Seven Reasons Why We Cannot Call God “Mother”

CBMW has always sought to answer the various challenges facing evangelicals with regard to the biblical roles of men and women in the home and in the church. Over the years it has become evident that the current gender debate among evangelicals is not a "detached" issue, having no effect on other areas of Christian teaching and practice. Rather, how one understands and responds to the biblical teachings on manhood and womanhood informs and influences one’s understanding of many other significant Christian doctrines.

One recent challenge comes from some evangelical feminists who advocate addressing God as "Mother" or with the feminine pronoun "she." But does Scripture permit this step? The authors offer this brief brochure to assist you in navigating this current challenge. It is not exhaustive, but we believe it is instructive and pray that it will encourage you to remain faithful to Scripture as we seek to glorify God together.

(1) There is no biblical precedent for referring to God with feminine terms such as “Mother” or “she.”

The Bible uses many masculine appellatives, names, and titles for God (e.g., God, Lord, Father, King, Judge, Savior, Ruler, Shepherd, and Husband) and consistently uses masculine pronouns for God. We also find "ungendered," impersonal titles, appellatives, and predicate metaphors used for God (e.g., Rock, Fortress, and Shield). However, no similar feminine terms or pronouns that predicate God are to be found in Scripture.

(2) Biblical, masculine language for God is not culture-dependent, but rather is God’s chosen self-revelation of his identity.

Some have argued that the patriarchal culture of ancient Israel dictated the biblical use of masculine terminology for God. However, other ancient Near Eastern cultures, though no less patriarchal than ancient Israel, worshipped masculine and feminine deities (See Judges 3:7; Acts 19:34) and even referred to one and the same God as both "Father" and "Mother." Thus, ancient Israel’s culture did not of necessity require masculine language for God.

Furthermore, despite the cultural influences around Israel, she believed and Christians today believe that what we learn of God in the Old Testament (and the whole Bible) is owing to God's self-chosen revelation of himself to us.  Therefore, the masculine language for God in the Bible is not due to what Israel or the early church thought about God, primarily, but ultimately this way of speaking of God comes from God himself.  Because the Bible is God's own chosen self-revelation, we must take seriously the language God chose to use to communicate to us what he is like.  This revelation, by God's choice, includes all the masculine God-language of the Bible, and therefore it cannot be dismissed as merely the by-product of a patriarchal cultural.  To dismiss the masculine language for God in the Bible is to dismiss how God has spoken of himself, and this is a serious matter.

(3) The use of “feminine imagery” for God in the Bible does not demand or even imply that we may refer to God with feminine terms such as “Mother” or “she.”

On rare occasions, Scripture describes God’s actions using feminine figures of speech—metaphors and similes (see, e.g., Deut 32:18; Job 38:29; Ps 123:2; Isa 42:13-14; 46:3; 66:13; Hos 13:8). However, the Bible also uses similar figurative language to speak of the actions of male human beings (see 2 Sam 17:8; Isa 60:16; Gal 4:19; 1 Thess 2:7). Rather than implying that we are to refer to any of these men as "mother" or "she," such language is simply a literary device that makes for a vivid description. But if this figurative language does not require feminine terminology for human beings, neither does it demand the same for God.

(4) All feminine metaphors for God in the Bible are verbal—none are names or titles for God (like “Father”).

While the Bible uses many masculine terms as names, titles, and metaphors for God (see #1 above), all feminine metaphors are verbs, imaging some of his actions (e.g. "the God who gave you birth," Deut 32:18). The Bible says, "The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps 23:1), "God is the King" (Ps 47:7), "Your Maker is your Husband" (Isa 54:5); and "You, O, Lord are our Father" (Isa 63:16); but it does not predicate similar feminine names, titles, or metaphors for God (such as "God is my Mother"). Moreover, second and third person verbs in the Hebrew Old Testament are inflected for gender. So, though Scripture may employ verbal feminine metaphors to describe God’s actions, the consistent use of masculine verb forms in these cases precludes us from envisioning God as "Mother."

(5) “Father” is a name or title that communicates something real about God’s nature.

