When Does Gender-Inclusive Language Go Too Far?

On the heels of a recent announcement by the Church of England that it will explore using gender-inclusive terms for God, it’s worth asking – to what extent should Christians embrace gender-inclusive language?

I’ve argued for gender-inclusive language in the Bible when an author’s message is intended for everyone. Unfortunately, even in some instances where the original language is ambiguous or neutral regarding gender, new translations, such as the ESV, continue to bury women under male nomenclature.

The thoughtful use of gender-inclusive language in the Bible, based on the original text and writers’ intent, doesn’t just make sense; it’s just. Moreover, such usage aligns theologically with the proclamation in Genesis 1:27 that God created us “male and female.” In other words, from a creation standpoint, there are two distinct genders, not a “normative” man, that together reflect the image of God.

However, while the Bible delineates human gender, the question of God’s gender is complicated.

God as Beyond

The Church of England spokesperson correctly notes that Christians have always recognized God – in whose image male and female persons are made – as beyond gender categories, at least to some extent. When God defines his identity to Moses – the perfect time for a “gender reveal” – God declares somewhat enigmatically, “I’m being!” (Ex. 3:14)

Male nouns and pronouns don’t fully do justice to God because he transcends gender and any words we use to describe him. Nevertheless, God condescends to being described imperfectly, in the same way that God condescends generally to our humanity (Phil. 2:6-8). And in the Old Testament, God is mostly construed in masculine terms. Add to that the fact that Jesus, also God, is also a man, and it becomes even more confusing to refer to God in a non-gendered way. Without Jesus, one might be able to argue that God has no gender to speak of, because being male or female fundamentally requires a body. But God chooses a male body, the body of Jesus, to ultimately reveal himself to the world.

Why God’s Male-ness is Actually Gender-Inclusive

A slight aside: as a woman, I’m not in the least offended that God chose a male vs. female body for the incarnation. God’s entry into the world as a (fully) human child arguably required being born of a woman, since all children are born of women. If Jesus had been a woman – if Mary had given birth to a daughter – human participation in our salvation would’ve been dominated by women. From the beginning, we see that it has always been God’s desire for men and women to exist together as equals; one sex shouldn’t prevail over the other. God didn’t choose a male body because a male body is inherently better, but to bestow upon humanity, as male (Jesus) and female (Mary), honored roles in our salvation history. The beautiful balancing of male-female roles in the incarnation also foreshadows the restoration of male-female relationships, broken in the Fall, that Jesus ultimately accomplishes in his redemption of the world. So God is a man, because salvation is gender-inclusive! Gender-inclusive means including men as much as women.

God the Father

A final reason to refrain from de-gendering God is that Jesus himself called God “Father.”

While “Father” doesn’t speak to God’s gender-beyondness, it’s the term that Jesus used. If this masculine identifier was good enough for Jesus, maybe it should be good enough for us. Maybe we, like Jesus, should “condescend” to God’s fatherhood, while acknowledging the limitations of our language to describe a God who surpasses our understanding.

I’m not in favor of altering how we speak of God in a masculine sense, at least not in corporate worship. But I think God has left the door open for us to see him as more than a “him”.  Indeed, we err if we do not. While corporate worship may not be the appropriate context to articulate these ambiguities, we are certainly invited to explore them personally with God, in prayer.