1 The Image of God as Male

It is likely that the divine is viewed largely in male terms because patriarchal society has created God in its own image. British theologian Daphne Hampson takes this view. She notes:

We should be clear that it is men who have been the creators of that cultural reality which is western theology. It has been they who have shaped its basic framework. A patriarchal society has given rise to the concept that God is to be conceived as peculiarly male.²

Even so, some evidence suggests that in earliest societies, the deity was not always portrayed in male images. Historian Bettany Hughes discusses the finding of an image of a woman at the world’s earliest known religious site, Gobeki Tepe, in Turkey,³ first discovered in 1963, and further excavated in 1994.⁴ Artifacts on the site date it as early as the tenth Millennium bce. Hughes suggests that this image of the female deity, together with similar findings at other sites, shows that the earliest deities were probably female. Reviewing the documentary, John Crace comments, “It was only when the Greeks decided they needed someone a little more violent to justify their militaristic Realpolitik that Gaia had to make way for Zeus.”⁵

Despite this early evidence of the feminine in religion, and contrary to images of the divine in, for example, Hindu religiosity, for most of religious history in the West, and certainly in contemporary times, the popular view is still that God is masculine, consistently reinforced with the use of male pronouns. In Roman Catholicism, the Marian cult elevates Mary to the almost divine—but always as subservient in the Holy Family, and the only role affirmed for women is as virgins and mothers. The masculine is perceived as superior to the feminine, and the hierarchical order of God–man–woman is affirmed.

Most images and analogies of God are masculine. Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J. observes that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, imagery for God is derived from the roles and relations of males—God being considered lord, king, father, son, and warrior. Arising from the patriarchal cultures in which the scriptural texts were written, she says, “the predominant biblical metaphors for God are taken from male experience, with God being depicted as father, warrior, jealous husband, king.”⁶

Ann Loades affirms this view:

It can be argued that the dominant gender construction of Christian culture for men has been active, independent, intelligent, brave, strong, good and, needless to say, godlike. God in turn is male-like.⁷

Loades acknowledges that even when females try to approximate males, they are still considered inferior as females are always less godlike than males. She is not surprised by this finding as the female gender construction, which is religiously sanctioned, portrays women as responsible for evil and sin, emotional, dependent, weak, and passive.

The image of a male supreme being is not exclusive to the Christian tradition. It is found in most major religions. In Fields of Blood, religious historian Karen Armstrong explores the history of violence and religion. She examines Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Her initial claim is that religion has become somewhat a scapegoat for violence.

In a balanced treatment, Armstrong refutes the popular refrain that “Religion has been the cause of all major wars in history,”⁸ citing wars that were not fought for religious causes, her primary examples being the World Wars. Nevertheless, the focus of her book is on tracing the history of violence in religion. Armstrong looks at the development and progression of humankind from early civilization to the present day, discussing the advancement of religion and its concomitant, and inherent, violence. While it is unclear whether the causes of violence are political or religious in origin, Armstrong acknowledges that religion has been a major factor in violence.

Peace educator Betty A. Reardon links war and sexism. Her contention is that both are rooted in violence. She explains, “I attempt to make the case that sexism and the war system are two interdependent manifestations of a common problem: social violence.”⁹

Reardon makes a compelling argument. She engages the question, “Is peace possible in a patriarchal society?” Her answer is a resounding no. She explains, “Patriarchy has also legitimated the use of force to assist those in authority to impose their wills on those subject to them.”¹⁰

The common patriarchal images of God as lord, king, and warrior all support and legitimize violence, superiority, and dominance. Alice L. Laffey comments:

Men are stronger than women, more intelligent, more competent, more responsible, braver, more adapted to the marketplace, more aggressive, more rational, better suited for positions of management and leadership—the list goes on.¹¹

This has far-reaching effects. Even when not expressed as blatantly as Laffey does, this thinking can often be perceived in the way women are treated in society. Women remain lowest in the god-man-woman order, and this is reflected in contemporary culture. There are inequalities in opportunities and the workplace for women. The feminine is denigrated.

