THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE⁴¹  

The feminist critique/response to the correlation we have discovered has often been to run what Oddie somewhere calls "the blue censor's pencil ⁴² through masculine terms and replace them with 'non-sexist' terms or, to balance them with added female terms. So, for example, we see

0 God, Mother and Father to us all ... or

In the Name of the Father, S on, and Holy Spirit,
One God, Mother of us all... ⁴³

Carter Heyward's revision of the Nicene Creed simply removes the masculine:

We believe in one God. Holy. Immortal.
Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth ....
..We believe in Jesus Christ, Image of the Invisible God, An eternal showing of the Almighty, God from God,....⁴⁴

Such an approach ought not be derided as the province of extremists. The National Council of Churches in the USA has issued an Inclusive Language Lectionary. 'Human One' has replaced 'Son of Man', and 'Child' has replaced 'Son' in reference to Jesus, for example.

These are not departures from the intention of the text but efforts to convey the primary intention of the Creek and Hebrew terms and expressions according to present day usage and in the context of contemporary understanding of language and linguistic change, that is, the breakdown of the generic character of masculine language.⁴⁵ 

We shall examine such uses of Inclusive Language under three headings: 
1. Talking about God the Father. 
2. Talking about each other. 
3. The difficulty of defining a sexist term.

TALKING ABOUT GOD THE FATHER

The suggested removal of, or addition to the name, 'Father' has probably aroused the most vitriolic discussion in the whole language debate. Many ask with Oddie, "What will happen to God?" This part of the debate illustrates its complexity, and is an excellent vehicle for discovering just what it is that is important.

In looking at `Father' we must ask whether the name is a metaphor or an analogy or a symbol. We use all these language forms to speak of God. The category of a term determines whether or not we may dispense with it. ⁴⁶

According to McFague, a metaphor is the bringing together of two thoughts whose "meaning is a result of their interaction". She uses the metaphor "war is a chess game" as an example. "..both fields or subjects are influenced or changed" by being brought into the relationship. (my emphasis.) Therefore when we say "God is Father", we are using a metaphor according to this understanding of 'Father'.

In fact, the hostility with which any challenge to God the Father is received is in itself the most telling argument against those who say that inclusive language is not important or necessary.  It is clearly very important.  Saying that it is not important is just an early strategy in the attempt to get rid of the issue.

However, 'Father' is not the root metaphor of Christianity, according to McFague. "Its distinctive note ... is a new quality of relationship, a way of being in the world under the rule of God." ⁵⁰ The root metaphor is the Kingdom of God. This means that dispensing with 'Father' does not threaten Christianity. It rather enables us to be enriched by other 'live' metaphors for God which have not become "idolatrous" or "irrelevant. ⁵¹  Indeed, Pastor Sallie Dyck's prayer "Transforming Womb of God" is a rich beautiful prayer. ⁵² And 'Father' is not mentioned.

I was tempted for reasons of space to exclude this section, simply saying "Father" is not a metaphor. However, it is quite important to see why "Father" is not a metaphor. As Tavard says⁵⁴the tradition of analogical thinking in talking about God is "regularly ignored or misunderstood" when asking "Why 'Father' and not 'Mother'. McFague, for example, sees little revealed language, apparently; "religious language is... the halting attempts by specific individuals" to say something about God.⁵⁵ We can no longer see things symbolically, only literally.⁵⁶ Analogy and symbol are abandoned on this basis. I question the assertion that people cannot think that way; whilst Tavard says many "second level" theologians and popularisers have literalised the analogical language used of God, "The mind of the people of God has not been greatly misled." Most Christians don't see God as a literal Father, he asserts.⁵⁷

Ruether sees that Jesus gave us the term Abba ⁵⁸ in her chapter on 'Sexism and God Language' but says that liberating image is taken over by the patriarchy. Analogy is mentioned once, and it is plain that it is understood as metaphor.⁵⁹ In Beyond God the Father Daly sees the 'symbol' of the Father God "spawned in the human imagination". ⁶⁰ 'Symbol' means 'metaphor' even if symbols are not "arbitrarily" decided upon.⁶¹ Daly does not have 'analogy' in her index (I have not read the whole book); we do the naming of God, not God.⁶²  It seems two of the major feminist writers who are formative of a lot of other thinking are ignorant of or choose to ignore the subject of analogy. Thus much secondary literature will be written with the understanding that 'Father' is just a metaphor.

