Why Is God A "He"?

So, lately I've been thinking a lot about this particular issue. It's come up in several of the books I've had to read for school. But the tipping point was this video with Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson*:



So, this does raise the question: Why is that - The Shack not withstanding - God is consistently referenced as male in the Scriptures? It's God the Father and God the Son. Likewise, male pronouns are always used to describe God the Spirit. For our family members who believe that gender is merely biological this makes absolutely no sense. After all, God is a spirit. He doesn't have an anatomical structure and therefore speaking of God in terms of male or female is ludicrous. Right? Well, apparently the Holy Spirit doesn't think so, because He inspired the holy men to portray God in male terms.

So, how do we explain this? Well, it becomes a lot easier when recognize that gender is a symbol for something greater. After all, God loves matter, as C.S. Lewis said, and He uses matter to convey truths about Himself.

Elisabeth Elliot, the wife of martyred missionary Jim Elliot and one of the greatest writers and speakers of her generation, does an excellent job of arguing this position in her classic The Mark of a Man:

"Psychologists sometimes describe belief in God as a father as nothing more than a projection of the sterotyped father. It never seems to occur to them that if two things are alike, one ought to ask whether the first is copied from the second or the second from the first. Why should it not be at least as logical to assume that human fathers are copies of the Original? Those who take the Bible as their rule see God as the archetype. From Him are derived all ideas of what fathers ought to be."

The argument goes that the genders are symbols of something much greater than biology. The functions of the genders actually reflects the nature of God. Within the Trinity there is equality, love, unity and other-centrality but there is also structure, order, submission and, yes, authority (I know, that's a naughty word in our culture but just bare with me). Therefore, this same dichotomy is mirrored in the relationships between the genders.

Those who hold to this view also recognize that consistently throughout Scripture - literally from Genesis to Revelation - men are given the responsibility of initiation. That brings us back to original question of why God is always portrayed as male.

C.S. Lewis said, "God is so masculine that all creation is feminine by comparison." What could he possibly mean by that? He meant that God is the Ultimate Initiator. He initiates our salvation, our sanctification - shoot! - He initiated our very existence. The fate of every human being is decided by how we respond the initiation of God. Therefore, we are all feminine (responders) in comparison to the Initiating God.

But I can almost hear people saying, "What a chauvinist! He actually thinks that men are like God!" No, no, no! Sure, lots of men think they're God, but God knows better. This isn't about men, this is about God. My goal in this post is not to spark a debate over gender roles. If I wanted to do that I would have started off with loads of bible passages and quotes from Greek experts. What I want to do is point you to marvelous design of God.

When men act like men and women act like women, we're actually displaying the very nature of God. It's a like a painting, showing the majesty of the Real Thing. Or a song that causes emotions to rise up unbidden. Or a monument which testifies to the greatness of an awesome God. Gender is a work of art, giving us hints at the beautiful character of the Artist. Praise His name!

I know that this has been a very quick summary of very deep and intense issue, but if you get nothing else out of this, pay attention to this: Gender isn't about biology. Like everything else, it's about God.

---
*I always feel the need to say that just because I link to someone doesn't mean I necessarily endorse everything about that person.

Worshiping The God Of Our Heroes

Here's something ironic for you: I'm going to write a blog post in which I quote one of my heroes advising us not to quote our heroes. Yeah, so I feel a little hypocritical but I think he makes an excellent point.

I've been thinking lately about one of the intriguing things about living in an information age. For all the downsides of the Internet and the cultural transparency, one of the real positive things is that I can learn from some of the greatest theologians of our time. I can listen to sermons, read articles and even interact with great preacher that I otherwise would have only read about. Just imagine if Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley or Charles Spurgeon could have had access to stuff we have today. How cool would it have been to watch Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God on YouTube or read the latest from the Sword and the Trowel on your iPhone?

However, there are some dangers that come with this opportunity. One is that we can start to compare our heroes to our local pastor. When we start wishing that our pastor was as articulate as John Piper or as passionate as Voddie Baucham, we're already at a loss. We need to appreciate of our spiritual leaders' individual gifts and not start comparing them to celebrities.

Another problem is that we start to heroize (that's a homeschool word, by the way) and idolize the great contemporary preachers. It gets to the point where they can do no wrong and if they say something then it must be right. While we condemn the Corinthians for claiming to be of Paul or of Apollos we have no qualms we saying that we're of Piper or of Driscoll. Rather then helping us grow closer to Christ they can actually be harmful to our relationship with Him.

I like what Francis Chan said when he was asked about this subject:

"These are things that I am trying to figure out right now, so I want to be careful not to speak too soon. What I will say is this . . .

I have benefitted greatly by hearing biblical preachers via podcast. I’m glad that there is so much solid teaching available. However, I am struggling with the celebrity status that comes from this kind of exposure. It’s not healthy for the preacher, nor is it healthy for those who talk about their ministry heroes so often (I am guilty of this).