Violence accompanies the acceptance that women are inferior. Nothing highlighted this more than in 2016, when the media released a recorded interview in which presidential candidate Donald Trump joked about sexual assault, as if it was the norm for women to be treated as playthings for men.¹² Violence against women is never a joke. In the book they edited together, Carol J. Adams and Marie M. Fortune state:

Physical and sexual violence against women, usually committed by men, is pandemic in our culture and the high rates of violence against women and girl children make it clear that we who are female are particularly vulnerable to violence simply due to our gender.¹³

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,¹⁴ every nine seconds in the U.S. a woman is assaulted or beaten. Every day the nationwide domestic violence hotline receives on average 20,800 calls. Seventy-six percent of all victims of domestic violence are women. Gun violence against women is also high—every fourteen hours a woman is fatally shot by her partner or ex-partner.

Jeremy Young links the violence against women and the portrayal of God, commenting:

God is normatively imaged as male in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Israel, the Church and individual souls are often described as ‘female’ in relation to the ‘male’ God … God is the controlling and dominant partner who uses threats and violence as the means of imposing his will on his partner when she does not do what he requires and is sometimes violent for no particular reason … when the relationship between God and his people appears to be peaceful and loving it is only because they are doing what they were told.¹⁵

In the socially constructed image of the masculine, warrior virtues are highly ranked. The warrior God legitimizes wars and violence. Millard Lind comments, “The study of warfare in the Old Testament reveals that Yahweh is a God of War.”¹⁶

Lind highlights a progression in ancient Israel from perceiving God as warrior on behalf of God’s people, to male Israelis becoming warriors on God’s behalf. In other words, imaging God as warrior lends legitimacy to violence enacted in God’s name. Lind compares the story of the deliverance of the Jewish people from Egyptian slavery and the story of Joshua leading the conquest of surrounding nations. He explains:

In the exodus, Israel is saved from slavery by Yahweh, who alone does the fighting, aided by an aggressive prophetic personality. The conquest involves aggressive warfare in which Israel also fights, led by the warrior, Joshua. While the exodus presents the theological problem of the righteousness of Yahweh’s judgment, the conquest poses in addition an ethical problem as Yahweh commands Israel to fight.¹⁷

A Christian Mennonite, Lind tried to find a way to be honest to the warrior God image, yet remain with his personal commitment to pacifism. He understood the Old Testament as a book primarily about relationship and trust. The people were to trust Yahweh as their protector and deliverer—a hopeful image. Yet in protecting Israel Yahweh is portrayed as ineluctably violent, as violence becomes the means of Yahweh’s protection and deliverance.

Walter Wink confirms this understanding of God as violent, citing Swiss Theologian Raymund Schwager, concluding that violence is a central theme of the Bible and is the activity which is mentioned most often. Schwager noted, “There are six hundred passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible, one thousand verses where God’s own violent actions of punishment are described, a hundred passages where Yahweh expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason.”¹⁸

The image of God who is violent is consistent throughout the whole scripture. Wink first coined the, now popular, term the Myth of Redemptive Violence to expose the popular view of violence as being salvific. He traces forms of this myth existing throughout history from the early Babylonian civilization. In contemporary times, versions of the myth are constantly seen in popular movies, video games, and stories. The story is played out with the introduction of a hero, who often is defending another person or society in general. At a certain point the hero is in danger of suffering great violence. Then in a sudden last dramatic show the hero, himself, uses violence, wins, and the evil is defeated.

Writing about the Myth of Redemptive Violence, Wink comments:

It enshrines the belief that violence saves, that war brings peace, that might makes right. It is one of the oldest continuously repeated stories in the world … It, and not Judaism or Christianity or Islam, is the dominant religion in our society today.¹⁹

Wink expresses great concern about the violence shown in some of the popular comics and video games at the time he was writing. He noted that the comics were read almost exclusively by boys. The godlike characters quickly became the heroes for a generation of young men.

