We have been having an ongoing discussion about the PCUSA changing the language they will use for the Trinity.
If we change this we will be changing more than we imagine.
I believe this comes down to our conception of the sufficiency of the scriptures, primarily. However, we have touched on or referred to tangential items such as sola scriptura (scripture alone) itself, the authority of the early church councils, the erosion of the family structure, the doctrine of inspiration, functional subordination, ontology, and a host of others.
I have added (July 19) a new link by Al Mohler on this topic.
Obviously the Trinity is of major importance in Christian theology, and if you have ever wondered why such a big deal is made of it, or the implications of such a change in language, we invite you to take some time and look at what has been going on. Leave a comment; we will address all as we are able...God bless you....
____________________________________________________________
previously...
previously...
ADDENDUM: (11:25 EST, July 12)
Here is another link from last year adressing this issue in general.
It is about "calling God Mother"...helpful material...
The established, mainline churches of America are going the way of the world. First, we reported on the ECUSA mess, and now this from the Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA). The PCUSA has been known as a liberal mainline denomination for some time, especially when considered against the more conservative Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). The PCUSA has approximately 2.4 million members, but has been declining for years. They have ordained gay clergy, amongst many other questionable ideas.
Now they have decided to alter the language used in the Bible to describe the Trinity. At the recent General Assembly meeting, they voted to allow the denomination's churches to use the phrase "compassionate mother, beloved child, and life-giving womb" (among 12 new accepted phrases) instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when referring to the Trinity.
The question is why?
This may seem minor to you, but it is part of an ongoing process of capitulation to the world. The fruit is ripening on this bad tree, and none of it is good. This is only the latest episode in a slippery slope that has this denomination descending into the abyss. One by one, the largest and oldest of the American churches begins to reflect the sentiments of worldly philosophy. What some imagine as merely being inclusive we would call insanity. This may be in touch with the feelings of the world, yes, but is it in touch with the heart of God?
Once again I say to you: GET OUT NOW!
Agape press story on the Trinity controversy:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/102006b.asp
Our prior posts regarding the ECUSA:
http://voiceofvision.blogspot.com/2006/07/separation-in-progress.html
Albert Mohler on the Trinity question and the PCUSA:
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-06-21
Mohler on the PCUSA and their ordination of homosexuals:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=697
More about the many other controversies within the PCUSA:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/12.0.html
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=540
Our prior posts regarding the ECUSA:
http://voiceofvision.blogspot.com/2006/07/separation-in-progress.html
Albert Mohler on the Trinity question and the PCUSA:
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-06-21
Mohler on the PCUSA and their ordination of homosexuals:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=697
More about the many other controversies within the PCUSA:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/12.0.html
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=540
42 comments:
No, I don't think this post is ironic considering yesterdays post. I am not calling down judgment on them, it is already here, and I am warning those in this denomination to flee before they get sucked into this mess.
I'm thinkin your admonition about "words meaning something" definitely applies to this situation!
What would be your response to someone who says, "Just because I belong to a particular denomination doesn't mean I believe 'everything' they say. There's not a denomination around that you're going to agree with 100%".
I would ask them if they agree with this specific item.
There is a difference between theological matters, standards, type of worship, etc., but this speaks to matters the Bible is not so silent about.
How about a denomination you can agree with a little more than this mess? Surely you can't mean that you think its okay for the organization to do this, as opposed to infant baptism, Bible versions, or something like that.
That whole line of reasoning points to something called false humility, IMHO (ha ha). No you may not agree with or believe everything they say, but why would you want to continue to worship there, when the God you would be worshipping is identified differently than the One who identifies Himself in the Bible?
I'm not sure I see that this particular example (others not under consideration) is out of bounds. Throughout Christian history, theologians, mystics, etc. have employed highly creative language in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity (especially the feminine in relation to the Holy Spirit). One could argue that the "womb" metaphor for the Holy Spirit is particularly applicable in light of biblical language (Gen. 1, the birth narratives).
Nor doI see that this phraseology necessarily destroys the orthodox conception of the Trinity. Obviously, such a conclusion would depend upon how the relationship between the persons is described (consubstantiality, etc.). However, even the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" requires serious unpacking in order to align with the orthodox conception; it is not inherent to the words themselves.
I think we must be careful about Trinitarian language. For example, to tie Trinitarian orthodoxy to gendered language is a mistake. After all, "Father" does not mean that God is male, nor does "Son" mean that Christ, the eternal Logos, is male. Therefore, I would propose that language which is able to be meaningfully unpacked to encapsulate the orthodox conception of the nature of the Triune God should not only be permissible, but also encouraged within the proper contexts.
exist,
Thank you for your comments, and on the surface, I would agree. God uses anthropomorphism to desribe Himself so as to be able to relate to us with terms we can understand. When He says, "underneath His wings", for instance, we know He isn't a bird.
My concern is the "why". "He" has identified Himself as such, and the motivation for such a change is clearly anthropocentric (man centered, and in this case, I believe, female centered). Are we saying God didn't go far enough in defining Himself? This comes 'round to the sufficiency of Scripture deal, where you and I could spend the rest of our time on earth "going at it" (ha ha).
Clarification for understanding? Perhaps this I could be persuaded to listen to, but for a different agenda, which is what it seems to be, that is my "problem" with it.