In many ways, we are conforming to the pattern of the world. While it is good that people are talking about what they have learned from “Piper, Driscoll, Keller, Chan, etc,” I am concerned about how much we speak those names rather than the name of Jesus. It has gotten to the point where I believe we have taken glory away from Jesus. Personally, I am intentionally trying to mention human names less and speak often the matchless name of Jesus.

All believers have received the Holy Spirit. We must go forth in His power with confidence. God has placed people in your path. You are called to disciple them. We too quickly direct converts toward podcast preachers and neglect our God-given mandate to disciple. We must believe in the power of the Scriptures themselves, and we must trust in the power of the Holy Spirit within us.

Let’s use the resources God has given to the church at large, but let’s not shirk our responsibility to the local church. Let’s not boast too much of others, and let’s not underestimate what the Spirit desires to do through us."

Basically, it comes down to utilizing our resources to grow closer to God without letting them distract us from Him. When it aids our spiritual growth and the work of the family and local church, it's a very good thing. When it distracts us and divides our loyalties. It's a very bad thing. We need to make sure we are worshiping the God our heroes and not the heroes themselves.

Three Things I Hate About The Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Before I tell you the three things I hate about the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I first need to clarify some things. This is an important issue and I'm not meaning to take away from that fact. However, I think that the way in which we Christians have gone about discussing this issue has become rather unhelpful. If we better the means in which we address this issue it'll better the outcome of any debate.

For the purpose of making a point I'm not going to give a long, drawn out description of my opinion of the Calvinism-Arminianism issue. However, if you are interested in a brief summary of my beliefs, I'd encourage you to check out this sermon by Mark Driscoll. As I've stated before, I don't agree with all Mark Driscoll's stuff, however, he does a nice job of summarizing his beliefs on this issue, which I happen to be in full agreement with.

#1. The names.
In the early Church, Christians use to say that they were of Paul or of Apollos. Now we say that we're of John Calvin or of Jacob Arminius. We haven't made much forward progress, have we? Not only that, but the names are kind of misnomers. Neither Calvin nor Arminius were in full agreement with the schools of thought that would later bare their names. John Calvin never advocated Limited Atonement and Arminius, while he did express some doubts, never denied the doctrine of Eternal Security in any of speeches or writings.


The fact is, we can't put too much stock in any human being, even great Christian leaders. Calvin and Arminius were both great men who loved Jesus. However, they were also both sinners. As created creatures, we naturally feel the need for a hero. Since we can't physically see God we tend to idolize someone we can see. While they're is nothing wrong with having people we like and admire, we need to remember that all are sinners. We can't every fully trust any sinners, even great theologically minded sinners.

#2. The points.
In 1610, the Arminians got together for an event called the Remonstrance, or Protest. During this event they came up with five doctrines which directly defied Calvinism, which had been a Protestant staple since the Reformation. In response, the Calvinists held a synod at Dort (pictured) and came up with the Five Points of Calvinism, all of which were handpicked to discredit the Five Points of Arminianism.

This is really, really bad way to do theology. We don't create doctrine in response to someone else's doctrines. We get our doctrine from the Bible. The result of the current five-point system is that instead of discussing Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, we end up arguing over Irresistible Grace, Unconditional Election and the Perseverance of the Saints. The debate quickly becomes academic rather than biblical.

Personally, I always find it really frustrating when I try talking to someone about this issue and they refuse to address the Scriptures. Everyone has a cute illustration or catchy little quotable to prove the infallibility of their point. Meanwhile, the Bible stays on the shelf.

#3. The divisions.
There are certain things that should divide us. If someone tells you that Jesus wasn't God or that the earth was created by aliens, run from them like Forest Gump. However, I don't believe this should be a dividing issue. And yet it is.

It always amazes to see how willing credobaptists, paedobaptism, charismatics, cessationists, Complementarians and Egalitarians are to get together and sing Kum Ba Yah providing that they agree on the Calvinist-Arminian issue. However, if they agree on nearly everything else but can't agree on predestination, they suddenly become die hard separationists.

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if it has become more of a pride issue. Because if you examine this issue in light of many of the other truths, it really isn't that big a deal. It's important, but not quite as important as we make it out to be. However, this topic has become the defining issue within Christian circles. I once heard some one say that there are only three kinds of Christians. Calvinists, Arminians and Catholics. This debate has been so heated for so long that no one is willing to back down.

I think it is vital to remember that this is an in house debate. At the end of the day, we're on the same team. Granted, the Body of Christ will always have its little family quarrels. That's nothing new. Some times these disagreement will even create a need for us to separate, just as Paul and Barabbas did. However, that doesn't mean the Church of Jesus needs to be consumed in hate and in-striving. Rather, let us remember that we are one Body with one Goal.