Wink comments about the brutality in, what he terms, video nasties and how inventive they are at finding new ways to expose violence with the purpose of causing harm. He is concerned how young children are exposed to them:

“Adult Only” home videos such as these have been viewed by one quarter of British children aged seven to eight; by age ten half have seen them. If not in their own homes, then at a friend’s. Many children receive their first introduction to sex in these movies by watching a woman be raped, decapitated, dismembered or cannibalized … Redemptive violence gives way to violence as an end in itself.²⁰

Wink penned this in 1989. In the more than a quarter of a century that has ensued the situation has not improved. In contemporary times the easy access to the internet and online games has compounded and increased the problem.

In 2016, a research study was conducted partially to investigate if empathy for women who were the victims of violence was decreased after exposure to sexist video games. In the games the women are often secondary figures, prostitutes or strippers, who are used for sex, or aggression, to earn the player extra points. In the study the participants played three categories of games, those that were sexist and violent, those that were violent but with no sexism and those that had no sexism or violence. The researchers concluded:

One of the best predictors of aggression against girls and women is lack of empathy. The present research shows that violent-sexist video games such as gta [Grand Theft Auto] reduce empathy for female violence victims … because video games such as gta increase masculine beliefs that “real men” are tough, dominant, and aggressive.²¹

These findings are disturbing. Not only do they show an acceptance of violence towards women. The god-like heroes of the video games also use women in terrible ways.

2 Feminine Perspectives

Feminist theologians and philosophers have challenged the masculinist hegemony of Western religion. Laffey comments, “Patriarchy, closely associated with hierarchy, is a way of ordering reality whereby one group, in this case the male sex, is understood to be superior to the other, the female sex.”²² A feminist perspective offers a much-needed challenge both to the image of God as male and to patriarchal/kyriarchal society. Feminist scholar and theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether similarly states:

Feminism is a critical stance that challenges the patriarchal gender paradigm that associates males with human characteristics defined as superior and dominant (rationality, power) and females with those defined as inferior and auxiliary (intuition, passivity).²³

In 1992, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza coined the term kyriarchy “to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination.” She argued that it is not just women who are subordinate, but certain men also, often determined by race, wealth or education. She clarifies:

Kyriarchy is a socio-political system of domination in which elite educated propertied men hold power over wo/men and other men. Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.²⁴

Despite the overwhelmingly patriarchal imaging of God as male, and hence violent, within all the major religions is a strand of nonviolence which can be traced in the sacred writings. Nonetheless, in contemporary culture religion is often perceived as violent heralding the masculinist traits of superiority and dominance. Since the early eighties, feminist theologians have tried to rescue the image of God from patriarchy and the warrior persona. Texts that use feminine metaphor have been highlighted and lifted from obscurity in religious writings to counterbalance the popular masculine image of God.

Several places in the scriptures have God imaged as a mother. For example, the book of Deuteronomy talks about “the God who gave you birth” (32:18). In the book of the prophet Isaiah God likens Godself to a mother, “As a mother comforts her child so I will comfort you” (66:13). In the book of Hosea God is depicted as the one who taught Ephraim to walk, who took Ephraim in God’s arms, who lifted the infant to God’s cheek and who fed the infant (11:3–4), all pictures of mothering. Later in the same book God is imaged as a mother bear robbed of her cubs (13:8). While in the book of Deuteronomy, God is depicted as an eagle hovering over its young (32:11–12). One of the names for God in the Old Testament, El Shaddai, can be translated as the breasted one, a name which evokes feminine images, although, until the work of feminist theologians, the meaning was often obscured in translations. An example of its usage is in Genesis, “by the Almighty [El Shaddai] who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lies beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the womb” (49:25).

Sallie McFague was one of the earlier feminist writers proposing naming God as mother. She writes about the “ethic of God the mother-creator.” She suggests that the mother-creator is the paradigm through which the world should be viewed:

We would no longer see a world we named or ruled or, like the artist God, made … Our positive role in the creation is as preservers, those who pass life along and who care for all forms of life so they may prosper. Our role as preservers is a very high calling, our peculiar calling as human beings, the calling implied in the model of God as mother.²⁵

Carol Gilligan’s observations on violence and aggression in her ground-breaking book, In a Different Voice, are pertinent to the issue. She writes, “If aggression is tied, as women perceive, to the fracture of human connection, then the activities of care, as their fantasies suggest, are the activities that make the social world safe, by avoiding isolation and preventing aggression rather than by seeking rules to limit its extent.”²⁶

Gilligan suggests that violence is often a response to perceived danger. However, the male and female perception of danger are often very different. Gilligan reckons that women will see danger in being isolated, set apart and standing out—all relationship-based—while men fear being trapped, betrayed or humiliated.

In the latter quarter of the twentieth century Gilligan, and others, highlighted the term ethics of care. In an interview in 2011, Gilligan defines the ethics of care as:

An ethic grounded in voice and relationships, in the importance of everyone having a voice, being listened to carefully (in their own right and on their own terms) and heard with respect. An ethics of care directs our attention to the need for responsiveness in relationships (paying attention, listening, responding) and to the costs of losing connection with oneself or with others. Its logic is inductive, contextual, psychological, rather than deductive or mathematical.²⁷

She clarifies her definition by explaining that our relationship to others reflects the way oneself is experienced. It is within these human relationships that morality originates as concerns arise about injustice, oppression, carelessness, and abandonment. Gilligan expresses also the differences of power and ability between adults and children. In that unequal relationship care is essential to the survival of humanity. An ethic of care addresses all these concerns.

Nel Noddings speaks to the importance of an ethic of care in resisting violence. “Today, in a world shaken by the violence of nations and groups whose actions are “justified” by the principles they espouse, an ethic of care is even more important and ultimately reasonable.”²⁸ An ethic of care would seek to eliminate the conditions which contribute to violence: “This means working to eliminate poverty and exploitation, protecting the earth as the home of all living things and rejecting violence as a means of defense …”²⁹

Gilligan concurs with the importance of an ethic of care in contemporary society:

A feminist ethic of care is an ethic of resistance to the injustices inherent in patriarchy (the association of care and caring with women rather than with humans, the feminization of care work, the rendering of care as subsidiary to justice—a matter of special obligations or interpersonal relationships). A feminist ethic of care guides the historic struggle to free democracy from patriarchy; it is the ethic of a democratic society, it transcends the gender binaries and hierarchies that structure patriarchal institutions and cultures. An ethics of care is key to human survival and also to the realization of a global society.³⁰

Although the ethics of care was developed and established by feminist philosophers and theologians it is, however, necessary to note that the ethics of care is not just an ethic for women. It is much more far-reaching. Virginia Held notes:

Feminists do not seek to simply replace men with women in the existing positions of power determining how society will develop, they seek to change the way these positions are thought about and structured. The ethics of care seeks to change dominant normative evaluations and recommendations.³¹

Held discounts the idea that care is only for children, the sick, and those with disabilities. She terms it the myth of self-sufficiency which is pervasive in Western culture.³² In all social interactions care for each other is an essential part, whether by friends or strangers. It is care that enables society to function in an effective way. Although people like to talk about, and even dream of, self-sufficiency, it is rarely possible to achieve. Even those who consider themselves as having no need of others, in actuality, depend on a network of personal relationships which care for them, tending to their well-being. However, Held acknowledges that the sick, disabled and children often need special care to enable their survival.

Embracing an ethic of care for both men and women, together with re-imaging God in feminine ways, might contribute toward a decline in patriarchy with an ensuing reduction in violence.

3 Prospects for Re-imaging God

Sara Ruddick, in Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace, examines the concept of mothering. She makes it clear that mothering is not just a female occupation: “Briefly, a mother is a person who takes on responsibility for children’s lives and for who providing childcare is a significant part of her or his working life.”³³ She emphasizes her point, “Nor is there any reason why mothering work should be distinctly female.”³⁴

Ruddick expounds the details of mothering with an emphasis on peace. Peacekeeping is a maternal practice. Ruddick offers a definition of peacekeeping that mirrors a definition of mothering: “Peacemakers create a communal suspicion of violence, a climate in which peace is desired, a way of living in which it is possible to learn and to practice nonviolent resistance and strategies of reconciliation.”³⁵

That the concepts of peacekeeping and mothering ought to have the same aims is a worthy one. Ruddick’s definition is worthy of serious consideration when pondering the metaphor of a mothering God. In the myth of Christ, the incarnate God, each of the clauses of this definition is applicable. The final act of the gospels, the death and resurrection of the Christ, is the ultimate story of practicing nonviolent resistance and bringing about reconciliation. A picture of Christ reflecting a mothering God is a powerful image.

The use of male metaphors and pronouns to image God has been persistent in history and largely remains so in contemporary culture. Elizabeth Johnson was correct when, in 1984, she remarked, “Calling into question the exclusively male idea of God does not spell the end of male imagery used for God.”³⁶

My young friend, whose story opened this chapter, is not from a religious background. His family are not churchgoers, he has never attended Sunday School. I doubt he has ever had a book about God read to him. Yet, somehow in his short ten years he has absorbed an image of God as male; an impression that is pervasive in the culture into which he was born. The image of a male was not a kindly one, but a male who would seek to punish him; a male who would seek retribution on those he does not like or who have done wrong, evoking the question, “Why does he do this to me?”

It is clear then, that although the work of feminist theologians in questioning the male image of God has yielded some fruit, there is still much work to be done. It has not been an easy task. As Fiorenza comments:

We struggled for a feminist theological voice in a field that throughout the centuries has excluded wo/men by law and custom from becoming theologians. We understood that the historical legacy of oppression was the reason why so very few white wo/men and almost no wo/men of other races could be found in theology and biblical studies in the 1960s and 1970s, and those few were often not interested in torpedoing their careers by doing feminist work.³⁷

Approximately forty years after this was penned the popular cultural image of God remains. It is still one which glorifies the masculinist traits of superiority, strength, and warrior-likeness. This image of the male God is often portrayed as a violent God, a God who chastises the people, a God who caused my young student to say, “Why does he not like me?”

Gilligan recognizes the need to continue to work toward the goal of eliminating patriarchy. She says:

Looking forward then we can expect a struggle. As long as the different voice sounds different, the tensions between democracy and patriarchy continue. Once the ethic of care is released from its subsidiary position within a justice framework, it can guide us by framing the struggle in a way that clarifies what is at stake and by illuminating a path of resistance grounded not in ideology but in humanity.³⁸

It is impossible to tell if the multiple violences of history would have been less if the supreme being, the cosmic role-model, had been portrayed as feminine rather than masculine; if the feminine traits of care, nurture, and protection had been the most highly valued ones and had become the norm for society. It is not possible to go backward. However, the need to find language that does not portray the prominent and dominant image of the divine being as masculine is imperative. Contemporary culture is permeated with ideas, laws, and traditions that hail from religious writings and beliefs. Therefore, as seen above, the perception of God will even affect those who have no religious beliefs.

Finding an image that does not idealize the constructed masculine is both a challenge and a possibility for the future.

4 Conclusion

However, and somewhat hopefully, the perception of God in popular Western Christianity has changed, and is likely to continue to change. In my 2017 book, Corporal Punishment, Religion and United States Public Schools, I demonstrate that God is no longer seen as the strict and punishing warrior god of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century. Rather, the image of God has softened to become a more loving and caring father figure.³⁹ Though God remains male, the parental role of God resembles a more mothering persona—loving, nurturing, and caring, with less emphasis on judgment and punishment. This is all to the good, and likely reflects the slow, but steady, progress that feminism has made in general culture.

In contemporary times much discussion is had about the parental task together with the need for nonviolent parenting. As the consciousness of what constitutes a good parent continues to modify and develop over the next several decades (if not centuries), it will be reflected in the perceived image of God. I have shown that culture creates God in its own image. As the parental task changes in general culture, if the image of God persists as loving parent, then religion will no longer be available to legitimize violence. It is this changing perception of God that brings a small hope that there is a possibility of moving toward a less violent future.