Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Feminist theology

Forum Quick Jump

78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

tomboy
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 3

Posted 8/27/2001 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

I used to consider myself a moderate kind of feminist. I loved reading feminist lit. and (hopefully unintentionally) kept a mental list of wrongs that had been done to the female race. I was interested in theology, too, and struggled with different issues. Then, I had (gasp) a son. What was I going to do with a boy? I mean, don't they like wrestling and toy guns??
It's funny, as terrified of having a boy then is as much as I love boys now.

I've taken way too many classes at the U of M that berate men -- mainly white, western men. It's considered wrong to show prejudice in any form and yet it's okay to mock and stereotype these men (as well as Christians). I've seriously sat in classes (and spoken out in classes) where the prof. blatantly male-bashed and blamed all the problems of the world (literally) on the hierarchy of men.
Boys growing up in today's world are being stripped of their God-given passions and having them replaced with apathy and shame.

The trouble (I think) with focusing on a topic like feminist theology is that it's inherently divisive. It's not tearing down walls, it's building them. Suddenly there's this record of wrongs. There's this stripping of God's nature to only one side. But God truly is both the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb of God" -- no less one than the other.
Unfortunately, there is no getting around using a pronoun to describe God -- but since even Christ calls him his father, it's a pretty safe bet that 'he' is a better choice than 'she' in my book. And what's wrong with that? What is so inherently wrong with 'he' 'him' men, boys that it needs to be changed into something more acceptable?

I love the tearing down of walls. I love the beauty of unity in diversity. Genders are a part of that rich diversity.
I really respect your knowlege, pia. Thanks for all your thoughts. I'd enjoy hearing more.

Edited by - tomboy on 08/28/2001 12:09:30 AM

tomboy
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 3

Posted 8/27/2001 7:49 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, so now I can't sleep! I keep thinking about how single women are adopting children and of single women giving birth with no intention af writing a name on the birth certificate. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not not putting down single mothers -- I am one -- and I speak from experience when I say that children need their fathers. Sometimes seems as though we've written off the need for fathers -- even God the Father. We'll just change it to mother.

And here's another thought, (and a 3!!!) We as believers are called the children of God, right? And God is our Father. But where is the nurturing mother? The church. The bride of Christ. A beautiful triune three.

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 8/28/2001 4:52 AM (GMT -6)

tomboy, thanks for your thoughts!

tomboy: I've taken way too many classes at the U of M that berate men -- mainly white, western men.

pia: I’ve been educated in an environment where people are oblivious at best, hostile at worst, toward feminist concerns. So maybe this explains my more sympathetic take.

tomboy: It's considered wrong to show prejudice in any form and yet it's okay to mock and stereotype these men (as well as Christians). I've seriously sat in classes (and spoken out in classes) where the prof. blatantly male-bashed and blamed all the problems of the world (literally) on the hierarchy of men.

pia: Well if white men have had all the power, then they are easy targets for all the blame for all the problems. However, this is obviously a hypocritical cheap shot and feminists should know better. I’m married to a western white male who is definitely part of the solution, not part of the problem. And many women willingly support the hierarchical structures that put men in power (I used to be one). Generalizations and stereotypes based on gender are oh-so-easy to deconstruct, as feminists well know.

tomboy: The trouble (I think) with focusing on a topic like feminist theology is that it's inherently divisive. It's not tearing down walls, it's building them. Suddenly there's this record of wrongs. There's this stripping of God's nature to only one side.

pia: Feminists spend a lot of time and energy examining themselves and accusing one another of simply reinforcing (albeit in reverse) the structure of dominance that has subordinated women for so long. They do not seek merely a reversal of patriarchy in their favor, rather they seek a revolution—a new way of being human that is good for men and women and doesn’t privilege one above the other. Feminists who speak in anger, whether justified or not, do put up walls by (among other things) feeding the stereotype that feminists are men-haters.

tomboy: Christ calls him his father, it's a pretty safe bet that 'he' is a better choice than 'she' in my book. And what's wrong with that? What is so inherently wrong with 'he' 'him' men, boys that it needs to be changed into something more acceptable?

pia: There is nothing inherently wrong with God as "him," since both men and women image God, but historically it has been problematic and theologically and biblically just plain inaccurate when God is described exclusively as "him." To the extent that our culture worships God exclusively as "him" is the extent to which God’s nature has been stripped to only one side, as you suggested feminists are guilty of doing. Feminists who insist on exclusively calling God "her" (or refuse to refer to God at all because of the way God has been invoked to reinforce patriarchal strongholds, as one feminist thealogian I read did) also diminish our understanding of God’s nature, but at least they are countering the status quo in the process.

Rather than building walls, the "record of wrongs" you referred to opens eyes to the way patriarchy has functioned in our culture historically. Satan is a roaring lion (or as our worship pastor once said, "the devil is a dirty dog") who preys on wounded people and pits them against each other (i.e. racist white feminists vs. sexist black men). Rather than "whining" about past abuses, or seeking a scapegoat to blame and punish (i.e. western white men), men and women need to work together toward a solution. We need each other and we need God, as graygirl articulated so well in the tearing down walls section.

tomboy: I love the tearing down of walls.

pia: Me too.

But that’s the easy part. We need to be about building something too. This entails responsibility, courage, hard work, time, and the grace of God. The task is never finished.

tomboy: I really respect your knowlege. Thanks for all your thoughts. I'd enjoy hearing more.

pia: Ditto!

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/28/2001 6:14 AM (GMT -6)

First, I just wanted to jolt down a thanks to all who are posting, because I have learned alot through each of them...you guys are great!
It would seem to me it is always hard to walk the line of righting wrongs without the right becoming the wrong. For instance, tak Jesse Jackson. I believe he is suppose to be a Rev. Yet when was the last time you heard him get on TV and preached about the forgivness of sins through Jesus Christ. What a platform he has! Yet his message is one-sided and never really deals with the bigger issue (man's sin).
I believe there are issues to be dealt with here, but I also believe that all issues come back to the person of Jesus Christ, his death, his resurrection. It should also be noted that the abuse of woman is a problem with all men most times, and certainly isn't simply a "white man's" problem. But abuse, to me, is common in all people regardless of race or sex. People tend to dominate and subvert when given the chance.
From the intro to "Living The Message," a devotional written by Eugene Peterson (the intro written by his wife):
"Many times in his speaking and writing, I have thought that Eugene's words seemed like a voice crying in the wilderness, going against the current, refusing the fads. The North American church has, to use the Hosea image, "gone a-whoriing." We have lost out first love and bought into the culture. Many would say that Eugene was not relevant because he stayed with scripture, told stories, and let the scripture and story sink into the marrow of the bone. There weren't any quick results to show people, nothing to excite them on the surface. During the 6os, when many pastors turned from the scriptures to psychology or to topical issues, he stayed with the biblical material. When I asked him why he didn't preach on fair housing , he said, "If people hear the word of God, they will eventually practice fair housing." When others preached morality, he simply proclaimed the good news of Jesus Christ. When all the programs started being offered in churches to meet everyone's need, he was trying to get people to worship faithfully and then go out to bear witness in the neighborhood, school, hom, workplace."
When Larry Norman, in the 70s, was asked why Christians weren't marched for peace and against the Vietman war, he replied: "Stop marching for peace and start marching for Jesus and peace will take care of itself." John 17:3 Harold

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 8/28/2001 8:05 AM (GMT -6)

Harold, your post reminds me of an inspiring story I read in Christianity Today. I think it was about the Billy Graham thing in Amsterdam a while back.

Anyway, aparrantly Ravi Zacharias gave an impassioned speech about the dangers of postmodernism and how it was corrupting our culture. Anne Graham Lotz spoke next and she countered that our culture’s greatest threat was not postmodernism, it is—and always has been—sin. The solution to sin is not anti-postmodernism, it’s redemption through Jesus Christ.

Sure, it’s safer and more satisfying to be able to point the finger at some trend or behavior or ideology or kind of person and say, “There’s the problem.” But unfortunately, sin is not reducible to any of these “problems,” otherwise we could solve it ourselves. People, whatever is not done in faith is sin and we all have fallen short. We need a Savior.

Reconciliation with God does not get us off the hook regarding reconciliation with each other. We are in Christ, Christ is in us, and we are called to be Christ-like. Ever think about what that really means? Check out these verses that Doc preached on last Sunday: “[Jesus] is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups [in this context, Jews and Gentiles, but substitute men and women, black and white, rich and poor, etc.] into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.…so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.…

In Christ,
pia

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 8/28/2001 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

Pia, you just slay me. Thank you for your balanced and irresistable take on this issue. I wish you would have been around when I was really immersed in the feminist stance towards Christianity. It was hard to wade through without a moderating voice.

I'd like to hear what you have to say on the feminist tendency towards the deification of Mary. I know that the woman who wrote She Who Is is a Catholic nun, and although it has been many years since I read the book, I seem to remember her going down that path to some extent. (I could be wrong: like I said, it's been a long time since I read it.) Also, did she intimate that Wisdom, who is personified as a woman, was the preincarnate Christ? Can you say a little bit about that too?

Thanks again,

Churchmouse

"If we agree to search for Truth, we do violence to that search any time we silence a voice." Modes of Thought

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 8/28/2001 8:46 AM (GMT -6)

What happens when those who are supposedly fighting for or preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ do not themselves practice peace, fair housing, charity, equality, etc.? I'll tell you, they thereby demonstrate the atheist's pragmatic claim to be true, the church is hypocritical. I for one DO preach the gospel of Christ in the ways that I am called, but another very clear calling on my life has been that of CORRECTION for the sake of the witness of the church. The peace, equity, etc. historically DOES NOT take care of itself.

I agree FORMALLY 100% with what Harold suggests, that if we preach Christ, the rest will take care of itself. IF we lived in a perfect world this would happen, but we live in no such world. I disagree materially 100% with the same claim (posted by Harold above) because history has proven this claim false. Until God releases me from the burden to fight for justice IN THE CHURCH you will not be able to knock me off my soapbox. However big a fool I may make of myself (ecclesially, politically, acedemically, etc.) this is what the Lord requires of me. OF COURSE corrections often over-achieve, but this does not mean that the corrections were not led of God and badly needed. Though their being led of God is sufficient to warrant their occurance.

The prophets played the role of "liberationist" in the Old Testament (read the prophets and it becomes painfully obvious how important justice was, and how vocally and intentionally it needed to be dealt with), we must recognize that such a role still exists today for the church. Tony Campolo, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and others are such examples on the large scale, and if they had been heeded, perhaps we would not need to have this conversation, but they have not been so heeded. It is NOT a matter of the culture infiltrating the church, unless you want to say that Paul (AND Jesus!, and Moses and all the other prophets) succombed to the same error, rather it is a matter of God's people hearing God's voice and correcting God's church for the sake of its witness to Christ in the world. One of the biggest complaints of nonbeleivers against the chruch is our hypocracy, who is to confront and correct that? It doesn't surprise me that it is not welcome, but that doesn't mean that it is not needed. Who all enjoys getting vaccinations? Let's be real. God expects more of us. Whining (as some accuse me and others of) is not godly but correction is and it is badly needed.

Please note! I am talking about the situation IN the church! We do not and cannot replace the gospel with some social issue. But we dare not neglect justice in our midst if we expect our witness to be effective! Let's get clear and serious about this. What is truly sad is when a culture becomes more sensitive to issues of justice than the church is! If the church has to play catch up with the culture (even just some small part of the culture), then we have lost the fight already. Too much of conservative Christianity is in danger of just this. NOTE: the sensitivity of the culture may be for all the wrong reasons, but this doesn't mean that there cannot be right (biblical even) reasons for SOME of those same goals. This is where we have dropped the ball, IMHO. In our desire to be against the world we have positioned ourselves against what is GODLY in the culture, right along with what may not be godly in same culture. Rather we should join with those who fight for the right goals and offer even better reasons for doing so than they currently have available to them; that is the love of God in Christ. A point of contact would occur to use a godly intuition in the lost to point them to the true source of such righteousness in all its purity.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/28/2001 11:05 AM (GMT -6)

Modes: I believe your disagreement with me is because you are misinterpreting what I was saying (or perhaps how I said it was not clear). What Peterson and Norman were expressing in those quotes is that if we preach the gospel correctly and live the gospel as Christ would have us, we (and those we bring to the gospel) will live in such a way as to transform the world around us. For instance, Paul never railed against slavery, nor the other injustices of the Roman empire. Instead, he called Christians to live lives worthy of their Lord. When we, as a church do that fully the world around us can be transformed.
My point was that we, as Christians, need to realize what our true cause is. Our true cause is Christ and everything else flows from that. Is there injustice against woman? Yes. Should we fight that injustice? Yes. But that injustice is not our cause. Our cause is Christ. If we start thinking that injustice against woman (and I am only using this as an example) is our cause, then we begin to think we are doing it, that we can effectively fight that cause and we lose sight of the fact that, in order to change the world, God's power must flow through us. My point is not that we shouldn't fight evil. We should be fighting evil everyday of our lives. But my point is that when we center on our true cause in life (our "one thing"), everything else we do will flow through that. John 17:3 Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/28/2001 11:14 AM (GMT -6)

