Theologian NT Wright defends traditional male pronouns for God amid cultural shifts

Michie said:

Theologian N.T. Wright recently emphasized that while God transcends gender, using traditional male pronouns like “Father” remains theologically appropriate when understood in light of Scripture.

In a wide-ranging conversation on the "Ask N.T. Wright Anything" podcast, the theologian and former bishop of Durham addressed the question: Is it appropriate to refer to God using male pronouns?

The question came from a listener in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who noted the tension between the use of male language for God — such as “He” and “Father” — and the theological understanding that God transcends human categories, including gender. The listener acknowledged Jesus’ own references to God as Father and wondered whether using male pronouns for the Trinity remains valid today.

Continued below.

Theologian NT Wright defends traditional male pronouns for God amid cultural shifts

Theologian N T Wright recently emphasized that while God transcends gender, using traditional male pronouns like Father remains theologically appropriate when understood in light of Scripture

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Good. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, stated that worshipping a “Mother, daughter and Holy Spirit” would be an ontologically different religion than Christianity in his rather good book that blends dogmatic theology with the Orthodox experience, The Orthodox Way.

William Lane Craig argues that the Father-Son-Spirit aspect of the Trinity is the "economic" Trinity - the way God chose to present the spiritual reality to humans after the Incarnation. He argues there is no Father-Son-Spirit distinction in the "ontological" Trinity, and that any of the three could have incarnated as the Son or filled the role of the Father. Judaism apparently did not think of God as having a gender but used masculine terminology to express God's relationship to the creation (although it was, of course, a highly patriarchal culture). The OT does personify God's wisdom and creative power by the feminine name Sophia, but Christianity lacks this. This is surely why Mary has the prominence she does in Orthodoxy and Catholicism; there is a psychological need to elevate the feminine to the level of the Godhead, or as close as possible. With all due respect to N. T. Wright, and realizing that things aren't likely to change anytime soon, I believe there has to be a better - and, frankly, more realistic - way to think and speak of God than in male terms that really have no meaning apart from human gender.

In the article, it seems to me that Wright does nothing but tap dance around the issue, while Piper's take on it is entirely sexist.

HBP said:

William Lane Craig argues that the Father-Son-Spirit aspect of the Trinity is the "economic" Trinity - the way God chose to present the spiritual reality to humans after the Incarnation. He argues there is no Father-Son-Spirit distinction in the "ontological" Trinity, and that any of the three could have incarnated as the Son or filled the role of the Father. Judaism apparently did not think of God as having a gender but used masculine terminology to express God's relationship to the creation (although it was, of course, a highly patriarchal culture). The OT does personify God's wisdom and creative power by the feminine name Sophia, but Christianity lacks this. This is surely why Mary has the prominence she does in Orthodoxy and Catholicism; there is a psychological need to elevate the feminine to the level of the Godhead, or as close as possible. With all due respect to N. T. Wright, and realizing that things aren't likely to change anytime soon, I believe there has to be a better - and, frankly, more realistic - way to think and speak of God than in male terms that really have no meaning apart from human gender.

In the article, it seems to me that Wright does nothing but tap dance around the issue, while Piper's take on it is entirely sexist.

Click to expand...

Good depth of thought behind this reflection, and I share the desire to speak of God in ways that are both faithful and meaningful. My Catholic perspective is that I hold to the mystery of the Trinity as revealed: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—three distinct Persons, yet one God in essence. This language is rooted in divine revelation and the lived faith of the Church. That said, I also recognise that our language about God is always analogical. God transcends human categories, including gender.

William Lane Craig’s distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity raises important philosophical questions. While I respect his scholarship, the Catholic tradition has generally affirmed that the names Father, Son, and Spirit are not just roles God plays in history, but reflect eternal relationships within the Godhead. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Spirit eternally proceeds. These are not interchangeable functions but expressions of divine identity. The Incarnation, then, is not a random assignment but a revelation of who God is.

