Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for God

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2001 by Morse, John H

Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for God. By John W. Cooper. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998, 301 pp., $19.99 paper.

The gender-inclusive language debate has yet to reach its zenith in theological and pastoral circles. In theological circles the debate centers around the validity of gender-inclusive language as an adequate model for speaking about the Godhead, whereas in pastoral circles the discussion tends to focus more on the practicality of such a model. John Cooper's work masterfully reaches both circles. The purpose of the book is to make a contribution to the theological debate, yet it also raises the question of whether it is prudent to employ such a model in the Church.

Cooper argues for the necessity of using the revealed Biblical language when speaking of the Godhead. Foundational for his approach is a high regard and even reverence for God's self-revelation in Scripture, coupled with an insistence on the correct employment of Biblical language as it refers to God. Cooper is quick to acknowledge the adequate usage of feminine language in the Bible as it refers to God, but he rightly points to the restricted nature of such language. He argues that maternal references for God in the Bible only occur in the form of similes, analogies, metaphors, and personifications, never in the form of titles or names for God.

Cooper's work moves cogently from the identification of the debate through its various facets to a comprehensive and praxis-oriented solution for both circles. After beginning the work with a chapter defining the gender-inclusive language debate, he moves into an explanation of the elements that comprise the gender-inclusive language position. Cooper's argument against the usage of inclusive language focuses on the weaknesses of various theological and philosophical arguments for inclusive language. The more significant inclusive statements that he refutes include: (1) God accommodated a patriarchal society that authored the Biblical material; (2) revelation occurs in a woman's experience; (3) both men and women image God equally; (4) people name God; and (5) the words father and mother are equally metaphorical. Cooper is fair in representing the position of those who hold to an inclusivist position. However, he rightly points out that the inclusivist position inherits a number of theological and linguistic problems, namely, an inability to properly account for the revelation of God as Father and Son in Scripture and an inappropriate use of feminine language for God.

Next, Cooper develops his argument against the inclusivist position by demonstrating that (1) Scripture contains both feminine and masculine language for God, but (2) there is a significant difference between how the Bible uses such language and how inclusivists use such language. He identifies numerous feminine references to God such as the simile of Isa 66:13, the analogy of Isa 49:15, and the personification of Proverbs 8. It is important to note Cooper lists numerous examples of birthing metaphors as maternal (i.e. Num 11:12; Deut 32:18), but he then questions whether these metaphors are referring to God as maternal or to the process of birthing as maternal. Nonetheless, he concludes that these feminine references provide a partial picture of the character of God; however, they do not identify God. God has revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and these identities for the persons of the Godhead are not mutually exchangeable for words such as mother, parent, child or the like. Cooper argues for an understanding of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the revealed identities of God. Since these words are titles and names, they indicate aspects of the one being named. God names himself and in so doing he reveals his character and in some respects aspects of his essence.

Cooper concludes by providing the reader with a number of reasons why the inclusivist position fails to properly reflect Christian orthodoxy, piety, and practice. Chief among these is that employing feminine language for the Godhead violates how God reveals himself. The Trinity can never be adequately reflected by any linguistic construction other than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also, Cooper correctly identifies the connection between inclusive language and panentheism: Full employment of inclusive language for God results in an ontological connection between the Creator and the creation. He argues that there is a real danger of slipping into idolatry when employing inclusive language that does not rightly reflect the Biblical model. Cooper also discounts all claims that the Bible is a sexist body of literature. Yet, having said this, he returns to the wellspring-the fact that Scripture itself provides the model for addressing the Godhead-and argues that this current attempt at linguistic accommodation does not rightly reflect the Biblical model.

The strength of this work lies in its comprehensive critique of the various planks in the inclusivist position, coupled with its insistence on the correct usage of Biblical language in reference to God. Another strength of the work is its comprehensive scope. Cooper (1) addresses the nature of the gender-inclusive language debate; (2) offers theological arguments for and against the gender-inclusive language position; (3) surveys the gendered language for God in Scripture; and (4) argues cogently against the inclusivist position. It is certain that further work remains to be done in a number of these areas; however, Cooper has presented the reader with an adequate discussion of the important issues. One issue not fully addressed but which deserves more attention is the question of why God has revealed himself as Father and Son. Cooper affirms that God has chosen to reveal himself using masculine language, and he demonstrates that this is the overwhelmingly predominant pattern of Scripture. But he never explains why God-beyond obvious divine favor-- has chosen this pattern. Cooper provides a brief explanation of the theological significance of the messianic connection between Father and Son in terms of kinship titles, but he stops short of saying Father and Son are actually names. If Father and Son are names as well as kinship titles, then the theological significance must be explained. In my view, one answer is that God uses masculine language to convey his authority. This issue deserves further treatment.