Ellen, similies are not the only forms of imagery/symbolism.  With Sophia, i believe there are some attachments to that word that may not be considered “orthodox” (or historically accepted to Josh here [j/n]).  Inspired =/= dictated by God (maybe this is a major player in our disagreement).
Josh, you’re reading into me too much.  In some ways, yes Jesus is fully God, but he is also an emptied God.  Jesus is the incarnation of God, but that doesn’t make Jesus all there is to God.  If want to maintain a Trinitarian belief, then Jesus can’t be all of God because he (Jesus) died.  How could God pour out “the wrath of God” on God?  It gets messy there, eh?  The incarnation is wonderful and a major part of Heilgeshichte (i think i am using that term properly here)...it may even be all there is to redemption.  But, that doesn’t mean “thou shalt not question” or “no doublethink allowed!”  God’s pretty confident that when all is said and done, God’ll still be in charge.  Our questioning or trying to understand the “bigger scheme” won’t be a threat to God.  As far as “where i am getting my God,” i thought it was the Bible.  i honestly haven’t read much of Kant and i haven’t read any of Tillich.  Maybe we can throw around some names and Joel can pinpoint things for us.  In fact, let’s throw around names and see if Joel can name where everyone one of us is getter our God! (j/n?)  Josh, do you honestly believe we can read the Bible and get an objective view of God?  From what i’ve read, it seems that at least as early as Plato, “objectivity” was a pipe dream and nothing more (except for Descartes who may have been living too much in a pipe dream, if you know what i mean!)
My point about the “goddess language” is that it wasn’t a feature of the Jews.  It predating Judaism means squat.  You’re right, though, that i should have been clear on my terms.  Jewish culture was patriarchical, just like we’re “democratic.”  If Jewish culture was a patriarchy (like if we were to be a democracy and not a constitutional republic), Ruth & Esther would have meant a rebellion of the patriarchy.  i don’t think Judaism was a patriarchy in its purest form (like USA isn’t a democracy in its purest form), but it had many features of a patriarchy.  While Jesus’s use of the Greek equivalent of the tetragrammaton (YHWH, sorry if i misspelled it) was radical, that doesn’t mean Jesus was radical in all aspects.
Arguing that the people who wrote the Bible (and Jesus) used “Father” while not “Mother” as a basis for God’s masculinity is like arguing that the same people used Greek while not Laton as a basis for God being Greek.  Wait…i’ve heard that argument somewhere….wasn’t there one involving Wycliff?  And Tyndale?  And even Luther?
Michael: i’m not a New Ager?!?  Man, i thought that’s what postmodernism was all about: the Rise of Aquarius and relativism and all that groovy stuff!  (j/n!)  But, i would like to know where you disagreed with me.  Wanna take it to email so that we don’t (possibly) play with dead horses in the tavern?

Mod: No :-) this kind of grad student food fight is not very entertaining to me. I’d like to continue my journey to make Jesus into Christine and eliminate the Bible from my religion undisturbed. Thanks for the invite though.

1. One book that changed your life:
The Pleasures of God by John Piper (first one of his I read)
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
The Great Gatsby By F. Scott Fitgerald
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
How to get off of a desert island by whoever knows how
4. One book that made you laugh:
Don’t Bend Over in the Garden Granny Those Potatoes Have Eyes by Lewis Grizzard
5. One book that made you cry:
Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls
6. One book that you wish had been written:
 Explaining Christianese to the average joe
7. One book you wish had never been written:
Left Behind by Lahaye and Jenkins
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard

1. One book that changed your life:

The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Mere Discipleship by Lee Camp
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
Psalms
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

4. One book that made you laugh:
Heart of a Dog by Mikahil Bulgakov
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

5. One book that made you cry:
Good News About Injustice: A Witness of Courage in a Hurting World by Gary Haugen
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

6. One book that you wish had been written:
A Non-Scholastic, Biblically Warranted, Sufficiently Incomplete, Genre-Honoring Theology for the Church (2nd Edition)
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

7. One book you wish had never been written:
The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care by Benjamin Spock
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

8. One book you’re currently reading:
After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre
-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]->
-[endif]->

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson

1. One book that changed your life:
The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Desiring God, John Piper

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
Kon Tiki by Thor Heyerdahl

4. One book that made you laugh:
Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook by Scott Adams

5. One book that made you cry:
A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken

6. One book that you wish had been written:
The Big Book of Biblical Metaphors Made Simple So Even Theologians Can Understand Them

7. One book you wish had never been written:
Looking Out For Number One by Robert Ringer (with Calvin’s Institutes a close second)

8. One book you’re currently reading:
The Rest of God by Mark Buchanan

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Charles Dickens: A Biography by Fred Kaplan

1. One book that changed your life:
Douglas Wilson, Easy Chairs, Hard Words

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
God, The Bible

4. One book that made you laugh:
Dougles Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

5. One book that made you cry:
Fred Gipson, Old Yeller; I’m still mad that they made the kid kill the dog.

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Ellen (my name) American Christian Singles in American Churches; it has been written, my professor suggested I try to get it published, but I haven’t

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Oh, I can’t think of any…but my current textbook comes close.

