Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, You Can't Rewrite the Bible to Remove Gendered Language for God
Townhall ^ | 02/08/2018 | Michael Brown

Posted on 02/08/2018 9:57:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind

As LifeSite News reported, earlier this month, “The Episcopal church in the Diocese of Washington, D.C., passed a resolution . . . to stop using masculine pronouns for God in future updates to its Book of Common Prayer.

“The resolution to stop using ‘gendered language for God’ was passed quickly by delegates to the Diocese's 123rd Convention.”

To be sure, this is not the first group to move in the direction of “gender-inclusive” language when it comes to the deity.

Back in 2011, I documented how some gay churches replaced God as Father with God as Creator in their hymns. And last year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sweden voted to urge “its clergy to use more gender-neutral language when referring to God and to avoid referring to the deity as ‘Lord’ or ‘He’.”

As explained by Archbishop Antje Jackelen, a woman, and the head of this church, “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human.”

That, of course, is true, and none of us think that God has biological sex or that His image is not found in women as well as men.

At the same time, He revealed Himself to us as Father, He inspired the human authors of Scripture to refer to Him with male pronouns, and He is called Lord (not Lady) multiplied hundreds of times in the Scriptures. Not only so, but when He took on flesh, He did so in the person of His Son (another male image!), as a man named Yeshua (Jesus). And should I mention that He’s also described in the Bible as a Man of War?

In short, you have to rewrite the Bible in order to remove “gendered language for God.” And there is a difference between praying to the Heavenly Mother rather than the Heavenly Father. (In other words, gender differences are important and intentional.) And if a non-gendered God wanted us to pray to it (?) as the Heavenly Parent, then it (or, they?) would have said so.

But it gets worse. Lifesite News notes that, “The Rev. Linda R. Calkins from St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Laytonsville, Maryland,  challenged the delegates to go further.”

She stated that, “Many, many women that I have spoken with over my past almost 20 years in ordained ministry have felt that they could not be a part of any church because of the male image of God that is systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies. Many of us are waiting and need to hear God in our language, in our words and in our pronouns.”

So, “many, many women” stay out of church “because of the male image of God that is systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies.” Perhaps these women have some issues with their own fathers – or husbands (or, ex-husbands), or men in general? Perhaps there’s something deeper going on? And with problems like these, how could they relate to a male Savior figure?

Speaking of that, an Episcopal bishop in New York defended a statue of the crucifix featuring a female Jesus called Christa. I kid you not.

But there’s more. “Calkins read from Genesis Chapter 17, in which God tells Abraham ‘I am El Shaddai.’ She said that if Episcopalians ‘are going to be true to what El Shaddai means, it means God with breasts.’” Yes, the God of Israel is a fertility deity with breasts!

To be honest, Calkins is not the first to make this claim, and I’ve even heard it in some evangelical circles, where it was taught that God as the “many breasted one” spoke of God as Provider.

But there’s not a stitch of scholarly evidence to support this, and I can state that with authority. Not only is my Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, but I specialized in comparative Semitic lexicography (meaning, understanding dictionary definitions of words in light of the comparative ancient languages).

My doctoral dissertation focused on one Hebrew word (in light of its ancient Near Eastern background), and I own every major Hebrew lexicon and theological encyclopedia. Every single one of them rejects the idea that El Shaddai means “God of (many) breasts.” (I even did a short Facebook video, with a large pile of these books in hand, to demonstrate the point.)

It’s possible that the name Shaddai is related to an ancient Akkadian word for “mountain,” hence depicting God as a Rock, a common scriptural image speaking of power. (Akkadian refers to the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians.) But this is far from certain.

What we do know is that the ancient biblical translators commonly rendered Shaddai with “Almighty,” and they likely had a good reason for it. As for the idea that the God of Israel, who identified Himself with male pronouns and used masculine verbs, was depicted as a many-breasted female fertility deity, they would have found the idea blasphemous. So should we.

In short, there’s a good reason to use gendered language when speaking of God, even though He has the best characteristics of both mother and father and He even though He transcends human aspects of gender. To deny this to deny divine reality, to our own lasting harm and confusion.


TOPICS: History; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: bible; genderneutral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: SeekAndFind
OK, how did they change "With God as our father"?

They failed to do that; wary of lightning strikes, I guess. But I was fully expecting the new Lord's Prayer to be Our Parent which art in Heaven...

21 posted on 02/08/2018 11:06:53 AM PST by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The LEFT hates the part in the Bible where it says....”male and female he created them.” ........fools. Trying to change what God created and ordained. Genesis 1:27


22 posted on 02/08/2018 11:16:35 AM PST by vespa300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd
Yes, there are a few negligible scribal errors (repeating words, letters, etc.) but no theological contradictions. The scribes were extremely meticulous in making a copy

Well, my response was regarding a secular view point of the Bible. You are looking at it through a religious lens and assuming (if I understand correctly) that at one point in time there was a perfect divine canonical autograph from which later copies, in a variety of languages, were made.

If you see the Bible from a religious view point, then changing it makes no sense.

Secularists view it as a human construction that developed organically over time and that underwent many changes, edits and redactions.

23 posted on 02/08/2018 11:21:10 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vespa300

I think the issue of the feminists is that our language is too Patriarchal.

They claim that words like “Mankind” ONLY includes men and not women, etc. Which of course is BS.


24 posted on 02/08/2018 11:21:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Alter one jot or tittle and see what happens.

Zot!

5.56mm


25 posted on 02/08/2018 11:24:48 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Agree, but the agenda is still to obliterate all gender differences. That’s the underlying agenda.....my opinion.


26 posted on 02/08/2018 11:57:06 AM PST by vespa300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

People who think that God has a gender don’t know how stupid they sound. And don’t know much about God, either. Imo.


27 posted on 02/08/2018 1:05:02 PM PST by Basket_of_Deplorables (SEDITION! Obama DOJ colluded to try overthrow the President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is humanities job to change to accommodate God.

It is NOT God’s job to change to accommodate us.


28 posted on 02/08/2018 1:18:10 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is sick and not what Jesus tought


29 posted on 02/09/2018 12:25:36 PM PST by Kaslin (Politicians are not born; they are excreted -Civilibus nati sunt; sunt excernitur. (Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is sick and not what Jesus taught.


30 posted on 02/09/2018 12:26:25 PM PST by Kaslin (Politicians are not born; they are excreted -Civilibus nati sunt; sunt excernitur. (Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson