Gender Neutral Language

The issue of gender neutral language arises almost every time that we refer to God in English. We have to choose whether to call ‘him’, ‘him’ or ‘her’. So what is ‘he’? That is the topic of this page. But first a comment on the more straight forward issue of gender neutral translation.

The ‘NRSV' search option on each page on this site allows either keyword searching of the Bible, or verse lookup (by reference) in either the Old or New Testaments. The translation used is the New Revised Standard Version, which has been selected for two primary reasons: firstly it is as technically excellent a translation as may be found, and in in wide academic use. The second reason is its gender neutral translation. That is, when the word for ‘man’ in biblical languages is unquestionably used in reference to humanity as a whole, its English translation strives to reflect this, through deliberately inclusive phrasing. In such cases a translation that simply switched the words would actually obscure, by limiting, the meaning of the passage.

God is a spirit, who does not require a physical body, and so does not possess human reproductive organs. ‘He’ isn’t biologically anything, let alone male or female. To consider him so is simply a confusion with created beings.

The New Testament’s records Jesus not simply as a spiritual teacher of some kind, but as God incarnate. If this is correct, then God has been a human male, but it should be obvious that:

1. An omniscient being, aware of our thoughts, would know what it was like to be male or female without incarnating. There is no point speculating that some affinity for maleness or innate masculinity was either a cause or a consequence of incarnating as a male.
2. There is no obvious reason why God could not have incarnated as a woman, though being human obviously means being one or the other.
3. Jesus’ understanding and affirmation of women in that society, especially those rejected by religious society, was unprecedented. Consider for example, the events of John 4 and John 12.

So the fact that Jesus was male tells us nothing about God’s gender. It is consistent with the picture we receive from his transecendence, of a being not genderless, but rather the originator of gender, and so a being who bridges and can reconcile the differences of gender that we experience.

Unlike some other languages, English has no personal alternative to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘her’. ‘It’ is generally used of non-persons, or objects, which is more misleading than either ‘him’ or ‘her’. This means that we face a dilemma in speaking of God, in that one sex or the other will be implied in any statement about ‘him’. Alternating between ‘him’ and ‘her’ is highly confusing for anyone not specially attuned to this usage — which is pretty much everyone — and doesn’t solve the problem.

So while we must use either ‘him’ or ‘her’, we must also be clear that what requires this is the personhood of God, and not ‘his’ gender. In fact this has been the accepted use of the traditional pronoun ‘he’ for as long as most people now living will remember.

There is a risk that the pronoun ‘he’ can be taken to endorse a view of exclusive masculinity in God’s character, rather than a perfect sum of qualities that we perceive as more distinctly masculine or feminine. This blend is indicated in the various biblical images of God's character and his relationship to us, which take both male and female forms, which are perhaps the best corrective to this view.

That there are numerous masculine images of God in the Old and New Testaments is clear. He is customarily refered to as ‘he’, and Jesus goes out of his way to say that God is our father, connoting origin and likeness, as well as love, care and provision. There are other, generally masculine images used: king, judge, soldier, husband, master. These are the majority. There are also several impersonal images of what God is like: a fire, living water, bread, a fortress, a refuge, a doorway, which of course are neither male nor female.

However, these exist alongside several examples of feminine images of God.

The primary case for female God language is that equating God with maleness is idolatrous (equating God with creation) and shows ungodly prejudice against women who, just as much as men, are made in God’s image. It is argued that male God language legitimates for men the systemic exclusion of women from influence in a male-focused society. Female God talk is understood to be a unique and powerful tool for provoking thought and change.

There are, however, possible risks in the non-traditional reference to God as ‘she’. When used of God, the feminine pronoun can be misunderstood in at least two important ways.

On the one hand, ‘she’ can seem as matriarchal as ‘he’ can seem patriarchal. That is, it can present God as dominantly feminine, rather than dominantly male — as if God must be one or the other. Because some feminist theologians have used ‘she’ in this sense, many other theologians, male and female, presently prefer ‘he’ precisely because it is comparatively gender-neutral in meaning, at least in their circles, and offers less risk of misunderstanding.

Another possible misunderstanding is associated with the modern revival of goddess worship.  This implicitly assumes in some of its prominent forms that men and women need different gods. Its spirituality draws opon those primal faiths that feature both a male god and female goddess, though with emphasis upon the goddess and her special relevance to women. The gods and goddesses of these faiths are not transcendent creators, but rather immanent shapers of the world about them. This picture is very different to the image of God that we find in Jesus own spirituality, however. The association of the divine ‘she’ with worship of a finite goddess, can cause misunderstandings not present in the divine ‘he’.

Accordingly, calling God 'he' presently seems more gender-neutral than the only real alternative, as long as it is understood that the divine ‘he’ is neither exclusively male nor female. And as long as people are free to use 'she' for its provocative value wherever sexist inequities are embodied in ostensibly Christian practices — the precendent for this is biblical, it may be emphasized.

Accordingly, God has been designated ‘he’ throughout this site. This is to be qualified by a link to this page from the first appearance of ‘he’ on each page.  If this link is missing anywhere, please add a comment and so draw this to the editor’s attention.

Some representative views include: