Once again, I was reading through the letter to the Ephesians. At the end of chapter 3, one of my favorite prayers occurs. And so, since I have never made a public translation of it, I decided to translate it and post it on social media as "A Prayer for us all". Here it is:
Because of this gift, I bow my knees before The Parent [of us all], from whom all parenthood in the heavens and on the earth is named: I pray, according to the riches of his Glory, that God would give to you all the power to be strengthened through his Spirit within the depths of your personhood, so that The Chosen One may dwell in your hearts, through his faithful [promise], [that you may] be rooted and grounded in Divine Love, so you are empowered to grasp, with all those set apart [by God], what is the width and length and height and depth [of Divine Love], and also to know the Divine Love of the Chosen One which surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up fully with all the fullness of God! (St. Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3.14-19, my translation from Greek)
Very soon after posting, a good friend of mine asked why I used "Parent" in verse 14 rather than "Father", since Father is the common translation and most direct rendering of the Greek πατήρ (Pater, from which we get words like paternal, patriarchy, patriotism, and by a long derivation, Father). This is a really good question, which cuts right to the heart of the nature of how we use language about God, as well as how we understand God in relation to gender. And so, what started as a quick explanation turned into this:
The whole question revolves around the purpose for which we are translating Scripture. Are we producing a "devotional translation" intended to help people connect emotionally and spiritually with God, or an "academic translation" intended to clarify and specify truth claims about God? The purpose of my translation was devotional, intended to communicate God’s Love for us all. I’ve known enough people with awful fathers, and people with awful mothers, to know that sometimes πατήρ is best translated as Parent or even Caretaker. This is because theological language is analogical, and nothing we say of God can be literally and empirically true. This sounds like a shocking claim to many, but it is actually a very old concept. The fact that theological language is analogical rather than literal was noted way back into the early Church, but most notably by Thomas Aquinas as he explained the doctrine of analogy in his Summa Theologiae.
Let's take a statement that seems to be easily literal: "God exists". This is not literally true because literal existence is something that can be empirically proven about beings in the universe. When we say Bob exists, or that rock exists, or a hurricane exists, we can then find empirical evidence of that existence. Literally, to say something exists is to say something can be found in the Universe. But God cannot be found IN the Universe (at least not outside of the Incarnation). God is not a “Being” among other beings that can be found with a microscope or telescope. That would actually make God less than God because God would be seen as just another Being upheld by existence, just like all the other beings, even if God is the Supreme example of such beings (the biggest, most powerful being). Rather God is the Reality that makes any being possible in the first place. All of that is to say, even the phrase “God exists” is analogically true, but not literally true. It takes a concept we are familiar with (existence) and posits it of God, to affirm the Reality of God, but in a way that transcends far beyond existence as we think of it. In this case, it means something like “There is an Ultimate Reality that makes all other realities possible, and that Ultimate Reality we label God, and that Reality is Real”.
And so, just as saying "God exists" is analogical, all other language of God is analogical as well. God does not literally cover us with his wings nor is God literally a shield to us, as the Hebrew Scriptures tell us. These are important truths about God's relationship to us, but they are true by analogy, not by literal empirical investigation. Likewise, even New Testament affirmations such as "God is Light" and "God is Love" (both out of 1John) are not literally true, but true by analogy. After all, God is not literally like the radiation emitted from the sun or a lightbulb, nor is God literally the same kind of loving relationship as we have with our spouse or friend or family members. And so, God as "Father" is a powerful analogy, it is a true analogy, and it is Jesus' preferred analogy. But it is still an analogy.
In the ancient patriarchal world, where a family was constituted by a male head, it was a particularly powerful analogy of God being the center of a relational system of care and concern. The downside is that women were thereby demeaned, and even in many educated ideological systems (such as that of Aristotle) women were not even considered fully human unless connected with a man. Even Judaism was infected with these gender-demeaning ideas (despite texts like Genesis 1.26-29). Some philosophical schools such as various Platonic and Pythagorean movements considered women equal to men, but they were outliers.
So the power of the analogy of Father really works for beings with dual genders, where the male gender is considered superior and in charge of others (albeit with care and concern). But in a culture where both men and women are considered equally human and equally responsible for family wellbeing, it is not necessarily as powerful of an analogy. Also in a society that has become increasingly aware of how past patriarchal power structures have been used to systematically silence and demean and exclude women's voices, there is an additional layer of baggage that has to be deconstructed in order to hear God as "Father" in the way the New Testament intended it. And for people whose experience of fathers may be absent, neglectful, cruel, or abusive, God as "Father" could be a positively detrimental analogy.
So what are we trying to communicate with the word “Father”? Are we trying to communicate that God literally has a penis and testes? No. We know this is not literally true of God apart from God's Incarnate form. Are we trying to communicate that God rules over the family as the sole source of power and authority? Perhaps. But generally the people who really want “Father” to equal “Dictatorial Authority” have really problematic ethical values that oppose what we see in Jesus, who emptied out his power and authority and took on the form of a human servant (cf. Philippians 2). Besides, if we really want to communicate God’s power and authority, we have much better analogical titles: Rock, Mountain, Master, King of kings, Lord of lords.
So what ARE we trying to get at with “Father”? I think we are creating a verbal package to carry concepts like: Unconditional Love. Procreative Source of Life. Protective Presence. Redemptive discipline. Teacher and Guide. Advocate and Caregiver and Provider. I think these are what the analogy “Father” distinctly communicates at its best. I think this is what Jesus intended when he taught us to pray "Our Father in Heaven", and when Paul affirms that we have "One God and Father of All" in Ephesians.
But for people who have crappy Fathers, this might not work. And out of the thousands of people I have done ministry with, I would say 1 in 5 have really conflicted relationships with their Dads (about the same ratio for Moms too). So, to split the difference and convey the essential meaning to all readers, I decided to go with "Parent". If we looked at the meaning of πατήρ as a Venn diagram of overlapping meanings, we would note that the primary overlapping meanings include "Adult male" and "Parent". On our planet, a Father is a parent who is male, while a Mother is a parent who is female. So, an accurate translation of πατήρ would include "Parent", even without specifying "Adult male" (since God is not literally an adult male in any account).
Furthermore, there is a quirk in the text itself. Ephesians 3.14-15 states "κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται". This literally translates as "I bow my knees toward the father, from whom all fatherhood in [the] heavens and upon earth is named". This juxtaposes πατέρα (accusative of πατήρ) with πατριὰ (which has a range of meanings from fatherhood to family to people group to nation: Basically anything headed by an adult male). The intent of this juxtaposition by Paul was to be INCLUSIVE: What the Father is for all creation is reflected at every level of human community. But in English, a literal translation comes across as EXCLUSIVE: It sounds like God establishes a boys club where women are not welcome.
Translators have long noted this, and in even the most Conservative translations, they choose to re-translate it in less literal ways. For instance: "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (KJV); "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (NABRE Catholic); "from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name" (NIV); "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (Holman from the Southern Baptists); "from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name" (NASB from Dallas Theological Seminary). So, just as πατριὰ is translated in such a way as to express its meaning in a maximally inclusive way, so also I decided to translate πατήρ in a way that was maximally inclusive yet accurate.
Could we then push the analogical language and say that God the Father is also God the Mother? Again, it depends on what the use of language is for. If I was in a discussion of Trinitarian Theology at a high academic level, I would insist that we designate the first member of the Trinity as "Father". This is because, in some sense, all members of the Trinity are equally the "Parent" to all of Creation: The Father creates THROUGH the Son BY the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the Spirit is most rightfully the feminine aspect of God, both from the Biblical materials available, and from the standpoint of comparative theology. So, if I was going to call any aspect of the Trinity "Mother" it would be the Holy Spirit because she is analogically both "Parent" and "Female". So, to label the first member of the Trinity as "Mother" in a discussion of the Trinity seems to be highly problematic for accuracy.
In addition, there is the issue of philosophical consistency of language when dealing with the Trinity. I would not want to call the Father merely "Creator" for a few reasons: First, like I said above, all members of the Trinity share in the work of creation. Second, "Creator" does not necessarily carry the same connotations of care and concern that parent does. Finally, in the discussion of Trinitarian inter-relations, it is important to carefully designate the Father in relation to the Son. This is because the Son is fully God, and shares in the essence of God eternally with the Father and Spirit, while also being distinct from the Father and Spirit. Thus, it would be improper to designate "The Son" as "created", while "The Father" is his "Creator". This is because creators make something DIFFERENT from themselves (a creator makes a chair or a building or an artwork) while a Father makes something THE SAME as themselves (on our planet, a father begets another human child with the mother, while in Godself the Father begets the Son eternally in and with the Spirit). Thus, if we are going to use analogies to explain to human beings the eternal relations of the Trinity to each other in an adequate way, we are duty bound to call the first person Father, the second person Son, and the third person Spirit (although I think Mother could be useful as well).
So much for the intricacies of gender and Trinitarian language. Let's move to a situation that is easier to understand.
As I have said above, I have run into many people who have really bad relationships with their human fathers. Some of those relationships have been so abusive that, without some kind of miraculous psychological healing, they are simply unable to use the word "Father" to mean anything positive. As I pastor these people, I have assured them that it is completely acceptable to worship God as Mother or Parent or Caregiver. I have assured them that God accepts their heartfelt worship when they pray "Our Mother who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name", or when they confess "We believe in one God, the Mother Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth". For them, they need that kind of analogical language to connect with the Love and Power of God known in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Would I change doctrinal statements or definitions of the Trinity to fit their pastoral need? No. But I would make allowances which would allow them to connect with God in a way that brings Hope and Healing to them.
So, note how the purpose of communication changes the analogies we use in communicating. Sometimes to uphold the Purpose and Meaning of the literal text of Scripture, we have to change its translated meaning. Sometimes to adequately communicate the nature of God, we have to rigorously adhere to the words used in Scripture. This is because our words do not CONTAIN God (or else we should never use anything but the original languages of Scripture, like how Muslims view the Quran). Instead our words POINT TO God, but cannot be confused with God. And if certain terms loose their meaning in translation, for whatever reason, they cease to point to God. When this happens, we will be forced to use different words to communicate the exact same meaning. This is one of many reasons why Saint Paul says that God has "made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3.6).
And that is ultimately why, in this devotional translation, I chose "Parent" over "Father". I hope that it has helped you understand why I translated the way I did. But more importantly, I hope it helps you think about how we use (and misuse) language to adequately refer to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment