Why God Is Not a Girl: Trinitarian Ontology and the Rejection of Feminist God-Talk
Why God Is Not a Girl: Trinitarian Ontology and the Rejection of Feminist God-Talk
J. Neil Daniels
Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview is available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OB0yLF0TUz2AqL550nP8TsJkUUg-KxM1/view?usp=drivesdk
Introduction
The rise of feminist theology and its attendant language revisions have introduced considerable controversy into the doctrine of God. One of the most contentious aspects is the push for gender-inclusive or even explicitly feminine language for God. This trend includes referring to God as “She,” “Mother,” or using dual-gendered terms such as “Godself.” Proponents argue that traditional male-pronoun usage for God is culturally conditioned and unnecessarily exclusionary. Here I will contend, however, that such modifications undermine the ontological reality of God as revealed in Scripture and violate the theological commitments of classical theism, particularly the doctrine of divine simplicity and the revealed economy of the Trinity. A biblically faithful and theologically robust theology must reject gender-inclusive and feminine God-talk not as an issue of cultural preference, but as a matter of theological fidelity.
The Biblical Language of God and the Analogy of Being
The Scriptures consistently employ masculine terms for God. God is revealed as “Father” (πατήρ) in both Old and New Testaments, a title that is neither incidental nor culturally arbitrary, but theologically intentional. Christ refers to God as “Father” over 160 times in the Gospels, especially in John’s Gospel, where the Father-Son relation forms a central axis of redemptive history (cf. John 5:19–26; 17:1–5). This self-revelation is not open to linguistic revision without doing violence to the inspired text (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). Furthermore, in the Incarnation, the eternal Son of God assumes a male human nature (Luke 1:31; Gal 4:4), reinforcing the masculine pattern of divine self-disclosure.
The consistent use of masculine pronouns and titles for God is not a projection of human patriarchy onto the divine, but the result of the Creator freely revealing Himself in terms analogically suited to His nature. As Thomas Aquinas explains, human language about God is analogical, not univocal or equivocal; it corresponds truly, though not exhaustively, to divine reality (Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.13, a.5). To replace "Father" with "Mother," or “He” with “She,” is to confuse the analogical foundation for speaking of God with anthropomorphic license. Feminist theologians who prefer “Goddess” or “Sophia” terms, such as Sallie McFague or Elizabeth Johnson, undermine the revelational character of theological language by imposing a metaphor not given by God Himself, thereby blurring the Creator-creature distinction and inviting conceptual idolatry.¹
Divine Simplicity and the Incommunicable Essence
The doctrine of divine simplicity affirms that God is not composed of parts, properties, or potentialities. His attributes are identical with His essence; He is not loving, wise, or powerful as though these were accidents added to an underlying subject, but He is love, wisdom, and power (Exod 3:14; John 4:24). Gender, by contrast, is a property of created beings, contingent upon embodiment and sexual differentiation. To predicate “feminine” properties to God ontologically is to import creaturely composition into the unchanging and indivisible being of God (Mal 3:6; James 1:17).
Moreover, divine simplicity affirms that God is not one who becomes or grows into identity through relation, including gendered relation. The attempt to feminize God introduces a form of modal composition: God becomes, for example, a Mother in certain relational roles, thus altering divine identity through mutable categories. This not only violates simplicity but also immutability and aseity. As classical theism has long affirmed, God is actus purus—pure act, fully actualized, and not subject to process or development.² Feminist theology, by contrast, often leans toward process theology or panentheism, implicitly locating God within the evolving matrix of history, thus compromising divine transcendence.³
The Trinitarian Revelation and the Economic Names of God
The Triune names of God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are not provisional or merely functional designations, but ontologically revelatory. They speak not only to God’s works ad extra but to His eternal relations ad intra. The Father begets the Son; the Son is begotten; the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son, according to the filioque). These names are eternal and irreducible. To replace them with nongendered or feminized counterparts—Parent, Child, Womb, for example—is to erase the very contours of the triune Godhead as revealed by Scripture and upheld by the Church’s historic creeds (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds).⁴
The Trinitarian pattern revealed in Scripture also upholds a meaningful asymmetry that cannot be homogenized. The Father sends the Son (John 3:17), and the Son sends the Spirit (John 15:26). Feminist reconfigurations that attempt to revise these relations in the name of equality or inclusivity flatten the distinction between persons and threaten to either collapse into modalism or drift into tritheism.⁵ The masculine imagery, though not descriptive of biological maleness, conveys the asymmetry of relation, authority, and mission that are vital to Trinitarian theology. Feminist alternatives thus violate both the lexicon and the logic of the Trinity.
