The Student Room Group

Church of Sweden opts for gender neutral gender when referring to god

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-god-is-beyond-gender-swedish-church-challenges-traditional-perception

According to the Church of Sweden, it’s preferable not to refer to God as a "he." The official decision to use gender-neutral language will be a change in the way that many Swedish churchgoers worship -- and one that has divided the country. Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports on the debate and how it may echo in other countries.



God in Christianity is defined as the father, son and holy spirit. Jesus was clearly a man, what are they going to call him now? Parent, child and holy spirit?

Anyone else feel the whole feminism is getting a little out of hand? People are free to identify as whatever gender they want and that's their business, but changing the gender of the Jesus who over 2billion Christians worship just to please the feminists is a little insane to be honest.
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

person that is born of person is of few days and full of trouble
I don't think an almighty creator would care what you call them so long as you submit to them. And for all we know, Jesus may have identified as female. We will never know.
I always found it funny that the general religious attitude to God is "he was so powerful, complex, multi-faceted, wise and intelligent that he defies all our efforts to understand or comprehend him, but let's be clear, he definitely DOES have a penis"
Original post by Guru Jason
I don't think an almighty creator would care what you call them so long as you submit to them. And for all we know, Jesus may have identified as female. We will never know.


Identifying as the opposite gender wasn't even a thing back then. It was certainly not documented once throughout history as far as I can tell, until the mid 19th century.
Reply 5
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-god-is-beyond-gender-swedish-church-challenges-traditional-perception

According to the Church of Sweden, it’s preferable not to refer to God as a "he." The official decision to use gender-neutral language will be a change in the way that many Swedish churchgoers worship -- and one that has divided the country. Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports on the debate and how it may echo in other countries.



God in Christianity is defined as the father, son and holy spirit. Jesus was clearly a man, what are they going to call him now? Parent, child and holy spirit?

Anyone else feel the whole gender thing is getting a little out of hand? People are free to identify as whatever gender they want and that's their business, but changing the gender of the god that over 2billion Christians worship just to please the gender neutral people is a little insane to be honest.


Sweden and gender neutrality - what a surprise :rolleyes:
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Identifying as the opposite gender wasn't even a thing back then. It was certainly documented once throughout history as far as I can tell, until the mid 19th century.


Just cos it wasn't documented don't mean it wasn't there. If you did identify as another gender back then, would you have done/said anything about it?

Personally I don't give a rat's ass, just being devils advocate cos I'm bored.
Original post by Guru Jason
Just cos it wasn't documented don't mean it wasn't there. If you did identify as another gender back then, would you have done/said anything about it?

Personally I don't give a rat's ass, just being devils advocate cos I'm bored.


Of course you would have... You might not have announced it to the world but it would have certainly have been documented somewhere throughout history. Homosexuality for example dates back thousands of years.
for a large part the Christian faith is a joke, morals that are key to the faith and in ways key to a good society are no longer being taught as correct by many denominations. When even the highest position in your Church is liberal in a bad way then you know something is wrong,
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Of course you would have... You might not have announced it to the world but it would have certainly have been documented somewhere throughout history. Homosexuality for example dates back thousands of years.


There is evidence of transgender people in ancient times - worshippers of the Goddess Cybele would be a prominent example. There's also example from thousands of years BC of male skeletons buried with female rituals and vice-versa. On top of that, the best current scientific understanding of what causes people to be transgender links it to prenatal hormone levels, which would have been as much of a factor 2000 years ago as they are today. I'm not for a moment suggesting Jesus was transgender, there is zero reason to think that, but all the evidence points towards transgender people existing in that period.
I personally think this is pretty awesome news - if God is real, we certainly don't have proof of gender, and actually, it makes very little difference to the bible and any other religious text if we assume gender neutrality.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Anyone else feel the whole feminism is getting a little out of hand? People are free to identify as whatever gender they want and that's their business, but changing the gender of the god that over 2billion Christians worship just to please the feminists is a little insane to be honest.


It's not really changing a gender in my view, God isn't really defined as having physical form; the pronouns are used in masculine terms sure, but that's likely the time it was written as much as anything. I'd also argue this isn't really a feminism thing so much as a religious one - if you believe in an almighty and powerful God beyond what we can comprehend, then I don't quite see how male and female as we understand them would categorise them so rigidly.
Original post by shadowdweller
It's not really changing a gender in my view, God isn't really defined as having physical form; the pronouns are used in masculine terms sure, but that's likely the time it was written as much as anything. I'd also argue this isn't really a feminism thing so much as a religious one - if you believe in an almighty and powerful God beyond what we can comprehend, then I don't quite see how male and female as we understand them would categorise them so rigidly.


It doesn't undermine god by any means but in Christianity god himself has declared that he is the father, son and holy spirit. God has directly told us that he is a male.

My Christianity is lacking but I'm pretty certain if you looked through the bible you'll find countless mentions of god (Jesus) describing himself as a male. Why do we feel the need to change it? It seems like a certain group of people don't like god being referred to as a male because it's sexist or something :s-smilie:
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
It doesn't undermine god by any means but in Christianity god himself has declared that he is the father, son and holy spirit. God has directly told us that he is a male.

My Christianity is lacking but I'm pretty certain if you looked through the bible you'll find countless mentions of god (Jesus) describing himself as a male. Why do we feel the need to change it? It seems like a certain group of people don't like god being referred to as a male because it's sexist or something :s-smilie:


God is defined as being male, yes - in a book written by humans, however. Talking about people without gendered terms is something many still struggle with now, let alone thousands of years ago. Of course, attributing a specific gender also makes God easier to discuss in that regard.

It's not a recent development at all either, interestingly; the question of whether God is female, or genderless, dates back to early churches, it's not something that's being changed just to pander to a whim. Deuteronomy for instance, has a passage talking about how 'God gave birth to you', and elsewhere as a mother hen, and showing maternal kindness. There's cases dating back to the third century, if not beyond, of God being worshipped as female, or regarded as beyond gender.

Like I said before, assuming God were to be real, I can't see why they'd fit our definition of gender, especially when they're frequently described as being beyond our comprehension.
Original post by Gwilym101
I always found it funny that the general religious attitude to God is "he was so powerful, complex, multi-faceted, wise and intelligent that he defies all our efforts to understand or comprehend him, but let's be clear, he definitely DOES have a penis"


Since when did being male mean you had a penis?

Don't assume, you transphobe.
Original post by shadowdweller
God is defined as being male, yes - in a book written by humans, however. Talking about people without gendered terms is something many still struggle with now, let alone thousands of years ago. Of course, attributing a specific gender also makes God easier to discuss in that regard.

It's not a recent development at all either, interestingly; the question of whether God is female, or genderless, dates back to early churches, it's not something that's being changed just to pander to a whim. Deuteronomy for instance, has a passage talking about how 'God gave birth to you', and elsewhere as a mother hen, and showing maternal kindness. There's cases dating back to the third century, if not beyond, of God being worshipped as female, or regarded as beyond gender.

Like I said before, assuming God were to be real, I can't see why they'd fit our definition of gender, especially when they're frequently described as being beyond our comprehension.


Hmm interesting, I never knew about those verses, thanks for pointing those out.

I just think it's a bit of a slippery slope when we start revoking the gender of proven historical figures. Just out of curioisity how do you even address a genderless person, with "they", "them" etc? Or "it".

Did you speak to Martin today?
No, it was working.

Did you speak to Lisa today?
No, they were at work.
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Hmm interesting, I never knew about those verses, thanks for pointing those out.

I just think it's a bit of a slippery slope when we start revoking the gender of proven historical figures. Just out of curioisity how do you even address a genderless person, with "they", "them" etc? Or "it".

Did you speak to Martin today?
No, it was working.

Did you speak to Lisa today?
No, they were at work.


“They” is fine.

As for pronouns of God, read #239 from the following: www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Hmm interesting, I never knew about those verses, thanks for pointing those out.

I just think it's a bit of a slippery slope when we start revoking the gender of proven historical figures. Just out of curioisity how do you even address a genderless person, with "they", "them" etc? Or "it".

Did you speak to Martin today?
No, it was working.

Did you speak to Lisa today?
No, they were at work.


>God
>proven historical figures

But you do make an interesting point: Should we really assume the genders of historical figures? Who says Napoleon was a 'he'? Was Marie Curie really a man deep down*? Mightn't Hitler have been an Otherkin?

*since apparently, if you have stereotypically male interests, you are a man, and vice versa. That seems to be the reaction of parents of transgender 6 year olds, at least; little Timmy is playing with dolls, clearly deep down he wants to chop his penis off!
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 18
I think it makes sense. God is a spirit (if you believe in him) beyond the understandings and binaries of human kind. Referring to god with gendered pronouns is, in my opinion, actually nonsensical.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
>God
>proven historical figures

But you do make an interesting point: Should we really assume the genders of historical figures? Who says Napoleon was a 'he'? Mightn't Hitler have been an Otherkin?


I don't think it's appropriate for us to assume the lack of gender of historical figures when there is no evidence to suggest they didn't identify as a certain sex.

Original post by Dima-Blackburn
“They” is fine.

As for pronouns of God, read #239 from the following: www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm


I had to laugh at this bit

"We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father."

Why are they calling god a He then? Why not just call god "it" or "they" in all references?

So they're referring to god as genderless whereas Jesus will still be referred to as a male right? I mean it would be pretty weird if suddenly Jesus was also genderless.
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply