|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Male language, male Jesus
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You got me Anselmina!
...because...???? DNA is human. And wasp. And banana. But not Holy Spirit.
Totally agree (as I said explicitly above) that he had DNA. To be human is to have DNA. I just don't think it's a given that he had Mary's DNA. There is nothing in the orthodox Christian creeds to suggest he did, simply because DNA was an unknown concept at the time. He had SOME sort of DNA. Whether it was 50%, 100%, or 0% Mary's we cannot know.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
btw, mancunian mystic, I recognize we've gotten far, far afield from the heart of your question. If you've hung out at the Ship for any amount of time, you know this sort of tangental riffing is typical of us theonerds. It's fun for us-- it's fun for me. But it's ultimately meaningless-- whereas your OP was, I think, quite meaningful and important. So I just want to check in, and see if you feel satisfied that we've addressed, if not completely answered, your concerns? Anything you'd like to redirect us back to, or are you content to leave us to our arcane tangents?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You got me Anselmina!
...because...???? DNA is human. And wasp. And banana. But not Holy Spirit.
Totally agree (as I said explicitly above) that he had DNA. To be human is to have DNA. I just don't think it's a given that he had Mary's DNA. There is nothing in the orthodox Christian creeds to suggest he did, simply because DNA was an unknown concept at the time. He had SOME sort of DNA. Whether it was 50%, 100%, or 0% Mary's we cannot know.
Er ... who's if not His mother's then? Who else produced the ovum? This is a thing with you, invoking something in the sink, down the plug 'ole, after a shave with a Gillette Occam.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course He had Mary's DNA. ONLY her DNA.
So Martin it seems you are saying that Jesus was a clone of Mary, something that doesn't happen in our species, but that the Holy Spirit manipulated one of his X chromosomes into a Y so he could be born a man. Oh dear! What next?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course He had Mary's DNA. ONLY her DNA.
So Martin it seems you are saying that Jesus was a clone of Mary, something that doesn't happen in our species, but that the Holy Spirit manipulated one of his X chromosomes into a Y so he could be born a man. Oh dear! What next?
It's as good a theory as any, when you're talking about a supernatural event. But it certainly isn't the only possibility.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's as good a theory as any, when you're talking about a supernatural event. But it certainly isn't the only possibility.
As theories go, adoptionism makes more sense to me.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course He had Mary's DNA. ONLY her DNA.
So Martin it seems you are saying that Jesus was a clone of Mary, something that doesn't happen in our species, but that the Holy Spirit manipulated one of his X chromosomes into a Y so he could be born a man. Oh dear! What next?
No I'm not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Without the Jesus story, you have no meaning. What next?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Going back to the concerns raised by the OP, the issue is perhaps not such about availability of genderised readings of the Trinity, etc. After all, there's no shortage of feminist/womanist, etc. theologies and readings of the Bible, if you're willing to look for them.
Rather, the challenge is that if you want to be a churchgoer, the likelihood of the liturgies, sermons or hymns of your average church incorporating deliberately feminising or female understandings of the Trinity is slight. The pronouns used are almost always male.
Many of us may have come across special liturgies or services where the female or the feminine aspect of God was deliberately emphasised. But 'special' is what they remain; such approaches are not normalised.
Thankyou, Svitlana - this is one of my questions. Why is the church so reluctant to use any alternative to the traditional male-centered language? As you say, the alternatives do exist. So is it laziness, a reluctance to jolt people out of old certainties and assumptions (however inaccurate or unhelpful those may be) or a continuing male fear that the women may get uppity if they begin to believe that they're not subordinate in the Godhead or the church? One of my biggest difficulties with the church is that it teaches/models an image of God that is more incomplete and partial than it need be - while acknowledging that of course ANY image of the divine is going to be hopelessly inadequate, the church could at least attempt to include both genders!. And it's all made worse by the lack of clear teaching to underline that Father/Son is a metaphor, not a reality.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I'm wondering if we could describe the Trinity this way:
"In the name of God the Father who cherishes us like a Mother, in the name of Christ, Wisdom and Word, in the name of the Holy Spirit, Friend and Comforter."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
MM - you've expressed your strong disagreement with the use of traditional language, and your difficulties in accepting the explanations offered. What would satisfy your concerns? How would you express the traditional Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
One version I've come across is Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer. That at least ungenders it. Not being a theologian, I suspect that anything I came up with for myself would be deemed suspect! I just tried Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit. It sounds strange and, interestingly, immediately jars just because it pigeonholes God into one gender - it feels much too specific. Which presumably Father/Son would too if we hadn't been hearing it since the cradle.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
btw, mancunian mystic, I recognize we've gotten far, far afield from the heart of your question. If you've hung out at the Ship for any amount of time, you know this sort of tangental riffing is typical of us theonerds. It's fun for us-- it's fun for me. But it's ultimately meaningless-- whereas your OP was, I think, quite meaningful and important. So I just want to check in, and see if you feel satisfied that we've addressed, if not completely answered, your concerns? Anything you'd like to redirect us back to, or are you content to leave us to our arcane tangents?
I'm delighted that my questions have sparked such a wide-ranging debate
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I haven't really engaged with all of it, as I have more than enough to occupy my overstretched brain cells at the moment. But the responses to my queries have been very helpful, and I really appreciate the thoughtful spirit in which they've been made. I was just a bit apprehensive that I'd get shot down!
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Going back to the concerns raised by the OP, the issue is perhaps not such about availability of genderised readings of the Trinity, etc. After all, there's no shortage of feminist/womanist, etc. theologies and readings of the Bible, if you're willing to look for them.
Rather, the challenge is that if you want to be a churchgoer, the likelihood of the liturgies, sermons or hymns of your average church incorporating deliberately feminising or female understandings of the Trinity is slight. The pronouns used are almost always male.
Many of us may have come across special liturgies or services where the female or the feminine aspect of God was deliberately emphasised. But 'special' is what they remain; such approaches are not normalised.
Thankyou, Svitlana - this is one of my questions. Why is the church so reluctant to use any alternative to the traditional male-centered language? As you say, the alternatives do exist. So is it laziness, a reluctance to jolt people out of old certainties and assumptions (however inaccurate or unhelpful those may be) or a continuing male fear that the women may get uppity if they begin to believe that they're not subordinate in the Godhead or the church? One of my biggest difficulties with the church is that it teaches/models an image of God that is more incomplete and partial than it need be - while acknowledging that of course ANY image of the divine is going to be hopelessly inadequate, the church could at least attempt to include both genders!. And it's all made worse by the lack of clear teaching to underline that Father/Son is a metaphor, not a reality.
Agreed, even as I acknowledge I participate in the gap, for the exact reasons you cite.
I will teach/preach on the "femininity" of God-- carefully unpack the texts that show God is not an old white dude, talk about the difference between metaphor and reality, etc.
The problem comes in the other 51 weeks outta the year. The times when I'm wanting to preach on something other than the "femininity" of God, because, well, there are other things that must be said. Here's the rub for me: pronouns. I strongly believe God is not male, so it's appropriate to use non-gendered language about God. And in writing (particularly academic writing) I'm able to construct sentences that avoid using male pronouns for God without sounding too artificial or stilted. But this just doesn't work with oral communication, even-- or especially-- preaching. There, if I use female pronouns for God (or go thru the linguistic gymnastics necessary to avoid all pronouns) I draw all the attention to what I'm saying about God's gender. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself-- except that it means that's the only thing I'm saying about God. Because it's all anyone will hear or notice. It's not that I'm worried about the controversy-- fortunately, my congregation is theologically sophisticated enough that they'd be with me on that-- it's that in our current environment, it draws too much attention, even if it's just "oh yeah, she said "she" because God isn't male. That's right". Because there are other things we need to say about God.
otoh, that means that I'm letting down people like you who desperately need to hear that message. And I'm participating in a system in which male pronouns for God are the norm and anything that departs from it draws that undo attention. We'll never get to the point where non-male pronouns for God sound normal until we go thru a period of using those non-male pronouns and dealing with the fact that it's all anyone hears. So, I am, reluctantly and not without some internal conflict, complicit in the system you are rightly denouncing. Because there are other things I want to say about God.
Not really an answer or an excuse, but an explanation, fwiw.
[ 13. August 2016, 13:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
Why is the church so reluctant to use any alternative to the traditional male-centered language? As you say, the alternatives do exist. So is it laziness, a reluctance to jolt people out of old certainties and assumptions (however inaccurate or unhelpful those may be) or a continuing male fear that the women may get uppity if they begin to believe that they're not subordinate in the Godhead or the church? One of my biggest difficulties with the church is that it teaches/models an image of God that is more incomplete and partial than it need be - while acknowledging that of course ANY image of the divine is going to be hopelessly inadequate, the church could at least attempt to include both genders!. And it's all made worse by the lack of clear teaching to underline that Father/Son is a metaphor, not a reality.
I can only speak to my local churches (I attend 2)--we can't really talk of the church-in-general when it comes to this sort of thing, since it's implemented largely on the local level.
My two churches stick to Father/Son/Spirit language first because it's biblical, and that's a huge thing for us. We do however use the other biblical metaphors, including the feminine (this is probably more likely in the Vietnamese group than in the English-speaking one due to leaders with more ability to think outside the we’ve-always-done-it-that-way box). The use of biblical metaphors, as well as sermon-included female stories and analogies, is the primary way we handle this. So God gets compared to a good mother, and so forth. Anybody who can’t handle that is in sad shape.
The Father/Son/he/him langauge has nothing in my experience to do with "keeping the women down" (and I am a woman, and have suffered for that fact in the wider church arena, God forgive us). It has a lot to do with not freaking out churchgoers unnecessarily--messing about with divine pronouns in our denomination is basically code for introducing various heresies as well, and since we aren't doing the latter, we don't want to signal that we are by doing the former. It's like pulling a fire alarm and having the firetruck show up--you are never going to get the people-in-the-pew to believe you when you say there's no fire, no matter how often you say it.
