Our Mother Who Art in Heaven?

My son Joel wrote this article. I include it for your consideration.

The Presbyterian National Assembly recently agreed to allow references to the Trinity to be changed from Father, Son and Holy Spirit to less “sexist” language. There apparently has been some concern in some Presbyterian circles that the masculine reference to the Trinity promotes men as superior to women. Fox News reported that suggestions for alternative phrases were “Mother, Child, and Womb,” “Rock, Redeemer, and Friend,” and “Lover, Beloved, and Love.” It seems that soon we may be hearing some Presbyterians praying, “Our Mother who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…”

Are we to alter what God has said based on our own politically correct worldviews? Nancy Olthoff, the Presbyterian Legislative Committee chair said that the decision doesn’t alter the church’s theological position, but merely “provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership.” One can clearly see in the alternatives that were suggested that the committee carefully tried to pick alternatives that corresponded well to the “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” model, so what is wrong with the change? Let me list several things:

1. The decision to allow alternative designations shows a clear disregard for the belief that every word of Scripture is inspired. When Jesus was challenged to prove the resurrection in Matthew 22, He responded in verses 31-32 by quoting, “I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He then pointed out that God was not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. How could He conclude that? Because of the present tense of the verb “to be.” God said, “I AM,” not, “I was,” or, “I will be.” In other words, Jesus believed that not only was every word of Scripture inspired, but even the verb tenses were inspired. Does the Presbyterian National Assembly truly believe that every word of Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16)? If so, why the change? If not, why bother following anything the Bible says? Did God not have the alternative of choosing some feminine names/pronouns/etc.? Why did He not, if gender was such a non-issue to His character?
   
2. The decision also throws Jesus’ humanity quite a curve ball. Surely a God with foreknowledge would understand that some women might not be able to relate to a male Savior. Why did He not come as a woman, or better yet, just as an “it” so that everyone could relate? Of course if He came as an “it,” who could relate? Hmmm…quite a problem! Why don’t we just stick with Him being a man, as the Scriptures say?
   
3. Finally, though we could go on, the decision gives culture more credence than God. Did Paul or the other New Testament writers cater to Roman culture? If so, why did they not go soft on issues like homosexuality, other kinds of sexual sins, stealing, lying, drunkenness, and all other issues that might offend a group of people? What we see is that cultural concerns did not influence their writings then, nor would they if the inspired men were writing today.
   

The fact that the Presbyterian National Assembly decided this should greatly bother anyone affiliated with them. If they will take steps like this regarding the inspiration of the Scriptures, how can they be trusted with many of the other things they claim to be true? We must have Bible authority for all that we do, not just the approval of large-scale cultural movements of our time. Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday, today and forever.”

Searching the Scriptures makes answering questions such as these easy and it also helps to maintain unity. Life in general, and spiritual life too, is much more simple when we all follow one standard. The Presbyterians may be unified on this teaching but it is likely that the church will divide over the issue. Churches divided over manmade issues, not Biblical issues. -Bill