Challenging conversations God language


W


hen the Apollo 11 lunar module landed on the moon in 1969, Neil Armstrong uttered what became one of history’s most memorable lines: “That’s one small


step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Had this event occurred 15 years later, Armstrong’s word choice might have been very different. By then, cultural shifts had brought about the emergence of more inclusive language forms. Humankind became the norm for speaking of our species, not mankind. Language changes over time. In the church, however, we


can be slow to make adjustments to linguistic shifts. Take, for example, our Christian language about God. The prevailing theological language in most congregations continues to iden- tify God with almost exclusively male designations. Many of our hymns, Bible translations and everyday conversations are saturated with masculine imagery for God. Every reference for God that uses something other than “he” or “Father” can appear almost deviant to many faithful people. The source of these inherited male images in our God


talk is not difficult to locate. Male dominated language grew straight out of a world where ruling men recorded the Scrip- tures. Women, slaves and other secondary people on the outskirts of society had no recognized authority in the patri- archal culture of the day. Despite this marginalization, women remained some of Jesus’ closest followers. Their role in his ministry, their presence at the tomb, and their togetherness in prayer are unmistakable. No one called on these first-century women, much less their ancestral mothers, to play a role in interpret- ing the times. That would have been unthinkable. Out of the biblical account grew plenty of literal associa-


By Peter W. Marty Sixteenth in a series


To limit references to male-only words flies in the face of God’s presence in world


the smallest version of ourselves, making us out to be narrower than we really want to be? God doesn’t deserve to be domesti- cated in the way we tend to con- strain our own imagination. Our conceptualizations of


God inevitably affect the way we relate to each other. Christians have spilled plenty of blood over the centuries and have engaged all sorts of violent behaviors. Much of the formal justification for this hostility and aggression has stemmed from asso- ciations made with the violent and vengeful God sprinkled across the pages of the Old Testament. In New Testament por- trayals, Christ as a warrior fighting evil has inspired countless Christians to fight in defense of God’s kingdom. It doesn’t require much imagination to see how a male God,


If the only language we have for God is masculine, we limit the breadth of our theology. We significantly reduce the fullness of our relationship with God.


who gives special attention to male followers, ends up shaping many of the social arrangements within the church. An all- male priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and male- only leadership in other traditions are obvious outgrowths of this masculine picture that has been painted. Liturgical references to God as


Father, Son and Holy Spirit hold a valuable place in the church and in lives like mine. But our forebears never


intended the language of the Trinity to be the exclusive means for probing the unfathomable mysteries of God. Rich images of divine kindness, intimacy, caring and close-


tions of God with maleness. Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling depiction of God as an older man with a white beard became emblematic for much of the art world. Many believers still assume that strictly male representations of God are the most fitting way to honor the divine, this in spite of the Bible’s references to God as midwife (Psalm 22), birth giver (Isaiah 42), mistress of a household (Psalm 123) and nursing mother (Isaiah 66). If the only language we have for God is masculine, we limit


the breadth of our theology. We significantly reduce the full- ness of our relationship with God. To be sure, all words and metaphors have their limits. But why limit our God talk to


ness are abundant. Even when Jesus used a masculine word in his language, Abba, or “Daddy,” it was the intimacy, not the gender, that was important to him. If Jesus could challenge the male-centered thinking of his


day, telling of God as a woman who turned her house inside out to find a lost coin or as a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings, we can certainly give fresh effort to finding new words for knowing this great God of ours, who as Father and Mother to us reveals the best of parental love. 


Author bio: Marty is a pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church, Davenport, Iowa, and a regular columnist for The Lutheran.


August 2014 3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52