Comments for Faith and Gender http://fiveaspects.com/blog Gender Apologetics for the 21st Century Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:35:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Objections to a Masculine God, Part One by Ree http://fiveaspects.com/blog/objections-to-a-masculine-god-part-one/#comment-870 Ree Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:35:30 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=733#comment-870 "We will examine each of these objections in turn in subsequent blogs." I'm with you so far, but I'd suggest that instead of posting the rest of the series in subsequent blogs, you post them on the same blog with separate posts. Much easier to follow. Oh, but you already did that. ;-) Seriously, though, a blog is a website, and the entries are posts. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the series. “We will examine each of these objections in turn in subsequent blogs.”

I’m with you so far, but I’d suggest that instead of posting the rest of the series in subsequent blogs, you post them on the same blog with separate posts. Much easier to follow. Oh, but you already did that. ;-)

Seriously, though, a blog is a website, and the entries are posts. Anyway, I’m looking forward to the series.

]]> Comment on Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Four by Fr. Bill http://fiveaspects.com/blog/objections-to-god%e2%80%99s-masculinity-part-four/#comment-828 Fr. Bill Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:50:03 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=769#comment-828 " ...I am not aware of any Scripture that uses the simile that God is Father-like." Nor am I. I'm doubtful such exist, for if there were such, the religious feminists who urge this objection would have brought it to our attention with chant-like persistence. "I believe that the very identity of the Persons of the Trinity is at stake here because if the gender identity is denied (what I call the mode of personhood), and if the familial relation is denied, and the hierarchy of role (the “economic Trinity” ) is denied, how then can three Persons be distinguished in the Trinity? What’s left is modalism or worse." This is the lesson left to us by the history of doctrine, and we've got about 20 centuries of that to rely on! For this reason alone, it is appalling that Reymond and other ostensibly Reformed men so blithely reject Nicene Trinitarianism. No doubt Reymond would hotly dispute any modalist tendencies. But unitarians do not appear in the Church with a bang; rather they emerge slowly from the shadows cast by their errant teachers who "merely" demurred from what the Holy Spirit had been teaching the Church from the beginning. ” …I am not aware of any Scripture that uses the simile that God is Father-like.”

Nor am I. I’m doubtful such exist, for if there were such, the religious feminists who urge this objection would have brought it to our attention with chant-like persistence.

“I believe that the very identity of the Persons of the Trinity is at stake here because if the gender identity is denied (what I call the mode of personhood), and if the familial relation is denied, and the hierarchy of role (the “economic Trinity” ) is denied, how then can three Persons be distinguished in the Trinity? What’s left is modalism or worse.”

This is the lesson left to us by the history of doctrine, and we’ve got about 20 centuries of that to rely on! For this reason alone, it is appalling that Reymond and other ostensibly Reformed men so blithely reject Nicene Trinitarianism. No doubt Reymond would hotly dispute any modalist tendencies. But unitarians do not appear in the Church with a bang; rather they emerge slowly from the shadows cast by their errant teachers who “merely” demurred from what the Holy Spirit had been teaching the Church from the beginning.

]]> Comment on Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Four by Keith Wilson http://fiveaspects.com/blog/objections-to-god%e2%80%99s-masculinity-part-four/#comment-827 Keith Wilson Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:38:23 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=769#comment-827 Hi Fr Bill. Good stuff! I am not aware of any Scripture that uses the simile that God is Father-like. There may be somewhere something about God's fatherhood illustrated by human fatherly actions, but I can't recall such. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is so much about God as the Father in Scripture that I would have to wade through too much (at present) to find such! The fatherliness of God is illustrated in the OT well enough, but in the progress of biblical revelation, His personal relationships as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and as the believer's Father in Heaven was not revealed until the incarnation of the Son. So in the Gospels, our Lord reveals His Father never in terms of similitude nor in terms of metaphor. The literalness of His use of the title is consistent and deliberate-even to the point of the threat of being stoned. Metaphors and like figures are normally obviously so. If the above illustration were put, "the beautiful woman's lips are roses" we know immediately that a comparison of sorts is meant. The denial of God's eternal Fatherhood is matched by the denial of Christ's eternal Sonship in Western evangelicalism's bid to model the Trinity after egalitarian ideals. The eternal generation of the Son is denied, because it implies the eternal subordination of the Son. I believe that the very identity of the Persons of the Trinity is at stake here because if the gender identity is denied (what I call the mode of personhood), and if the familial relation is denied, and the hierarchy of role (the "economic Trinity" ) is denied, how then can three Persons be distinguished in the Trinity? What's left is modalism or worse. Hi Fr Bill. Good stuff! I am not aware of any Scripture that uses the simile that God is Father-like. There may be somewhere something about God’s fatherhood illustrated by human fatherly actions, but I can’t recall such. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is so much about God as the Father in Scripture that I would have to wade through too much (at present) to find such!
The fatherliness of God is illustrated in the OT well enough, but in the progress of biblical revelation, His personal relationships as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and as the believer’s Father in Heaven was not revealed until the incarnation of the Son. So in the Gospels, our Lord reveals His Father never in terms of similitude nor in terms of metaphor. The literalness of His use of the title is consistent and deliberate-even to the point of the threat of being stoned. Metaphors and like figures are normally obviously so. If the above illustration were put, “the beautiful woman’s lips are roses” we know immediately that a comparison of sorts is meant.
The denial of God’s eternal Fatherhood is matched by the denial of Christ’s eternal Sonship in Western evangelicalism’s bid to model the Trinity after egalitarian ideals. The eternal generation of the Son is denied, because it implies the eternal subordination of the Son. I believe that the very identity of the Persons of the Trinity is at stake here because if the gender identity is denied (what I call the mode of personhood), and if the familial relation is denied, and the hierarchy of role (the “economic Trinity” ) is denied, how then can three Persons be distinguished in the Trinity?
What’s left is modalism or worse.

]]> Comment on Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Three by Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Four | | Faith and GenderFaith and Gender http://fiveaspects.com/blog/objections-to-gods-masculinity-part-three/#comment-825 Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Four | | Faith and GenderFaith and Gender Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:24:05 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=751#comment-825 [...] French, in a comment on a previous blog in this series, wrote this: So if God describes Himself in masculine terms, it [...] [...] French, in a comment on a previous blog in this series, wrote this: So if God describes Himself in masculine terms, it [...]

]]> Comment on Objections to God’s Masculinity: Part Three by Craig French http://fiveaspects.com/blog/objections-to-gods-masculinity-part-three/#comment-822 Craig French Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:01:12 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=751#comment-822 I've been reading Athanasius off and on for the last year, and began reading Gregory Nazianzen's Orations a few days ago (I'm currently in the 3rd Oration). Reading Athanasius, there's nothing apophatic about his theology of God's eternal Fatherhood. You read Gregory Nazianzen, and he gets apophatic...but he maintains that biblical notion of God's Fatherhood. I'm not well-versed in apophaticism, but Gregory's seemed to root apophaticism in the inability of creatures to describe "what" God's essence is...it cannot be described like fabric. But neither can we. We are composite, material and immaterial. I cannot begin to describe myself immaterially. However, whatever my immaterial essence is, there no doubt I "is"...and my actions and words reveal things about me even though I cannot begin to describe "what" this immaterial essence is. So the notion is inescapable, really, but it isn't a principle for ignorance...at least not in Gregory Nazianzen. He pointed to God's self-disclosure: His revelation and actions. So if God describes Himself in masculine terms, it isn't that He isn't masculine...it's that our masculinity cannot contain His. His masculinity is on an immeasurable scale. In a sense, I guess it is better to say He *is* masculine...what we are is analogically masculine. We can only be accommodatedly masculine because He is ultimately masculine. It appears that the Eastern Orthodox have gotten away from Gregory Nazianzen's tame version of apophaticism and have made it a rogue principle...undermining, ironically, the principal argument against Arianism: the Monarchia of the Father. I’ve been reading Athanasius off and on for the last year, and began reading Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations a few days ago (I’m currently in the 3rd Oration).

Reading Athanasius, there’s nothing apophatic about his theology of God’s eternal Fatherhood. You read Gregory Nazianzen, and he gets apophatic…but he maintains that biblical notion of God’s Fatherhood. I’m not well-versed in apophaticism, but Gregory’s seemed to root apophaticism in the inability of creatures to describe “what” God’s essence is…it cannot be described like fabric.

But neither can we. We are composite, material and immaterial. I cannot begin to describe myself immaterially. However, whatever my immaterial essence is, there no doubt I “is”…and my actions and words reveal things about me even though I cannot begin to describe “what” this immaterial essence is.

So the notion is inescapable, really, but it isn’t a principle for ignorance…at least not in Gregory Nazianzen. He pointed to God’s self-disclosure: His revelation and actions. So if God describes Himself in masculine terms, it isn’t that He isn’t masculine…it’s that our masculinity cannot contain His. His masculinity is on an immeasurable scale.

In a sense, I guess it is better to say He *is* masculine…what we are is analogically masculine. We can only be accommodatedly masculine because He is ultimately masculine.

It appears that the Eastern Orthodox have gotten away from Gregory Nazianzen’s tame version of apophaticism and have made it a rogue principle…undermining, ironically, the principal argument against Arianism: the Monarchia of the Father.