8. One book you’re currently reading:
edited by Michael Horton, Sola Scriptura!

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillenianism

Warren, I got tagged with that a few days ago.

1. One book that changed your life:
Thomas Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

4. One book that made you laugh:
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

5. One book that made you cry:
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

6. One book that you wish had been written:
How the Church Figured Out All its Doctrine and Unified

7. One book you wish had never been written:
Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Christopher Paolini, Eragon

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Ellen, No. Not because my experience, reason and church tradition tells me it’s ok. My prayer life is informed by scripture which tells me that God is NOT exclusively named as father or male. Neither is it reasonable for me to assume that ‘when we all get to heaven’ there will be a God/man other than Jesus waiting for me. My experience tells me that humankind needs the mothering nourishment of God as much as we need the Father’s power and goodness, and scripture supports this as well. God as Mother goes back to the first centuries of the church. Today’s feminists did NOT make this up. Michael has already mentioned the comforting Mother of Isaiah. Irenaius and Clement of Alexandria early on and then Julian of Norwich and Cistercian authors in the twelth century.

We have so much to inform our lives with God—if we will allow scripture to illuminate and even inflame the love of God in the world.

Although Alastair tagged us with this book meme last Wednesday, I do not believe that anyone has taken him up yet. My answers are pretty lame, but perhaps this will be a diversion from the question of whether God is big enough to decide how he wants to be addressed.

1. One book that changed your life:
R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order (approximately 4 readings short of comprehension)
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
Ezra Pound, Confucius to Cummings
4. One book that made you laugh:
Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev.
5. One book that made you cry:
Wilson Rawls, Where the Red Fern Grows
6. One book that you wish had been written:
E.Y. Mullins, Just Kidding!
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
The Scofield Reference Bible (I cannot improve on Alastair’s answer)
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Lauren Winner, Real Sex
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Ralph D. Winter, et al, Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader

10. Now tag five people:
y’all

thanks, Michael.

So if reason, experience and tradition tell you that God is your “Mother” and that you should be praying to “Mother God”, you’re good to go?

MOD: To All. No. Scripture is the final word, but all of us in here today are using reason, tradition and our experience to make these judgements. Chris was never advocating a female deity, but he was bring reason to bear on the issue of Father-language and cultural patriarch. That’s a valid concern. I don’t agree with all his judgement, but that’s ok.

Frankly, I think it might do all of us some good to read the hymns we sing, and note how many Biblical images of a non-Father, non- Jesus type are in our worship. I think it also might do us good to say that using Biblical language- wisdom, mother hen, rock, divorced husband, fortress, warrior, etc- is something we all know is not a dangerous sport. The Bible doesn’t say God is a Goddess. It doesn’t say Jesus is Christina. Trinitarian language is an uncompromised base. I believe that enough to say that JWs, Mormons and T.D. Jakes aren’t Christians. But Trinitarian language is a path in a wide field, and that field contains hundreds of likenesses, comparisons and literary forms that we can use, without fear or compromise.

The Bible is theological proposition, and story, and poetry. Enjoy them all.

There are many New Testament verses in which Jesus is called God’s wisdom. I Cor 1: 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God…

Consult any competent commentary on Proverbs on how the ECFs read and interpreted the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs. It is reflected in our hymnody, where Christ is addressed as the wisdom of God.

Ellen asked me (Sharon):  Do you believe in continuing revelation (is the Canon closed?)Or is God still writing Scripture?

Ok, let me try again.

Yes, the canon is closed. God isn’t “writing anything new”—but, let’s assume the Bible didn’t fall from heaven in a ziplock bag in the first place. God still inspires all human kind with through the spirit of Christ but we don’t write anything new that goes into our Bible. It is a closed canon. What the early church had, we have. What we have, they had too.

I believe that the old and new testaments are all that is NECESSARY for a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. But, I do believe that God continues to reveal himself as we 1)reason together about the scriptures and our lives together in Christ, 2)love one another as Christ loves the Church, 3)Examine church tradition as scripture continues to illuminate the God’s world.

Now, if “continuing revelation” means something different, like a term of art from another faith tradition, you’ll have to clue me in.

I for one am not going to limit the grace of God as revealed in scripture, human reason and experience and church tradition, with scripture being primary.

Crisis is over…a couple of tylenol and lots of ice…it’s gonna hurt tomorrow.

Michael told Ellen: Greeks have always prayed in Greek, and the Bible says that Jesus is the sophia of God (I Corinthians 1:18) as much as it says he is the logos.
Question:  Does the verse say that or the commentary added later?

If you leave out the stuff added later, it says,

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

A question: (???) In this verse, is wisdom the attribute of Christ, or is it Christ?  Do we pray for wisdom, or do we pray to wisdom?

We should leave all this up to God, I’d think. That’s a good approach. Particularly if we are going to make a distinction between addressing God with one New Testment name, but associating another with the New Age movement.  

Christopher (I don’t think) is the one who brought up the goddess sophia.  ;-)

My understanding of Christopher’s position is that any name is insuffienct to convey what God knows about God that we don’t.