Scripture does not call God "Father" merely because he is like human fathers but because he is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). God is the Father of the Lord Jesus in a way that he is not a Father to believers (John 20:17). Likewise, though Christians are made "sons of God" by adoption in Christ (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5), Jesus is the Son of God in a way that Christians are not (Mark 1:11; John 1:14, 3:16).

The titles "Father" and "Son" do not apply to the first two persons of the Trinity merely as a result of the incarnation. This Father-Son relationship has always existed. Prior to the incarnation, God sent his Son into the world (John 3:17); this entrance "into the world" is from heaven (John 13:1, 3; 16:28)—the place from which he was "sent." The eternal love of the first two persons of the Trinity for one another is expressed in terms of the Father-Son relationship. The Father loves the Son by showing him "all" that he is doing (John 5:20), and the Son shows the world that he loves the Father, by doing as he is commanded (John 14:31), "always" doing the things that are pleasing to the Father (John 8:29). Moreover, the Son lives because of the Father (John 6:57). As the Father has "life in himself," so he has granted the Son to have "life in himself" (John 5:26). Since the "Word" is not created but has eternally existed (John 1:1), this is an "eternal grant" from Father to Son and testifies to the eternal nature of the Father-Son relationship. Thus, we believe the name or title "Father" communicates something real about God. God is the Father of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

(6) Calling God “Mother” may require an unbiblical revision regarding how God relates to the world.

It is difficult to show a direct casual connection between feminine God language and doctrinal revisions regarding how God relates to the world. In the past, most non-evangelical feminists who have argued for feminine or neutral language for God, have done so at least partially because of their presupposition that masculine language (Father, Lord, King) indicates God’s unilateral rule over the earth and leads to abusive relationships where men unilaterally rule over women and nature. In other words, for them, the "masculinity" of God and its connection to the classical understanding of the sovereign rule of God has been at the root of ecological destruction and the domination of women.

So, for many non-evangelical feminists, the way God relates to the world must change if ecological and abuse problems are going to be remedied. Calling God "Mother," at least for most non-evangelical revisionists, means that the world is no longer ruled over by God, but is now part of God’s body or womb. So when one harms nature, he is also harming God. This belief is at the heart of standard definitions of what is called panentheism—God is in everything—which is at direct odds with the biblical description of God’s relationship to the world. God is not part of the world; he is separate from it. God is not dependent upon the world; he is self-sufficient. God is not passively involved with His creation; he is ruling and reigning over it.

Granted, most evangelical feminists who are advocating some kind of feminine language for God probably do not have as their motive a complete revision of the doctrine of God. However, given the fact that the masculine language of Father, Lord, and King is connected to the manner in which God rules the world (i.e., he is sovereign over and separate from his creation), it will be difficult for future advocates to avoid such revisions even if there is no conscious intention to do so.

(7) Calling God “Mother” calls into question the sufficiency of the biblical revelation.

As already noted, Scripture never refers to God as "Mother" or "she." So evangelical feminists who advocate such terminology for God often point to the constraints of Israel’s patriarchal culture for the use of masculine language for God in Scripture. Put simply, evangelical feminists must somehow argue that God’s word has been "contaminated" by the ancient biblical culture and that we must extract some principle for addressing God from the "husk" of the patriarchal biblical language.

But we believe this calls into question the sufficiency of God’s word as we have received it. We do not believe God has accommodated himself and his word to (as evangelical feminists see it) sinful patriarchalism, so that the "truth" of God’s word must be separated from the "sin" of patriarchy. According to this view, the biblical message is no longer sufficient but has been corrupted by a fallen aspect of the ancient biblical language and culture. Instead, we affirm that God has revealed in his word how he is to be addressed and that we do not have the freedom to advocate a form of address that we think is a "contemporary equivalent." Our understanding is that God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible purposefully using masculine language like "Father," and this revelation says something about his nature and character.

Conclusion

Although there are only a few evangelical feminists who are advocating feminine language for God, many churches in mainline denominations have been doing so for years. There are new hymns being sung to "Mother God" and even books designed to teach our children how to pray to "her." We believe that this practice may become even more common among evangelicals, as the pressure to accept egalitarian teachings on manhood and womanhood grows. We hope that evangelical believers, pastors, and churches will prayerfully consider the seriousness of this issue and hold fast to the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures for the glory of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.