Regarding gendered language, I agree that we must tread carefully. The Scriptures and the tradition use masculine terms for God, but not because God is male. Rather, these terms convey something of God’s initiative, transcendence, and covenantal fidelity. At the same time, the Bible is rich with feminine imagery for God—God as a mother in labour (Isaiah 42:14), as a nursing mother (Isaiah 49:15), or as a hen gathering her chicks (Matthew 23:37). These are not unimportant metaphors; they remind us that both women and men bear the image of God.

The prominence of Mary in Catholic and Orthodox spirituality is not, in my view, a psychological compensation for a male Godhead, but a theological affirmation of the dignity of the human—and particularly the feminine—in the economy of salvation. Mary is not divine, but she is Theotokos (God-bearer, mother of God), and in her we see the fullest human response to divine grace. She stands not in competition with the Trinity, but in human communion with the Blessed Trinity.

As for N. T. Wright and John Piper, I think it’s fair to critique their approaches, but I’d prefer to do so with charity. Wright often seeks to hold together historical fidelity and theological nuance, which can sometimes come across as evasive. Piper’s views, while shaped by a particular theological tradition, do raise concerns when they seem to conflate divine order with human hierarchy.

Ultimately, I believe the challenge is not to discard the language of Father, Son, and Spirit, but to deepen our understanding of what it reveals—and what it doesn’t. God is not a man, nor a woman, but the source of all being, beyond all categories, yet intimately present. Our task is to speak truthfully, humbly, and with reverence for the mystery we name.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The prominence of Mary in Catholic and Orthodox spirituality is not, in my view, a psychological compensation for a male Godhead, but a theological affirmation of the dignity of the human—and particularly the feminine—in the economy of salvation. Mary is not divine, but she is Theotokos (God-bearer, mother of God), and in her we see the fullest human response to divine grace. She stands not in competition with the Trinity, but in human communion with the Blessed Trinity.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that is correct. From a specifically Orthodox perspective, we would say that she, like the other saints, has been glorified through Theosis, the process by which Christ saves us, through the action of the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, and later on, a saint like the Blessed Virgin Mary is in a position to participate in the uncreated energies of God, allowing them to intercede on our behalf and work miracles that have the effect of promoting faith in God (not in themselves - they do not compete with God for glory but comprise a heavenly choir of the Saints which joins the nine choirs of angels in the ceaseless singing of God’s praises.

Indeed Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic hymnody are based on the antiphon*, which was the result of a vision by St. Ignatius the Martyr (who before he was fed to lions in the Coliseum and received the crown of martyrdom he sought with such enthusiasm “Birth pangs are upon me … suffer me to become human” was the third Patriarch of Antioch after St. Peter and a contemporary of St. Clement, and like his friend St. Polycarp of Smyrna a disciple of St. John) of two choirs of angels alternately singing in praise of God.

In some churches the antiphonal nature of hymnody is more evident than others, for example, the two choirs alternate with greater force in the East Syriac Rite used by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean and Syro-Malabaar Catholic churches. In many Eastern Orthodox churches there are two chant stands set up on either side of the transept, particularly in the monasteries where each choir is led by a group of cantors at each of the two chant stands. In the Coptic Orthodox Church the men and boys tonsured as Psaltis and Readers, colloquially called Deacons, although they are not full Deacons, who are much rarer, stand on opposite sides of the Holy Doors that lead to the altar (except in some monastic churches, where all of the monks who have made permanent vows stand inside the Holy Doors.

