The answer to this question may be partly cultural and due to “Israel’s temptation to follow after fertility Gods.”[1] Missiologist and Fuller Theological Seminary professor Scott Sunquist also notes:
“Why not Mother?” The simple answer is that we are not given “Mother” as a name for God. The deeper reason may be that “mother’ or “mother earth” were designations for a goddess who brought forth creation from her own being. She “birthed” creation from her womb. God the Father creates ex nililo. A mother god points to a creation that shares her essence. This is not the biblical story. The biblical account… protects… the absolute holiness or separateness of God. Many adjectives can describe God (a lion, a strong tower, shepherd, king, fortress, and even a bird), but only one name is appropriate: Father.[2]
Additionally, in a patriarchal (“father-rule”) culture, God also relates to us as Father and in masculine ways to demonstrate His power and authority. But we must be careful here. This need not mean that God has more of a masculine nature than a feminine one as theologian John Frame asserts: “There is no reason to assume that the proportions of male and female imagery are not part of the revelation of his nature.”[3] In other words, what Frame is saying is that since “the pronouns and verbs referring to God in Scripture are always masculine, and the images of him (Lord, King, Father, husband, etc.) are typically masculine”[4] it is proper to view God as more masculine than feminine in his nature. But in a world where women have been viewed as property with no legal status for most of history, this kind of thinking can easily translate into oppressive views of women even in the Church. Consider this example from the twelfth-century Scottish monk Richard of Saint Victor in his On the Trinity:
We must observe that there are two [different] sexes in the human nature, and for this reason, the terms defining relationships are different according to the difference of sexes. We call one who is a parent either “father” or “mother” [according to their] sex. In case of progeny, [we say] in one case “sons” and in another “daughters.” In the divine nature instead, as we all know, there is absolutely no sex. It was convenient, then, to associate terms referring to the more worthy sex– as it is recognized– to the most worthy being in the universe. This is the reason why the custom of indicating one as Father and one as Son in the Trinity has suitably come into habit.[5] [emphasis mine]
And here is my big concern as it relates to calling God “Father,” not “Mother,” yet not viewing him as a male: As a man, if you view God as male, it will affect how you view women. In thinking of yourself as more “God-like” than the females, you will invariably– even if subconsciously– treat them as inferior or, as Richard of Saint Victor says, less “worthy.” Further, you will be deceived into thinking that God sees them that way too. And as a woman, if you view God as male, it will affect your understanding of your worth and that of others, as well as your experience of His love.
Admittedly, there is much mystery here– especially when we consider Christ’s identity in the incarnation as the man, Jesus of Nazareth. As Frame says, “Only in the case of Jesus did God become flesh permanently…”[6] Although some of the reasons for this are intimately tied to the Son’s fulfillment of the roles of the second Adam and prophet, priest, and king, we are definitely into the realm of God’s “secret things” (Deut. 29:29) and exploring them further is beyond our capacity, as well as the scope of this post. When it comes to our questions– especially about God– and we’ve exhausted our mental capacities, it’s time to rest, bow before “Our Father,” and pursue the simplicity of childlike trust.
[1] “God” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, ed. Ryken, Leland and Wilhoit, James C. and Longman, Tremper III (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 1998), 333.
[2] Sunquist, Understanding Christian Mission, 189–190.
[3] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2013), 112.
[4] Ibid., 109.
[5] Ruben Angelici, Richard of Saint Victor, On the Trinity (Eugene, OR: 2011), 207.
[6] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2013), 391.