Is God Non-binary? A Reflection

               The question of whether God is “non-binary” has become a topic of conversation because James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, who has been studying for ministry at a Presbyterian seminary in Austin, suggested that perhaps God isn’t male. There has been a lot of pushback from conservative quarters, but is it really that controversial an idea? Could there be more at stake in the pushback than a matter of theology? Interestingly, the same people who are raising the alarm about Talarico’s statement about God’s gender are questioning his manhood. Could it be that we’re seeing signs of toxic masculinity entering the conversation? That is, are some of the respondents to Talarico concerned that if God isn’t male, then their supremacy over women will be questioned? I might note here that the Southern Baptist Convention just voted to expel any church that placed women in pastoral roles, including preaching.

                Years ago, Mary Daly wrote, compellingly, that if “God is male, then the male is god.” It was a rather shocking statement back in the day, but she is correct. If we emphasize the “maleness” of God, we likely end up placing men in a godlike position of superiority.

                Now God’s essence lies beyond our comprehension. When we speak of God, we do so using metaphorical and analogical language. To say that God is Father is to draw upon biblical language, but also to draw on relational concepts. Of course, in Christian theology, the Father has a Son, whom we know in the person of Jesus. Then there is the Holy Spirit; the language used for the Spirit, pneuma (Greek) and ruach (Hebrew), is either feminine or neuter nouns. Since God is Spirit, God is without gender. This is where traditional understandings of God’s nature differ from Latter Day Saint understandings (that is a very different conversation that we can take up at another time). When it comes to language about God, we find in scripture numerous cases where God is spoken of in feminine, often maternal terms. Jesus even speaks of himself at one point as a mother hen seeking to gather her chicks under her wings. Then there is that intriguing declaration in Genesis 1, where God says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness . . .  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”  God created humankind in God’s image as male and female. Thus, both male and female reflect God’s image.

                I will add to this something shared by my Disciples of Christ colleague Derek Penwell in response to the Republican effort to cast James Talarico as less than masculine, even using AI to picture him as a woman.

If we’re made in the image of a God who isn’t contained by the pronoun “He” and isn’t reducible to maleness, then there can be no hierarchy where being seen as a woman, or being read as feminine, counts as a fall from some higher status. The image of God doesn’t come in a primary and a secondary version, where men hit the genetic lottery, but women have to settle for a deprecated status. But the mockery only works if you’ve already decided otherwise, if somewhere underneath the campaign ads there’s a quiet conviction that God looks like a man, that maleness is the default setting for being fully human, and that anything else is an intentional deviation from the ideal or a programming glitch in the genetic code. [Penwell, "When Woman Is the Punchline," Heretic Adjacent].

                So is James Talarico wrong to say that God is non-binary? I would answer no to that question because God’s essence is incomprehensible to us. By recognizing that all humans, male and female, reflect God’s image, and with numerous female metaphors used to speak of God in Scripture, it would seem appropriate to envision God as nonbinary. That might sound odd to many because it’s not common usage. Nevertheless, if we are speaking in terms of how we reflect God’s being, then we would be wise to use such language. I would add that by moving beyond male-only language, we can address the increasingly prevalent toxic masculinity in both our religious and political lives. As I pointed out at the top, it’s not just about James Talarico’s candidacy for Senate. Consider again the vote by the SBC to ban women from the pulpit and any other role that looks like it is pastoral. I am grateful that I am part of a denomination that not only ordains women to ministry but that has elected two consecutive women, the Rev. Sharon Watkins and the Rev. Terri Hord Owens, to serve as General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada.

When it comes to our language about God, we have imbibed masculine language for so long that it is hard to embrace different language and broader understandings of God’s nature. Thus, as theologian Elizabeth Johnson writes, “Until a strong measure of undervalued symbolism is introduced and used with ease, equivalent imaging of God male and female, which I myself have advocated and still hold to be a goal, remains an abstraction, expressive of an ideal but unrealizable in real life” [She Who Is, p. 57]. I must confess that I have yet to use such language with ease, so it is more than the ideal than what has been achieved in my own life. Nevertheless, if we are to affirm the full humanity of women, who, like men, are created in the image of God, we need to continue moving toward that goal, so that women are no longer the punchline.