The debate over inclusive language use in Bible translation and worship services is no new phenomenon. Since the rise of extreme forms of the feminist movement in the 1960’s, groups within the church have argued that the Bible (and Christianity) is needlessly sexist, patriarchical, and even chauvinistic. Some of the criticism may be warranted, but the vast majority is driven by an unbiblical ideology.
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has written an excellent response to this ongoing issue today on his blog, AlbertMohler.com. The post, entitled “There’s Not Much Lord in this Church Service,” critiques and provides excellent commentary on a recent article published in The Arizona Daily Star. His chief point: A rejection of biblical authority in some mainline churches has led these churches not only to embrace female and homosexual ministers, but is now to the point where the very identity and role of God is reconstructed. God is “Mother,” “Burning Sun,” “Storm that Melts Mountains,” and so on. Breathtakingly, a local Episcopal congregation in Arizona has even rejected all language that identifies God as Lord.
This post is well worth your time to read. Note that this did not happen overnight, but is the result of a steady erosion of core doctrines over the past few decades. Watch your doctrine, guard the truth, prove yourself faithful.
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 3-4)
while i find the existenialized descriptions of god somewhat pretentious, i would pose this question…
is it truthful to describe god as a man? (i would say “accurate” instead of “truthful” but who can be fully accurate when describing god?)
btw,… mohler’s a politician not a theologian. and that’s coming from someone i know who goes to SBTS!
Always glad to have you comment, Tony. God obviously is not male in a biological sense, for God is spirit (John 4:24). That being said, it is significant that throughout redemptive history God has revealed himself using male language (i.e. Father and Son). I don’t believe that it is my prerogative to redefine God’s revelation of himself due to my personal preferences.
The primary point I want to make in this post is the progressive nature of deviance from the text of Scripture. First, male descriptors of the Trinity are purposefully jettisoned in order to make him more inclusive to an egalitarian culture. Secondly, his title as “Lord” is challenged due to cultural anti-authoritarianism. These moves have signficant theological repercussions.
CAJ
does it make sense to say that god is male in a spiritual sense? (this is a honest question… i’m not trying to be sarcastic) eldredge, who i would be the first to admit is not a theologian in the strictest sense of the word, said (and i’m summarizing here) that we are the physical embodiments of the spirit of god… men and women receiving different aspects of that spirit.
on another note, i’m more inclined to go to the lord’s prayer and wonder why Jesus uses the word “father.” revelation in the synoptics is, for whatever reason, easier for me in its multiple attestations than John. in the words of NT Wright, “John and my wife seem to have a great deal in common. I love them both very much but i do not pretend to fully understand them.”
I’m following Anselm here, who would say that all “goods” we experience find their source in God. Therefore, the goodness of femininity finds its source in God, just as the goodness of masculinity finds its source in God. Both sexes equally bear the image of God. But God still has chosen to reveal Himself in masculine terms, all the while using feminine terminology for His people. I think that in doing so he gives great honor to femininity, for this is the Church which He bought with His own blood (Acts 20:28).
I also want to mention that it is significant that the Son of God has chosen to take on a human form, specifically that of a male, and remain in that state for all eternity. Let’s not forget that the Son chose to become man, not woman. There are many reasons for this, but the point I am making (however incoherently) is a consistent self-revelation by God in the masculine terms of Father and Son.
CAJ
with males having historically dominated positions of power both in and outside of the church, what chance would the messiah have had if it (i’m using the title here) had shown up as a woman? I would argue none at all. I guess the fact that god incarnate revealed “himself” as male to a world dominated by males doesn’t equate to a normative description of god for me. However I dislike “itself”, as this description either leans towards the inanimate (and therefore inactive) imaginings of my small mind or towards Tillich’s “essence” which seems equally impersonal. “father” seems a good reminder of god’s place of authority, but truthfully, mother seems equally, if not more adequate to describe the fierceness of god’s love. This whole topic seems to eventually work its way back to the old conservative vs liberal disagreement over their respective outlooks on god’s holiness/sovereignty vs. his justice/love. I’m as of yet undecided if attempts at gender inclusivity make inroad into reconciling the two, but i think such attempt should at least be lauded (albeit carefully) for making such an attempt.
thoughts?…
my thought, however rough and unintelligent it may sound, is that every word of the Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17), including the words that are gender specific. Therefore, to change the wording of that revelation to anything else, including using gender inclusive langauge, is unacceptable.
Have a good day everyone!
I curious as to your approach to inerrancy given that we not only lack the autographs, but our remaining manuscripts are full of variations. Now, I’m no bart ehrman, screaming that the sky (or my faith) is falling because of variations that cannot amount to anything significant to the message of Christ, but there ARE variations none the less.
Let me approach this by asking a question: Calvinists and Armenians read the same scriptures, pray to the same god, and are endowed with the same holy spirit… Yet they reach radically different opinions on god and his interaction with humanity. Protestest by proxy of sola scriptura (and now modernity) are forced by the logic of their arguments to say that whoever knows the most about the scriptures, its culture and its context, interprets the Word correctly. I find myself in agreement with Hauerwas, and my catholic brothers on this one… That, in as much as we CAN know, we still require moral guidance when approaching the totality of the scriptures by a spiritual authority figure.
…let the flaming begin!
btw Drew, congratulations on Westminster! I’m really happy for you… and not a little bit jealous!
Evangelicals have traditionally insisted that inerrancy properly pertains to the autographs. Therefore, modern Bibles are inerrant to the degree that they faithfully represent the autographs. Of course, we do not have the autographs, but this is really not as big of a problem as some make it out to be. With 5686 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament currently in our possession plus over 15,000 manuscripts in ancient translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) and quotes of the NT in the writings of the early Church Fathers, we have extremely accurate modern Greek New Testaments. Therefore, evangelicals have good theological and textual reasons for holding to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, even without possession of the autographs.
Thank you, Tony. Janel and I are excited about Westminster, too. Now I’ve only got to find a thesis topic…
CAJ
as for Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Romans 14 talks about people who eat meat vs. people who refuse to eat it because of their conscience. Paul definitely says that each party should treat one another with respect and love, but in v. 2 he calls one party (the one who doesn’t eat meat) weak. In other words, in a view of two diametrically opposed opinions, Paul says to love each other, but he still says that one party is right and one party is wrong. This can be applied to how the church worships, the preacher preaches, etc. The two applications to all of those areas are 1) we should treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with love and respect no matter what their opinion, and 2) that there is one correct interpretation of the Scriptures. No matter how many people claim to interpret Scripture correctly, there is still only ONE intent that God had for His Word and each particular word. So the question of Calvinism vs. Arminianism is not really a question to be applied to the inerrancy of Scripture, but to theology.
First of all, wrongness and weakness are two different things. Second, one’s approach to inerrancy IS part of one’s theology Matt. As for there being ONE unique interpretation/intent for each and every word in the bible I’ll go to our Jewish predecessors for assistance with that one. Many rabbinic teachers believe and have believed for millenia that there are multiple levels of interpretation to the scriptures. Take the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matt 20. At it’s most basic level it’s a story about a landowner and his workers. One step deeper is a story about not being jealous of god’s graciousness. One step deeper is an insight into god’s take on earning your reward. One step deeper is… You get the picture. So, Matt, which one is correct? And with that being said if there is only one unique meaning, is that meaning in Greek, English, or Hebrew? Did god say, “well, i’m going to inspire this guy to write this but 250 years later what i actually want to say will be incorporated into the text when Joe the scribe writes down a personal theological explanation into the actual text?” Insisting that there is ONE single correct meaning to the scriptures seems a typical southern baptist/uber-conservative response to avoid the potential relativity that exists in scripture. I think largely that most conservatives have been lied to in being told their conservative interpretations are correct BECAUSE they are traditional, when in fact this is a lie (however unintentional). To steal from Hauerwas again, “Conservativism and Liberalism are just two side of the same coin (the coin being Modernity).”
A. Sorry abott my last sentence, it was supposed to be longer and i had to leave for class. Yes, inerrancy is part of one’s theology.
B. One interpretation and one intent have two completely different meanings. If you’ll notice, I used the word ‘intent’. Intentionally. haha sorry
C. I am fairly positive that we are not going to agree on this issue completely, so it seems wise to all just go with the Romans 14 mindset and say “I love you brother, but I don’t agree.”
actually matt, you say that there is “one correct interpretation… [and] only ONE intent”. I addressed the subject of interpretation because it’s the only one that is applicable to the human condition (metaphysics of theology proper aside), because i can’t imagine how you can possibly hope to know what god’s intent is (unless you’re a calvinist, in which case the universe is deterministic…
)
I appreciate the Romans 14 reference but i guess i feel that a disagreement shouldn’t preclude discussion. As I’m sure we all agree, these subjects are worth arguing over. And if we become upset, well, that’s just usually our pride being challenged and we need to get over it (and i readily include myself in this group). Theological presuppositions may keep us from ever agreeing but they don’t have to keep us from forcing each other to reassess (and hopefully strengthen) our respective positions.
Wow. It seems that I’m a little late to join this convo. I’d like to address a few thing that I’ve noticed when reading.
1) As to the question of multiple interpretations, the law of non-contradiction, the most basic law of logic, states unequivocally that there can be only one right answer to all questions.
For instance, Calvinists may be right. Methodists may be right. They both can be wrong. But it is impossible for them both to be right since they make polar opposite claims throughout their respective theologies.
Therefore, we are all on a search for Truth…and only one Truth exists. We can have varying opinions, but ultimately, someone is wrong.
2) As far as holding to inerrancy of Scripture, I don’t have a problem with God choosing to reveal himself as male. Also, as I just posted on our group blog, I have to think that God was behind translations as well. If God can create the universe and raise himself from the dead, he can write a book. Yes, there are variants, but zero variants that make a hill of beans difference theologically.
3) Men and women are equal because they were both made in God’s image. To say that because God chose to reveal himself as male, is demeaning to women, is to tell God he is being sexist to the very thing He created. We are not asexual beings. God purposely created men and women…in that order. Why? You’ll have to ask him. God has chosen man to be the leader of the marriage and he has chosen woman to be the helpmate and primary caretaker of the family.
Somewhere in our culture, one’s self-worth has become synonymous with position in society. Who is more important as a person – the president of the United States or some random clerk at Wal-Mart? Neither…to say that the president is more important ontologically is to say that one’s position is life makes them who they are. To say that is to scoff at the image of God himself.
Men and women were created equal in function..just different in role.
In Ephesians 5, God instructs the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He also instructs women to submit to the husband as the church submits to Christ…and therein we have the issue…since the majority of the “church” no longer submits to Christ, the woman no longer seems to think that she should respectfully submit to her husband.
The reason there are various interpretations is because most of culture believes that “its all about me.” It’s not…its about conforming our lives to the Word…not the Word to our lives.
Charlie, come’on man! First, the law of non-contradiction is not the most basic law of logic, just the most well known (and by proxy the most abused). But I’ve got to admit, i love seeing Christians throw down the gauntlet using this one because all i have to do now is ask you about the trinity and giggle while you dance around the issue (even if you do have some rhythm) by trying to explain how that’s different.
Second, I have no problems with God having revealed himself as a man… there’s nothing inherently sexist in that. What I have a problem with is the inconsistent approach most conservatives (and liberals, but since we’re focused on you right now I’ll narrow the category) take with the bible. You want to say every bit of it’s inspired? Fine. Start obeying the dietary laws in the Torah. You want to say unequivocally that every bit of the bible is applicable in its literal meaning? Ok. When your sister-in-law becomes a widow you’re gonna be cool with impregnating her so that she can have someone to take care of her in her old age right?
I’m very willing to admit i don’t have all the answers and will probably be incorporating the things i learn about god into my walk with him until the day that I die. What i take issue with are people who claim to be sure about things that they have no business being sure about. It’s not the wise who insist they have the answers…
btw, if you’re going to use big words like “ontologically,” do it correctly. That sentence about the president and the clerk at walmart doesn’t make any sense.
Wikipedia says this about the Law of NC: “According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which can only be proved by showing the opponents of the principle to be themselves committed to it. Thus, Aristotle considers the case of someone who denies the principle in the strong way – holding that every proposition is both true and false – and asks why such a person goes on the Megara road to get to Megara from Athens, since on such a person’s view it is just as true that any other road would get him to Megara.”
Ontology: involves the logical investigation of the different ways in which types of things (ie physical objects, numbers, abstract concepts, etc) are thought to exist, and the nature of various kinds of existence.
Therefore, let’s re-word my sentence. “To say that the president is more important *in his existence* is to say that one’s position is life makes them who they are. I’m sorry if that does not make sense to you.
Also, I have never claimed to know everything. I only claim to be a searcher of the Truth. As far as obeying the laws of the Torah, I am not Jewish. The NT reveals that the purpose of the OT Law is to point to Christ. If anyone should be obeying the laws of the OT, its the current Jewish people. If one takes a natural reading of Scripture as a whole, complete literary work, I believe that is evident.
I’ve been observing this conversation, thinking that it is best not to have too many different points being debated simultaneously. I will continue to do so for the present. However, gentlemen, I must also remind you to keep a tone of civility as you discuss on this blog.
CAJ
unfortunately for Aristotle and Aquinas, they weren’t born in a time where words like “quantum physics” hadn’t even been conceived yet. basically, all you have to do is look at the behavior of elementary particles to see that while the Law of NC sounds nice, even the physical world doesn’t obey it (for those reading without a background in science quantum physics has displayed that one particle can exist in 2 places… AT THE SAME TIME). It’s fascinating stuff really. and since you seem somewhat familiar with logic (even though you quoted the LofNC, and ontology to me from wiki of all things!) i’m sure you’re familiar with that fact that philosophical proofs must hold up in all cases… including the physical universe where applicable.
oh yeah, and your reworded sentence about the president that I don’t understand… still doesn’t have anything to do with ontology. The president’s “being” (just like the rest of us) is the summation of his experiences… who his parents were, where and when he was born, AND what his job is. All these things are incorporated into who we become. So yes, in a way, one’s position (among many other things) makes us “who we are” so to speak. I am with you that those characteristics don’t hold any intrinsic existential value to God. They just “are” for lack of a better word. But neither of those things really has anything to do with ontology.
oops. double negative. i should really start proof reading these things… but then again, who does that for a blog?
First, Tony’s definition of “being” is being understood in an existentialist framework. Charlie is speaking of the imago dei. You two are comparing apples and oranges. Settle on a common definition and go from there.
Secondly, and I am serious about this, please refrain from mocking, sarcastic, and any other form of condescending dialogue. That is birthed from pride and not fitting for Christian conversation.
CAJ
Isn’t quantum physics a theory? Just a question, I don’t claim to be a scientist.
In other news, I just saw Spiderman 3. It was awesome.
though still incomplete, quantum physics (like evolution) is the best SCIENTIFIC description we have of the universe, it’s laws, and it’s origins, superceeding even relativity.
…but yes, it is a theory. However in scientific language, theories incoporate many smaller empirically proven “laws” (although true scientific laws are not allowed to be empirically proven… long story which i won’t get into here) and attempt to weave a framework out of them.
However, in closing i will say that the particular example that I used (the 1 electron existing in 2 places at the same time) HAS BEEN empirically proven. it’s mindbending stuff really.
I agree with Drew that we are comparing apples with oranges when speaking of the nature of being. I rest my case as to how the majority of the world views the essence of mankind. If we are defined as a person by our profession then I am more then ever convinced of the fact that we live in a scary, narcisistic (sp) and me-centered universe devoid of love for God and others.
I guess i’ll close up here then too.
While i’m with you and drew that we are to some extent comparing apples and oranges, it’s not for lack of understanding what the other is talking about. you make a statement about “If we are defined as a person by our profession then I am more then ever convinced of the fact that we live in a scary, narcisistic (sp) and me-centered universe devoid of love for God and others.”
i submit to the court exhibit A(i’m being facetious here drew, not sarcastic lest you edit me) taken… FROM THE DEFENDENTS OWN BLOG!!!
[gasp are heard somewhere in the back of the courtroom. A child in the third row faints and the pregnant woman in the fourth row spontaneously goes into labor.]
And I quote: “Who? Charlie Wallace is the Associate Pastor of Leadership Development and Children’s Ministries at Crosswell Baptist Church. He is also the proud husband and father of Emily and Jackson.” [taken from charlie's blog]
We are, simply (or maybe not so simply) WHO WE ARE.
YDSB,
One quick question. If tomorrow I become the “Senior Pastor of the Largest Church in Texas” does that make me more important of a person?
seriously chuck. i’m done with this issue and meanwhile you’re asking questions that you know the answer to. however, if you’d like the response i had in mind (but didn’t post because i knew drew would delete it) send me your email address.
Ha! I’m glad we’re all playing nice now.
CAJ
No need for email. Thanks.