If God is Not Exclusively Male, Then Why is Jesus Male?

How did we get to this place in the church where we speak about God as if God is male only? This unexamined cultural habit has led to many functional problems in the church, from women being excluded from community leadership positions in pastoral teaching teams and church boards, to male church members feeling entitled to batter and dominate their wives. The bottom line is that the assumption that God is male seems to lead to the misunderstanding among Christians that the inverse idea- “male is God”- is a Biblical truth¹. However, upon closer examination of the Bible it becomes clear that the Bible supports no such idea. In fact, the Bible uses names, grammar, and analogies to describe God which include femininity and female imagery in God’s identity.

One point of confusion that comes up for people, however, is the gender of Jesus. Between so many people in the church using the word “he” repeatedly to refer to God, and the fact that Jesus- the “chief cornerstone” of our spiritual structure of relationships with God and each other- is also male in gender, some misconstrue passages like John 14: 9 as evidence that God has a gender, and that it is male:

 “Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing the works of God.”

This is an example of how careful examination of scripture in context is necessary to prevent false assumptions from misinforming our doctrine. When examined in context, it is evident that when Jesus says “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” he is not referring to his physical appearance, or gender, but to his character- the nature of his work.  This is evident for two reasons. Firstly, because the apostles didn’t interpret Jesus’ words to mean that he physically represented God, as evidenced by 1 John 4:12:

“No man has ever seen God”

And secondly, because whenever Jesus discussed his relationship with God, or the Pharisees’ lack of relationship with God, Jesus always defined these relationships by the nature of one’s actions, not one’s appearance or physical traits:

Matt. 7:16-20  “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” 

John 5:19  “Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

John 8:28  "Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Chosen One, then you will know that I AM and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.”

John 8:38  “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

John 14:31 “but She comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.”

In addition, the term “Father” which Jesus used to refer to God, was a cultural analogy that served the function of indicating that God played a paternal role in Jesus’ life as the source of his inheritance and professional trade ². However, Jesus’ reference to God by this analogy does not seem to mean that Jesus thought of God only as male or paternal. For example, Jesus consistently referred to the Spirit of God with feminine nouns in Aramaic ³. He also used female metaphors to portray God and God’s Spirit⁴.

So, Jesus’ gender was not a reflection of God’s gender any more than Jesus’ material poverty was a reflection of God’s poverty, or Jesus’ other physical features were an indication of God’s preferred physical features.

This is not to say that Jesus’ male gender didn’t have spiritual significance; actually, it did! It was necessary as a sign, among other outward signs, for the Jewish people to understand Jesus’ role in their already-existing system of worship.

A God Who Transcends Male Imagery

One of the deepest and most vulnerable questions a person can ask themselves is “How do I know who God is?” Asking this question is really about trying to understand who one is interacting with –what attitude one can expect to find when communicating with them in different situations, and what their response is likely to be. It is the basis for developing trust in a relationship. And so, the names used to refer to God by a community of faith play an important role in developing this image by steering our expectations, hopefully facilitating trust rather than unnecessarily obstructing it.

The rather unique thing about the God of the Bible is that this God is greater than any single living thing or person that ever let us down, yet at the same time demonstrates an intimate knowledge of and personal interest in us. God is at once unseen (1 John 4:12), with a Spirit unable to be accessed through or controlled by any one physical form; yet God’s Spirit is distinctive and knowable, communicating the same values and priorities consistently across cultures and time. These features make God particularly trustworthy: God is not limited by the same social dynamics we are; and so God “shows no partiality and accepts no bribes”. God’s transcendence is what makes God uniquely worthy of our devotion, and what keeps people more dependent on God than on people so that they, too, can be free from partiality or favoritism in their own social interactions.

However, anyone who seriously studies Biblical texts for an understanding of God is bound to notice some discrepancies between how the Bible portrays God and how many Christians talk about God. For example, most Christians know that it’s unbiblical to depict God as exclusively male:

“You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air..”, Deut. 4:15-17

According to the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant, imaging God exclusively as a man or any other physical form, visually or verbally, would amount to idolatry. It would reduce people’s image of God to a literal form, encouraging them to inappropriately depend on such finite beings for safety and provision instead of depending on “the Almighty”.

