Tim Keller did a really good sermon series on the story of the prodigal son in which he dealt with the concept of "sonship" in the Bible, and if you can find it, I would highly recommend it.
I think it is important to keep to the original wording of passages which refer to believers as sons, whether in translations or hymns, because the meaning behind being an adopted son of God is one of status, not gender. In Jewish culture, sons enjoyed benefits that daughters did not, such as sharing the inheritance. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are all coheirs with Him, which is why "sonship" is used.
This concept would probably have been obvious to those to whom Paul was writing because they were living in or around that culture. A woman would likely have been thrilled to be called a "son" of God. It is less obvious to us now, because women enjoy much more social equality than previously, leading us to interpret the biblical language as male-centric. But I think the better solution is to teach the context and the symbolism rather than to water down the translation.
David, you had me at "Tim Keller". Haha, I actually think you're right on point with this one... the only pushback I would give is that just because the Bible uses an analogy at times (like sonship), I'm ambivalent over whether we have to put them in our songs if they appear culturally insensitive at a certain moment. For example, I'm not that upset that "soldier" language has decreased from the old hymns, even if it is used as an analogy as times.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm comfortable doing a calculus between the importance/frequency of an analogy in the Bible vs. the cultural misunderstandings and tensions it creates. Do we lose a bit when we talk about 'adoption' and 'heirs' and 'inheritance' but don't mention 'sons'? Sure. But it's possible we gain a lot more by leaving gendered language out of songs (where practically, the worship leader really isn't gonna stop and explain) and not alienating congregants.
Yeah I suppose I wouldn't expect modern hymn-writers to intentionally work in more sonship references. Though, I think it often happens because the lyricists are pulling from Scripture. In 'How Deep the Father's Love For Us,' for example, I think we can assume the author quoted "bring many sons to glory" because it meant something to him. So we would be on weird ground to say that he should have changed or avoided a biblical reference on account of it being "exclusive." I'm definitely with you that if we are seeking to lead people into worship, it makes the most sense to accommodate.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteTim Keller did a really good sermon series on the story of the prodigal son in which he dealt with the concept of "sonship" in the Bible, and if you can find it, I would highly recommend it.
I think it is important to keep to the original wording of passages which refer to believers as sons, whether in translations or hymns, because the meaning behind being an adopted son of God is one of status, not gender. In Jewish culture, sons enjoyed benefits that daughters did not, such as sharing the inheritance. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are all coheirs with Him, which is why "sonship" is used.
This concept would probably have been obvious to those to whom Paul was writing because they were living in or around that culture. A woman would likely have been thrilled to be called a "son" of God. It is less obvious to us now, because women enjoy much more social equality than previously, leading us to interpret the biblical language as male-centric. But I think the better solution is to teach the context and the symbolism rather than to water down the translation.
Great podcast.
David, you had me at "Tim Keller". Haha, I actually think you're right on point with this one... the only pushback I would give is that just because the Bible uses an analogy at times (like sonship), I'm ambivalent over whether we have to put them in our songs if they appear culturally insensitive at a certain moment. For example, I'm not that upset that "soldier" language has decreased from the old hymns, even if it is used as an analogy as times.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying is that I'm comfortable doing a calculus between the importance/frequency of an analogy in the Bible vs. the cultural misunderstandings and tensions it creates. Do we lose a bit when we talk about 'adoption' and 'heirs' and 'inheritance' but don't mention 'sons'? Sure. But it's possible we gain a lot more by leaving gendered language out of songs (where practically, the worship leader really isn't gonna stop and explain) and not alienating congregants.
What do you think?
Yeah I suppose I wouldn't expect modern hymn-writers to intentionally work in more sonship references. Though, I think it often happens because the lyricists are pulling from Scripture. In 'How Deep the Father's Love For Us,' for example, I think we can assume the author quoted "bring many sons to glory" because it meant something to him. So we would be on weird ground to say that he should have changed or avoided a biblical reference on account of it being "exclusive." I'm definitely with you that if we are seeking to lead people into worship, it makes the most sense to accommodate.
Delete