Then there’s a personal problem which may apply to more people than I. Pronouns sort of hit me at a gut level. If people start using random he/she pronouns about God (or for that matter, about themselves), my mind automatically defaults to “it.” I can’t help it. My mind equates gender instability with the only gender neutral singular pronoun we have, and that’s “it.” Which most unfortunately carries with it all the “not a person” implications of inanimate objects.
IMHO our best compromise is to keep on with the biblical images—ALL the biblical images—and explain the metaphors, AND the fact that they are metaphors. Which is what we do locally.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
it draws too much attention, even if it's just "oh yeah, she said "she" because God isn't male. That's right".
I agree with you that God isn't male or female.
I am entirely happy to use female similes to describe God. Describing God as being like a mother in such-and-such a way? Talking about traditionally feminine aspects of God? Fine.
I have a problem using female pronouns for God though, as in my traditional English grammar, male pronouns are the neutral default and female pronouns imply explicit femaleness (in a way that male pronouns, at least to me, do not imply maleness).
I'm not a fan of the Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer language - I find it too impersonal: it tends to reduce God to some kind of natural impersonal force.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
As theories go, adoptionism makes more sense to me.
Ditto. Adoptionism is the closest I can get to Christianity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
it draws too much attention, even if it's just "oh yeah, she said "she" because God isn't male. That's right".
I agree with you that God isn't male or female.
I am entirely happy to use female similes to describe God. Describing God as being like a mother in such-and-such a way? Talking about traditionally feminine aspects of God? Fine.
I have a problem using female pronouns for God though, as in my traditional English grammar, male pronouns are the neutral default and female pronouns imply explicit femaleness (in a way that male pronouns, at least to me, do not imply maleness).
Most of people of my generation (50+) hear male pronouns that way. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your pov) most under 40s do not. In fact, most style manuals in the US anyway have been changed to, for example, substitute third-person plural in place of a masculine pronoun with indeterminate singular gender (e.g. "each student should place their backpack in the cubby...")
This option doesn't work well for God though, nor does "it" (impersonal). So we're left with either gendered pronouns or awkward linguistic gymnastics to avoid all pronouns (again, much easier to do in writing than in speaking). So when preaching to a multi-generational congregations, you have a real dilemma of how to communicate to an audience that's going to hear masculine pronouns in radically different ways.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
Why is the church so reluctant to use any alternative to the traditional male-centered language? As you say, the alternatives do exist. So is it laziness, a reluctance to jolt people out of old certainties and assumptions (however inaccurate or unhelpful those may be) or a continuing male fear that the women may get uppity if they begin to believe that they're not subordinate in the Godhead or the church? One of my biggest difficulties with the church is that it teaches/models an image of God that is more incomplete and partial than it need be - while acknowledging that of course ANY image of the divine is going to be hopelessly inadequate, the church could at least attempt to include both genders!. And it's all made worse by the lack of clear teaching to underline that Father/Son is a metaphor, not a reality.
I think one issue in the mainstream moderate British churches is that there's already so much tolerance of theological diversity among the clergy and people that the (more or less) traditional liturgies and hymns serve as a kind of inherited glue that keeps everyone together. Any re-writing of these things would only go so far, or else entirely new material would have to be produced.
Also, churches are inherently conservative institutions. Not always theologically conservative, but conservative in terms of church culture. And in mainstream moderate churches the laity may well be more conservative about the culture than the clergy. Changing the familiar gendered language permanently would represent a significant level of change for people who don't like too much change.
With regards to men, I suspect that many male clergy leave the issue to their female counterparts, even if they agree with its importance in principle. I don't think I've ever come across a male minister referring to God as 'she' in any liturgy.
Laymen in mainstream moderate pews are an interesting group. The most obvious aspect is that they're in the minority. I think this makes them more sensitive to the vulnerability of their position. Toning down the masculinity or maleness of God might add to the sense of awkwardness some of them may feel about belonging in the church. Rare is the minister who uncovers and enunciates what male members may be feeling, but such an engagement would be necessary before overhauling the church's language.
Re the evangelical churches, perhaps this conversation might be had at the 'emergent' or liberalising end of the spectrum. You might find a Fresh Expression of Church that takes this matter seriously (and probably one led by a woman), but you'd have to look hard for it.
[ 13. August 2016, 15:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
With regards to men, I suspect that many male clergy leave the issue to their female counterparts, even if they agree with its importance in principle. I don't think I've ever come across a male minister referring to God as 'she' in any liturgy.
*cue rant*
Which is very much key to the problem. When male clergy leave it to their female colleagues, it suggests this is a "women's issue", when in fact it is an issue that impacts ALL believers. It's important for women AND men to have an accurate picture of God-- and Old White Dude is not an accurate picture. When my male colleagues don't speak out on this issue, it undermines the female voices, even very scholarly and thoughtful ones, that do. Female clergy get slammed with "pushing an agenda" or "radicalism" for saying out loud something that most clergy & biblical scholars of both genders and theological persuasions believe. This ends up marginalizing the voices of female clergy, which exasperates the problem.
