Naming the universal father

     Revision of February 5, 2018

Persistently, Jesus gave voice to the liberating revelation of the truth of the Fatherhood of God. At the same time, he adjusted his teaching to the capacity of receptivity of those with whom he spoke. What would he do today–what should we do today–now that many feminists have criticized the “failure” to proclaim the Mother concept of God alongside the Father concept of God as sexist, a critique which resonates with millions of people?

There can be no single, detailed answer for everyone everywhere. But there are some things that can be said. For example, we can reflect on some inadequate answers, taking each one as an occasion for discovery. 

Alternative #1: Repeat a slogan. We could simply cherish the fatherhood of God as a revealed fact, and repeat the slogan of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. If we have not yet discovered the gospel as living truth, if we do not know the greatness of our loving and merciful Father whose spirit within enables us to know him, doctrine is all we have. This alternative may fail to be sensitive in response to all that is true and important in the array of reasons that support the feminist critique. Moreover, this alternative sacrifices the flexibility of living truth. For example, said, “In preaching the gospel of the kingdom, you are simply teaching friendship with God. And this fellowship will appeal alike to men and women in that both will find that which most truly satisfies their characteristic longings and ideals” (159:3.9/1766.5).

Effective proclaiming cannot be mind-driven. It must be an expression of the soul that knows and delights in its Father. The personality that repeatedly moves into worship will find God in breathtaking freshness every single day. Without worship, genuine service is impossible, and proclaming is mere noise. May our devotion to divinely motivated thoughts and to deeds of goodness enable us to speak beautifully revealing words.

Alternative #2: Fight. In an environment that is more or less unfriendly to the teachings of Jesus, our animal-origin fight-or-flight reaction gives us the option of becoming militant. At times Jesus was militant; and he did say, “When the willful unbeliever attacks you, do not hesitate to stand in vigorous defense of the truth which has saved and sanctified you.” Note, however, that this injunction only covers response to an attack. In the absence of such an assault, the relevant lesson to heed is the admonition, “Strive not with the souls you would win for the kingdom.” May we be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Alternative #3: Flight. Fear and anxiety would make us passive as we witness the revelation of the personality of God being driven from the field in many arenas. But rather than be anxious for self, we can instead be anxious for Jesus, who urgently needs of spiritual men and women who will give voice now to the living gospel. And we can be anxious for the untold millions around the world who are waiting for Jesus’ ennobling message. 

True, in many cases it is advisable to speak of God as Creator or Parent rather than Father. Indeed, the authors of The Urantia Book use various terms in order to highlight the aspect of Deity that they want to emphasize. Even though we acknowledge the father concept of God as the highest human concept of God (1260.3; 2097.3), it is well to have more terms for God than only our favorite. “Paucity of terminology, together with the sentimental retention of olden nomenclature, is often provocative of the failure to understand the true significance of the evolution of religious concepts” (1040.5).

When we remember that many people have developed bad associations with talk of God as Father because they were abused by their fathers, we can better understand why we are told that the full flourishing of the father concept of God on our world may have to wait until an age when fathers are better. 

In addition, there are so many ways to convey the many-sided gospel that we do not have to insist on a vocabulary that may repel our intended hearer. Going door-to-door, I simply say, “I’m your neighbor, Jeff, encouraging you in the faith that you are a daughter of God [or son of God].” Then I fall silent and let the conversation go from there. When motivated not by love and wisdom but by fear and embarrassment, however, we may go to the extreme of eliminating the use of the word “Father” altogether. Courage winces, as social acceptability is purchased at the sacrifice of the truth of the personality of God. It takes faith to trust that deep within the other person is something that wants to hear a revelatory concept of God expressed. At times I still find it a challenge to experience sharing the gospel as a gift of good news rather than as an unwelcome message that the person is likely to hear neither as news nor as good. But when I fully remember that God is our Father, that our includes the other person, me, and Jesus. 

Alternative #4: Let The Urantia Book do our ministry for us.  The book says it all so well, we might think, that we just need to get people to read that. The Urantia Book does have a significant role to play in renewing the gospel movement. Nevertheless, there are countless people today who will not read the book but need soul-saving truth. Moreover, the apostles were definitely instructed: “Do not undertake to show men the beauties of the temple until you have first taken them into the temple” (141:6/1593.0). And today we are told, “What is now most needed is Jesus. The world needs to see Jesus living again on earth in the experience of spirit-born mortals who effectively reveal the Master to all men” (195:10.1/2084.1). If our ministry consists largely in letting a book tell our message, our lives will hardly manifest the attractive qualities that lead others to slake their thirst in the water we claim to offer.

Pondering these four alternatives could lead to paralysis, unless we recall that we learning to “invigorate in the presence of difficulties,” which “only stimulate the true children of the Most Highs.” Said Jesus to Fortune, “Trouble will invigorate you; disappointment will spur you on; difficulties will challenge you; and obstacles will stimulate you. Arise, young man!”

Jesus’ Spirit of Truth is here now, helping you to get to know people and to understand the spiritual difficulties of the present generation and the groups and individuals with whom you speak–so that you can cooperate in presenting an up-to-date version of the gospel that addresses those difficulties (194:2.1/2060.6). 

The best way to deal with some issues is not to make an issue of it. Many people have developed such a natural and spontaneous way of referring to God that it might only harm their teaching to raise the question. They could become self-conscious and doubtful about their wonderful spontaneity, and their effectiveness would diminish. Jesus, after all, never gave a theological lesson on the fatherhood of God. Our only reason to probe the subject is to bring to mind some resources that help us to solve present problems.

How important is the name we choose for the Universal Father? From the beginning of Paper 1, we are told of many names. Clearly there is no theological orthodoxy to impose. Individuals are free to choose different names. “The name he is given is of little importance; the significant thing is that you should know him and aspire to be like him.”

 Why is the name Father often used? “If we believe that we are the children of the Creator, it is only natural that we should eventually call him Father.” On those worlds where a Paradise Son has lived a bestowal life, God is generally known by some name indicative of personal relationship, tender affection, and fatherly devotion. . . . Those who know God through the revelations of the bestowals of the Paradise Sons, eventually yield to the sentimental appeal of the touching relationship of the creature-Creator association and refer to God as ‘our Father.'”

How are we to go about choosing our own name for God? First, it is necessary to find God. The name of our choosing is “much dependent on [our] concept of the Creator.” Our choice of a name “grows out of the recognition of our personal relationship with the First Source and Center.” “When you have once become truly God-conscious, after you really discover the majestic Creator and begin to experience the realization of the indwelling presence of the divine controller, you will find a name for the Universal Father which will be adequately expressive of your concept of the First Great Source and Center.” Each name means the same “in spirit of relationship”; and each name stands for “the degree, the depth, of his enthronement in the hearts of his creatures . . . .”

The names Jesus used

 Jesus actually used two names, as we learn in 169:4/1856.

Except when quoting the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus referred to Deity by only two names: God and Father. And when the Master made reference to his Father as God, he usually employed the Hebrew word signifying the plural God (the Trinity) . . . .

Jesus employed the word God to designate the idea of Deity and the word Father to designate the experience of knowing God. When the word Father is employed to denote God, it should be understood in its largest possible meaning. The word God cannot be defined and therefore stands for the infinite concept of the Father, while the term Father, being capable of partial definition, may be employed to represent the human concept of the divine Father as he is associated with man during the course of mortal existence.

To the Jews, Elohim was the God of gods, while Yahweh was the God of Israel. Jesus accepted the concept of Elohim and called this supreme group of beings God. In the place of the concept of Yahweh, the racial deity, he introduced the idea of the fatherhood of God and the world-wide brotherhood of man. He exalted the Yahweh concept of a deified racial Father to the idea of a Father of all the children of men, a divine Father of the individual believer. And he further taught that this God of universes and this Father of all men were one and the same Paradise Deity.

Jesus never claimed to be the manifestation of Elohim (God) in the flesh. He never declared that he was a revelation of Elohim (God) to the worlds. He never taught that he who had seen him had seen Elohim (God). But he did proclaim himself as the revelation of the Father in the flesh, and he did say that whoso had seen him had seen the Father. As the divine Son he claimed to represent only the Father.

He was, indeed, the Son of even the Elohim God; but in the likeness of mortal flesh and to the mortal sons of God, he chose to limit his life revelation to the portrayal of his Father’s character in so far as such a revelation might be comprehensible to mortal man. As regards the character of the other persons of the Paradise Trinity, we shall have to be content with the teaching that they are altogether like the Father, who has been revealed in personal portraiture in the life of his incarnated Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

 

For many readers, and for our personal religious life, the foregoing teachings suffice to clarify the question of the Father’s name. Today, however, after generations of influential feminist critique that has important insights as well as errors sometimes, many teachers of Jesus’ religion want more preparation for handling the issue.

Does Jesus’ strategy for proclaiming the gospel relieve us of the need to understand the issues raised by feminist theology? Of course not. We know the inconsistency of exalting something while refusing to analyze it (83:7/929.3). Moreover, the fifth epochal revelation has much to say about the fatherhood of God, and now that the culture is in crisis over the issue, we may have a chance to make a contribution. Jesus painstakingly sorted through key problems relating to his ministry, and we can do the same, so long as we avoid overanalysis and subordinate intellectual pursuits to religious ends.

One option has increasing support today and is worth taking seriously. Proclaim a trinitarian gospel or a message of the fatherhood and motherhood of God. This approach is welcomed by many women and by many younger people. There is a widespread spiritual need for the spiritual equality of women and men to be proclaimed. And that need exists alongside the social movement of feminist critique.

Regarding the social-and-political movement of feminism, Jesus’s reply to Thomas is still relevant. 

But within every social, economic, and political difficulty are concealed spiritual difficulties. And the fact of social feminist or sometimes unwise egalitarian pressure should not interfere with our response to spiritual difficulties.

I have many times spoken of “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the equality of women with men, and the freedom of each person to use the language that expresses his or her discovery of these spiritual realities.” Many times I have mentioned “the parental love of God and the siblinghood of humankind” immediately after “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” More often now I use the term “family of God.”

In my region, resistance to the fatherhood of God is diminishing, so why should I remain captive to the theological battles of the past? If I mention the Father and someone asks you, “What about God the Mother?” I can easily affirm, “That, too!” In response to feminist concerns, I sometimes speak of “the motherly love of God” or to affirm that “in God we experience motherly love as well as fatherly love.” Much of what needs to be said is implied in the following sequence: God is. God is in us. We are in God. We don’t want theology to master religion. What the world is waiting to hear is a living gospel, not a discourse about religious language.

We know that Jesus “countenanced only those teachings which accorded women equality with men” (133:2/1839.1), and on one occasion he was explicit about the Deity pattern for this equality when he spoke with the man who had been beating his wife (167:5/1471.1). Nevertheless, Jesus taught us to keep our message simple when making introductory presentations or speaking with the general public.  Here’s how he put it to Simon Zelotes.

When you have presented to mortal man the good news that God is his Father, you can the easier persuade him that he is in reality a son of God. And having done that, you have brought the light of salvation to the one who sits in darkness. Simon, when the Son of Man came first to you, did he come denouncing Moses and the prophets and proclaiming a new and better way of life? No. I came not to take away that which you had from your forefathers but to show you the perfected vision of that which your fathers saw only in part. Go then, Simon, teaching and preaching the kingdom, and when you have a man safely and securely within the kingdom, then is the time, when such a one shall come to you with inquiries, to impart instruction having to do with the progressive advancement of the soul within the divine kingdom. (141:6/1592.4)

In other words, we can keep advanced teachings for other times and places. Would it be too complex to proclaim the Trinity? The gospel is entry-level truth, not advanced teaching. Although we can adjust the expression of core spiritual truth to the group we are speaking to (less possible on social media), the original gospel of Jesus should be able to reach Jews and Muslims. And given the human tendency to project social issues into the spiritual realm, there may be an unconscious anthropomorphism (projecting a human image of God) in order to satisfy the demands of the current generation. Over time, the project could backfire. The unity of God could become compromised. Think of the early Christian teachers who proclaimed Jesus’ divine Sonship to such an extent, that despite their social success, they sacrificed much of the original gospel for which the world was then ready, as it is again now.

At the same time, we must examine our soul. It is not we but the Spirit of Truth who formulates the gospel to meet the spiritual needs of our generation. Authoritarian interpretation of the Urantia Book and less-than-spiritual proclamation does not allow us to express in ways that allow Jesus to live again in us.

Here, in highly condensed form, are facets of the father concept of God that I have gathered from The Urantia Book. The more we gain spiritual insight into them, the more genuine will be our expression, no matter what name we may be using. “God–the Universal Father–is the personality of the First Source and Center” (Foreword, I/3.9). The father concept of God includes the unity and personality of God, the love and mercy of God, friendship with God, our capacity to experience God within. The Father concept implies that God is the head of the universal family, that he is absolute volition. If we merely obey him as a servant obeys a king who promulgates law for a people, we miss the individual and personal experience of consecrating our will to do his will, which brings the joy of relating to him as father (141:2/1588#2; cf. 149:6/1675#6). Jesus, moreover, commented that “Buddha, having failed to envision God and as spirit and as a Father, failed to provide in his teaching the moral energy and the spiritual driving power which a religion must have if it is to change a race and exalt a nation” (132:7/1467.2). The father concept carries overtones of sovereignty, indicated in the remark of the almost paternal relationship of the system sovereigns with their subordinates (35:9/393.5); the Father “may at any time interpose a fatherly hand in the stream of cosmic events” (118:10/1305.1). Fatherly love calls us to perfection, chastises us for our own good, assures us of eternal sonship, and indwells us to parent our evolving soul. We are created to have a natural affection for the Father that “insures an understanding and loving relationship” (140:10/1585.2). A father is responsible for the fact of our existence, for our security and pleasure, education and training, discipline and restraint, companionship and loyalty, love and mercy, and provision for the future (142:7/1604). In our universe family we normally come to know seven fathers: the human father, the Planetary Adam, the System Sovereign, the Constellation Father, the Creator Son, the Ancients of Days, and the Universal Father (51:6/587.4).

Though the Trinity is not the pattern for human pair marriage (33:3/369.1), the Trinity does model an association in which the head relates in equality with the other members. Most important for this conversation, as the Father concept was taught by Melchizedek partly to prepare the way for the Bestowal Son, it was taught by Jesus partly to prepare the way for the revelation of the motherhood of God. In human experience God is one. We cannot identify divinely fatherly love as separate or distinct from divinely motherly love. In an age where ideological polemics mingle with sincere soul striving to know the motherhood of God, we have been given revelation regarding the Eternal Mother Son, the family of the daughters of the Infinite Spirit, and the motherly Supreme Being.

The Urantia Book offers relevant ideas in history, sociology, and philosophy, and theology. Part III contains teachings about the difference and complementarity of the sexes that can only be interpreted in the context of the spiritual perspective established in the Parts I, II, and IV. We are told, for example, that a Bestowal Son always incarnates as a male (20:6/229.1) and that Jesus’ mortal bestowal was designed to reveal the Father. The task of synthesizing these diverse teachings is a philosophical labor which will continue to attract psychologists, philosophers, and theologians.

It is also helpful to listen to feminist theology. Many contemporary theologians claim that calling God “Father” uses a metaphor. A metaphor is a word drawn from our daily experience used to express something else—in this case, something whose mystery lies beyond human comprehension. Since referring to God as father has played so well into traditional patriarchal hands, the argument goes, we need to complement this metaphor by using different metaphors such as mother, lover, and friend. Let us vigorously affirm the equality of women with men and acknowledge that the artistic language of today’s best religious spokespersons does indeed express spiritual insight. Moreover, The Urantia Book gives limited support for interpreting talk of the Father as metaphoric. Jesus told us that “the child . . . is wholly dependent upon the earthly father for his first ideas of the heavenly Father” (177:2.5/1922.3; cf. 1769.9). The truth is that the evolving mind of the child, projecting its father image, is precisely following the Creator’s plan. The function of the metaphor, so to speak, is precisely to anticipate the adult’s reception of revelation. The Urantia Book has passages, however, that challenge the theology of metaphor. “God loves not like a father, but as a father” (1:6.4/41.2). In general, the book teaches that human fathers are a created reflection of an eternal pattern, and “shadows should be interpreted in terms of the true substance” (1:6.1/29.7; 63:0.3/711.3). In New Testament, Paul writes of “the Father, from whom every family, spiritual and natural, takes its name” (Ephesians 3.14). In other words, once we really begin to know God, we learn from God what it really means to be a parent.

Most people who express feminist concerns are sincere people who long for the experience of divine love for themselves and others. They long for women and men to enjoy spiritual equality. Let us have faith in Jesus’ gospel! We are not constrained to any one way of naming, nor to any one formulation of our message, but we are constrained to learn to love so well that spiritual equality comes alive in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Our way of living the brotherhood of man (and perhaps our readiness to say “siblinghood of humankind”) will do what vocabulary, by itself, cannot do.

Clarifying the fatherhood of God in public

In preaching and teaching, I have found that many groups appreciate the following clarifications, which I present here in somewhat condensed form.

“What could it have meant to the Jews of first-century Palestine to say that God is our Father? The meaning of a word is given by contrast. The Jews already knew God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and as the Lord of history. They regarded God as a king with awesome power and a judge with supreme authority. Jesus brought an even greater truth. The concept of God as Father contrasts with the concept of God as king. The point of the contrast is not to deny the sovereignty of God but to emphasize the close and loving relationship between the Creator-father and the creature-child. Thanks to the spirit gift, the kingdom within, we can enjoy the faith-experience of intimate personal communion with him.

“This historical note suggests that it is misleading to interpret Jesus’ revelation of the Father as though it were designed to enter into current discussions about the motherhood of God. Jesus’ proclamation of God was not in contrast to the motherhood of God. Indeed, Jesus prepared us to recognize that in God we experience motherly love as well as fatherly love. He compared the kingdom of heaven to a woman seeking a lost coin, and he compared himself to a mother hen seeking to gather her chicks under her wings. The tender mercies of the encompassing, nurturing love of God are touchingly present in Jesus’ ministry. We need to turn to God for our minimum daily requirement of divinely fatherly and divinely motherly love. To those who seek expanded revelation of the motherhood of God today, Jesus says, “Ask and you will receive; knock and the door will be opened to you; seek and you will find.” Jesus did not make people recite doctrines; he did not force anyone to adopt any particular name. He did reveal the personality and nature of God. An advanced trinitarian theology can clarify these matters further, but Jesus invites us to begin relating to God as our father, and actually it’s very remarkable that he did. He could have come to us and said, “God is my father, and he is your grandfather.” But in fact he invited us to share in the relationship that he experienced with God.”

 

Conclusion

In the phrase “our Father” the word “our” is as important as the word “Father.” The word “our” points in two directions. A Creator Son who related to the First Source and Center as father invited us to share that his wonderful relation with God. Thus, our older brother Jesus began the great revelation of this truth, and we are one with him insofar as we truly pass on the ever-expanding revelation of Deity and divinity. Second, we must always regard the Father as the other person’s Father as well. Once we regard the other as embraced in the loving family circle, shadows of alienation and struggle vanish. Peace emerges. Jesus sent believers to introduce people not to a word or even to a concept but to an experience, a relationship. After all, “sonship is the only experience which makes fatherhood certain” (103:7/1126.1). “Jesus employed the word God (“Elohim”) to designate the idea of Deity and the word Father to designate the experience of knowing God” (169:4/1856.5).

The issues are complex, and if the human mind cannot resolve them, the faith-filled soul can do just fine. We will not emerge with uniform solutions, but the Spirit of Truth will harmonize our best efforts, as did the Master with the twelve. And the power and maturity of our teaching and preaching next year will be greater than they were last year.

With increasing conviction, I continue to proclaim the fatherhood of God. Often I add a word about the motherhood of God. But to do so on every occasion would compromise the integrity of the liberating truth that I have the privilege to proclaim.   

Revised June 4, 2019