Conference yukon::christian_v7

    How about capitalizing She and Her when referring to God?
    
                                Patricia

When referring to God or when referring to Ba'al?

=wn= has yet another new moderator -- a pagan to keep the balance firmly
where it always has been.

/john

    Re: Note 577.77 by POWDML::FLANAGAN

�    How about capitalizing She and Her when referring to God?
    
    Hi Patricia,
    
    In the Bible's original languages, there are particular pronouns for
    he/him and she/her. The Holy Spirit inspired the human writers to use
    the masculine pronouns when referring to God.
    
    	BD�

	I suspect the only time you will stop whining about =wn= will be when
you meet the Maker, although I wouldn't at all put it past you to complain to
Him about it too. :-)

    Hi Patricia,
    
    Nice to see you reading in here!  We've had this discussion before
    regarding God gender... no sense in resurrecting it, do you think?
    We here in CHRISTIAN believe the Bible's use of masculine pronouns to
    not be a negative against women, it is inclusive.  I realize that 
    many women take exception to that usage today.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy
    

    >    How about capitalizing She and Her when referring to God?
    
    Genesis 1:27 "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God
    He created him; male and female He created them."
                    ---------------       
    God is not limited to being male OR female.  He create man, male and 
    female.  In this case man is not meant to imply male, it is mankind--both 
    male and female.  God is Spirit.  The bible is not talking about the 
    physical when it says we are made in His image.  It's talking about the 
    Spiritual.  Our language is limited when referring to God.  We
    shouldn't get hung up with using pronouns such as He, Him.   God IS our
    Father, our ABBA (daddy).  When Jesus walked on the earth, he had a
    male earth suit.  But he walked the earth as fully human.  We think of a 
    male when we think of Father, because the male fulfills that role on earth.
    Our finite minds often picture God as having to be a physical male or
    female being.  God is not limited by our perception, however.    
    
    BTW I capitalize He, Him when referring to God, because the New
    American Standard does.  It also helps to differentiate that I am
    talking about the one true God.
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

I've always assumed that God is neither male nor female, based on the same
scripture, Bing, and I still do make that assumption.

However, there's something else I've never really taken significantly into
account before.  I'm not fully there with it yet, but it has raised questions
for me about how we are to think of and approach God.

We claim that Jesus was actually God, and that He knows more about
everything, especially God, than anyone else ever has or will.  And Jesus
refers to God by no other title than "My Father." Jesus never refers to God
as Creator, Mighty One, or any other sort of title, and He never refers to
God as Mother.  The only variation on referring to God as Father is to call
him Abba, which still means Father, only more like "Daddy" or "Da-Da". 
What's more, Jesus instructs us to address God in the same manner.

I don't fully understand that.  But I'm beginning to at least consider that
Jesus was trying to communicate something to us about the nature of God by
His exclusive reference to God as "Father."

Paul

    In Psalms God proclaims he is the father to the fatherless.

Male and female, men and women:

We're making the mistake of applying human attributes to God, instead
of applying Godly *attributes* to men and women.

Male is not merely XX chromosomatic goo, and female is not merely
XY chromosomatic goo of a different shape.  Think in terms of 
male-ness and female-ness.

Now consider God and Israel, Jesus and the Bride of Christ.
God is most certainly male and we are most certainly female.
Again, not male as we usually think of it, but the notion 
above what we know.

Marriage is a picture of our relationship with God.  Man is the
head of the home, but is incomplete (as any relationship is) without
the woman.  Christ is the head of the church.  God created mankind
to have fellowship with him.  God created woman because it was not
good for man to be alone.

This is not about domination, but about roles in relation to God
who is the head and loves us "as Christ loved the church" (Christ is God!).
We are to submit to him, not out of domination but "as unto the Lord"
because He is our Creator and seeks to unite us with Him.

To say that God is male or female because of our incomplete views of
maleness and femaleness really does both God and us a disservice.
Instead, we should try to understand why the Bible calls God by
the male pronoun and indeed why He calls His people and his church
by the feminine pronoun (including all the males in His people and
His church).  Do you think it is God who is confused, or do you think
we need to think this male/female thing over a bit?

Mark

    If God is pure  Spirituality and both male and female are created in God's
    image and God is neither male of female, why should anyone care whether
    I refer to God as He or She, Mother or Father.
    
    When Jesus refers to God as Abba Father, If that does not refer to a
    being with all the male parts and playing the male role in procreation
    and the family of humankind, then why can't Christians be just as
    comfortable calling God Mother?
    
    The issue that all woman must wrestle with is whether we believe in a
    religion that truly accepts us as women and part of the covenant with
    God in our own rights or does our religion connect us with God only
    through our husbands and fathers.
    
    
    
                                   Patricia

    Hi Patricia,
    
    Since the Scriptures say that in the Messiah, there is no longer male
    or female, you should know that your relationship with G-d is quite
    individual and not dependent upon others.
    
    *All* people, men, women, Jews, Gentiles, employees, employers - all
    can enter into relationship with the G-d who created all that is but
    trusting in Yeshua - Jesus of Nazareth - and the work He (surely He was
    a male :-) did on our behalf.
    
    L-rd bless you,
    
    Steve

    (that's BY trusting, not BUT....blasted fingers! ;-)

    Steve,
    
    I don't understand.... Why do you omit the "o" in God and Lord in every
    one of your entries in this conference... Educate me!
    
    Thanks!
    
    Bob
    

	God accepts me as a woman... He made me one!

	I am connected with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit,
	not through my husband (and MOST CERTAINLY not through my
	father).

	Are there Christian denominations that do make that connection
	(through husband/father only) ?

	Karen

    The connection is in the idea of the covenant which began with the
    covenant between God and Abraham, and then God and Moses.  the human
    symbol of that Covenant was circumcism.  Circumcism as a symbol of the
    covenant relates women to the covenant only through husbands and
    fathers.  In fact God told Moses to make sure the men getting ready for
    the covenantal meeting did not make themselves ritualistically impure
    by having sex with their wifes prior to the ceremony.  
    
    Granted that Paul set aside the need for Christians to be circumsized. 
    He described circumcism as being spiritual and not physical.  Yet
    agains women are still related to God through male symbols.
    
    When pushed, most Christians will acknowledge that God is not male or
    female, yet symbols are powerful to the human psyche.  Our first images
    of God are as a human father.  THere are mother images also defined in
    the Bible but those are more difficult to find and do not make their
    way into the consciousness of young children as they learn to recognize
    God.  Only Boy children grow up truly knowing that they are created in the
    image of God.  
    
    Christians mature and begin to know God no longer as a superhuman but
    as a spiritual being not male or female.

	Mark, interesting point. What you said makes perfect sense until you
throw in the part of Scripture where woman is to serve man. If both are equal,
why is one suppose to exclusively serve the other?

>    If God is pure  Spirituality and both male and female are created in God's
>    image and God is neither male of female, why should anyone care whether
>    I refer to God as He or She, Mother or Father.

Excellent reply, Steve.  The specific verse to which Steve refers is this:

Galatians 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now as to the image both male and female are made: If male and female are
distinct, there must be a common ground to which this image of God refers.
God is pure and God is Spirit.  The spirit within both men and women
are made in the image of God.  The fact that these people are separated
into sexual beings is part of the relationship motif I was explaining 
earlier.  

>    The issue that all woman must wrestle with is whether we believe in a
>    religion that truly accepts us as women and part of the covenant with
>    God in our own rights or does our religion connect us with God only
>    through our husbands and fathers.

How about a relationship that accepts you as one of God's creation without
regard to your gender.  As for "rights," what does this have to do with
God?  A covenant is an agreement between two people; you can't have a
one-person relationship.  God, the Creator, makes the offer, we accept it
or reject it.  The rights we have are given to us (Christians; neither 
male nor female in Christ) by God.  We have rights based on His covenant
alone; based on His promise and His integrity.

Now, if God refers to Himself as male, why should He care if you refer to
Him as Mother?

It is wrong for anyone to use the Bible as a tool for male domination of
women; the Bible does not teach it!  It is just as wrong to filter the
Bible according to other biases.  The Bible should do the filtering of
our lives.

Mark

    Re .87 (Patricia)
    
>    why should anyone care whether
>    I refer to God as He or She, Mother or Father.
    
    Because (as I said in .80), "The Holy Spirit inspired the human writers
    to use the masculine pronouns when referring to God." The Bible is the
    only document we have that is totally trustworthy. It's there where we
    learn who God is, what He's like, etc. Since He has revealed Himself in
    the masculine through the Bible we ought not fool with His revelation
    of Himself by rewriting it.
    
>    The issue that all woman must wrestle with is whether we believe in a
>    religion that truly accepts us as women and part of the covenant with
>    God in our own rights or does our religion connect us with God only
>    through our husbands and fathers.
    
    Steve addressed this in .88. There is no male/female, no bond/free when
    it comes to our relationship with God. We are individually accountable
    to God without going through an intermediary. However (and this is the
    big "however" that gets many people riled), God has established
    distinct *roles* for men/women to fill. Neither role is superior just
    as no individual is superior, and it's no reflection on the individuals
    who fill the roles regarding what their status is.
    
    I as a software developer am no more or less important than my
    manager. We do, however, have different roles. Spiritually, it's a
    similar concept.
    
    	BD�

>    The connection is in the idea of the covenant which began with the
>    covenant between God and Abraham, and then God and Moses.  the human
>    symbol of that Covenant was circumcism.  Circumcism as a symbol of the
>    covenant relates women to the covenant only through husbands and
>    fathers.  In fact God told Moses to make sure the men getting ready for
>    the covenantal meeting did not make themselves ritualistically impure
<    by having sex with their wifes prior to the ceremony.  
>    
>    Granted that Paul set aside the need for Christians to be circumsized. 
>    He described circumcism as being spiritual and not physical.  Yet
>    agains women are still related to God through male symbols.

Men need to understand that they will relate to God through the
female symbols of the Bride of Christ.  This does not make God female
nor confuse the idea of male and female.

The Bible teaches that husband and wife are to become one flesh.
That makes them a unit, indivisible, without regard to sexuality.
Yet, it does not nullify their sexual differences, nor their roles.

If the covenant is reckoned through an act of circumcision, the 
covenant is no less reckoned to the woman.  This is also true of
salvation, a covenant agreement between God and Gentiles reckoned
through the Chosen People of Israel from which the Messiah came.
Still Paul is clear that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor
Greek, male nor female...  

It is not ONLY women who are related to God through male symbols.
We, as men, will relate to God as His Bride and feminine partner.

Mark

>	Mark, interesting point. What you said makes perfect sense until you
>throw in the part of Scripture where woman is to serve man. If both are equal,
>why is one suppose to exclusively serve the other?

I never said serve, did I.  I said submit, which is what the Bible says.
But then when did you follow [all of] the Bible, Glen?

Submission to the Lord is something every Christian should understand.
And because we willfully and joyfully submit to the Lord because of
His love for us, we can willfully and joyfully submit to "one another"
as the Bible commands husbands and wives and "wives to their husbands"
as the Bible also commands.  The husband is not left off the hook.
He must submit to his wife, and also must be the head of the home,
WHILE LOVING AS CHRIST LOVED.  Leading as Christ would lead.  In this,
the relationship between man and God is mirrored in the relationship
between man and woman.

Mark

I do know this is an issue among Christian men and women (women and men)
who are Bible believers.  But they struggle with this issue.  Men have
had it relatively easy because they really haven't considered their
responsibilities as males. .The women do consider their roles and 
struggle because they feel it places them in an inferior position.
And men who feel that it places them in a superior position do not
feel the need to consider the role as they should.  

This is an issue for both genders to consider carefully and prayerfully
without (as much as possible) the subjective biases of "male domination,"
"feminism," or culture.  Strip away these things and male and female
take on a different and *unloaded* context.

I can describe unloaded by contrast with a loaded context: male dominance,
female obsequience, man the head of the home, woman the submissive servant.
These loaded contexts are distortions of the true reflection of male and
female.  I like Barry's description of roles regarding manager and worker.
(Even this can be loaded definition because managers often make more
than workers; but not always.)

But even before we consider the unloaded roles of male and female, we
need to follow the chain back one more link.  Why did God create male
and female?  

God's reason was that it was not good for man to be alone.
God's method was to make woman from the components of man,
continuing the expression of unity.  There is nothing special 
about the order of creation.  What is important is that being
alone was not good.  What is important is that God made a 
complementary person.  But this doesn't answer why God created
man in the first place.  And if God thought it was "not good" 
for man to be alone, do you think woman was planned from the 
beginning or an afterthought?  It is highly unlikely that woman
was an afterthought, but that God knew from the beginning what 
he was going to do.

So why did He do it?  Billy Graham and others say that the cheif
end of man is to glorify God and I accept this definition.  Another like
it is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."  God created people to
have fellowship (relationship) with Him.  Bearing this in mind,
he created people to have fellowship and relationship with each other.

So we see two relationships spring from creation: God to mankind and
mankind to mankind.  Both of these relationships should endeavor to
understand the unloaded view of male and female.  (And I don't think
we stop endeavoring at this, by the way.)

Mark

| <<< Note 577.97 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| I never said serve, did I.  I said submit, which is what the Bible says.
| But then when did you follow [all of] the Bible, Glen?

	Never said I did, but you do. Your belief has this fixed in with it. So
regardless of MY beliefs, yours very much uses the Bible. Now if we take the
Bible, which you hold as inerrant, and add in what it says about women, then it
does not become equal. That was the part I was questioning about what you said
a few notes back.

| Submission to the Lord is something every Christian should understand.
| And because we willfully and joyfully submit to the Lord because of
| His love for us, we can willfully and joyfully submit to "one another"
| as the Bible commands husbands and wives and "wives to their husbands"
| as the Bible also commands.  The husband is not left off the hook.
| He must submit to his wife, and also must be the head of the home,
| WHILE LOVING AS CHRIST LOVED.  Leading as Christ would lead.  In this,
| the relationship between man and God is mirrored in the relationship
| between man and woman.

	Mark, women are supposed to do X and man is to do Y. Women could be
head of the household too if things were equal. But woman, according to the
Bible, can not. Does not sound equal to me. If we are submissive to Christ,
then let it be that. Not anything else we humans add to it.


Glen

>  If God is pure Spirituality and both male and female are created in God's
>  image and God is neither male of female, why should anyone care whether
>  I refer to God as He or She, Mother or Father.

Because Jesus, our guide in everything, instructed us to call God Father. 
That sounds simplistic, but I've had enough life experience in dismissing His
instructions because I didn't understand them, only to discover later that He
was right all along, to dismiss His instructions lightly any more.  Or even
to dismiss them at all.

>    When Jesus refers to God as Abba Father, If that does not refer to a
>    being with all the male parts and playing the male role in procreation
>    and the family of humankind, then why can't Christians be just as
>    comfortable calling God Mother?

It's not enough to point out what Jesus *ISN'T* saying.  You're right, He is
not referring to a physically male God with a male physical body.  But what
*IS* He saying?  I don't believe that Jesus did anything by accident.  I
don't believe that it was any accident that He *ALWAYS* called God 'Father.' 
I don't yet fully understand what it is that He was trying to communicate by
this, but I won't dismiss it just because I don't understand it.

>    The issue that all woman must wrestle with is whether we believe in a
>    religion that truly accepts us as women and part of the covenant with
>    God in our own rights or does our religion connect us with God only
>    through our husbands and fathers.

As others have said, Christianity does not in any way define women's
relationship to God as different from men's relationship.  "In Christ there
is neither male nor female."  There is no necessity to connect with God
through husbands or fathers, you have a direct line just like everyone else.
It's Mormonism that requires women to connect with God through their
husbands.  Judaism did have aspects of this too, but they were superceded by
Christ.

>    When pushed, most Christians will acknowledge that God is not male or
>    female, yet symbols are powerful to the human psyche.  

Not when pushed, I'll acknowledge it right up front.  And yes, symbols are
powerful.  That's why I take it seriously when Jesus provides one.

>   Our first images
>    of God are as a human father.  There are mother images also defined in
>    the Bible but those are more difficult to find

There are no direct mother images of God in the Bible, only similies.  In
several places, God gives direct images of Himself as father, saying "I *am*
your father" or something similar, and again Jesus says that God is our
Father.  There are also places where God compares Himself to a father: "Like
a father, ..."

There are places which God compares Himself to a mother; "Like a mother,..."
but there is nowhere where God give Himself the title of mother or says He is
our mother.

>    Christians mature and begin to know God no longer as a superhuman but
>    as a spiritual being not male or female.

As Christians mature, they become more conformed to the likeness of Christ. 
They think more like Him, they act more like Him, and they speak more like
Him.  As such, as Christians mature, they are likely to come into a better
understanding of why God is to be viewed as Father.

Paul

                                    CRISIS
                                     OVER
                              INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

American society has become extremely sensitive to "politically correct"
speech, especially when referring to women.  As a result, Church leaders
feel compelled to change Liturgy, hymns, and even the Bible in order to
use language which could not possibly be construed to "offend" women.

While the attempt to use "inclusive language" to refer to human beings is not,
in itself, harmful (though it is awkward), it leads inevitably to the attempt
to use some kind of "gender neutral" language to express God's Revelation of
Himself and how He wants us to know Him and to speak to Him.  Whenever we
change the words He has given us, and substitute the words we think ought to
be used, we define for ourselves the object of our worship.  Indeed, we have
now created Him to reflect our image.  Furthermore, since the power to name
carries authority, we can now usurp His authority.  The danger is that it
easily results in a new religion, determined by and reflecting man's image.
This new religion is not Christianity. (8)
 
God has revealed Himself consistently, throughout all the ages, in masculine
terms, as Father, as Bridegroom, as Lord.  He revealed Himself most perfectly
in Jesus, a male human being.  To change the Revelation given by God Himself
is to reject God.  The Scriptures are filled with these names for God.  Jesus
continually referred to God as "Father."  Knowing that the way we pray
determines what we believe, and how we relate to God, He taught us,

	"When you pray, say `Our Father'"

For in relationship to God, we are all feminine.  The Church is the Bride of
Christ. 

To change liturgical language in the interests of "inclusive language" is
inherently dangerous, because it changes our perception of God and substitutes
man's ideas for God's Revelation. For instance:

	� To speak of God as Creator,  Redeemer, Sustainer in order to
	  avoid calling Him by Name (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is a
	  denial of the Trinity.  It also makes a personal relationship
	  with Him impossible: it is impossible to pray in a personal way
	  to a God who has no name!

	� To say that the Resurrected Christ, Who appeared to the disciples,
	  to the women, and to 500 others, and Who will come again in glory,
	  is no longer male denies the resurrection of the body.  A
	  recognizable Jesus appeared, still male, still with a body which
	  had wounds, which could eat and drink, which could be touched. 
	  (See the Gospels and the Book of Acts)

	� To hesitate to call Jesus "Lord" (a "masculine" term) is to have
	  an excuse not to obey Him.

	� To use feminine metaphors such as "giving birth" to creation
	  contains a special danger.  It suggests that we are "of the same
	  substance" as God, rather than being created "out of nothing" and
	  completely "other" from God.  It therefore leads to the conclusion
	  that we are divine, we are gods, since we are "of the same
	  substance."

	� To worship a "goddess" (or a Mother God) is to return to paganism,
	  out of which God called us to be His people, and against which the
	  prophets continually have warned us.

The Episcopal Synod of America upholds God's Revelation of Himself as given
and as expressed in Holy Scripture.

-----

(8) See the next section of this document entitled "Lord, Who are You?"

>	Mark, women are supposed to do X and man is to do Y. Women could be
>head of the household too if things were equal. But woman, according to the
>Bible, can not. Does not sound equal to me. If we are submissive to Christ,
>then let it be that. Not anything else we humans add to it.

Sorry, but what does "equal" have to do with it?  Who said men and women
are suppose to be equal.  They are certainly not equal.

Are you implying that by not being equal, one is BETTER than another?
Perhaps you are making some suppositions as to what is "better" and
what is "worse?"

Mark

                              LORD, WHO ARE YOU?

Of course all Christians believe in God and certainly all hold that there
is a very close connection between the cosmos and God.  Do we not call the
cosmos "the creation"?  Is there not great concern for ecology in the name
of God?  And, are not many of us attracted by what is called "creation
spirituality"? 

However, when we look closely at what people mean when they say "God," we
find very serious differences. In fact many people appear to hold a view
of who God is which is not that view to which the Scriptures, Creeds and
historic Liturgies point.