*which took a while to make it to the Roman church from Antioch, since we know from St. Ambrose in the fourth century that the Roman church used monotonal music at that time, and he introduced antiphonal singing in the manner of the Greek churches to keep the spirits of his people high during the vigil they held in one of the churches of Milan, which Emperor St. Theodosius I, the first Christian (as opposed to Arian, or in the case of Julian “the Apostate”, neo-Platonist) Emperor since the repose of St. Constantine, whose household had been infilitrated by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Emperor had been persuaded to give over to the Arians (presuambly he was afraid of a riot, but in the end, the vigil dissuaded him, and a riot did not happen, but as a result of that incident antiphonal singing was introduced into the West, the Rite of Milan became known as the Ambrosian Rite in honor of St. Ambrose, and the hymns by St. Ambrose became popular throughout the Western church, and then St. Gregory the Great, who had been a legate to the Patriarch of Constantinople where he learned Byzantine chant before being elected Pope, introduced the system of eight tone chant which bears his name. He also composed the Presanctified Liturgy which is still used in the Orthodox Church, and which was used in the Roman Catholic Church on Good Friday until 1955, when Pope Pius XII completely rewrote the Paschal Triduum so that the services such as the Paschal Vigil Mass no longer resembled their Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholic counterparts.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, that is correct. From a specifically Orthodox perspective, we would say that she, like the other saints, has been glorified through Theosis, the process by which Christ saves us, through the action of the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, and later on, a saint like the Blessed Virgin Mary is in a position to participate in the uncreated energies of God, allowing them to intercede on our behalf and work miracles that have the effect of promoting faith in God (not in themselves - they do not compete with God for glory but comprise a heavenly choir of the Saints which joins the nine choirs of angels in the ceaseless singing of God’s praises.

Indeed Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic hymnody are based on the antiphon*, which was the result of a vision by St. Ignatius the Martyr (who before he was fed to lions in the Coliseum and received the crown of martyrdom he sought with such enthusiasm “Birth pangs are upon me … suffer me to become human” was the third Patriarch of Antioch after St. Peter and a contemporary of St. Clement, and like his friend St. Polycarp of Smyrna a disciple of St. John) of two choirs of angels alternately singing in praise of God.

In some churches the antiphonal nature of hymnody is more evident than others, for example, the two choirs alternate with greater force in the East Syriac Rite used by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean and Syro-Malabaar Catholic churches. In many Eastern Orthodox churches there are two chant stands set up on either side of the transept, particularly in the monasteries where each choir is led by a group of cantors at each of the two chant stands. In the Coptic Orthodox Church the men and boys tonsured as Psaltis and Readers, colloquially called Deacons, although they are not full Deacons, who are much rarer, stand on opposite sides of the Holy Doors that lead to the altar (except in some monastic churches, where all of the monks who have made permanent vows stand inside the Holy Doors.

*which took a while to make it to the Roman church from Antioch, since we know from St. Ambrose in the fourth century that the Roman church used monotonal music at that time, and he introduced antiphonal singing in the manner of the Greek churches to keep the spirits of his people high during the vigil they held in one of the churches of Milan, which Emperor St. Theodosius I, the first Christian (as opposed to Arian, or in the case of Julian “the Apostate”, neo-Platonist) Emperor since the repose of St. Constantine, whose household had been infilitrated by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Emperor had been persuaded to give over to the Arians (presuambly he was afraid of a riot, but in the end, the vigil dissuaded him, and a riot did not happen, but as a result of that incident antiphonal singing was introduced into the West, the Rite of Milan became known as the Ambrosian Rite in honor of St. Ambrose, and the hymns by St. Ambrose became popular throughout the Western church, and then St. Gregory the Great, who had been a legate to the Patriarch of Constantinople where he learned Byzantine chant before being elected Pope, introduced the system of eight tone chant which bears his name. He also composed the Presanctified Liturgy which is still used in the Orthodox Church, and which was used in the Roman Catholic Church on Good Friday until 1955, when Pope Pius XII completely rewrote the Paschal Triduum so that the services such as the Paschal Vigil Mass no longer resembled their Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholic counterparts.

Click to expand...

Gentle friend, I’ve got to say, this reflection is a real beauty. It’s rich with reverence, history, and a deep love for the liturgical and theological treasures we share across East and West. I find myself nodding along with much of what’s said here—especially the emphasis on theosis, the intercession of the saints, and the glorious role of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Spot on.

I especially appreciated the nod to St. Ignatius of Antioch—what a legend. His vision of the angelic choirs and his martyrdom still stir the soul. And the way you traced the development of antiphonal hymnody from Antioch to Milan and beyond? That’s the kind of liturgical storytelling that makes the heart sing.

Now, just a gentle word on one point: the language around “uncreated energies” is a bit foreign to Catholic ears. We’d say we participate in God’s life through sanctifying grace—real, transformative, and divine, but received in a created mode. The Orthodox way of putting it—about the uncreated energies—isn’t wrong per se, but it’s not how we usually frame it. Still, we’re singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to the goal: union with God through Christ.

And as for the 1955 liturgical reforms—fair call that they brought changes, but I’d say the Roman rite still holds the Paschal mystery close to its heart. The East and West might chant in different tones, but we’re harmonising more than we’re clashing.

So cheers for this thoughtful and beautifully woven reflection. It’s a real gift to see such deep respect for the saints, the liturgy, and the mystery of God’s grace. May our shared love for the divine liturgy continue to draw us closer to the One who is sung by angels and saints alike.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Now, just a gentle word on one point: the language around “uncreated energies” is a bit foreign to Catholic ears.

Click to expand...

To Western Rite Catholic ears, perhaps, but I was speaking from a specifically Orthodox perspective, as I made clear. Your post sought to address the issue from joint RC/EO perspective, and did a good job at it whereas I was seeking to provide an Orthodox addendum from it.

That being said you may or may not be surprised to learn, the Byzantine Rite Catholics venerate St. Gregory of Palamas* (the essence/energies distinction predates St. Gregory, but it was St. Gregory who stressed the idea of hesychasm, which lately many Western Catholics have been more open towards than in the past), and defended the claims of the Hesychast monks such as the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian.

Thus, given the increased interest in Hesychasm and in Eastern theology among Western Rite Catholics, and the veneration of St. Gregory by the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and the persecuted Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose population is, along with the Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches, critically endangered by the deteriorating situation in Syria (and while crowns of martyrdom are a good consolation, at the same time, we don’t want to see families with young children being killed and maimed by Islamic terrorists, as happened at the Antiochian church in Damascus in the most recent atrocity. But our people are being brought together.

*I was genuinely shocked to discover that the Byzantine Catholics venerate St. Gregory Palamas both on the second Sunday of Lent, and on November 14th, just like the Eastern Orthodox, and while Vatican II helped make the veneration of St. Gregory more universal among the Eastern Catholics, it did not start there. However the Roman Catholic church does have regional saints, who are venerated in local churches, even within the Latin rite. For example, a fourth century bishop of Cagliari who was somewhat of an adversary of St. Jerome is venerated on Sardinia. Likewise, St. John Maron, St. Sharbel and other Maronite saints, some of whom are in common with the Syriac Orthodox, are venerated in the Maronite community. And of course, we now know that St. Isaac the Syrian was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, who were once incorrectly referred to as Nestorians in most Western texts.

Xeno.of.athens said:

And as for the 1955 liturgical reforms—fair call that they brought changes, but I’d say the Roman rite still holds the Paschal mystery close to its heart. The East and West might chant in different tones, but we’re harmonising more than we’re clashing.

Click to expand...

I still owe you the promised study of the appeal of the Traditional Latin Mass from an Orthodox perspective, which I will be doing as I recover.

I would also note that Vatican II is not in my opinion the problem; I agree with Sacrosanctum Concilium almost in its entirety, except for the suppression of Prime in the Western Rites (abolishing the First Hour entirely, given its cultural importance, and the fact that most other liturgical rites have it, whereas on the other hand Lauds does not exist as a separate office in most other liturgical rites, so it seems like if one was to suppress something, it would be the existence of Matins and Lauds as separate offices), but other than that, Sacrosanctum Concilium has had positive effects on most Eastern Catholic churches, except for the Maronites, whose rite underwent the most disastrous changes of any in the Catholic communion, which is a shame because the old Maronite Rite is extremely beautiful, being a usage of the West Syriac Rite along with the Syriac Orthodox usage. The Maronites almost had as many Anaphorae (Eucharistic Prayers) as the Syriac Orthodox: 57, compared to around 86 in the case of the Syriac Orthodox. I like multiple Eucharistic prayers and this is one aspect of the Novus Ordo Missae I would not object to - interestingly, the ancient Gallican and surviving Mozarabic RItes have so many propers in their Eucharistic prayer (which is not the Roman Canon), that really, it could be argued they have a multitude. The contents of the anaphora changes dramatically depending on the feast. In contrast, in the Roman Rite only the Preface and a few other details are propers, and in the Eastern rites, there are no propers in the anaphoras (however, there are hymns specific to one or the other - for example, in the DIvine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the faithful sing the hymn “It is truly meet” whereas in that of St. Basil, they sing “All of creation”, and in that of St. James (and the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil on Holy Saturday), the Cherubic Hymn is replaced with Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent. Thus amusingly one could in theory swap the anaphora of St. Basil for that of St. James on Holy Saturday in a parish where it is not recited aloud and no one would notice.