In fact, Bill can tell us th Biblical warrant for a prayer addressed the Spirit.

If you are asking me for the Biblical warrant for prayer addressed to the Spirit, I would have to say there isn’t any as far as I know. I’m sure I’ve never advocated it. I certainly don’t address the Spirit in my prayers.

Or is a person doing so out of bounds? 

I don’t know.  Jesus didn’t pray to the Spirit as far as I know, but then again He didn’t pray to Himself either.  Since God is one, then I would guess a prayer to the Father is a prayer to the Spirit.  I’ll stick with praying to the Father since that’s the way Jesus taught us.  I certainly wouldn’t correct anyone praying to the Spirit.

In fact, Bill can tell us th Biblical warrant for a prayer addressed the Spirit.

Um, I don’t understand this question.

Mod: If I pray to the Holy Spirit, as the creeds say is acceptable, what is the Biblical permission to do so, rather than to the Father? Or is a person doing so out of bounds?

Michael, Wha—Hunh?

I’m sorry, I’m all for correction, but I don’t get what you just said :>0

MOD: You ADMITTED it.

Sharon: Let me correct you. You admit using reason, tradition and experience.

Ellen asks Sharon: Do you believe in continuing revelation (is the Canon closed?)

Or is God still writing Scripture?

The canon is closed except to those who would like for there to be two ‘n’s in the word and use it to kablooey all thoughtful reasoning away :0)

I do believe that God continues to reveal Jesus throughout the old and new testaments in ways that have not even been imagined. Yep, I think God’s that creative.

Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Christian experience but as a good Methodist I also use reason, tradition and experience.

Ellen: Greeks have always prayed in Greek, and the Bible says that Jesus is the sophia of God (I Corinthians 1:18) as much as it says he is the logos. We should leave all this up to God, I’d think. That’s a good approach. Particularly if we are going to make a distinction between addressing God with one New Testment name, but associating another with the New Age movement.

I appreciate this discussion. It’s classic BHT, and that’s good. But Chris isn’t a new ager or a gnostic, folks. He’s a brother. We aren’t about to pass around a creed for everyone to sign, so enjoy the conversation.

I prefer to believe that Scripture is inspired by God, not made up by worshippers. I’m pretty sure I believe scripture is inspired, and I’m pretty sure the Patriarchs made up those names for God a long time before Genesis was written.

Sorry for your daughter’s toe. That’s real life, and it hurts.

Also…most of the Biblical names for God in Genesis seem to be made up by worshippers.

I prefer to believe that Scripture is inspired by God, not made up by worshippers.

Are these names still valid? Can I address God by names other than Father? If so, what is the relation of the name Father to El-Shaddai, for example?

If you believe that Scripture is inspired, why would the names (and the descriptions) not be valid?

If so, what is the relation of the name Father to El-Shaddai, for example?
What is the relationship between Michael and Mr. Spencer?

(Bill should answer some of these questions.) 

Then why am I answering them?

With that, I need to take a “break” – Manda was riding her bike wearing flip-flops and ripped off half of her toenail…

Ellen: You haven’t told me how much trouble I am going to get into if I address God by the similies and metaphors he uses in scripture about himself. :-)

That would be up to God, wouldn’t it?

I assume that if I prayed, “Father, be like a mother to us….” only a few dollars would be deducted from my check. But if I addressed God as “Father, show us your Sophia, Jesus Christ,” I wouldn’t make the pot-luck list.

Known as the Mother of All or simply as Wisdom, Sophia was born of Silence according to Gnostic creation myths. She gave birth to both Male and Female who together created all the elements of our material world.

Female then gave birth to Jehovah in all his emanations. But she also gave birth to Ildabaoth who was known as the Son of Darkness. When humans were created, Sophia loved them all dearly.

I guess if you’re praying in Greek…otherwise, I’ll leave that call to God.

So females are creationally less the image of God than men? How is that not the conclusion of your statement?

And if you don’t answer my previous question, I’ll throw a rules “hissy fit.” (jn)

Sharon: I’m the one with the stomach turning. Ellen is the one with the skin crawling. I agree that God the spirit is not male, but I do believe He is masculine, and that our sense of what is masculine is a reflection of what God is, and how He is revealed to us. Yes, the bible uses feminine, and even avian imagery to sometimes (seldom) describe God, but I’ll stick with what’s been pretty clearly revealed and commonly used. I don’t see any need to improve upon it. Jesus didn’t direct us to pray to our chicken in heaven.

On a peripherally related topic: When we get to heaven, will we see Three, or One? If One, that one will certainly be male.

BTW: Although I am a reluctant complementarian, I don’t necessarily see a connection between complementarianism and whether God is masculine or not.

Sharon:  Do you believe in continuing revelation (is the Canon closed?)

Or is God still writing Scripture?

Ellen: You haven’t told me how much trouble I am going to get into if I address God by the similies and metaphors he uses in scripture about himself. :-)

I assume that if I prayed, “Father, be like a mother to us….” only a few dollars would be deducted from my check. But if I addressed God as “Father, show us your Sophia, Jesus Christ,” I wouldn’t make the pot-luck list.

Also…most of the Biblical names for God in Genesis seem to be made up by worshippers. Are these names still valid? Can I address God by names other than Father? If so, what is the relation of the name Father to El-Shaddai, for example? (Bill should answer some of these questions.)

In fact, Bill can tell us the Biblical warrant for a prayer addressed the Spirit.

Bill: so if we were so very wrong about God as Father, I’m sure He could have worked something in as a corrective.

 Bill, I didn’t say Jesus was wrong. I said it was a different kingdom paradigm.

Why would the “motherless image” make your skin crawl? I ask that not as a challenge (as in I know how to whip out more scripture than you do) but out of genuine curiosity?

Can we agree that God is not male or female? God is spirit. We are made both male and female in the image of God. We relate the best way we know how. We’ve spoken about Jewish culture, but what about today’s culture. Couldn’t God continue to reveal words (language) that would reveal Christ and Him crucified? I’m not just talking about Western culture.  Mostly I’m talking about Sudanese, Lebanese, Israeli, and Pakastani, orphans.

Another thought…

I could easily say, “as a hat, my son wears that cat.” That doesn’t make the cat a hat.

If I say, “That cat IS a hat”, well, I’ve seen coon-skin hats and they didn’t have a pulse.

On the other hand, Scripture is clear in giving God the title, “Father”.

Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.

Not “As a father” – He IS a father.

Michael, that’s the difference I was trying to get to earlier…the difference between a title and a simile.

“You are LIKE a mother” is different than “you ARE my Father”.

There is a difference between:

As one whom his mother comforts,so I will comfort you;you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

and

And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name…”

One is a simile (and we’ve already agreed that feminine SIMILES are used).  The other is a direction.

The two posts (together) on the squash incident are possibly one of the five most commented posts on my blog…

;-)

So let me get this straight. If scripture overwhelming uses the language of Father, but not exclusively, how much trouble am I going to get into for using Biblical, not male, even non-personal, language about God?

Particularly, I’m interested in a verse like Isaiah 66:13. Can I pray, Lord, comfort us like a mother?

I assume that Spurgeon and John Gill’s sermons on Song of Solomon made some BHTers have crawly skin. You don’t want to know what they had to say about her two breasts.

I’m quite serious. The Bible is a literary book, not an engineering manual. We’ve suffered through the death of Biblical imagery a few hundred times in here in the Lord’s Supper discussion. I just want to know if I can use the language of scripture itself and not get churched?

Hey, Tommy…(the organic one, right?)

I’d better be good to go where the TR’s are concerned.  I better get a good word, too.

(it’s sort of frightening that I’m with Josh, though [JN!!!])

BTW, my daughter is pretty proud of the squash, once she got over it being a squash…it’s very large.

The TR watchblogs are frothing at the mouth over some of these statements, I can feel it.

To continue to push a gender on God is idolotorous.

To worship something that God is NOT – is idolotrous.

Bill, I’m with you.  It absolutely makes my skin crawl.

I’ll be honest here.  The idea of praying something like God:Mother to the motherless makes my stomach turn.

We seem to have this idea that Jesus was bound by His culture, as if He didn’t have any control as to when and where He was incarnated.  Jesus introduced some very outlandish ideas in his time, so if we were so very wrong about God as Father, I’m sure He could have worked something in as a corrective.

, Or God Mother to the Motherless.

Scripture on that, please?

Bill:it seems to me that the OT seldom uses God as Father language, so Jesus certainly wasn’t obligated to begin using it when He arrived. 

Well, no not obligated. Jesus introduced the paradigm of Kingdom family (which would include us gentiles), as opposed to the Jewish kingdom that was hoping to be rebuilt. He could have used mother but it would have been culturally outlandish—not to mention pagan, for those times. That’s not to say that we can’t imagine or pray to God, Most Loving Parent. Or God Creator of the Universe, Or God Mother to the Motherless.

To continue to push a gender on God is idolotorous. God certainly is larger than our language and our androcentric ideals. But since language is our gift from God’s very self, why not use that gift to explore the wonder of God and God’s world AND to use as many ways as possible to bring the Gospel to light.

Let me point out what Christopher’s general argumentative strategy is, and some of my problems with it.

Someone (Ellen or Josh, for instance, will say that the Scriptures say p on such-and-such subject; “God is Father” for instance). Christopher will respond by pointing out the historical-cultural circumstances of Scriptural discourse involving p. From this fact, he will then derive some claim along of the lines of Referring to God as “Mother” is permissible within theological and liturgical discourse. Here’s one problem: one could simply not see how the inference is licensed. Perhaps if Christopher could explicitly point out how this inference goes through, this confusion would be greatly alleviated.

Perhaps there is something implicit in his posts, however, which gives us a clue. Christopher has repeatedly claimed that God transcends all categories of gender and sex. This seems plausible enough. But then he needs to explain away the Scriptural usage of gendered and sexed (don’t be dirty) terms for God (i.e., God as Father, as Son, etc.). This is where pointing out the historical-cultural circumstances of Scriptural discourse comes into play. But then I think that a dilemma arises for those who defend a position like the one Christopher has been defending. On the one hand, it seems to be a significant theological truth that God is a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You cannot express that theological truth without resort to gendered/sexed words. However, Christopher’s “historical/cultural” move seems to make that great Trinitarian dogma an artifact of “oppressive, patriarchal culture.”

The real issue at stake here is Trinitarian doctrine: I wrote a few thoughts on this subject a month ago, and basically came to the conclusion that traditional “male” language for God in theology and liturgy should be primary. I cannot see how one can stary substituting “female” language for God in theology and liturgy without dramatically revising orthodox and catholic Trinitarian belief.

iMonk: If my posting has been sporadic, it’s because I have been studying for my comps (I am in a situation similar to that as fellow philosophe, Joel).

I’m not qualified to enter this conversation, but it seems to me that the OT seldom uses God as Father language, so Jesus certainly wasn’t obligated to begin using it when He arrived.  Why can’t God be masculine?  Why isn’t it possible that Adam was masculine as a reflection of the One who created him?  There seems to be the idea that we are forcing our masculinity back towards God.  Why couldn’t the reverse be true?

I have too much time on my hands. And no I am not at work right now :)

Tommy, could you put Michael’s head on a platter? Or a trillion dollar bill?

I’m looking for feedback for new banner ideas, otherwise we’re going with this:

Josh, while there was “goddess language” in the Ancient Near East, where was it used?  It was not in circles of “good Jews.”  That’s what Jesus’ context was: first century Jewish religious culture standing next to a Greek economic culture all within a Roman political culture.  When we’re talking religion, we should be thinking Jewish, not Greco-Roman.  When we’re talking politics, we should be thinking Roman.  Now, when it comes to societal norms, there is a bit of a grey area as all three cultures above played into the social climate, but all of them were patriarchical.  We can’t separate the biblical texts from that.  i’m not ignoring that the Greco-Roman cultures were “replete with maternal goddess language”: i’m saying that it doesn’t have strong relevance to the biblical texts.  Christianity “evolved” from Judaism through, as i believe, a “secularization” into the Greco-Roman world.  It is no shock that it maintained the language customs of its predecessor.  Jesus didn’t use any other language because he was speaking to (::gasp!::) Jews.  It was the language they understood: that is, power/strength/whatever male.&nbsp; i'm not suggesting that the biblical writers were lying or even wrong.&nbsp; i am saying, however, that they communicated in their language and in their culture.&nbsp; We can't assume that God was giving a stamp of approval on their methodology because it's the only methodology employed by them.&nbsp; If Christians kept their Bibles and sacred writings in Greek (like Muslims do with Arabic), i'd be more willing to agree with you.</p><p>Hermaphrodites aren't a third <i>biological sex</i>, but some cultures <b>do</b> recognize them as separate <i>genders</i>.&nbsp; Gender social construct (generally based loosely on biological sex); Gender =/= biological sex.  That’s the norm in anthropology (to my knowledge), it may not be the norm in the vernacular, but we’re not doing majority rule, now are we?

When Jesus says “Father” (and “Abba, Father”), it is a way of designating God, but that does not make God masculine.  IOW, God is beyond gender.

I see language as a gift of God, not as an encumbrance.

It’s both in my view, just like sex.  It has its functions, but it does have its limits.

Is that a function of the first century church?  No, it’s a function of the language that God used to describe Himself.

Well, Ellen, i disagree.  It’s a function of the language in use at that time that God used to describe God.  It’s not necessarily a function of all language that God is using.  Do you think that one needs to some how “speak” to communicate (either mentally or out loud) with God?  As far as we can tell, people who are deaf don’t, especially those that don’t have any language.  Are they unable to communicate with God?  Likewise, does God ignore all those pesky people praying to God that use a feminine (pro)noun?

When i speak of convenience with language, i mean that God goes beyond the limits of our language.  Because of that, if we don’t use language, it would be impossbile for use to talk as we are about this subject.  We use language only because it is convenient.  If we were able to communicate better, we’d use that instead of language, but it’d still be “convenient” in that it still won’t get God into a box.  Language is a box.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we do have to understand the limits of that box.

Also, when i mentioned Caputo’s books, “event” is not meant as a simple timeline.  Caputo gets his idea of the event from Deleuze who wrote in The Logic of Sense: “It seemed to us that the event, that is sense, referred to a paradoxical element, intervening as nonsense or as an aleatory point, and operating as a quasi-cause assuring the full autonomy of the effect.”

When mandates are given, isn’t it best to use the most literal interpretation possible?

Sometimes (if not oftentimes), the “most literal interpretation” isn’t necessarily what one gets when reading the NIV (or any English translation, but i like to pick on the NIV).  If we go with “the most literal interpretation,” then we get people like Tim LaHaye and the fun Left Behind garbage.  But, you see, we don’t go with “the most literal interpretation” at all times (another example: Joshua and the stopped sun).

One question: Is knowledge of first century Jewish culture a prerequisite to the true knowledge of God?

Michael, i’d have to say no.  It’s necessary for understanding the Bible, but God (and knowledge of God) isn’t limited to the Bible.  i think Paul made it clear that we can know God without the Bible.  But, the Bible makes it a bit easier  (again, convenience!).  i think you hit the nail on the head when you say:

It always seems to be a case of “interpretation to get us off the hook HERE, literal reading to have ‘spiritual’ authority THERE.”

Also, i got an email from a lurker with a good thought:

I wonder if anyone has brought up the possibility that perhaps God is the only being who is really ‘male’, and that men (only term I have for my gender) aren’t really Male in the sense that God is…it just appeals to our egos to think that we are.

Hi. I’ve been working on the dissertation lately, which means alternating periods of intense writing and uncontrollable weeping. Thanks for all your cards and letters. You’re sweet.

Did someone say Bishop Wright? Joel Garver surveys the state of Wright uptake.

All of the posts about women in the church/family/state/underground bunkers in a 10:1 ratio with men are wrong. Allow me to quote Gen. Jack D. Ripper: “Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.”

But I digress. The reason you are all wrong on this issue is because the FREAKING WORD IS ‘COMPLEMENTARIAN’. That’s ‘complEment’. As in, “If madam will permit, the pinot grigio makes an excellent complement to the grilled scrod tonight.” IOW, they go together well. If the pinot grigio makes an excellent complIment to the grilled scrod, then the pinot grigio would be cooing over the sizzling fish-flesh: “Ooo, my darling, the culinary gods have smiled upon me, for you complete me. I am hardly fit to deglaze your sauce, yet here uncorked I breathe, my yeasty essence giving way to the unfathomable beauty of your sea spirit.”

At ease. Carry on…

I keep saying in the immortal words of Stewart Smalley 

Even leaving aside the Old Testament, are not Paul (apostolic) letters part of the New Testament?

I fully agree that the Old Law (capital “L”) is fulfilled in Christ.  I have a hard enough time keeping up with the New Testament.

...when Paul states “I don’t permit…” does this give us liberty to develop customs and practices different from Paul’s?

Ellen: Thanks. That’s crystal clear.

When mandates are given, isn’t it best to use the most literal interpretation possible? Down that road, there are a lot of interesting divine commands. I have written on my view of the Bible elsewhere and I won’t rehash it. Jesus radically transforms our reading of all of scripture. All relationships. All mandates. All cultural mores. Etc. The “literal” interpretation short of a Christ-centered, Gospel-centered, New Covenant application? I’m not with you on that one. I don’t want a literal Bible. I want a Bible that brings me to Jesus and sends me forth with him. The “mandates” in Leviticus are very different when the fulfillment of them all arrives and is given his place as the Final Word.

I gotta drive. Thanks again and Cya.

Michael; you forgot “and Paul remained Torah Observant to death and never said that we shouldn’t be…” ;-}

Cutting and pasting to catch all the question marks (jn)

Ellen: I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that the Bible, in both old and new testaments, does not teach that women are to submit to men in all things?

If the question is: Are ALL women to submit to ALL men in ALL things, no – I don’t believe the Bible teaches that.

I believe that the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands in all things (up to the point where it bumps into obey God, rather than man).

You seem to be saying that the Bible teaches that women are not to be over men in spiritual authority, and I don’t quite understand how you are picking that out from a book where Paul plainly says I don’t want women to ask a question in an open forum, but to go home and ask their husbands the question.

Actually, I’m picking that out from a book where Paul plainly says I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

I mean, I used to have a policy about this discussion- which I’ve now abandoned- that until a person gives his/her answer to the question of why women in evangelical churches should not be wearing a head covering...I Corinthians plainly says that women should have their heads covered as a sign of general submission.

Yes it does. Verse 15 even describes it: “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” It’s why I don’t cut my hair (a lot of it broke off after a bad perm and I do trim.)

The reason I am not a thorough-going complementarian isn’t because I don’t see certain lines of scriptural reasoning. It’s because those lines of reasoning are used for several other things, like slavery and women’s head-coverings.

I don’t see a question mark there. But…God commanded slavery in the Old Testament. It served a couple of purposes

1. kept prisoners of war busy


2. introduced them to Yahweh


3. the labor was used as restitution for theft.

I will NEVER EVER say that slavery as we know it is a good thing. It is very, very evil. As with many other things, we have taken something that God did mandate and we have managed to make into something very sinful. It is not what God said, it is what we have done with it.

I will never advocate or encourage slavery in the world today…
It always seems to be a case of “interpretation to get us off the hook HERE, literal reading to have “spiritual” authority THERE.” I’m not that sophisticated an interpreter. :-) (jn)

When mandates are given, isn’t it best to use the most literal interpretation possible?

Seriously, if all that is needed to “get off the hook” is a “different” interpretation, there are a few passages that I’d like to revisit…

If the Democrats want religiously genuine candidates, Ky will be a good place to find them, so guys like Miller have a future. Of course, that Donna Brazille endorsement probably means he has to wear a tin foil hat and say conspiratorial things about Bush in Florida at least once a year :-)

Personally, I’d rather have had Gatewood Galbreath as my softball coach. He’s a very relaxed dude.

