Apr 22
"Father God": taste or theology
Michael Bird posts today a video of what he says “is in my top three favourite worship songs”. It’s almost exactly the opposite of what I think, since this song always makes me grit my teeth. At least, the lyrics do; I rather like the melody. This put me to wondering whether this is taste or theology, or something in between. Here are the main reasons I dislike it:
- “Father God”. This is an expression I always find odd, but can never quite say why. It’s certainly not one that has been common in the liturgical tradition. I know a lot of people use it in extempore prayer, but then again a lot of people say “really would just” also. I think part of my objection is that it seems to treat “God” as a name, or makes Father sound like an honorific. (Consider the ways we might use Father + another noun in any other context in the English language.)
- “the knowledge of your Parenthood”. I have real problems with the register of “parenthood”. It seems to belong on forms, or discussions of family planning. Who actually uses this term with the connotation of a close relationship? “Hey Mum, your parenthood’s amazing!” I just don’t think so.
- It doesn’t fit everyone. How many people actually do go around wondering how they managed to exist before they became a Christian? And what are those who’ve been Christian all their lives supposed to do with this line?
- “I am your son, I am adopted in your family”. Leaving aside the interesting question of gendered language, at one level this is an unexceptional statement. At another I have problems with it as an assertion in a song that makes no mention of either the Son or the Spirit. Conceiving the relationship between myself and God as Father-son, without relating it (however lightly) to the Father-Son relationship I share in through the Spirit of adoption, is something I find problematic.
So are these questions just unimportant ones of personal taste, or does this song raise theological ones about its usage?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
If it’s a matter of taste, I think you have good taste. And I think it does raise theological issues.I have no problem with Father image if it’s balanced with trinitarian language. And I’m weay of mentally editing all the “man” “son” and “brother” language I hear in church (and ESV scripture) to remind myself it includes me, too.
I wonder if any men mentally edit exclusively masculine language to remind themselves it includes theiri sisters, daughters and wives?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
It’s a bothersome phrase because it’s meaningless. ‘Father God’ is like saying ‘God God’. It’s a heaping up of empty words in hopes of being heard therefore- exactly the sort of thing Jesus spoke against. Every time I hear it (and fortunately it’s not often because I don’t listen to that dreck some people call contemporary Christian music) my ears bleed.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Doug,
Different strokes for different folks. But the melody reminds me of a Rolling Stones song but I just can’t figure out which one.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
Saying ‘Father God’ is no different than saying ‘Jesus Christ’ — sure, we could choose one or the other, but why choose when we can have both?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
Like “Beyond Words”, I also get sick of mentally editing “son” and “men”, so I tend to avoid churches where I have to. I certainly couldn’t sing this song because I am very, very sure that I am not a son. While I understand how Mike might use it to sing children to sleep because it certainly gets boring, I am not sure how included his daughters are going to feel when their father keeps telling them he is a son of God but doesn’t provide them with an opportunity to affirm that they are daughters of God. Most children have the gender thing fairly well worked out by the time they are four or five.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 am
I think it is all personal taste. I couldn’t stand the song, but I forced myself to listen to it until the end. It’s not as bad as most of the special music I have to endure however.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 am
I, I, I, me, me, me… it’s just another prayer masquerading as a worship song, which really is the problem with the bulk of contemporary Christian music, never mind the coffeehouse warbling.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Nick, what do you mean by saying it’s no different from “Jesus Christ”. One obvious difference is that the words aren’t reversible. You cant say “God Father”, which suggests they are not functioning similarly. In “Jesus Christ” the former is a name, the latter a title that has become a name. Where and which is the “title” in “Father God”?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Whether it’s theology or taste, it’s all personal. Yes, Beyond Words, at least one man doesn’t sing this to his daughters who are older than four and five and have, as you point out Judy, figured out the gender thing.
As for mentally editing, when listening to the gospel of Mark, I do get that the writer has had to translate in Greek that Jesus refers to himself as son of anthropos in 8:31 (ESV “Son of Man”); and am glad that he doesn’t then make us edit any further since, in 8:33, he mentions Satan, God, and anthropos (where Satan and theos and mortal women and men) are the contrast. It goes on to have Jesus giving his warning to the mortals (ESV “men”) with acknowledgment of that father of his. (The spirit’s already shown up in chapter 1, where Jesus exorcised into the desert to meet Satan). My own mother, my wife, and my daughters–as mortals like Jesus the son of one, do get that (but they don’t read the ESV either).
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
[...] to Mac "Father God": taste or theology Apr [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I find the objections to “Father God” a bit strange. Presumably this is to be understood as synonymous with “God the Father”. But it sounds strange to use “the” when this title is used as an address in a prayer. And “God Father” doesn’t work because of the word “godfather”. “God our Father” is OK of course, but what is wrong with “Father God”?
Jim writes:
No, Jim, unless you are a Unitarian. For Trinitarian Christians there are three persons who are called God. The traditional way of specifying the first three of those persons is to add “Father”. Indeed this usage dates back at least to the very first verse which Paul wrote, whether that is Galatians 1:1 or 1 Thessalonians 1:1. Yes, the Greek is literally “God Father”, not “Father God”, but surely the word order is irrelevant here.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Blech. It’s just bad music first. Second, as I recently posted, I get sick of the nurturing father language which over-emphasizes the image of Jesus as the man with Jesus the risen Pantokrator which evangelical Christians need an injection of in their theology. I was surprised at how offended some were with that post BTW.
This all goes back to the development of an individualistic and personal Jesus (e.g. Depeche Mode too) that came to save “me”. I don’t want to worship a personal friend, I want to worship a Lord who came so save us all and expects a lot out of us to love God and neighbor in return. That’s the theological problem I have with this. Friend Jesus is good when you are a child, but at some point we need to grow up.
As I have also said before… Bach is music that praises God. Music should be nothing short of brilliant to do honor. This stuff is just crap.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Doug, I wonder if the problem you have with “Father God” is that it sounds too much like the “Father Doug” that you are sometimes known as, and suggests that “God” is some kind of personal name. That is of course not an issue for us evangelicals who don’t use “Father” as a title in this way. But which usage is biblical, calling God “Father” or calling human pastors or priests “Father”?
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Doug,
Why can’t you say ‘God Father’? It might not sound like the most natural phrase in English, but I can’t see any rule that would exclude it’s use. Or perhaps if we added a definite article in there and it became ‘God the Father’ — that’s common enough. No different than saying ‘Jesus the Christ’. And in such a case, ‘Father’ would function as the title, God as the name.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Nick, the simple answer is that people don’t. And if they did, would it have baptismal or mafia connotations?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Doug,
Why not both/and?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Nick, I’d like to offer you a baptism you can’t refuse.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Doug, like this one?