Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

James — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:52:36 -0000

Orthodoxy is basically what the church across all 'party' lines has consistently held to be true about who God is and what He has done. To move beyond that is heterodox or heretical.

I guess my problem is when WE begin to project our image of who we think God should be in place of how He has actually revealed Himself. God did not come as the only begotten daughter. Furthermore, Jesus consistently calls God, Father, Abba, etc. I don't know about you but I am not willing to go beyond Jesus' own expression of how to address God.

Again, In the rare instances where feminine language is used to describe God it is done within the constraints of the language, because one cannot speak about certain things in a way that requires one to make up words that do not exist. For example, words such as disciples, prophets, etc. in Greek follow patterns that take feminine forms though they traditionally describe masculine 'offices'. My point in all of that is to show that before making too much of gender in Hebrew or Greek one must have a clear understanding of how those languages work (and do not work).

As to the Holy Spirit being equated to Woman Wisdom, I am unaware of any orthodox Christian writings that make that connection. In fact to do so, means that the Word (Jesus) was not present and active in creation as the Gospel of John proclaims, but Wisdom personified was, as stated in Proverbs through symbolic language within the realm of Hebrew poetry. To give weight to such connections creates theological propositions that are untenable within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

When I first posted on this site I stated that I base my theological beliefs within the realm of orthodoxy because in my opinion the problem with Christianity in America today is that Christians have bought into the American ideal of rejecting authority and applied it to historic Christianity to the extent that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes.

Finally, a professor and friend of mine defined the role of theology and the theologian in the following way: "The task of the theologian is to help the church watch its language." Unfortunately, theologians are a very, very small fraction of a minority within the church, which is probably why Christianity in America is an inch deep and a mile wide.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

James — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:52:36 -0000

Orthodoxy is basically what the church across all 'party' lines has consistently held to be true about who God is and what He has done. To move beyond that is heterodox or heretical.

I guess my problem is when WE begin to project our image of who we think God should be in place of how He has actually revealed Himself. God did not come as the only begotten daughter. Furthermore, Jesus consistently calls God, Father, Abba, etc. I don't know about you but I am not willing to go beyond Jesus' own expression of how to address God.

Again, In the rare instances where feminine language is used to describe God it is done within the constraints of the language, because one cannot speak about certain things in a way that requires one to make up words that do not exist. For example, words such as disciples, prophets, etc. in Greek follow patterns that take feminine forms though they traditionally describe masculine 'offices'. My point in all of that is to show that before making too much of gender in Hebrew or Greek one must have a clear understanding of how those languages work (and do not work).

As to the Holy Spirit being equated to Woman Wisdom, I am unaware of any orthodox Christian writings that make that connection. In fact to do so, means that the Word (Jesus) was not present and active in creation as the Gospel of John proclaims, but Wisdom personified was, as stated in Proverbs through symbolic language within the realm of Hebrew poetry. To give weight to such connections creates theological propositions that are untenable within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

When I first posted on this site I stated that I base my theological beliefs within the realm of orthodoxy because in my opinion the problem with Christianity in America today is that Christians have bought into the American ideal of rejecting authority and applied it to historic Christianity to the extent that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes.

Finally, a professor and friend of mine defined the role of theology and the theologian in the following way: "The task of the theologian is to help the church watch its language." Unfortunately, theologians are a very, very small fraction of a minority within the church, which is probably why Christianity in America is an inch deep and a mile wide.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:03:04 -0000

Just to clarify: I affirm that it is orthodox to say: "God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This is certainly at the heart of orthodoxy. I guess my point in my earlier comment is that if someone says "God is my mother" this isn't to say that they are unorthodox, or heretical. Just to be clear.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:03:04 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:55:04 -0000

James, I'd go a bit further than Mark does and question your use of "identity" vs. "character and nature" regarding masculine and feminine language to describe God. It seems to me you equate orthodoxy with seeing God identified as male. If that is what you are saying, I find that highly problematic. I rather think instead that God's self revelation includes masculine and feminine aspects and we need to talk about God in ways that are faithful to both. To me it seems entirely plausible that, had the ancient world been more matriarchal as opposed to patriarchal, that God could and would have revealed himself (see how I'm not opposed to using the masculine pronoun) with predominantly feminine imagery. It's not a problem for God, because God is the source of the image that dwells in all humankind, male and female.

