![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/292\/2014\/05\/ourfather.jpg\" "\\"ourfather\\"")
<\/a>(This is a lengthy piece featuring a good bit of theological engagement. For ease of reading, follow the main sections.<\/em>)<\/p>\nRachel Held Evans has achieved a measure of recognition among evangelicals, appearing on the cover of\u00a0Christianity Today<\/em>, speaking at Q, and giving talks at churches. In recent days, her glowing\u00a0endorsement<\/a>\u00a0of Matthew Vines\u2019s book-length legitimation of \u201cgay Christianity\u201d caught my eye (see the Southern Seminary response, 96 packed pages of dense scholarship, here<\/a>).<\/p>\n Evans has acted in surprising ways before. On April 6, 2012, Evans used startling language to describe God. I missed\u00a0this post<\/a>\u00a0when it came out, as did many others. At the end of a short spiritual reflection on Mary, Evans gave an unexpected description of God:<\/p>\n Mary was not the first, nor the last, mother to hold the broken body of her child in her arms.\u00a0<\/em>\u2026\u00a0<\/em>And, because of today, because of the cross, it is a pain that God Herself understands.<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s just two words: \u201cGod Herself,\u201d written in the context of motherhood. Despite the brevity of this description, this is a show-stopper. It\u2019s genuine \u201cGod as mother\u201d language, the kind we haven\u2019t seen in some time. The heyday of this discourse, of feminist theology, was decades ago. The movement gradually faded as many of its exemplars came to champion homosexuality, transgender identity, a rejection of inerrancy, and other unbiblical views and practices. In large part because of these deviations, it\u2019s been years since this particular challenge to biblical truth arose. As we\u2019ll see below, Evans seems to this point to be following this well-worn course.<\/p>\n Some will read Evans\u2019s words and think of how Scripture occasionally uses metaphors with feminine connotations to describe the character and qualities of God; in Isaiah 66:13, for example, Yahweh says to his covenant people, \u201cAs a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.\u201d (See Evans\u2019s follow-up\u00a0post<\/a>.) This is a gloriously true verse, and there is no hedge in our affirmation of it or others like it. We love the world-rearranging comfort of God. It belongs to the people of God.<\/p>\n But as numerous theologians and the broader Christian tradition have recognized, there is a massive gap between the kind of metaphorical language referenced in Isaiah 66:13 and Hosea 11:3-4 and Matthew 23:37 on the one hand and identifying God as a woman on the other. The gap, in fact, is the difference between fidelity and falsehood, truth and heresy.<\/p>\n 1. For Evans to identify God as a woman is wrong in biblical and theological terms.\u00a0<\/strong>There is abundant biblical substantiation of this claim. In the Old Testament, there\u2019s strong emphasis on the creative action of God\u2019s Word, unlike in other Ancient Near East religions that pictured creation in gynecological terms. The OT\u2019s stress on God\u2019s Word-based creation (see Genesis 1) is altogether different (and thus our names for God are different). In the OT, we find awe-inspiring importance ascribed to the name of God. It is, in sum, his very identity, as we see in Exodus 3:13-15, which reads:<\/p>\n [13] Then Moses said to God, \u201cIf I come to the people of Israel and say to them, \u2018The God of your fathers has sent me to you,\u2019 and they ask me, \u2018What is his name?\u2019 what shall I say to them?\u201d [14] God said to Moses, \u201cI AM WHO I AM.\u201d And he said, \u201cSay this to the people of Israel, \u2018I AM has sent me to you.\u2019\u201d [15] God also said to Moses, \u201cSay this to the people of Israel, \u2018The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.\u2019 This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The name of God is held in similar reverence and continues to be carefully guarded and given throughout the Scripture. In the New Testament, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he began the model petition with the words \u201cOur Father,\u201d for example, guiding them in addressing the first person of the Godhead (Matthew 6:9). The intra-Trinitarian Father-Son relationship is of crucial significance both to high Christology and John\u2019s argument in his Gospel, and the names of each signify much more than just what they would wear on a nametag (see John 10, 13-17). At no point did Jesus or any of the apostles address God the Father with a womanly name. At no point does anyone is Scripture do so.<\/p>\n For the significance of this unbroken pattern with relation to the divine name, see the words of systematic theologian Bruce Ware in the book\u00a0God Under Fire<\/em>:<\/p>\n [T]he Bible never employs feminine metaphorical language\u00a0to name\u00a0God.\u00a0 True, God is sometimes said to be or to act in ways like\u00a0a mother (or some other feminine image), but never is God called \u2018Mother\u2019 as he is often called \u2018Father.\u2019\u00a0 Respect for God\u2019s self-portrayal in Scripture requires that we respect this distinction.\u00a0 While we have every right (and responsibility) to employ feminine images of God, as is done often in Scripture itself, no biblical example or precedence would lead us to go further and to name God in ways he has not named himself\u00a0<\/em>(266-67).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ware\u2019s analysis speaks well to the consensus of orthodox and evangelical theologians over the centuries. His biblical reflection is corroborated by James Kimel, who wrote the following in the edited volume\u00a0Speaking the Christian God<\/em>\u00a0(1992):<\/em><\/p>\n Within Christian usage \u201cFather\u201d is not just one of many metaphors imported by fallen sinners onto the screen of eternity. It is a filial, denominating title of address revealed in the person of the eternal Son. \u201cOn the lips of Jesus,\u201d Wolfhart Pannenberg states, \u201c\u2018Father\u2019 became a proper name for God. It thus ceased to be simply one designation among others\u201d\u00a0<\/em>(204; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology\u00a01:262).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These are notable words, and we should not miss that Wolfhart Pannenberg\u2014no fire-breathing fundamentalist, he\u2014gets this tricky matter exactly right. The title \u201cFather\u201d is the supreme disclosure of the identity of the first person of the Trinity. We consider also the matter of the Holy Spirit and the pronouns used to describe him. On this, Donald Bloesch (by no means a hard-right conservative theologian) comments in\u00a0The Battle for the Trinity\u00a0<\/em>(1985) that \u201cWhile the Hebrew word for Spirit,\u00a0ruach<\/em>, is grammatically feminine in gender, its meaning is either neuter or masculine\u2026.To assert on the basis of the feminine gender of\u00a0ruach<\/em>\u00a0that the Bible therefore provides support for referring to the Holy Spirit as \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cher\u201d shows a lack of both solid biblical scholarship and linguistic understanding\u201d (33).<\/p>\n In his landmark book\u00a0Our Father in Heaven<\/em>, John Cooper observed that \u201cThere are no instances where God is directly identified by a feminine term, even a metaphorical predicate noun. In other words, God is never directly said to be a mother, mistress, or female bird in the way he is said to be a father, king, judge, or shepherd\u201d (89). Furthermore, the Christian church has not historically identified God in womanly terms. The first four major ecumenical creeds, after all, do not name the first person of the Trinity in feminine terms, but as God the Father. In broader church history, there are a few scattered exceptions\u2013Julian of Norwich, for example, widely considered a \u201cproto-universalist\u201d\u2013but the use of feminine language for God simply is not part of the orthodox church\u2019s practice over two millennia.<\/p>\n God, of course, is not a man or a woman. He is spirit (John 4:24). There is no room for Great White American Jesus in our theology. But having made this rather obvious caveat that countless evangelical theologians have made, we note that God\u2019s name is his identity. In the Bible, his name is unswervingly masculine. So, while God is not literally male, the Bible only directs us to address him in masculine terminology. If we do not, we do not only obscure God\u2019s name, but the corresponding pattern of manly leadership in Scripture, which itself derives, ultimately, from\u00a0God\u2019s imprint. Divine Fatherhood profoundly informs human fatherhood, for example.<\/p>\n To address God the Father as a woman is to speak in tones the Scripture never uses, and to collapse the long-understood and essential distinction in theological linguistics between metaphor and analogy. These are technical theological distinctions, to be sure. Not everyone walks around their workplace turning over the difference between theological metaphors and analogies. But before we write off technical doctrinal work, we should consider its importance. The difference, for example, between God the Father and God the Son being homoiousios <\/em>(like substance or essence per the 4th<\/sup>-century Arians) and homoousios <\/em>(same essence per Athanasius and the 4th<\/sup>-century orthodox) is grammatically a dipthong. Spiritually, the difference is heaven and hell.<\/p>\n In a very similar way, speaking of God, and speaking to God, is a matter that calls for the sharpest precision, the greatest reverence. God is likened to a mother eagle, for example, in Deuteronomy 32:11. It is right to find greater understanding of God through this metaphor. But this comparison does not enfranchise us calling God \u201cmother eagle.\u201d Using God\u2019s proper name, the name he has given, is a matter of obedience to biblical authority. We do not have the freedom to make up our own names for God, for to do so would be to remake him and therefore blaspheme him. This is why, in sum, theologian R. Albert Mohler, Jr. recently said to me: \u201cTo call God by the wrong name is to worship the wrong God.\u201d<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Evans\u2019 use of this kind of language does not occur in a vacuum. The larger theological context of her remarks is the embrace of feminine God language among egalitarians and feminists<\/strong>.\u00a0As Randy Stinson made clear in\u00a0a prescient 2003 article<\/a>\u00a0in the\u00a0Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>, advocates of \u201cGod as woman\u201d language do not stop there. Jann Eldredge-Clanton, an outspoken proponent of addressing God in expressly supra-biblical terms, publicly prayed not simply to God as \u201cSister,\u201d but as \u201cMother Eagle,\u201d \u201cBlack Madonna,\u201d and \u201cMother Hen.\u201d Paul R. Smith, author of\u00a0Is It Okay to Call God \u201cMother\u201d?\u00a0<\/em>(1993), is an openly homosexual pastor who not only has a \u201cfemale Jesus hanging on the cross\u201d on his office wall but has opined that \u201cThe church must stop forbidding gay unions if we are to take Paul seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n These examples show a disconcerting link between using unbiblical language to describe God and subsequent adoption of other unbiblical views and practices. But all this only makes sense, as Mary Kassian has pointed out in\u00a0The Feminist Mistake\u00a0<\/em>(2005): \u201cFeminists took a quantum leap\u2026when they moved from observing the feminine characteristics of God to the practice of addressing God with feminine pronouns. When feminists changed biblical language about God, they changed the biblical image of God.\u201d To rename God is to commit blasphemy against him, and in so doing, begin a pattern of doctrinal and ethical deviation from Scripture.<\/p>\n This relates to why Evans\u2019s two-year-old post caught my eye. I was frankly surprised to see her so strongly endorse Vines\u2019s book a few weeks ago. Then her \u201cGod as woman\u201d language was pointed out to me, and things started to click. Though Evans has not extensively used \u201cGod as woman\u201d language, her hermeneutics and theology seem to this point to be following a well-charted course. One thinks of the example of feminist activist Virginia Mollenkott, like Evans from a strongly conservative background (Bob Jones University for Mollenkott, Bryan College for Evans). Mollenkott championed \u201cGod as woman\u201d language, affirmed homosexual behavior as legitimate for a Christian, and endorsed transgender identity. All these Evans has now done: she\u2019s used the language of \u201cGod herself,\u201d she\u2019s endorsed and promoted Vines\u2019s book and noted her lack of opposition to\u00a0\u201cgay rights,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and she\u2019s\u00a0written<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cWe want our LGBT [\u201cT\u201d being transgender] friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.\u201d<\/p>\n We should yearn and pray for persons with disordered sexual desires and gender identities to be gloriously saved in our churches. We cry out to God for this to happen, especially in this confused culture! But this, unfortunately, is not what Evans means. She wants \u201cLGBT\u201d folks accepted without regard to necessary repentance. There is a radicalism in Evans\u2019s sexual ethics that emerges when you connect the dots: like the feminist theologians of prior generations, Evans has used God-as-woman language, approved of homosexuality, and approved of transgender identity. \u00a0This is a disastrous trajectory, for these are not biblical views, and they are not historically Christian or evangelical views.\u00a0Indeed, when one considers Evans\u2019s\u00a0sexual ethics, it is difficult to tell where queer theory ends and biblical doctrine begins.<\/p>\n This sad sequence is not surprising, however, when you remember that Evans chafes at\u00a0inerrancy<\/a>, the exclusivity of Christ (\u201cexclusivism\u201d<\/a>), and the\u00a0apostolic rightness<\/a>\u00a0of Paul. If you reject the cardinal doctrines of evangelicalism, how long can you be considered and treated as an evangelical?<\/p>\n Why engage the views of Rachel Held Evans?<\/strong><\/p>\n Many years ago, Paul told young Timothy that he had to \u201cguard the good deposit\u201d and instructed him to oppose \u201cHymenaeus and Philetus,\u201d who had swerved from the truth (2 Tim. 1:14; 2 Tim. 2:17). You must risk your solitude to defend the truth,\u00a0as I\u2019ve written about<\/a>, and I am thankful for outspoken Christians like\u00a0Kathy Keller<\/a>,\u00a0Justin Taylor<\/a>,\u00a0Tim Challies<\/a>,\u00a0Aimee Byrd<\/a>, and\u00a0Kevin DeYoung<\/a>, who have clearly spoken against biblical compromise in the last several years so that others might flourish.<\/p>\n I want good for Evans. I want her to thrive in Christ. I do not relish engaging her. I\u2019ve done so only a few times in my writings, though I\u2014as with many other conservative evangelical leaders and institutions\u2014have served ably as a not-infrequent target of her ire. Grounding her attacks in an oft-cited instinct for justice, Evans has\u2014by my count\u2014mocked and opposed the following in just the last few years: The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Seminary, Desiring God Ministries, Al Mohler, John Piper, Russell Moore, Tim Challies, Mark Driscoll, myself, Denny Burk, Andrew Walker, Doug Wilson, Jared Wilson, and the list goes on. In April alone, I watched with surprise as, unbidden, she Twitter-crashed not one, not two, but three conservative evangelical conferences in a two-week span: the CBMW National Conference, T4G, and the ERLC Leadership Summit.<\/p>\n In short, Rachel shows no hesitation in scrutinizing the views of others. You could say it this way: for a prophetess of light, Evans sure seems to throw a lot of shade.<\/p>\n With her uninvited Twitter-crashing and public calls for repentance on the part of conservative leaders, Evans is not put-upon, as it might appear. She seeks out conflict when she believes things need correcting. No one has asked her to identify God as a woman. No one has asked her to work to legitimize \u201cgay Christianity.\u201d These are choices, very public choices, that she has made. She certainly does not hold back from engaging those she disagrees with, and she often does so strongly. If she takes a seat at the table of theological discussion and disputation, others will join her there.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n As has been made clear, Rachel Held Evans deviates from biblical doctrine in several places. I grieve over this. I hope it changes, because I want Evans to use her abilities\u2013her humor, her obvious and commendable instinct for justice, her heart for the downtrodden\u2013to build up the church. Praise God, if she will turn away from falsehood, God will immediately receive her. What a miracle. Grace, suffice it to say, is awesome. It has saved a wretch like me.<\/p>\n I write this post in hope\u2013shining, shimmering, glistening, world-and-sin-defying hope. I genuinely believe that Rachel Held Evans may well turn away away from her unbiblical teaching. I have no desire to wound her, but as one convicted of the biblical need to oppose false teaching (see 2 Peter 2) and to \u201ccontend for the faith\u201d (Jude 1:3), I want to pull her back. Foul-mouthed social media attacks against me to the contrary, I love God and his reputation, I love the church, and I love her. I care for her, in fact, enough to speak up. I know that unbiblical doctrine, never biblical truth, always brings pain and disorder as Denny Burk astutely said\u00a0some weeks back<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, as a fellow sinner who is no stranger to fallenness, and who is in need of continual correction, I hope and pray that she will leave her unbiblical doctrine behind and taste the goodness of repentance. That is language that we all may speak, and we all must speak, if we will have God for our Father.<\/p>\n **********************<\/p>\n 1. Further Reading on \u201cGod as Woman\u201d Language:<\/p>\n Donald Bloesch,\u00a0The Battle for the Trinity<\/em><\/p>\n John W. Cooper,\u00a0Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for God<\/em><\/p>\n Wayne Grudem,\u00a0Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth<\/em>, 509-13<\/p>\n Mary Kassian,\u00a0The Feminist Mistake<\/em> (very valuable)<\/p>\n Alvin F. Kimel, Jr., ed.,\u00a0\u00a0Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism<\/em><\/p>\n Two pieces by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.\u2013see\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a><\/p>\n Bruce Ware, \u201cHow Now Shall We Think About the Trinity?\u201d in\u00a0God Under Fire<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 2. Brief excursus on the term \u201cheresy\u201d and \u201cGod as woman\u201d language<\/p>\n The first four councils did not consider this issue, and so \u201cGod as woman\u201d language is not heretical in what one could call the historical sense, the way that Sabellianism, for example, is heretical. But Al Mohler, working off of Harold O. J. Brown (author of the noteworthy book\u00a0Heresies<\/em>) and the broader confessional tradition, has identified a second kind of heresy, that which is a \u201cgospel-negating teaching.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0This usage builds off of 2 Peter 2:1, which references\u00a0aireseis apoleias<\/em>, \u201cdestructive heresies\u201d (the translation of the KJV, NIV \u201984, ESV). The sense here is that the person adopting these views is choosing them to their own destruction.<\/p>\n