Deconstructing the Trinity:

Feminist Attacks on the Name of God Are Three Errors in One.

by Robert Moeller                                                                                            Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993

When you change the name of God, you are changing His character, and the feminist inclusive language movement knows it. A recent front-page article in The Wall Street Journal noted, "The ancient Western image of God the Father is coming under assault." A book of worship issued by the second largest protestant denomination in America offered prayers to "Father and Mother," "Bakerwoman God," and "Grandfather, Great Spirit."

The Journal quotes Mary Daly, who authored a feminist critique of traditional biblical references to God, who says bluntly, "If God is male, then male is God."

If traditional Christian theology has always acknowledged that God is Spirit, and as such is neither biologically a male or a female, why shouldn't we go along with the deconstruction of the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

The first mistake the newly self-appointed authors of Scripture make is to corrupt the relationship between name and character. They want God to fit their agenda, so they are changing His name to accomplish it.

We in the West are somewhat naive about the significance of names. In the eastern world names are more than just arbitrary labels employed to conveniently identify persons such as Bill Smith, Mary Jones, or Fred Bobowiski. The nearly-Eastern culture in which God chose to reveal who He is employed names to identify character and purpose.

Joshua, who led the armies of Israel into the Promised Land, means savior or deliverer. The Apostle Peter gained his name from Jesus, because Petros refers to "rock," a prediction of Peter's future foundational role in establishing the church.

Far from arbitrary, the names chosen to identify God such as "Father" in both the Old and New Testaments were done so to teach us something of the character of God. To change them is to change who God says He is, a serious error.

Regardless of its current egalitarian appeal, (changing the name of God) is a serious doctrinal aberration – not an innocent verbal adjustment to the times.

Another mistake the gender-neutral language movement makes is to run roughshod over the doctrine of inspiration. If God wished to be referred to as a "bakerwoman," He undoubtedly could have inspired the authors of Scripture to do so.

I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's Bible (in) which (he) cut out every reference to Christ as God. He denied the inspiration of the Bible, which gave him the freedom to snip as he pleased. The feminists have gotten out the scissors and gone after the Holy Writ yet again.

The final heresy of the language movement is to deny the historicity of the revelation of God. Jesus called himself the "Son" and "Son of Man." Was He culturally insensitive? Like it or not, the incarnation of Christ was a man, and God's purposes, however baffling to us, were at work in such a human manifestation.

Re-making God in our own linguistic image is simply a form of neo-paganism, as old as time itself.

While our present sophistication would not allow us to worship at the feet of a bronze or wooden idol, we are all called to genuflect before the new lexicon of acceptable terms for God.

The equality of men and women before God is a clear and unmistakable doctrine of the New Testament.

That does not give us the freedom, however, to deconstruct the Trinity, which would be three errors in one.

[This article appeared in World magazine, October 24, 1992.]