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

by John W. Cooper

A recent book asked the intriguing question, Is it okay to call God mother? Many today in church and academic settings are asking the same question. John Coopers Our Father in Heaven offers an even-handed critique of inclusive language for God utilizing insights from philosophical, theological, exegetical, and linguistic studies. Cooper begins by introducing the current movement for inclusive language for God and surveying the standard supporting arguments. He closely examines how the Scriptures address God and points out the critical differences between the Bibles gendered language for God and inclusive language. Cooper also addresses other key issues, such as how supporters of inclusive language approach Scripture, the limits of human language for God, the inability of inclusive language to adequately communicate Christian doctrines, the spiritual dangers of inclusive language for God, and the charge that the God of the Bible is sexist. Coopers investigation of the biblical text leads him to conclude that inclusive language in reference to God is inappropriate, but it also leads him to another conclusion. Since the Bible uses feminine imagery in reference to God, Cooper encourages the church to do the same. In a chapter entitled The Motherly Touch of Our Heavenly Father, he provides specific suggestions for making appropriate use of feminine imagery for God in public worship, church education, evangelism, pastoral counseling, personal devotions, scholarship, and art.

Genres: Theology

301 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1999

About the author

John W. Cooper (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of philosophical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. He has written Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate and Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for God.

Reviews

[Porter Sprigg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really appreciated this book. I think it helped me understand the whole debate rather well while making a convincing case for Cooper's own position. It is fascinating and important to consider the discussion surrounding the gendered language concerning our Almighty Loving God.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bizarre that Cooper argues against God the Mother language in the book, but ends up saying it is ok by the end (with nuance). If it conflates analogical language and proper names, than don't use it. But by the end he says this conflation doesn't nullify the use of the analogical language as a name? Huh?
There was some unclear thinking, and it seems to be due to his attempt to be absolute middle of the road between two options (feminism and patriarchalism).
He calls patriarchalism sinful, without defining it. Obviously, that creates some tension with Scripture which does not condem patriarchalis, and is much closer to endorsing it. Seems to try to position himself as a conservative, but I doubt if an actual conservative church heard a sermon titled "The motherly touch of our Heavenly Father" they would react positively. There was a lack of precision for Theology Proper as well. A major reason God the Father (the subsisting relation) is called Father is because He eternally begets the Son, whereas mothers are not usually said to beget, as it is a seeding action. There is no mention of eternal generation in this book that I recall, which is pondering how one can discuss God the Father without discussing eternal generation.
At first I thought he was just trying to steel-man the feminist argument, but by the end I think he actually sympathized with it.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cooper's treatment of inclusivist language is brilliant and comprehensive. He delineates precisely who he is refuting, and makes a cogent, coherent, and compelling argument against inclusivists language for God from contextual, linguistic, theological, and philosophical spectrumes. He is forthright and gracious in his approach, and concludes that the inclusivists' revisions should be rejected, albeit he affirms that feminine imagery should be embraced so long as it is keeping in step with the biblical witness. This, however, is only imagery, analogy, metaphor, simile, as the bible never once uses feminine nouns or pronouns as direct names or appellitives for God. So while God is beyond gender, the special revelation of the Word given to us by God speaks of God "as if" He were masculine, and we should not bend this revelation on the basis of "gender equality."