What do you think?
Rate this book
This Is My Name Forever: The Trinity & Gender Language for God
Book by
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2001
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 19, 2021
*This is My Name Forever* comes at the tail-end of almost three decades of debates over God and gender between feminists, traditionalists, and everyone in between. It includes nine essays from traditionalist voices who variously critique feminist theological proposals, as well as a shorter introductory essay from Gary Deddo summarising some of the basic concerns of the contributions. This probably says more about me than the book, but I was surprised with the quality of the criticisms and arguments. A strong case is forwarded for the primacy of masculine imagery and language in relation to God, and the uncovering of the assumptions and unintended implications of the moves made by various feminist theologians is presented.
My main concern is with the one-sidedness of the volume. There is nothing wrong with a presentation of traditionalist arguments, but these tend to be chiefly reactionary. "This feminist proposal is bad because of this; here is the traditionalist alternative." There is no sense of what needs to change in traditionalist theology, drawing on the contributions of feminist theologians. Deddo in his introduction affirms that of course traditionalists are concerned with the involvement of women in churches and the end of church-led oppression of and violence against women. In the final chapter, Paul Hinlicky diagnoses the root of these as sin, prescribing repentance for both conscious and unconsious involvement. Now, Deddo and Hinlicky are both right. But they do not go far enough. They do not consider (and if the contributors do, it is in passing) how the close association of masculinity and divinity in Scripture and tradition might contribute to abuses against women in the church.
The understanding of gender throughout the book is strictly binary. This might *in part* be due to the feminist theological texts being engaged, which are from the eighties and nineties. In any case, it represents a significant lacuna in the contributors' approaches. In addition to this, some claims are just plain weird. For example, Paul Mankowski advances a detailed and otherwise informative defence of the masculinty of Yahweh in the OT. But besides being reluctant to acknowledge the how maternal imagery might disrupt this, he also associates activeness with masculinity. In one place he writes, “YHWH takes the active and intentional (and to that extent paternal) role in the genesis of his people” (44). It is not clear whether Mankowski is reciting ancient assumptions about the role of the male sexual partner, or whether he holds this (simplistic and erroneous) view himself. Another odd claim surfaces in Hinlicky's chapter. He announces, "Without hope in the resurrection, by contrast, secularism is seen to license, not the vaunted sexual freedom that it claims, but the ugly reality of sexual predation, the victims of which are almost universally women and children" (238). Hinlicky cites the 2nd C. Athenagoras in support of this. This is a simple strawman and shows little understanding of non-Christian struggles for freedom. Donald Hook and Alvin Kimel's chapter is needlessly alarmist and I think overstates its arguments against non-masculine pronouns for God.
Despite my criticisms, I believe that there is much that liberal theologians can gain from this volume, and not in just understanding traditionalist perspectives. Christopher Seitz makes an important distinction between natural-theological assumptions held by revisionists and the unique claims attributed to God in the biblical text. Mankowski's chapter provides some solid exegetical insights and criticisms that will be necessary in any decent treatment of God and gender in the biblical texts. Francis Martin gives a helpful overview of some feminist hermeneutics and the assumptions contained in them. R. R. Reno situates feminist theology in the broader project of modern (liberal) theology. And Stanley Grenz discusses the basis of human sexuality in the Trinity, bringing together traditionalist concerns for a basis of God-talk in revelation and feminist concerns for going beyond a purely masculine God.
My main concern is with the one-sidedness of the volume. There is nothing wrong with a presentation of traditionalist arguments, but these tend to be chiefly reactionary. "This feminist proposal is bad because of this; here is the traditionalist alternative." There is no sense of what needs to change in traditionalist theology, drawing on the contributions of feminist theologians. Deddo in his introduction affirms that of course traditionalists are concerned with the involvement of women in churches and the end of church-led oppression of and violence against women. In the final chapter, Paul Hinlicky diagnoses the root of these as sin, prescribing repentance for both conscious and unconsious involvement. Now, Deddo and Hinlicky are both right. But they do not go far enough. They do not consider (and if the contributors do, it is in passing) how the close association of masculinity and divinity in Scripture and tradition might contribute to abuses against women in the church.
The understanding of gender throughout the book is strictly binary. This might *in part* be due to the feminist theological texts being engaged, which are from the eighties and nineties. In any case, it represents a significant lacuna in the contributors' approaches. In addition to this, some claims are just plain weird. For example, Paul Mankowski advances a detailed and otherwise informative defence of the masculinty of Yahweh in the OT. But besides being reluctant to acknowledge the how maternal imagery might disrupt this, he also associates activeness with masculinity. In one place he writes, “YHWH takes the active and intentional (and to that extent paternal) role in the genesis of his people” (44). It is not clear whether Mankowski is reciting ancient assumptions about the role of the male sexual partner, or whether he holds this (simplistic and erroneous) view himself. Another odd claim surfaces in Hinlicky's chapter. He announces, "Without hope in the resurrection, by contrast, secularism is seen to license, not the vaunted sexual freedom that it claims, but the ugly reality of sexual predation, the victims of which are almost universally women and children" (238). Hinlicky cites the 2nd C. Athenagoras in support of this. This is a simple strawman and shows little understanding of non-Christian struggles for freedom. Donald Hook and Alvin Kimel's chapter is needlessly alarmist and I think overstates its arguments against non-masculine pronouns for God.
Despite my criticisms, I believe that there is much that liberal theologians can gain from this volume, and not in just understanding traditionalist perspectives. Christopher Seitz makes an important distinction between natural-theological assumptions held by revisionists and the unique claims attributed to God in the biblical text. Mankowski's chapter provides some solid exegetical insights and criticisms that will be necessary in any decent treatment of God and gender in the biblical texts. Francis Martin gives a helpful overview of some feminist hermeneutics and the assumptions contained in them. R. R. Reno situates feminist theology in the broader project of modern (liberal) theology. And Stanley Grenz discusses the basis of human sexuality in the Trinity, bringing together traditionalist concerns for a basis of God-talk in revelation and feminist concerns for going beyond a purely masculine God.
Displaying 1 of 1 review