The academic journal of CBE International
Priscilla Papers
Vol 37, No 3 | Summer 2023
Culture
03 Authority to Cover Her Head:
The Liberating Message of 1
Corinthians 11:3–16
Juliann Bullock
08 Negotiating Boundaries:
Reading Pauline Prescriptions
in Their Cultural Context
Colin Gauld
12 Caste and Gender in India:
The Bakht Singh Assemblies
and Egalitarianism
Ziv Reuben
17 Sermon
In Spite of the Culture
Beulah Wood
20 God as Motherly Father and
Fatherly Mother
Joshua Robert Barron
24 Is There Anything More That
Can Be Said about 1 Timothy
2:8–15? "Propriety," A
Surprisingly Significant Word
James Reiher
29 Book Review
Indigenous Theology and the
Western Worldview
Reviewed by William David
Spencer
Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos more perfectly in the way of the Lord. (Acts 18:26)
God as Motherly Father and Fatherly Mother
Joshua Robert Barron
While the language Paul uses in
In 1998 as a seminary student, I
What are the implications of insisting that
this verse can make it seem as
was assigned Elizabeth Johnson’s
though his “purpose is to prove
She Who Is, which is now regarded
God is “He” but never “She”? Logically, if
the subordination of woman to
as a classic Christian feminist
man,” this most emphatically
theology text.1 Before reading the
referring to God as “She” implies a female
“is not his conclusion”—Paul is
book, I admit that I was troubled
goddess with female sexuality, then would
by that feminine pronoun, “She.”
simply insisting that men and
My culture had taught me, even if
women are not, and should not
not the use of “He” imply a male god with
only implicitly, that God is “He.” Of
be, indistinguishable from each
male sexuality?
course, Italian Renaissance artistic
other.5 Augustine, however,
depictions of God the Creator as
imports from pagan philosophy an
an old (if still ruggedly muscular) man with a long white beard are
eternal distinction between men and women that is ontological (that
anthropomorphic (or perhaps merely andromorphic) and not to be
is, of inherent essence and being). Due to Augustine’s unparalleled
taken literally. But what does it mean to refer to God as “She”? Was
influence in Western Christianity, this unbiblical and anti-Christian
Johnson implying that God as revealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
idea that women are inherently inferior and of less value than men
(and to Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah) and who became incarnate in
has continued to have currency in Christian circles. The suggestion
Jesus is a goddess? Did this represent an embracing of pagan mother
that God can perhaps be conceived of as “She” reminds us that male
goddess and fertility goddess imagery? That, I thought—and still
humans and female humans are equally created as God’s image and
believe!—is incompatible with Christian faith. But I failed to reflect
likeness6 (Gen 1:26) and that “there is neither male nor female”
on the converse. What are the implications of insisting that God is
(or, perhaps, “there is not male versus female”) because we “are all
“He” but never “She”? Logically, if referring to God as “She” implies
one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Learning that the “dividing wall of
a female goddess with female sexuality, then would not the use of
hostility” (Eph 2:14), not only “between different ethno-cultural and
“He” imply a male god with male sexuality?
linguistic groups” but also between the male and female sexes, “is
broken down within the Church” is liberating.7
Among English-speakers, many Christians find the prospect of
applying feminine pronouns to God liberating and inclusive.
But many English-speaking Christians are especially uncomfortable
Insistence, often by patriarchists, that God can only be addressed
with applying feminine pronouns to God. Sometimes this is for the
with masculine pronouns has often served to devalue women and
same reason that I was first troubled by the book title She Who Is.
to further exclude them from both theological discourse and from
Sometimes it is simply because of tradition—“but that’s not what
Christian leadership. Such an insistence reinforces the pagan idea
I’m used to!” Sometimes it is because it threatens the power of
from Greek philosophy that women are inherently inferior to men in
patriarchalism. This debate brings us to an important question. Is
essence and being. Thus, in the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo
God gendered? Yes and no. God Godself transcends human sexuality.
misinterpreted 1 Cor 11:7 as meaning that “not the woman but the
“God is Spirit” (John 4:24) and as such is neither male nor female.
man is the image of God” and later reiterated that woman “is not
In Num 23:19, God gives a message to a prophet that “God is not a
the image of God” apart from man.2 This exegetical error is not a
man” nor a human (whether male or female).8 But words for “God”
reflection of meditation upon biblical texts, but of the predominant
are grammatically gendered in many (though not all) languages.
Roman-Greco culture of his day. Elsewhere in the same epistle
Most European languages have, or historically had, grammatically
(1 Cor 15:49), Paul “recognized that all Christians were being
masculine and feminine pairs, such as the English equivalent of god/
conformed to God’s image in Christ”3 (see also Rom 8:29 and 2 Cor
goddess. Moving to Western Asia, in Armenian, “no grammatical
3:18). In no place does Paul contradict the teaching of the Torah that
gender exists, and a single pronoun covers both ‘he’ and ‘she’.”9
humans equally, male and female, reflect God’s image and likeness
(Armenia is especially significant in Christian history, as in AD 301
(Gen 1:26–27). In 1 Cor 11:7,
it became the second political entity, after Edessa, to officially adopt
Christianity.) In African languages, the word for “God” is sometimes
Paul’s reference to men existing in the state of (ਫ਼πάρχων) God’s
masculine, sometimes feminine, and sometimes neuter. I will return
image does not exclude women: both men and women exist in
to African examples below.
the state of bearing God’s image. Paul does ruminate that Man
reflects God’s glory whereas Woman reflects Man’s glory. This
When we turn to the biblical languages, we find that in the Hebrew
could mean that [in this context] men (and not women) reflect
OT the primary words for “God,” El and Elohim, are grammatically
God’s glory OR that men reflect God’s glory and women reflect
masculine. This is so even when referring to Asherah, a fertility deity
both God’s glory AND man’s glory.4
whose female sexuality was emphasized. Since biblical Hebrew lacks
a feminine counterpart for the word “god,” the Hebrew of 1 Kings
20
Priscilla Papers | 37/3 | Spring 2023
cbeinternational.org
reads, “Asherah, the elohim (god) of the Sidonians” (11:5, 33). English
versions, however, regularly render the text: “Asherah, the goddess of
the Sidonians.” In Greek, there is a masculine/feminine pair: theos/
thea (“god/goddess”). In the ΝΤ and the Septuagint (the ancient
Greek translation of the OT), only the masculine form, theos, is used
to refer to the God of Israel,10 who was revealed in Jesus, who was
of course incarnate as a human male. Due to this, and due to God’s
taking to Godself the name “Father” in both Jewish and Christian
revelation, some have (wrongly) developed the idea that God is
inherently male in essence and being. This mistaken idea has caused
some to fervently argue that God can only properly be referred to
with grammatically masculine pronouns.
as masculine wherever it referred to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this
shift in practice was in part due to the ever increasing prestige of
the Greek language (though of course pneuma is neuter, rather
than masculine).
Much feminist theology is rooted in the need to reject this error.
There is also, of course, much feminine imagery for God in the
Bible, such as God comparing Godself to a woman giving birth
(Isa 42:14), a mother carrying her child (Isa 42:14), a nursing
mother who cannot forget the infant at her breast (Isa 49:15), and
a midwife (Pss 22:9–10, 71:6; Isa 66:9). Jesus compares himself to
a mother hen protecting her chicks (Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34).11
Certainly, there are masculine attributes of male humans and
feminine attributes of female humans which can be traced to
masculine and feminine attributes of God, as both male and female
humans are created in God’s image. The church should remember
that both fatherhood and motherhood are rooted in God. This
can be done without falling into various mother-goddess heresies
and idolatries. A striking example is found in the Syriac Odes of
Solomon 8.14 and especially 19.1–11, which build on Isa 49:15 to
speak of God the Father’s breasts being full of milk.12
Even as this change of pronoun use was beginning to take place in
the Syriac East, in the Latin West the theologian Jerome (c. 343–420)
writes that no one should be scandalized by feminine imagery or
pronouns for the Holy Spirit. He points out that while in Hebrew
“Spirit” is grammatically feminine, it is grammatically masculine in
Latin and grammatically neuter in Greek. He then concludes what
we should all repeat: “In divinity [or, deity] there is no sex.”15
Apart from the obvious theological value of such feminine imagery
for God in biblical texts, the arguments for the position that “only
masculine pronouns should be used for God” demonstrate an
equal ignorance of how languages work and of the history of
Christian thought. The OT Hebrew word for God’s Spirit, Ruakh,
is grammatically feminine. So, a literal translation of the OT would
need to translate pronouns (or pronominal suffixes) referring
to God’s Spirit as “she.” In the Greek NT, Pneuma Hagion (“Holy
Spirit”) is grammatically neuter; a literal translation of the NT in
English would render pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit as “it.” In
Latin, Spiritus Sanctus (“Holy Spirit”) is grammatically masculine.
In the first centuries of Christianity, multitudes of Christians spoke
Syriac, a language closely related to biblical Aramaic. Like Hebrew,
in Syriac, Rukha (“Spirit”) is grammatically feminine.13 Thus, for
several hundred years, Syriac-speaking Christians and theologians
comfortably referred to the Holy Spirit with the feminine pronoun
equivalent to “she” in English. This was true in the oldest translations
of the Bible into Syriac and in other Christian writers through the
first centuries of Christian history. Sebastian Brock notes that:14
(1) In the earliest [Syriac] literature up to about AD 400 the Holy
Spirit is virtually always treated grammatically as feminine. This is
the norm in the three main monuments of early Syriac literature:
the Acts of Thomas and the writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem.
(2) From the early fifth century onwards it is evident that
some people began to disapprove of treating the Holy Spirit
as grammatically feminine; accordingly, in defiance of the
grammatical rules of the language, they treated the word ruha
cbeinternational.org
(3) From the sixth century onwards what had been only sporadic
practice in the fifth century now becomes the norm: ruha,
referring to the Holy Spirit, is regularly treated as masculine. Even
so, the original feminine was not completely ousted, for it can
still occasionally be found, chiefly in liturgical texts and in poetry
(where some poets use either masculine or feminine, depending
on which best fits their immediate metrical requirements).
Many African languages lack the gendered difficulties of
contemporary English. When it comes to pronouns, Kouya,16 a NigerCongo language spoken in Côte d’Ivoire in West Africa, does not have
grammatical gender at all. Instead, one singular third-person pronoun
refers to humans (translated as he/him or she/her in English) while
another third-person singular pronoun refers to non-humans (in
English, he/him or she/her or it). For their Bible translation, Kouya
Christians assign the pronoun for humans to Jesus and to God the
Father, but insist that the pronoun for non-humans is necessary for
the Holy Spirit.17 In Maa, the Nilotic language spoken by the Maasai
of Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa, all nouns are grammatically
gendered as masculine, feminine, or neuter. The gender is indicated
by the articular prefix, that is, by a prefix which functions roughly
like “the” or “a” and “an” in English. The Maa word for “God” is
enkAi; the enk- is a feminine prefix. Grammatically feminine names
for “God” are common in many other Nilotic languages as well (e.g.,
Kipsigis, NgaTurkana, and Sampur).18 Interestingly, in some Bantu
languages in East Africa (e.g., kiKamba, Gikuyu) the name for God is
Ngai, a word borrowed from the Maa enkAi. But though feminine in
Nilotic languages, in Bantu languages Ngai is grammatically neuter,
neither masculine nor feminine—this is perhaps appropriate “for a
being so hard to imagine.”19
As a result, the Maasai have no difficulty ascribing feminine
characteristics to God. Among the traditional Arusha Maasai
of Tanzania, enkAi is thought of as being “like a mother and
a father,” and women beseeching God for children sometimes
address enkAi as Yieyio ai, “my Mother.”20 Yet the Maasai do not
envision enkAi/God as a sexualized goddess. Likewise, Christian
Maasai can pray to Papa enkAi te shumata (Father God in heaven)
without envisioning a being with male genitalia. Indeed, when
it is suggested to Maasai that enkAi as Father is male or, given
that enkAi is grammatically feminine, is female, the response is
invariably either incomprehension of the question or incredulous
laughter at the thought.
When the Maasai mock the idea of God having either a male or
female sexuality, they are supported by no less than Gregory of
Priscilla Papers | 37/3 | Spring 2023
21
Nazianzus (c. 329–390), who in his day mocked those who drew from
the assignation of a masculine pronoun to God (on the grounds that
theos is grammatically masculine) that God was therefore male.21
Instead, the Maasai recognize that God (enkAi) is neither male nor
female but has both masculine and feminine attributes. What is
seemingly contradictory need not be mutually exclusive. As African
theologian Charles Nyamiti reminds us, “God, being Spirit, is neither
male nor female, so that there can be no question of literally applying
sexual characteristics to God.”22
The Maasai are also untroubled by the question of whether it is more
appropriate to refer to God as “he” or “she.” Indeed, for the Maasai
“the question whether Enkai is He, God, or She, Goddess, or It, is a
non-question.”23 Admittedly and as noted above, the grammatically
masculine pronouns he/him/his are frequently applied to God
in biblical Greek and Hebrew. But as both Jerome and Gregory of
Nazianzus have shown, the use of the grammatically masculine
pronoun does not mean that God is inherently male. The Maa
language only has one third-person singular pronoun, ninye. It is
not gender-specific, regardless of whether it is referring to a man, a
woman, or to God. When Maa translations of the Bible need to refer to
God with a pronoun, ninye is the only option. Maasai Christians who
think in Maa but speak in English, however, will quite comfortably
refer to God as “she,” in grammatical agreement with the name
enkAi. The same is true for other Nilotes in East Africa, including
the Turkana, Karamajong, Samburu, and Kalenjin. Drawing on
African traditions from all over the continent, Mercy Amba Oduyoye
confirms that “the African mind contains an image of a motherly
Father or a fatherly Mother as the Source of Being.”24 This is also a
fitting description of the Maasai theological worldview as traditional
Maasai recognize that enkAi is “the source of everything.”25
Different cultural and linguistic perspectives provide different
angles to consider. In Eph 3:10, Paul struggles to describe the nature
of God’s wisdom. He cannot find a word in the Greek language
that will do God’s wisdom justice. So, he made up a new word. In
the Septuagint, Joseph’s multi-colored or variegated garment—I
picture something like the royal Kente fabrics from Ghana—is
called poikilos. Paul takes that word and adds the multiplying/
intensifying prefix polu- (from which we get poly- in English),
creating a new word, polupoikilos, to describe God’s wisdom—the
multi-variegated, multi-colored, multi-faceted wisdom of God.
Because God’s wisdom—and God’s very nature—is so multifaceted it is impossible to see all of it from one cultural-linguistic
perspective. American, British, Chinese, Dominican, Ecuadorian,
Filipino, Ghanaian, Hungarian, Indian, Jordanian, and Kenyan
perspectives—each can bring something new (and yet something
true) to Christian theology. Each should be valued and each should
be willing to be corrected by the others. When the Maasai refer to
God as ninye, I as a native English speaker am reminded of the
wisdom of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome: God is neither male
nor female. When English-speaking Maasai refer to God (enkAi)
as “she” or “her,” I am reminded that this is just as correct as my
customary usage of “he” and “him” when I refer to God.
Conclusion
English-speaking Christians would do well to learn from ancient
theologians such as Gregory and Jerome, as well as from the Maasai
22
Priscilla Papers | 37/3 | Spring 2023
Christians of East Africa today. Paying attention to Christians from
fourth-century Asia and Europe and from twenty-first-century Africa
can help Christians worldwide grow in theological maturity and to
become more deeply rooted in Scripture. From the examples above,
it is clear that grammatical gender is not able to speak unequivocally
about the nature of God. God is neither male nor female. While
humans, female and male, are created as the image and likeness of
God, God is not created either as or in our image and likeness. Unlike
us, God does not have a sex. Whether pronouns that grammatically
agree with the name for “God” are masculine or feminine or neuter
is a matter of linguistic accident and varies from language to
language. While Christians should not idolatrously imagine God as
a sexual entity, Christians should be free to refer to God with both
masculine and feminine pronouns. The use of masculine pronouns
points to God’s masculine characteristics, which are inherently
inclusive of males. The use of feminine pronouns points to God’s
feminine characteristics, which are inherently inclusive of females.
We should expand our theologizing in ways which befit God’s
character—both as fatherly masculine and as motherly feminine—
while avoiding the sexualized errors of both a patriarchist male god
and a fertility female goddess. Ancient patristic and contemporary
African Christian imagery of God as “motherly Father” and “fatherly
Mother” may provide a way forward.
Notes
Portions of this article were previously published in the author’s
article, “My God is enkAi: a Reflection of Vernacular Theology,”
Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion 2/1 (2021) 1–20.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist
Theological Discourse (Crossroad, 1992).
Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity 12.7.10, trans. Arthur West
Haddan, NPNF, 1st Series, ed. Philip Schaff, 3:17–228 (T. & T.
Clark, 1956). I briefly discuss Augustine’s exegetical error in
my article, “Mutual Submission, Mutual Respect: Reciprocal
enkanyit in Ephesians 5 in the Maasai context,” Stellenbosch
Theological Journal 7/1 (2021) 7–8. See also Kathlyn A. Breazeale,
Mutual Empowerment: A Theology of Marriage, Intimacy, and
Redemption (Fortress, 2008) Kindle locations 585–601.
Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians, New Cambridge Bible
Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 93.
Joshua Robert Barron, “Mutual Submission, Mutual Respect,” 8.
Jerome Murphy O’Connor, 1 Corinthians, NTM 10 (Michael
Glazier, 1979) 108.
Carmen Joy Imes persuasively argues that we humans are created
as God’s image and makes this the thesis of her recent book, Being
God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters, foreword by J. Richard
Middleton (IVP Academic, 2023). See especially her argument
that the prepositional prefix ℶ (b-) in Gen 1:26, usually translated
in (“in our image”), should be translated as, 4–6.
Barron, “Mutual Submission, Mutual Respect,” 8.
The Hebrew terms are ish (“man, husband, male human”) and
ben-adam (“son-of-Adam,” a gender-neutral idiom meaning
“person”; while the singular can, depending upon context, be
specific to a given male person, the plural includes both male
and female humans). Interestingly, the Greek OT translates
ish as anthrōpos (a grammatically masculine but sex-neutral
term meaning “human person”; both a man and a woman are
cbeinternational.org
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
equally anthrōpos) and ben-adam as huios anthrōpou (“son ofa-human-person”).
Sebastian Brock, “The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac
Literature,” in After Eve: Women, Theology and the Christian
Tradition, ed. Janet Martin Soskice (Marshall Pickering, 1990)
73–88, text available at https://syriacstudies.com/2016/02/26/
the-holy-spirit-as-feminine-in-early-syriac-literaturesebastian-brock/.
Interestingly, the pious Egyptian Jewish translators of
the OT into Greek translated elohim when referencing
Ashtoreth in 1 Kgs 11 not with thea (“goddess”) but with
bdelugma (“abomination”).
For a convenient list of other examples of feminine imagery
for God, see Mimi Haddad, “What Language Shall We Use? A
Look at Inclusive Language for People, Feminine Images for
God, and Gender-accurate Bible Translations,” Priscilla Papers
17/1 (2003) 4.
James H. Charlesworth, trans., Odes of Solomon, OTP 2:742, 752–53.
The Syriac word for “Spirit,” Rukha, is sometimes transliterated
as Rucha or Ruha.
Brock, “The Holy Spirit as Feminine.”
Jerome, Commentariorum in Esaiam [“Commentary on Isaiah”]
40.9, in S. Hieronymi Presbyteri opera [“Works of St Jerome
the Presbyter”], CCSL 73, 459. Some would translate the final
phrase as “there is no gender.” But as an English professor at my
alma mater used to say, “Words have gender; people have sex.”
Sometimes Kuya or Kowya.
Eddie Arthur, “Pronouns for God: If Someone Doesn’t Know
How Languages Work, THEY Should Probably Not Pontificate
on the Subject,” Kouyanet (28 Jan 2022), https://kouya.
net/?p=13567.
See Aloo Osotsi Mojola’s discussions on this in “Bible
Translation and Gender, Challenges and Opportunities—with
Specific Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa,” Verbum et Ecclesia
39/1 (2018) Article 1820, 9 pgs.; and “The Power of Bible
Translation,” Priscilla Papers 33/2 (2019) 3–7.
John Lonsdale, “Kikuyu Christianities: A History of Intimate
Diversity,” ch. 6 in Christianity and the African Imagination:
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Studies in Honour of Adrian Hastings, ed. David Maxwell with
Ingrid Lawrie, 157–97, Studies of Religion in Africa (Brill, 2002)
168, citing Stanley K. Gathigira, Miikarire ya Agikuyu (Nairobi:
1934; Sheldon, 1959) 29.
Doris Wagner-Glenn, Searching for a Baby’s Calabash: A Study
of Arusha Maasai Fertility Songs as Crystallized Expression of
Central Cultural Values (Phillip Verlag, 1992) 129.
Gregory Nazianzen, The Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy
Spirit (Oration 31), trans. Charles Gordon Brown and James
Edward Swallow, NPNF, 2nd Series, 7:439–43 (Eerdmans, 1952).
See also Gail Ramshaw Schmidt’s discussion in “De Divinis
Nominibus: The Gender of God,” Worship 56/2 (1982) 117–31.
Charles Nyamiti, “The Doctrine of God,” ch. 6 in A Reader in
African Christian Theology, ed. John Parratt, 57–64, 2nd ed.,
International Study Guide 23 (SPCK, 1997) 62; this chapter is
an excerpt from Nyamiti’s monograph, African Tradition and
the Christian God (Gaba, 1980).
Jan Voshaar, Maasai: Between the Oreteti-tree and the Tree of
the Cross, Kerk en Theologie in Context/Church and Theology
in Context (Kok, 1998) 136.
Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Beads and Strands: Reflections of
an African Woman on Christianity in Africa, Theological
Reflections from the South (Regnum Africa, 2002) 95.
Zephania Shila Nkesela, A Maasai Encounter with the Bible:
Nomadic Lifestyle as a Hermeneutical Question, Bible and
Theology in Africa 30 (Peter Lang, 2020) 32.
Joshua Robert Barron holds an MDiv from Emmanuel
Christian Seminary and is a PhD candidate in World
Christianity at Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of
Theology. He and his wife Ruth have ministered in Kenya
with the Community Christian Churches and the Africa
Inland Church for over fifteen years, as well as the Maasai Discipleship
Training Institute and the Community Christian Bible Training Institute.
A staff member of the Association for Christian Theological Education
in Africa (ACTEA), Joshua has published research in Priscilla Papers,
Global Missiology, International Review of Mission, Journal of African
Christian Biography, Missio Dei, and elsewhere.
Join the Movement
Make a statement about your commitment to women
when your church or school joins CBE as a member.
Visit cbe.today/orgmembers.
The fact that [our] seminary is an institutional member of CBE
sends a signal to the larger community about how we view women;
in particular, in the life of our family.
cbeinternational.org
–Paul Chilcote, Ashland Seminary
Priscilla Papers | 37/3 | Spring 2023
23