                            Different Views of God

The doctrines of God which seem to be held by many leaders, theologians and
teachers and which differ from what the holy, catholic church has historically
believed may be set down in simple form like this:

a. God is another name for the totality of the universe.  To be in harmony
with nature, to be truly ecologically aware, is to be in communion with God.
This is known as pantheism, a very ancient way of conceiving God.  Today it
is alive and well.  Mother nature leads to mother god.

b. God is greater than the cosmos, but in God's being the cosmos is included.
This is panentheism -- nature is in God, but God is more than nature.  So it
is said that the cosmos is God's body and as such God may be rightly called
"She" for the cosmos is continually bringing forth new life.  Feminists tend
to favour this approach.

c. God is in the process of becoming what he will be and in this becoming,
God is changing with the universe as the universe continues to evolve and
develop.  God is not the universe but God's destiny is inextricably linked
to that of the cosmos.  This is known as process theology, for God is in
the process of his own self-evolution to become what he does not yet know
he will be.  People impressed by modern scientific knowledge tend to favour
this view that God's Being is in his Becoming.

d. God is the One, that is the One which is hidden from our physical eyes,
for we only see the variety and the many.  By meditation and ascetic
discipline we can, like the Hindu holy man, see and unite ourselves with
the One and thus know internal harmony and unity.  This is monism and comes
into the churches via the New Age movement from eastern-type spirituality.

When church people hold these views then what they believe about the Gospel,
the Church, the Bible, the Sacraments and Life after death is seriously
affected.  Though they continue to use traditional Bible and liturgical
language, what they mean by the words is not that which Christians have
historically meant.  Thus we hear many calls to change the Liturgy, the
way we address God, the morality we are to live by and the Gospel we are
to preach to the world.

                           The Christian View of God

He is Trinity

Historically, based on the Jewish monotheism and on the teaching of Jesus
and his apostles, the Church has explained that the God whom she experiences,
worships and serves is best described in terms of Trinitarian Theism.  There
is one God who is eternal.  In his eternity God is a Trinity of Persons and
there is perfect communion in the Godhead between the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.  The God of holy love is uncreated Being and self-existent Being.

He is Transcendent and Immanent

The cosmos is the creation of this one God, for the Father creates through
the Son and by the Holy Spirit.  The universe is thus _wholly_separate_ from
the Being of God -- he wholly transcends it.  Yet the universe is wholly
preserved and kept in being and development by God -- he is immanent within
his creation.  And human beings are the stewards of the creation, made in
God's image and after his likeness.

The cosmos points to its Creator but is not itself part of God.  Rather, it
is that which God, its maker, loves and cares for.  Human beings are able to
know and experience this love, for the Second Person of the Holy Trinity of
the One God became Man and thus revealed God to mankind, and in so doing
brought salvation to the human race.  Further, the Holy Spirit is present
in the Church of God and in his world to bring unto human beings the benefits
won for us by the redeeming and reconciling work of Jesus Christ, Incarnate
Son.  Thus God is specially immanent within the universe unto those who hear
and receive the Gospel of God concerning Jesus Christ.

From this Trinitarian Theism the historic catholic and evangelical teaching
of the Church flows.  The Gospel is a word from the transcendent God to people
in this space and time; the sacraments are not merely signs of new life but of
eternal life, the life of Jesus Christ who is transcendent in his glory; the
Church is not merely a this-worldly institution but it is a heavenly society,
a pilgrim people, the Body of Christ, united to the heavenly Lord and looking
unto him for guidance, life, and salvation.

In Summary

The religion which develops from pantheism or panentheism or process theology
is not the religion which has been historically linked with Jesus of Nazareth,
when he is confessed as Christ and Lord.  Christianity, as a historical
religion, is based on the confession of Jesus as Lord, as the One who comes
from the transcendent God into space and time, in order to unite human beings
with this God, who is a Trinity of Persons, for eternal life, salvation and
blessedness.  The primary emphasis upon the _transcendence_ of God is
important; for his immanence is dependent upon it.  God is God before God
is Creator; and God will be/is God when the cosmos is no longer.  If his
immanence is put first, then the drift into pantheism or panentheism or
process theology so easily occurs.  Let God be God.

    I do agree with you that the Galatians statement that we are all one in
    Christ is very inspiring.  I do wish however that Paul was consistent
    in including women and men in that same statement when he makes it in 1
    Corinthians.  The omition is unfortunate.
    
    I will end my participation regarding this topic here because I don't
    comply with your assumptions about the Bible.  It is an issue that
    needs to be fully addressed regardless of what assumptions underlie our
    Faith.
    
    I do wish Nancy the best of luck in wrestling with questions like this
    over in WN.
    
                                      Patricia

>    I will end my participation regarding this topic here because I don't
>    comply with your assumptions about the Bible. 

This is wise, because without an agreed-upon basis for discussion, there
is no communication; only strife.  Our well-reasoned arguments are 
gobbledegook to one who cannot accept the basis by which we reason.
And on the same token, any reasoning you make with your (alternate)
basis is as confounding.  Thanks, Patricia.  May the Truth win out.  :-)

Mark

    I think Jesus referred to God as "Father" because He is, among other 
    things, our Provider.  That's what fathers are supposed to do:
    provide for their families; in every way.  I realize that not all of us 
    had perfect fathers, (some were downright abusive) but hopefully we 
    all had a friend, cousin, someone who did have a good father (thus 
    showing us the difference between a "good"/"bad" father.)  
    
    When I think of the "ideal" father, I think of a strong (physically and
    emotionally/spiritually), loving man - one that provides the tangibles 
    and the intangibles for his family: food, shelter, clothing, love, 
    safety, discipline.  According to His Word, God provides all those things!
    Through Jesus, we have direct access to the Father - we can approach
    Him, through prayer, and ask Him to meet our need; just as we should be
    able to approach our earthly fathers.
    
    This is not to say that mothers are not loving and not able to provide
    for their families (i.e., single mothers).  Many women have to do just
    that, provide the material needs of their families, for whatever
    reasons, and do a wonderful job.  
    
    The point of the male/female roles however is to show us what the
    "ideal" situation is.  Obviously, there is a reason why God created us
    male and female; each gender has functions that are exclusive to it. 
    When brought together (unity) - the two halves make a whole.
    
    Also, as Mark and others have pointed out, with God having male 
    attributes and his Church having female attributes, it give us a 
    pattern or archetype of the marriage relationship.
    
    Karen    

    >    of God are as a human father.  THere are mother images also defined in
>    the Bible but those are more difficult to find and do not make their
>    way into the consciousness of young children as they learn to recognize

    They are not very common, but here's a couple that I know of...

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not
depart from it.

    The Hebrew word for "Train" in this verse comes from the word used to
    describe a newborn when it was learning to nurse.  They would put a
    bitter herb on the newborns tongue that made the baby want to suck.  We
    are to train our children in the things of the Lord as the Hebrew women
    used to train their newborns to nurse.  Make them want to come back for
    more and realize that the Word of God is their very sustenance for
    life!

Psalms 23:2
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still
waters.

    The Hebrew phrase for "maketh me to lie down" as a phrase used to
    represent the Hebrew mothers laying their babies down after holding
    them in their arms.  Think of the most gentle, loving, and tender way a
    mother lays down her baby, and you'll get the picture of how our Jesus
    Christ, the Great Shepherd, "lays us down" in green pastures in our
    Christian walk.

    Mike

    Regarding not equal and the ideas of being better or worse:
    
    Which is better?  A 100-watt bulb or a 15-watt bulb?
    
    Which is better?  A 100-watt bulb putting out 85 watts or
                      a  15-watt bulb putting out 15 watts?
    
    We naturally want to say more is better.  And even overspiritualizing
    this, more light (85 watts) seems to be better than less light (15 watts).
    (I should be talking lumens in reference to light but watts are easier.)
    
    But God doesn't look at the outside.   The person who doubled his five
    talents was commended as was the person who doubled his ten talents.
    
    So which is better?  The person who has fewer, or the person who gives
    all that he or she has?
    
    Mark

    .29
    
    You hit on a very key point Karen.  We've touched on this before in
    another topic some time ago.  Oftimes we grow up believing that God
    must be like our earthly fathers.
    
    A negative father figure can negatively impact a person's perception 
    of God if not dealt with properly.
    
    and 
    
    A positive father figure can positively impact a person's perception of
    God.
    

    RE:32
    
    Nancy,
          God the Father should be viewed as Jesus revealed Him to us and
    that is of a perfect Father.

    The theological definition of God is creator.
    It is incorrect for us, the created, to define what the creator is,
    being none of us have seen God and the only image we have of Him is that
    which Jesus gave us. He is beyond gender, beyond time, beyond our
    imaginations. Let us keep our knowledge of what God is like, to that
    which Jesus has revealed to us. Any other image could be a false image.



    Jim

        In most languages, masculine and feminine transcend male and
	female, gender transcends sex. For example, the Italian
	for spirit is "il Spirito", masculine, no hidden female-bashing
	agenda.

	With all due respect,
		Tony
		

    Jim,
    
    Have you ever been to an AA meeting?  Have you ever heard people who
    have had horrible fathers explain their perception of God?  No-one ever
    said this was a "correct" way of thinking, it just is a "way" of
    thinking for many, many adults.
    
    

    RE:35

    Even people with bad fathers know what a good father is suppose to be
    like. If they don't know what a good father is suppose to be, how do
    they know theirs was bad ?

        
     Jim

    Jim,
    
    Surely you don't mean this question do you?  Quite frankly, it oftens
    isn't  until much later in life that the realization of improper
    fathering becomes apparent.  Take me for instance, I believed most of
    my childhood that all fathers visited their daughters in bed.
    
    

| <<< Note 589.23 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| Sorry, but what does "equal" have to do with it?  Who said men and women
| are suppose to be equal.  They are certainly not equal.

	According to the Bible, anyway.

| Are you implying that by not being equal, one is BETTER than another?

	No. One is not allowed to do what the other is, yet no reason for this
is given. If a woman is supposed to be a servant to man, then she is considered
a lesser type person. It does not mean that in reality that women aren't as
good as men. 

Glen

    .38
    
    Wrong. :-)
    
    A woman is not lesser because her role is different.  Every ship must
    have a captain... too many captain's cause destruction to the crew.
    
    God chose man to be head of the direction of the family, responsible
    for providing all the family's needs, he chose the woman to be head of
    the home, caring for the family.
    
    They compliment one another and are not opposed.

| <<< Note 589.28 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| This is wise, because without an agreed-upon basis for discussion, there
| is no communication; only strife.  

	In this case a discussion can't happen because one can not express
their beliefs. How does one discuss something if they are limited on giving
their position?


Glen

    re: .36
    
    What I understood Nancy to be saying in .35 was that, yes,
    intellectually we (people in general) know the difference
    between a good/bad father....however if someone's PERSONAL EXPERIENCE 
    was with a BAD father then, even though in theory (head knowledge) they 
    know "God is good" in practice (heart attitude) they will be dealing
    with God in the same manner (non-trust) as their earthly father.
    
    We are the sum of our experiences - experts agree that the foundation
    of a child's personality are formed during the first 3 - 5 years of
    life.  You can tell the difference between a child who is loved and
    cared for and one who is not.  It can be evident in everything from 
    their dress, disposition, behavior, how they play with other children. 
    You cannot expect a child to analyze why they think/act as they do. 
    This is the difference between children and adults - recognizing (by
    oneself) sinful/inappropriate attitudes and behaviors and changing
    them.  In short, taking personal responsibility for our actions.
    
    Karen

| <<< Note 589.39 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| They compliment one another and are not opposed.


	If one is the servant of the other, they don't compliment one another.


Glen

    .42
    
    Why are you defining the woman's role as "servant"?

	Can't remember the note number, but there is a note in CP that deals
with this. The last note or near the end. The scripture is in there to read.

    .44
    
    Sorry, not going back into CP... you wanna find it and then we can
    address the scripture content.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

I am consciously and deliberately not being drawn into yet another long,
drawn out "dialogue" with you, Glen.

Why don't we just stop this before it starts?  We all know exactly what is
going to happen in this note.  You don't like what we believe here, and you
never, never, never, never, never, never tire of telling us you don't like it.

OK.  We've heard that.  You don't like it.  We do.  I for one flatly refuse
to "discuss" it with you any more, because it is not a discussion, it is
simply a platform for you to go on another of your tirades against the Bible.

Responding to you, showing where you have misinterpreted things, etc has
proven to be completely fruitless.  It simply provides fuel for you to say
your piece again and again and again.  It's like throwing gasoline on a fire,
and then spraying it with an oxygen hose.

Enough already, Glen.

Paul

    RE:37

    The point is that you came to know that your father's behavior was
    wrong. I'm willing to bet you felt something was wrong while it
    happened as well. Either way, once you came to know what a good
    father should be like, is it too difficult for you to see God as a
    perfect father ?

    My father wasn't perfect, but I don't equate God the Father as equally
    imperfect because all I experienced was an imperfect earthly father.

    Jim

	Glen,

	Have you read for yourself what the Bible has to say
	about a woman and her role as a wife, or are you bringing
	"ideas" that you heard in another conference and expressing
	them as fact ?


	How about if you read the verses, pray about them, and study
	what is really being said before you make claims about a woman's
	role ?  I *have* studied them, and didn't come away with the
	"servant" role.  

	Nancy's right, the man and woman complement one another, but it's
	hard to understand that if you don't understand the Scriptures.

	Karen

    off topic but on-rathole...                    
    
    most fail to understand that the *husband's* role is that of servant to
    his family.  the Bible says husbands are to *love* their wives just as
    Messiah loves His beloved bride.
    
    was there a better example of a servant than The Servant?
    
    how should a husband conduct himself as head of the family?
    
    		*watch, obey, and imitate The Servant*
    
    the world says being a servant is a lowly place...what does the world
    know?   who could ever receive more honor than the One who actually
    washed the feet of His students?
    
    view anything in this world with the world's "wisdom" and you'll miss
    the beauty and wonder of the Master's touch in His perfect design.
    