And yet the concept that God transcends masculinity is often not evident from the language for God used by most Christian teachers, obscuring this aspect of their theology. Many English translations of the Bible further confuse things by taking the liberty of masculinizing certain terms used to refer to God and believers, even when those terms are gender neutral or feminine in the original texts. Yet, the Bible in its entirety is actually much more versatile linguistically when naming God or relaying analogies for conceiving of God than what we hear over the pulpit today.

If we do not examine the Scriptural source of our beliefs about God closely, discrepancies are prone to develop between our theology and our language for God that can unnecessarily obstruct both our own and other people’s faith. These verbal discrepancies can cause new believers, and unbelievers, much confusion about what the Bible actually says about God, as well as lead us to eventually become vulnerable to counterfeit theology and inaccurate teachings:

“Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” Hebrews 2:1

Some may ask, “If God is not exclusively male, then why does the Bible depict God with masculine terminology?”

Actually, there is so much maternal and feminine imagery for God used in even the most male-centered translations of the Bible that the question should really be, “If even God uses feminine imagery and gender inclusive terms to describe God’s own identity, why do so many male translators and Christian pastors go to such great lengths to avoid using it?”

There are a small collection of names that the prophets of the Bible used to identify God with. Some are gender inclusive, such as “Elohim”, as well as the name God initially used with Moses- “Yahweh”, or “I am Who I am”. Other names for God in the Bible are distinctively male or distinctively female in either grammar or analogy. Though multiple names and analogies were used to portray God in the Bible, God made clear that God’s identity was singular and unique; in other words, God was not part of a pantheon ( Deut. 6:4). Therefore, many names used to refer to God are analogies or indicators of God’s multiple roles in our lives.

Similarly, the prophets in the Bible refer to God with human analogies, many being male, but also a good portion of analogies for God being female. In other words, though God has one consistent identity throughout the books and personal testimonies that make up the Bible, God is identified as the one true God by features of character, not features of gender.

Let us follow the example of the original seekers of Yahweh who did not presume to make God into their own image, or the image that their culture of origin preferred to worship, but who acknowledged the complexity of God’s identity with names and analogies inclusive of both genders. It is only by verbally acknowledging God’s transcendence of all things human that we acknowledge, to ourselves and to others, who God actually is.

Where Is the Love for Women?

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

In my search for a Christian community that I can partner with in ministering to those people who are most in need, I wind up visiting a lot of churches in this region. I have visited every kind: charismatic, evangelical, non-denominational, progressive, etc. Although over the years I have seen little signs of progress in many church’s approach to outreach -such as creating local community groups for lonely individuals to connect with others; partnering with other Christian charities to do service work for the disadvantaged individuals they serve; even creating community centers with food pantries and medical provisions for the homeless- there are still some patterns of behavior I witness in these Christian communities that leave me wondering, “where is the love?” .

In particular, I wonder where the concern is for women. Over the last forty years there has been a growing public awareness that women in our society are frequently targeted for abuse and worse by the bullies among us, simply because of their gender, and that this results in a large degree of damage to these women and all who relate to them. The seriousness of the damage done to the entire community by gender-based violence and exploitation of women has become so undeniable to relief organizations, social service professionals, researchers, and even governments that at this point there are a broad collection of reputable individuals and community-based groups all over this country and the rest of the world striving to prevent these crimes and find an effective means of restoring justice. As Sheryl WuDunn and Nicholas Kristof write:

“In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

― Sheryl WuDunn & Nicholas D. Kristof, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide

Cultural Values vs. Christian Values

It is not just women abroad who these crimes happen to. It is also American women and girls that are subjected to abuse and violence by American men and boys that they know personally or are even related to. One might ask how this is possible. The reality is that we live in an unjust world system that assigns unfounded privilege to some over others based on superficial reasons; why wouldn't those members of society who are repeatedly given the media message that they are entitled to exploit their counterpart members of society do so, especially in the vacuum of any alternative teaching or communal system of accountability motivating them to do otherwise?

This is where Christian community comes into play. It is in the practice of Christian discipleship that we are to confront those behaviors that cause harm to ourselves or others, (otherwise known as “sin” according to Romans 13:10), and receive adequate theological equipping to motivate us to “sin” no longer. Then, as an outgrowth of that change of heart, we demonstrate our faith by taking action to make amends to those who have been wronged by the individual or collective injustices of this world (James 2; 1 John 3).

