Russell McCutcheon's "Naming The Unnameable: Theological Language And The Academic Study of Religion," presents readers with the "wider problem of the naming and use of theological language in the context of religious studies." It poses the question, "of by what name shall academic students of religion, know the unknowable." Throughout his article, McCutcheon attempts to tackle the question by distinguishing how the theological language can be categorized between a gender-neutral "God" and the generic uses of "gods." However, he argues that there's not one a specific way to use the "correct (use) of language" when speaking in a theological perspective. .
McCutcheon discusses how implementing a "name" accurately can become an issue in two instances, both of which are in relation to the academic study of religion. He discusses how a gender neutral God language is often used within the feminist movement. Even in contemporary Christian circles, the use of this language is becoming less accepted, (words such as father, king and son) due to the persuasive powers of the feminist movement. Diminishing or completely removing God related masculine terms are being replaced with the terms Comforter, Redeemer, etc. .
McCutcheon attempts to distinguish the two by referring that "the first belong(s) within the academy, the second within a theological institution." When discussing the gender inclusive language, persons rather than men, has become a more convenient linguistic symbol. The latter refers to the use of "God" instead of "Father" or "King", representing more of the very essence of the "object of religious discourse and devotion in itself." Listing God as a male is making a stand of having religious knowledge, not claiming knowledge of a certain religion. This reflects the diminishing of role of the "masculine" language when referring to the ultimate reality of God, as well as relating to "him" in a historical context.
