GOD IS FEMALE
Essay
miriam berg
July 6, 1980
One of the salient facts about the theology of
the Bible is that God is pictured as being
exclusively male. This picturation has been
generally uncommented upon and accepted virtually
universally throughout Western culture, and is
prevalent in Eastern religions as well. Males have
for thousands of ¥ears held and been expected to
hold the reins of power; women have been considered
inferior, possessions, subordinate, consistent with
the masculine image of God portrayed by nearly all
religions. Even today most of us have been brought
up with the sense that the power and the glory belong
to men; the exceptional woman has been seen as
an exception, inexplicable, but in no way challenging
this sense of masculine superiority.
Now I am tempted to blurt out at once, NONSENSE! More
distasteful epithets also corne to mind. And I think
we are fortunate in our day in seeing a great rise
of appreciation and acceptance of women as at least
equal to men, victims of thousands of years of
subjugation to males based on false premises. However
I have corne to feel, and expressed myself so more than
twenty years ago, that women are superior to men
not merely equal. And here I am out to show that
God herself is female, not male, that the images
of God as male, as Father, as Lord, as Master, are
false and misleading, that in fact the only true
view of God is that of the feminine or female
principle, and henceforth I shall call her She, I
shall call her Mother, Lady, and Mistress.
She brings to birth all creatures, through time
and natural process, not by arbitrary creation and
supernatural intervention. She nurtures all creatures
making the least of mothers violentl¥ defensive of
her own, and the lesser creatures who never know
their mothers amply provided with air, water, and
sunlight. She imposes no rules, requires no obedience
gives no commandments, but accepts all her creatures and
creatednesses equally, the destroyer as well as
the destroyed. She is like water, which benefits
all beings and does not seek to control or exploit
them. She is like the tree, which refuses not its
shade to the axman at its root. She is like the rain
and sun, which fall upon all alike, and do not require
forms of worship or forced behavior. Verily, a
female God is the only one capable of infinite compassion
and love; a male God who wants everything his own way
and punishes some and rewards others cannot ever be a God
of unlimiited caring and forgiveness.
So there can be no doubt at the outset that the
traditional picture of God as exclusively male
is d1storted and incomplete, and that the female element
is at least fifty per cent of the Great Spirit or Being
of the Universe, as many of the Gnostic Gospels
affirm. Nor is this strange or new. Have we not all
been brought up to speak of Mother Nature
of our earth as "she", of the Goddess Providence? But
you ask, is not the masculine element equally fifty
per cent of that same Great Being, must not the Godhead
be considered as both male and female, as it were
neither predominating, each participating in the great
chain of life and ebb and flow and process of growth
and change of the Universe? I answer, No, the male
element is subservient to the female, the male exists
to serve the female, it is the role of the male to give
support to the female and not to dominate. To use a
biological analogy, it is the female who bears and
nurses new life, whereas the male protects and cherishes
but does not bear or nurse.
Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas discovered in 1946
is reported to have said, For every woman who will make
herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. In
Matthew we are told, There are those who make themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; let him who
can receive it, receive. Jesus' entourage included
many women as well as men, and though Jesus is not
reported to have designated any women as disciples
he is reported to have spoken approvingly to Mary
who sat at his feet to hear his words, and to have
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, at least in John's
account, and to have commended the woman or women
who anointed him, proclaiming their love to be greater
than that of others. But the question is, did Jesus say
and what did he mean, that women must become male
and.men must become "eunuchs"?
These paradoxical remarks may be contrasted with the
writings of Lao Tse, the Chinese sage, who proclaimed
that the Way was Female, and that the way to unite with
the Way was to let the female element express itself
in your life. Of course we may debate what this means
and we may question the traditional dichotomies of
masculine and feminine as Creative and Receptive, or
aggressive and accepting, active and passive, and so on.
Surely women are just as active and assertive
as men, though the society tries to teach them not to
be, and men are just as capable of affection and
devotion and unconditional acceptance as women
though again the society encourages, even pushes
them in the opposite direction. But even so, this
stark characterization by Lao Tse must bring us up
short, to consider again whether the emphasis upon
male superiority is valid, and whether it makes
any sense for Jesus to have said, the female must
become male.
Although it may appear to be an aside, I would like
to address this problem by examining one of the little
known and seldom commented upon differences of expression
of one of Jesus' statements. In Matthew we read:
He that loveth father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me; nor is he that loveth son
or daughter more than me. (Matt. 10:37)
But in Luke, this is expressed more harshly as:
If anyone cometh unto me, and hateth not his
own father, and mother, and wife, and children
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
Now did Jesus preach hate, or not? If we read Luke only
we would have to conclude that he did, if we take
everything in the Gospels literally. But Matthew's
formulation shows us that Jesus was merely insisting
that love of God was the supreme commandment, as he says
elsewhere (Mark 12:29-31; Matt. 22:37-40), and was
contrasting such love with familial love, which is
a common experience for us all. He was saying
The amount of love due to God is greater even than
that you have for your parents or your children. This
became distorted in the Lukan version, misreported
and misrepresenting Jesus as having preached hate. But
Luke's quotation here is inaccurate in the light of the
other teachings of Jesus, and so we need not accept it
verbatim. Nor need we be bothered by Jesus' referring
to love of himself; his use of "me" can be clearly
understood as meaning "Me", the great "I Am", the
common Hebrew formulation for referring to God.
The point of this digression is to show that since
the Gospels are translations, not only from Greek to
English but from some previous form, Hebrew or Aramaic
into Greek, we need to be wary of taking any words
literally, particularly when they are paradoxical or
jarring with other statements. Perhaps the most
glaring example is the oft-mentioned "camel" going
through the eye of a needle. As George Lamsa has
pointed out, the Aramaic words for "camel" and "rope"
differ only by a vowel mark, and ther'e was a Hebrew
proverb regarding a thing being as "difficult as a rope
going through the eye of a needle", so we can feel
certain that Jesus meant and said "rope" and not "camel"
when he was saying that entering the kingdom of God
was as difficult as something going through the eye
of a needle. Likewise we can wonder whether "eunuch"
meant "castrated person" or perhaps simply "celibate"
and whether "male" in the context of women becoming
such meant simply being concerned with the ways of
the world rather than only with the ways of the home
and again whether "celibate" meant any more than that
either. I am not enough of a Greek or Hebrew scholar
to know or discover this, but it makes infinitely
more sense than for Jesus to have been proclaiming
male supremacy, especially since Jesus himself
denounces such an attitude in his teachings of
nurture, givingness, and forgivingness, and against
seeking to be great.
So now we are back at the beginning of our investigation:
if God 'is to be characterized in anthropomorphic terms
as a being with thoughts and desires and personality
is it He or She? I cannot accept God as male. As I have
written elsewhere I cannot accept God in anthropomorphic
terms at all, as any kind of supernatural superhuman with
a personal relationship to each person or being. But if
we are going to anthropomorphize God, it is a travesty
to think of Her as Him. It is Mother Nature who has
created uS; not a whitebearded man-thing snapping his
fingers. It is the Goddess Providence who cares for us
and sees that we have what we want and need and gives
us fishes instead of serpents and bread instead of
stones. It was some devil, some male devil, who led
the Israelites on a rampage in the Middle East slaughtering
women and children as we read in the Old Testament. It was
some devil that has driven men to subjugate and exploit
women over the centuries and treat them as chattels
instead of people.
That same devil must have prompted Paul to deny women
the right of speaking in the church and to order them
to be totally submissive to their husbands as if men
were God's chosen people. She was too wise, however;
She gave women bottomless reserves of strength to
endure. Why She allowed men to rape women, both
literally and figuratively, I do not understand. But
then, Her ways are mysterious and She lets creatures
take their own course, even if it leads to their own
destruction. Now it is time for women to refuse any
longer to submit and for men to recognize their sins
and the rightful superiority and importance of women. It
is time for us all to recognize the essential feminnine
nature of God. She will smile more beneficently upon
us all when we treat each other in the same way She
treats us, equally, with all the love a mother has for
her children. As Lao Tse says, What we need, is to
suck the breasts of our Mother Tao!
* * * * *
TWENTY-THIRD PSALM
Lady's my Mistress, I'll not want
She makes me down to lie
In pastures green She leadeth me
The quiet waters by.
My soul She doth restore again
And me to walk doth make
Within the paths of blessedness
E'en for Her own name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through shadow'd vale
Yet will I fear no ill;
For She is with me, and Her rod
And staff me comfort still.
A table She prepareth. round
In presence of my foes.
My head with oil She doth anoint
And my cup overflows.
Goodness and mercy all my days
Shall surely follow me.
And in my Mother's house alway
My dwelling place shall be.
(originally published under the name of John Fitz)