    "humble yourself in the sight of the L-rd and He will lift you up!"
    "to save your life, you must lose it...."
    "if he asks you to go with him one mile, go two..."
    "he who would seek to be the greatest among you must be the least..."
    "He (Yeshua) must increase, I must decrease..."

    .49
    
    Amen Steve and Karen!!!
    
    

This is what God said of Jesus:

Matthew 12:18  Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my
soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew
judgment to the Gentiles.

And this is what Jesus said to us:

Matthew 20:27  And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Matthew 23:11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mark 9:35  And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If
any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Mark 10:44  And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of
all.

Matthew 24:45  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath
made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
 46  Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
doing.

Matthew 25:21  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful
servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler
over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

And there's much more.  Rather than hold to a skewed view of being a
servant, try understanding first.

Mark

    .47
    
    Jim read Karen's reply... really.  It says it all.  I agree wiith what
    you are saying in theory, but in practice it takes a little longer then
    just poof here's bad father, here's the good Father in Heaven.
    
    

    RE:52

    Nancy,
          I don't see the connection in Karen's reply with what I'm talking
    about. Perhaps you could explain what your getting at ?

     Jim (who's having a brain dead day)

    .41 Karen Mossey, not Jennison. :-)

	While what everyone wrote was warm and fuzzy, it says nothing of women
not being able to be head of the household, a leader in some denominations,
etc. 

	Oh yeah, Paul, I can't talk about my beliefs on the Bible, so the
discussion would not go down that road....

    re: .55
    
    Warm and fuzzies aside, it's not a question of abilities or skills;
    you're missing the point.  It's a question of roles, pictures, order,
    etc.
    
    You've put yourself in an awkward position, Glen.  You don't understand
    the things you argue against, and when taught the Truth, you don't want
    to listen.
    
    I'm sorry, friend - but that's not going to help you much.
    
    Steve (lacking the warm & fuzzy approach this morning...)

    >   The point is that you came to know that your father's behavior was
    >   wrong. I'm willing to bet you felt something was wrong while it
    >   happened as well. Either way, once you came to know what a good
    >   father should be like, is it too difficult for you to see God as a
    >   perfect father ?
    
    >   My father wasn't perfect, but I don't equate God the Father as equally
    >   imperfect because all I experienced was an imperfect earthly father.
    
    Jim, this may be your experience, but I can tell you from personal
    experience that it is not the experience of all (and probably not the
    majority).
    
    We we are children, we tend to define the world, as centered around us. 
    Hence when a child's parents get divorced, the child often believes
    that he/she is the reason for the divorce.  When a child has an abusive
    father, they often believe that they (the child) are the one to blame. 
    The child thinks that if only I was a better person, I would have a
    better father.  I have known many, many folks who have had an incorrect
    perception of their heavenly Father, because of a bad relationship with
    their earthly father.  They could never perform well enough to please
    their earthly father, and that carries over to their relationship with
    their heavenly father.  If a father is overly strict, the child might
    view their heavenly Father as always carrying around His big wooden spoon
    looking for an opportunity to punish His children.
    
    I have seen too many people with an incorrect view of their heavenly
    Father, based on their relationship with their earthly father, to say
    it doesn't exist.  I have seen many folks set free (including myself)
    as they understand how much our heavenly Father loves each one of us
    and how He considers each of us as precious to Him.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

    >If a woman is supposed to be a servant to man, then she is considered
    >a lesser type person. It does not mean that in reality that women aren't as
    >good as men.
    
    >While what everyone wrote was warm and fuzzy, it says nothing of women
    >not being able to be head of the household, a leader in some denominations,
    >etc. 
    
    I agree with Steve, that men are to be servants to their wives.  Eph
    5:25 says we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church.  The
    problem comes when we continue to try to define Christian leadership
    in terms of secular leadership.  Being the head of the household does
    not mean "making all the rules" and lording it over everyone else. 
    It's all about serving, about giving of oneself.  BTW, vs 21 of Eph 5
    says that we are to be subject to one another.  I have some friends who
    are a married couple.  The wife works and the husband stays at home
    with the kids, because she made more money than he did.  This works for
    them.  It doesn't change his role as the spiritual leader in the
    family.  Again, being the spiritual leader in the family doesn't mean
    playing "lord of the ring".  It's all about loving as Christ loved the
    Church.
    
    If God, through scripture, defines my role in a certain way, who am I
    to argue about it.  If I view scripture through my pre-existing belief
    system, and throw away what I don't like, it becomes diluted and weak. 
    I must define my life by scripture, submitting myself to Christ for Him
    to continue to perfect me into His image (Phil 1:6).
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

    RE:58

    If this is the perception, then they really don't know the Heavenly
    Father. They believe in Him, but they don't know Him because they
    would know his goodness and they would not see him the same way they
    see their earthly father.

    I've never associated the Heavenly Father with my earthly father.
    Although I love him, my earthly father is an imperfect sinner.
    My heavenly Father is perfect and loves me beyond what my earthly
    father ever could.

    Jim

    The whole gender issue around God comes from a feminist agenda to 
    make women more valued by society, which should be a red flag for
    any  Christian. We should see our value in how God values us, not
    society. 

    The issue does not come as a result of finding truth about God, but 
    rather to satisfy the social/political motives of feminist.

    I would be satisfied had Jesus described God as our heavenly mother,
    but He didn't. He described God as Father and the definition of Father
    here is one that is perfect. I can't change what Christ has given us
    to know about God. It would be arrogance on my part to do so.



     Jim

    re: .60
    
    I'm not sure your assessment can be quite that sweeping, Jim - though I
    congratulate you on your own success at getting through (what can be
    for others) a very tough knot-hole.
    
    In the line of thinking that regards Biblical family life as pictorial,
    I believe the enemy wants to distort real family order and love
    *precisely* for the purpose of making it more difficult for adults to
    accept their heavenly Father.
    
    I'm grateful you didn't suffer this problem.  My dad wasn't perfect
    either (though I'm assured He did receive the gift of faith), and
    thankfully, I too haven't struggled with knowing my heavenly Daddy in
    an intimate way.  But I do know many people who have struggled in this
    area, and I think we should try to be sensetive to that notion and do
    the best we can to share our personal experience, pray, and try to help
    others to that safe place we're blessed to know.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    
    Steve

    re: .62
    
    Thanks for your reply, Steve.  Couldn't have said it better myself.
    
    Karen

    To argue that woman (specifically the wife) is inferior or subservient
    to the man (specifically the husband) is to argue that Jesus is
    inferior to God the Father.  1 Cor 11 states that God (the Father) is
    the head of Christ; Christ is the head of man; and man is the head of
    woman.  Since the Father and the Son are coequal in status and position
    (as well as the Holy Spirit) but distict in function it is proper to
    infer that man and woman are coequal in status and position but distict
    in function.  I make the specification above regarding husband and wife
    rather than ALL men and ALL women because of the scripture that says
    "wives submit to your OWN husbands" (Ephesians, I think).  The
    relationship is distict to the marriage and does not carry outside of
    that relationship.  I, as a man, have no God-given (or earthly for that
    matter) authority or responsibilty of headship over any woman, save my
    wife and the widows whom God has committed to the care of the elders.
    
