Starts to imagined dialogues with those who don't believe in God or who struggle with the Bible

Some honest comments from those who struggle to believe might include such things as, “The miracles in the Bible are so fantastical as to be unbelievable.” “The resurrection didn’t happen, nor did the miracles. They are little more than fanciful stories. They don’t make sense when taken to be actual historical events.”

I suppose much can be said here (and has been and may yet be), but the narrative of the Bible taken as a whole certainly displays an internal coherence, self-awareness, and revelatory power. The first two are remarkable given the number of human authors involved in the penning of the Scriptural witness and the vast span of time covered by not only the events of the Bible but by the lifetimes of the biblical authors. The third wonder, the revelatory power of the Bible, is manifest in its putting forth the purposeful interplay between God and matter, between God and man, between God and history. There was purpose to the whole order of things and God’s will and love are such as to ensure that His purpose is accomplished.

I realize that even speaking in such a fashion will provide ample opportunity for many disputations. Many doubt the historicity of both the Bible and the persons the Bible names as historic realities. Many assert that if such a being as God exists, that being is so other than we are that such a being cannot be known by mankind. Others deny that anything of personality or purpose describe attributes of the divine. And then, in using conventional language for God, I have sadly offended others and assumed something of a bigoted, sexist, chauvinistic, male-dominating perspective before even getting started. Or so some would certainly say.

I suppose that’s the major sticking point with almost all spoken and written forms of communication. The “language” utilized must be understood by both/all parties and some agreement as to the use of that language must be arrived at before any dialogue can meaningfully take place. If the parties attempting to communicate use different words or phases to describe the same thing or use the same words or phrases to mean different things, then communication can go sideways rather quickly.

As an aside, I do think it has been rightly said that language both clarifies and obscures. It allows us to say what we mean to say, and it allows us to avoid saying what we would rather not say. It allows us to be transparent and attempt to make ourselves known, and it allows us to hide our true selves and project only what we want others to believe or think about us. True communication must start with parties that intend to communicate clearly, transparently, non-deceptively with each other. Pride must be guarded against (for many, myself included, would love to be thought of us being clever, intellectually astute, sophisticated and well-read, discerning, etc. etc. – and this can certainly make for some suggestive but unclear use of language to attempt to communicate more than we really can).

An initial effort towards clearing away some distracting sidebars to the sidelines now follows. For instance, trying to prove or disprove the historicity of Jesus, the apostles, and say Moses or Elijah, is probably a dead-heat endeavor. We will each cite our respected authorities to put forth what we believe to be true about the matter, because neither of us has direct knowledge of such things. Perhaps one of the other could be persuaded, but likely not. So we must simply own the different presuppositions we bring to the table. You believe the Bible to not be historically reliable, whereas I believe that it is; you may or not believe in the historic event of the crucifixion of man named Jesus the Nazarene somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 AD, whereas I believe that to be true history.

And then a few rather brief comments on the references to God that are masculine in gender. God as “Father,” for instance. He, His, Him pronouns, and all the rest. I realize this is a difficult area for many people, especially some of my biologically female friends.

But that's the first thing. When we speak of God using any kind of gender-based word, we aren't speaking biologically. God isn't biologically anything. He is Spirit (there's that pronoun thing again). He doesn't have a body like we do.

Secondly, we must recognize that many languages still in use in the world are inflected. Verbs carry their subject in their form. In Spanish, the single word Comprendo means “I understand.” The pronoun and the verb are all wrapped together. Nouns carry gender in them, but, again, not biologically. Yet, these nouns are either “masculine” or “feminine” in many languages. La mesa, again in Spanish, means “the table.” But the la indicates that table is feminine. But why? Nothing about a table suggests biological gender.

The use of language here has tended to borrow from human sexual activity to give us notions of activity and passivity, receptivity and penetration, participation and begetting. Think of the references to plumbing fittings. You have male and female ends based on whether the piece fits inside another piece or receives the other piece. We even say that such pieces are couplers. They join together.

The table, of previous example, is passive. It receives activity upon it. Dishes, food, work papers, and other items or placed upon it and it simply receives them. The action happens to it. The Spanish words for “the car” on the other hand, would include el coche and el auto, the el indicating masculinity. Automobiles are active. They take us places. They move. They have power and direction. Etc. (It is humorously ironic that many men have the habit of referring to their cars with phrases like “she's a real beaut.”)

So coming back to the language we use for God, it has more to do with God being the prime mover, the initiator and primary actor in all creation. He is also the one who has begotten the Son. He penetrates hearts and minds to discern our thoughts from afar. In rescuing us from our brokenness, we use language like “we are dead in our trespasses” (dead is about as passive as it gets), but God sent His Son in love to redeem us. God creates, He gives life, He orders all things according to His purposes. He is supremely active, and thus our limited language “stoops” to try to get at this by using the masculine. Certainly nothing would be improved by using feminine pronouns or gender-neutral pronouns or new made-up pronouns. In fact, we would lose something by doing so.

And as long as we are talking (albeit in a roundabout way) about our penchant for taking offense, I might as well throw out there that when the Bible speaks of the relationship God has with His people (and His people include both men and women), the analogy of marriage is the primary analogy. God being the bridegroom, and His people being the bride. Same in the Old Testament or New. Christ and the Church, his Bride. Plenty of men have had trouble with that. So, we all have to make some concessions and try to understand the limits of language and why we use it in certain ways.