Rob Bell, NOOMA, and "Feminine Images" for God, Part 2

In Part 1 of this post, I quoted from Rob Bell's newest NOOMA video, "She." Having given much thought to the subject of "feminine imagery for God," I'd like to register my concerns with Bell's interpretation and teaching. Bell is saying nothing that egalitarians haven't said before. He's just saying it with a "cool factor."

(1) Bell claims that the Hebrew word for compassion is "raham" and that

it's also the word for "womb." So, God is compassionate. God is "womb-like"? This is a feminine image for God.

However, the same word in Hebrew does not mean both "compassion" and "womb." The words are related, but they are not the same word. Furthermore, it is false to say that the Hebrew word for "compassionate" means "womb-like." Bell knows just enough Hebrew to be dangerous.

The Hebrew words for the noun "womb" (rehem), the noun "compassion" (rahamim), the adjective "compassionate" (rahum), and the verb "have compassion" (raham) all have the same root (rhm). Yet, even if the words speaking of "compassion" are derived from the noun for "womb," it is erroneous to read the meaning of the latter into every instance of the former. Bell is guilty of the "root fallacy." Simply because words are related by etymology, it does not follow that an author intends for a "root meaning" to be hidden in any and all words derived from it.

(2) When one examines the Old Testament use of the verb ("have compassion"), the noun ("compassion"), and the adjective ("compassionate"), it is clear that a "feminine image for God" is not intended. If Bell is right about the meaning of the adjective "compassionate" (i.e., "womb-like") we would expect it (as well as the noun and verb) to be used primarily to speak of a mother's compassion for her children. But this is clearly not the case. In fact, if anything, the evidence points in the other direction.

In most instances, these words are used of God. However, when used of human beings, they are used primarily for males--rulers, warriors, and once for a father showing compassion on his children (Ps 103:13). In only two instances (one verb, one adjective) is there reference to a mother's compassion for her children (Isa 49:15; 1 Kgs 3:26).

This does not, of course, mean that only men show compassion. But it does dispel any notion that "compassion" is solely a feminine trait. And when the Bible says, "God is compassionate," it is not a "feminine image for God"---much less is it saying "God is womb-like."

(3) Bell is quick to point out that poetic language comparing God to a mother cannot be taken literally. But he still refers to these examples as "feminine imagery for God." He acknowledges that God is Spirit, with no physical form. Then he says, "God transcends and yet includes what we know as male and female." Also, "There is a masculine dimension to God, and there is a feminine dimension to God." 

In the Fall 2008 issue of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Randy Stinson and I address the question of feminine imagery and terminology for God.  We observe in our essay that the Bible includes a few metaphors and similes comparing some of God's actions to those of a mother.

For example, Moses says that Israel "forgot the God who gave you birth" (Deut 32:18). "As one whom his mother comforts," says the Lord to his people, "so I will comfort you" (Isa 66:13). According to Hosea, God says he will "fall upon" Israel "like a bear robbed of her cubs" (Hos 13:8). In his NOOMA video, Bell mentions a passage from Job. Do these passages imply a "feminine dimension to God"? No.

Consider this. Scripture uses similar figurative language to describe the actions of male human beings. Hushai says David and his mighty men "are enraged, like a bear robbed of her cubs" (2 Sam 17:8). Paul tells the Galatians he is "in the anguish of childbirth" until Christ is formed in them (Gal 4:19), and he claims he treated the Thessalonians "like a nursing mother taking care of her own children" (1 Thess 2:7). These are graphic literary devices that make for vivid descriptions. I know of no preacher who describes this as "feminine imagery" for Paul. No commentators conclude that there must be a "feminine dimension" to David. Why, then, do Bell and other egalitarians draw these conclusions for God?

These analogies are not intended to tell us about God's "feminine side." Instead, they are a demonstration of God's abundant mercy to us. God employs various metaphors and pictures, using simple concepts that we can understand, so that he might explain what he is like. As one whom his mother comforts, so God comforts his children. As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. The love of Christ for wretched sinners is so glorious that it "surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:19). What a demonstration of amazing grace, then, for God to point to a mother's (or a father's) compassion and say, "This is what I am like--only far better."

Biblical metaphors and similes are meant to bring clarity to our understanding of God. Unfortunately, Rob Bell's teaching only serves to muddy the waters.