    While it is true that there is no specific commandment for a husband to
    serve his wife (excepting the general commandments of Christian service
    and esteeming others higher than yourself) there is also no specific
    commandment for the wife to love the husband (excepting general
    commandments to love one another).  Do we draw the argument from silence 
    that it is not necessary for the woman to love her husband?  We use the
    same logic to infer that a man does not have to serve his wife?  Both
    lines of reasoning are flawed when taken to their (il)logical
    conclusion.  Jesus, who is Lord over all, came not to be served by man but 
    to serve that which is is Lord over.  Can a husband do any less for his 
    wife?   Jesus, who is coequal with God the Father, submitted to the
    will of the Father without hesitation.  According to John, Jesus did
    nothing except he first saw the Father.  
    
    Kent
    

| <<< Note 589.61 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Living With A Honky Tonk Attitude" >>>


| The whole gender issue around God comes from a feminist agenda to make women 
| more valued by society, which should be a red flag for any Christian. We 
| should see our value in how God values us, not society.

	Actually Jim, from talking with people, you don't seem to have the same
view as they do. Here is what I have heard. Women could help out much more with
their families, especially in the financial aspect, by working. Any woman who
is in this file who is married is doing just that. If we go back to what people
are talking about in here, you'll all be back home. There is more than one way
to help one's family. Does it mean women, when they work, should go after low
positions? No way. Does it mean they should not want to get equal pay for doing
the same job? You bet they should get equal pay. To do job X, everyone should 
get X starting pay. If more experience is present, then more $ would get paid. 
Does that take anything away from God? I don't think so. They are trying to
help out at home, and should not be penalized just because they are women. Each
and every woman in here has to thank those who helped create the changes that
have happened in the work place for women. But of course, if one were to do
that, well, then they would be caught up knowing they feel that a womans place
is bigger than just the home for some.

| The issue does not come as a result of finding truth about God, but rather to 
| satisfy the social/political motives of feminist.

	I will agree that this is the case for some. But are you applying this
to all women? To all feminists? If so, you are wrong. 



Glen

Titus 3:9  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions,
and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
 10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
 11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of himself.

      Hi,
    
        I haven't read this string, but my thoughts are that God
        does not procreate.  There is no testosterone coursing 
        through His being.  The Father doesn't have male or female
        sexual parts (I don't believe).
    
        I kind of think that to say God is male or female is to
        fall under the warning of Romans 1 where it speaks of those
        who give to the Creator characteristics of the created.
    
                                                  Tony

    If God is without gender, and yet Jesus referred to Him as Father, then
    perhaps the issue is not one of gender, but rather an expression,
    limited by our language, that seeks to convey our relation to God - the 
    relationship of child to father (which is simply different than that of
    child to mother).
    
    Rebecca        

As Rebecca indicates in .70, Tony,  maleness is not reserved for testosterone
and male body parts.  These are temporal incidentals to the reality of
God's relationship to the Church.

MM

    I have raised the question regarding is it difficult to interpret 
    Divine Wisdom from the Song of Solomon as the Preexistent Christ as
    defined in the Gospel of John and aluded to in Paul's letters.
    
    So far the question has been answered with what seems to be quick
    reactions of "of course not"
    
    We have no problem when reading the Gospels of referring back to the
    Prophets and understanding that a knowledge of the prophets enhances
    our knowledge of Christ.  Yet it is more difficult to see that a
    knowledge of Divine Wisdom also enhances our understanding of Christ.
    
    If Christ is truly fully Divine and also fully human, it is very
    plausible that he only has human gender in his human form.  That is
    supported by Paul's statement that  in Christ there is no male or
    female.  An understanding of the second person of the trinity is
    enhanced by understanding Divine Wisdom and knowing that along with the
    Divine Logos it personifies and furthers our understanding of Christ.
    
    I believe that the difficulty with which people have in relating to
    this suggestion has to do with our bias of always reading the male
    gender into our understanding of God.  
    
                                 Patricia

Continuing from the thread in note 573, over here as suggested by Nancy...

I have not done a study to determine if any aspects or attributes of God
(other than wisdom) are personified when speaking of them, either as male or
female.  But a major difference between the personification of Wisdom and the
personification of the Word is held in assertion "The Word became flesh and
dwelt among us."  No such assertion is made for wisdom or for any other
"attribute".

Regarding the "androcentric" culture, and God's revelation within that
culture:

An essential thing to remember is that we believe that Judiasm/Christianity
is a REVEALED religion.  It wasn't created by humans, we didn't imagine it.  
We believe that God took the initiative to be self-revealing with US, and
that the revelation we received reflects God's true nature.

To say that parts of that revelation are wrong because of the culture the
revelation occurred in negates the reality of that revelation.  God did not
shrink from pointing out major problems that were directly contraray to the
culture, among them:

	The culture in the days of Abraham was very into idol worship.  Yet 
	God declared in no uncertain terms that idol worship was forbidden.

	The culture was very into loose sexuality, including ritual 
	prostitution (male and female) in honor of a diety.  God said that 
	was forbidden.

	The culture was into sacrifice of children on the altars of their 
	gods.  God said not to do that.

The culture was also 'androcentric.'  And God said .... ?  What did God say
about that?  If it was the horrible evil that it is portrayed to be by
"feminist theologians," then why didn't God condemn it?  God had no such
difficulty condemning other evils of the culture.


Regarding "feminist theologians":

For any theologian to identify themselves as a "feminist" theologian, or a
"liberationist" theologian, or a "calvinist" theologian or an "ANYTHING"
theologian is, I think, a serious mistake.

As soon as we self-proclaim as an "anything" theologian, even the very form
of the term accurately describes the reality.  "Anything" comes before
"theologian" in the term, and the "anything" usually comes before the study
of God in the reality of the position so described.

My experience with "feminist theology" is exactly that.  It is a mindset in
which "feminism," the vindication of females according to some set of
assumptions about what proper gender roles should be, comes before the study
of God, and is used as a filter through which God must be made to fit.  Any
part of God or of what God reveals that doesn't fit through the filter is
discarded.

Let us just be "theologians," and just study God.  I want no part of
"anything" theology, "feminist" theology included.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    the problem with that is that it refuses to acknowledge that each one of
    us because of who we are have our own lens through which we read the
    texts.
    
    When we say
    
    "Let's set aside love and compassion and look at sanctification and
    atonement"  That is a lens.
    
    When we quote Galatians 'In christ there is no slave or free, male or
    female, instead of quoting Corinthians, it is a lens.
    
    When we quote Song of Solomon rather than Paul, it is a lens.
    
    When we say Blessed are the poor in spirit, rather than blessed are the
    poor, it is a lens.
    
    Feminist theologians acknowledge up front their lens.
    
    When we say divine Wisdom could not be the same as Logos/Christ, that
    is a lens.  It is a lens that does not want to accept the Feminine
    aspect of Christ.

    >I cannot help but be offended when women are offered to gangs of men,
    >slaughter, mutilated and disseminated to the twelve tribes, 
    
    There are many things that occur in the bible that God did not approve
    of.  David failed when he committed adultery and when he sent
    Bathsheba's (sp?) husband to the front lines.  God used him mightily
    after he repented.  Did God approve of David's transgressions?  No!  Many 
    times men had concubines or multiple wifes. This does not mean that God 
    approved of it and in fact these things caused negative consequences in 
    their lives.  Just because the bible doesn't whitewash over the negative 
    things is no reason to assume that He approved of them.
    
    >told to shut up in church and go ask men if they need any help in 
    >understanding anything.
    
    I know of two passages in the NT which seem at face value to speak of
    women as lesser than men (one you referenced above, the other about the
    head covering).  It's very important to go back and do word studies, read 
    commentaries, etc. to try and get a proper perspective on the situation 
    they were written for.  I must admit that I have never done an
    extensive study of these passages (I plan to go get a commentary on 1
    Cor. and Col. in order to do this).  I know that one explanation that Kent 
    Cason gave for the "ask your husband" verse, was that women and men sat
    in separate sections during worship.  The women were talking across the
    aisles and causing a disturbance in the worship services, so Paul was
    requesting that they wait until they get home to ask their questions. 
    It was a question of maintaining order in the service, not one of women 
    being of less value.  At any rate its important when viewing an isolated
    occurrance of text on a subject, to do some background study. 
        
    >We cannot honestly read the Bible and ignore how that culture permeates 
    >the text.
    
    Nor, should we impose our cultural norms on the bible.  We seek God on
    His terms, not ours (Matt 6:33).  We all come with the filters of our past,
    the challenge is to come to God as open vessels and allow Him to renew our
    minds with His truth. Rom 12:1-2 "I urge you therefore, brethren, by
    the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice,
    acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.  And do
    not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of
    your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is
    good and acceptable and perfect".
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    

    
    Paul, I agree with what you wrote on xxxx-theology.  It reminds 
    me of some things C.S. Lewis wrote about.  For the church body, 
    these xxx-theologies are fundamentally divisive.  For the individual, 
    one gets an imbalanced grasp of Scripture and often rejects parts 
    of Scripture which do not comfortably fit within a pre-conceived 
    mold.
    
    I know I've broken my own 'mold' many times, mainly because  
    what I learn from Scripture is too big to fit!
    
    Otto

>    the problem with that is that it refuses to acknowledge that each one of
>    us because of who we are have our own lens through which we read the
>    texts.

No, I'm not refusing to acknowledge it.  I've affirmed the fact at least
once, and I think more than once, in this note string alone that I know full
well that I can't completely get rid of my lenses.  But knowing that I can't
get rid of them is quite different from accepting and affirming my lenses.

I know I have biases.  But I'm always seeking to let Scripture challenge
those biases, and I have a mindset of approaching all Scripture assuming that
if there's a mistake or misunderstanding, it lies with me.  I'll try to seek
what Scripture says is true, balanced against the rest of Scripture.

That is a VASTLY, VASTLY, VASTLY (did I mention ****VASTLY****?) different
mindset then declaring my bias up front, acknowledging and affirming it as an
unchallengable assumption that I bring to my study.  Any "scholarship" that
results from this sort of approach - in any field of study, not just in
theology - isn't worth the paper or breath to propound it.

Paul

    Amen

 
 What Donna said...






Jim

    Paul,
    
    Actually scholars in all fields of study particularly in the non
    scientific fields where tight experiementation can not be conducted are
    acknowledging that everyone brings their biases to all study.
    
    To fail to acknowledge one's biases is to bury one's head in the
    ground.  To fail to acknowledge that it is impossible to get outside of
    one's biases is to allow one's biases to influenced one's research
    without even knowing that it is happening.
    
    That is in fact what leads to oppression.  To think that your research
    can be value free, means that the biases of the dominant class are seen
    as value free and all other biases are seen as biases.  
    
    That tendency was quite clearly displayed in this discussion about the
    feminine Divine Wisdom being the same as the Male Logos.  The biases of
    the dominant group use to thinking only of God as a male instantly
    dismisses even the possibility.
    
    Patricia
    
    

> It is a lens that does not want to accept the Feminine aspect of Christ.

I can accept this phrasiology.  Christ is submissive to the Father.
It is an aspect that is a reflection of the theme of God (husband) 
and his people (wife).  And both men and women have estrogen and testosterone
in them.

The Trinity has in the One God the symbols of relationship.  Yet God is
one God and He refers to Himself in the male pronoun.  Again, there is
a maleness that transcends the physical and chemical components that we
understand from our temporal points of view.  

I think it would be a mistake to say that Christ was female before
His incarnation, but I can accept the feminine aspect of submissiveness.
Now, I realize that the word "submissive" is often a red flag but when
we realize that this is what Jesus taught for ALL of us, male and
female, it does not connote an inferior position.  Christ was submissive
to the Father, BUT He and the Father were One, co-equals in the Godhead.
Submission does not equal inferior.  Jesus claimed that before Abraham was,
I AM (a definite reference to God's revealing Himself to Moses).

So just as we can possess aspects of femininity and masculinity in the same
person, it is not all too difficult to see that this can be seen in God.
And although we possess these aspects, we are still created male and female.

Mark

>  To think that your research
>    can be value free, means that the biases of the dominant class are seen
>    as value free and all other biases are seen as biases.  

Hmmm.  Perhaps I need to say this yet again.

****I make *NO* claim to being bias-free.***

In fact, the bias of gender-neutrality that you are upholding has been one of
my own long-term personal biases, which is currently in the process of being
undermined by the Word.  I've always looked at Scripture with an attitude of,
if not actively seeking a feminine God as you seem to be doing, at least
dismissing the consistent masculine imagery for God in the Bible.  I am in
the process of discovering that my bias is not consistent with the Word, and
of asking what the Lord was trying to convey by using masculine imagery that
I have been missing due to my bias.

>    That tendency was quite clearly displayed in this discussion about the
>    feminine Divine Wisdom being the same as the Male Logos.  The biases of
>    the dominant group use to thinking only of God as a male instantly
>    dismisses even the possibility.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  Another is to note that the case
for Wisdom being an actual personification (at least as you have presented it
to this point) is rather obscure and contrived, balanced against a pervasive
and explicit personification of the Word.

Which is the bias?  A mindset that dismisses the obscure and contrived in
favor of the pervasive and explicit, or a mindset that seeks to give the two
equal weight?

And while it is quite true that a dominant mindset is quite capable of
dismissing a well-based truth, I also recognize that bringing "dominance" and
"hidden lenses" into a discussion can simply be a means of seeking to
discredit the other side when your position is too weakly supported to stand
on its own.

Paul