Thinkaloud | Our father

We know what a good father should be says Maxwell Ryan

What’s in a word? Well, it all depends on the particular word. Especially is this s o in some circles when the word is “Father”, and when it is used to describe God.

Some in the Christian Church have taken a leaf out of the feminists’ notebook and argue that to refer to God as Father is to discriminate against women. Further, they state, such language is sexist in that it favours the male and puts down the female. Therefore, they maintain, language should be neutral; it should not exalt one sex above the other.

It is right that the biblical phrase “Christ died for all men” - as translated in some of the older versions of the Bible - is better rendered as “Christ died for all people”. It was clearly the intent of the writer to share the good news that all human beings could, by personal choice, receive God’s grace. It is not diminishing the content of the phrase to use the inclusive word in this context.

Difficulties come when Christ the Son of God is referred to as Christ the Child, or God our Father becomes God our Parent. In such cases the language has not merely been broadened, its meaning has been changed, the verbal images have been tampered with and the perception of God has been altered.

The Bible, as God’s Word, is not culturally bound in its intent. As the written record of God’s message to humanity it is clear in its use of verbal images. Though the language of the ordinary person is used - the New Testament was written in the street Greek of the day - the figures of speech by which heavenly realities are clothed (admittedly in inadequate language) are the warm and familiar.

When the Bible refers to God as father, it draws upon all the good associations this word has: strong, warm, caring, progenitor and provider. The security that comes from knowing that at the minimum God is this to us is the source of our personal stability.

Whether we have had good or bad human fathers, we know what a good father should be. And God is more than that. That is why Jesus referred to Him as “Abba”, the Aramaic word used by a child to say “Daddy”. In human terms God is all to us that a little child expects a father to be.

While the Bible says He is the Father of the human race, He is especially the Father who are born of the Spirit, and who have entered into His heavenly family by choice. This spiritual “fatherhood” means that His children bear the family likeness. From being “made in His image” as a member of the human race, those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ are being conformed to His likeness in their spirit. They are obedient to Him; they exercise the gifts of the Spirit, which He has given to His children and they bear in their lives the fruit of that same Holy Spirit.

It is appropriate that we accept God as our heavenly father; that we believe the verbal images that are given in Scripture are sound, and that we need not throw them away. The Christian Church has got on well for nearly two thousands years with the figure of speech that God used in His self-revelation.

Writer: Lieut.-Colonel Maxwell Ryan is a former Editor in Chief in Canada and the UK. In retirement he is a copy editor of theRubicon and the author of two series on theRubicon - Resurrected Writers and Thinkaloud.

10 Comments to Thinkaloud | Our father

1. While reading… it hit me that when people want to change “son / father” to “child / parent”… then scripture… to me… would start to sound like the adults did on Snoopy / Charlie Brown shows:

   “wah, wah, waaahhh. Wah-wah-wah?”

   I agree… the context and the imagery that are expressed through the words “son / father” are very important.

   imMEDIAtely yours,

   Errin Hogan
   Postmodern Storyteller
Errin Hogan on June 28th, 2009

2. Once again, I would have to disagree quite strongly here.

   Yes, the church has accepted and used the verbal imagery for 2000 years, but this has been greatly to its’ detriment. By accepting uncritically the imagery in the Bible, understanding the imagery in today’s culture, has meant we no longer worship the God of the bible (and I would say we have not done so for well over 1000 years).

   The imagery in the Bible IS culturally bound. It does need to be ‘translated’ into todays culture. When we look at the term ‘Father’ or even ‘Daddy’ in biblical times, and what those words meant in those times, we DO get a very different understanding of Father and Daddy to what we have today. Fathers back then were hard. They were usually distant as it was the mothers job to raise and look after the children, while the father did the work, went off to war, was often not seen for months or years on end. The father would punish at a drop of a hat, force his children down paths that caused them great pain for economic gain. This does not sound like the concept of a loving father to me. But to the people in Biblical times, they had no other model for love. A mothers love was considered weak and inferior. Words like ‘compassion’ were seen as weakness, and were an insult of the highest order when applied to men (this is the true meaining of the word ‘Arsenekoine’ that Paul uses in Corinthians).

   These words were used because that was all the revelation of God that the people of the time could understand. God was not, and is not, fully revealed. To assume that He/Her/It is, is to assume it is possible to fully know the revelation of God, and therefore either assume we are equal to God (blasephemy), or that the God we worship is no God at all. God is still continually increasing His/Her/It’s revelation of the Godself to us.

   Therefore, to change the language of the imagery is entirely appropriate. Although it no longer has the poetic beauty as a piece of literature by changing ‘father’ to ‘parent’ etc., it is necessary. God is more than just a quaint poetic concept. In fact, we NEED to change the terminology and language to better understand our God. This will, I believe, radically change our Theology - but this is needed.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on June 28th, 2009

3. Surely the whole point is that people around us don’t know what a good father should be like. The ‘normal’ father they know is someone whom they visit at intervals and who may (or may not) remember their birthday. We have children here who feel inadequate because they still live with both their birth parents, and that means they only have one home, while their friends have two -

   This actually happens. And that is leaving aside all those who have only ever known an abusive father, and who have no friends at all who have birth fathers living in the family home. One friend tells me one of his minister colleagues has 35 young people in a week-night group and not a single one of them is being raised by both birth parents.

   We live in a society which is story-rich in experiences of bad fathers, and almost devoid of stories of good fathers. Before we expect people to have a healthy image of God as the Father, we need to tell good stories of fatherhood, and become a story-rich community in our neighbourhoods about what a good father is like.
   Warmest blessings
Eleanor Burne-Jones on June 29th, 2009

4. Graeme, I have read your comments on this post, as well as several other places around this site. I do not mean to sound harsh or sound “fundamental”, but the views that you espouse certainly do not line up with mainstream evangelical Christianity. That may come off to you as a compliment, I suppose…

   Your argument makes little sense and has little basis in reality concerning what fathers were like “back then”, especially as you provide no reference for them. I agree with your last statement that “God is more than a quaint poetic concept”. However, I’d say that is precisely why He has revealed Himself as a Father, a “concept” which dates back much further than New Testament Christianity, through Isaiah’s declaration that He is the Everlasting Father, way back into Abrahamic times, where we see the “type” of crucifixion in the offering up of Isaac on the altar. I also have to ask that, if fatherhood is such a terrible metaphor (and I’d suggest it’s a good deal more than a metaphor), then why is it used so frequently by the New Testament writers when referring to the love of God? Why, indeed, did Jesus use it to describe that ever-so-intimate relationship? Or are you so arrogant as to say that the understanding you possess supersedes that of the prophets and apostles (be it knowledge weighed down with their “cultural baggage”)?

   Eleanor is closer to the target when she says there are too few good fathers to hold up as examples. Your argument assumes that biblical writers looked around them and randomly (or at least naively) decided to use fatherhood as an analogy for relationship with God. The opposite is true: we are created in His image and our model (especially as men) is that if this is how God loves His children (perfect provision and self-sacrificial love), we as fathers have the perfect role model to look up to. Our falling short never negates His ultimate example.
Jeremiah on June 30th, 2009

5. Hi Jeremiah,

   Praise God I do not align with mainstream evangelical chriatianity. I would be deeply concerned if I did.

   I do not think it arrogance to consider today’s understanding of the world and the nature of things superior to that of more ancient times. The prophets, apostles, all the biblical writers, could only have an understanding of the world and of God according to their ability to understand and according to the ability of their language to describe their understanding. It is culturally weighed down. Any metaphor or description can only work within the culture that it is developed. Such culture then shapes the understanding of that concept. That doesn’t mean that the language or metaphor is right or wrong, it’s just all that can be understood at that time. The same can be said of today’s understanding and language.

   You are right when you mention the ‘father’ metaphor being used right back to Abrahamic times. But then we must acknowledge the understanding of God in ancient times. God was remote, distant. He demanded unspeakable things from his followers, such as killing your unbeleaving brothers, sisters, parents, children (see the Israelites at Mt. Sinai), who would punish children for the sins of their parents, who would seem to be pleased with the sacrifice of a child on an alter.

   This understanding of God is very different to the understanding of a God of Love today. The father metaphor fits well with the ancient understanding of God. Male metaphors througout scripture are simply an indication of the perceived superiority of men over women throughout ancient times. Don’t forget, male Jews in ancient times (and even many orthodox Jews today) would pray ‘I thank God that I was born a man, and not a lowly female’. In the heirarchy in a Jewish house, Men were supreme, followed by male children, followed by the work dog (that at least helped in the field), follwed by the wife, then female children. Hence there is nothing unusual in the story of Sodom and Gomorah when the daughters were offered up to the men of the town instead of the male guests - it was expected.

   I have nothing against using ‘Father’ as a metaphor for God, so long as our understanding of ‘Father’ is all encompassing (as you suggest). And if it is, then a metaphor of Mother is just as apt. In mainstream evangelical christianity, the insistance on the use of male metaphors is simply to assert the superiority of men over women - something the Booths came to greatly despise. The eary Army understood this - but today’s generation seems to have forgotten it. Men and women are equal. Therefore, either metaphor (masculine of femanine) is apt for describing God and a relationship with God. Therefore it is just as right to pray to ‘our Heavenly Mother’ as it is to pray to our ‘Heavenly Father’

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme
Graeme Randall on July 1st, 2009

6. Further on metaphors. Don’t forget, Christ also used the metaphor of a mother hen. Is God a Giant Chicken then? Christ used a feminine metaphore for God. Was Christ indicating that God is female? More accurately, I think Christ was indicating to a people who couldn’t possibly comprehend, that God is neigher male nor female. Therefore either metaphor that we use is right. Remember, when Christ was asked about marriage and heaven, he said that we shall be like the angels who are neither married nor given in marriage. They are niether male nor female. The same with God - God is neither male nor female. God is God. Therefore, it is right to pray to God as WE perceive Him, Her, or It.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on July 1st, 2009

7. A text without a context is a pretext - Exegesis 101. In the passage you reference (Luke 13:34), Christ does not address God AS a mother or a hen, he is saying that he longs to gather Jerusalem LIKE a mother gathers her hens. Very different.

