Abiding in the Father
One doctrine I was not familiar with growing up in a church was the reality of adoption, or sonship. This is the reality that when one becomes a Christian, he or she becomes a son or daughter of God. God becomes our father, our daddy. As Christians, we are his children.
J.I. Packer, in his book Knowing God, explains it this way,
“What is a Christian? The question can be answered in many ways, but the richest answer I know is that a Christian is one who has God for his Father.
But cannot this be said of every man, Christian or not? Emphatically no! The idea that all men are children of God is not found in the Bible anywhere. The Old Testament shows God as the Father, not of all men, but of His own people, the seed of Abraham. ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go…’ (Exodus 4:22). The New Testament has a world vision, but it too shows God as the Father, not of all men, but of those who, knowing themselves to be sinners, put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their divine sin-bearer and master, and so become Abraham’s spiritual seed. “Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus…ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed” (Galatians 3:26). Sonship to God is not, therefore, a universal status upon which everyone enters by natural birth, but a supernatural gift which one receives through receiving Jesus. “No man comes to the Father’- in other words, is acknowledged by God as a son- ‘but by me’ (John 14:6).”
We become God’s children by his work, not ours. John says that God “calls us children, and so we are” (1 John 3:1). And as God is our father, he provides for us, as a father should. Now, perhaps this provision is not in the way we would want him to, but in the way that is best for us. This is similar to a dad giving his child some medicine that the kid hates and it tastes terrible, yet it is for the child’s good. We are led to obedience of this benevolent father, because of his love for us. At the same time our Father disciplines us as a loving father does. And God loves us, as a father should.
I know many people have broken relationships with their parents, and this may be a hard concept to grasp because of this. But we must remember that God’s nature as a father is not dependent on our experience with our fathers. Quite the opposite, the way in which fathers here on earth should reflect the way God treats his children.
I’ve written a lot about confidence on this blog within the theory of knowledge. However, I want ask where does confidence of salvation originate? Is it in our repentance for our sins? Is it in a conversion experience? Or is it in some good feeling that comes with time and prayer? I would like to suggest this reality of the parenthood of God primarily leads us to confidence in Him.
Some might say, “I know I am a Christian because of my repentance.” But this puts the emphasis upon our action of repentance instead of on God’s work. No, I am a Christian because God gives me grace through faith, and that faith leads me to repentance, and because God is true to what he says, I rest in him. Our confidence is never in ourselves, nor just in a conversion experience. While those aspects can be beneficial, they should ultimately point us toward the abiding nature of God himself, as our father, our savior, and our master.
Further reading:
To Own A Dragon, Donald Miller and John MacMurray
-Recommendation from Jim
Knowing God, J.I. Packer
Children of the Living God, Sinclair Ferguson
“However, I want ask where does confidence of salvation originate? Is it in our repentance for our sins? Is it in a conversion experience? Or is it in some good feeling that comes with time and prayer? I would like to suggest this reality of the parenthood of God primarily leads us to confidence in Him.” (Josh)
I would agree with you about the parent thing – but it just plainly not so according to your logic on the subject. Apparently, according to Packer, “The idea that all men are children of God is not found in the Bible anywhere”. There is no confidence to be had there – for as easily as a parent can adopt you – they can transfer you out. Also, Packer’s sentiments on the subject are we “Sonship to God is…a supernatural gift which one receives through receiving Jesus.” There’s a clause to sonship – which means God does not accept us until such and such is agreed upon…that does not make me confident per se in this God.
Salvation, and the confidence thereof, actually come from the most basic of values…love. God loves us – even while were yet sinners (no clause there). Confidence resides in the fact ‘God moved’ towards us – and this movement was ‘loving’. We then embrace that action as best we know how – and try to move towards God. The confidence is that ‘God moved first’ – we ‘moved’ in response.
But salvation is quite topic – as for assurances – I would say there are none. We are not quite ‘saved’ as it were – only in name more or less. Salvation, as I understand it, has to do with going to ‘heaven’ (having a place there for us)…well…that’s no guarantee while here on planet earth and being only ‘adoptees’. Unless salvation is a bigger idea than just going to heaven?
SocietyVs-
“For as easily as a parent can adopt you – they can transfer you out”
This statement is untrue. In the cultural context of the New Testament’s writing, one could never transfer out an adopted child. They could reject their biological child, but never an adopted child. Adoption often occurred later in life as well, so that there would be an inheritor.
