Classical Theism Versus “Mother God”

Tyler Austin

Why Are Leading Proponents of Classical Theism Making Common Cause with Feminists?

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in recovering historic Christian doctrine. The revival of scholarship on classical theism has been particularly enthusiastic. Suddenly, book after book has been dedicated to divine simplicity, immutability, aseity, etc. This retrieval work is a welcome development, offering an overdue corrective to many ahistorical, evangelical assumptions that have, for some time, domesticated theology proper. 

However, while this resurgence is encouraging, I can’t help but observe a troubling trend emerging among some of the movement’s leading theologians. Seeds of compromise are already being sown, and offshoots of liberalism are sprouting up. If left unchecked and uncorrected, they will corrupt much of the discipline. 

Some modern theologians working to advance classical theism appear to be doing so at the neglect of other vital doctrines for the church. While maintaining the proper, confessional doctrine of God is critical, it does not follow that a tradeoff between doctrines must be accepted. 

In other words, just because a theologian is correct in one doctrinal area does not mean that other aberrations should be permitted to sneak in. Is a sound “theology proper” the sole criteria for orthodoxy? Relatedly, are the standards of collaboration prevalent in secular academia readily transferable to evangelical academia? Should they be? 

Some classical theism enthusiasts write about God’s simplicity, for example, while championing egalitarianism. 

Even worse, in some cases, these leading “conservative and Reformed” theologians are actively collaborating with others who reject the historically orthodox Christian understanding of God as “Father,” a biblical view of marriage, and the exclusivity of a male-only pastorate. 

The irony is that much of the recovery of classical theism depends on recognizing classical metaphysics, ontology, and anthropology. Aristotelian categories translated through Thomistic use inform much of the historic articulation and codification of what Scripture teaches about God’s nature, attributes, and providence. 

Yet, some newfound classical theists explicitly reject the same classical teachings on gender, both human and Divine. 

Although numerous examples could be drawn from Christian organizations, apologists, and seminaries, a more obvious and troubling instance is in Matthew Barrett’s book, On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. When I first heard about this work and saw the chapter list, I was eager to read it. Returning to Nicaea should be a positive development, and Barrett, having written extensively on the subject, is qualified for the task. 

But while the book includes some excellent contributors, I was perplexed to see a few surprising names on the list, including Amy Peeler. Peeler is a professor at Wheaton College and an outspoken egalitarian. She is also an ordained rector in the Episcopalian Church. Peeler advocates for feminine pronouns when referring to God and has argued that we can pray to God as “mother” because God is not “male” or “masculine.” 

This is no small degree of heterodoxy. To claim that God can or should be referred to by feminine pronouns is a full frontal attack on the person of God. To hold Peeler out as an expert on classical theism while she promotes such an unbiblical doctrine is confusing at best and outright subversive at worst. 

By way of background and context, you should remember that the Episcopalians ordained the first openly lesbian bishop in 2010 and notoriously supports all manner of LGBTQ causes. Even transgender ordinations have been approved. While not practiced by every congregation, Episcopal marriage rites have existed for gay weddings since 2015. If bishops don’t permit same-sex weddings in their diocese, then they are to direct same-sex couples to a diocese that will. Even if a diocese does not endorse same-sex weddings, individual congregations can perform them anyway.   

St. Mark’s Episcopal, where Peeler is a “priest,” is also a part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (WAC). WAC’s website includes a section on “Gender Justice.” St. Mark’s is a member of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago which is headed by a female bishop, Paula Clark. A brochure from St. Mark’s celebrates Clark as “the first Black woman to serve as the diocesan bishop.” 

In 2014, after Illinois officially sanctioned same-sex weddings, the Chicago diocese released a statement supporting the new law, adding that “as Episcopalians, we have seen the joy and blessing that same-sex marriages have brought to our communities.” 

This is the denomination and diocese that “ordained” Peeler. The same Peeler that Matthew Barrett, a Southern Baptist professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, publishes and promotes. 

The Wheaton Record predictably celebrated Peeler’s ordination and status as the third female Wheaton professor to receive the designation. As some will no doubt recall, Wheaton published a “gender equity” statement in 2021; Peeler was involved in the drafting process. 

Of course, God is not a male human being—as if that needed to be said— but Peeler’s androgynous position is contrary to both Scripture and tradition, extending well beyond the proper use of analogical and anthropomorphic language. God does not reveal himself as a gender-neutral “parent” but as “Father.” Peeler, interpreting Scripture through a decidedly modern lens, presses the incorporeality of God and analogical language to the point of contradicting God’s own self-revelation. God may be supreme, she accepts, but this cannot be inherently masculine. Why? Because that would imply a gender hierarchy. Peeler’s animating concern is that “Christianity has a masculine feel,” which is, apparently, “bad.”

Peeler explicitly advocates for the inclusion of “feminist theology’s critiques of masculinity” when approaching the doctrine of God. She calls it blasphemous that Christians have taught that God is male and identifies a direct correlation between this claim and the alleged abuse of women in the church. In other words, to affirm what Scripture and tradition have said about God is to engage in patriarchal oppression, and it is because the outcome is patriarchal that it is oppressive and, therefore, blasphemous, according to Peeler. 

Here, we discover Peeler’s real aim in all of this: to employ the doctrine of God unto egalitarian ends within the church. Associating God with masculinity places a “burden” on men, allegedly leading them to either despair or toxic masculinity, and opens up women to subordination and abuse. 