But you can see that I was determined for it not to be a metaphor.  I needed an "analogy" or a symbol or some other device to 'hook me into God.'  I was, quite simply, afraid that if I deserted this I would lose contact with God. This was at a time in life when I had not yet been able to write my Fundamentalism essay, and it shows. Fundamentalism as I encountered it was about a basic lack of existential courage.  It uses the false doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture to guarantee God. As such it denies salvation by grace through faith... there is no faith because Scripture provides the guarantee of truth, not faith in God.

A metaphor implies we define God- "both subjects" in metaphor are influenced. If our talk about God is metaphorical, 

if everything we say about God depends on our power to compare him with something else, it is difficult to know how we are ever to give the word 'God' any meaning or concreteness ... A metaphor.. is essentially an example of language used horizontally... we need also a language which functions vertically ⁶³

McFague notes that metaphors become stale and wear out.⁶⁴ This means that even the evocative power of the 'Kingdom of God' will fade eventually, which leaves one wondering how we maintain the same religion over time. How do we maintain the paradigm if the root metaphors ⁶⁵ that define the limits of the paradigm become irrelevant and must be changed?

The term 'Father' is an analogy and a symbol. It is a symbol in the sense that it goes beyond something we can define with conceptual clarity. Jesus' message is that God is His Father and 

by our incorporation into the crucified and risen Christ, we baptised are now to say he is our Father. [This] is not a metaphor; nor.. a normally operating factual statement. [It is] ...a symbolic statement.⁶⁶

This, l think, reflects the New Testament witness and we can ill afford to reject it. Firstly, although I agree with McFague that it is a "myth that in order for images to be meaningful they must be traditional" ⁶⁷,it is highly debateable that we can create a symbol to replace one we reject. ⁶⁸ As Tavard asks, if the language about 'Father' derives 

from an ontic level which should be accepted because it is first given to us ... can [it] be tampered with [except] at the cost of a denial of nature and an impoverishment of culture?⁶⁹ (my emphasis) 

Secondly, the language of 'Father' is given to us. It is one of the distinctive aspects of the revelation of God in Christ. In the Old Testament God is described as Father 11 times. He is never addressed that way. Except for the cry of dereliction, Jesus "always used this form of address and no other ⁷⁰ 'Father' is also an analogy- an "analogy of proper proportionality". Such an analogy, unlike metaphor, posits no commonality between the subjects compared because they are "strictly heterogenous".

Nothing that is connoted by fatherhood in human experience applies to [God]... What is true of fatherhood on earth cannot be predicated of heavenly fatherhood. [In fact] to speak of the [Fatherhood and Motherhood of God is to] negate human motherhood [and fatherhood] as a proper image for God. All that is said by this type of language is this: in our human experience of fatherhood, of motherhood, especially when lived and understood in the light of the Christian revelation, there is trace of an element that places us on the right direction to relate to God and understand this relationship.⁷¹ (my emphasis.) 

'Father' is not a male projection onto God. It is a judgement of our fatherhood. It is how God reveals Himself. It is therefore not a sexist term, although it may be so corrupted by sinful people. It is a term which anchors the faith; without it we are on the shifting sands of metaphor and simile, seeking to create symbols which cannot be created. 'Father', along with terms such as 'Lord' and 'Creator', is almost a sine qua non for the faith. It is a revelatory anchor by which we know God and test our metaphors and similes which we use to describe Him, and the images by which we experience Him.

John pointed out that the root metaphor of the Kingdom of God had already worn out in NT times, with John preferring to speak of "eternal life" and Paul speaking of the fullness of dying in Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit. Part of our faith in God must be that God through Christ will provide new ways of seeing and being.  What is betrayed often in defence of a special role for "Father" is an essentially static faith that cannot deal with change... again, a lack of existential courage.

We certainly cannot create our own symbols.  They are something which grows out of the experience of our individual lives, of God and of worship (life) together.  So we cannot just create a new symbol.  But we can use the imagery that we feel and find around us.  And using that in worship we will discover new potent symbols.