Does Crump explain the actual implications of divine fatherhood for many people's 'quest for emotional connection between parent and child'? I've definitely seen a tendency to evaluate Jesus' teaching in that way. But is Crump implying that divine fatherhood does not complete this quest at all?
Crump's main concern seems to be to not put the pastoral implications cart before the biblical exegesis horse. That is, Jesus' main point in teaching us to pray like this isn't about these therapeutic and psychological concerns. So we shouldn't interpret it along those lines in the first instance - either seeking the Lord's Prayer as a way to deal with the traumas of human fathers and their failures, or critiquing it for patriarchy. Rather we do better when we explore the dimensions of Jesus' identity in relation to God as Father, with a more robust treatment of that category from the Scriptures as a whole, and then explore appropriate pastoral (and therapeutic) applications.
Does Crump explain the actual implications of divine fatherhood for many people's 'quest for emotional connection between parent and child'? I've definitely seen a tendency to evaluate Jesus' teaching in that way. But is Crump implying that divine fatherhood does not complete this quest at all?
Crump's main concern seems to be to not put the pastoral implications cart before the biblical exegesis horse. That is, Jesus' main point in teaching us to pray like this isn't about these therapeutic and psychological concerns. So we shouldn't interpret it along those lines in the first instance - either seeking the Lord's Prayer as a way to deal with the traumas of human fathers and their failures, or critiquing it for patriarchy. Rather we do better when we explore the dimensions of Jesus' identity in relation to God as Father, with a more robust treatment of that category from the Scriptures as a whole, and then explore appropriate pastoral (and therapeutic) applications.