Obviously there are many problems with translating the name YHWH, but I'm not convinced that "Lord" is more of a name, or less of a placeholder, than "Eternal". They are both descriptors of an aspect of God, and not a proper name in themselves.
LORD is a form of address. Its advantage over "Eternal" is that it's one Jews have been using for over two thousand years. It's the old question of having to choose between sticking with tradition and alienating your audience, and changing the text and losing the authority of tradition.
For me, it's a question of context. When talking about G-d in general, I will use the name "G-d" and avoid gendered pronouns; however when discussing a psalm written three thousand years ago, that would be anachronistic. The problem comes when dealing with liturgy, which involves a mixture of ancient Scriptural material I would be reluctant to meddle with, mediaeval material I would have less difficulty with, and modern material I obviously have no difficulty creatively translating. But then you run into the problem of consistency.
"Lord" also has the obvious problem of being gendered male,
<devil's advocate> Never had a female landlord?
and I find its consistent use to describe God to be both sexist and idolatrous.
How idolatrous?
I think it's more flawed to describe God as a personified, feudal and male than as an aspect of holy nature, eternity.
That last sounds more Reconstructionist than Reform. Are you sure you're a theist? ;^b
no subject
LORD is a form of address. Its advantage over "Eternal" is that it's one Jews have been using for over two thousand years. It's the old question of having to choose between sticking with tradition and alienating your audience, and changing the text and losing the authority of tradition.
For me, it's a question of context. When talking about G-d in general, I will use the name "G-d" and avoid gendered pronouns; however when discussing a psalm written three thousand years ago, that would be anachronistic. The problem comes when dealing with liturgy, which involves a mixture of ancient Scriptural material I would be reluctant to meddle with, mediaeval material I would have less difficulty with, and modern material I obviously have no difficulty creatively translating. But then you run into the problem of consistency.
"Lord" also has the obvious problem of being gendered male,
<devil's advocate> Never had a female landlord?
and I find its consistent use to describe God to be both sexist and idolatrous.
How idolatrous?
I think it's more flawed to describe God as a personified, feudal and male than as an aspect of holy nature, eternity.
That last sounds more Reconstructionist than Reform. Are you sure you're a theist? ;^b