quote:

---

[T]he kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart." (Matt. 18:23–35)

---

quote:

---

I am not concerned about this issue simply to avoid offending people, it is a matter of our corporate ability to seek truth effectively. I am convinced that an important aspect of any search for truth is that it must be able to be applied trans-contextually. This means getting as many people, different kinds of people with variant ideas! into the conversation as possible. WHO is in the conversation matters tremendously.

---

I see you point. But at this point my concerns amount to little more than wanting to avoid offending people. Who is in the conversation does matter to me very much, I suppose ‘cause I don’t want to offend them and run ‘em out of the conversation. But are there actually people around who don’t understand that “mankind” means “humankind”? When women read “mankind” do they really think people today intend “Western white males”? When someone uses “he” of God, do they really believe the person using such language thinks God is a “white male”? What I’m trying to say is that I sometimes question the claim that women aren’t IN the conversation where such language is used. I rather think they don’t WANT to be in the conversation and this in turn takes me back to angrily burning bras.

quote:

---

Now for the REALLY personal part of it. I do feel personally insulted when I encounter androcentric langauge. It almost always means "Western, white male voice speaking as though only others of his kind exist" (or worse, someone coopted into that language game).

---

I deeply respect your feelings here, Modes, but I just don’t know how it’s possible to make the claim that androcentric language “almost always” represents Western, white males speaking as though the world consisted only of them. How does one measure such a thing?

quote:

---

…and because of our baptism into Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is nether male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I'm just saying, let's start talking and living like this is really true.

---

The Bible talks like this is true and does so in androcentric language. How is that possible? Are we denying the possibility that women in the NT could or did understand via androcentric language that in Christ there is neither male nor female? But doesn’t this just prove the point that the problem isn’t androcentric language itself (e.g., the Bible) but US? This is what’s confusing me. Some would argue that such language needs to be removed from the Bible. I want to know WHY “we” won’t accept such language anymore? If the reason is legit, I’m prepared to make the adjustment. If it’s not (i.e. if it’s to appease angry bra burners) then I’m disinclined to accommodate such attitudes. Maybe that’s wrong of me, but that’s where I am today.

I could be wrong on all this. Maybe I’m a chauvinistic jerk myself and don’t know it. I don’t think so. But perhaps you can see why in my mind the issue of feminism for me decides how I feel about language.

Affectionately for all women!
Tom


"I don't mean to offend anybody by androcentric language. I know God's not a guy and I believe women are cool. Be patient." TGB

quote:

---

Now for the REALLY personal part of it. I do feel personally insulted when I encounter androcentric langauge. It almost always means "Western, white male voice speaking as though only others of his kind exist" (or worse, someone coopted into that language game).

I deeply respect your feelings here, Modes, but I just don’t know how it’s possible to make the claim that androcentric language “almost always” represents Western, white males speaking as though the world consisted only of them. How does one measure such a thing?

---

quote:

---

God's paradoxical attitude, according to the Fathers
(from the chapter Freedom and Authority in Evdokimov's "In the World, Of the Church")

The Fathers of the Church counsel a negative approach to the mystery of God. They warn of the danger of anthropomorphism which embezzles the concepts of power and omniscience. The Fathers claimed that these categories do not apply to God. He is the "wholly Other," the "mysterious One," the One "eternally sought." The dogma of the Trinity shows that the Gather is not Father because he renounces all superiority in relationship to his Son and the Holy Spirit. In a dignity of equality, the Father gives to the Son and the Spirit all that he has, everything that he is. According to St. John of Damascus, the Three are united not to be lost but in order to be distinct in each other reciprocally. Each divine Person is present in presenting he others, containing the others, offering everything to the others in an eternal circulation of Trinitarian love, of the kind in which divine freedom is identified with love.

The creation of man ("Let us make man in our image") places him in an intimate relationship with the Trinitarian mystery, at the heart of divine sacrificial love. This creation, the masterpiece of the Trinity, implies a certain risk on God's part by a free and sacrificial limitation of his omnipotence. God made us and waits for our free response:" I desire mercy more than sacrifice (Hos 6:6). This is why God "withdraws himself" in order to allow us the pastures of our own hearts, space for our own freedom, for "God is able to do everything except to constrain us to love him," as the patristic saying puts it. He wishes to establish a free reciprocity with us in which he becomes vulnerable, "weak." He gives up his omnipotence. He shares with us the bread of suffering in wishing to also share with us the wine of joy. But this divine "weakness" is actually the apex of his omnipotence it gives rise not to a passive, puppet-like submission, but gives birth to a "new creature," free in the image of divine freedom, that is to say, without limits, someone capable of loving God for himself because he can refuse, say "no" to God as well. This is why God does not manifest himself in thunder and lightening but in the soft breeze, purely interior to our hearts, as the almost secret waiting of a friend (I Kings 19:11-13), According to the great mystics, God is a beggar of divine love who waits at the door of our hears: "See, I am the door and I knock, and it anyone hears me and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him" (Rev. 3:20). According to St. Maximus, God has made himself a beggar because of his bending down low as a beggar towards us, suffering until the end of time, along with each and every person who suffers.

The orders of a tyrant always evoke deaf resistance. On the contrary, The Bible emphasizes the multiplicity of God's appeals and invitations: "Hear, O Israel" (Deut 6:4). "If you wish to be perfect..." (Mt 19:21), "The king sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding banquet" (Mt 22:30), god is the king who makes such an appeal and who waits "in suffering" for the free response of his child. God's authority is a secret action, one that takes place within us. God's is "closer to us than we are to ourselves," as St. Augustine says, for he is infinitely beyond everything that we are able to imagine of him. "I am who I am." God is the Incomparable One, the Imperceptible One. His authority is in his being the shining truth of love, and this is evidence one can neither prove nor demonstrate but which one simply receives, saying with Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).

The prophets never substituted themselves for God but rather transmitted his word. Even the apostles are ministers because they are servants. "But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one Teacher and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father--the one teacher, the Christ" (Mt 23:8-10) Christ is the only Master and Teacher, the Son who transmits to us the Father's love and our divine sonship. The Gospel applies no juridical terms of authority to this "suffering servant," to the "child Jesus." Rather what is implied is the obedience of a spouse. Where authentic love rules, the relationships between spouses are such that obedience becomes truth experienced as reciprocal and open to the presence of Christ. The Church follows the example of the Lord. She is nothing but the servant of the Truth so as not to place an obstacle between people and the Gospel, between children and their Father. The spiritual fathers and mothers do the same in their complete humbling of themselves, making their "spiritual children" not only their own children but children who are free and mature adults in the Lord himself.

"Whoever hears you, hears me" (Lk 10:16). If one places the accent upon "hears you," then this is a juridical concept of authority and the delegation of powers of a sovereign lawmaker. But the one, unique will of God is to unite himself to us in a love that is free. To the pyramidal concept of the Church, with the delegations of power cascading hierarchically is opposed the figure of the concentric circle, with God as Love at the center radiating our, and as the rays approach each other, they converge towards the divine center. There is no questioning of the church's authority here, insofar as she is the location of the Word and the divine presence. Rather we must not confuse God with the ministries and the human functionaries in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Where authentic love rules, the relationships between spouses are such that obedience becomes truth experienced as reciprocal and open to the presence of Christ.

---

quote:

---

SK: there is an infinite qualitative difference between us and God.

---