A friend of ours arrived eagerly at his first theology class in seminary. But he quickly discovered something troubling: the college insisted on gender-neutral language for God in all assignments. Papers that referred to God as “He” or “Father” received poor grades, regardless of their theological merit. Despite pressure from professors and declining marks, our friend refused to abandon what he believed Scripture clearly taught. Who was right in this academic tussle?

In an era of gender fluidity and inclusive language, calls to abandon male pronouns for God are growing louder. Progressive denominations are revising their liturgies, feminist theologians are rewriting prayers, and seminary professors are questioning centuries of Christian tradition. But does this align with Scripture? Should Christians, particularly in the Reformed tradition, stop using “He” for God?

The consensus Reformed view is clear: God reveals Himself in Scripture using masculine language, and we must honour this divine self-revelation without alteration. This preserves theological accuracy, avoids anthropomorphic distortions, and upholds biblical authority as affirmed in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 on Scripture’s sufficiency. We have neither the right nor the wisdom to improve upon how God has chosen to reveal Himself.

 

WHAT JESUS HIMSELF TEACHES US

The strongest argument for maintaining masculine pronouns comes from Jesus Christ Himself. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus specifically instructs us to pray, “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9). This wasn’t casual language—it was deliberate theological instruction about how to address God. Throughout John 17, Jesus’s high priestly prayer, He consistently addresses God as “Father” and refers to Him with masculine pronouns.

If the Son of God, who knows the Father perfectly, chose masculine language, shouldn’t we follow His example? Jesus wasn’t limited by first-century cultural constraints—He regularly challenged social conventions when truth demanded it. Yet He never wavered in using masculine terms for the Father. This establishes a pattern we dare not abandon.

 

THE TRINITARIAN FOUNDATION

The doctrine of the Trinity itself depends on masculine language. The Father-Son relationship is fundamental to Christian orthodoxy, clearly articulated in passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Paul writes in Ephesians 3:14-15 about “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.”

This isn’t merely metaphorical language—it describes the eternal relationships within the Godhead. The Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Son, not the Child or the Offspring. Changing this language fundamentally alters our understanding of who God is. Even when Scripture uses feminine imagery to describe God’s nurturing care (Isaiah 66:13), the pronouns remain consistently masculine, showing that God’s self-revelation transcends our human attempts to categorise Him.

 

CONSISTENCY ACROSS SCRIPTURE

From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture maintains an overwhelming pattern of masculine pronouns for God. Isaiah 64:8 declares, “You, LORD, are our Father.” Malachi 2:10 asks, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” This consistency isn’t accidental—it represents how God has chosen to reveal Himself across different cultures, languages, and time periods.

Consider the theological implications: God didn’t have to reveal Himself this way. He could have chosen gender-neutral language or alternated between masculine and feminine terms. But He didn’t. As the Westminster Confession teaches, Scripture is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice—including how we address our Creator.

 

THE INCARNATION CONFIRMS GOD’S CHOICE

The Incarnation provides additional confirmation. John 1:14 tells us “the Word became flesh”—specifically, male flesh. Jesus’s maleness wasn’t incidental but tied to His role as the bridegroom of the Church (Ephesians 5:25-27). The biblical metaphor of Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride requires masculine language for theological coherence. Without this distinction, we lose the beautiful imagery that Scripture uses to describe our relationship with God.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGE

Who exactly is demanding this change? The primary advocates include progressive denominations like the Episcopal Church USA and the Presbyterian Church (USA), feminist theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, and academic institutions influenced by postmodern thinking. Their motivations often stem from sincere concerns about gender equality and inclusive language.

However, these changes typically represent broader theological shifts. Churches that abandon masculine pronouns for God frequently move toward denying other biblical truths—Christ’s exclusivity for salvation, the authority of Scripture, and traditional Christian morality. The pronouns issue serves as a theological canary in the coal mine.

The underlying problem is cultural accommodation over biblical fidelity. When contemporary sensibilities trump scriptural authority, we’re no longer doing Christian theology—we’re doing religious sociology.

 

ADDRESSING SINCERE CONCERNS PASTORALLY

We must acknowledge legitimate concerns about women’s dignity and worth. Genesis 1:27 clearly teaches that both male and female are made in God’s image. Using masculine pronouns for God doesn’t diminish women’s value any more than calling God “Lord” diminishes those who aren’t royalty. God’s character encompasses qualities we associate with both genders, but His chosen self-revelation uses masculine language.

The solution isn’t changing Scripture’s language but teaching our congregations sound theology. We can affirm women’s full dignity while maintaining biblical fidelity.

 

OUR FAITHFUL RESPONSE

As Christians, we trust God’s wisdom in His self-revelation rather than our own cultural intuitions. Scripture’s language for God isn’t arbitrary—it’s divine revelation. When we preserve this language, we preserve theological truth, maintain continuity with historic Christianity, and demonstrate submission to biblical authority.

The question isn’t whether masculine pronouns feel inclusive to contemporary ears. The question is whether we’ll trust God’s own words about Himself. On this foundation, the Reformed tradition must continue to stand firm, saying with Scripture: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.”

 

SHOULD WE STOP USING MALE PRONOUNS FOR GOD? RELATED FAQs

What do today’s leading Reformed voices say about this issue? John MacArthur has been particularly vocal, arguing that changing God’s pronouns represents “an assault on biblical authority itself.” RC Sproul consistently taught God’s self-revelation in masculine terms is non-negotiable, calling attempts to change it “theological vandalism.” Contemporary voices like Alistair Begg and John Piper maintain masculine language for God reflects divine wisdom, not cultural accident. Even Tim Keller defended traditional language while emphasizing pastoral sensitivity in explaining the theological reasoning.

• Is there any Reformed denomination that has officially adopted gender-neutral language for God? The Presbyterian Church (USA) officially allows gender-neutral and feminine language for God in worship, but they’ve largely abandoned Reformed orthodoxy on multiple issues. The Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and other confessionally Reformed bodies unanimously maintain masculine language. The Reformed Church in America has seen internal division, with some congregations departing over this and related issues. True confessional Reformed churches view this as a test of biblical fidelity.
• How do we respond to the argument that God transcends gender, so our pronouns don’t matter? While God absolutely transcends human gender categories, this misses the crucial point about revelation versus speculation. God could have revealed Himself using any language He chose, but He consistently chose masculine terms across Scripture. The issue isn’t God’s essential nature (which indeed transcends gender) but how He has chosen to make Himself known to us. We’re called to receive God’s self-revelation humbly, not edit it according to our philosophical preferences.

What about churches that use “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” instead of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”? The substitution fundamentally alters Christian doctrine because it describes what God does rather than who God is eternally. The Father doesn’t become Father by creating; He is eternally Father in relationship to the eternal Son. These functional titles obscure the personal, relational nature of the Trinity and reduce God to His activities rather than His being. The Trinitarian names aren’t job descriptions but eternal identities that reveal the very heart of God’s nature.

• Are we right to suspect Satan’s involvement in this theological shift? If so, why would he target God’s pronouns? Scripture teaches Satan is “the father of lies” (John 8:44) who seeks to distort God’s truth at every turn. Attacking God’s self-revelation strikes at the foundation of all theology—if we can’t trust how God has revealed Himself, what can we trust? By making God’s language seem optional or culturally determined, Satan undermines biblical authority itself. Once churches accept that Scripture’s language for God can be improved upon, they’ve opened the door to questioning everything else Scripture teaches.
• How should Reformed parents explain this issue to their children when they encounter gender-neutral God language? We teach our children that God has told us His name and how He wants to be addressed, just like any person has the right to be called by their chosen name. Explain that when people change God’s pronouns, they’re trying to be helpful but are actually being disrespectful to God’s wishes. Use simple analogies: we wouldn’t rename our earthly father without his permission, so we shouldn’t rename our heavenly Father either. Emphasise that this shows us the importance of listening carefully to what God says in His Word.

What’s the difference between God’s masculine language and human patriarchy that feminists rightly criticise? Biblical masculinity for God reveals divine order and relationship, not human domination or oppression. God’s “fatherhood” represents perfect love, protection, and provision—the opposite of abusive human patriarchy. Scripture actually judges harsh human fathers by God’s perfect standard (Ephesians 3:14-15). The problem isn’t God’s masculine language but sinful human distortions of masculinity. Changing God’s pronouns doesn’t solve human sin; it obscures the perfect standard by which all human relationships should be measured.

 

SHOULD WE STOP USING MALE PRONOUNS FOR GOD? OUR RELATED POSTS

• Preferred Gender Pronouns: Do We Give In to Culture’s Demands?
• Did God Step Into Time During Creation—Or Remain Outside It?
• Does God Know the Future? All of It, Perfectly?
• Can God Condemn Homosexuality Even If Some Are Born Gay?