Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

[Cerebrum123]

Within the context of Christian theology, Jesus became incarnate in a society in which patriarchy was deeply, deeply ingrained--so much so that women weren't even allowed to testify, as any elementary apologist familiar with Craig or Habermas knows. But that's not the context in which we currently find ourselves. Is there any reason one can't refer to God as a Mother?

Jesus wasn't afraid to stand up to the conventional attitudes when they were wrong either. In fact, He turned quite a few things involving women on their heads, an example would be teaching women. Rabbis of the period would not do that at all, in fact, they would often avoid women in even ordinary circumstances. Not so with Jesus.

God the Father is the one who sent Jesus, and that's the source of the title we have for Him. Jesus after all only taught what His Father told Him. To use a different title, especially when it's clearly an attempt to wash over something you don't like, then yeah it's wrong.

I think Jesus was referring to God in the culturally-accepted way of the time, since the concept of "My co-equal being of whom I am solely begotten" would not have made much sense to his audience. Although, as noted previously, God's wisdom was often referred to in feminine form and was even equated with the Holy Spirit. So Trinitarians should argue that God has been historically noted as both "He" and "She" ... arguing that the "He" is superior to the "She", or vice versa, would be a touch of heresy.

Jesus went against cultural norms often, especially when they were wrong. Again, this isn't about "parts", or any such nonsense as you seem to think. It's about the title of Father, and the role that God the Father plays. In fact, the very reason Wisdom was called "she" is because of the role and title. Jesus as the Son is no longer using that title or role, and does have a male glorified body.
You also miss the point that these people are not using the term "she" in any kind of analogical way, or indeed in any way respectful of who God the Father is.

It is absurd to insist that God, in His eternal Spirit, can be divided into this sexual identity or that. Efforts to do so are entirely human and entirely understandable. There's nothing wrong with referring to God as "He", just as there's nothing wrong with referring to God as "She". We all should, as Lewis' Screwtape mused, have the phrase "Not what I think you are but that which thy know thyself to be" at the front of our minds when contemplating God.

It's already been repeatedly stated that this isn't about "sexual identity", but about who God is, and how He has revealed Himself.

[seer]

Why don't we all just worship Gaia and have an end to it!

[fm93]

As above, that's just creating a god in a preferred image.

There's no reason to accommodate such beliefs, just as there's no reason for missionaries to tell other tribes that they can be Christian and continue worshipping and sacrificing to the spirits and gods they've followed for many generations.

There's a fairly substantial difference between being the one true God and telling people they can go on worshiping false gods, and not having a gender but allowing people of differing cultures and contexts to mentally conceive of you in whichever gender terms make the most sense to them.

If the missionary was attempting to teach this matriarchal society about the historical Jesus, about how a real man suffered and died for us in the body of a man, changing the sex would be needlessly confusing, and, well, a lie.

Changing the sex of Jesus would be technically inaccurate, but would doing so substantially change anything about the gospel message of Christianity?

And anyways, there are matriarchal societies that are predominately Christian and reference God and Jesus in male terms (the Akan and the Nagovisi for example).

But is there any reason that a matriarchal society could not think of God as a Heavenly Mother who had a son?

Jesus wasn't afraid to stand up to the conventional attitudes when they were wrong either. In fact, He turned quite a few things involving women on their heads, an example would be teaching women. Rabbis of the period would not do that at all, in fact, they would often avoid women in even ordinary circumstances. Not so with Jesus.

I know this. I perused Tektonics and other apologetics websites for years too, remember?

God the Father is the one who sent Jesus, and that's the source of the title we have for Him. Jesus after all only taught what His Father told Him. To use a different title, especially when it's clearly an attempt to wash over something you don't like, then yeah it's wrong.

I thought the idea was that Jesus became incarnate as a man rather than a woman and referred to God in male terms because that's what the society was accustomed to, and Jesus subsequently decided to correct a few social norms by example. But within the context of Christian theology, let's suppose that instead of forming a covenant with Abraham, God formed a covenant with a woman whose descendants would eventually become a heavily matriarchal society--the one in which the incarnation would have to eventually occur. You believe Jesus still would've become incarnate as a man?

You also miss the point that these people are not using the term "she" in any kind of analogical way, or indeed in any way respectful of who God the Father is.

This part wasn't addressed to me, but I just wanted to comment that I do know some Christians who do occasionally refer to God as a Mother, and that's always done in respect.

[Cow Poke]

Changing the sex of Jesus would be technically inaccurate, but would doing so substantially change anything about the gospel message of Christianity?

Can you even in your wildest imagination see a female Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple, or ordering the fishermen to follow 'her' so that 'she' can make them fishers of men, or.... The role of Christ has to be believable. Would you, perhaps, change the sex of the apostles, too? Could you really expect the male disciples to sit at the feet of a female Jesus?

I mean, seriously, this just seems a bit weird. It would make more sense just to tell the truth and provide the context.

[Sam]

Can you even in your wildest imagination see a female Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple, or ordering the fishermen to follow 'her' so that 'she' can make them fishers of men, or.... The role of Christ has to be believable. Would you, perhaps, change the sex of the apostles, too? Could you really expect the male disciples to sit at the feet of a female Jesus?

I mean, seriously, this just seems a bit weird. It would make more sense just to tell the truth and provide the context.

Why would a female Christ not be believable? Why would a female Christ driving out moneylenders or leading a team of men be unbelievable?

If the answer is "the history of the time," that's what fm93 and I have argued. If the answer is "because girls can't do those things" ... well ...