The Pastoral and Liturgical Consequences of Feminine God-Talk
Theologians are not merely wordsmiths for ivory towers; theology has direct pastoral and liturgical implications. Altering the language of God to include feminine pronouns or metaphors disrupts the worship life of the Church. When prayers are directed to “Our Mother,” or when hymns are rewritten to include phrases such as “Shepherdess of Israel,” the congregation is not merely engaged in inclusive speech but is being formed in false doctrine and imaginative idolatry. Liturgy is catechetical; it teaches the faithful how to think about God and commune with Him. If liturgical language obscures or distorts the identity of the God who has revealed Himself, then the people of God are worshipping an idol of linguistic innovation rather than the living God of Scripture.
Furthermore, this trend does not stop at revision; it deconstructs. Churches that begin by adopting inclusive language often end by questioning fundamental doctrines, such as the Fatherhood of God, the exclusive mediatorship of Christ, or the unique procession of the Spirit. This is not a slippery slope fallacy, but is an observable pattern in mainline denominations and liberal seminaries. Feminist theology often starts with language and ends with ontology. When God is no longer named as He has revealed Himself, He is no longer worshipped as He truly is.
The Feminine Metaphors in Scripture: Proper Use and Abuse
It is true that Scripture uses a range of metaphors to describe God's actions and compassion, some of which are maternal or feminine in character. For example, God is said to comfort His people like a mother comforts her child (Isa 66:13), and to care for Israel like a woman in labor (Isa 42:14). Jesus compares His desire to gather Jerusalem’s children to a hen gathering her brood (Matt 23:37). These metaphors, however, are analogical and functional; they describe aspects of divine action, not divine identity. They do not overturn or replace the consistent pattern of masculine self-designation throughout redemptive history.
To use these metaphors as justification for feminine God-talk is to confuse metaphor with ontology. The same Scriptures also depict God as a rock, a lion, or a shepherd, none of which become normative as divine pronouns or names. No biblical author ever prays to “Our Mother who art in heaven.” To retroactively reconstruct divine identity from isolated maternal metaphors is hermeneutically irresponsible and theologically subversive. The feminine metaphors highlight the fullness of God's compassion, but they do not license a change in God's revealed name or nature.
Conclusion: The Beauty of Theological Submission
The desire to revise the language of God is often framed as a concern for inclusivity, justice, or healing from patriarchal wounds. But Scripture does not authorize us to reshape God's self-revelation according to cultural sentiment or therapeutic needs. Instead, it calls us to theological submission. In a world increasingly hostile to divine authority and gender order, to call God “Father” and Christ “Son” is not a relic of outdated religion; it is, rather, an act of reverent obedience.
The church does not invent her doctrine of God; she receives it. To confess the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to stand within the stream of divine revelation and the communion of the saints across ages. Feminist God-talk, by contrast, places the interpreter above the text, and culture above revelation. But the Word of God does not bend to contemporary ideology. It calls men and women to bow before the ineffable majesty of the God who is not male, but who is not a girl either. He is the triune, holy, immutable, and ineffable Lord, who names Himself, reveals Himself, and calls us to worship Him as He is.
Endnotes
- Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 35–58; Sallie McFague, Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 66–75.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia.3.7–8; cf. Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 78–101.
- Catherine Keller, The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (London: Routledge, 2003), esp. ch. 6.
- See The Nicene Creed (381 AD): “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty… and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit.”
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010), 157–164.
For Further Study
This is fantastic! Thank you. Amen! 🙏🏽🧎🏽♀️🥰🤗
ReplyDeleteI love being Daddy's girl 😌, so I totally detest the feminist God-talk.
ReplyDeleteGod is a "Daddy" and that's final.
Love this!
Thank you.🤗