But the question remains. Who cares? I mean, setting aside the attack on God's Word and putting on hold the traditions from the start of God as Father, does it really matter? We know, from Scripture, that "God it not a man" (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Job 9:32) (which, by the way, is not a disclaimer of being male, but of being human). We can be confident that, although Jesus was certainly male, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), so He doesn't actually have male body parts. He is not, then, actually the male-gendered physical human being we think of when we use the term "father." (By the way, in all this wrangling to make God gender-neutral, these groups miss entirely the Trinity which includes God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son and thus the entire actual maleness of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, in the flesh. That is, if Jesus is God the Son, God is still male.) We know that there are biblical references to God in female terms (e.g., Deut 32:18). (Note: There are lots of other biblical comparisons of God to mothers -- the phrase typically used is "like a mother" -- but these can't be construed as saying God is a mother.) So, with all this biblical support for God not being male, why bother defending the term "God the Father"? What difference does it make if (so-called) churches eliminate the term?
The first, easiest answer is "because it's in there." Or, more like you might hear from a father, "Because I said so." The Bible is full of references to God as Father, and they aren't ambiguous. We didn't make it up. It is possible, for instance, to argue that some of the references to males in the New Testament should actually be references to husbands, not general males. The same is not true in the words used for "Father". Then there's the simple fact that the reference of God as "Father" comes not from preferences or mere words, but from Jesus Christ ... you know, the One from whom we derive the term, "Christian." We know that Jesus was the Son of God and God was indeed His Father, but Jesus told His disciples to use the term, too (Matt 6:9). The Greek is πατήρ -- patēr -- and cannot be misunderstood to mean anything less than "male ancestor" or "progenitor." He told His disciples, "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:44-45). So Jesus refers to God the Father as the Father of His spiritual children as well. That is, if we're going to erase God as Father, we'll need to do it against plain biblical texts in general and specific statements from Christ, the author and finisher of our faith.
Still, is that all there is? I mean, that should be enough, but is there more?
In the birth of Christ, we have a very clear problem. There is a mother -- a clearly human female mother -- but the male half of that process is not a human male. Joseph is not the guy. Instead, it is God. In this God is absolutely the Father of the Son of God. This is not insignificant.
So clear is the biblical imagery of God as Father that some have mistakenly argued that a clear parallel of Christianity and all religions is the Universal Fatherhood of God and the Universal Brotherhood of Man. This isn't accurate in a scriptural sense -- we are adopted into God's family and the common use of the term "brothers" in the New Testament is a reference to those in the faith, not all human beings. But it is quite clear that God is an overall Father.
In more than one instance a particular term is used in reference to God that takes this imagery a step further. Jesus started it in His Gethsemane prayer. "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will" (Mark 14:36) But Paul carried it on (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In all three cases, the two terms -- "Abba" and "Father" -- are stuck together. That is, even if you could wrangle a "Father could mean any parent" out of patēr, it is clear that both Jesus and Paul used "Abba" in reference to God the Father and "Abba" is nothing more or less than "Daddy." Never anything else. It is a familiar, loving term for a familiar, loving father.
Some have suggested that the concept of God as Father is a New Testament invention, so to speak. It came from Jesus (obviously). This isn't accurate. We read in Isaiah, "But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand" (Isa 64:8). In the Song of Moses we find, "Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you" (Deut 32:6). It is a repeated Old Testament theme as well.
But ... why "Father"? Won't any parent figure do? No, I don't think so. "Father" carries significant connotations. The father is to be the primary provider; God is our primary provider (Heb 13:20-21). The father is to be the stronger parent; God is our strongest parent (Psa 37:39). As the stronger one, the father provides protection; God is our protector (2 Thess 3:3). In the normal parenting structure, the father (especially biblically) is the responsible party, the "head of household"; God is the head (1 Cor 11:3). Biblically fathers are held responsible for educating the children; God is our teacher (Psa 32:8). It is typically the father who disciplines the children; God chastens the ones He loves (Heb 12:5-6).
There is one other aspect that I need to point out. More of a human one, actually. Scripture clearly presents God as Father. Jesus said it. The Old and New Testaments both agree. One primary objection to this is that, frankly, fathers are not what they ought to be. Some have complained, "How does God as Father do me any good when my father was so bad?" There are two answers to this problem. First, we all know what a good father looks like. The fact that some of us have had bad fathers does not negate the fact that we know what a good father should be, and God is the best of Fathers, so it remains meaningful. Second, with God as Father, He stands as an example of what human fathers should strive to be. Remove that position and you remove the challenge to human fathers.
I've offered plenty of reasons why God is Father and ought to be. They are, of course, primarily biblical reasons. I think, however, that the first is the most compelling: Because He said so. Now, some might still be inclined to be argumentative. "God doesn't have male body parts, so we shouldn't offer this option at all." These are factious people, demanding changes to Scripture and tradition without anything more than a selfish, sinful basis. I will offer Paul's response. "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). I'm going to need better than "We need to be more inclusive by rejecting Scripture" and "It's time to change the Bible because we know better now."
Postscript
So, this morning in my reading I came across this.
And if you call on Him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:17-19)Clearly Peter understood that Christians were to "call on Him as Father." Connected to that, notice two features. First, based on calling on Him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, the expectation would be they would conduct themselves with fear -- respect due a Father who judges. Second, note the connection of calling Him "Father" and "ransomed from the futile ways." The implication seems abundantly clear. If you don't call on Him as Father, there is no reasonable expectation of respect or redemption.
24 comments:
It never bothered me when people started a new religion. But why must they call it Christian? We know the answer. These poor souls are only acting on the hatred they have for the one true God that they, in their hearts, have always been at war with.
I agree. I can see why they might want to start their own religion, but why demand historical orthodoxy go with them?
Back in my PCUSA days, I’d ask the same thing. If you don’t agree with reformed theology, that’s fine, but why demand that the rest of us change to accommodate you. Go find another denomination that you agree with.
Dan T, I have to admit, you have exceeded even my expectations of your level of crudeness and impropriety. There is little wonder you're the only person banned from commenting on my blog.
You claim that a child born with a penis is not necessarily a male. Then I claim "Jesus told His disciples to call God 'Our Father'" (and give the appropriate reference) and you assure me if I agree with Jesus that I've claimed that God has a penis. I have to assume that you would accuse Jesus of the same thing. Amazing! Truly. Your inappropriateness knows no bounds.
Don't bother, Dan. Don't bother responding, visiting, reading, and certainly commenting. I refuse to agree with you that because Jesus said to call God "Father" and Paul concurred that they're both as vulgar as you. (I can only assume you would make that claim since you aren't able to deny what they actually said.) If you continue in this manner I will have to contact Blogger and see what I can do to get you permanently removed from any option of commenting in my direction.
I've never understood the argument that since there are so many examples of bad fathers that we shouldn't call God Father. Everyone with a bad father knows they have a bad father, so there is something innate to us to let us know that there is a better option.
Great reasoning. The word bad appeals to a standard.
Wow Stan, you sure lit a fuse.
What’s the command about “unwholesome language”?
An entire blog post acknowledging that the author uses “unwholesome” language and trying to justify it.
A demonstration, I suppose, that he doesn't understand the concepts of respect, courtesy, offensive speech, etc. I only referred to the mildest of his comments because my mother reads this blog and I see no reason to offend anyone's mother, but he's quite sure that no one has the right to be offended when he disrespects people like that.
Clearly it’s vital that obscure and vulgar language be used as a way to bring glory and honor to Christ and His followers. Back in the 60’s the irony of fighting a war for peace was brought up by those against the war. I guess it makes sense to use crudity, rudeness and vulgarity to fight crudity, rudeness, and vulgarity. Or, is it just like getting down in the mud to wrestle a pig? You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
"I guess it makes sense to use crudity, rudeness and vulgarity to fight crudity, rudeness, and vulgarity."
