Is God Masculine?
I do a lot of research on gender. So, I think about gender A LOT. I think about it from a social identity perspective. But I also think about it a lot from a cultural perspective, because we know masculinity and femininity are culturally constructed (i.e. society decides what’s masculine vs. feminine). And as it turns out, March is Women’s month, so I’ve been thinking about gender even more than I usually do. And I guess that kind of led me to our topic for today.
There are over 50 references in the Bible to God as our Father (probably MUCH more than that if I did a more organized search). We also know that God came to Earth in the form of a man (John 20:31; Matthew 26:63-64; 2 Peter 1:17-18), and we also know that the church is described as the bride (not the groom) of Christ. Both the incarnation of Christ, as well as the imagery of the “bride” of Christ, strongly support and appeal to the notion of God as a paternal figure. Although there are people who strongly disagree with that abridged train of logic, in general, most people who identify as Christians (and even people who identify as non-Christians) would echo these observations… myself included.
Here’s my question. Is God masculine?
Now, on the surface, you may think of this question as absolutely absurd. But I would disagree, especially as a social scientist. The reason is simple: Throughout history, people have used the nature of God to justify the oppression of groups that, for whatever reason, are perceived as further from His likeness. I’ll illustrate that with an example from the past and an example from the present. During the 1600’s, European explorers sailed across the Atlantic, landed on the shores of Africa, and they told the people they met there that people from Africa are more like Satan because their skin is darker and people from Europe are more like God because their skin is lighter.
Subtle, but they’re appealing to the nature of God.
“God is light.” (1 John 1:5)
“I have lighter skin.”
“Therefore, I’m more like God.”
At the time, the European explorers felt like that logic made perfect sense. Today, of course, we would describe that as a perverted train of logic. To be explicit, this type of logic was very much used to advance White supremacy, so it’s consistent with my earlier point that the nature of God can be used to oppress groups that are perceived as further from His likeness.
But this isn’t about just a “one-off” example from the past. How we think about God’s nature also influences things today, too.
For instance, in his groundbreaking research on “God as a White Man”, Dr. Peter Roberts investigated how mental schemas of God influence how we view other people. In his work, he conducted 7 experiments with over 1,600 subjects across the US. He found evidence that, irrespective of race or gender, people who had a mental image of God as a White man viewed White men as better suited for leadership positions than other people in society. In other words, the mental image that we have of God influences who we think will be a good leader, and that has profound implications far beyond the context of religion, Christianity or otherwise. In case you’re interested, he also found evidence that children in America start to visualize God as a White man as early as 7 years old… that’s WILD for so many reasons.
I understand those examples are a bit polarizing, but trust me, it doesn’t have to be that dramatic. There’s research on the psychology of religion that shows that Christians who think of God as benevolent are more likely to be prosocial, helpful, and volunteer to support members of religious outgroups in a time of need (for instance, Muslims). On the other hand, that same body of research suggests that Christians who see God as authoritarian do the exact opposite. In other words, compared to Christians that view God as benevolent, they are LESS likely to be helpful to non-Christian religious groups (like Muslims, for instance). Importantly, we know God is both helpful, AND an authority figure, but it seems like Christians’ perceptions about the nature of God (i.e. authoritarian vs. benevolent) actually influenced their attitudes and behaviors in fairly meaningful ways… even to the extent of deciding whether or not to help religious out group members when they were in a time of need.
Well, that certainly doesn’t reflect very well of Christianity.
Suffice to say, this isn’t a trivial question. What we think about God’s nature, and how we think about God’s nature matter.
So, I’ll return to my question. Is God masculine?
Well, it’s complicated.
Masculinity refers to both traits and behaviors that are iconic and signature of men. But as I mentioned before, masculinity is culturally constructed. That is, society… PEOPLE… determine what is and is not masculine. When something is culturally constructed, it doesn’t exist in a rigid system like the laws of nature. Something being culturally constructed means that, more or less, it was created by people and can be changed by people. So, as you can imagine, even though the notion of masculinity is perhaps as old as mankind itself, that doesn’t mean the criteria for masculinity has been the same at every point of history.
Times change… and to some degree, culture, including masculinity, reflects that on some level.
But there’s more.
The fact that masculinity is culturally constructed means that it varies, slightly, depending on the cultural context in question. For instance, there’s research showing that working-class men and upper-class men construct masculinity in slightly different ways. Whereas upper-class men tend to construct masculinity more based on education, income, professional achievement, etc., not surprisingly, working-class men have a great deal of difficulty fitting those definitions of masculinity. Instead, working-class men tend to take a more “macho-man” approach, where they emphasize physical strength and endurance, being excellent at handy work, and yes, even sexual prowess. Obviously, there’s lots of nuance with this, but psychologists and sociologists who study masculinity generally have similar findings in this particular respect.
But that isn’t exactly my focus for today. I’m actually more interested in what I describe next, Western constructions of masculinity.
There’s only a limited body of research on what I describe next, but not surprisingly, how people think about masculinity varies depending on the part of the world they’re in. In Western nations, masculinity and femininity are thought to be opposite extremes of the same spectrum. That is, you can be masculine, or feminine, but you can’t be both, because they’re opposites.
There’s overwhelming evidence of this.
If it helps you to be convinced, when we do research with men on masculinity and [male] gender roles, there’s an entire section of the scale that we use that measures something that we call “anti-femininity”. It’s literally just 5 or 6 questions where we ask men about the extent to which they avoid “feminine” traits and behaviors. And without fail, we’ve found that men’s responses on that “anti-femininity” scale is a predictor of ALL KINDS OF THINGS… everything from alcohol use to displays of physical aggression.
But I digress. Back to Western (vs. non-Western) constructions of masculinity.
More recently, there’s been evidence that men in other parts of the world may not see masculinity as including anti-femininity. Specifically, studies using samples of men in Southeast Asia suggests that highly respected men are seen as possessing both masculine and feminine attributes. In the US, on some level, this would be considered pretty out of the ordinary. But other studies on masculinity and femininity in Southeast Asia provide a similar story: whereas masculinity and femininity were perceived as negatively correlated among men in the US, studies using men in Southeast Asia haven’t been able to replicate this pattern. In other words, there’s evidence that men in Southeast Asia saw masculinity and femininity as completely independent of one another… femininity didn’t have anything to do with masculinity, or the lack thereof.
This is an interesting idea.
In such a case, a man could be emotional and stable.
Restrained and dominant.
Gentle and fierce.
If you’re not catching my point, I’m saying that men could show traits and behaviors that, historically, have been associated with women. More importantly, this wouldn’t undermine their status as a man in any way, although for men in most Western nations, we wouldn’t’ really observe that pattern (see my earlier notes on Anti-femininity).
But back to our question: Is God masculine?
The answer is complicated, because it’s both “yes” and “no”. Remember, masculinity is culturally constructed. Using a Western definition of masculinity, it is impossible for God to be masculine. I’ll say that again for emphasis, if a Western definition for masculinity is used, it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be masculine. The Western definition of masculinity includes anti-femininity, which is a general aversion or avoidance of feminine traits and behaviors.
Compassion is not considered a masculine trait or behavior.
Empathy is not considered a masculine trait or behavior.
Concern for the poor, or widows, or children… same story, right?
Forgiveness.
Mercy.
Take your pick.
God possesses many, MANY attributes that would not fit the Western definition of masculinity, and because part of Western masculinity is the absence or avoidance of feminine traits, the ONLY way that God can be masculine is if you fundamentally change the nature of who God is. In other words, you ignore all the things I just listed and you, instead, focus only on the authoritarian aspects of God (you can see my notes on Authoritarian God vs. Benevolent God from earlier).
