8.07.2004
Ok... I will do my best to address the nature of the last post, though I am a bit confused because there are very many ways that the two statements could be taken.
First, I am making the assumption that the first line could also be written something to the effect of "It is arrogant to assume that God is male." The other main way to take the statement would be to say that "It is arrogant to assume that God is human", but this is the same as the second statement, so I will go with the first. Please correct me if I am wrong...
OK. This problem arises from two places. First, from the English language, and second from our biology. From the language standpoint, we have an old colloquialism that is becoming less commonly used but is still technically correct. From a precise grammatical point of view, the word "he" can refer to someone of the male gender or to a non-specified gender.
English also has no third person pronouns, so we have no way to refer to a personal being (we can't call Him "It", for instance) without specifying a gender, however incomplete a description of Him that may be.
That said, God is referred to in some generally masculine ways as our heavenly Father, king, judge, shepherd, etc. , but is also referred to in feminine ways:
"For example, God is portrayed as a mother who nurses and comforts us (Isaiah 66: 12-13). God is likened to a midwife (Psalm 22:9), and as a seamstress (Luke 12: 27-28). God's wisdom is characterised as a woman (Proverbs 8). The imagery of a female eagle is employed to show God's tender support for us (Deut. 32: 11), and similar bird-like imagery is employed in Psalm 91 with us sheltering under God's wings. In the New Testament Jesus likens his concern to that of a mother hen gathering in her chicks (Matthew 23: 37)." - jesus.com.au
God is also referred to in other, gender-neutral ways, as a fire, a door, fortress, rock, bread, etc.
The Feminist argument (please don't read disrespect for Feminism into this - this is defined as a Feminist view) is that referring to God as male is idolatrous and would seem to exclude women or to look down on them in some way. On the surface, this would seem true, but there are some problems with it. First, to refer to God as "she" comes across as being just as matriarchal as referring to Him as "he" would seem patriarchal, and further lacks the grammatical point that "he" can be gender-neutral. Also, referring to God as "she" implies a complicit agreement with the neo-pagan (Wiccan) concept of goddess worship, which is certainly NOT endorsed by the Bible.
From a biological standpoint, God, being a spirit, has no biology, and in that sense can be neither male nor female. To consider God as being dominantly male or not is to confuse Him with created things. The best way to describe this is that God is the Originator of gender, and as such transcends gender.
This brings up the argument of Jesus being male (which ties in with the second statement as we shall see). There were a couple of reasons for this. First, in order to be God Incarnate, God had to pick a gender to become. There are only two to choose from. God could have just as easily chosen to be female, but this would have presented two main problems. First, throughout Scripture, God generally prescribes leadership roles to be filled by men. This is not a hard and fast rule, but is generally so, and is the topic for a whole other discussion. A good reference is "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. I haven't finished reading it, but it is very good, if dense, reading. Also, at the time of Jesus, He simply wouldn't have been able to fill the roles he filled by being a woman. Something I want to stress is Jesus' affirmation and respect of women, as evidenced in John 4 and John 12 (and many other places). PLEASE READ THESE CHAPTERS. Read the whole thing for that matter... It is very good. :)
OK, so that deals with the first line.
The second line is more confusing, but I think can be dealt with much more simply. To think that it is arrogant to assume that God became a human at all completely misses the point for why He did so in the form of Jesus Christ. Far from being arrogance, it is absolutely humbling. Condescension has a negative implication among people in that it places one person above another, but in the relationship between God and man, God is obviously above the other, and condescension takes on a truly good meaning. God becoming man is the ultimate form of condescension, so much so that it will absolutely blow your mind if you think about it for a few minutes. Go ahead... try it.
Ok, now that your minds have been sufficiently blown, I will continue. :) God set aside the free exercise of many attributes so that He could "fit" into human form and participate in our human-ness with us, and thus provide a means of redemption. This is something that we could not have even come close to doing on our own. The Bible says that our own efforts at righteousness are "as filthy rags". This becomes even more striking when you realize that the term translated into "filthy rags" refers to essentially a used tampon. And righteousness is something that we desperately need, to "pay off" a backlog of sin. This necessary righteousness was "condensed" by God in the form of Jesus to provide just that payment. It is really amazing when you think of it. There is so, so much more to it, too. Really amazing when you start to look at these things. Please think these things out... I am interested in discussion on or off blog, so let me know if anyone has anything else....
So I will leave you with that. Just think about what I have written. Many of you may disagree with all or part of it, but think about it nonetheless.
As for me, I must sleep now. g'night
jeff
First, I am making the assumption that the first line could also be written something to the effect of "It is arrogant to assume that God is male." The other main way to take the statement would be to say that "It is arrogant to assume that God is human", but this is the same as the second statement, so I will go with the first. Please correct me if I am wrong...
OK. This problem arises from two places. First, from the English language, and second from our biology. From the language standpoint, we have an old colloquialism that is becoming less commonly used but is still technically correct. From a precise grammatical point of view, the word "he" can refer to someone of the male gender or to a non-specified gender.
English also has no third person pronouns, so we have no way to refer to a personal being (we can't call Him "It", for instance) without specifying a gender, however incomplete a description of Him that may be.
That said, God is referred to in some generally masculine ways as our heavenly Father, king, judge, shepherd, etc. , but is also referred to in feminine ways:
"For example, God is portrayed as a mother who nurses and comforts us (Isaiah 66: 12-13). God is likened to a midwife (Psalm 22:9), and as a seamstress (Luke 12: 27-28). God's wisdom is characterised as a woman (Proverbs 8). The imagery of a female eagle is employed to show God's tender support for us (Deut. 32: 11), and similar bird-like imagery is employed in Psalm 91 with us sheltering under God's wings. In the New Testament Jesus likens his concern to that of a mother hen gathering in her chicks (Matthew 23: 37)." - jesus.com.au
God is also referred to in other, gender-neutral ways, as a fire, a door, fortress, rock, bread, etc.
The Feminist argument (please don't read disrespect for Feminism into this - this is defined as a Feminist view) is that referring to God as male is idolatrous and would seem to exclude women or to look down on them in some way. On the surface, this would seem true, but there are some problems with it. First, to refer to God as "she" comes across as being just as matriarchal as referring to Him as "he" would seem patriarchal, and further lacks the grammatical point that "he" can be gender-neutral. Also, referring to God as "she" implies a complicit agreement with the neo-pagan (Wiccan) concept of goddess worship, which is certainly NOT endorsed by the Bible.
From a biological standpoint, God, being a spirit, has no biology, and in that sense can be neither male nor female. To consider God as being dominantly male or not is to confuse Him with created things. The best way to describe this is that God is the Originator of gender, and as such transcends gender.
This brings up the argument of Jesus being male (which ties in with the second statement as we shall see). There were a couple of reasons for this. First, in order to be God Incarnate, God had to pick a gender to become. There are only two to choose from. God could have just as easily chosen to be female, but this would have presented two main problems. First, throughout Scripture, God generally prescribes leadership roles to be filled by men. This is not a hard and fast rule, but is generally so, and is the topic for a whole other discussion. A good reference is "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. I haven't finished reading it, but it is very good, if dense, reading. Also, at the time of Jesus, He simply wouldn't have been able to fill the roles he filled by being a woman. Something I want to stress is Jesus' affirmation and respect of women, as evidenced in John 4 and John 12 (and many other places). PLEASE READ THESE CHAPTERS. Read the whole thing for that matter... It is very good. :)
OK, so that deals with the first line.
The second line is more confusing, but I think can be dealt with much more simply. To think that it is arrogant to assume that God became a human at all completely misses the point for why He did so in the form of Jesus Christ. Far from being arrogance, it is absolutely humbling. Condescension has a negative implication among people in that it places one person above another, but in the relationship between God and man, God is obviously above the other, and condescension takes on a truly good meaning. God becoming man is the ultimate form of condescension, so much so that it will absolutely blow your mind if you think about it for a few minutes. Go ahead... try it.
Ok, now that your minds have been sufficiently blown, I will continue. :) God set aside the free exercise of many attributes so that He could "fit" into human form and participate in our human-ness with us, and thus provide a means of redemption. This is something that we could not have even come close to doing on our own. The Bible says that our own efforts at righteousness are "as filthy rags". This becomes even more striking when you realize that the term translated into "filthy rags" refers to essentially a used tampon. And righteousness is something that we desperately need, to "pay off" a backlog of sin. This necessary righteousness was "condensed" by God in the form of Jesus to provide just that payment. It is really amazing when you think of it. There is so, so much more to it, too. Really amazing when you start to look at these things. Please think these things out... I am interested in discussion on or off blog, so let me know if anyone has anything else....
So I will leave you with that. Just think about what I have written. Many of you may disagree with all or part of it, but think about it nonetheless.
As for me, I must sleep now. g'night
jeff
< 01:51 >< /j >
