Having said this, however, I want to also say, at risk of seeming to contradict myself, that I don’t think that the reason we traditionally refer to God as him has anything to do with patriarchy (although I can certainly understand where that critique comes from). As I said, I do think that God innately possesses both the masculine and feminine, however, when it comes to his relationship to creation there is something predominantly masculine at work. There is something about healthy masculinity (not broken machismo or patriarchy) as seen in the traditional masculine virtues such as disciplined strength, sacrifice in battle, courage, the pursuit and affirmation of the feminine that reveals how God intends to be and is toward us whom he loves and redeems.

In saying this, I can imagine how some theorists would attempt to deconstruct my notions of masculinity by pointing to the socially constructed nature of gender, and to some degree I would agree with them, but there are also points where I resist such critiques. That, however, is a whole other complex matter that I will save, perhaps, for a future post. For now I will just be forthright and say that I am operating within the bounds of Xian orthodoxy in my response.

I’ve had serious debates with people over me suggesting a female nature of God - if we’re made in God’s image.. - because the Bible says “Him”, and if I don’t buy the notion that God is the guy in the beard, than I’m a blasphemer. Really! I think that their, and even my, sense of God is way too constricted.