Modes: I would add that it seemed to me that you thought I was adicating withdrawing from the world, so the world may go to hell. This certainly is not true. Again, my point is simply that we need to center on our true cause.
I would add, though, that both the conservative and the liberal wings of the church are party to problems. If the conservatives tend to want to condemn and have nothing to do with the world, liberals tend to follow any "cool" trend in order to redeem the world. Either is esprecially effective, because, conservatives tend not to show the love of Christ to the world and liberals make the gospel so social that the world fails to see why it would even need it. Again, though, my point is we, as Christians, need to continuely search for the will of God in Christ, search how Christ would have us live. When the world sees us taking care of the homeless, the unwed mothers, the AIDS victims, it will see the need for God. Until then...we're just another boat people sit in. John 17:3 Harold

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 8/28/2001 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Harold, that helps. I agree especially with your last sentence above. I will continue to maintain, however that the church needs the prophetic voice of correction which shows concern for the oppressed just as badly as Israel needed it in the Old Testament. Jesus provides that for us in many places and so it should be reflected in the internal self-talk of the body of Christ. This is precisely what Pia is trying to do, though I think she is being overly diplomatic. Hence my more strongly worded section above.

Love ya brother.
Modes

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/28/2001 3:50 PM (GMT -6)

Pia:

Do you want to offer five more "faves?"

PotOnWheel

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 8/28/2001 4:16 PM (GMT -6)

Dearest Mouse,

On the deification of Mary:

There is a movement within Catholicism to name Mary "co-redemptrix" with Christ; in Latin American Catholicism, Our Lady of Guadalupe is worshiped as a divine figure; the Eastern Orthodox depiction of Mary as "Theotokos"—Mother of God—has historically been controversial because it implies divinity. I don’t know very much about these things, and I don’t think they are explicitly or exclusively feminist—e.g. Latin American worship of Our Lady is based on revelation (they believe the virgin Mary appeared to a man named Juan Diego in a vision). Although Johnson refers to Mary as a powerful icon of motherly attributes of God, she does not argue that Mary herself is divine. Some Catholics appeal (often at the risk of excommunication) to Mary’s spiritual status and authority as an argument for women’s ordination (Jesus’ gender continues to serve as a key justification for men-only ordination in the Catholic church).

Christ, the Wisdom (Sophia) of God (1 Cor. 1:24):

Johnson summarizes the biblical portrayal of Sophia as "a personified figure who, while obviously transcendent, comes toward human beings, tests and challenges them. She is a beneficent, right-ordering power in whom God delights and by whom God creates; her constant effort is to lure human beings to life."

Some examples of New Testament allusions to Sophia texts (allusions which Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad argues are deliberate rather than incidental invocations which reinforced Jesus’ claims to spiritual authority) include:

image of the invisible God and radiant light of God’s glory (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26)

firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15; Prov. 8:22)

the one through whom all things were made (1 Cor. 8:6; Prov. 3:19)

calls the heavy-burdened to come for rest, offers her yoke (Matt. 11:28–30; Sirach 24:19, 22; 51:26)

gives life to who love her (John 17:2; Prov. 4:13; Wisdom of Solomon 9:18)

calls out in a loud voice in public places, uttering blessing and threat (John 7:28, 37; Prov. 1:20–33; chap. 8)

identified as God’s Word (John 1:1–18 [logos]; Sirach 24:23 [torah])

themes of seeking and finding (John 1:38, 41; 10:10; Prov. 8:17; 35)

symbols of bread, wine, and water, and the invitations to eat and drink relate Jesus to Sophia’s interactions with people (Prov. 9:1–6).

Wisdom was a common title for Christ in the early church fathers. For example, Origen and Augustine refer to Christ as the incarnation of Sophia. Origen: "We believe that the very Word of the Father, the Wisdom of God himself, was enclosed within the limits of that man who appeared in Judea; nay more, that God’s Wisdom entered a woman’s womb, was born as an infant, and wailed like crying children." Augustine: "But she is sent in one way that she may be with human beings; she has been sent in another way that she herself might be a human being." (The apocryphal book of Baruch describes Wisdom as appearing on earth and living among human beings [3:37].) Wisdom Christology is also expressed in the stone of great churches built in Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Orthodoxy, and dedicated to Christ under the title "Hagia Sophia" (Holy Wisdom).