Of course, to be fair, male clergy face the same challenge I described above when using new language that clergywomen do, so in that sense it's understandable. But, male clergy have far more cover, more institutional good will, to use nonstandard language than female clergy do. They're not going to be marginalized for "pushing an agenda" in the same way female clergy will. They are, to put it bluntly, privileged, in institutional terms. Like all privilege, they don't have a choice about whether or not they have privilege, but they do have a choice how to use that privilege.
*end rant*
[ 13. August 2016, 15:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Close but no cigar PaulTh*. Like Judaism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses; Unitarianism by any other name. Perfectly understandable for historical reasons. For those who convert, or de-convert/convert, like you one way or the other I imagine, the story is more complex.
No religion works for me at all, no sacred texts, no dogma, no doctrine, no philosophy but materialism, physicalism even, no claims, no propositions.
Bar one. And all that follows from it.
Jesus.
Adoptionism is nothing, like all the rest. It has NOTHING to say. Like all the rest.
Unlike the simplicity of Christ. Which has EVERYTHING.
You'll be all right.
It, He has that too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This option doesn't work well for God though, nor does "it" (impersonal). So we're left with either gendered pronouns or awkward linguistic gymnastics to avoid all pronouns (again, much easier to do in writing than in speaking). So when preaching to a multi-generational congregations, you have a real dilemma of how to communicate to an audience that's going to hear masculine pronouns in radically different ways.
It's possible that my language might evolve to the point where using singular "they" for God doesn't sound silly. I don't have an intellectual objection to it, but it doesn't sound natural.
I think it's a better option than "she" though. You make the point that younger people are more likely to read gender into "he", which might well be true - but I would have thought that everybody reads gender into "she". I don't think anyone encounters the pronoun "she" and starts thinking in a gender-neutral way.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This option doesn't work well for God though, nor does "it" (impersonal). So we're left with either gendered pronouns or awkward linguistic gymnastics to avoid all pronouns (again, much easier to do in writing than in speaking). So when preaching to a multi-generational congregations, you have a real dilemma of how to communicate to an audience that's going to hear masculine pronouns in radically different ways.
It's possible that my language might evolve to the point where using singular "they" for God doesn't sound silly. I don't have an intellectual objection to it, but it doesn't sound natural.
I think it's a better option than "she" though. You make the point that younger people are more likely to read gender into "he", which might well be true - but I would have thought that everybody reads gender into "she". I don't think anyone encounters the pronoun "she" and starts thinking in a gender-neutral way.
I would agree that most people read "she" as gendered. The problem is that 1/2 the population reads "he" as similarly gendered.
I wasn't suggesting "they" as an option for divine pronouns, simply pointing out how our language has evolved to reflect the above reality. Third person plural works well as a substitute for singular non-specified humans-- in part because they are unspecified, and because it's become common enough usage so that even though it's technically improper, it sounds right thru. it doesn't, however, solve the problem we're discussing here-- how to refer to the divine-- precisely because it's not common usage any more than using "she" for God would be, and its use would sound like we're polytheistic. But then otoh we have a bit of a precedent in Gen. 1, so maybe...
[ 13. August 2016, 17:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
I would agree that most people read "she" as gendered. The problem is that 1/2 the population reads "he" as similarly gendered.
Would half the population read it that way? I suspect that many might, but probably more would hear it as a necessary consequence of lacking a gender-neutral pronoun other than the inappropriate "it" and not think twice.
A couple of days ago, I asked mancunian mystic how she would re-write "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", what would satisfy her concerns. So far she's not responded, and perhaps why she hasn't is that there is no way it can be done in a manner which avoids heresy.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
I would agree that most people read "she" as gendered. The problem is that 1/2 the population reads "he" as similarly gendered.
Would half the population read it that way? I suspect that many might, but probably more would hear it as a necessary consequence of lacking a gender-neutral pronoun other than the inappropriate "it" and not think twice.
I can't speak for the experience cross-pond, but here in US, yes, definitely "he" is heard as gendered by most under-40s. I teach college students, and always have to explain/apologize when, for example, I'm quoting Bonhoeffer and the translation is full of gendered language. That's why, as noted above, style manuals across the board have been rewritten both to forbid gendered language and to allow use of third person plural even when it's an indeterminate singular.
And when you're talking about humans, it's not that hard. You can, again, use third person plural (even though someone not in the know will probably "correct" you), or you can use "he or she" or "s/he". Again, gendered language has been absolutely verboten in academic settings for decades so we've all gotten used to it. It's pronouns for God that really create the sticking point, since none of the usual work-arounds work in this particular case.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A couple of days ago, I asked mancunian mystic how she would re-write "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", what would satisfy her concerns. So far she's not responded, and perhaps why she hasn't is that there is no way it can be done in a manner which avoids heresy.
Actually, she did-- just a few posts above. She (I think it's she?) suggested the standard, "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer". Which, yes, is often cited as modalist. But then most of our language about God falls into some heresy-- usually modalism-- sooner or later. Sometimes you just have to go with the image/terminology and then correct for the error after the fact. Just as we do with "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"-- we use the gendered image, but then teach after the fact that God is not male. This works with teaching and preaching, but obviously not with liturgy.