However, I do not see this process of confronting and overcoming “sin” being applied in Christian communities to the pervasive cultural injustice of male domination and intimidation of women in its many forms: domestic violence; sexual exploitation of women; neglect of women in crisis in the community; refusal to hold male perpetrators of violence towards women accountable; verbal intimidation of women; exclusion of women from family and community decisions; and exclusion of women from community leadership.

Social Justice in Christian Community: Equality of Welfare

I had a conversation with a friend the other day about her experiences exploring various Christian churches, and in listening to her I was reminded of many similar experiences of my own. This woman believes in God, and in Jesus; yet she has chosen to avoid Christian churches for the same reason that many other people I know have decided to do so as well. Our discussion confirmed for me many things I have perceived over time about the modern day American Church but have been afraid to fully admit to myself or come out and say until now.

For most Christian churches in America, especially in the NYC area, church has become a business. It seems to have been invaded by the false values of those more interested in self gain than serving those in need. Many people turn to churches and pastors during times of crisis, seeking help from Christian leaders and teachers only to be turned away or simply ignored. Many people go to churches open-mindedly, seeking guidance for getting close to God, only to be told that they must give 10% of their income to the church leadership in order please God or be socially included in Christian fellowship. Many have obliged these demands despite their financial limitations, only to find that they are left to suffer the destructive consequences of over-giving alone by a church community that abandons them in their time of material and/or emotional need.

Meanwhile, many church leaders put a great deal more energy into promoting tithing during “service” than into giving financial support or emotional support towards those who came to them for help when they were in need. Their repeated use of church service time to advertise the importance of tithing, their use of the tithe for things it was not originally appointed for in the Bible, their poor treatment of the poor and oppressed among their own community, and their posturing to care for the oppressed outside the community in ways that don’t cost them much in the way of money or social approval among their financial supporters- all of it points to an agenda to use the activity of church as an income-generating business for themselves and their friends. It’s enough to disillusion anyone, and many people have been disillusioned out of even believing in God because of this gradual but glaring corruption of values in this culture’s Christian churches.

God’s Expectations of Christian Leaders

Some might say this is too harsh. Actually, the writings of the prophets of Ancient Israel demonstrate previous instances in church history where faulty priorities among religious leaders misled the community; in these instances, the prophets of Israel were vigilant and upfront about communicating God’s lack of tolerance for pastors or leaders using their position for monetary self gain and prestige while neglecting the needs of the oppressed within the religious community:

“The Lord enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of God’s people: “It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?”declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty.” Isaiah 3:14-15

“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high.” Isaiah 58:3-4

“Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!”declares the Lord. Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,” declares the Lord. , Jeremiah 23:1-2

“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” Jeremiah 6:13-15

Not to mention what Jesus had to say about the proneness of leaders to this problem and the seriousness of its consequences:

 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.” Luke 11:42-44

 “Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11:46

 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” Luke 11:52

“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matthew 16:6

How Using Business Tactics to Build Churches Deviates from Scripture: Over-dependence on and Misuse of the Tithe Offering

Although small business start ups and their marketing strategies may work well for the economy, there are many reasons why such a model is inappropriate for “planting churches” or populating Christian communities. For one, Jesus himself tells us “My kingdom is not of this world”1, and “you cannot serve both God and money” 2.

One of the negative effects of bringing business practices into what was originally the practice of Christian discipleship has been an over-dependence on tithe offerings as a source of income due to a misuse of these offerings for what they were not originally appointed for. Many church leaders apply the principle of “tithing”, which can be interpreted as requiring 10% of a believer’s financial income, to the practice that non-profit organizations have of requesting donations from supporters, which are then used to pay all church leaders’ salaries and maintain overhead costs.

However, there is a vast difference between requesting donations, or “freewill offerings”, from supporters, and claiming that all “members” owe the organization the full amount of the “tithe offering”; a freewill offering can be any amount and is based on people’s disposable income, whereas the “tithe” is set at 10% of people’s entire income, an amount that is usually much more than people’s extra monthly spending money. Furthermore, the tithe offering is meant to be given specifically by those who can afford it to relieve financial hardship for others in the community; it is not meant to be extracted from members of the community who are already at risk of hardship to the effect of causing financial hardship for the givers. (See BibleGateway's commentary on 2 Corinthians 8)

The tithe was designed to prevent poverty and financial hardship among the most vulnerable of the community, not cause financial hardship among disciples in order to support religious leaders.