My “logic” was actually an attempt to explain in modern terms what John sets out in 1 John. Adoption and love are two huge, related topics.
On the issue of confidence being found in the love of God, I would agree and suggest this as a paternal love.
“Unless salvation is a bigger idea than just going to heaven?”
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I hate how some Christians think of salvation as something we “get now” so that we can end up in heaven. Salvation (though it does mean getting to go to heaven some day) is a reality here and now as well.
John speaks of all the adopted ones going to heaven. Becoming a Christian means becoming God’s child, and being an inheritor of God’s kingdom (along with Jesus).
“But we must remember that God’s nature as a father is not dependent on our experience with our fathers. Quite the opposite, the way in which fathers here on earth should reflect the way God treats his children.”
okay.. but can God be a mother as well? isn’t this anthropomorph’n God?
“In the cultural context of the New Testament’s writing, one could never transfer out an adopted child.” (Josh)
I will take you words on this to be true (unless I hear differently on the subject - which I have not). I could see how adoption would mean equality with the actual children of the home - makes sense.
However, we are not children of God - we are made into children of God. We are not created this way - what are we before we come to God? Aliens? Why does God change his vision when we accept Him? Now we are children of God?
You mention adopted children cannot be cast out - this may be true - but if the real children can be cast out it only goes to prove so can the adopted…the pattern is already set by the parent.
“On the issue of confidence being found in the love of God, I would agree and suggest this as a paternal love” (Josh)
Then God is our Father prior to faith in Christ. God loved sinners before they loved Him - making God the parental figure all along - we just needed to recognize it. I actually agree God’s love is like that of a parent - but even parents love those who estrange themselves from their family.
“Salvation (though it does mean getting to go to heaven some day) is a reality here and now as well.” (Josh)
I agree 100%…but I will ask…how do you figure?
Josh,
MAN. Well written! This was awesome… To Own a Dragon by Miller is a perfect book to illustrate this point. If you all have not read it, I highly recommend it. It isn’t particularly deep or theological, but his personal narrative is an example we can all appreciate.
Luke,
“okay.. but can God be a mother as well? isn’t this anthropomorph’n God?”
Not at all. God has revealed Himself in scripture as a “Father,” not once as a mother. We are only using a descriptor that He has used for Himself.
Societyvs,
“I will take you words on this to be true (unless I hear differently on the subject - which I have not).”
Check out this commentary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HXWNsxX2irkC&dq=conflict+community+corinth+witherington&pg=PP1&ots=nm_kzWvwM2&sig=vtcvrgAyHxjJx5-tVOu7kkc9jMA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=conflict+community+corinth+witherington&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR5,M1
Witherington discusses the Roman system of patronage and adoption. It is a significant theme of Paul’s discussion of adoption, and one that John relies on heavily as well. It’s really interesting stuff. Wright may disagree he overemphasizes the 2nd Temple Judaism influence in Paul’s writing, but it is a classic case of “both/and” instead of “either/or.”
“Then God is our Father prior to faith in Christ. God loved sinners before they loved Him - making God the parental figure all along - we just needed to recognize it. I actually agree God’s love is like that of a parent - but even parents love those who estrange themselves from their family.”
Check out Ferguson’s book (Josh linked it). It is amazing, and explains exactly this. In short, God is a Father, but not OUR Father until that time. God can love those who are not His children, even as a Father, but He is not OUR Father until we have right relationship with Him.
Luke,
On my post and this one, you made comments concerning the gender of God. I think I understand where you are coming from, and I half agree. Let me explain.
Jesus is a man, and is thus male in gender. For Him, the pronoun “he” does ascribe gender. God (the Father and the Holy Spirit) do not have gender. When I use the pronoun “he” for God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, it is not to ascribe gender. Because God is personable, and not a “thing,” He requires a pronoun of some kind. Referring to God as “it” (gender neutral) just doesn’t do it, and denies/neglects the very personal nature of God. Why “He” over “She”? Because God refers to Himself as a “He.”
Make sense?
