Jonah 1:11-16
11 And they said to him, “What shall we do to you so that the sea will quieten down from on us?” For the sea was growing and storming.
12 And he said to them, “Lift me up and throw me into the sea and the sea will quieten down from on you because I know that on account of me this great storm is upon you.”
13 And the men rowed to bring back to the dry land and they were not able to because the sea was growing and storming upon them. 14 And they called to YHWH and they said, “Please YHWH please do not let us perish by the life of this man and you must not put on us innocent blood, for you YHWH, as you pleased you have done.” 15 And they lifted Jonah up and threw him into the sea and the sea stood still from its rage. 16 And the men feared YHWH with a great fear and they sacrificed a sacrifice to YHWH and they vowed vows.
Jonah 1:7-10
7 And they said, each man to his neighbour, “Come and let us cast lots and let us know on account of whom this disaster has come on us.” And they cast lots and the lot fell to Jonah.
8 And they said to him, “Please tell to us on whose account for whom this disaster has come on us? What is your occupation and from where do you come? What is your land and from where are your people?”
9 And he said to them, “I am a Hebrew and YHWH God of the heavens I fear, who made the sea and the dry land.”
10 And the men were afraid with a great fear and they said to him, “What is this you have done?” For the men knew that he was fleeing from before YHWH for he had told it to them.
Jonah is unique among the Old Testament’s prophetic books. Instead of being a record of the prophecies of Jonah it tells of his unwillingness to proclaim God’s word to Nineveh. I am currently in the process of translating Jonah and I hope to post my translation, bit by bit, with a few comments about each section, mainly from what I already know and from what the Hebrew texts highlights (which may not come over very well into English). As a result the translation itself will be very literal and the English may be awkward in places.
This question arose out of a conversation I had with my husband a few days ago. It came from reading this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10176190/Archbishop-Justin-Welby-I-was-embarrassed.-It-was-like-getting-measles.html in which speaking in tongues is described as a Protestant practice. My husband is Dutch, and tells me that in the Netherlands speaking in tongues is not considered a Protestant practice at all and Christians at the Charismatic-Pentecostal end of the spectrum are almost perceived as not being Protestant but rather a nominal divergence of it.
This is not the case for Protestant churches in New Zealand, some of which practice and encourage tongues and other practices that could be considered “happy-clappy.”
It is also very different from my understanding of Protestant. As I see it there are three main strands of Christians: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches split in AD 1054 after a long period of troubled relationships, partially over the addition of the Latin word filioque into the clause about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed by the western church (Catholic). This change was rejected by the eastern (Orthodox) church. In the east the Spirit proceeds from the Father, while in the west he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
In 1517 Martin Luther triggered the Reformation with his 95 theses in which he argues against the practice of indulgences (buying forgiveness from the church) as corrupt and unbiblical. The Protestant Christianity that came out of the Reformation was built on the basis that justification is by faith alone, and not faith and works as Catholic practices at the time indicated (as seen in indulgences). They also give the Bible the place of primary authority (instead of the Pope), and believe in a priesthood of all believers (not just ordained priests). It also limited the sacraments to two (communion and baptism) instead of seven (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, unction, holy orders and matrimony).
It is this historical basis that has become my basis for defining Protestants as almost every Christian who is not Catholic or Orthodox. As a result my idea of a Protestant is very diverse (including Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Charismatic, Pentecostal and Congregational to name a few of those prominent in western countries).
The discussion I had concerning speaking in tongues as a Protestant practice (or not) has started me wondering: how do other people (who perhaps haven’t been taught the historical background as I have) define a Protestant today?
So my question to you is: how do you define Protestant?
Please feel free to leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments below.
Not only a Father: Talk of God as Mother in the Bible and Christian Tradition, by Tim Bulkeley.
Last year I took a paper on the book of Isaiah taught by Tim Bulkeley, formerly of Carey Bible College in Auckland, and now retired. As is normal with lecturers, he took the opportunity to promote his most recent book, the result of reworking his doctrinal thesis. I like these occasions because it gives me the opportunity to read books that I might not normally come across. Not only a Father is very thin (only 120 pages) which is a bonus when studying as reading quickly piles up. But also when Tim detailed what he was trying to do in it, it sounded really interesting. I had already come across some of the motherly language for God in the Bible, but when I sat down a few weeks ago to read Not only a Father, I was surprised to discover how much I had missed and how subtle some of the language was.
Tim argues that the language used for God in the Bible is not exclusively male, but includes numerous motherly images, which enable God to be described as caring and nurturing towards his creation, particularly humans. These references are particularly common in the Old Testament where they are so subtle that they are often overlooked. However, they are not exclusive to the Old Testament even though the mainstream fatherly language of God stems from Jesus’ use of “Father” for God in the Gospels. Matthew 23:37-39 (paralleled by Luke 13:34-35) is a clear example of motherly language where Jesus describes himself as a mother hen gathering her chicks. As Jesus is part of the Godhead this must be taken into account alongside his use of “Father”.
Even though in both testaments the masculine pronoun is used for God (there is no neuter gender in Hebrew, and it would seem weird to us to refer to God as “it”), this does not mean that he is male. As Tim points out, if God is considered to be purely male, then we are casting him in our own image and detracting from who he is as our creator and saviour. While it may seem weird to refer to God as “mother”, thinking of God as not exclusively male allows us to gain a broader understanding of the God we worship. It allows him not to be constrained by our own stereotypical notions of what it means to be a man or indeed a woman. And although our notions of what God is like will never be completely accurate, I believe that the inclusion of these motherly images of God moves our ideas about God closer to what he really is like.
The best thing about this book though, is that it is all available online. Tim has put the whole text up on his website (bigbible.org/mothergod/) so that people will be able to post comments and engage in discussions with each other about it. So, don’t just take my word for it that it is a good read. Check it out for yourselves.