[ 14. August 2016, 04:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I can't speak of the UK, but here the context of using the male singular pronoun for the Father, indeed use of Father itself, would be clearly understood as using the only language we have, not as being sexist. Thinking of it as being sexist would be thought of as well and truly out of date. And yes, I saw mancunian mystic's suggestion, which is why I added the words "without heresy" - the suggestion seems to me to fall within modalism.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I can't speak of the UK, but here the context of using the male singular pronoun for the Father, indeed use of Father itself, would be clearly understood as using the only language we have, not as being sexist. Thinking of it as being sexist would be thought of as well and truly out of date.
Really? That is the precise opposite of the case here. Thinking of gendered language as correct or natural is very much out-dated thinking in the US-- the sort of thing I was taught in school in the 1960s.
Again, pronouns for God are a special case, so it's not so much that one seems "out of date" when one uses male pronouns for God. As I said upthread, I do so regularly in preaching or teaching-- tho almost never in written communication, particularly formal writing. It is, as you said, an unfortunate reality many of us fall into out of convenience for reasons noted above. But I don't think anyone is really happy with it, ultimately this norm will change just as male pronouns as default for humans has gone.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And yes, I saw mancunian mystic's suggestion, which is why I added the words "without heresy" - the suggestion seems to me to fall within modalism.
Not to belabor the point, but that's not exactly what you said. What you said was:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A couple of days ago, I asked mancunian mystic how she would re-write "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", what would satisfy her concerns. So far she's not responded, and perhaps why she hasn't is that there is no way it can be done in a manner which avoids heresy.
Which doesn't sound like, "she answered, but the answer was heresy". It sounds like, "she didn't answer, because she knows to do so will involve heresy". Those are two different things.
As I said when I first mentioned modalism, I'm not as worried about modalism as most theologians, and certainly not as much as the patristics. It's so ubiquitous that it seems "natural"-- I think it's just a byproduct of our own human thinking. Often our efforts to avoid heresy just mean that we stop talking about God, or stop saying much of anything meaningful. Or we keep repeating the same few things over and over, even when it creates other sorts of inaccuracies, such as the ones mancunian mystic points out. I would rather go with the language that makes sense, whether it's a modalistic image like the "ice" analogy, or modalistic terminology like "creator, redeemer, sustainer"-- and then explain the modalist issue in the context of why the image falls short. Again, this is precisely what we already do with "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"-- use an image that has proven to be somewhat problematic, simply because it's also quite helpful (and, of course, biblical and traditional). So we use the image, knowing the problems, then teach to that issue, the problematic parts, in the contextualization.
[ 14. August 2016, 04:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[Really? That is the precise opposite of the case here. Thinking of gendered language as correct or natural is very much out-dated thinking in the US-- the sort of thing I was taught in school in the 1960s.
Let me repeat: I write only in the context of the use of Father, He and so forth in religion, not in more general discourse.
As to the balance of your post: I'm not going to debate what you think I said with what in fact I wrote. mancunian mystic wrote of her concerns and what caused her pain. Quite a few posters have sought to explore these matters but her response has not set out what would deal with those matters to her satisfaction; she has basically repeated her original post. I'd like her to tell us how she'd like these matters dealt with.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I must admit to be surprised by this post as it has never occurred to me to allow gender terms to interfere with my faith. Does it really matter what we call God? I find when I'm worshipping or in prayer I'm just addressing God, not visualising,hearing or speaking male or female language. To think otherwise is rather like the eternal argument of whether the milk goes in the cup first or last when making a cup of tea.I'm sure God doesn't mind what terms we use, so I choose to worship God as I see fit.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
this is one of my questions. Why is the church so reluctant to use any alternative to the traditional male-centered language?
Religion is so closely bound up with conservatism that sometimes it's hard to imagine one without the other.
Keeping faith, being faithful, means privileging what you thought or said then over what you think or are tempted to think now - the past as the yardstick with which to judge the present.
Christianity is the story of a man who spoke of his Father in heaven, and what those who followed him said and did. Take that away and what's left ?
If it's true that younger people don't have access to the sense of "his" as a default when gender is unknown, but always hear it as saying something about gender, the conservatives would say that that is a loss, that society should go back to how it was. That's the solution if the past judges the present. Its the progressive (used here as the opposite of conservative) assumption that the present must judge the past - that the modern way is automatically the right way, that Christianity needs to be rewritten to comply with current social ideas that makes this a hot potato.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I must admit to be surprised by this post as it has never occurred to me to allow gender terms to interfere with my faith. Does it really matter what we call God? I find when I'm worshipping or in prayer I'm just addressing God, not visualising,hearing or speaking male or female language. To think otherwise is rather like the eternal argument of whether the milk goes in the cup first or last when making a cup of tea.I'm sure God doesn't mind what terms we use, so I choose to worship God as I see fit.
In my experience it's more problematic for some people than for others. It might just have to do with the different ways people's imaginations work, are the fact that some people are more visual than others. And, of course, it has a lot to do with your experience: if you've had unhappy experiences with "fathers" you're obviously going to have a lot more trouble relating to the image than someone whose father was loving, kind and just.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In an age of increasing family breakdown and absent or successive fathers the problem of Christian 'father language' may become more than just an academic issue.