Or to fight perceived crudity, rudeness, and vulgarity. (Because I don't know who is saying slavery and forced marriage is right, for instance.)
I'm sure it's a case-by-case consideration, but in this case it does appear to be the "pig" alternative (except I'm sure that will draw ire as well).
I'm surprised you guys can stomach his acid. I went to his blog once and saw nothing of value. I get enough of his vitriol from what little Stan lets through. I don't think I could endure the bile and lies. Just like I have no idea why he bothers with Stan's blog that he clearly disagrees with and knows he is banned from. There is nothing for me to gain from his blog other than more disdain for the current age of the "church" (capitalization left out on purpose). He does nothing with his blog that Scripture says we are to do with our words, especially for other believers.
It’s the “Trump is crude, vulgar, and rude, therefore we’re justified in our crudity, vulgarity, and rudeness.”
What would be interesting is to actually discuss the concept of things being objectively “evil” absent an objective standard in a forum free from personal attacks and diversions. To me it seems inherently contradictory. It also seems strange to lump slavery and not answering questions under the category of evil.
"It also seems strange to lump slavery and not answering questions under the category of evil."
I seem to recall he had difficulty distinguishing between "criminal" and "immoral", so I guess that's not surprising.
At this point it would be difficult to have the conversation because of the baggage. But it does seem that once virtually everything becomes evil, then virtually nothing is actually evil.
At best, all evil becomes relative, but "In my world they are absolutes that all should agree with."
I agree, if you don’t reserve the term evil, for actual evil, then it just becomes an expression of opinion.
But, the question still remains can you have something that can be described as evil with out some absolute moral standards?
Without absolute standards, it cannot be anything but relative.
It’s just interesting to watch people argue that there are no absolute, transcendent moral standards while simultaneously claiming that behavior X is absolutely wrong.
You mentioned "the baggage". One problem I see in discussing this with them is they seem to think you're saying, "Those things aren't bad!!" and they can't get past that. You aren't. You're simply saying, "You have no basis for your position," not "Your position on that is wrong." But discussing underlying principles and ideas becomes a futile exercise at this point.
Indeed. They seem to want the ability to declare certain acts immoral, without a uniform, objection standard with which to determine morality.
Ah! But say "illegal immigrant", and your comment is deleted, because as we all know, that's just too awful a thing to say. Using it justifies being called all manner of foul profanity, none of which is as bad as the vile "illegal immigrant", regardless of how accurate and descriptive, thus appropriate.
It's nonsensical. My problem has always been the purposeful and willful choice of using "f-bombs" in a forum such as this one, when there are so many civil and Christian ways to express one's displeasure. I once got into it both on FB and on my blog over criticizing a niece for choosing to, not only use such language on FB, but to capitalize it for effect. I struggle with the habit of cussing, and am not at all proud of it. But to have such words fly out of one's mouth due to having formed a bad habit, while bad enough as that is, in no way compares to the willful typing of such words....and then making such great effort to rationalize and justify doing so.
And as if that isn't bad enough, to demonstrate the complete lack of reverence for the God one claims to worship by speaking about Him having genitalia simply because His Only Begotten Son (Golly! Another gender issue!) refers to HIM as Father. The whole notion of re-writing Scripture to neuter God is no more than a move to satisfy worldly preferences rather than to accept reality.
It seems to me, that the whole “f bomb Christian”, thing is more about drawing attention to ones self and trying to fit in with society than anything else.
Craig, early on you asked, "What's the command about 'unwholesome language'?" This, of course, presumes that 1) the term "unwholesome language" has meaning and 2) the person in question cares what commands are in the Bible. I agree with your "drawing attention" likelihood and suspect that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt 12:34). Jesus said, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart" and I would guess that includes "What comes out of your computer comments" as well. The whole "It's perfectly okay for me to use intentionally offensive language because I find you offensive" seems ludicrous for a Christian.
It’s interesting that Dan defaults to harm, and Feo is trying to default to love, yet Dan’s comments at least have the potential to harm, and neither of them is demonstrating anything remotely resembling Christian love.
Post a Comment