]]> Comment on Intimacy With Jesus? Not thru Sex!! by Sarah http://fiveaspects.com/blog/intimacy-with-jesus-not-thru-sex/#comment-821 Sarah Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:15:05 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=633#comment-821 Thank-you for your replies--they have left me thinking! :) I think I poorly communicated my idea about Ephesians 5, however. I do think St. Paul is saying marriage illustrates the Christ-church relationship. My thought is that if sexuality is part of marital love, than perhaps that's why its language is spilling over into Christian songs--marital love is the highest kind we can experience on earth, so wouldn't a love that is literally out of this world be beyond our capacity to describe and thus (in our attempts to describe it) be discussed with the same language as marriage? I appreciate your point that the "marriage metaphor" is only used in Scripture in relationship to the whole church rather than to individuals. Thank-you for your replies–they have left me thinking! :)
I think I poorly communicated my idea about Ephesians 5, however. I do think St. Paul is saying marriage illustrates the Christ-church relationship. My thought is that if sexuality is part of marital love, than perhaps that’s why its language is spilling over into Christian songs–marital love is the highest kind we can experience on earth, so wouldn’t a love that is literally out of this world be beyond our capacity to describe and thus (in our attempts to describe it) be discussed with the same language as marriage?
I appreciate your point that the “marriage metaphor” is only used in Scripture in relationship to the whole church rather than to individuals.

]]> Comment on Name That Glory!! by Fr. Bill http://fiveaspects.com/blog/name-that-glory/#comment-747 Fr. Bill Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:10:02 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=721#comment-747 Hi, Henry, You're close, but what you're suggesting is probably a fair application of the principle Paul is affirming in 1 Cor. 11:7. I'm sorry I have gone off on a different tangent for the moment, one I'll be on for another several blogs. But, I will indeed come back to unpack woman, the glory of man. Thanks for your query. Hi, Henry,

You’re close, but what you’re suggesting is probably a fair application of the principle Paul is affirming in 1 Cor. 11:7.

I’m sorry I have gone off on a different tangent for the moment, one I’ll be on for another several blogs. But, I will indeed come back to unpack woman, the glory of man.

Thanks for your query.

]]> Comment on Name That Glory!! by Henry http://fiveaspects.com/blog/name-that-glory/#comment-744 Henry Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:52:52 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=721#comment-744 So on this understanding how is 'woman the glory of man'? When someone speaks of a man, a woman is not what comes to mind, eh? (I thought you were going to deal with this in the next post but I think you are onto a different question.) So on this understanding how is ‘woman the glory of man’? When someone speaks of a man, a woman is not what comes to mind, eh?

(I thought you were going to deal with this in the next post but I think you are onto a different question.)

]]> Comment on Are Women Natural Leaders? by Diane Woerner http://fiveaspects.com/blog/are-women-natural-leaders/#comment-730 Diane Woerner Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:14:30 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=653#comment-730 I can offer another little anecdote related to this topic. About a year ago I observed a number of co-ed teams on a low ropes course during a singles retreat. Each group was comprised of about 10-12 individuals. In some groups, the females rose to leadership, in others it was the males. The female-led teams were consistently more anxious and competitive (with the men on those teams often minimally engaged). On the male-led teams everyone seemed to be having much more fun, and these teams were generally more successful in meeting the challenges at hand. I can offer another little anecdote related to this topic. About a year ago I observed a number of co-ed teams on a low ropes course during a singles retreat. Each group was comprised of about 10-12 individuals. In some groups, the females rose to leadership, in others it was the males. The female-led teams were consistently more anxious and competitive (with the men on those teams often minimally engaged). On the male-led teams everyone seemed to be having much more fun, and these teams were generally more successful in meeting the challenges at hand.

]]> Comment on Name That Glory!! by Fr. Bill http://fiveaspects.com/blog/name-that-glory/#comment-723 Fr. Bill Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:32:32 +0000 http://fiveaspects.com/blog/?p=721#comment-723 Hello, James. Yes, this is one of the reasons (among others) why the Incarnation of the Son of God was in a man, not a woman. Besides the fact that sons are male, Jesus' manhood constitutes his being the Second Adam, with the comparisons and contrasts that Paul makes between the First and Second Adams in Romans 5. All in the First Adam die, while all in the Second Adam live forever. Hello, James.

Yes, this is one of the reasons (among others) why the Incarnation of the Son of God was in a man, not a woman. Besides the fact that sons are male, Jesus’ manhood constitutes his being the Second Adam, with the comparisons and contrasts that Paul makes between the First and Second Adams in Romans 5. All in the First Adam die, while all in the Second Adam live forever.

]]>