Yea!  I survived the summer!  It is great to see all (or most anyway) of your smiling faces again.

This guy coached my daughter’s softball team this summer (they were league champions, by the way).  The book isn’t actually out yet, but I was wondering what some of you ladies and gents think of what you can tell about it so far.  I plan to read it.

A couple of observations:

He never once mentioned that he was State Treasurer for KY the whole season.  I found that out by accident.

Even when I talked to him about that, he never mentioned that he had a book coming out.

And even though he plans to run for further political office, I had a devil of a time getting him to talk about it.

My conclusion: I’m impressed.  I have never met (or heard of) a politician who didn’t leap at the chance to talk about himself.  But I practically begged this guy to sell himself to me, and he was just humble and self-deprecating the whole time.  Which leads me to believe, of course, that his days as a politician are numbered.

I’ve been meaning to write an IM piece on what shameless preacher fan clubs exist in the Truly Reformed world. The reformed give away nothing to the Pentecostal/Charismatic set when it comes to making celebrities and icons out of their favorite preachers. Actually, the reformed are better at the dead ones.

Here in Ky, we like to say that you could fill up Rupp Arena just watching the UK Wildcat Basketball team play Monopoly. Or study. Or sleep. I’m starting to think that the Reformed fan clubs really will fly across the country to hear their favorite pastors answer questions like, “Tell us how you READ?” or “What is your take on predestination?”

Well, I’m glad I didn’t write that piece. It would have been silly.

Now, who drew the mustache on my Merton poster?

Kent: Of course, Jesus is the first century version of Joshua, and Christ is the first century version of anointed King. :-)

Ellen, I would say that the evidence is (Romans 12) that scripture gives us evidence that believers, regardless of gender, have complimentary roles within the Body of Christ – and that there is biological evidence inherent in our ‘created male and female’ nature that further defines our functional roles.

I am resistant to turning these roles into hard and fast rules as I believe that these roles need to be worked out at a relational level within the body, the family and the individual.

Michael; I do believe, as Bishop Wright has demonstrated to me, that growing in the knowledge of the cultural context of the STP has added much richness and depth to my own understanding of the Messiah…but ‘true knowledge’ of God is found in Jesus Christ who transcends all cultures, races, eras and isms.

Ellen: I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that the Bible, in both old and new testaments, does not teach that women are to submit to men in all things? You seem to be saying that the Bible teaches that women are not to be over men in spiritual authority, and I don’t quite understand how you are picking that out from a book where Paul plainly says I don’t want women to ask a question in an open forum, but to go home and ask their husbands the question.

I mean, I used to have a policy about this discussion- which I’ve now abandoned- that until a person gives his/her answer to the question of why women in evangelical churches should not be wearing a head covering (which my Mennonite and Amish friends here in Clay County do), then the further discussion of spiritual authority and submission shouldn’t procede. I Corinthians plainly says that women should have their heads covered as a sign of general submission.

The reason I am not a thorough-going complementarian isn’t because I don’t see certain lines of scriptural reasoning. It’s because those lines of reasoning are used for several other things, like slavery and women’s head-coverings. It always seems to be a case of “interpretation to get us off the hook HERE, literal reading to have “spiritual” authority THERE.” I’m not that sophisticated an interpreter. :-) (jn)

One question: Is knowledge of first century Jewish culture a prerequisite to the true knowledge of God? From this discussion, I assume the answer is “yes.”

Actually, I was going to say, “no.”

Belief in the Word of God is.  I believe that the Father points to the Son and the Son points to the Father.  Jesus said that when we pray we should pray like this:  Father...

Is that a function of the first century church?  No, it’s a function of the language that God used to describe Himself.

It would be difficult to say that women (in general) are not capable of being leaders. Obviously, many are, just as many men are not.

The question is: has God given us direction in the Bible that provides both sexes with complimentary roles?

In the 107+ years of our school, we’ve had one woman President. She saved the place from going under, and we just put her picture on the wall. We’ve had women principals in both high school and middle school, and I’ve worked with women leaders in just about every kind of situation.

If there is a demonstrable case that the blessing of God comes OFF of a ministry when a woman is in charge because it violates a divine and scriptural order, then all I can say is I haven’t seen the observable evidence. Case by case, I don’t think a shred of such evidence exists.

I assume that someone will note that decline of the mainlines as they have ordained women. That’s undeniable, but analyzing the chain of “Cause and Effect” in mainline decline is a complicated business. Saying it is because they ordained women is simplistic. I mean, even if you believe that is a sin against scripture and God, it’s simplistic. Many Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations have women preachers and elders and are in the ascendancy in their denominations. Whatever one thinks of Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore and Kay Arthur, could you make the case that they are harbingers of eventual decline because men ought to be in those teaching ministries?

And then we come to academics. Almost every seminary has females teaching in Bible and Theology these days. It’s not the “spiritual authority” of the local church, but what is it? It’s teaching the authority of the Bible with accountability, but not with recognized authority. And then we can talk about ordination, and whether that’s Biblical anyway, and if it’s not, then what is the difference in Beth Moore and Al Mohler again?

