I need to include footnotes. Set these two articles in theological context. Aim to locate the two particular articles in the context of the larger debate, and in context of larger theological issues. In other words, what light is shed on the articles by the other articles? I just need this between 700-900 words. Gail Ramshaw, Karen Leigh Stroup, and Letty Russell DON’T support father lang. Ted Peters, Kathryn Greene-McCreight, and Roberta Bondi support father lang. Here is what I wrote for the two articles:
According to Karen Leigh Stroup’s article, “GOD OUR MOTHER: A CALL TO TRULY INCLUSIVE GOD LANGUAGE,” Stroup opposes father language use because Christians would be too focused on God’s physical traits than God’s fullness. Also, Stroup conveyed that father language use is connected to gender roles. With Christian’s father language use, Stroup fears individuals would not have a genuine and close relationship with God. For instance, Stroup affirms that members of the Church have destructive relationships with their earthly father. With that instance in mind, Stroup believes that pastors would not be fulfilling their role of preaching the scriptures if the members of the Church only saw God as a father. Instead, Stroup believes that all language is metaphorical. For her belief, Stroup utilizes a rock’s symbolistic traits to describe God instead of a rock’s physical traits. With her connection, Stroup conveys how the father language is meant to be taken metaphorically instead of literally. However, when individuals refer to God as father, Stroup believes that God is limited to masculinity, certain activities, and qualities. When words to describe God become more important than knowing God’s fullness, Stroup articulates that human construction would become an idol. Therefore, human construction would stand on the same pedestal as or a higher pedestal than God. If everyone describes God with gender-free language, Stroup confidently believes that anyone can read into the language. Plus, Stroup sensed that majority of Christian worshippers would already know that God is a male. With gender-free language, Stroup hypothesizes that everyone would be satisfied and comfortable. Overall, Stroup asserts that Christians do not have one male god and one female god. Christians only have one god who encompasses all things. Also, there is a misconception mentioned in Stroup’s article. The misconception is Christians assume that God is a male if the figure begets, and Christians assume God is a female if the figure nurtures. However, God’s nurturing and fights against injustice are both feminine and masculine. Fundamentally, Stroup perceives language such as “mother,” “she,” “her,” “father,” and “man” as biological categories. With father language, God would not be a body greater than male and female. Secondly, according to Ted Peters’ article, “On Adding Divine Mothers to the Bible,” Peters utilizes claims against modern feminist theology. He asserts that inclusive language theology is part of modern feminist theology that lacks strong, genuine assumptions and does not have a clear answer on whether or not Christian theology teaches that God is an oppressive Father. To prove his argument, Peters includes a classic example of the ambiguity from the ILL (Intellectually Language Lectionary) Appendix. On the one hand, Peters recognizes that the ILL Appendix avers that God is the Father to the Son. With the father-son relationship, Peter also recognizes that the ILL Appendix declared that Christians are brought into this relationship because they are adopted as heirs. On the other hand, Peters recognizes that the ILL Appendix places God in an awful light by comparing Him to a Zeus-like figure causing earthly authorities to take their cues from “Him.” Therefore, Peters recognizes vague answers to questions about who the ILL Appendix author is attacking, if the ILL Appendix is teaching the doctrine of Zeus, if the ILL Appendix is a misreading of the Christian church’s teachings, and what the status is on the ILL Appendix’s second paragraph. However, Peters counters by declaring Heavenly Father’s actual figure as caring, accessible, and revered. Peters claims those traits to be the true call of inclusivity instead of mother language use. Therefore, Peters perceives the mother language use as a sin because mother language use would reconstruct God’s image and order of society. With Christians reconstructing God’s image, they would make themselves the standard-setters and be the ones choosing right from wrong instead of God. Also, Peters credits the possibility of mother language leading to Christians taking God’s role as the standard-setter to the contemporary feminist theology about evils of social oppression due to human faithfulness to the divine paradigm. Fundamentally, Peters does not believe that attributing goddess qualities to God would not positively contribute to attaining social justice for women because the Inclusive Language Committee would be reconstructing God’s word to fit modern feminist theology. Instead, Peters suggests Christians to focus on interpreting the Bible’s ancient symbols instead of developing new symbols. With the Bible’s ancient symbols, Peters recommends Christians to think of God as their Father in heaven. If Christians were to perceive God as their Father in heaven, Peters believes they would more likely copy God in their social relationships and not advance the cause of gender equality on earth. Overall, Peters believed “our Father in heaven” coming from Jesus’s mouth would be the closest to the revelation of God than Christians’ current ethical agendas.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|