Doctrine of God and Inclusive Language
Charles Reed’s “Doctrine of God and Inclusive Language”
This workshop, lead by Anglican minister and professor Charles Reed, was the surprise hit of the conference for me. It wasn’t my first choice for that time slot, but I’m glad I attended the session. You see, I’ve not previously been interested in inclusive language, considering it to be too controversial and quite unnecessary besides. This seminar, which was informative and fun, changed my mind.
The two most basic points made by Reed were first, that the Bible uses a wide range of language to name and describe God; and second, that Jesus’ being male was not a theological concern for the early church, only his being human (fully human and fully God). The book Reed suggests we read on this topic is Paul Smith’s Is It Okay to Call God “Mother”?: Considering the Feminine Face of God. I found the title of the book alarming but, having started the book, find it to be non-confrontational, informative and funny.
Back to the seminar. Reed covered some introductory points on the topic of inclusive language, including the point that one of our most commonly used titles for God, “Father,” occurs only 12 times in the Old Testament. When it is used, Reed pointed out, is when Israel sinned (and in relationship to the king). The use of “Abba” (the most feminine form of “father”) then indicates the personal nature of God, not His maleness. It says that sin broke not just laws, but a relationship. This point Reed also made about the maleness of Christ. Listing Hebrew, Greek and Latin words for maleness and for the gender-neutral term “human,” Reed pointed out that Biblical authors did not choose the words meaning “male” but the words meaning “human” when they described Christ. These words were also used in the Nicene Creed, stating that Christ became truly “human” to save us “humans.”
Reed also listed many of the ways God is addressed or described in the Bible, using not only male and female (a mother, a woman in labor) imagery but also intimate (rock, fortress) and animal (hen with chicks under her wings) references. In the end Reed posed the question, how do we speak of God? He believes that we should follow Biblical patterns by refering to God in many ways - as male, as female, as spirit, as intimate, as animal - so that by using many names and word pictures we may come a little bit closer to illustrating just how big and encompassing God, and His nature, are.
– Shari