But I’m No Expert


Mother, Child, Womb?
June 24, 2006, 4:48 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

So, I’m reading the news the other day and I ran across this article on Foxnews.com. Apparently, the Presbyterian Church USA (FYI – this is a different denomination from Presbyterian PCA) has decided that they are going to try some “inclusive” references to the trinity. It’s not binding, so people who don’t want to use it, don’t have to, but they decided on a few potential replacements for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

Rock, Redeemer, Friend – ok, I guess
Creator, Savior, Sanctifier – good one
King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love – too verbose
Lover, Beloved, Love – kindy fruity if you ask me
Mother, Child and Womb – huh?

OK, the whole “Let’s make God more inclusive” thing reaks of stupidity, but it might be an interesting creative exercise, ya know, to make new references with Biblical origins. However, that last one is just asinine. Mother, Child, Womb? What? I can’t be the only one who thinks that one is only “inclusive” for women, since we ALL have wombs , right? They say this is all because the mere idea that God is male is somehow an insult to women and we need to include everybody, blah, blah, blah. What a load of crap. These people need a hobby. Oh wait, they have one already – it’s nit picking every little pointless thing and making everyone else miserable! What they need to do is focus on the important aspects of Christianity, like showing the world how loving God really is so everyone wants to get to know him…but I’m no expert.


No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>