I won’t revisit all the arguments against Peeler’s novel ideas; others have already addressed them ably, and her Christological innovations are maybe even more bizarre. Denny Burk, the President of CBMW and professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, noted that, “Peeler makes an egalitarian case that sits in tension with both Nicea and Chalcedon…[her] egalitarianism is the tail wagging the dog in this book. Her egalitarianism at times seems to overdetermine her doctrine of God.” Burk believes that, while “Peeler is no radical feminist,” (which may or may not be the case), her book “is aimed largely at those who are—or at least those who may be persuaded by radical feminists.”

Needless to say, Southern Baptists should be more than a little concerned that Barrett included Peeler in a book ostensibly dedicated to Nicene orthodoxy when the very first sentence of the Nicene Creed acknowledges God as Father. Moreover, God’s self-revelation as Father has been confessed throughout the entirety of church history in the Christian tradition.

The key issue for the viability and reliability of Barrett and his project is the glaring inconsistency in rejecting things like the eternal submission of the Son or univocal predications about God while simultaneously accepting a contributor whose claims undermine the first sentence of the Nicene Creed and whose ecclesiology contradicts historic teaching and practice.

At a bare minimum, this is self-defeating, not to mention heterodox. 

Calls to return to creedal orthodoxy fall flat if said orthodoxy is adopted piecemeal according to modern innovations. What use is Nicene orthodoxy if it can be adulterated to contradict not only its original formulation but the testimony of Scripture itself? Why positively affirm one aspect of the Christian tradition while leaving room to reject another? The correction of sloppy theology proper is needed, but it absolutely does not necessitate this kind of tradeoff. 

This is just one of many examples of theologians and Christian authors making room for such ideas. We can also think of Aimee Byrd, who was platformed by members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals before coming out with a feminist critique of complementarianism. In part, Byrd’s approach was also an affirmation of classical theism, which was then weaponized against traditional gender roles in the church. At least for a while, the former provided cover for the latter. 

The case of Barrett’s validation of Peeler presents more than questions of scholarly integrity. It has implications for those in the pews. When Barrett includes someone like Peeler in a project, he communicates to Christians that she is trustworthy and a standard bearer of historic Christian teaching. Barrett has interviewed Peeler for his Credo Magazine in the past. Another recent Credo issue on classical education also featured Jessica Hooten Wilson, who is openly egalitarian. And Barrett’s Credo also regularly platforms Karen Swallow Prior. 

It’s more than fair to ask: Why is Matthew Barrett doing this?

Apparently, as long as you affirm a God without parts or passions, it doesn’t matter what you think about the parts or passions of composite creatures (humans) or how you refer to the incorporeal Divine being, or who occupies the office of pastor, as established by that Divine being. 

The message Barrett is sending to evangelicals is that it doesn’t matter who is in your pulpit or how they invoke God, so long as they do so with proper metaphysical categories. Never mind what Aristotle, and the Apostle Paul for that matter, had to say about egalitarianism. 

While there is growing interest in retrieving classical theism, even among laypeople, their more immediate concern is with pressing cultural anxieties. And I doubt ordinary people will be receptive to Barrett’s project if they have to start praying “Our Mother, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” on Sunday mornings.  

It’s all well and good if you want to argue that proponents of the eternal subordination of the Son are errant in their doctrine, but at least they did not feminize the Godhead in the process. At least their errors are rooted in a debate over how to parse Scripture, not the androgyny of a godless culture. 

Practical implications should go beyond mere intellectual exercise. The retrieval of classical theism must move from the academic sphere into the hearts and minds of everyday believers. To effectively engage a culture increasingly hostile to the Christian tradition, what we need is a clear and uncompromising vision of God, not a theology “beyond gender.” Only with such clarity can believers be better equipped to respond. 

However, I fear that if academics and theologians fail to seriously consider the cultural context, their message will fall on deaf ears—especially among those in the pews who are already witnessing the effects of cultural decline firsthand. A theology grounded in God’s immutability, simplicity, and sovereignty should naturally foster a firm stance on issues where culture deviates from Scripture. This consistent, robust approach deepens personal faith while empowering believers to confidently uphold biblical truths in the public arena, offering a much-needed counter-narrative to secular ideologies.

Attempting to retrieve one historical truth about God’s nature while rejecting another is destined to fail. Acknowledging God’s attributes while denying His actions is inherently inconsistent. The God who is immutable, simple, and self-existent is the same God who created humanity, male and female. He is the same God who ordained male headship in the home and church and demands our full submission to His revealed will.

Frankly, I’m skeptical that a retrieval of classical theism that neglects these truths can really be considered a retrieval at all.

The classicalists ought to call for a consistent retrieval of historic Christian theology by fully embracing the comprehensive teachings of those who came before us rather than selectively focusing on certain doctrines. Matt Marino makes this point well, saying

“Do we want to retrieve the mind of the Christian church before Hume and Kant received the most uncontested hall pass in the history of human thought? If so, then the Reformed Classicalist challenges the retrievalists to be consistent. Let the fathers, the scholastics, the Reformed Orthodox, the Puritans, the Princetonians—you name it—let them speak their whole mind about God and all things related to God.”

The retrieval of classical theism is commendable and worth celebrating. However, what is truly needed is an uncompromising, resolute, and comprehensive revival of the doctrine of God—one that rejects novel progressive dogmas and offers practical guidance for Christians in everyday life. 

Such a posture would not only honor the legacy of classical theism and the riches of our tradition but also provide a firm foundation for navigating the challenges of the modern world with theological integrity for the present generation.

  • Tyler Austin is a lay member in a Southern Baptist church and an avid student of theology. He is a husband and father of three. He works as a business professional in a secular environment. You can follow him on X at @tyler_austin55.