Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

[Cow Poke]

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.

Who Christ is is 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"?

And in that same chapter "So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

You can play this game with somebody else, fm -- I'm not interested in the feminization of Christ, the Son of God.

[Cow Poke]

Well, one should consider the question "What if Joseph Smith was a prophet,"

I have. He's not.

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.

"what she believes"


Cute.

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.

"rigor"

[Spartacus]

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?

There's more to God's self-identification as father than patriarchal social structures. The difference we need to contemplate here is not patriarchy vs matriarchy, but paternity vs maternity. What is there in the human experience of paternity or paternal-filial relationships that God wants us to connect with our relationship to the divine?

Here's an essay by Patrick Deneen on fatherhood; I heard him give this paper in person once, and I seem to recall that presentation including some more theological content and a more direct discussion of divine identification with the paternal over the maternal than can be found in this version, but I think this is a good primer nonetheless: http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/06/09...ve-fatherhood/

[Cow Poke]

but I think this is a good primer nonetheless: http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/06/09...ve-fatherhood/

But how are you pronouncing primer?

[Spartacus]

But how are you pronouncing primer?

I'm not pronouncing it, nor am I asking you to do so. I typed it.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not pronouncing it, nor am I asking you to do so. I typed it.

[fm93]

Who Christ is is inherent to the gospel.

But how significant are certain factors in determining "Who Christ is?" I mean, Western art has depicted Jesus as a handsome, almost glowingly white Anglo-Saxon man for centuries, when in reality Jesus was almost certainly fairly dark in complexion and was apparently pre-described in Isaiah as "having no beauty or majesty." Yet I've never heard anyone insist that believing Jesus was of a different race/appearance fundamentally changes who Christ is. Why does that not matter but Jesus' sex apparently does?

You can play this game with somebody else, fm -- I'm not interested in the feminization of Christ, the Son of God.

Well, neither am I, but I am bemused by how some people seem so unyieldingly insistent that one cannot think of Jesus or God in anything but masculine terms.

[Zymologist]

If Jesus' sex doesn't matter, then why the push to change it?

[Cow Poke]

If Jesus' sex doesn't matter, then why the push to change it?

Because it's all about the wussification of Christianity.

[fm93]

If Jesus' sex doesn't matter, then why the push to change it?

I'm not pushing to change it. I'm just wondering why some people seem so dead-set against even the possibility of anyone viewing it differently.

And besides, the discussion was initially focused more on why one couldn't view God as a Heavenly Mother.

[fm93]

Because it's all about the wussification of Christianity.

This sounds as if you're saying God's revealed religion would be undesirable and bad if God had decided to become incarnate in the person of a female.

[Spartacus]

But how significant are certain factors in determining "Who Christ is?" I mean, Western art has depicted Jesus as a handsome, almost glowingly white Anglo-Saxon man for centuries, when in reality Jesus was almost certainly fairly dark in complexion and was apparently pre-described in Isaiah as "having no beauty or majesty." Yet I've never heard anyone insist that believing Jesus was of a different race/appearance fundamentally changes who Christ is. Why does that not matter but Jesus' sex apparently does?

I think the "art Jesus is aryan Jesus" meme is an exaggeration (not least because of the way in which the post-reformation West became iconoclastic in a way that the East generally didn't). Artistic depictions of scenes from the life of Jesus in ways that would be more accessible to the arts audience (and more comprehensible to the artist) are, as far as I know, a fairly well-accepted and innocuous element of the process of inculturation. But to try too hard to fit the words of Jesus in an anachronistic way-- to call Jesus either a marxist or a capitalist, for example-- is to invite the contempt of respectable theologians in any society or time period.

Well, neither am I, but I am bemused by how some people seem so unyieldingly insistent that one cannot think of Jesus or God in anything but masculine terms.

It's not about whether we can think about God or even Jesus in more feminine terms. The question that's of more interest to me is what we can glean from the fact that, even though God Himself occasionally identified Himself in feminine ways, why the paternal and masculine elements seem to retain primacy in God's self-depiction.

[Spartacus]

I'm not pushing to change it. I'm just wondering why some people seem so dead-set against even the possibility of anyone viewing it differently.

And besides, the discussion was initially focused more on why one couldn't view God as a Heavenly Mother.

Because that's Mary's job

[Cow Poke]

This sounds as if you're saying God's revealed religion would be undesirable and bad if God had decided to become incarnate in the person of a female.

No, I'm saying it's bad and undesirable for people to try to turn "God's revealed religion", as you put it, into something it is not. God sent His Son. Christ's pre-incarnate existence and identity is clearly revealed to be that of the eternal Son of the Father. He came as the Second Adam, not the second Eve. The Davidic covenant requires that the One who will reign forever will be a Son of David - a man. The Savior who would come would be a prophet like Moses. He is the permanent High Priest - a man. Christ is the Bridegroom - a man. The "Son of God" - a man. His designation as the "Son of Man" - a man.

So why play this silly game?

[Cow Poke]

It's not about whether we can think about God or even Jesus in more feminine terms. The question that's of more interest to me is what we can glean from the fact that, even though God Himself occasionally identified Himself in feminine ways, why the paternal and masculine elements seem to retain primacy in God's self-depiction.

Because He was secure in His masculinity.