Brad: God does not refer to Godself as a he… the MALE writers of the Bible did. as for the ‘not once as a mother.’ part.. look into Sophia. i think you’ll find a treasure trove of reading.
the greek is quite masculine in the scriptures and God is always male. I don’t buy it. I think God is personable too.. but has neither gender or is a fully realized version of both genders. either way it’s beyond my feeble human understanding.. so why use pronouns at all for God? Just call God, God. you’re not saving any time type’n or saying a two letter word versus a three letter word.
“God does not refer to Godself as a he… the MALE writers of the Bible did.”
Ex. 6:7 - “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.”
All occurrences of “God” and “the LORD” are in the masculine form. God clearly refers to himself using a masculine form. Again, this does not necessarily ascribe gender (only in the case of Jesus), but it is how God refers to Himself.
2Tim. 3:16 - “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable…”
If God did not fully intend for biblical writers to use the male pronoun, they would not have used it.
“as for the ‘not once as a mother.’ part.. look into Sophia.”
What is her argument? The word mother is never used to refer to God in scripture. Marrianne Thompson’s book, The Promise of the Father, makes an argument for the “motherhood of God” based on trajectoral theology. Since the bible does not use trajectoral theology, I’m naturally skeptical of such attempts to play magical chairs with personal preference.
Why is the use of the male pronoun so offensive to you? I agree that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are without gender, but how do you explain Jesus then? Do you believe He is androgynous? Do you believe that referring to God as a “He” is somehow demeaning to or excluding women?
I’m sure there are a slew of authors wanting to promote their own opinion about who God is, but if they do not primarily base their authority in scripture (God’s revelation of who He is), I will remain unconvinced. Truth is not determined by the created, but by the Creator.
so you believe that God wrote the bible?
Sophia is the word of Wisdom provided in Psalms, Proverbs, Eccesiasties, and the Apocrapha. Sophia is the female side of God which John’s author then takes and puts LOGOS which is the masculine form of this concept.
“Why is the use of the male pronoun so offensive to you?”
when God is male, male is god. imagine being raised with an image of God that looks and acts and who’s pronoun doesn’t line up with your own. you’re on the outs. there is no “outs” with God. we are all loved equally and all have the chance to participate in the will of God.
why use pronouns at all? Refer to God as God. there is nothing else like God, so show some respect and call the Almighty by God’s full name. pronouns to me denote ownership and disrespect.
“so you believe that God wrote the bible?”
See Jim’s post on inerrancy:
http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/bees-inerrancy/
Do YOU believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
“when God is male, male is god.”
Says who? Again, I will affirm that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are without gender. But you still haven’t answered my question about Jesus…
i believe the bible should be taken seriously but not literally. context is a big factor. when i read the bible i’m look AT the word of God but looking FOR the word of God.
If Jesus was a woman, given the context, would we know his life today? prolly not.
please refer to my question, why use pronouns at all?
“If Jesus was a woman, given the context, would we know his life today? prolly not.”
Do you realize the implications of this statement? Considering your discussion on your blog about putting God in a box, you are basically stating, “God was unable or forced work within the cultural constraints of the 1st century.” Does that not limit God significantly?
I also don’t think it is that black and white. What about Ruth, Rahab, and Esther? How about the listing of women in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew? Or, probably most significantly, that the first appearance of the risen Christ was entrusted to women?
“Despite” Jesus’ maleness, the Bible does an awfully good job of transcending gender stereotypes.
“please refer to my question, why use pronouns at all?”
Please see my answer in comment #6.
Additionally, it is because that is the way He refers to Himself in scripture using human language (see Ex. 6:7 and explanation in #8). I have no problem referring to God without the personal pronoun (I’m not refusing to refer to God as “God” at all), but to intentionally avoid it denies the way He has revealed Himself to us. That’s a problem for me.
““Despite” Jesus’ maleness, the Bible does an awfully good job of transcending gender stereotypes.”
you’re right on that! it sure does. Jesus being male is significant but not as you suggest in “God was unable or forced work within the cultural constraints of the 1st century.” but that God worked WITH the cultural constraints of the 1st century. God is working with you and me to become pastors.. despite the fact that we’re flawed. God will work with our own constraints because God truly knows us.
I’m just sensitive with using the pronoun HE as i don’t want to offend all the SHES out there. i feel that by not using a pronoun, it makes God more accessable and reveals more of the nature of Gods transcendence.
i’m not willing to overlook the fact that the scriptures were written largely by males and have a particularly male bent to them. it was written by males for males. that’s a problem for me. as i stated before when i read the bible i’m look AT the word of God but looking FOR the word of God.
