“Christians go crazy if you in any way suggest that God isn’t a man,” said the first big-deal person in Christian publishing to read the manuscript of my book, I’m OK–You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop. He was advising me to cut the passage below from that book’s introduction.
“Really?” I said. “But no one thinks God has an a gender, right?”
“Trust me on this,” he said. “The average Christian reader cannot tolerate anything but God being male. And it’ll never get past the blue-hairs.”
“The who?”
“The blue-hairs. The old women who decide what does and doesn’t get sold in Christian bookstores. Every chain of Christian bookstores has these old lady readers who vet each book they carry for Christian-appropriate content. The blue-hairs. They’re the gate-keepers of the business. If they find something in a book they object to, that book dies in the world of Christian publishing.”
Oh. I had no idea. And here I thought what most mattered in a book were things like quality of thought and deftness of expression was.
Pffft. Could I have been stupider?
Eventually I acquiesced, and cut the passage from the book. So the text below does not appear in the published version of I’m OK–You’re Not. It’s hardly a big deal—but every once in a while I find myself wondering to what extent the “average Christian reader” would, in fact, find the following offensive:
Throughout this book I stick with the convention of referring to God as if he were … well, a “he.” I don’t particularly like doing that; I’m not a huge fan of the whole Big Bearded Guy in the Sky model of God. And I know most people aren’t; I know that most all of us are attuned to the idea that God is hardly, shall we say, gonadally defined. But when you’re writing about God (in English, anyway), you’re basically stuck having to Pick A Gender. So I went with the conventional “he” and “him” and “Big Daddy,” and . . . well, I actually never use “Big Daddy.” But you get the idea.
If my herein going with Manly God Talk offends anyone, please do forgive me, and know that (hairy, testosterone-addled guy that, sadly, I am) I’m extremely sensitive to what I believe is that perfectly valid point of concern. Here’s hoping that eventually we evolve some gender-neutral … well, pronouns, basically. If anyone’s into developing or promoting that sort of thing, please give me a call if you think I might be able to help. Because I’d try, for sure.
I’m very glad to say this sort of thing would raise less hackles today than it did six years ago, when this first came up.
And I’m also very glad to say that today Christian bookstores have mostly gone the way of chamber pots and dodo birds.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3
As a pianist, I have played several Christian Scientist services where the phrase Father/Mother God is common. I like that
But, as an Elder of my own church frequently tasked to give a Communion prayer (and not having a spontaneous bone in my body), my rough drafts almost always included that phrase; my actual prayers never did. As much as I would like to include that concept in my corporate worship, the Communion table was just not the time and place to make that statement. 
I’ve never thought or really even cared what He carries below.. all I know is that I am fed up with the likes of the blue-haired using Him as their poster child to hate. cowards, every one of them
I will read your book John. I’ve had strong views about the feminine/masculine idea of our God for a long time.
There were people in church (when I attended many, many, many, many, many moons ago) used to tell me God had a gender, and that he was male. I used to reply, “Does he have a penis?” This would elicit white faces and hands up to mouths. I mean, really, if God is male, does he have a penis? Does he use it? If not, why not? Did he use it on Mary when she had Jesus? These are all reasonable questions that extend (heh) from the premise that God must have a gender and that gender must be male. I don’t get the big deal. I mean, if that’s what you believe, follow through on it.
I regularly throw out a “she” when talking about God, or a “he/she,” or use the word “God” carefully so as not to say “he” (after awhile it becomes obvious that I’m refusing to use “he” exclusively) and it freaks out everyone who hears it. It even freaks me out while I’m doing it. But I think it’s important to do because we are SO used to God as a “he” and I think it keeps us from fully experiencing God – to limit God like that.
Kudos to John for trying, but he’s right: those kinds of comments are too scary for the status quo.
@Richard- just read the link. That was cool!
If it weren’t for people like John I’m sure I would have jumped onto the agnostic band wagon.
Even biblical literalist can clearly see in Genesis that God created BOTH male and female in his image. Yet, Ive heard horror stories of pastors telling people they can just leave of they won’t accept that God is male. Sickening! These are people who are so insecure with themselves that they have to grasp at straws to gain a shred of self worth. It’s SO silly. I’ll never understand the extremely sensitive male ego of some.
“Male and female He made them.” Made in God’s image. Is not part of being made in God’s image what we humans shove into defined roles for “gender.” We think of God the Father as, well, “Father,” because Jesus called him that. But that doesn’t mean that God possesses only male qualities, for he made us male and female in His own image. So surely God has qualities that we label “male” and others we label “female.” For example, did He not “nurture” humanity all through the Old Testament to grow to know Him? “Nurturing” is seen as a female quality. There is no doubt that God possesses both “male” and “female” qualities. And we can, too, if we stop labeling them and allow ourselves the full range of emotions and heart as God intended us to do. Perhaps someday we will grow enough in His image to do so.
I’d have no problem reading what you wrote in a book, and I’m almost a blue hair! Also, as the baby boomers age, more of what wouldn’t pass muster in the past will be deemed just fine. Yes, we’re growing a whole new generation of “blue hairs.”
As assisting Elder, after using inclusive language in a prayer during workship service, I was taken to task by a “blue-hair” parishioner for even suggesting that God was anything other than an old, white gray-haired Northern European male. She then died (not immediately thereafter, but after awhile). My pastor and I after her service had a chuckle wondering if she had the heavenly angelic cojones to ask God, and if she now knows, exactly what kind of genitalia He has.
http://ucim.org/2012/03/blog-a-deacons-musing-lent-heroes/ Thought my most recent Lenten blog might be of interest considering your sharing.
Um, Christians do realize that Jesus entered the world through a vagina, right?
of course God isn’t “male” or “female” (or perhaps more aptly, is both). i don’t even get why that passage would have been a problem six years ago… sixty, maybe.
I certainly hope so….
That picture makes me slightly sick.
I too believe that God has no gender, or perhaps, all genders, since all are made, male and female, in the image of God. The difficulty in the English language comes only from the use of pronouns. So I am careful to not use pronouns to refer to God, except for the second person, you. This sometimes is a little awkward, but with practice you can find ways to say what you want. In ancient times, God’s name was considered too sacred to pronounce; nowadays, God’s name is too sacred to be replaced by a pronoun!
I don’t think you should have acquiesced. I have no problem believing that God is male and female and neither. I do use the male gender when I pray and I have no problem with that either. I am interested though in whether you think there is something called maleness and something called femaleness and if so, how you would describe each.
« 1 2 3
{ 1 trackback }