They worry that using "Father" and "Son" leads to this misunderstanding, and that translations for the Muslim culture should use other dynamic equivalents in place of this familial language.
Over the next few blogs, I'll address this issue, looking at questions like the following:
1. Suggested dynamic equivalents: The proponents suggest various options, generally revolving around messianic theology that speaks of a royal heir to the throne. What do we gain and/or lose if adopt them?
2. The threat to trinitarian theology: Is it possible retain fully Christian trinitarian thought if we loose track of the Father, who sent the Son, and the Son, who obeyed his Father, and the Spirit whom the Son sent?
3. Whether this is a linguistic difficulty or a theological difficulty: What specific languages are we concerned about, which lack any non-biological reference when speaking of a father and son relationship? Is it really linguistic, or is it actually a theological issue.
4. Biblical limits to accommodation for the sinful reader: How far can we safely move for the sake of the receptor's understanding and still faithfully communicate the Sender's intent.
I'll try to blog this issue over the next few days, and if I also write something more substantial than blog entries, I'll include a link for it when it's available.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad