelling image of divine female power, but she
inspires a reimagination of the concepts of God and Jesus Christ as well. Through
Sophia, strongholds on patriarchal rule are slightly weakened and divine male figures
have less power in legitimating such oppressive structures.
Sophia is a powerful transformative female divine figure. She not only has the
possibility of altering our notions about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but
she also has the same possibility of affirming women and changing relationships
between people. In this way, we truly have the power to transform our world by
changing our language. For many women:
Feminist spirituality discovers life itself as the setting for manifesting God. Divine Wisdom is
wrapped up in the everyday, in the struggles to transform relationships of domination and
violence into ones of reciprocity and respect. By entering into the realm of the Spirit, of
Wisdom, we find that she moves beyond interpersonal relationships and those between the
human creature and God. We discover the whole universe as a common setting for meeting
and communing.115

Sophia transforms the patriarchal God and the masculine Jesus Christ into relational
beings who enjoy “meeting and communing” rather than dominating or punishing.
Sophia is a powerful divine figure who provides hope for alternatives to patriarchal
rule, and has the possibility of shifting the dominant structure slightly this way or
that, so that it no longer is oppressive but rather liberates.

114
Grey (2001), 110.
115
Silva, Silvia Regina de Lima. “Wisdom Rituals and Liturgies in the Struggle for Justice” in In the
Power of Wisdom: Feminist Spiritualities of Struggle, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and María Pilar
Aquino, eds. London: SCM Press, 2000, 125.

58
 Conclusion

There is immense transformative power in the reimagination of traditional

concepts of God. As we have seen, a male God and his male Son operate within
patriarchy to maintain oppressive structures. By reimagining these two figures,
especially through changing the language that describes them, we can liberate them
from the patriarchal structures they uphold and use them as a starting point to
transform the way we relate to each other. After all, our relationship with God directly
reflects our relationships with other human beings. If we change one of these
relationships, we can change the other.
A key to changing our concept of the divine is changing the language.
Language is an incredibly important tool which both reflects and constitutes reality.
This means that it has the ability to change, over time, the reality in which we live. By
changing the language we use for God from exclusively male to more of a
combination of male and female, we can bring about great change: change to our
concepts of the divine, to ourselves, and to our relationships with other human beings.
Sophia can provide a key into a different kind of Christianity, one which is
focused not on male dominance over women, but on relationality between men and
women and communion with our fellow human beings. In addition, Sophia is not in
the business of ‘saving’ but of guiding, teaching, and helping. While she is not
entirely a figure who shies away from being demanding or controlling, she is more
interested in having ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over.’ When she passes her
wisdom onto human beings, they become more knowledgeable and are able to
transform their own lives through her teachings.
It is especially important that we not only use existing conceptualizations of
the divine (i.e. from the Bible) but also add our own interpretations. Our concept of
the divine should not be so rigid and strict that it excludes different people’s
interpretations of such a concept. While it is necessary to have a communal
understanding of the divine in order to communication with each other, we should
allow for personal interpretation in private and in public. We should incorporate

59
different interpretations of the divine into our worship services, into our liturgies and
our prayers, so that everyone feels included and can see themselves reflected in the
image of the divine. If we are going to try to create inclusive religious communities,
our concepts of the divine should be inclusive of all peoples as well.

Bibliography

Bloesch, Donald G. The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate Over Inclusive God-
Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Vine Books, 1985.

Cady, Susan, Marian Ronan and Hal Taussig. Sophia: The Future of Feminist
Spirituality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.

Daly, Mary. “After the Death of God the Father.” in Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist
Reader in Religion. ed. Judith Plaskow and Carol Christ. San Francisco:
Harper and Row Publishers, 1979.

————. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation.

Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.

Frye, Marilyn. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Crossing Press,
1983.

Grey, Mary. Introducing Feminist Images of God. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press,
2001.

Johnson, Elizabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological
Discourse. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, ed. Freeing Theology: The Essentials of Theology in

Feminist Perspective. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.

Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press,

60
 1986.

Litosseliti, Lia. Gender and Language: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006.

Loades, Ann, ed. Feminist Theology: A Reader. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox Press, 1991.

Matthews, Caitlin. Sophia, Goddess of Wisdom: The Divine Feminine from Black
Goddess to World Soul. London: Mandala, 1991.

McFague, Sallie. “God As Mother.” in Weaving the Visions: New Patterns in

Feminist Spirituality, Judith Plaskow and Carol P. Christ, eds. San Francisco:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1989.

————. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Procter-Smith, Marjorie. Praying with Our Eyes Open: Engendering Feminist

Liturgical Prayer. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Reilly, Patricia Lynn. A God Who Looks Like Me: Discovering a Woman-Affirming
Spirituality. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology.

Boston: Beacon Press, 1983.

Saussy, Carol. God Images and Self-Esteem: Empowering Women in a Patriarchal

Society. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth and María Pilar Aquino, eds. In the Power of Wisdom:
Feminist Spiritualities of Struggle. London: SCM Press, 2000.

————. “Interpreting Patriarchal Traditions” in The Liberating

Word: A Guide to Nonsexist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.

————. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist

Theology. New York: Continuum, 1994.

Webb, Val. Like Catching Water in a Net: Human Attempts to Describe the Divine.
New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2007.

Yamaguchi, Satoko. “Father Image of God and Inclusive Language” in Toward a

61
New Heaven and a New Earth: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, ed. Fernando F. Segovia. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003.

62