There
is a joke that makes the Internet circuit every now and then
about a couple who dies in a flood in spite of prayers for God’s
rescue. As the floodwaters rise the two continue to call out
for God’s help but refuse the assistance of a neighbor’s
ladder, a police rescue boat, and a national guard helicopter.
In heaven they ask God, “Why didn’t you rescue us?”
God said, “I sent a ladder, a lifeboat, and a helicopter
. . . what more could I do?” The story makes a point that
we sometimes miss an experience of God because God comes on
terms different from those for which we ask or anticipate.
A primary concern as I began editing the winter quarter lessons
of The Present Word is that learners would miss an
experience of God because of the language John’s Gospel
uses in talking about God. As a Christian education resource,
The Present Word tries to set an inviting tone for all learners
by using a wide range of names and images for God. At the heart
of the winter quarter, however, is an important aspect of the
Trinitarian relationship that the Bible fleshes out in terms
that are undeniably male. For the purposes of this particular
study it is important to look beyond gender issues to more fully
appreciate the special relationship that God Almighty has to
God Incarnate, that is, the relationship of God the Father to
Jesus the Son. Nowhere is this relationship more visible than
in John’s Gospel, where God is called “Father”
109 times.1
The invitation to “set aside gender issues” does
not mean we diminish the feelings of those who hear a mixed
message whenever God is described using male images, like “king”
or “master.” It would be uncharitable to deny that
the use of the male pronoun “he” calls up images
of patriarchal control that interfere with many a person’s
spiritual connection to God. Similarly, there should be no disrespect
for those who find it difficult to hear female language in connection
with God. It’s an understandable effect of the shift in
language and culture that when some folks hear a prayer that
substitutes “Mother” in place of “Father,”
their sense of God’s presence is lost. There are those
who, in an effort to bridge the gap, have adapted in naming
God, “Parent,” which is certainly one solution.
Then again, it would go a long way to relieve the conflicts
over language if all of us were willing to admit that our language
about God is unavoidably limited by our finite experience: people
are either male or female. Rather than begin a discussion about
God that originates in our own experience, let’s recognize
that no human language is inherently capable of perfectly representing
the Divine. Additionally, let’s consider the ways in which
our images of God are often intimately connected to cherished
traditions or theological convictions. And, let’s not
forget that some language for God can call up painful reminders
of ways in which Christians have failed to live out their callings
as children of God.
What can be done about our language for God—especially
when studying biblical texts that present God in language that
is clearly male? In The Present Word study of John’s
Gospel, I encourage all of us to focus on what this special
relationship teaches us about the character of God. The title
“Father” emphasizes how a transcendent God is brought
near to us through the One whom God sent, that is, Jesus. The
Father–Son image enriches our experience of God because
it is a window into Jesus’ own understanding of his identity
and mission, his own experience of God, and his obedient response
to God’s will. |