If you read the first Mohler link, he describes what he feels is the genesis of such action.
Yeah. Thats just crazy and its WAY too Catholic for a supposedly reformed bunch. I'm going to have to check out that Mohler link because I just can't fathom why in the world anyone would mangle it like that.
My concern is the "why". "He" has identified Himself as such, and the motivation for such a change is clearly anthropocentric (man centered, and in this case, I believe, female centered).
Where has God identified Godself as masculine? Just because the Scriptures are full of masculine language concerning God does not mean that this is somehow revelatory or descriptive of the eternal nature of God. It merely means that this is the paradigm through which the writers of Scripture used language about God.
This last point gets to the heart of the issue, IMO. When it comes down to it, what we are talking about is language. As human language is incapable of exhausting or even reasonably describing the fulness and mystery of God’s eternal nature, I think the efforts to make certain gendered language proscriptive of God is not only shortsighted, but ultimately destructive because it is placing a finite construction upon the eternal God.
Are we saying God didn't go far enough in defining Himself?
This is a moot point. The quantitative nature of God’s self-revelation (which, BTW, is through Christ, not Scripture) is irrelevant, for no matter the “amount” of revelation, the issue is not about the sufficiency of God’s revelation, but rather about our ability to comprehend it.
This comes 'round to the sufficiency of Scripture deal, where you and I could spend the rest of our time on earth "going at it" (ha ha).
Potentially. However, as the Scriptures, like all human language, is incapable of exhaustively explicating the eternal nature of God, I hardly see why this is the end of the discussion about Trinitarian language and gender.
c.t. lillies--
Yeah. Thats just crazy and its WAY too Catholic for a supposedly reformed bunch.
What exactly do you mean by this?
exist,
This is where we simply disagree. Your ideas of special revelation and Church authority and tradition and the patristic writings are different than mine.
That is why we would consistently come to differing conclusions about matters, and why it proves my point, not to you, but about the idea that words mean things, and how seemigly insignificant issues have potentially great bearing on other issues.
Thank you for putting this in greater focus.
No, I don't think we need to leave this as "the last word" on Trinitarian discourse, but I am satisfied with the Bible and its revelation of the Godhead as sufficient to guide one into a salvific relationship with Christ. The revelation is Christ, yes, but we find it codifed, identified, and as defined as we need it in the Bible.
That is our point of departure between you and I, and between you, me, what some would call "orthodox" today, and what I guess you might call "orthodox" in an earlier time, meaning that its seems you feel that your positions are what the early church believed.
Don't want to hit that rabbit trail just yet, but I do thank you again for showing us your ideas. They do seem consistent, and so we can go from there...
Of course the scriptures do not give an exhaustive account of God, the Apostle John tells us as much about the life of Christ on earth, let alone the eternal nature of the Godhead. But, IMHO, they are enough, and to tamper with language, in this instance to me is not necessary other than to appease some who seem to be using the Bible and God as a vehicle for self empowerment.
I cannot find justification for this...the "why" is not satisfactory to me...
Off to Wednesday night service...now that is a cheap way to get to 10 comments (ha ha)...
Fascinating, purely fascinating.
I believe that the only way to read the bible is to read it in its original language.
The only problem with that is that most would be horrified to find that it is a very different book from the the translated English one.
What gender was the Holy Spirit originally given before the translations?
We have to remember that the bible we know was translated from German.
Uuummmmm....No.
This is where we simply disagree. Your ideas of special revelation and Church authority and tradition and the patristic writings are different than mine.
Very true.
That is why we would consistently come to differing conclusions about matters, and why it proves my point, not to you, but about the idea that words mean things, and how seemingly insignificant issues have potentially great bearing on other issues.
I agree. That is why I think creative ways of expressing Trinitarian language without locating it exclusively in one-sided (or at all) gendered language is a potentially great thing.
No, I don't think we need to leave this as "the last word" on Trinitarian discourse, but I am satisfied with the Bible and its revelation of the Godhead as sufficient to guide one into a salvific relationship with Christ. The revelation is Christ, yes, but we find it codifed, identified, and as defined as we need it in the Bible.
But if one were to be “satisfied” with the bible as revelation in terms of trinitarian language, one would be at almost a complete loss, for there is no way that one can arrive at the orthodox conception of the Trinitarian nature of God simply from sola Scriptura. While one could *potentially* make an argument for the Christological definitions apart from the councils, the same cannot be realistically substantiated when speaking about the Trinity.
That is our point of departure between you and I, and between you, me, what some would call "orthodox" today, and what I guess you might call "orthodox" in an earlier time, meaning that its seems you feel that your positions are what the early church believed.
Reformed and Lutheran “orthodoxy” is somewhat of a misnomer, for while there may be specific “essentials” that one must affirm to be considered “orthodox” within these smaller communities, the term is quite misleading and blatantly incoherent in relation to the broader definition of “orthodox” Christian belief.
Of course the scriptures do not give an exhaustive account of God, the Apostle John tells us as much about the life of Christ on earth, let alone the eternal nature of the Godhead. But, IMHO, they are enough, and to tamper with language, in this instance to me is not necessary other than to appease some who seem to be using the Bible and God as a vehicle for self empowerment.
I think this is a bit of a misplaced fear. After all, the history of Christian heresy is more often than not marked by those who were severely committed to the “language of Scripture.” Moreover, there are many segments of the church today that use the exact “language of Scripture” to exact horrific abuses upon their fellow human beings, all in the name of being faithful to the Scriptures. Therefore, the issue of faithfulness to Scripture must be more comprehensive than simply rehearsing the language written on the page and translated to us. This is why I would suggest that historical theology is crucially important to not only theology, but also to Scripture, for it is within this witness that we have the preserved apostolic tradition.
I cannot find justification for this...the "why" is not satisfactory to me...
The last part is the issue...”to me.” For those who are able to wield the Scriptures with power over others (as males have historically been prone to do to females), the gendered language is not a problem. Males are on the “right side of God,” if you catch my meaning. However, for those who have grown up within traditions that have undermined the spirituality of the female, the rigidly masculine images of God that (whether intentionally or not) tie God’s eternal nature to human gender can be extremely destructive and oppressive. Again, I understand that this motivation probably doesn’t seem like that big of a deal “to you.” However, I suspect that you have also not been the victim of religious oppression because of your gender. While I am not necessarily saying that all language should be overthrown and reworked for the oppressed (whether or actually or not, as in the case of “liberation theology”), we must at least be open to examining critically our language to see what parts of it are “essential” to speaking about the eternal nature of God, and which parts are merely remnants of our cultural/social conditioning (which are dispensable in the proper contexts).
exist,
Thanks once again for your comments.
People, I hope you see that this man is not just some troublemaker. Iron sharpens iron...Sorry, exist, to have to keep bringing that up, but for the new ones dropping by...
I for one am enjoying this, but if "yous guys" need to, let this be a starting point for further study. Indeed, the Protestant, Orthodox (as in Greek or Eastern O.), and Catholic conceptions of authority are different, as exist~dissolve points out here. The philosophy is diferent, leading to different emphases, and therefor, different conclusions as to what is most important. Do not now scream, "it is Jesus that is important, you egg-heads!", we understand that.
Yes, the early church councils (Chalcedon 451 and others are biggies for me - hypostatic union and all - for those wanting to know, the term "hypostatic union" means Jesus is 100% God while also being 100% man) are authoritative in the sense that they are useful when they hold to and describe scripture, but they are not canonical in the sense that they "make up new things", and we may not now hold other councils and redefine things.
That mouthful being said, I have often preached, because I see it to be the thrust of scripture, that
Jesus did not come to liberate us from our social situation, but from our sinful situation.
Not that we shouldn't strive for freedom at all, but this seems more therapeutic than theocentric (5 bonus points for sermonic language)...
In that light, I wonder "why" the PCUSA feels the need for this measure...
BTW, what's the deal with the Holy Spirit being called "the womb" anyway?
even so--
Yes, the early church councils (Chalcedon 451 and others are biggies for me - hypostatic union and all - for those wanting to know, the term "hypostatic union" means Jesus is 100% God while also being 100% man) are authoritative in the sense that they are useful when they hold to and describe scripture, but they are not canonical in the sense that they "make up new things", and we may not now hold other councils and redefine things.
I also do not believe that the councils and creeds "make up new things." However, neither do the Scriptures. I see both as commentaries of sorts on the apostolic teaching about Christ. Part of this testimony is preserved in the extant writings of some of the apostles (and those claiming to be them), as well as the writings of those who knew the apostles and their teachings. Another part of this testimony is preserved in the apostolic tradition that was preserved in the succession of bishops (the disciples of the apostles), some of which was preserved authoritatively in the creeds and councils of the ecumenical church. Therefore, in my understanding, there is no "priority" between Scripture and tradition; rather, they function together as the unified regula fidei, the rule of faith.
Jesus did not come to liberate us from our social situation, but from our sinful situation.
Not that we shouldn't strive for freedom at all, but this seems more therapeutic than theocentric (5 bonus points for sermonic language)...
I would suggest that because we and our actions are integrated into the larger scope of human history and society, our sinful situations is that which creates social "situations" for others. Therefore, if Christ truly transforms our "sinful situation," we must also expect that social situations will be transformed also. If the former exists without the latter, the former is not real, period.
even so--
BTW, what's the deal with the Holy Spirit being called "the womb" anyway?
It appears that this terminology is reflective upon the descriptions of the Spirit's creative activity in Genesis 1 (hovering "over" the embrionic creation), the Spirit's role in the conception of Jesus, and upon the Spirit "birthing" believers anew. A powerful metaphor, IMO.
Well, as you can see from my Friday post, I like metaphor.
I still don't resonate with the idea that we need to change the language in order to accomodate the sensibilities of so called persecuted groups. Women have been used by men, yes, but does that mean we have to change the language here?
Yes they have been persecuted, but not by true Christians, and it would seem that they are playing the role of victim, and using the gospel and such as tools for empowerment, whereas we are supposed to be willing victims for Christ and victors in Christ.
We must be standing for Christ, but is this achived through proffering inclusive language, thereby making us feel better, or somehow being persecuted less, or is Christ better served by us forgoing our rights?
Jesus did not stand up for His rights, and inclusive language is not a right anyway, and I truly believe it is not a privilege either, it is a problem.
It points to a greater reality, that instead of this helping the cause of Christ, it is a sign of apostasy.
There is an agenda here, and it isn't just about being nice, I believe it is discernable and palpable.
exist said,
I would suggest that because we and our actions are integrated into the larger scope of human history and society, our sinful situations is that which creates social "situations" for others. Therefore, if Christ truly transforms our "sinful situation," we must also expect that social situations will be transformed also. If the former exists without the latter, the former is not real, period.
The question, then, is which social situations?
I would agree, sin is what caused and is causing social injustice, and when people are truly freed from their sinful situation, they will seek to be freed, and to free others from their social situations, the ones that are sinful that is.
Therein lies the "problem". God institued the roles of men and women, they are not sinful. The perversion of men domineering women, is indeed sinful, but the order and roles are not sinful in themselves.
This language is saying otherwise...
Functional subordination is a misunderstood, misused, misapplied, and most often just missed truth.
Look at 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and see the functional suboordination within the Godhead. Jesus Christ is equal to the Father, He is God of very God, and yet He is subject to the Father in role.This is also bourne out by Philippians 2:6-11.
This language seeks, not so subtly in my opinion, to subvert the truth that the woman was made for the man, and that God has established, before the Fall, certain roles for man and woman, and God has determined order of this type throughout the cosmos, and we see it as portrayed in the Trinity.
This measure by this denomination is about more than mere words, and I cannot help but believe that some understand this, even in the mailicious sense of it. It is a step down the road to undermining our understanding of the authority of God, and it is one step toward an apostasy that will bring all of the world religions together for the end time scenario. We can debate eschatological ideas elsewhere, but this is heresy at best, and worse I fear, it is outright blasphemy...
whew...my head is spinning again. The more I "listen" to you two (Exist and Even So) the more questions I have!
Exist, you seem to be "into" this social injustice thing but I'm not sure our (Christians) main mission is to "right" all the injustices (sinful situations) in society....only Father God can take care of that. Like with the role of women....I can't help that men have perverted their God given roles. I can only be and do what God wants me to do and that is to complement my husband (like Eve did for Adam). Like Even So has said "words mean things" and the word submission has been interpreted in a way other than God intended....by Christians and non-Christians. And when it's practiced God's way....it's a beautiful thing. :)
Hey, I came from the rebellious 60's and there wasn't anybody gonna tell me what to do...especially some man! I did things "my way" and did I ever make a mess of things! I know it's all messed up but it's not God's fault and we can't "un-do" things our way.
I'm just trying to understand "where you're coming from". Hope I don't sound too much like a mother......but I am! :)
Chris,
You go girl!
even so--
I still don't resonate with the idea that we need to change the language in order to accomodate the sensibilities of so called persecuted groups. Women have been used by men, yes, but does that mean we have to change the language here?
I'm not saying the language should be "changed," as if what has been used up to this point be rendered inappropriate. All I am saying is that given the fact that 1.) the language is not indicative of God's eternal nature and 2.) we know that this language has been used historically in destructive ways, I see no reason why the language cannot be expanded to help avoid the abuses.
Yes they have been persecuted, but not by true Christians, and it would seem that they are playing the role of victim, and using the gospel and such as tools for empowerment, whereas we are supposed to be willing victims for Christ and victors in Christ.
This may be fine and well. Let's say we counsel the persecuted not to fight back, but be willing victims. Why then do we (the not-persecuted) not fight for them? By our silence, do we not rain down unnecessary persecution and suffering on them? Perhaps we think that this allowance of their persecution is somehow a holy act! Shame on us for not working and fighting for justice.
We must be standing for Christ, but is this achived through proffering inclusive language, thereby making us feel better, or somehow being persecuted less, or is Christ better served by us forgoing our rights?
This has nothing to do with "rights." Jesus was the most inclusivistic person that the world has ever known. But what have we done? We have taken his message and with our language, ratched back the parameters to that which fits our inherited presuppositions and biases. Through our langauge (and the rigid absolutizing thereof), we have made absolute that which can never be absolute. In doing so, we have created the very persecution against which Christ taught.
Jesus did not stand up for His rights, and inclusive language is not a right anyway, and I truly believe it is not a privilege either, it is a problem.
It is no more of a "problem" than exclusivistic language, which is what you are defending. The problem, at the core, is the wrong belief that language is absolute, which necessitates (whether one will admit it or not) that one believes that God's eternal nature can be engaged completely (and therefore commoditized) by finite human language. If God is not a male, why the insistence on masculine language? If we truly believe that God transcends and yet encapsulates the fulness of human sexuality, we distort this belief and make it a lie when we insist one form of gendered language to the exclusion of another.
It points to a greater reality, that instead of this helping the cause of Christ, it is a sign of apostasy.
I think this is a bit too hyperbolic. Human language is a constant process of revolution, as old meanings and linguistic symbols are overthrown by new ones.
There is an agenda here, and it isn't just about being nice, I believe it is discernable and palpable.
Perhaps. However, the palpability is much less potent than that which drives the counter-reaction which indefatiguably insists upon the exclusivity of masculine language for God. It's interesting how "religious zeal" is often precisely identical to the zeal to preserve the hegemony of power in any other institution / system of thought...
even so--
Functional subordination is a misunderstood, misused, misapplied, and most often just missed truth.
I agree. The quicker we forget about FS (or at least give up on the idea that we are able to absolutely define the boundaries), the better.
Look at 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and see the functional suboordination within the Godhead. Jesus Christ is equal to the Father, He is God of very God, and yet He is subject to the Father in role.This is also bourne out by Philippians 2:6-11.
Ok...I really don't see how this text can be used as an apologetic for the subordination of the female sex. After all, the relationship between Christ and the Godhead is that of consubstantiality and hypostasis. Human persons are not this whatsoever.
And of Philippians 2:6-11, this text actually contradicts the point you are trying to make. After all, it is Christ, the greater, who become subservient to humanity. Therefore, if the male is "greater" (even functionally, i.e., that for which female is made), it should be the male (if the analogy is consistently applied) who should be subservient to the female, not the other way around.
This language seeks, not so subtly in my opinion, to subvert the truth that the woman was made for the man,
But why was Eve made for Adam? Not to serve him, or to be "functionally" subservient to him. She was made, so the narrative suggests, to complete Adam. In other words, Adam (humanity) was an incomplete, unfulfilled creation otherwise. It took the creation of the female to bring completion to God's creation of humanity. Therefore, the text is not speaking of "roles" but is rather describing how the image of God (humanity) was made complete through the creation of sex, male and female.
and that God has established, before the Fall, certain roles for man and woman, and God has determined order of this type throughout the cosmos, and we see it as portrayed in the Trinity.
No, we do not see this relationship portrayed in the Trinity. As I already pointed out, the relationship in the Godhead is entirely different than that which exists between the sexes. Therefore, even if one is audacious enough to attempt to absolutely identify a "functional" relationship between the persons of the Trinity, there is nothing within this identified relationship that would suggest a strict or even appropriate application to gendered relationships.
This measure by this denomination is about more than mere words, and I cannot help but believe that some understand this, even in the mailicious sense of it. It is a step down the road to undermining our understanding of the authority of God, and it is one step toward an apostasy that will bring all of the world religions together for the end time scenario.
You've lost me now.
We can debate eschatological ideas elsewhere, but this is heresy at best, and worse I fear, it is outright blasphemy...
How is it heresy or blasphemy? There has never been a council or creed that has prohibited the use of "inclusive" or female-gendered language in regards to the Triune nature of God. Therefore, the question would be appropriate: How do you arrive at this serious charge, and upon what authority do you base it?
chris--
Exist, you seem to be "into" this social injustice thing but I'm not sure our (Christians) main mission is to "right" all the injustices (sinful situations) in society....only Father God can take care of that.
What else, then, does it mean to participate within the kingdom of God in the world? If our "mission" is not about justice, mercy and peace, what in the world are we here for? If our only mission is to get to "heaven" and to try to convince a handful of others to come along, I would suggest that we have entirely missed the point.
Like with the role of women....I can't help that men have perverted their God given roles. I can only be and do what God wants me to do and that is to complement my husband (like Eve did for Adam).
But Eve did not "complement" Adam--she completed him! He was an incomplete creation (juxtapose him to the animal relationships which he saw in the garden)--it took Eve to make humanity a whole.
Like Even So has said "words mean things" and the word submission has been interpreted in a way other than God intended....by Christians and non-Christians. And when it's practiced God's way....it's a beautiful thing. :)
I agree. However, the submission which is "God's way" is a that of mutual submission to one another, not the perpetuation of a hegemony of sexual authority of one sex over the other. Destruction and violence occur when this happens, regardless of which sex is in power.
Hey, I came from the rebellious 60's and there wasn't anybody gonna tell me what to do...especially some man! I did things "my way" and did I ever make a mess of things! I know it's all messed up but it's not God's fault and we can't "un-do" things our way.
I'm just trying to understand "where you're coming from". Hope I don't sound too much like a mother......but I am! :
I appreciate your interest in my perspective, and I respect your position as well. Thanks for the interaction.
Thank you as well, exist, your points are worth considering...
Exist -
I hope Even So is OK with me pursuing this topic a bit. If not I guess he'll let me know! I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective....thanks!
"What else, then, does it mean to participate within the kingdom of God in the world? If our "mission" is not about justice, mercy and peace, what in the world are we here for? If our only mission is to get to "heaven" and to try to convince a handful of others to come along, I would suggest that we have entirely missed the point."
Didn't Jesus die to save us from our sins, so that we wouldn't have to spend eternity in hell? (That's a BIG thing to me) If, in my lifetime I was a part of helping one soul to escape eternity in hell I would feel blessed. (but I agree, there is more "mission" work to tend to). In Jesus' time, didn't those people (also) think he came into town to relieve them of their social oppression when indeed his "mission" was to relieve them of their sinful situation?
"But Eve did not "complement" Adam--she completed him! He was an incomplete creation (juxtapose him to the animal relationships which he saw in the garden)--it took Eve to make humanity a whole."
How awesome and POWERFUL does that make women (me)?.....how much more power do we need after knowing that it took a woman to complete man / humanity? ? :) Actually, this topic is very close to my heart.....just let me say that I've struggled with this for a lot of years....definitely had a lack of respect for men in general. But I want to have a Godly view of men so I can be a part of that justice, mercy and peace that you're talking about!
I guess the biggest thing I'm struggling with as I read you and Even So's commentary is this language thing. Ya'll talk of historical and cultural differences and where writings come from, etc. .....and while we may have misinterpreted or misunderstood passages of scripture.....how is it OK to change the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Doesn't that make us appear to be acting "god-like"? Is there anything in the Bible that's "hand-off"? If not, then I feel like my faith is in vain.
chris--
Didn't Jesus die to save us from our sins, so that we wouldn't have to spend eternity in hell? (That's a BIG thing to me) If, in my lifetime I was a part of helping one soul to escape eternity in hell I would feel blessed. (but I agree, there is more "mission" work to tend to). In Jesus' time, didn't those people (also) think he came into town to relieve them of their social oppression when indeed his "mission" was to relieve them of their sinful situation?
Yes, I would agree that Jesus came to save us from our sins. However, I think the implications of this are much greater than simply being saved from hell. Christ came to reconcile humanity to God, to restore that which has been diseased and destroyed by human sinfulness. As we are intergrated persons (i.e., we cannot separate "soul" from "body", nor can we absolutely separate individuals from the communities in which they live), it would seem that salvation, reconciliation and restoration have much broader consequences than just getting out of hell.
Concerning Jesus' mission in his day, I would suggest that his mission was very much about righting the social situation in which they lived. While Jesus didn't teach against the Roman state, he did say very strong words against the religious leadership of his day and their neglect of justice and mercy for their own people. In a sense, it was as if Jesus ignored the political situation in order to focus on the religious issues that were "closer to home."
How awesome and POWERFUL does that make women (me)?.....how much more power do we need after knowing that it took a woman to complete man / humanity? ? :)
It makes the female of infinite worth and awe. However, I am not talking about "power." The relationship between males and females should not be one of power; the moment the relationship is defined by power differentials is the moment that it is thoroughly sinful for the love which exists between the sexes is supposed to be one of infinite submission and self-giving to one another, not just one sex to the other.
Actually, this topic is very close to my heart.....just let me say that I've struggled with this for a lot of years....definitely had a lack of respect for men in general. But I want to have a Godly view of men so I can be a part of that justice, mercy and peace that you're talking about!
And I desire the same for my view of women.
I guess the biggest thing I'm struggling with as I read you and Even So's commentary is this language thing. Ya'll talk of historical and cultural differences and where writings come from, etc. .....and while we may have misinterpreted or misunderstood passages of scripture.....how is it OK to change the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
These "names" are exactly that--names. As products of human language, these names are finite and limited and do not encapsulate the eternal nature of the Triune God. Therefore, in this sense, there is nothing inherent to the "names" that is being changed, only the language that we use.
Doesn't that make us appear to be acting "god-like"? Is there anything in the Bible that's "hand-off"? If not, then I feel like my faith is in vain.
In my estimation, the only thing that would appear to be acting "god-like" is to insist that a certain subset of human language (i.e., "names") somehow exclusively encapsulates the eternal nature of God. To absolutize our language (linguistic symbols--words) as being normative for speaking about the eternal God who transcends gendered language is, IMO, an act of pride.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, I don't think there is anything that is "hands off." The very act of engaging the Scriptures requires that we get our "hands" into them, attempting to understand the contexts and cultures which form the meanings of the messages inscribed upon the pages. However, this fact need not make one feel that one's faith is in vain, for after all, our faith is not in Scripture, but rather in the one to whom the Scriptures testify, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
How can we trust sinful man, with the noetic (on the mind) effects of sin, to be able to rightly change for today's sake what God has graciously given us sufficently already?
Again, my question is "why?"
God is beyond categorization in the sense that the Bible doesn't reveal Him exhaustively. But it does reveal Him suffciently and that means we stick with the Bible, not go beyond it.
Conversely, I feel it is pride to want more than that, not to stay within the strictures of the text.
even so--
How can we trust sinful man, with the noetic (on the mind) effects of sin, to be able to rightly change for today's sake what God has graciously given us sufficently already?
Well, we affirm the language that noetically sinful humans wrote in the Scriptures...
But again, I am not talking about "change"--I have no problem with anyone using the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." However, and again, because this phraseology does not encapsulate the eternal nature of God, nor, I would suggest, even the finite language of the orthdox conception of the Triune God, I see no problem in variations in the linguistic symbols that are used to express the meaning of our belief in the Triune God.
Again, my question is "why?"
Well, expanding the meaning to more fully engage larger numbers of people with the truth of the orthodox conception of the Trinity seems like a pretty good reason to me.
God is beyond categorization in the sense that the Bible doesn't reveal Him exhaustively. But it does reveal Him suffciently and that means we stick with the Bible, not go beyond it.
Conversely, I feel it is pride to want more than that, not to stay within the strictures of the text.
Well, the ecumenical councils of the orthodox church went well beyond the phraseology of the biblical language. Do you believe their efforts were motivated by pride?
To the two E's :) - Thanks, I'm learnin' a lot from your discourse!
"Well, the ecumenical councils of the orthodox church went well beyond the phraseology of the biblical language. Do you believe their efforts were motivated by pride?"
Exist - What is this council? What do you mean by orthoodox church? What do you mean by "the truth of the orthodox conception of the Trinity"? What "language" did they change? And is the Bible inspired by God and written by inspired men? (if those questions can even be answered in abbreviated form)
I am NOT trying to aggravate ya'll...I'm truly interested.
chris--
Exist - What is this council?
When I refer to "councils," I am referring to the seven ecumencial councils of the early church. In these councils, the bishops, which represented the entire church at the time, met together to outline what would become the "orthodox" understanding of certain theological issues, most often in response to an error that was being espoused by segments that denied the apostolic teaching. For example, the Council of Nicea (325 CE) defined the nature of Christ in relation to the Father in response to Arius' teaching that there was a "time when he was not" (that Jesus was created by God). The decision of the council affirmed the apostolic teaching that Christ was "very substance of God." Less that 60 years later at the Council of Constantinople (381 CE), a clause was added to the Nicean creed that more fully explicated the relationship of the Spirit within the Godhead, attributing consubstantiality to the Spirit as had been ascribed to Christ earlier.
What do you mean by orthoodox church?
Unless I capitalize it (Orthodox), by "orthodox church" I simply mean the church that believes the same primal tenant of Christian belief. For example, all Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants affirm the ecumentical creeds of the early church. Therefore, that which all of Christendom believes is that which is "orthodox" belief.
What do you mean by "the truth of the orthodox conception of the Trinity"?
All teaching which affirms the orthodox teaching about the Trinity (the consubstantiality of the persons of Godhead). In other words, if "Mother, Child, Womb" is used to describe the consubstantial nature of the persons of the Godhead, it is still orthodox teaching, even though the language may be innovative or new. On the other hand, there are groups like T.D. Jakes' who use the phraseology "Father, Son and Spirit," yet deny the consubstantial nature of the Godhead. Rather, they believe that each "person" is merely a "manifestation" of God in history. However, even though the phraseology is "orthodox," the meaning behind it is not. Therefore, there is nothing inherent to language that preserves orthodox belief--simply using the phrase "Father, SOn and Holy Spirit" does not guarantee that one will believe rightly about the Trinity.
What "language" did they change?
They didn't change any language, but they did explicate meannig. For example, there are no explicit statements about the consubstantial relationship of the persons of the Godhead in Scripture. If there was, there would have been no need for a council, for the meaning would have been obvious. However, there is very little Trinitarian language in the Scriptures, so the bishops were left to wrangle with heretical groups to more fully outline the apostolic tradition which they had received.
And is the Bible inspired by God and written by inspired men? (if those questions can even be answered in abbreviated form)
Yes. However, I would assume that my conception of "inspiration" is quite different than that of even so...
I'm truly interested.
Thank you for your interest.
Chris,
exist has the council thing essentially correct, as you heard me explain when talking about the DaVinci code and the Nicean council. Earlier I mentioned Chalcedon in 451 AD, which gave understanding to our phrase "hypostatic union" of Christ, that He is 100% God and also 100% man.
That being said, he and I would certinly disagree about the council's conception of ideas, and their conclusions, what they mean, etc. Also the nature of inspiration and also consubstantiation, materiality, monism, and a lot of things. His conceptions, not that I would pigeonhole him, but they seem akin to eastern orthodox thought.
exist would not, if I may say so (according to what I have seen written by him on his blog, other blogs, and here), align himself with most of Protestant (notice I didn't say orthodox, but orthodox as Protestants see it) thought regarding atonement, inspiration, soteriology, and any number of issues.
Interesting stuff, to be sure, but much is more philisophical in starting point than most are used to. You might see how this plays out over at Pyromaniacs and Phil Johnson's debating with exist on the nature of the imputation of sin in 2 Corinthians 5:21, as wll as any number of other issues exist takes issue with regarding Protestant theology.
exist, we still want you to continue here....
I just finished reading Mohler's article and I have to say that I am glad for the conversations that have been developed and pursued here. I say this because I see within Mohler's logic an uncritical reductionism that absolutizes human language (the phraseology in Scripture) as somehow being infallibly revelatory of the eternal nature of God (a critique which I have more fully developed above).
What I find ironic is that in his "defense" of biblical language, Mohler somehow feels that the rejection of the proposed triads is warranted, even though they all utilize (with the exception of "Compassionate Mother"--even though such language could be certainly extrapolated from feminine allusions to God in the biblical language) biblical language! Because of this, I can only conclude that Mohler's objection is not purely biblical (as he may or may not claim), but is rather motivated by a reactionary ideology. While this is certainly legitimate, it hardly coheres with what Mohler wishes to suppose is a purist biblical argument.
even so--
as you heard me explain when talking about the DaVinci code and the Nicean council.
Was this a discussion that occurred at church, or here on the blog?
That being said, he and I would certinly disagree about the council's conception of ideas, and their conclusions, what they mean, etc. Also the nature of inspiration and also consubstantiation, materiality, monism, and a lot of things. His conceptions, not that I would pigeonhole him, but they seem akin to eastern orthodox thought.
On the whole, it would probably be accurate to say that my thinking is closest in similarity to EO thought.
exist would not, if I may say so (according to what I have seen written by him on his blog, other blogs, and here), align himself with most of Protestant (notice I didn't say orthodox, but orthodox as Protestants see it) thought regarding atonement, inspiration, soteriology, and any number of issues.
This is true to an extent. However, those places within Protestant theology which overlap more with EO thought I would affirm. For example, my tradition (Wesleyanism), while very Protestant, also has a very strong EO-esque conception of sanctification. On this level, I strongly agree, even though other conceptions within my tradition are too Protestant for me.
exist, we still want you to continue here....
I plan on sticking around. It's been a good time!
Exist -
I'm gonna need a couple of days to "chew" on this stuff!
I have a 20 year background with a fellowship of people who thought they "spoke where the Bible spoke and were silent where the Bible was silent". Needless to say I was pretty much a closed-minded Christian (who really didn't have a clue)and would not expose myself to these kinds of commentary.
I tell you this so maybe you'll understand why I find it hard to "track" what you're saying....but I'm trying! :)
You say you have a Protestant background but lean towards EO........I don't know anything about EO....are those 2 ideologies compatible? Also, what is your understanding of "inspiration"? I thought if something was God-inspired it wouldn't need to be interpreted.
Thanks again for your patience.
Thanks, Chris, for continuing to take a look at what is going on here and for commenting. There are others who are watching this, some from our church, (this answers exists question about where my discussion of DaVinci code took place).
EO is the branch of Christianity that has their seat of power in (was called Byzantine, then Constantinople, now Istanbul) a place other than Rome, but has many doctrines close to Roman Catholic, and some not similar. They (RCC and EO) split over the filioque clause we discussed earlier, and also because the Roman Bishops started declaring themselves as the "head" bishop, or as it became known, the Pope. Others see it as more political than theological, or vice versa.
Really, most of the problems stem from the West's association with the theology of Augustine.
Today, the head of the EO is known as the Patriarch of Constantinople. He is the Ecumenical Patriarch, ranking as the "first among equals" in the Eastern Orthodox communion. The current Patriarch is Bartholomew I.
In the Orthodox understanding of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers, neither the Bible nor the writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They are about revelation and about the word of God. This is why the patristic (early church leaders) writings are seen as basically on par with scripture, because they explain what scripture teaches. Of course, the Protestant (mine) understanding is vastly different.
For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible.
Again, the Protestant (mine) understanding is vastly different
A leading theologian of EO today is Bishop Kallistos Ware.
chris--
I'm gonna need a couple of days to "chew" on this stuff!
No problem!
I have a 20 year background with a fellowship of people who thought they "spoke where the Bible spoke and were silent where the Bible was silent". Needless to say I was pretty much a closed-minded Christian (who really didn't have a clue)and would not expose myself to these kinds of commentary.
I too have a thoroughly "conservative" background (if that is a reasonable description) and I have had to struggle through these issues in my own heart and mind. I do not think that I have come close to having satisfying answers, but I do have a greater peace now about my theology than I did growing up.
I tell you this so maybe you'll understand why I find it hard to "track" what you're saying....but I'm trying! :)
I think you are doing a great job and I am thoroughly enjoying our conversation!
You say you have a Protestant background but lean towards EO........I don't know anything about EO....are those 2 ideologies compatible?
As far as a description of EO, I will point you to even so's summary (I will tweak some of the points in my response to him).
As far as compatibility, they both affirm the orthdox beliefs of the Christian church, so that is definitely a start. Admittedly, there are some huge anthropological and soteriological differences that make dialogue difficult. However, I don't think it is entirely impossible. I pray for the day when there will not be "Protestant" and "EO" and "Roman Catholic." Although I doubt that I will live to see it, I still hold out hope that the church can one day be reunified.
Also, what is your understanding of "inspiration"? I thought if something was God-inspired it wouldn't need to be interpreted.
Let me answer the last statement first. If anything uses words, it requires interepretation. Human language is complex. We use words (linguistic symbols) to describe objects, events, ideas, etc. However, as history clearly shows, the linguistic symbols which we use change over time. For example, the word "nice" used to be used to mean "foolish." Now we use "nice" to mean "pleasant" or "good." Therefore, whenever we engage linguistic symbols, interpretation will be required. The Scriptures pose an especially big challenge for interpretation, for not only are the words in other languages (and have to be translated, which is itself interpretation), but the "distance" between the contexts in which the words were originally used and the time in which we live is huge. THis does not mean that the Scriptures are doomed to be impossible to understand; however, it will mean that we must be careful in how we interpret the words and must use care in how definitively we speak about particular interpretations. This, of course, is why I see the councils and creeds of the later early church as being so crucial and foundational to belief. In these, I believe there exists a fuller explication of the meaning of what has been said in the Scriptures, as well as that which formed the content of the apostles' teachings which were not written down and included in the canon of Scripture.
Now, to the first question. I think "inspiration" of Scripture refers more to the content of Scripture, rather than the means by which Scripture was produced. For example, I will firmly and explicitly state that the Scriptures were written by humans and were the product of these writer's thoughts and beliefs. The place where I would locate inspiration, then, is in the subject of their writing. The apostles, in the Scriptures, write about Christ and his revelation of the eternal God. Because they were the ones who were taught at the feet of Christ, their testimony about Christ is authoritative because it is from Christ himself. The later church, in reflecting upon these writings, compared them to the apostolic tradition that had been preserved within the bishopric succession. Those writings which bore the marks of apostolicity (even if not directly written by an apostle) were canonized as authoritative. Therefore, in my thinking, the Scriptures are inspired because they testify to the self-revelation of God in the person of Christ and because they have been, throughout the history of the church, formative in shaping its theological consciousness.
Hopefully this will let you know where I stand in relation to this issue!
Thanks for the candor, exist
There has been even more unrest and rancor over this issue in the last couple of days; perhaps I will post more links soon...
I look forward to them!
Post a Comment