rough whose indwelling Jesus Christ, the "Son of God (Man)" is made active in our daily Christian lives. Is it plausible, or desireable, that terminology such as "Our Mother," "Queen of Queens," or "Child of God (or, Man/Woman)" can be incorporated or substituted in the language of worship, prayer, and communion with God?
Frye (1989) essentially rejects any attempt to reckon "certain biblical figures for others that, for whatever reason, may seem preferable" on the basis that such efforts are "not only linguistically and literally wrong, but also leads to conclusions that are false both historically and theologically" (p. 45). Frye argues that changes in the language of worship or the text of the Bible go beyond adding words and phrases for God which radically undermine "Christian faith, understanding, and Scripture" (p. 45).
Frye vehemently rejects the so-called feminist theology of Rosemary Radford Ruether, in whose view, "feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon . . . . Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible" (p. 46). Although he claims to "agree fully" with "affirmations of full dignity and equal rights for women" (p. 46), Frye's view is essentially a continuation of the male-dominated (androcentric) theology of the Christian church, which is firmly rooted in the male-dominated religious customs of Judaism.
Similarly, Kimel (1991) posits that "(t)he triune God has named himself, and he likes his name" (p. 147). In his estimation, Kimel believes that any efforts directed at a renaming of the Godhead "touch the substance of the gospel (and) create a new religion, a new God" (p. 158). Kimel describes the advent of modern-day feminist theology as a "crisis (which) carries in itself a wonderful opportunity: It may . . . provoke our theological reflection to a ra
...