The Fatherhood of God in John Calvin's Thought

By Karin Spiecker Stetina

Against the backdrop of feminist critique, Karin Spiecker Stetina gives us a thorough study of John Calvin's ideas on the fatherhood of God. After looking briefly at Calvin's own experience of fatherhood, the author looks in depth at his epistemology and then his imagery for God as Father against the background of the biblical and historical doctrine. This intriguing study allows us, through the lens of the reformer's theology, to look again at what we mean by God as Father and believers as sons and daughters of
the living God.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Authentic Publishers
• Release date: Mar 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9781780782690

Karin Spiecker Stetina

Karin Spiecker Stetina (PhD, Marquette University) is associate professor of biblical and theological studies at Biola University. She is the author of Jonathan Edwards’ Early Understanding of Religious Experience and The Fatherhood of God in John Calvin’s Thought.

Book preview

THE

FATHERHOOD

OF GOD

IN

JOHN

CALVIN’S

THOUGHT

THE

FATHERHOOD

OF GOD

IN

JOHN

CALVIN’S

THOUGHT

Karin Spiecker Stetina

Copyright © 2016 Karin Spiecker Stetina

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

First published 2016 by Paternoster

Paternoster is an imprint of Authentic Media Limited

PO Box 6326, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK1 9GG.

authenticmedia.co.uk

The right of Karin Spiecker Stetina to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licences are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London, EC1N 8TS.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-84227-968-7

978-1-78078-269-0 (e-book)

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Cover Design by David Smart

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd., Croydon, CR0 4Y

Dedicated to Mark Noll and the late Tim Phillips, my professors who inspired me through their excellent scholarship and deep faith in Christ.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Introduction

1. Calvin’s Earthly Experience of Fatherhood

The Historical Background

The Church

Calvin’s Relationship with his Father and Mother

Calvin’s Spiritual Fathers

Calvin’s Roles as Husband and Father

Calvin as a Spiritual Father

Conclusion

2. Calvin’s Epistemology

Historical Views of God’s Self-Revelation in Scripture

Recent Challenges

Calvin’s View of the Authority of Scripture

The Necessity and Purpose of Divine Revelation

General Revelation and Knowledge of God

The Necessity of Special Revelation

The Self-Authenticating Work of the Holy Spirit

The Principle of Accommodation and Infallibility

Verbal Inspiration of Scripture

Calvin’s Use of the Word ‘Dictation’

The Human Role in the Writing of Scriptures

Calvin’s Views of Inaccuracies in the Text

Conclusion

3. Historical Conceptions of the Fatherhood of God

Historical Precedence

The Early Church

The Middle Ages

The Reformation

4. Calvin’s Conception of the Fatherhood of God

God Reveals

God is Distinct from Humankind

God as the Foundation of Fatherhood

Fatherhood and the Trinity

Fatherhood in Relation with Creation

The Universal Fatherhood of God

Special Adoption: God as Redeemer

The Father and Adoption

Adoption of Israel

Adoption of Christians through Christ

The Lord’s Prayer

God the Father and the Christian Life

The Fatherhood of God in Response to Heresy

Conclusion

5. Historical Use of Feminine Imagery and God-Language

Church Fathers

Augustine

Clement of Alexandria

Twelfth-Century Devotional

Anselm

Bernard of Clairvaux

William of St Tierry

Conclusion

Fourteenth Century

Julian of Norwich

Other fourteenth-century mystics

Scholastic Writers

Conclusion

6. Calvin’s Treatment of Female Imagery

The Psalms

Mother bird

Midwife

Nursing mother

Mistress

The Prophets

Woman in labour

Womb

Mother

Mother bird

Parental care

Calvin’s Understanding of the Church as Mother

Conclusion

7. Conclusion

Bibliography

Endnotes

Acknowledgements

Portions of the work have been delivered as lectures at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings in 2010, 2011, and 2013.

I also want to thank Paternoster for permission to reprint parts of my chapters: ‘Abba Father: Calvin’s Biblical Understanding of the Fatherhood of God’ in Since We Are Justified by Faith: Justification in the Theologies of the Reformation (ed. Michael Parsons; Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2012); and ‘John Calvin on Revelation and the Use of Feminine Imagery for God’ in Aspects of Reformation. Reforming Theology and Practice (ed. Michael Parsons; Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2013).

Preface

And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, promoting us to call out, ‘Abba, Father.’¹

’I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ This ancient declaration about God has been an essential affirmation of the Christian faith since the birth of the early church. The Apostles’ Creed affirms Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:21 in which he states, ‘For he [God the Father] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin [for us], so that in him [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God.’² Faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit unites us to Christ’s salvific work. But what if your earthly experience of fatherhood has made it difficult for you to confess a belief in ‘God, the Father Almighty’? How does one’s understanding of fatherhood impact one’s faith?

Margot Starbuck recounts her struggle with the fatherhood of God in her spiritual memoir, The Girl in the Orange Dress: Searching for a Father Who Does Not Fail. She writes:

Are you like the string of human fathers I’ve experienced, or are you something else? ... Are you like the first father who couldn’t be bothered to lay eyes on me? Are you like the daddy I loved who left me? Are you like the ill-equipped stepfather who left me? Maybe you’re like that first father who, decades later didn’t even want the second chance he’d been given.³

Margot’s disappointing experience of earthly fatherhood is not uncommon. Even for those who have not been adopted, have not been subjected to the devastating effects of divorce, or have not had an alcoholic father, like Margot, it is not difficult to relate to her disappointment. Frequently our earthly experiences serve as the lens by which we perceive our heavenly Father, clouding our understanding of the fatherhood of God.

Margot Starbuck, like many Christians, desired to discover in God a Father that transcends our human paternal experiences. The reformer, John Calvin, found such a Father in God’s self-revelation given in the Holy Scriptures. While some scholars suggest that the Reformation produced a more oppressive patriarchal understanding of God, Calvin’s biblical portrayal of God accentuates the faithful, tender-loving care of the heavenly Father. In a culture that struggles with the concept of fatherhood, especially as a title for God, Calvin’s biblically grounded approach to knowing God as Father stands as an appropriate model for the church today.

Introduction

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to ‘Our Mother which art in heaven’ as to ‘Our Father’. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son ... Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.¹

C.S. Lewis wrote these words in 1948 in response to the question of whether or not priestesses should be allowed in the church; however, his ideas could very well address the current controversy over God-language. Elizabeth Achtemeier poses the question succinctly in the title of her article, ‘Female Language for God: Should the Church Adopt It?’² Catholic, feminist Elizabeth A. Johnson echoes this question by asking, ‘What is the right way to speak about God? This is a question of unsurpassed importance, for speech to and about the mystery that surrounds human lives and the universe itself is a key activity of a community of faith.’³

Lewis’ words above echo the thoughts of many scholars who have responded in the negative to Achtemeier’s question.⁴ Lewis believed that God-language is to be grounded in God’s self-revelation in Scripture and is therefore immutable; if we depart from the masculine imagery given in the Scripture, we depart from true Christianity. He writes,

Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity.⁵

While it is unclear whether Lewis would have opposed the use of any female biblical imagery in the church, it is evident that he saw a danger in replacing all masculine language of the Bible with feminine language.

Many feminists and contemporary scholars who advocate for the use of female language for God have claimed that Christianity is a sexist religion with a male God and traditions of male leadership that sanction the supremacy of men in the family and society.⁶ Mary Daly states, ‘Since God is male, the male is God.’⁷ She captures succinctly the underlying presupposition of radical feminist theologians, that male language for God has fostered the oppression of women in the church. Daly insists, ‘The Judaic-Christian tradition has served to legitimate a sexually imbalanced patriarchal society.’ Thus, for example, the image of God as Father, produced in the human imagination and sustained as plausible by patriarchy, has promoted the oppression of women. She further argues, ‘If God in his heaven is a father ruling his people, then it is in the nature of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male dominated.’ Within this patriarchal context ‘the husband dominating his wife represents God himself. What is happening, of course, is the familiar mechanism by which the images in turn justify the social infrastructure.’⁸ Daly understands the male image of God the Father as the cornerstone of a self-alienating mode of existence that produces rape, genocide and war.⁹ When the ‘father-god’ and all ‘his’ works are renounced, she believes that a new heaven and earth of mutual respect, truth and vitality will come about.¹⁰

In a similar vein, Rita Gross claims male God-language perpetuates sexist traditions. She believes that God-language is merely a reflection of human ideology arguing that ‘God language does not really tell us about God, but it does tell us a considerable amount about those who use the God language.’ The metaphors and analogies that we use for God have a foundation in our human experience.¹¹

Elizabeth A. Johnson further elaborates on this, suggesting that ‘in speech the symbol of God functions as the primary symbol of the whole religious system, the ultimate point of reference for understanding experience, life, and the world’. Thus, ‘the way in which a faith community shapes language about God implicitly represents what it takes to be the highest good, the profoundest truth, the most appealing beauty’. God-talk ‘powerfully molds the corporate identity of the community and directs its praxis’. Thus, a religion that speaks about a ‘warlike God’ promotes aggressive group behaviour. One that describes God as an ‘arbitrary tyrant’ inspires acts of impatience and disrespect. Speech about a ‘beneficent and loving God’ turns a faith community towards care for others and forgiveness.¹² Radical feminists Daly, Johnson and Gross understand God-language as being grounded in human experience and fundamental in shaping communal ideology and practice.

In response to the claim that masculine God-language does not imply that God is male,¹³ these scholars contend that if we do not believe God is male, then why should we use masculine language instead of female imagery and pronouns.¹⁴ Bishop Moore supports the desire to replace male imagery of God with female imagery, arguing that the average Christian or Jew ‘images God as masculine and responds psychologically to God as father’, not because God has revealed Godself in this way, but as the result of a ‘projection of human qualities upon God’.¹⁵ Based on this assertion he concludes, ‘If God is Male, not female, then men are intrinsically better than women. It follows then, that until the emphasis on maleness in the image of God is redressed, the women of the world cannot be entirely liberated. For if God is thought of as simply and exclusively male, then the very cosmos seems sexist.’¹⁶

Bishop Moore believes that by changing masculine God-language the church can combat sexism. William Placher makes a similar observation in his book, Narratives of a Vulnerable God, writing, ‘The kind of God in whom one believes has implications for the kind of life one tries to live.’¹⁷

It is interesting to note that people on both sides of the debate have found support for their views in church history. Many scholars who advocate for the use of feminine language for God insist that there existed a strong tradition of female imagery and language for God in the early and medieval church. They point to the historic use of female God-language as support for their belief and advocate a renewal of its use in the church today.¹⁸

Scholars such as Eleanor McLaughlin argue that the tradition of feminine God-language was thwarted by the Protestant Reformation and its insistence on sola Scriptura, which resulted in the appropriation of the male and patriarchal traditions of the Old Testament.¹⁹ Consequently, Christianity became a patriarchal religion. According to McLaughlin and others, the Protestant Reformation-driven use of masculine language for God has served to foster the oppression of women.²⁰

On the other hand, those who oppose female God-language point to the historical precedence of male God-language to support their view. They insist that this practice began with the early church fathers and was continued by the Protestant Reformers. Furthermore, these scholars