For those of us who are concerned that Johnson’s sophia-christology may be anti-man, consider this: "The fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a male human being is not in question, nor, in a more just church, would it even be an issue. Jesus’ maleness is a constitutive element of his identity, part of the perfection and limitation of his historical contingency, and as such is to be respected.…" The connection between Jesus and Sophia is invited by the biblical text itself, and helps men and women enrich our understanding of and relationship to Christ rather than diminish it.

pia

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 8/28/2001 4:31 PM (GMT -6)

A New Testament favorite:

Claudia, the only person who had the courage to defend Jesus during his trial and crucifixion, in spite of the fact that she was a politically powerful Jewess (and therefore under the authority of Caiaphas the high priest) who was married to Pilate (and therefore under the authority of the Roman government). In spite of her warnings that Jesus was innocent and her appeals for his release, Pilate still wondered, “What is truth?”

pia

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 8/28/2001 4:51 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Pia! That was a wonderful summary. I so much appreciate conversing with folks who are not afraid to explore the richness of the Biblical witness. I know you have probably gotten your share of blank stares for it. So here's a different kind of look in response to your thoughts:

Mouse

"If we agree to search for Truth, we do violence to that search any time we silence a voice." Modes of Thought

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/28/2001 5:36 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Pia:

Friend, what you wrote above requires some serious fixing. Not optional. Heavy stuff that can't be botched.

I'll clip it below, then pull out to make my points. Finally, let me leave you with a very handy and well indexed link that you can use to check things against!

quote:
On the deification of Mary:
There is a movement within Catholicism to name Mary "co-redemptrix" with Christ; in Latin American Catholicism, Our Lady of Guadalupe is worshiped as a divine figure; the Eastern Orthodox depiction of Mary as "Theotokos"‹Mother of God‹has historically been controversial because it implies divinity. I don¹t know very much about these things, and I don¹t think they are explicitly or exclusively feminist‹e.g. Latin American worship of Our Lady is based on revelation (they believe the virgin Mary appeared to a man named Juan Diego in a vision). Although Johnson refers to Mary as a powerful icon of motherly attributes of God, she does not argue that Mary herself is divine. Some Catholics appeal (often at the risk of excommunication) to Mary¹s spiritual status and authority as an argument for women¹s ordination (Jesus¹ gender continues to serve as a key justification for men-only ordination in the Catholic church).

First: "the Eastern Orthodox depiction of Mary as "Theotokos"‹Mother of God‹has historically been controversial because it implies divinity."

The term "Theotokos" is a Christological arguement. Learn that history. What you wrote above would seem to say that Orthodoxy teaches that Mary is divine. That's wrong. She was born mortal, an inheritor of the result of the fall. (Actually, Jesus HAD to inherit our humanity in every respect except sin!) She died. Only the RCC calles the Feast of the Dormition as "The Assumption"--but their position will wait a bit. On the OCA website it says: "It is the formal teaching of the Orthodox Church that Jesus is not a "mere man" like all other men. He is indeed a real man, a whole and perfectly complete man with a human mind, soul and body. But he is the man which the Son and Word of God has become. Thus, the Church formally confesses that Mary should properly be called Theotokos, which means literally "the one who gives birth to God." For the one born of Mary is, as the Orthodox Church sings at Christmas: "... he who from all eternity is God." Also mentioned, under "Defense of the Doctrine of Incarnation" is a section on The Nestorian Controversy:

quote:
The Nestorian Controversy

In the fifth century a long and difficult controversy developed over the true understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ. The third ecumenical council in Ephesus in 431, following the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria, was most concerned to defend the fact that the One who was born of the Virgin Mary was no one other than the divine Son of God in human flesh. It was necessary to defend this fact most explicitly because some in the Church, following Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, were teaching that the Virgin Mary should not be called Theotokos -- a term already used in the Church's theology -- because it was claimed that the Virgin gave birth to the man Jesus whom the Son of God had become in the incarnation, and not to the Son Himself. In this view it was held that there is a division between the Son of God born in eternity from God the Father and the Son of Man born from the Virgin in Bethlehem; and that although there is certainly a real "connection" between them, Mary merely gave birth to the man. As such, it was held, Mary could be called Theotokos only by some sort of symbolic and overly-pious stretching of the word, but that it is rather dogmatically accurate to call her Christotokos (the one who gave birth to the Messiah) or Anthropotokos (the one who gave birth to the Man that the Son of God has become in the incarnation).

St. Cyril of Alexandria and the fathers of the council in Ephesus rejected the Nestorian doctrine and claimed that the term Theotokos for the Virgin Mary is completely and totally accurate and must be retained if the Christian faith is to be properly confessed and the Christian life properly lived. The term must be defended because there can be no division of any sort between the eternal Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, and Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary. Mary's child is the eternal and divine Son of God. He -- and no one else -- was born of her as a child. He -- and no one else -- was incarnate in human flesh from her. He -- and no one else -- became man in the manger in Bethlehem. There can be no "connection" or "conjunction" between God's Son and Mary's Son because they are in fact one and the same person. God's Son was born of Mary. God's Son is divine; He is God. Therefore, Mary gave birth to God in the flesh, to God as a man. Therefore, Mary is truly Theotokos. The battle cry of St. Cyril and the Council in Ephesus was just this: The Son of God and the Son of Man -- one Son!

"Controversy" came fo course with the Reformation, of course. But one can see above what the original controversy was, what was at stake, and why it was important!

Followign that, with the Council of Chalcedon...

quote:
The critical words in the definition of faith of the Council of Chalcedon are the following:
Following the holy fathers we teach with one voice that the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], and He is perfect in Divinity and perfect in Humanity, true God and true Man, of a rational soul and [human] body consisting, of one essence with the Father as touching His Divinity and of one essence with us as touching His Humanity; made in all things like unto us, with the exception of sin only; begotten of His Father before all ages according to His Divinity: but in these last days, for us men and for our salvation, born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, according to His Humanity. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, without mixture and without change, without separation and without division [i.e., without fusing together Divinity and Humanity so that the proper characteristics of each are changed or lost; and also without separating them in such a way that there might be considered to be two Sons and not One Son only] and that without the distinction of natures being removed by such union, but rather that the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and Hypostasis, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old have spoken concerning Him [e.g., the Immanuel of Isa 7:14], and as Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered to us.

]

As to that heretical view--rightly called such: "There is a movement within Catholicism to name Mary "co-redemptrix" with Christ." This extends from the "Immaculate Conception" idea. So we'll have to move there now. Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man! Doc exuated "mediator" with pray-er on another string. Checking Hebrews gives a better version.

"Immaculate Conception" is the idea that in order for salvation-through-Christ to work that Mary had to be born different from the rest of humanity. So it was invented that she was born without original sin. (This is off the top of my head...but since I'm teaching in a Catholic Convent I'm going to trust my memory.) Some say that is a logical extension of Augustine's "Original Sin" and its "imputation." It is an avoidance of its outworking, to break that linkage. The Greek speaking churches never embraced Augustine's idea, however. While the Latin speaking church had fewer sources to draw from, and fallowed Augustine in this--with the interesing exception of some Mennonite strings.

Pia, now here is a curve-ball for you. While you mentioned "Mary¹s spiritual status and authority as an argument for women¹s ordination" Evdokimov points out that the role of women is high, and that one might look at that of a priest as more distant, maybe lesser...less intimate. (Food for thought) I mentioned it above somewhere on this string, about the woman with arms raised in prayer/worship!

Mary as architype is really something to read up on. Any interest in Evdokimov's book, "WOMAN AND THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD?" (SVS Press)

Go see this site.

PotOnWheel

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/28/2001 6:30 PM (GMT -6)

Modes: my point mostly echoes musicman's concerns. I do believe that the church's (and the world's) sins should be dealt with and pointed out. BUT
many times it is at the expense of the preaching of the gospel and that is wrong. The preaching of the gospel and the broadcasting of the good news should always be first and foremost our calling. And I still believe that if we did that and lived as Jesus called us to, that would compel both those in the church and the world to change. No, just because reform is abused doesn't mean God didn't will it in the first place. But he didn't will the abuses and they should be dealt with as well. John 17:3 Harold

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 8/28/2001 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

To Modes and writerdad,
Earlier sometime today (I think), you were posting about justice and the oppressed (it's amazing how much a thread can progress in just a few hours, because now that stuff is buried 10 postings back). It was starting to sound like where things were left off in the "Is Poverty Holy" thread, talking about liberation theology, and how both "liberals" and "conservatives" preach gospels that neglect some area or another.

I don't want to bring these things in too much here because they are broader than feminist theology (though they definitely relate...), but if you want to resurrect the "poverty" thread, or talk more about liberation theology on this thread, I wouldn't mind...

mostly, I'm curious about some terms that were used a ways back--evangelical feminism/liberation feminism/evangelical liberationists. I first learned about liberation theology a few years ago, but never heard about "evangelical liberation" theology. Is this a "new" thing? Is it on the same page as "evangelical feminism"? I ask because I'm curious about how evagelicals are interacting with liberation theology these days. When I studied it, it seemed like most evangelicals had serious problems with most liberation theology. But I'm really drawn to liberationist theology. Any reading suggestions?

*********************

When we can reach beyond our fears to the One who loves us with a love that was there before we were born and will be there after we die, then oppression, persecution, and even death will be unable to take our freedom.
Henri Nouwen

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 8/29/2001 2:39 AM (GMT -6)

POW, Well, I qualified my comments on the divinity of Mary with “I didn’t know much about these things.” I know the Eastern Orthodox church does not believe that Mary is divine, and I didn’t mean to imply that. I even knew that the challenges surrounding the title Theotokos came during the Nestorian controversy, but thank you for clarifying that the controversy was over the nature of Christ, not the nature of Mary. Duh. I will try to be more careful.