The only way that it would be possible for God to be masculine is if we use a conceptualization of masculinity that appears to be more common in Southeast Asia. In such a case, a paternal figure could possess both masculine and feminine characteristics simultaneously… in that sense though, that would mean that God isn’t more masculine than He is feminine or vice versa, because that would suggests that there are some attributes of God’s nature (i.e. mercy) that are somehow emphasized more than OTHER aspects of God’s nature (i.e. judgement). And from what I can tell, there isn’t really a strong Biblical case for that.
God has lots of different attributes, and those things in their totality, collectively, represent who God is… but it’s not like some of those are necessarily more important than others.
But hypothetically, if there was one that was, maybe it’d be love. After all, the Bible says you can some up all the commandments with just two: Love God, and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). If we take that angle, the “is God masculine?” question largely depends on how loving your neighbor is happening. If loving your neighbor involves a heroic act, like dying on a cross (John 3:16), maybe that would be considered more masculine. But if loving your neighbor involves an act of service, like washing feet (John 13:1-17; Luke 7:36-50), maybe that would be considered more feminine.
All that to say, yes, God is masculine if we pivot from a Western definition, but even then, only sort of, because He’s just as feminine as He is masculine…
To me, that’s where I’ve landed. Even though God is described as this paternal figure, and there are countless metaphors and themes in the scriptures that appeal to His paternal nature, His nature is a perfect balance of what we would culturally perceive as both feminine and masculine traits and behaviors.
I find this to be consistent with scriptures that tell us we’re made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1-2; Genesis 9:6). It would probably be a little unusual to say that every person, man AND woman, throughout the course of human existence was made in the image of God, BUT, God is more masculine than He is feminine. If people are made in the image of God (and we should note that humans are the ONLY thing in creation described as being made in the image of God), then to me, that means both men and women reflect who He is, but more importantly, they both equally reflect who He is. The “masculine” aspects of His nature are not more or less prominent or important than the “feminine” ones, and I use these terms loosely, based on the discussion we’ve been having throughout. I don’t think that takes away from God being described as a paternal figure in the scriptures, but as far as His nature is concerned, his qualities are accurately described by both “feminine” and “masculine” traits. You would fundamentally taking away from His nature to focus exclusively on one at the expense of the other. He’s both.
You may see this entire exercise as trivial, but again, I would beg to disagree.
HOW WE SEE GOD MATTERS.
I still have a lot of thoughts, but let me just try and focus on my major takeaway… and I’m talking to guys on this one. Gentlemen… you cannot fully reflect the nature of God if you’re subscribing to Western definitions of masculinity. Seriously. It is LITERALLY impossible to do that, because they’re fundamentally incompatible with one another. We already talked about this… part of Western masculinity is an avoidance of “feminine” traits and behaviors. And if that’s how you see being a man, there are a lot of aspects of God’s nature, and God’s character, that you’ll NEVER understand, much less be able to actually live out. Based on what we know about Jesus, it’s unlikely he would have measured up to Western definitions of masculinity… and yet… he’s the greatest man to ever live and sets the standard for all of us.
If I’m honest, I think Christian women have made waaay more progress on this than we have, for reasons I don’t even have time to get into right now. We’re the ones having difficulty getting deep and connecting with God’s more compassionate, empathetic, sensitive side.
But I think there’s plenty to learn from the things we touched on here. How we think about masculinity probably has a big influence on how we see God and how we live out the faith. And as I’ve said a number of times already here, God isn’t masculine by Western definitions…
Leave yourself room to feel.
Get in touch with your emotions.
Learn how to connect and empathize with others, particularly those you’re close to or people who are suffering.
Figure out how to show you love people in a way that goes beyond paying a bill or spending money.
Dig deep.
Femininity is not the enemy of masculinity, nor is it the opposite. This, in part, reflects a toxic and problematic system of thinking… dare I say toxic masculinity. But we can save that for another day.
Some random thoughts,
Nnamdi