And oh yes. One question: Is knowledge of first century Jewish culture a prerequisite to the true knowledge of God? From this discussion, I assume the answer is “yes.”

This conversation goes somewhere.

We started out with Beth Moore, to a question about women’s ministries in general. I maintained (and still do) that many of the problems in women’s ministries begin with the feminized church.

From there, the next “topic” is “since when is God patriarchal? (the original post were patriarchy was mentioned was about “how” God set it up, not how it ended up) Is there a “creation order”?

From there, we go to seeing God as “Father” as as mere convenience.

After that, the idea of male headship is equated with the subjugation and exclusion of women and a patriachy cannot be loving: “But, the moment we move to a “loving patriarchy” as you put it, we’re not in a patriarchy anymore.”

(This is my nutshell): The Bible cannot be accurate in addressing God as “He”, because of God’s inability to inspire correct language to refer to Himself. Any gender-specific terminology is a weakness in the language, not revelation about the nature of God.

We’ve managed to bring in transexuals, hermaphrodites, goddesses.
All this “morphed” from the opposition of a strong complementarian view (mine).

Is that where everybody goes? Of course not.
But when a culture is heading in a different direction, it is generally radicals that steer. Radical feminists know (yes, KNOW) where this leads. I’ll repost the quote that I posted in my original:

“The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy. It is likely that as we watch Christ and Yahweh tumble to the ground, we will completely outgrow the need for an external God. We, women are going to bring an end to God. We will change the world so much that He won’t fit in anymore.”- Naomi Goldenberg

What about the need for an external God? Christopher posted about a book that he is reading that tells us that God is not a person, God is an “event”; moving an external God/Creator/Father out of existence and into a timeline.

Are we outgrowing God (as we know Him)?

Another off-topic(sort of) thing I found (it made my skin crawl so I thought I’d share it with you all):

Welcome to God’s Church, a universal, non-denominational, inter-faith gathering of God’s children to worship God and promote spiritual healing and growth regardless of any religious affiliation or background. We use non-exclusionary language in our services and read from the Great World Scriptures of difference religious/philosophical traditions. God’s Church does not ask anyone to give up their religion as there are many paths that lead to God. However, we do advocate the Law of Oneness, recognizing and accepting the holiness and interconnectedness of all life. We view all living beings as manifestations of God.

1. Prelude: “Let us worship God in God’s many names and forms: Universal Intelligence or Consciousness, the Light, the Great Void or Nothingness, Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, Divine Mother, Mother Earth, etc…. or in God’s many paths: Christ, Krishna, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, etc…. Let us invite in the spirits and the little creatures, as God is in all.” “God is a Spirit and They that worship must worship Spirit and Truth. God is Sat, Chitt, and Ananda (Truth, Knowledge, and Bliss).”

Ever hear someone say “Well, what the Greek really says is…”? Me too. Here’s a good post on the subject.

I kind of like this idea. Actually, what I really like is the BHT version floating in my mind.

And finally, someone brought me a Guinness T-shirt directly from Ireland and all the writing is Gaelic. I can’t read it, but I know it says “Guinness”.

-I was part of a ministry run by a woman and the leadership sucked.

-I worked on a psych unit run by a woman and the leadership was awesome.

Therefore women are capable of runnning psych units but not ministries…(extreme jn)

Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father…”; two words that identified relative roles and authority…and He taught us by example, meaning that He modeled submission and sonship…which is pretty much the same as daughtership.

As long as leadership is seen as a goal to be obtained in order to control there will be strife, when leadership is seen as a responsibility to be administered in a caring and loving way there is acceptance and submission. Each ‘community’ (i.e., family, agency, church, ministry) needs to work out the roles of their members in submission to one another regardless of gender.

So much of the fundie gender-role partitioning seems more like an effort to subjugate and isolate both parties from working out their male and female strengths and weaknesses. I agree that ‘feminization’ is a concern both in our culture and axiomatically in our churches; it is after all socially acceptable to mock men but not socially acceptable to mock women in both venues…which really sucks for the reason that we should never mock anyone…but let’s not talk about the role and acceptance of gossip in our culture and church.

1. whether the problems in women’s ministries are due to women in leadership
2. whether God is a hermaphrodite or transsexual
3. whether or not Israel was really a patriarchy (why does the New Testament refer to “patriarchs”?
4. whether or not Beth Moore has any real difference from the “discernment ministries” (sorry, I forgot that one the first time)

Y’all have been busy bees. This is the first chance I’ve had to drop in since Saturday night. We had really wonderful services yesterday, a ‘feed the five thousand’ fellowship lunch, finance meeting, church council meeting, choir practice and I spent some time ‘playing’ with the youth. This morning’s run-down of yesterday’s prayer requests and arm-chair quarterbacking is done for today and I’ve sent my youngest off for one more day with some buddies before school starts back on Thursday.

I’M ALONE!

Now, to reading these edifying entries from the last thirty hours or so.

Curt:  My cat eats grass.  I don’t like the consequences.

Michael