Luke,
SOOO close!!! I was so close to agreeing with your entire response…. I only have two (minor) beefs:
1.) “i feel that by not using a pronoun, it makes God more accessable and reveals more of the nature of Gods transcendence.”
No doubt that God is infinitely transcendent. I appreciate that emphasis too, and feel it is often lost on a culture that values “buddy Jesus” way to much. But it should not be over-emphasized, because God is both transcendent and immanent. The pronoun is a subtle but constant reminder of that.
And I understand that there are many women out there who have been harmed by men, and are uncomfortable “submitting” to God when both “submission” and “men” have a jacked up meaning for them. The goal is not to avoid it, but to redeem its use. Similarly, many of us have deadbeat dads, or abusive fathers. We don’t stop referring to God as a “Father” because it might offend, instead we redeem the role and show them what TRUE Fatherhood looks like.
2.) “it was written by males for males.”
By males? Sure. For males exclusively? Not by a long shot. Women could certainly relate to it. Paul’s first disciple in Phillippi was a woman named Lydia (Acts 16:14). One of his most trusted deacons (and probably delivered his Letter to the Romans) was a woman named Phoebe (Romans 16:1). Also, the factors I included in #13…
There is overwhelming evidence that proves that the Bible was written for all people, regardless of gender, race, culture, or any other factor. It is God’s word for the entirety of His creation. I wholeheartedly affirm and support equality between the genders. But a pendulum swung too far in the other direction is still too far. Just because the Bible was (likely) written by men, does not mean that it is inherently misogynistic to any degree.
wow! i really love our discussions here. i’m happy that you’re aware of how the masculine use can be hurtful.. this mindfulness is key. so thank you for that. just a few clarifications and then i’m happy:
“The goal is not to avoid it, but to redeem its use.”
sounds great! i won’t call you to the carpet on this issue again as you’ve demonstrated a deep level of understanding on this issue. thanks! i on the other hand will avoid pronoun use and let ppl substitute their own for our they see God revealed in their lives.. i’ve felt God both as a Father and a Mother at various times in my life… so how God has been revealed to me in my spiritual journey has been both, so i’ll leave that open for God to continue to reveal Godself in whatever form God chooses.
“Just because the Bible was (likely) written by men, does not mean that it is inherently misogynistic to any degree.”
i largely agree with this. there are some prophetic statements and allegories that hurt to read. Plus Jane Schaberg did an excellent article on Luke in the women’s bible commentary that is worth a gander.
” I wholeheartedly affirm and support equality between the genders. But a pendulum swung too far in the other direction is still too far. ”
i agree.. we humans tend to swing back the other way to the extreme… thus leaving out our brothers in favor of our sisters. we need a fully realized and affirmed notion of gender for BOTH and ALL! not just either/or. thank you for pointing that out. i’ll be more mindful as we continue.
“it was written by males for males.”
2 John was written to a woman.
“The elder (John) to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth” (2 John 1:1).
Just thought I’d point this out
Luke,
And at this point I take a deep sigh of relief…. Communication can sometimes be stressful for me (ask my wife), and it’s awesome to see how this discussion can eventually be found “on the same page.” I too love these discussions. Thanks for sticking it out!
Josh,
We totally hijacked your post. So very sorry!
I like Luke’s debate about God - but I can also feel some of what Brad is saying (balance).
Whether God is a gender is really quite irrelevant as an idea - being that God is a Spirit (and we are not sure of the gender therein). It’s the theological ramifications of the idea that seem to be the problem - ie: a male dominated society within faith systems. This is what we have to ‘wrestle’ with.
Fact is, God is called a ‘Father’ - but I would also chalk that up to cultural over-tones and to role of men in those times. Yael pointed out to me God is ascribed also feminine aspects within the Torah and Prophets - to be honest - inspired people wrote as they best saw fit (to describe what they were revealed)…and this is subject to cultural constraints.
How it impacts us is the role of men and women in our current context. Some churches do not allow women any role of authority due to this theology - which I find unfair. However, even in most families - authority from men means more than authority from women - so I can see why the use of God as an authority would be more ‘male’ orientated. However, I could just as easily say the compassion of women is greater than that of most men - and that was an aspect Jesus taught on quite a bit.
Balance, as Brad points out, is truly the key here. Men and women need to see their faces in God’s also - if they are to relate on some level. This take some consideration so we can respect the creation of God - both male and female He made them.
just posted on my blog on this topic: As a student of languages I find the ‘unnecessary’ emergence of gender classifications for nouns an intriguing one. For instance in all the Latin, Germanic, Slavonic and Celtic languages the word for ‘day’ is masculine and the word for ‘night’ is feminine. From the perspective of the many millions of speakers of those languages one would have to say, when commenting on the day and the night: “It’s been a hard day!” - “Yes he has”, and conversely “What a beautiful night!” - “Yes, she is”. Although linguists would say that these assignments of gender are random and have no essential significance, they cannot help but color the thinking of those who have to use them in their everyday speech.
In Hebrew the word for Spirit is Ruach which is a feminine gender word. Whenever God’s Spirit was referred to in the Old Testament, whether or not the hearer was consciously aware of it, or indeed liked it, the essential nature of God was being attributed to some degree, if only subliminally and subjectively, with female characteristics. Unfortunately this was lost with the New Testament’s use of Greek in which the word for Spirit, Pneuma, is a rather cold neuter word. As a result, generations of Christians have oftened referred to the Spirit as ‘It’. I much prefer the Hebrew ‘original’ … “when the Spirit comes, SHE will guide you into all truth”.
I’m slightly jealous of non-Indo-European languages, such as Finnish, Hungarian, Basque, etc. in which no distinction is made between he and she, or his and hers… “God is good!” - “Yes ** is”… without having to constantly reinforce a male-dominated system.
How is this not a fruitless battle?
God said that He created both men and women in His image. God (the Father and HS) is without gender. Jesus is a man, and thus has male gender. If both men and women reflect the image of God, what is the problem? We both have a stake, a share, and a way to relate because we bear God’s image.
It is a cultural assumption (and I would say a “fallacy”) that the use of the male pronoun inhibits female relationships to God. I am not a woman, but my wife can certainly relate to me, far better and far deeper than she can with any other man or woman.
The relationship defines the intimacy, not the gender (explicit, implicit, or otherwise).
“that the use of the male pronoun inhibits female relationships to God. ”
it has in the past. in some cases still does, but this is not the over-arching case.
Then the question we must then ask is, “why was/is it inhibiting?” It very well may touch an existing (personal/societal/cultural) wound. The answer is not to avoid touching the wound, but to work to heal (redeem) the wound.
You said previously that it is hard for you to relate to God as a Father because you did not have one growing up. I totally understand that, and you are certainly not alone. Don Miller’s “To Own a Dragon” is an amazing story of his personal struggle with fatherlessness and how it affects his view of God. The answer the Bible gives to that painful wound is that God can now be that Father you didn’t have:
Psa. 68:5 - “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows, is God in his holy habitation.”
Is it not better to tackle the totally valid and legitimate problems the text raises in our journey (whether that be the use of the male pronoun or of the title “father”), trusting that God will bring us healing? Healing can be painful. Stitches hurt like Hell. But it beats bleeding.
Indeed, would it not be even more helpful for women to redeem masculinity, so that it need not be inhibiting, but helpful instead? We can avoid it, or we can redeem it.
absent fathers lost sons is another great book from a jungian perspective. thanks for the “To own a dragon” recommendation!
“We can avoid it, or we can redeem it.”
i would avoid it. just like the rap lyric controversy and using the “N” word or not.. i would not. that’s me though. just thought i’d bring in a linguistic perspective for another thing to chew on. i dunno about you but i can always use another perspective!
“just like the rap lyric controversy and using the “N” word or not…”
The problem with that comparison, is the “N-word” was never used in a positive light. Masculine pronouns, and masculinity, and male gender, are all originally good, and the current wound is “not the way it’s supposed to be.”
But to follow that parallel, avoiding the N-word in rap does not heal the wounds of racism anymore than avoiding conflict with your wife prevents arguments (speaking from my experience, anyway).
And besides that, the goal is not to avoid pain, but to actively pursue love and healing. Sometimes pain is necessary towards that end (i.e. stitches).