The Liturgist said:

To Western Rite Catholic ears, perhaps, but I was speaking from a specifically Orthodox perspective, as I made clear. Your post sought to address the issue from joint RC/EO perspective, and did a good job at it whereas I was seeking to provide an Orthodox addendum from it.

That being said you may or may not be surprised to learn, the Byzantine Rite Catholics venerate St. Gregory of Palamas* (the essence/energies distinction predates St. Gregory, but it was St. Gregory who stressed the idea of hesychasm, which lately many Western Catholics have been more open towards than in the past), and defended the claims of the Hesychast monks such as the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian.

Thus, given the increased interest in Hesychasm and in Eastern theology among Western Rite Catholics, and the veneration of St. Gregory by the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and the persecuted Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose population is, along with the Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches, critically endangered by the deteriorating situation in Syria (and while crowns of martyrdom are a good consolation, at the same time, we don’t want to see families with young children being killed and maimed by Islamic terrorists, as happened at the Antiochian church in Damascus in the most recent atrocity. But our people are being brought together.

*I was genuinely shocked to discover that the Byzantine Catholics venerate St. Gregory Palamas both on the second Sunday of Lent, and on November 14th, just like the Eastern Orthodox, and while Vatican II helped make the veneration of St. Gregory more universal among the Eastern Catholics, it did not start there. However the Roman Catholic church does have regional saints, who are venerated in local churches, even within the Latin rite. For example, a fourth century bishop of Cagliari who was somewhat of an adversary of St. Jerome is venerated on Sardinia. Likewise, St. John Maron, St. Sharbel and other Maronite saints, some of whom are in common with the Syriac Orthodox, are venerated in the Maronite community. And of course, we now know that St. Isaac the Syrian was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, who were once incorrectly referred to as Nestorians in most Western texts.

Click to expand...

Dear friend, I’m Roman Rite myself, and while I’ve learned a fair bit about our other rites, I just wanted to clarify for those reading along: many Roman Rite Catholics in English-speaking contexts might find the term unfamiliar or even off-putting—not out of malice, but often due to a mix of unfamiliarity, historical distance, and sometimes plain old ignorance (unintentional, of course). Thanks for offering the Orthodox perspective—it adds a lot to the conversation.

The Liturgist said:

I still owe you the promised study of the appeal of the Traditional Latin Mass from an Orthodox perspective, which I will be doing as I recover.

I would also note that Vatican II is not in my opinion the problem; I agree with Sacrosanctum Concilium almost in its entirety, except for the suppression of Prime in the Western Rites (abolishing the First Hour entirely, given its cultural importance, and the fact that most other liturgical rites have it, whereas on the other hand Lauds does not exist as a separate office in most other liturgical rites, so it seems like if one was to suppress something, it would be the existence of Matins and Lauds as separate offices), but other than that, Sacrosanctum Concilium has had positive effects on most Eastern Catholic churches, except for the Maronites, whose rite underwent the most disastrous changes of any in the Catholic communion, which is a shame because the old Maronite Rite is extremely beautiful, being a usage of the West Syriac Rite along with the Syriac Orthodox usage. The Maronites almost had as many Anaphorae (Eucharistic Prayers) as the Syriac Orthodox: 57, compared to around 86 in the case of the Syriac Orthodox. I like multiple Eucharistic prayers and this is one aspect of the Novus Ordo Missae I would not object to - interestingly, the ancient Gallican and surviving Mozarabic RItes have so many propers in their Eucharistic prayer (which is not the Roman Canon), that really, it could be argued they have a multitude. The contents of the anaphora changes dramatically depending on the feast. In contrast, in the Roman Rite only the Preface and a few other details are propers, and in the Eastern rites, there are no propers in the anaphoras (however, there are hymns specific to one or the other - for example, in the DIvine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the faithful sing the hymn “It is truly meet” whereas in that of St. Basil, they sing “All of creation”, and in that of St. James (and the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil on Holy Saturday), the Cherubic Hymn is replaced with Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent. Thus amusingly one could in theory swap the anaphora of St. Basil for that of St. James on Holy Saturday in a parish where it is not recited aloud and no one would notice.

Click to expand...

My dear friend, thanks for your thoughtful reflections. I always find our chats enriching—your love for the liturgy and your deep knowledge of the various traditions within the Church never fail to inspire me. I’m especially grateful for your promise to explore the Traditional Latin Mass from an Orthodox perspective. I’m genuinely looking forward to that.

I like much of what you’ve shared, especially your appreciation for the diversity and depth of the Church’s liturgical life. I too hold Sacrosanctum Concilium in high regard. It’s often misunderstood, but when read carefully, it affirms the dignity of all liturgical rites and calls for their preservation and renewal “in the light of sound tradition” (SC §4). The Council fathers explicitly stated that all lawfully recognised rites are “of equal right and dignity” and should be “preserved and fostered in every way”. That includes the venerable Eastern rites, whose beauty and theological depth are treasures for the whole Church.

You mentioned the suppression of Prime, and I understand your concern. While the reform aimed at simplifying the Liturgy of the Hours for broader participation, I agree that Prime had a unique character, especially in monastic and cultural contexts. That said, the Church has never forbidden its private recitation, and some communities have reintroduced it devotionally. The balance between simplification and preservation is delicate, and I think your critique is a fair one.

Regarding the Maronite Church, you’re right that its postconciliar reforms were among the most extensive. The 1992 reform, for instance, introduced a new Ordo Missae with vernacular usage and ad populum orientation, while also attempting to recover Syriac elements like the Epiclesis in Aramaic. Some have argued that these changes leaned too heavily on Latin models, leading to a kind of hybridisation that obscured the rite’s original character. Others, however, see in these reforms a sincere effort to balance fidelity to tradition with pastoral accessibility. It’s a tension not unfamiliar to the Roman Rite either.

Your appreciation for multiple anaphorae is something I share. The Roman Rite’s historical reliance on the Roman Canon gave it a certain solemnity and theological density, but the introduction of additional Eucharistic Prayers in the Novus Ordo—especially II and IV—has brought a welcome variety, even if some argue they lack the poetic gravitas of the Canon. The Eastern and Gallican traditions, as you note, offer a rich tapestry of anaphoral variation, often tied to the liturgical calendar. That’s a beautiful expression of the Church’s incarnational theology: the Eucharist not only transcends time but also sanctifies it.

One gentle clarification I’d offer is on the notion of “swapping” anaphorae unnoticed. While I appreciate the humour and the liturgical literacy behind the comment, the Catholic Church holds that the anaphora is not merely a musical or poetic structure but a theological act of offering, with specific rubrics and intentions. Even when not recited aloud, the celebrant’s fidelity to the prescribed text is an act of obedience and unity with the Church. That said, your point about the audible elements shaping the faithfuls' perception is well taken—and it underscores the importance of catechesis in liturgical life.

All in all, I’m grateful for your insights. They remind me that the liturgy is not a museum piece but a living, breathing encounter with the mystery of Christ. And while we may approach it from different ecclesial homes, I believe our shared reverence for the sacred can be a bridge, not a barrier.

With affection and respect,in Christ our Paschal Lamb.

P.S. I used a few Bing searches to help track down the relevant passages in the dogmatic documents—my memory’s decent, but it’s not infallible! I also ran the paragraphs through a spelling and grammar checker to make sure everything read smoothly. Most of it passed without fuss, though it did suggest a few nice touches here and there.
God bless.