   There is no passage of Scripture during which any of the Prophets, or Apostles or Jesus Himself address God as a mother.

   Your last statement above is not logical:

   “God is neither male nor female. God is God. Therefore, it is right to pray to God as WE perceive Him, Her, or It.”

   Perception does not always equal reality. True, God is neither male nor female. True, God is God. However, I do not see how you jump from the reality of God’s self-existence to the propriety of our worship of Him as we see fit. It is not a logical jump.

   If I were to hold a blue balloon in front of you and say, “THIS is a blue balloon,” while someone else came over and said, “No, sir, you are wrong - that is neither blue, nor a balloon - it is a red albatross.” Now, both of us CAN’T be right. You may say that both of us are wrong and proceed to inform us that we are both hallucinating and that the object we are referring to is neither a blue balloon nor a red albatross, but rather a mixture of gases refracting light in such a way as to make us both see something different, based on our viewing angles.

   The fact remains that the “thing” we are viewing exists in its own state, REGARDLESS of what we say about it.

   Now, you are of the opinion that the biblical writers wrote as they saw, based on their own cultural prejudices. I am of the belief that they wrote out of direct revelation from God based on how the Almighty saw fit to be seen and described by men/women the world over. He CHOSE to be called our Father because it is the best picture of that PERSONAL relationship that each of His human creations is called to have with Him. Does He have female characteristics? Of course. As the Prophet Jeremiah says, God knew us before we were formed in our mother’s womb. That means we were a multitude of thoughts in the mind of I AM way before the flesh, breath and bones came into existence. Womanhood, manhood and all other created identities have their initial existence in God.

   Genesis, The Gospel of John, the book of Acts, Paul’s epistles and indeed all of Scripture testify that He is before all things and that all things exist by Him and for Him. In just the same way as human and animal life begins in the seed of fathers, so the sum total of existence has its beginning in our Father.
Jeremiah on July 11th, 2009

8. Hi Jeremiah,

   I don’t think we are going to come to agreement here. We both believe the others exegesis and theology is wrong. I think it comes down to what we believe are the fundamentals of Christianity and the Bible. I think we also have very different understandings as to reality and culture. I think the best we can do is agree to disagree, and focus on the thing we have in common - that there is a God, and that God is to be worshiped, and that God is so great and infinite that neither of us are capable of understanding that God - if we were, then it would prove the god we understand is no god at all, and we would be committing the gravest heresy by claiming we do understand the full revelation of God.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on July 21st, 2009

9. Jeremiah,
   On Logic:-

   The logic you are using in your arguments (particularly in regard to refuting the cultural aspect of scripture) assumes the Bible was written for us only to read and that prior generations never read the Bible. The logic and arguments you are using are culturally applicable to modern Western society/culture ONLY. Any other culture that read the Bible would undoubtedly have had a different understanding of the Bible. Just look at how much our understanding and theology has changed throughout history. What people believed a century ago would today be considered rediculous, and what mainstream Christianity believes today would have been considered supreme heresy.

   People in the past did read the Bible. It was read during ancient times. The people of the Apostle Paul’s era did read his letters etc. Therefore, we need to understand how people back then thought, what their culture was like etc. That DOES influence their understanding of God, and how scripture would be written.

   Your logic does not make sense - it assumes that we are the first generation to read the Bible. Every Christian denomination and teaching, every aspect of church history, contradicts your logic and argument.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on July 21st, 2009

10. Thanks for your response, Graeme. I’ve been waiting for it! Especially with the transition of leadership here at the Rubicon…

    I think you are correct in that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I absolutely agree that we need to understand how people back then thought and what their culture was like, and that it absolutely does influence their understanding of God.

    I don’t see how you’ve come to the position that my arguments assume we are the first generation to read the Bible. in fact, I’d say my position understands we stand on the shoulders of giants. It would seem your point of view is one which discards thousands of years of understanding of God.

    Now, i’m not one to strictly adhere to previous understandings of Scripture solely for the sake of tradition, and there may come a day that proves me wrong (I’m open to it), but it seems to me that the very essence of the human species - reproduction through the life that is sown through the seed of the father - points to a God that is a Father!!! Father of all creation, yes, in a symbolic manner, but also in the language that BEST describes him. (please don’t infer yelling from the BOLD typing, just excited…

    I’m amazed at my Father!
Jeremiah on July 22nd, 2009

Leave a comment