Just out of curiosity, do you know why the western church dropped the Theotokos language, while the Eastern church retained it?

pia

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/29/2001 12:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Pia. You asked:

quote:
Just out of curiosity, do you know why the western church dropped the Theotokos language, while the Eastern church retained it?

I love guessing, especially if I can try and get mileage out of what I actually know. I'll try.

The TOO simple answer to why Latins don't say "Theotokos" is that they didn't speak Greek.

does the RCC say "Mary the Mother of God?" (Do a word search.)

Besides that (Theotokos/Mother/-of-/God) is the naming "Ever Virgin." The three stars on Mary's icons represent her virginity before, during and after Christ's birth. We post-Mark Twain Americans should not rush to think that that is to disprove the scientific skeptics. The matter at hand in the "ever virgin" name is (several things really, and I'll probably forget one) that Christ's birth was not the same as all others -- not natural as from human seed/sperm. Well, that explains Joseph's not being the father. But beyond that the subjection-ness to death that is linked to the inclusion of labor-pains in Genesis (I can hear our modern-ness squirming..mine a bit...but who am I!!!) which Christ was NOT subject (Like us in every way except sin.) (I admit that with so many pieces in this to keep track of, and it being after a day's teaching my head just feels filled up.) I'm the furthest things from being knowledgeable, but I have gotten the impression that this developed from the large to the small, in the course of devotional practice. The purity of Mary--not "immaculate Conception" in my small mind and limited knowledge SEEMS to make very good sense -- become obvious even, and wondrous -- when you ask yourself whether God would ever have impregnated Mary if she had said "maybe..uh..let me think about what's best for me" instead of "Yes." The devout monks "knew" from their life walking with God that ANYONE who deliberates is not pure of heart, but rather self-owned. So, Mary could not have been double-minded....she had to have been pure to say "Yes" under those conditions. Suppose that is the way it happened (Don't go by me!)? Would that be enough to KNOW it for sure? I think so!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe when one is walking with the Lord REALLY close one could know THAT even better than one's own name.

Now, Pia, if you want to start a list of the names Mary has, leave a lot of room, and prepare for something to lead you closer to God.

_____One is comparing her to the "Burning Bush": It held God without burning up and so did she!

_____"the heavenly bridegroom's holy bridal chamber" (Matins liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 7 Sept.)

_____"a holy throne on earth" (this juxtaposes with the lowliness of Bethlehem's stall for its literary power)

_____"the holy temple, divinity's vessel, royal nuptual chamber" (Vesperal liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 8 Sept.)

_____"divine dwelling place, the holy mountain" (Matins liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 8 Sept.)

_____"the gate which faces east" (Matins for the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary -- 20 Nov.)

_____"The archangel Gabriel, in visible form, will come to you, Pure One, and cry out to you: Hail curse's redemption (remember Genesis!), you raise up the fallen! Hail, you alone chosen who gave answer to God! Hail, Sun's living cloud (Sinai!) Receive him who through bodiless yet wills to dwell in your womb. (Vespers for the Forefeast of the Annunciation of the Mother of God, Mar 24)

_____"God's birthgiver"

Then there are many things from the OT that are used too -- I think Jacob's ladder is one, as it connects God and creation. Nice literary device! Liturgical hymnogrpahy has lots of these.

BTW -- "Virgin" has a broader meaning than just the physical too -- it encompases readiness, vigilence!

Peace of the Lord be with you, and your house!

PotOnWheel
Hi Pia. You asked:

quote:
Just out of curiosity, do you know why the western church dropped the Theotokos language, while the Eastern church retained it?

I love guessing, especially if I can try and get mileage out of what I actually know. I'll try.

The TOO simple answer to why Latins don't say "Theotokos" is that they didn't speak Greek.

does the RCC say "Mary the Mother of God?" (Do a word search.)

