704 - Article on "God the Father"

Download paper_704.pdf

Rejected

Comments

[sheryl colter]

My impression is this resolution binds us to define God as Father only. I recognize the sensitivity to the reactionary elimination of the use the title Father for God, but I want to also be careful we do not restrict our dialogue about the nature of God and His attributes. Perhaps a clarification of the need to use inclusive language but not at the expense of correct biblical interpretation and theology?

[Curtis Turner]

Disparate elements in Christendom want to change the Father god to mother God (Sophia)as well. At least one Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, would think of elevating Mary to the godhead, making more than a trinity. Jesus referred to God as his Father and he gave that relationship a significant place by emphasizing it to his disciples, alway rendering deference to God his heavenly Father. Shall we not do the same?

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

I must respectfully disagree with Sheryl Colter, even as I value her concerns. My reading of the resolution is that it establishes a baseline of what must be said about the first person of the Trinity, not a fence of what must not be said. None of our Articles of Religion are meant to exhaust what Scripture, tradition, reason and experience may say about any subject, be it God, salvation, or whatever. We may say more than that God is Father, Almighty, and Creator, but we dare not say less, lest we slide into pagan ways of thinking about the divine.

[Mark Adams]

I support 704 for the sake of consistency with orthodox statements of the doctrine of God. It is an asymmetrical theological statement to begin the doctrine of God with a statement of the trinity, but to eliminate a statement on God the Father. While it may be inadequate to leave the statement with the creedal “We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth” it is an orthodox statement grounded in the historic faith which, through inclusion, promotes a fuller statement of the doctrine of God than exists at present.

Unfortunately, I think there is sometimes an unhealthy over-reaction to elements of radical feminist theology. The work of some feminist theologians (check out Letty Russell) can be a healthy challenge to many in the Free Methodist Church who proclaim doctrinally and through polity a clear understanding of gender equality, and yet who still tend toward androcentric patterns of behavior. The biblically revealed nature of God is clearly not male and not female, but something different and a nature which required the creation of humanity as male and female in order for humanity to share the imago dei. However, if such a statement were to require doctrinal or practical clarification, it would not be in an article affirming the first person of the trinity.