Throughout history, the Church has followed Scripture in speaking of God – in his one being and three persons – with male pronouns. One liberal United Methodist, however, is attempting to overturn the biblically and historically-rooted witness of the orthodox Church on this topic.
J.J. Warren, who identifies as gay, is a Ph.D. student at the University of Vienna. He previously gained attention in 2019 for a speech at the United Methodist Church (UMC) General Conference, and has also appeared in public conversations about the UMC and LGBTQ inclusion therein with other liberal Methodists like drag queen Isaac Simmons and pro-LGBTQ group Reconciling Ministries Network.
Warren recently delivered a presentation titled “God’s Pronouns? An Interdisciplinary Discussion on the Role of Gender in Theology and Research on Religion.” According to Warren, “a diversity of images and pronouns for God is necessary for our theology and our communities.” This topic is connected to Warren’s dissertation, “Ontological Queerness,” which attempts to synthesize liberation theology, queer theory, and systematic theology in the tradition of Paul Tillich.
At the beginning of his presentation on God’s pronouns, Warren asked: “Why should we talk about gender in theology or research on religion?” To answer this question, Warren appealed to a resource highly regarded for its scholarly data: Facebook. Warren noted a University of Vienna post about diversity was mostly supported by women and mostly mocked by men, including one who claimed: “we are in Austria, the majority of the population also rejects gender and diversity ideology.” Warren admitted that his sample size was small, but nonetheless concluded: “clearly there’s some connection between respect for diversity and gender.”
Warren suggested the Facebook reactions were evidence of “social hegemony,” that is, “dominance of one group.” According to this Marxist element of Critical Theory, anyone outside of the dominant group can be excluded from “being considered people.” While dominant social groups can certainly abuse their power, oppressing, excluding, and even questioning the humanity of people who are not like them, this is not a necessary consequence of power. If it were, why would a good God have instituted human authority structures at all? Power can be used for evil, but it can also be used for good.
The dominant group highlighted by Warren in this case is heterosexual men. Assuming Warren’s hegemonic theory, anyone who is not a heterosexual man could hypothetically be excluded from personhood on the basis of gender. Thus, Warren concluded, “gender plays a role in how we perceive difference and how we understand our own place in the societies in which we live.”
Warren also proposed that depictions of God as a black woman are “equally valid as” depictions of God as a white man. Warren relied heavily on the work of feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson, who proposes that “using female symbols of God, not exclusively but in combination with male, animal, and cosmic images, is both legitimate and necessary for the healthy life of the church.” Articulating Johnson’s argument, Warren suggested that depictions of God influence not only how people understand God, but how they understand themselves.
Relying heavily on Johnson, Warren subsequently argued that depicting God and speaking of him as only male has several negative consequences. First, Warren posited that “using only masculine images and pronouns has this literalizing effect, it reduces God from something beyond comprehension to an idol – an idol of a wealthy man.”
Warren has a point that this does, in a sense, limit our conception of God. In fact, some orthodox Christian traditions would agree with Warren that creating an image of God as male is idolatrous. The issue for these Christians, however, is not that God is depicted as male, but that God is depicted at all. Their solution is not picturing God as a black woman, it is not attempting to picture God at all as such a task is impossible and unworthy of God’s incomprehensible glory.
Furthermore, the limitation of referring to God with male pronouns is utilized and sanctioned throughout Scripture. Christians confess that the Bible is God’s authoritative and inerrant Word. If God speaks of himself using exclusively male pronouns, who are we to say he ought to do otherwise?
Second, Warren proposed that describing and picturing God as exclusively male “legitimates structures of male authority in both civil and ecclesial communities,” implying that exclusively male leadership is inherently oppressive. Female leadership is a nuanced issue, often debated within even conservative segments of Christianity. Given the prevalence of male leaders throughout scripture, however, it seems difficult to argue that various forms of exclusively male authority are as necessarily “pernicious” as Warren and Johnson described them.
Third, Warren said describing and picturing God as exclusively male “robs women of their dignity by distancing their human nature made in the image of likeness of God from their own concrete bodily identity.” This point is also understandable, but ultimately not aligned with Scripture.
Scripture indicates that both men and women are made in the image of God. God is immaterial and does not have a body (though through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, a male human body is united to the second person of the Trinity). He is thus not male or female in the same way that humans are male or female. When Scripture speaks of God using male pronouns, it thus does not mean that God is male in the same way that human males are. Scripture’s usage of male pronouns in reference to God thus should not be construed as indicating that women cannot be fully made in God’s image.
Warren’s argument is deeply problematic on multiple levels. Assuming a problematic theory of hegemony which oversimplifies the nature and ethics of power dynamics, Warren articulates a doctrine of God that stands directly in opposition to Scripture. Unfortunately, theories like those posited by Warren are becoming increasingly common. Lest we be led astray from a right understanding of God, it is imperative that Christians know Scripture and be able to recognize heresies like Warren’s.
Comment by Maria Dixon on May 31, 2023 at 11:48 am
This is the most simplistic, clickbait article and frankly, I expect better. As a theologian, professor, and UMC clergy, allow me to point out that a dissertation provides a sandbox of sorts for scholars. A place where we ponder and place our thoughts amongst others to ‘test and argue.’ Dissertations are a) rarely made public, b) rarely ever considered finished–because they are indeed endlessly in need of correction, and c) not designed for the consumption of the general church body. Furthermore, the virtue signaling of “Critical Gender Theory” is unfair and designed to create associations that frame rhetorical boogeymen like “Critical Race Theory” and “Diversity.”
Here is a hint: Critical Theory is more complex than simply using the word Marxist (as a matter of fact, Marx was concerned with economics, not gender). I understand the need to punch at the UMC, predict its demise, point to us as a bunch of woke heathens, but can we at least not stoop to this level of manufacturing the evidence of context?
Comment by George on May 31, 2023 at 12:12 pm
There is a clearly a line drawn . You can be on one side or the other but, you cannot be on both. Make your choice wisely. God is not a woman. God is not an animal. God is neither black or white. God is God. And the use of a masculine pronoun is proper and historical and biblical.
Comment by David on May 31, 2023 at 3:29 pm
The big fear about women was that they might be menstruating and thus ritually unclean. This accounts for women being excluded from church sanctuaries and ceremonies even though meals were normally prepared by women. Jesus declined to be touched by Mary Magdelene for fear he might be contaminated by her, though he allow Thomas to poke him. There is a folk belief among some ultra-orthodox Jews that if a menstruating woman walks between two men, one of the men will shortly die.
Comment by Steve on May 31, 2023 at 3:52 pm
Maria, I agree the article is clickbait but as a lawyer who was taught Critical Theory in law school, I think it is reasonable to label it Marxist (but in its basic structure). Marxism is based on an oppressed vs oppressor dynamic as determined by lived experience rather than objective truth – which naturally favors equity (lived experience) rather than equality (objective truth).
You are right that Marx applied this dynamic to economics (specifically, property ownership), but Critical Theory applies the dynamic to any area, such as gender, race, economic status, etc. Anywhere an oppressed vs oppressor dynamic can be derived.
The logical problem is that not every human interaction falls within that dynamic – which is why most courts have rejected Critical Theory in the past and it has moved on to the social sciences instead. From a theological perspective, equality is an objective truth because we are all created in God’s image. Critical Theory contradicts this and relies on the self as the harbinger of truth from lived experiences – equity.
But I agree that this article is clickbait and yes, dissertations are not something to be relied on. Mine is embarrassing.
Comment by Tom on May 31, 2023 at 5:30 pm
I read about the first two paragraphs and then realized that it is the same canned drivel–almost verbatim–that the lefty “clergy” produce on a regular basis.
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to fire all of them and just hire a parrot?
Comment by Dan W on May 31, 2023 at 7:09 pm
There is a link to Mr. Warren’s presentation in the article’s 3rd paragraph. It is posted on Mr. Warren’s YouTube channel. The video is not private or by invitation only. Comments are enabled. What’s all the fuss about?!
If you consider the article clickbait, welcome to 2023. Find a comfortable chair. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Comment by Jed Hester on June 3, 2023 at 9:22 pm
Excellent dissection of some passing, modern day heresy.
It’s such a shame that out of pride people waste some of the best years of their life working on a
D.min or PhD 🙁
Just do it!
Comment by Carl Murphy on June 5, 2023 at 9:11 pm
Shall we start with, considering themselves to be wise they became as fools. Have you ever noticed that none of the “modern theology” base anything on the inerrant word of God? Instead they wish to change God’s word to fit their own agenda. But God’s word does not change, nor does God. “For God is not a man that he should lie”. But rather he is God, who made man in his own image, notice those pronouns. It is interesting is the debate is No Longer About Winning Souls, but to argue over pronouns. Pronouns that are settled as Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father”. These people are those that Peter outlines as coming in unawares. Having a form of godliness but denying the power there in. Argue yourselves right into hell if you wish, but remember the words of James, that we are held to a higher standard and of Jesus that it is better to have a millstone around your neck and cast into the sea if you lead one person astray. Concentrate on leading souls to the savior, instead of what to call him. For there is no other name under Heaven by which a man may be saved but Jesus Christ. I am happy that my congregation heeded the Word and disaffiliated from the UMC.
Comment by Joe Renta on June 5, 2023 at 10:21 pm
A “Sandbox” is an appropriate term to use given the uses many animals initiate as thee they investigate a sandbox.
Comment by Bill Messersmith on June 5, 2023 at 10:26 pm
Poor deluded Mr Warren. He seems very full of his own big, high sounding words and education without spiritual wisdom. I recommend for Mr Warren an Autobiography titled, “Wonder O’ The Wind”, by W. Philip Keller. Learn about God not blah, blah,blah
Comment by Joe Renta on June 5, 2023 at 10:26 pm
A “Sandbox” is an appropriate term to utilize given the uses many animals initiate as they investigate a sandbox.
Comment by David Gingrich on June 6, 2023 at 7:32 am
Marie Dixon decries the article but offers no facts in opposition.
God has told us who He is. He is The Father. That does not make my human male gender and human fatherhood superior to women and mothers.