[Cow Poke]

Why would a female Christ not be believable? Why would a female Christ driving out moneylenders or leading a team of men be unbelievable?

Well, you'd probably follow her.

[Sam]

Well, you'd probably follow her.

If she were the Christ? I'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't I?

[Cow Poke]

If she were the Christ?

Only in your world.

I'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't I?

It would take a total rewrite of the Bible, Sam. Jesus is "the last Adam", so wouldn't Adam have had to be a female, too?

[Sam]

Only in your world.



It would take a total rewrite of the Bible, Sam. Jesus is "the last Adam", so wouldn't Adam have had to be a female, too?

fm93 was asking if inverted gender roles would change anything particularly substantial about the Gospel. So if, as we've argued, these sorts of things are remnants of cultural patriarchy, we could similarly invert the roles of Adam and Eve without considerable change. And, indeed, if Adam were born from Eve's rib and a female Christ was the "last Eve," there would be nothing different in the soteriology of Christianity.

So if the argument is that Jesus would -have- to be a man because the culture of the time would not accept a female leader/savior, that's what fm93 and I have more or less argued re: patriarchy. If the argument is that Jesus would -have- to be male because a female leader/savior is totally unbelievable, that seems to point to a problem of individual perspective, not objective necessity.

[Adrift]

Changing the sex of Jesus would be technically inaccurate, but would doing so substantially change anything about the gospel message of Christianity?

Absolutely. Christianity is not the type of religion that is founded on some sort of intangible, ethereal ideology, its based on hard, cold factual history. It's based on real flesh and blood, and wood and nails. That realness. That physicality in Christianity is what divides orthodoxy from gnosticism. If I were a Gnostic, sure, I would say that it makes no substantial difference to the gospel message. But I'm not. I'm a Christian. And so, yes, it makes a big difference. The truth that sets us free isn't grounded on lies.

But is there any reason that a matriarchal society could not think of God as a Heavenly Mother who had a son?

I think so. I know it's not a popular opinion in this world now, but I think that there is a difference between the sexes. Even matriarchal societies see this. And those differences are wonderful in their own right, and really make us who we are, and for whatever reason (and I can probably think of a few) God has decided that it is appropriate that humanity primarily come to know him in this particular way, regardless of whether or not we were raised in a patriarchal, matriarchal, or purely neutral society. Now, I don't think using feminine pronouns for God will send someone to hell, but I question the motivation behind the usage. Often those I know who use feminine pronouns for God (and I do know a few, especially my new age and punk friends) do so based on some misguided egalitarian ethic or some sort of extreme feminism which reeks of pride, ego, and um, narcissism. A sort of making god in my image, rather than recognizing that we were created in his. That sort of thing. That may not be everyone's experience, but it's been mine.

[Cow Poke]

fm93 was asking if inverted gender roles would change anything particularly substantial about the Gospel. So if, as we've argued, these sorts of things are remnants of cultural patriarchy, we could similarly invert the roles of Adam and Eve without considerable change. And, indeed, if Adam were born from Eve's rib and a female Christ was the "last Eve," there would be nothing different in the soteriology of Christianity.

So if the argument is that Jesus would -have- to be a man because the culture of the time would not accept a female leader/savior, that's what fm93 and I have more or less argued re: patriarchy. If the argument is that Jesus would -have- to be male because a female leader/savior is totally unbelievable, that seems to point to a problem of individual perspective, not objective necessity.

No, Jesus would have to be a man because the Bible identifies Him as such. We are the Bride of Christ, and He is the Bridegroom.

But, then again, you're completely OK with same sex marriage.

[Sam]

No, Jesus would have to be a man because the Bible identifies Him as such. We are the Bride of Christ, and He is the Bridegroom.

I realize that the concept of a thought experiment isn't some people's cup of tea but work with it here:

What's being asked is whether the Gospel or Christianity would suffer if gender roles in culture had been inverted: if matriarchy instead of patriarchy had prevailed. So think of Eve being before Adam, the woman being the head of the household, and bridegrooms being submissive to brides.

Would the Gospel or Christianity be the same with this inversion? If not, why not (I mean specifically why not rather than vague references to gender roles that are not static even between place and time)? Would a female Christ be unbelievable in this inverted history? If not then why, as a matter of principle, is there a problem with recognizing that God exists outside gender roles?

[Cow Poke]

I realize that the concept of a thought experiment isn't some people's cup of tea but work with it here:

No thanks, Sam. Not interested. I'm no more interested in this than I am in considering Joseph Smith was a real prophet.

[fm93]

Can you even in your wildest imagination see a female Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple, or ordering the fishermen to follow 'her' so that 'she' can make them fishers of men, or.... The role of Christ has to be believable. Would you, perhaps, change the sex of the apostles, too? Could you really expect the male disciples to sit at the feet of a female Jesus?

I specifically asked about the gospel message. Jesus driving moneychangers out of the temple and ordering fishermen to follow him aren't inherent to the gospel. Would Christ being female substantially change what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15--that "Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve"?

[Sam]

No thanks, Sam. Not interested. I'm no more interested in this than I am in considering Joseph Smith was a real prophet.

Well, one should consider the question "What if Joseph Smith was a prophet," even if one believes it to be a counterfactual. That way, one knows both what she believes, why it matters, and how one's own beliefs are dependent on a lot of underlying beliefs.

Like I said, not everyone's cup of tea. But those who aren't willing to subject their thought processes to that kind of rigor aren't in a position to critique others.