There's an American psychologist who wrote a book about the possible connection (in some but obviously not all cases) between atheism and defective or absent fathers. Some Christians will baulk at the potentially conservative uses of such an idea, but the Christian feminist desire to reduce 'father language' is an attempt to deal with the same basic problem, ISTM.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In an age of increasing family breakdown and absent or successive fathers the problem of Christian 'father language' may become more than just an academic issue.
There's an American psychologist who wrote a book about the possible connection (in some but obviously not all cases) between atheism and defective or absent fathers. Some Christians will baulk at the potentially conservative uses of such an idea, but the Christian feminist desire to reduce 'father language' is an attempt to deal with the same basic problem, ISTM.
I suspect Paul Vitz (the psychologist in question) is wrong and that he used selection bias to get the results he wanted.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In an age of increasing family breakdown and absent or successive fathers the problem of Christian 'father language' may become more than just an academic issue.
There's an American psychologist who wrote a book about the possible connection (in some but obviously not all cases) between atheism and defective or absent fathers. Some Christians will baulk at the potentially conservative uses of such an idea, but the Christian feminist desire to reduce 'father language' is an attempt to deal with the same basic problem, ISTM.
I suspect Paul Vitz (the psychologist in question) is wrong and that he used selection bias to get the results he wanted.
I dunno... anecdotally, I am not the only pastor who has observed this concern expressed by parishioners with absentee or abusive fathers. At the very least there is a disconnect, a distancing from the language of God, which is pretty problematic given that's the substance of our faith.
Whether or not that's a leading cause of atheism is another matter of course. But based on anecdotal experience, it at least makes sense that it's a factor.
Which of course begs the question about what to do with it-- conservative churches tend to teach a sort of "replacement father" theology-- keep the imagery but explicitly teach God as the replacement for the defective earthly father. More progressive churches tend to substitute different imagery. It would be interesting to devise some way to measure which is more effective in capturing the hearts/imagination of those with deficient fathers.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How would you express the traditional Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
One version I've come across is Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer. That at least ungenders it. Not being a theologian, I suspect that anything I came up with for myself would be deemed suspect! I just tried Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit. It sounds strange and, interestingly, immediately jars just because it pigeonholes God into one gender - it feels much too specific. Which presumably Father/Son would too if we hadn't been hearing it since the cradle.
I think the way forward is to accept that there's no one version that is free of problems and therefore we need to use several.
Ideally I think, we'd switch between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Mother, Daughter, and Holy Spirit. The fact that both are gender specific would then I think just keep alive our awareness that God is always beyond our ability to grasp God with language.
(One of my problems with Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, is that it seems to present itself as a blandish way to do the job, and I don't think the job can be done in any one way.)
This still leaves the problems Cliffdweller describes as to how to get to there from here.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Net Spinster
Well, one could no doubt write another book, about how a different bunch of famous people with caring, engaged, Christian fathers became atheists.
A range of different factors will lead to different outcomes. Vitz as a Christian convert himself would no doubt agree that the Holy Spirit can work in all kinds of situations. Yet from where I'm standing it's not hard to see that faith often reveals itself more in certain quarters and less in others. There are more obstacles to faith in some environments than there are in others.
More research into the influence of fathers in Christian faith transmission, and in Christian attitudes about Father God, would be interesting, and would be be relevant to both men and women.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
catnip
Apprentice
# 18638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is actually not true. Jewish women had a remarkable amount of freedom compared to the Taliban-style culture you are envisioning.
It is really sad that due to this view the way that Jesus treated women, as you point out in the remainder of your post, is not seen as extraordinary. In the past I have done extensive research on the subject and what I find available to refer you to online is very limited, but you are mistaken about 1st Century views on women in society. It is true that earlier women had held a loftier position, that they could be involved in Temple worship, even in singing, that women like Deborah could be remembered . . . well, I will offer a few inadequate links to show you that what I reflected is grounded on more substantial research elsewhere.
Life of Jesus
The Role of Women: In first century Israel, women were considered second-class citizens, akin to slaves. The fact that they are mentioned as avid followers of Jesus is unusual – both that they would be allowed to follow him with his disciples, and unusual that the authors of Jesus’ biographies would mention their presence at all.
Religioustolerance.org, The Status of Women in the Christian Gospels
It is a very good summation which points out clearly the limitations on women and the ways that Jesus treated women that were exceptional rather than treating what he did as a norm in that time and place.
quote:
IMHO if you took a Jewish woman of basically any biblical time period and dropped them into the Taliban they would go utterly nuts. The restrictions and misogyny would be almost as foreign to them as to us. [/QB]
I'm sorry that you believe that. But you are not alone in your rosy view of women's lives in that time and place.
Posts: 17 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Catnip, you want to go more deeply into this subject using people with proper credentials and background in the field. Here is what the author of your material has up on the site about himself. A bachelor's in science does not qualify one to make pronouncements about ancient societies. Simply reading and studying the Bible is enough to show that he's got some learning to do (as do we all).
I am not omniscient myself, but I do have 40 years in Bible studies, both text and background, Greek and Hebrew (and a touch of Aramaic as well). In addition to that (equivalent of at least an STM) I hold a doctorate in an unrelated field (English) which nevertheless has given me the tools to do research, evaluate sources, and handle texts carefully. I also have a lifetime of cross-cultural service and the ordinary experiences any woman follower of Jesus possesses.
And I can tell you that on the Ship, you will find any number of people whose credentials are way up in the stratosphere.
We don't agree all the time, of course. But it's a great place both to learn and to discuss. Just be aware that if you make dogmatic statements about academic subjects like history or liturgy, there's bound to be someone lurking on the Ship who will have done his/her doctoral thesis on the subject--and can hand you the whole kit and caboodle, with footnotes attached.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If it's true that younger people don't have access to the sense of "his" as a default when gender is unknown, but always hear it as saying something about gender, the conservatives would say that that is a loss, that society should go back to how it was.
Whether or not "he" is heard as gender-neutral is a linguistic thing, not a social one. Granted, the two aren't completely independent, but if you want to communicate with someone, you have to do so in a language he understands. And if he understands the pronoun in this sentence to be referring to a male person, then you need to find some different language.
Or you can be the elderly lady insisting that she had a gay time with her friends at the park today.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't speak for the experience cross-pond, but here in US, yes, definitely "he" is heard as gendered by most under-40s.
And by many in their 40s and older in my experience.
quote:
It's pronouns for God that really create the sticking point, since none of the usual work-arounds work in this particular case.
Which is why many people I know avoid pronouns for God altogether—"God so loved the world that God gave God's only son...." Of course, that comes with problems too. After all, there's a reason we use pronouns. But sometimes I think there may be a benefit there. It does underscore the way in which gendered language, and perhaps any language, is inadequate.
quote:
Actually, she did-- just a few posts above. She (I think it's she?) suggested the standard, "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer".
There's also the usage I encounter with some regularity of using "God" specifically for the first person of the Trinity, as in "God, Son and Holy Spirit" or "God, Christ and Holy Spirit." Of course, that presents the problem of suggesting that the second and third persons of the Trinity are not God. On the other hand, it does have biblical warrant—"the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit...."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I must admit to be surprised by this post as it has never occurred to me to allow gender terms to interfere with my faith. Does it really matter what we call God? I find when I'm worshipping or in prayer I'm just addressing God, not visualising,hearing or speaking male or female language. To think otherwise is rather like the eternal argument of whether the milk goes in the cup first or last when making a cup of tea.I'm sure God doesn't mind what terms we use, so I choose to worship God as I see fit.
Gendered terms DO interfere with some people's faith, and they're not choosing or allowing to make it so; it has to do with their experiences of life. The whole point of discussing this is to see if we can find ways of talking about God that will not be a stumbling block for such people. It is a position of privilege to say "I will worship as I see fit." We need to think about how what we "see fit" can hurt others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There's also the usage I encounter with some regularity of using "God" specifically for the first person of the Trinity, as in "God, Son and Holy Spirit" or "God, Christ and Holy Spirit." Of course, that presents the problem of suggesting that the second and third persons of the Trinity are not God. On the other hand, it does have biblical warrant—"the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit...."
Or the command to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Mousethief, I'm not denying the problems of the traditional language, nor the hurt that some feel from that use. What I am doing is asking for alternative wording that avoids falling in to error. Those put up so far seem to me to contain the error of modalism.
[ 15. August 2016, 03:23: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gee D, I was responding to bib (whom I quoted). I do not suggest that you seek to dodge this problem. I agree with you that the proposed solutions (most noticeably Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer) are modalist. I do not myself know what the solution is. It begins to seem intractable.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Gee D, I was responding to bib (whom I quoted). I do not suggest that you seek to dodge this problem. I agree with you that the proposed solutions (most noticeably Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer) are modalist. I do not myself know what the solution is. It begins to seem intractable.
Thank you, I misunderstood that you were replying to bib. I agree that it seems intractable, but thought (and still think) that it's appropriate to ask those who feel the hurt how they would answer it.
BTW, a common form here is Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Still modalist.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
God the Source,
God the Begotten,
God the Proceder
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I dunno... anecdotally, I am not the only pastor who has observed this concern expressed by parishioners with absentee or abusive fathers. At the very least there is a disconnect, a distancing from the language of God, which is pretty problematic given that's the substance of our faith.
Whether or not that's a leading cause of atheism is another matter of course. But based on anecdotal experience, it at least makes sense that it's a factor.
The problem is that all Vitz seems to provide is anecdotal evidence and doing that can often be self-confirming. If there is an effect I suspect it is more general in cause (e.g., people who have an unhappy childhood) and result (e.g., these people are more likely to change the religion/life stance they grew up with) but even that could be wrong. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (p. 542) has a short comment about Vitz's theory and some similar ones 'Furthermore, theories of emotional atheism are more advanced than empirical data that might support them'.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not to belabor the point, but that's not exactly what you said. What you said was:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A couple of days ago, I asked mancunian mystic how she would re-write "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", what would satisfy her concerns. So far she's not responded, and perhaps why she hasn't is that there is no way it can be done in a manner which avoids heresy.
Which doesn't sound like, "she answered, but the answer was heresy". It sounds like, "she didn't answer, because she knows to do so will involve heresy". Those are two different things.
As I said when I first mentioned modalism, I'm not as worried about modalism as most theologians, and certainly not as much as the patristics. It's so ubiquitous that it seems "natural"-- I think it's just a byproduct of our own human thinking. Often our efforts to avoid heresy just mean that we stop talking about God, or stop saying much of anything meaningful. Or we keep repeating the same few things over and over, even when it creates other sorts of inaccuracies, such as the ones mancunian mystic points out. I would rather go with the language that makes sense, whether it's a modalistic image like the "ice" analogy, or modalistic terminology like "creator, redeemer, sustainer"-- and then explain the modalist issue in the context of why the image falls short. Again, this is precisely what we already do with "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"-- use an image that has proven to be somewhat problematic, simply because it's also quite helpful (and, of course, biblical and traditional). So we use the image, knowing the problems, then teach to that issue, the problematic parts, in the contextualization.
"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is of course a metaphor, not a literal description. Like all metaphors, it is a device of human language that is useful within limits to communicate a concept by analogy, but it falls apart when you try to understand it literally or otherwise stretch it beyond its limits. For example, it falls apart (and into heresy) if you try to infer (1) that it means that the first person is male or (2) that the second person is descended from the first and came into existence at a later time, through a generative process of some kind.
I also don't see why formulas like "creator, redeemer, sustainer" would necessarily be heretical or modalistic (or for that matter, why "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" necessarily implies orthodox Trinitarianism). "Creator, redeemer, sustainer" acurately describes the different roles of the three persons in the Trinitarian model, and can easily be supported from scripture. To my way of thinking, it's no ore and no less orthodox than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" -- it's just that it's less traditional. You could just as easily come up with other scripturally sound formulas as well -- such as "Almighty, Savior, Comforter". Like the traditional one, they only slip into heresy if you stretch the metaphor beyond its breaking point.
As for being untroubled by modalism, though, I disagree. Orthodoxy holds Jesus to be simultaneously and equally human and divine -- which indeed is very difficult concept to comprehend -- but if you cannot comprehend it, I think it is more dangerous to lose sight of his humanity than his divinity.
[ 15. August 2016, 11:51: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I also don't see why formulas like "creator, redeemer, sustainer" would necessarily be heretical or modalistic (or for that matter, why "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" necessarily implies orthodox Trinitarianism). "Creator, redeemer, sustainer" acurately describes the different roles of the three persons in the Trinitarian model, and can easily be supported from scripture.
The problem is that all three persons are creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
We can easily support the involvement of all three persons in creation from Scripture: See John 1:3 for the Son, and Genesis 1:2 for the Spirit. Redeemer and sustainer is perhaps a bit less amenable to proof-texting, but I haven't checked. (I think it's in Hebrews that it says of the Son that all things hold together in him: i.e. the Second person is also sustainer.) When it comes to Redeemer this is important: a view of the Trinity in which only the Second person redeems hints at a view where the Judgmental First Person has to be appeased by the merciful Second Person. The First Person initiates redemption and the Third Person makes it effective.
You can make a case that as titles, 'Creator', 'Redeemer', and 'Sustainer' can be most appropriately applied to each of the three persons. But if that is taken to imply that they can only appropriately be applied to one of the three persons then there's a problem.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I also don't see why formulas like "creator, redeemer, sustainer" would necessarily be heretical or modalistic (or for that matter, why "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" necessarily implies orthodox Trinitarianism).
As I understand it, it's not so much that CR&S is necessarily modalistic--more that it's patient of modalism. "Father, Son & Holy Ghost," on the other hand, refers to distinct persons and not functions.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There's also the usage I encounter with some regularity of using "God" specifically for the first person of the Trinity, as in "God, Son and Holy Spirit" or "God, Christ and Holy Spirit." Of course, that presents the problem of suggesting that the second and third persons of the Trinity are not God. On the other hand, it does have biblical warrant—"the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit...."
Or the command to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Or? I'm afraid I'm not quite sure why the "or" in this context. I didn't suggest anything about the baptismal formula.
FWIW, the approach my denomination advocates is inclusive language with regard to humanity, so no masculine as generic, and expansive language about God. Expansive means masculine images like "Father" are still used, but an effort is made to balance or compliment masculine language with other language. The use of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is considered non-negotiable as the baptismal formula, or in contexts that clearly allude to baptism. This is in part because of the clear scriptural warrant and because of ecumenical issues.
So, alternative ways of naming the Trinity are in addition to, not in place of, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Nick Tamen, we are divided by a common language. My use of 'or' was not disjunctive or contradictory but rather the addition of another formula.
I agree with your second paragraph, setting out clearly the answer to Cliffdweller. What is was inappropriate and now wrong in much usage remains correct in this context.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Ah, thanks. Though I should disclose that my failure to catch your meaning could well be attributable to the morning I was having and the lack of sufficient caffeine. All good.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
