Once a deconstructionist has formed a god in their own image, they'll just start talking like all the things they've made of Him are true. Like they are just naturally and obviously true and real. It will flow so smoothly off their tongue that you will think they are still worshiping the same Christian God that you are.
But they aren't.
And they'll usually try to talk with some kind of depth that they count on you to not understand, but that sounds like something only highly-educated persons can understand, so they want you to trust in their authority.
For example, the book I am reading right now declares that God is just as much feminine as He is masculine and that we should not be pigeonholed into only using male pronouns for Him. This is not a new idea - plenty of persons across the ages have referenced an idea of "Mother God." And correctly, the author cites that the Hebrew word for "Spirit" is feminine, which means there is some degree of solid foundation for a feminine presence within the Trinity.
But then, she goes on to say that the Hebrew word that we translate as "God Almighty" (El Shaddai) doesn't actually mean "Almighty." She says there's no documentation or tradition that would explain why we translate this word "Almighty." Rather, she claims, the word "shad" that begins the second word indicates a breastfeeding mother. So we should reference the Lord as "the breastfeeding God." Clearly female. Nothing male about Him at all. Can't believe how much white cisgender heterosexual males have corrupted this for thousands of years.
Okay, fine. But the word "homeowner" has the word "meow" right in the middle of it, so we should not say anyone actually owns a home, but that anyone who has a home is actually a cat. The word "hate" actually starts with "hat," so we're not talking about persons who hold intense judgment toward someone or something; we're just talking about folks with headwear.
Do you see how ridiculous the argument is? There's no linguistic justification to what she's saying, not a single true expert in Hebrew language who would agree with her, but she knows that the overwhelming majority of her readers will not know Hebrew, so she pretends to be more educated than you and cites something you think is high-brow and educated...and then makes a point she has no reasonable excuse for making and claims it as truth, hoping you'll just take it.
And in the process, she has stripped God of His mightiness. Taken away His power. Claimed something different about Him than He's claimed about Himself.... God reveals Himself as Almighty. That's the definition that has been claimed for thousands upon thousands of years - by both men and women and sure, recently, "white cisgender heterosexual males" - and is consistently revealed throughout His Word. But she has decided none of that is necessary.
And if God isn't almighty? Think about what that means about His qualifications as God.
It's ridiculous.
So when you're reading these books, listening to these arguments, you have to be mindful of the ways that false authority is presented. You have to think about the things they're not expecting you to think about or not expecting you to understand. You have to look not just at the arguments they are making about God (it might not be terrible to think of the feminine nature of the Lord as breastfeeding - lifegiving and nurturing), but at what they are stripping Him of to make that point. There's no other way to account for His almighty-ness without shaddai.
Why doesn't she want the Lord to be Almighty?
No comments:
Post a Comment