A quick glance at a few different faith traditions shows just how many ways there are to speak about the divine. For example, some traditional Jews won’t say the word God because they believe that it is too holy to pronounce. One is forbidden from making any representations of God—even in speech. When reading the Bible out loud, one is to replace the Hebrew word for G-d with the word Adonai, meaning Lord.
Sister Nancy Corcoran, a Catholic nun, argues against using the word, Lord, although it is a common word in Christian prayer as well as Jewish prayer. For her, the term Lord does make a representation—of a male God (notice, though, how the adjective “male” had to appear in front of the word, God, to indicate God had a gender). Sister Corcoran is an advocate of the name for God developed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, a Professor of Divinity at Harvard University Divinity School. Taking a similar approach to that of Orthodox Jews, “Schussler Fiorenza prefers the spelling G*d because it suggests that, as humans, our ideas of and names for God are ambiguous and inadequate. It also allows for a God without male or female characteristics.”
How does Fiorenza pronounce the word G*d? This word looks as un-pronounce-able as the symbol used as a name for three years by the musician Prince. Unclear also are the reasons why, for Fiorenza, the word God necessarily suggests male or female characteristics. Certainly, many theologians and philosophers throughout the ages have not associated male or female characteristics with this word (like Fiorenza, they’ve also argued that our ideas of God are ambiguous and inadequate but, unlike her, they did not argue we should abandon the word). Okay, sure, the Bible refers to God as Him, but today, pronouns are often eliminated by sensitive theologians and philosophers (even if this sometimes results in awkward sentences). Take, for example, the sentence: “God wants you to love others as much as you love yourself or God’s Self.”
Just like we use the single word, actor, to refer to either a female (formerly known as an actress) or a male actor, the single word, god, can refer to a female god, a male god, a god without gender, a god with both genders, etc. (in the last two cases, the analogy with the word, actor, fails!). Unlike the word, Goddess, which does imply gender, the word, God, does not. Thanks to its plasticity, it is the superior choice. So why mess with it?
HNFFT (Her Nakedness’ Food for Thought): What do you call God? Does it imply has a gender? Can it serve as the word of appeal for anyone, male or female?
References: Nancy Corcoran. A Multifaith Guide to Creating Personal Prayer in Your Life (Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths, 2007), 119.
The Naked Theologian 
I use the word God all the time. However, I never use a pronoun for God, I always use the full word God. That is how I was taught in the historically Universalist church where I grew up. Note that this wasn’t an explicit teaching–no one ever said “you shouldn’t use a pronoun for God–rather, I absorbed it by example because indeed no one ever used such a pronoun or implied any sort of gender on the part of God. We did (and do) say the Lord’s Prayer each Sunday, which begins “Our Father,” but we always understand this to be the language that Jesus as an individual had preferred, not an actual ontological statement we were ourselves promoting and adhering to. The upshot of this is that I never learned to think of God in terms of gender, and still don’t. God to me is neither male or female; in fact, God has no body, thus the idea of gender, race, color, etc of God is absurd by my upbringing. To me, it is the assigning of a pronoun like Him or Her to God that sounds awkward. For that matter, there is no need for fancy spelling and other tricks to try to de-represent God, since God is just a symbolic word anyway: it isn’t like God’s actual name is God, as if you could meet God at coffee hour wearing a tag that says “Hello, my name is GOD.”
“Unlike the word, Goddess, which does imply gender, the word, God, does not.”
Oh. My.
This is the argument that “mankind” and “man” refer equally to male and female humans. English lacks a neuter (and a neutral) form.
Apollo is a God. (No statement of gender. Assume one has no prior knowledge of Greek mythology. What implicit assumption does one make?)
Artemis is a female God. (Does that really not ring oddly to your mental ear?)
Now, in a language which didn’t gender the same way, the case you’re making might be true–I wonder if it’s true in Cantonese; my aunt always opts to use “she” when referring to people, including my sons, unless someone corrects her. I think it has to do — but this is a guess — with a neuter human pronoun in her native language. My own experience with a transgender friend suggests very, very, very, very strongly that the gender implications are rooted incredibly deeply in us. I’ve known this friend for 30 years, and for eight of them now as a male.
Yet although we’re close and have frequent contact… in conversation, even with him, sometimes the wrong gender referent slips out. The assumptions about gender and gendering are very deeply rooted. The idea that although God “can” be used to indicate a male, we don’t mean it or assume it unless it’s made explicit… well, I think that’s inverting reality.
I call God God, or sometimes GOd, with all that this alternative spelling implies. The word God does not imply gender to me although I can well understand how it might to other people, especially in light of its counterpart Goddess. Being something of an alchemist, when referring to God aka GOd in a way that might imply gender, I usually use SHe to indicate that, if God is not beyond gender, God comprises both genders, but I try to avoid even doing that.
Is Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza aware of the fact that, from the humorous perspective of famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr. at least, the asterisk symbol is a “picture of an asshole”?
Presumably not. . . 🙂
Most ironically, inspired by another U*U blogger’s “less than polite” blog post title earlier today, I blogged about this unfortunate but quite hilarious perception of the asterisk symbol myself this morning on *The* Blog That Cannot Be Named. 😉
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza proposes the alternative G*d because it “also allows for a God without male or female characteristics.” Well it does and it doesn’t. . . From where I stand it doesn’t do so any more so, or any less so, than the word God does, in that it is but a slight variation on the word God. Does the asterisk remove any perception of gender from the word God? I think not. The word G*dess might be the proverbial exception that proves *that* rule. . .
Why can’t people leave things well enough alone?
What ever happened to, “If it’s not broke don’t fix it.”?
Click to access MarySR_Dec03.pdf
Still ROTFLMU*UO after 280 weeks or so of *that* EPIC FAIL!
I like God*, myself, meaning “God, but not necessarily defined the way you think, so it’s going to take a footnote.” That’s pronounced “god asterisk”
Another possibility is “God”, pronounced “God” but with the added hand signal of quotation marks, meaning “God, the way I mean it.”
The late Dwight Smith’s “That Which Has Been Called God” is a bit wordy, but seemed to serve very well…
I would like to caution Rev. Christine Robinson that,
“God, the way I mean it.”
almost immediately degenerates into something that does not mean God. . . The last time I checked God is not amused with people paying lip service to God and that goes a step or two beyond paying lip service to God. “God, the way *I* mean it” may be readily seen as a form of taking God’s name in vain in more ways than one. . . Please do not muddy the waters of religion by using the word God to denote things that are not God.
As far as pronouncing “God” but with the added hand signal of quotation marks, meaning “God, the way I mean it” goes.
I would consider that to be highly inadvisable. . . 🙂
And I thought that I already advised against associating the word God, to say nothing of the “corporate identity” of UUism now aka “The U*U Movement“. . . with famous UU, now aka famous U*U, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s “picture of an asshole”. 😉
Before there was God, there were gods and goddesses. Polytheistic assumptions aside, we are creatures who are male and female, and we see male and female throughout the natural world.
As the idea of one God took hold, whether by intent or by the quirks of language or by both, that one God was definitely male – a usage that continues today, to our collective detriment. The image of God as the old man with the long white beard is still very much with us.
As much as I find it awkward and clumsy, I think it’s important to avoid masculine pronouns and to use gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language where ever possible. Perhaps, someday, God will be understood to be inclusive of all. But we’re not there yet.
I would like to caution Rev. Christine Robinson that,
“God, the way I mean it.”
almost immediately degenerates into something that does not mean God. . .
The last time I checked God is not amused with people paying lip service to God and the phrase “God, the way I mean it” goes a step or two beyond paying lip service to God. “God, the way *I* mean it” may be readily seen as a form of taking God’s name in vain in more ways than one. . . I would advise against muddying the waters of religion by using the word God to denote things that are not God, something that Unitarian*Universalists, especially Humanist U*Us, are all too prone to doing.
As far as pronouncing “God” but with the added hand signal of quotation marks, meaning “God, the way I mean it” goes. I would consider that practice to be “less than advisable“. . . 😉
Why can’t people leave things well enough alone?
Maybe because a lot of people, including Schussler Fiorenza thought it was broken at the time?
And maybe it’s a generational thing. If anyone would have suggested that the word “God” was “gender-neutral” (whatever that was) or even female to your garden variety believers back in the 1970’s, they would have been looked at as a bit of a kook or at least a feminist academic. It was in the 1970/1980’s when Schussler Fiorenza and others initially made their case about the gender laden (read: male) implications of the word “God”. Maybe times have truly changed so that now at least a few people don’t read “male” into the term “God”.
OTH, if you notice, most Christians in the States are of the evangelical and fundamentalist kind these days. Guess how they’d interpret the word “God” as being? Also, ask some average Muslim about what he thinks “God” implies (as in male, female, or neither). I have a good idea what he’d say.
Me? I forgo the word altogether. Words like “divine”, “ineffable”, “transcendent” work much better.
My personal preference is the Native American (or at least Plains Indians) term: The Great Mystery. Pretty much sums it up, and no gender. I also like the (I think) Christian Scientist “mother-father” to designate God. I also like to replace “God” with “the Divine,” which not only eliminates gender references, but also the anthropomorphic shadings of the word “God.”
But that’s all when dealing with others, especially in the UU Fellowship I attend. When I’m by myself, I’m a Goddess worshipper, gender emphasized. I think maybe my attraction to female representations of the Divine is a rebellion against the pervasive masculinity of “mainstream” conceptions of God. I pray to Lakshmi, Saraswati and Kali mostly. Don’t tell anyone, they’d probably think I was weird! 🙂
We use metaphors, myths and parables to attempt to describe in words concepts we have trouble articulating literally. Can G*d be a shorthand attempt to communicate with each about things we feel but cannot describe adequately? Can hundreds of words, however well thought out create a more accurate description than this one “word”? We may never solve the mystery but it is fun trying.