Besides that (Theotokos/Mother/-of-/God) is the naming "Ever Virgin." The three stars on Mary's icons represent her virginity before, during and after Christ's birth. We post-Mark Twain Americans should not rush to think that that is to disprove the scientific skeptics. The matter at hand in the "ever virgin" name is (several things really, and I'll probably forget one) that Christ's birth was not the same as all others -- not natural as from human seed/sperm. Well, that explains Joseph's not being the father. But beyond that the subjection-ness to death that is linked to the inclusion of labor-pains in Genesis (I can hear our modern-ness squirming..mine a bit...but who am I!!!) which Christ was NOT subject (Like us in every way except sin.) (I admit that with so many pieces in this to keep track of, and it being after a day's teaching my head just feels filled up.) I'm the furthest things from being knowledgeable, but I have gotten the impression that this developed from the large to the small, in the course of devotional practice. The purity of Mary--not "immaculate Conception" in my small mind and limited knowledge SEEMS to make very good sense -- become obvious even, and wondrous -- when you ask yourself whether God would ever have impregnated Mary if she had said "maybe..uh..let me think about what's best for me" instead of "Yes." The devout monks "knew" from their life walking with God that ANYONE who deliberates is not pure of heart, but rather self-owned. So, Mary could not have been double-minded....she had to have been pure to say "Yes" under those conditions. Suppose that is the way it happened (Don't go by me!)? Would that be enough to KNOW it for sure? I think so!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe when one is walking with the Lord REALLY close one could know THAT even better than one's own name.

Now, Pia, if you want to start a list of the names Mary has, leave a lot of room, and prepare for something to lead you closer to God.

One is comparing her to the "Burning Bush": It held God without burning up and so did she!

"the heavenly bridegroom's holy bridal chamber" (Matins liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 7 Sept.)

"a holy throne on earth" (this juxtaposes with the lowliness of Bethlehem's stall for its literary power)

"the holy temple, divinity's vessel, royal nuptual chamber" (Vesperal liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 8 Sept.)

"divine dwelling place, the holy mountain" (Matins liturgy for the Birth of the Theotokos -- 8 Sept.)

"the gate which faces east" (Matins for the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary -- 20 Nov.)

"The archangel Gabriel, in visible form, will come to you, Pure One, and cry out to you: Hail curse's redemption (remember Genesis!), you raise up the fallen! Hail, you alone chosen who gave answer to God! Hail, Sun's living cloud (Sinai!) Receive him who through bodiless yet wills to dwell in your womb. (Vespers for the Forefeast of the Annunciation of the Mother of God, Mar 24)

"God's birthgiver"

Then there are many things from the OT that are used too -- I think Jacob's ladder is one, as it connects God and creation. Nice literary device!

Liturgical hymnogrpahy has lots of these.

BTW -- "Virgin" has a broader meaning than just the physical too -- it encompases readiness, vigilence!

Peace of the Lord be with you, and your house!

PotOnWheel

Edited by - POTONWHEEL on 08/29/2001 6:10:48 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/30/2001 10:47 AM (GMT -6)

Pia, This goes to your question too:

Hugh Wybrew writes:

"Mary's title, affirmed by the third ecumenical council of Ephesis in 431, is in Greek "Theotokos". Because it is not eay to translate accuratley and concisely, it is often simply transliterated. This is perhaps not entirely satisfactory for Western readders, and can seem tather exotic. Although it means strictly God's birthgiver, I have prefered to use the term Mother of God, more familiar in Western ears. It is a term which exists also in Greek, alongside Theotokos: icons of the Virgin are usually inscribed Meter Theou, Mother of God."

(by Hugh Wybrew, and Anglican, of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford in "Orthodox Feasts of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.")

PotOnWheel

Liz
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 1

Posted 9/11/2001 4:37 PM (GMT -6)

Awesome Pia; you have obviously done some research
Great Word Pia. I often wonder how much of the classical depiction of God's perfection as consisting of total control,independence, impassibility, immutibility, etc. is the result of MEN doing all the theologizing (most of them in monistaries fighting natural sexual urges). I also wonder to what extent the current revisioning of these attributes, in a more Hebraic direction, is the result of the fact that first the first time in Christian history, women are starting -- but only starting -- to be listened to.

As a white male in the western church, I believe men must own up to our past (which is different than taking individual responsibility for the corporate past) and ask for forgiveness from women. Mysogony is as bad as racism, rebellion, or "the sin of witchcraft" (I Sam.15).

Doc

"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 9/13/2001 4:36 PM (GMT -6)

Poo!

"all the people at the zoo will treat you real nice and respectable like penguin"

Adam Sandler in Billy Madison

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/29/2001 4:46 PM (GMT -6)

Pia -- Will there be any more posts on this thread?

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 9/30/2001 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

Adiaphora,
Could you delete last last nine duplicate posts contributed by Liz? The last 4 look like the Doc was posting as Liz. I'm confused enough as it is.

-S

Nature's first green is gold. -Frost

adiaphora
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 123

Posted 10/1/2001 3:14 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Adiaphora,
Could you delete last last nine duplicate posts contributed by Liz? The last 4 look like the Doc was posting as Liz. I'm confused enough as it is.

Done. Liz asked me to delete the duplicates a while ago, but I forgot to. Thanks for the reminder. ~ a

78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual