The sub-title, ‘The Debate Over God-Inclusive Language’, gives indication of what the book covers, while its title is an indication of what Bloesch believes is the significance of the male-female language debate. Nothing less than the traditional doctrine of God is at stake, and as one might expect from an evangelical author, the authority of Scripture is not far behind. Modern culture, alien philosophies are captivating the church and Christian thought, and though our first task is to say yes to God’s gracious election and redemption of the world, we still need to say no to heterodoxy. In Bloesch’s view the resymbolization of the language of faith alters the way in which God and the world are conceived. Our knowledge of God’s truth is analogical and if the analogy is changed so too is the knowledge conveyed. This matters because although our knowledge is analogical it has a universal reference, God’s witness to himself in the saving acts testified to in Scripture. The symbols we use cannot be changed without some change in what they signify being made, and so to change terms such as Father, Son and Holy Spirit inevitably changes our understanding of God: ‘To replace the foundational symbolism of faith with more inclusive symbolism such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer is to abandon the ontological or essential Trinity for the economic Trinity, in which the three terms refer only to a threefold activity of God and not also to a threefold relationship within himself’ (p. 51).

Of course for some feminists this is the whole point, but if God is an objective reality and if he has described himself to us and we have no other access to knowledge of him, such changes cannot be written in without creating a new religion. There is also for Bloesch a deep soteriological concern: ‘It could be that the shift towards a more inclusive language for God is motivated partly by an ideological or cultural bias that envisions a one-world community characterized by liberty, equality and fraternity (sic), a kingdom of freedom brought about by social engineering, rather than a kingdom of heaven to be inaugurated by divine intervention and presaging the collapse and overthrow of the kingdoms of this world’ (p. 55).

The book offers an overview to the debate, describing different strands within feminist theologies, their different aspirations, discussion on religious language, which theologians have provided stimulus to the feminist movement, and a look at the biblical perspective as Bloesch sees it. He notes in this discussion great similarities between the modern feminist theologies and Gnosticism, both of which stressed the immanence of God and neglected his transcendence. At stake in both cases is monotheism against a naturalistic religion. In the chapter on the biblical data he points out that much of the opposition to biblical faith came from the goddess religion of fertility cults and claims that similar values are enshrined in much feminist theology. One other comparison he makes much of is between feminism and the German Christians of the 1930s, which was another example of particular cultural ideology dictating to the content of Christian theology.

Many of the key issues are brought out in this short book, which is perhaps too short in places to be fair to all the views he is trying to represent. His treatment of the religious language debate is never too technical for the non-specialist and his pastoral and kerygmatic concerns prevent the book from becoming too dry, which it threatens to do in one or two places where he is listing other people’s views. His sympathy to Barth will not endear his work to all evangelicals, especially where he deals with revelation, but this is a valuable study, salutory to those likely to be too quickly swayed by contemporary trends and yet sufficiently sympathetic to be fair and realistic to the complexities and feeling of the debate.