And I qualified my mention of ruach as feminine above, and will reproduce it here:

I know that masculine/feminine forms of word does not make them “purely” male or female (as if anything was “purely male” with no feminine characteristics, or vice versa), but there is a long, long strand of tradition connecting the Spirit of God and Holy Spirit with the wisdom of God, which in Greek is sophia (the Greek for “spirit” is neuter) and considering it a feminizing counterpart to the perceived masculinizing “Father”. As I mentioned above, recognizing and meditating on God’s “feminine side” was prevalent in the medieval period, but the association of “Spirit” with femininity goes all the way back to the intertestamental period, before Christ’s time. It’s not just that the Hebrew word is feminine, it’s that the concept associated with it has traditionally been considered in a sense feminine.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:02:32 -0000

I feel uncomfortable with making exclusively masculine language in reference to God's identity part of "orthodoxy." Does it really need to be a matter of orthodoxy?

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:55:04 -0000

Joel, yeah I'll go with your revised statement to the extent that language can/ought to be abstracted from concrete realities in order to aid our understanding of the world in which we live and the God we serve.

James, I'd go a bit further than Mark does and question your use of "identity" vs. "character and nature" regarding masculine and feminine language to describe God. It seems to me you equate orthodoxy with seeing God identified as male. If that is what you are saying, I find that highly problematic. I rather think instead that God's self revelation includes masculine and feminine aspects and we need to talk about God in ways that are faithful to both. To me it seems entirely plausible that, had the ancient world been more matriarchal as opposed to patriarchal, that God could and would have revealed himself (see how I'm not opposed to using the masculine pronoun) with predominantly feminine imagery. It's not a problem for God, because God is the source of the image that dwells in all humankind, male and female.

And I qualified my mention of ruach as feminine above, and will reproduce it here:

I know that masculine/feminine forms of word does not make them “purely” male or female (as if anything was “purely male” with no feminine characteristics, or vice versa), but there is a long, long strand of tradition connecting the Spirit of God and Holy Spirit with the wisdom of God, which in Greek is sophia (the Greek for “spirit” is neuter) and considering it a feminizing counterpart to the perceived masculinizing “Father”. As I mentioned above, recognizing and meditating on God’s “feminine side” was prevalent in the medieval period, but the association of “Spirit” with femininity goes all the way back to the intertestamental period, before Christ’s time. It’s not just that the Hebrew word is feminine, it’s that the concept associated with it has traditionally been considered in a sense feminine.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

James McMahon — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:44:12 -0000

I am a little late to the conversation, but will make a couple of observations.

1) One should not make too much of the gender of words in Hebrew (unless the text itself lends itself to that interpretation). I base this on the fact that while the word for spirit in Hebrew is a feminine word, its equivalent in Greek is neuter. All that is showing us is that the biblical writers were bound to the language rules in which they wrote, i.e. they couldn't really make up nonexistent words and expect readers to know what they meant.

2) I am very hesitant to go beyond God's own self revelation. Consistently throughout Scripture God is revealed as Divine Father, King, Judge, Creator, etc. While there are feminine nuances in Scripture directed towards God, these are exceptions and are usually trying to make a point about the character and nature of God not the identity of God.

3). Paul uses motherly language for himself in how he viewed his relationship to other Christians. Does that mean that Paul was actually female? No, he was using the language to make a point. I think this is probably closest to what occurs in the OT in the small number of feminine references to God.

Could I be wrong? Yes, but I choose to accept Christian orthodoxy until the time when I stand in the presence of the Lord and am shown otherwise.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:02:32 -0000

I feel uncomfortable with making exclusively masculine language in reference to God's identity part of "orthodoxy." Does it really need to be a matter of orthodoxy?

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

James McMahon — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:44:12 -0000

I am a little late to the conversation, but will make a couple of observations.

1) One should not make too much of the gender of words in Hebrew (unless the text itself lends itself to that interpretation). I base this on the fact that while the word for spirit in Hebrew is a feminine word, its equivalent in Greek is neuter. All that is showing us is that the biblical writers were bound to the language rules in which they wrote, i.e. they couldn't really make up nonexistent words and expect readers to know what they meant.

2) I am very hesitant to go beyond God's own self revelation. Consistently throughout Scripture God is revealed as Divine Father, King, Judge, Creator, etc. While there are feminine nuances in Scripture directed towards God, these are exceptions and are usually trying to make a point about the character and nature of God not the identity of God.

3). Paul uses motherly language for himself in how he viewed his relationship to other Christians. Does that mean that Paul was actually female? No, he was using the language to make a point. I think this is probably closest to what occurs in the OT in the small number of feminine references to God.

Could I be wrong? Yes, but I choose to accept Christian orthodoxy until the time when I stand in the presence of the Lord and am shown otherwise.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

James McMahon — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:44:12 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Joel — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:27:51 -0000

Perhaps I should have phrased this comment like this:
The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up SHOUDL BE totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Joel — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:27:51 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Joel — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:27:51 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:24:37 -0000

The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

I'm not so sure this is the case, though they don't necessarily have to be intrinsically related. If using masculine language can be conceptually divorced from conceiving of God as male, then more power to people who want to use predominantly masculine language (though I would caution against using masculine language EXCLUSIVELY for the simple reason that Scripture does not do so). However, recognizing that the language we use cannot necessarily be so easily divorced from the actual content of our conceptions, I think it's appropriate to utilize a healthy dose of feminine language and imagery in describing God.

Language is such an integral part of how we view the world, I find it incredibly hard to believe there is no relation between the language we use about God and the ways in which we conceive of God.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:37 -0000

The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

I'm not so sure this is the case, though they don't necessarily have to be intrinsically related. If using masculine language can be conceptually divorced from conceiving of God as male, then more power to people who want to use predominantly masculine language (though I would caution against using masculine language EXCLUSIVELY for the simple reason that Scripture does not do so). However, recognizing that the language we use cannot necessarily be so easily divorced from the actual content of our conceptions, I think it's appropriate to utilize a healthy dose of feminine language and imagery in describing God.

Language is such an integral part of how we view the world, I find it incredibly hard to believe there is no relation between the language we use about God and the ways in which we conceive of God.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:37 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:37 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:28:01 -0000

I will continue to affirm fatherhood language in relation to God.
I will take care to teach people that they ought to love one-another, being sensitive to correct stupid thinking about the inferiority of women (both in its blatant and subtle forms).
I will extend grace to those who struggle with masculine language in relation to God. This is a pastoral issue that needs long-term sensitivity and care

Bravo!

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:17:06 -0000

It completely depends upon the ox. For example, Paul Bunyan's blue ox (named Babe) is way cooler than any ostrich that has ever lived.

I know you're being funny, somasoul, but the subjugation of humans by others is something that is sadly too common to ever be funny. And, whether we like it or not, men have fused Biblical language of God's masculinity to support their devaluing of women.

True, true. Our approach should be to teach others to love one another and support women in our churches, rather than trying to change our language about God. I'm certainly not interested in doing that. But I think it is wholly appropriate for Jordan to raise the issue the way he did. The conversation that has resulted has been excellent.

So, here's what I'm taking from this:

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

somasoul — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:05:24 -0000

ox's aren't as cool as ostriches though they may be superior.

I think I just participated in animalism, where I subjugate one animal and exploit him and think others are better and more therefore better. How does God feel about this?

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jurisnaturalist — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:49:35 -0000

The world takes any differences among individuals and generates distinctions which can be manipulated into justifications for discrimination and rules for allocation of power.
The church ought to look upon our differences as manifestations of God from different perspectives.
I think God allows for hierarchy but not superiority. We recognize it within the godhead and He utilizes sex as a tangible reminder to us. The point of all of these distinctions is the same, to demonstrate His ultimate sovereignty. Among Christians we are to recognize no privilege, but we are to respect order. We are not to lord over one another, but we are submit to one another.
I prefer that a pastor be a man, and that a man be the head of a home. The point of this position is not to say that men are stronger or more aptly suited to these positions, but to magnify their inability to meet the requirements of either role despite natural advantage. Each of us ought to say, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," including being a pastor or a head of a family, but we also ought to recognize that God, in seeking His glory, has established order to demonstrate His sovereignty. In other words, it's not all about us.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:44:55 -0000

Not ostrich, German for ox, (like dumb as...). Yes, you do get extra brownie points.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

somasoul — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:35:49 -0000

I agree with Casey. His last name also kinda looks like the word "Ostrich".

Extra brownie points.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0000

I will continue to affirm fatherhood language in relation to God.
I will take care to teach people that they ought to love one-another, being sensitive to correct stupid thinking about the inferiority of women (both in its blatant and subtle forms).

I will extend grace to those who struggle with masculine language in relation to God. This is a pastoral issue that needs long-term sensitivity and care

Bravo!