What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God-Language
In The Battle for the Trinity, Dr. Bloesch tackles the controversial issues surrounding the questions of God-language and their potential as one of the most divisive issues facing the church in the twentieth century. Should God be addressed as Father, Mother or Parent, should Jesus be referred to primarily as the Son of God or the Child of God, did God really reveal himself definitively in the person of his Son Jesus Christ? Bloesch contends that how we speak about God embodies the very core of Christianity and how we ultimately understand the biblical and historical meaning of the Trinity itself. The debates surrounding the Doctrine of God are many, and Bloesch urges the church to respond to the concerns of women that the sacred carries both masculine and feminine dimensions. Bloesch emphasizes that the God of the Bible is not described in masculine terms exclusively, and we err in our failure to recognize it. If Christianity is to remain genuinely Christian", these controversial issues must be dealt with in such a manner that will preserve the full historical and biblical understanding of the Trinity.
164 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1985
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Want to Read
July 23, 2013February 12th, 1987, Rev. Rushdoony discussed Bloesch's book as follows:
One of the very important books published lately is a study by Donald G. Bloesch, The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God Language.
It is a very important book, extremely important. It is about the drive by Feminists to change the wording of the Bible so that the masculine character of the references to the godhead will be removed, so that God can become an it or a she, preferably a she. However, it is more than an analysis of what these people are trying to do. It is, as Dr. Bloesch points out, an attempt to subvert every trace of scholarly honesty and to make it subject to current notions, because it is very clear that the Bible uses the masculine when it speaks of the godhead.
So, to turn the Bible into a propaganda piece for Feminists is, certainly, absurd. However, there are a couple of driving motives behind it. One is Gnosticism. He speaks of the very deep affinity between modern Feminism and Gnosticism. For the Gnostics, bisexuality was an expression of perfection. And, therefore, the godhead had to be both male and female and the true person had to be, in effect, a hermaphrodite. The Gnostics, therefore, did everything they could to subvert the kind of faith that Christianity, a young faith, represented. Gnosticism has had a major revival in such figures as Heidegger the philosopher, Jung, Freud’s associate, Paul Tillich and a number of other theologians. [00:23:06]
As a result, these people are very prone to try to subvert the biblical revelation in terms of Gnostic presuppositions. Moreover, as Bloesch writes, and I quote, “Feminist theology is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only one manifestation of the resurgence of the pre-Christian gods of ancient mythology, the gods of the barbarian tribes as they seek to make a comeback in a time when our culture languishes in a metaphysical vacuum,” unquote.
He documents this at a very great length. But this is not all. The Feminists have worked to revive the ancient goddess religions, Canaanite goddess worship, Baalism. And Baal worship and Feminism have a great deal in common so that today we are seeing a resurgence of precisely those things that are condemned throughout the Old Testament as particularly anathema to God.
The Feminists present woman as a divinity. They have an androgynous view of God. They insist that we must rewrite Scripture in terms of their pagan beliefs.
Well, it is, as I say, a very, very telling book and I strongly commend it to your attention.
One of the very important books published lately is a study by Donald G. Bloesch, The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God Language.
It is a very important book, extremely important. It is about the drive by Feminists to change the wording of the Bible so that the masculine character of the references to the godhead will be removed, so that God can become an it or a she, preferably a she. However, it is more than an analysis of what these people are trying to do. It is, as Dr. Bloesch points out, an attempt to subvert every trace of scholarly honesty and to make it subject to current notions, because it is very clear that the Bible uses the masculine when it speaks of the godhead.
So, to turn the Bible into a propaganda piece for Feminists is, certainly, absurd. However, there are a couple of driving motives behind it. One is Gnosticism. He speaks of the very deep affinity between modern Feminism and Gnosticism. For the Gnostics, bisexuality was an expression of perfection. And, therefore, the godhead had to be both male and female and the true person had to be, in effect, a hermaphrodite. The Gnostics, therefore, did everything they could to subvert the kind of faith that Christianity, a young faith, represented. Gnosticism has had a major revival in such figures as Heidegger the philosopher, Jung, Freud’s associate, Paul Tillich and a number of other theologians. [00:23:06]
As a result, these people are very prone to try to subvert the biblical revelation in terms of Gnostic presuppositions. Moreover, as Bloesch writes, and I quote, “Feminist theology is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only one manifestation of the resurgence of the pre-Christian gods of ancient mythology, the gods of the barbarian tribes as they seek to make a comeback in a time when our culture languishes in a metaphysical vacuum,” unquote.
He documents this at a very great length. But this is not all. The Feminists have worked to revive the ancient goddess religions, Canaanite goddess worship, Baalism. And Baal worship and Feminism have a great deal in common so that today we are seeing a resurgence of precisely those things that are condemned throughout the Old Testament as particularly anathema to God.
The Feminists present woman as a divinity. They have an androgynous view of God. They insist that we must rewrite Scripture in terms of their pagan beliefs.
Well, it is, as I say, a very, very telling book and I strongly commend it to your attention.
December 13, 2012
Good book overall... challenging... edifying... pastoral. A bot dated in some places, but not really... he may have been talking to a different group of people (battling different names) but the content of the battle remains the same, even if the names have changed. Very helpful book... really and truly.
March 13, 2021
A really good book on the debate on inclusive God language.
Bloesch is always well researched and thoughtful. Bloesch is worried that feminism wants to impose a resymbolization of the faith, and if this is done, real theological knowledge about God is compromised and the capacity for the Bible to challenge culture is diminished. He is concerned that feminism is a form of Gnosticism and paganism (as some of its proponents advocate the infusing of ideas from these into Christianity), and if this is so, it is very similar to how, as Bloesch argues, Nazi's succeeded a resymbolization of the Christian faith in Germany.
Bloesch is hard to say a simple yes or no to because he is such a rich and complex mind. Bloesch is concerned that the authority and priority of scripture over culture is maintained. That is good. Is all feminism a pagan or Gnostic attempt to infuse those ideas into Christianity? While some have attempted that, others would not. The work of feminists today like Elizabeth Johnson, Sarah Coakley or Mary Lacugna, would all be examples of feminists that give priority to scripture and christian tradition in how they think about the dignity of women. So, in that regard, Bloesch attacks a straw man (or women for that matter).
Can one use inclusive language about God? Bloesch is rightly worried about a grand resymbolization of the faith that bulldozes the historical particularity of the biblical documents. However, he also admits that there IS feminine and motherly language in the Bible, and actually, does admit prayers using "mother" and the Holy Spirit as "she" are indeed allowable. He just does not see them as replacing or correcting the classic language of Jesus in the Lord's Prayer or Baptismal formula for instance.
It is also important to note that Bloesch was a lone wolf as an evangelical that held to women's ordination. So there is some credibility here for him, in that he is not some dismissive fundamentalist, claiming that "God is a father and that women must submit but that isn't sexist because it's biblical." Bloesch was far more considerate.
So, this is a great little book. There is lots of rich research presented here. Does Bloesch's argument stand? Again yes and no. Later writers, like Elizabeth Johnson has offered very convincing case for feminine God language as biblically possible for every member of the trinity in certain ways, and she argues this using the resources of scripture and tradition. On the other hand, Bloesch's concern against a imposed resymbolization is a good and enduring caution.
Bloesch is always well researched and thoughtful. Bloesch is worried that feminism wants to impose a resymbolization of the faith, and if this is done, real theological knowledge about God is compromised and the capacity for the Bible to challenge culture is diminished. He is concerned that feminism is a form of Gnosticism and paganism (as some of its proponents advocate the infusing of ideas from these into Christianity), and if this is so, it is very similar to how, as Bloesch argues, Nazi's succeeded a resymbolization of the Christian faith in Germany.
Bloesch is hard to say a simple yes or no to because he is such a rich and complex mind. Bloesch is concerned that the authority and priority of scripture over culture is maintained. That is good. Is all feminism a pagan or Gnostic attempt to infuse those ideas into Christianity? While some have attempted that, others would not. The work of feminists today like Elizabeth Johnson, Sarah Coakley or Mary Lacugna, would all be examples of feminists that give priority to scripture and christian tradition in how they think about the dignity of women. So, in that regard, Bloesch attacks a straw man (or women for that matter).
Can one use inclusive language about God? Bloesch is rightly worried about a grand resymbolization of the faith that bulldozes the historical particularity of the biblical documents. However, he also admits that there IS feminine and motherly language in the Bible, and actually, does admit prayers using "mother" and the Holy Spirit as "she" are indeed allowable. He just does not see them as replacing or correcting the classic language of Jesus in the Lord's Prayer or Baptismal formula for instance.
It is also important to note that Bloesch was a lone wolf as an evangelical that held to women's ordination. So there is some credibility here for him, in that he is not some dismissive fundamentalist, claiming that "God is a father and that women must submit but that isn't sexist because it's biblical." Bloesch was far more considerate.
So, this is a great little book. There is lots of rich research presented here. Does Bloesch's argument stand? Again yes and no. Later writers, like Elizabeth Johnson has offered very convincing case for feminine God language as biblically possible for every member of the trinity in certain ways, and she argues this using the resources of scripture and tradition. On the other hand, Bloesch's concern against a imposed resymbolization is a good and enduring caution.
July 18, 2024
A CRITIQUE OF "INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE" IN THE CHURCH
Donald G. Bloesch (b. 1928) was from 1957 until his retirement in 1992 professor of theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa; he has written other books such as 'Essentials of Evangelical Theology' and 'Is the Bible Sexist?'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "My purpose is not to give a systematic exposition of the Trinity, but instead to show how the resymbolization of the language of faith decisively alters the way in which God and the world are conceived... the debate on religious language has far-reaching implications for the understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. This book should be seen... as a warning against current attempts ... to alter the traditional language of faith."
He states that the church constitutes "the feminine dimension of the sacred." In the Bible, Israel is portrayed as the "wife" of God, even as the church is called the "bride of Christ." Nevertheless, he notes that even feminist theologians "reluctantly acknowledge" that the language about God in the Bible is "overwhelmingly masculine." (Pg. 33) He points out that although God is said to be LIKE a mother, in the canonical (i.e., non-apocryphal) Scriptures he is never CALLED "mother." (Pg. 34)
He acknowledges the "feminine dimension of the Son," which is located in the Godhead itself, as the Son is equated with Wisdom, who is feminine in relation to the Father as his helpmate in creation, and who exercises a motherly and sisterly role in relation to the people of God. (Pg. 50)
Although there are lots of more recent books on the subject, this book by a noteworthy theologian is still of interest to anyone studying the matter of inclusive language.
Donald G. Bloesch (b. 1928) was from 1957 until his retirement in 1992 professor of theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa; he has written other books such as 'Essentials of Evangelical Theology' and 'Is the Bible Sexist?'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "My purpose is not to give a systematic exposition of the Trinity, but instead to show how the resymbolization of the language of faith decisively alters the way in which God and the world are conceived... the debate on religious language has far-reaching implications for the understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. This book should be seen... as a warning against current attempts ... to alter the traditional language of faith."
He states that the church constitutes "the feminine dimension of the sacred." In the Bible, Israel is portrayed as the "wife" of God, even as the church is called the "bride of Christ." Nevertheless, he notes that even feminist theologians "reluctantly acknowledge" that the language about God in the Bible is "overwhelmingly masculine." (Pg. 33) He points out that although God is said to be LIKE a mother, in the canonical (i.e., non-apocryphal) Scriptures he is never CALLED "mother." (Pg. 34)
He acknowledges the "feminine dimension of the Son," which is located in the Godhead itself, as the Son is equated with Wisdom, who is feminine in relation to the Father as his helpmate in creation, and who exercises a motherly and sisterly role in relation to the people of God. (Pg. 50)
Although there are lots of more recent books on the subject, this book by a noteworthy theologian is still of interest to anyone studying the matter of inclusive language.
August 20, 2018
A dense book diving into the way feminism seeks to re interpret God in a way that sees the Divine reality through the eyes of modern culture rather than letting the Bible's symbols, culture, and themes define Him for us.
December 12, 2016
I do enjoy reading Bloesch, and I do enjoy reading books that defend the Trinity. So probably not a big surprise that I enjoyed this book.
I appreciated that the Author correctly (in my opinion) separated the inclusive language use in modern Scripture Translation between "God Language" and general situations. I don't have any problem with Paul addressing "Brothers and Sisters" rather than "Brothers", for example, but I struggle to see good arguments for references to God as "Father", being changed to "Mother" or "Parent". This book is only dealing with the proposal of inclusive language when it comes to referring to God, and in particular to the persons of the Trinity.
The Author does not ignore the various Feminine aspects of God throughout Scripture, nor does he try to argue that God is male. Rather that God has revealed himself using these masculine terms, whilst incorporating the feminine aspects of his nature. Not surprisingly, the Author does a better job at this then I do in my summary.
Examination of various proposals and arguments from Feminist Quarters, as well as from Process Theology are well handled, and gave me much to think about. The Author's examination of the German Christians during the rise and rule of National Socialism was quite enlightening. I think his warning to the Evangelical Church of the 21st Century is quite valid, and he carefully avoids falling into either a "conspiracy theory" approach, nor into "throwing the baby out with the bath water" approach.
Even if we disagree with the Author's analysis of various groups, or with his conclusions, I believe he does raise many good issues for us to think about.
I appreciated that the Author correctly (in my opinion) separated the inclusive language use in modern Scripture Translation between "God Language" and general situations. I don't have any problem with Paul addressing "Brothers and Sisters" rather than "Brothers", for example, but I struggle to see good arguments for references to God as "Father", being changed to "Mother" or "Parent". This book is only dealing with the proposal of inclusive language when it comes to referring to God, and in particular to the persons of the Trinity.
The Author does not ignore the various Feminine aspects of God throughout Scripture, nor does he try to argue that God is male. Rather that God has revealed himself using these masculine terms, whilst incorporating the feminine aspects of his nature. Not surprisingly, the Author does a better job at this then I do in my summary.
Examination of various proposals and arguments from Feminist Quarters, as well as from Process Theology are well handled, and gave me much to think about. The Author's examination of the German Christians during the rise and rule of National Socialism was quite enlightening. I think his warning to the Evangelical Church of the 21st Century is quite valid, and he carefully avoids falling into either a "conspiracy theory" approach, nor into "throwing the baby out with the bath water" approach.
Even if we disagree with the Author's analysis of various groups, or with his conclusions, I believe he does raise many good issues for us to think about.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews