On the Holiness of Sacred Scripture and the Gender of God

To begin, let us clarify this: God is not gendered, or at least in as much as we would understand the term. This is standard Catholic-Christian teaching, for the Catechism says: "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." The Catechism goes on to state that God is traditionally referred to (both in Scripture and in the Magisterial Tradition of the Church) as Father (and therefore male), but this distinction should not be understood as a limitation on our understanding of who God is, for both man and woman-mother and father- are made in the image and likeness of God and reflect the divinity incarnate in human existence. This can even be affirmed biblically, in that the name for "spirit" or "breath" in Hebrew ( ר֫וּחַ, ruach- from which many people believe the Christian understanding of "Holy Spirit" originates) is itself a feminine noun. Furthermore, the third person of the Trinity has often been understood to be at least portraying feminine characteristics, if not in fact  feminine. The argument that God (outside of the second person of the trinity) is, was, or ever will be strictly a man, and that he does not possess characteristics which are distinctive to the feminine gender, can be ruled out as false. To say so would be to put a limitation on God- thus being heresy.

We can similarly, to a certain degree, conclude that the portrayal of God as "masculine", both in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a result of the patriarchal culture(s) from which these two spring forth. The contingency of the text cannot go unnoticed. As Richard Hays points out "the contingency of the text is a part of the text itself, the mode by which the word of God is transmitted forward in time to us now." If such is the case, which I personally believe to be so, then we cannot ignore that the Biblical text was formed within and through a patriarchal society. Furthermore, we must acknowledge the fact that, being written in patriarchal times, the text itself most likely reflects such a perspective. After all, even though it is the divinely inspired word, it was spoken to and (initially) for a particular group of people, living in a particular culture and a particular time, who could only understand the divine revelation (which transcends all the above) in a particular way.

That being said, it is paramount to note that this argument is not without flaw. Two in particular come to mind:

1) As Christians, we believe that Jesus of Nazareth, was not only the Christ or the Messiah, but also God Incarnate. If Jesus Christ is to be understood as God, and Jesus of Nazareth was historically male, than in a certain sense- God must be understood as historically male.

2) The notion that a patriarchal society necessarily results in a masculine deity is simply unfounded. Indeed, many cultures- both in antiquity and modernity- highly revered feminine deities, while the societal structure itself remained patriarchal.

That being said, the society in which the Bible was written was patriarchal, and the deity was masculine. We cannot overlook the potential connections here simply on the grounds of religio-cultural outliers to the contrary. Just because not every culture has had the same thought progression, does not mean that is not what is happening here. Furthermore, while Jesus of Nazareth is indeed historically male, this does not account for the masculine identity attributed to God the Father in both the Old Testament, and in the New Testament (as proclaimed by Christ himself). It cannot be proven outright that the masculinity of God is a result of the patriarchal culture, but it cannot be denied outright either, making it a necessary disclaimer to account for.

With those two very necessary disclaimers out of the way, let us begin our discussion on the femininity of God- in particular: if God is truly without gender, how are we, as Christians, to understand the engendering of  the deity in the Holy Scriptures? An over-simplification of the problem, would be to simply disregard the patriarchal portions of the narrative as non-authoritative. Claiming that the texts were written in and for patriarchal times, many hold that these parts of the text can no longer be held as "divinely inspired" since they are clearly the product of a corrupted culture. While amiable in its aims, this outlook possesses 2 major problems. The first is that it holds the moral teachings of one time and culture (in our case 21st century, Western Society) as the authoritative judge over all other cultures and societies (in particular, the culture and society of the Biblical Narrators). If we are to say that patriarchy is morally corrupt, on what grounds are we basing this judgement? I don't necessarily disagree with the arguments of those who attack patriarchy, but our arguments must transcend our own cultural frame of reference, and our own ways of thinking. The second problem, is that it increases the possibility for subjectivity in Biblical Interpretation.  No doubt, Biblical Interpretation is always- to a degree- subjective for the text often contradicts itself and does not always leave clear, black and white distinctions on many things, much less moral issues. However, there are clear misinterpretations of the text which, in lieu of the aforementioned perspective of disregarding unamiable parts of the text, would only increase and become less clear. Furthermore, when an individual person, community, or culture sees itself as a critic of the Bible, without themselves being formed by it- they have often used the Bible for their own purposes, which has often resulted in disaster. Not to say that opening the Bible up for critique of its Patriarchal structure would lead to similar disasters, but it at least excuses other necessary parts of the Bible (love for one's neighbor, care for the poor, etc.) to be seen as non-authoritative, if the individual doesn't find them amiable.

For similar reasons, we cannot blindly assert that the Bible alone is the authority and that God can only be understood as masculine. God has continued to reveal himself to us through time, and through various cultures and- again- to hold the revelation of one time and one culture of the Church (here 1st-2nd Century Palestine) as the sole authority over others (our own contemporary context) is equally problematic. The Biblical narratives, which reveal the divine narrative of God and his people Israel reaching its climax and fulfillment in Jesus Christ, should undoubtedly take precedent. But the revelation through the various saints, doctors of the church, and the reason and intellect of theologians (clerical and lay) which has transpired since then, help to form our understanding and interpretation of those texts. We must always be open to new and transforming ways through which God reveals himself to us, and that often involves a re-interpretation and renewal of the Sacred Scriptures.

So then, how do we wrestle with the Biblical Text as primary among God's revelation, but not as God's only authoritative revelation? I think the problem with both extremes previously laid out, is that they see the Scriptures as an a absolute "rule" or "authority", which must be followed outright with little exception, or discarded when believed to be no longer useful. However, Scripture and Tradition should function more like a map and compass; a guide to understanding who God is and what God has done. These sources are authoritative in so much as they are the most assured sources of divine revelation, but they are not an authority which is not subject to change in interpretation or understanding. What does this mean for our understanding of the femininity of God? Honestly, I can't say that I have a definitive answer for that question (sorry to burst your bubble, but such an answer is far beyond my abilities as a lowly master's student, and elective blogger). At this point, I personally recognize God to be both feminine and masculine, while referring to God as "He" out of respect for what has been revealed through Scripture and Tradition. However, a true solution must be achieved through a great deal of in-depth prayer and study, as well as open and respectful discussion with people on both sides of the issue, and most importantly- must work authentically from within the Christian tradition and from Her Scriptures.