Genesis, how are women supposed to be treated?

[Hoghead1]

I see.

Of course...and presumably you don't see it...but by taking that position you make God less than all powerful and without providence over men, leaving much of His word to return...void. Moreover, that leaves the door open for believing anything - or nothing.

But that is just me being logical in my conversation with you. God on the other hand, is more than capable to answer to all such nonsense - and quite frankly, He doesn't work that way - the way you have suggested. But the words that even you are a witness to, are spirit, over which men have no influence.

I think that divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake and unbiblical. God is not a cosmic dictator, predetermining teh jot and tittle of everything. We have freedom and that means we have to decide for ourselves, God cannot decide for us. A major, if not the major, claim in the Bible is that creation is rebelling against God, not doing what God wants. Hence, God is no dictator with complete and totally monopolistic control over the universe. I think God is more like a president presiding over a democracy, power over powers, participating in the free self-decisions of creatures. I think it takes far more talent to govern over a democracy than to run a dictatorship.
Men, males, obviously did write Scripture. It was definitely not all dictated by God, not with there being at least 100 major contradictions. Plus there is continual argument over what is or is not Scripture . Did God order both the Septuagint and the Masoretic, or just the Masoretic? Does or does not the Apocrypha belong in the Bible?

 

[ScottA]

God created humankind male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). From that, a couple of conclusions can be made; one is that maleness is not more the image of God than femaleness, but male and female together image God.

What I take from that is that humankind, in our loving relationships, our working together for God's purposes, mirror something of the inner life of the Trinity and thus the image of a loving, relational God.

Nothing to do with worshipping masculinity.

But you are wrong: Adam was created, and Eve, though fully human in stature, was a mere part and taken out of the man. You make them proportionately equal in your own mind - but God made the women as an aside - which I see as great, because He then compares us all, male and female, to being His own bride. In such a comparison, men are not over women, but God is over both...as it should be. But if you make women equal to men - you make them equal to God, which is a grievous error.

Again...your conjecture does not represent the truth, leaving you with a distorted idea of the nature of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Jesus was the perfect man. Not woman. Man. Was God being sexist, a cultural chauvinist, when He took on human flesh in the male form? Of course not. And when male disciples of Christ look for an example of true manliness, they look to their Saviour. He demonstrates what it is to be a true, righteous, godly man. When a Christian man looks to the example of Christ, does he see a wimpy, effeminate, simpering metrosexual? Absolutely not. Does he see Christ as a blustering, chest-thumping, misogynist? Absolutely not. What the Christian man does see when he looks at the Saviour is a servant-leader, holy, humble, gentle, loving but resolute, uncompromisingly holy, a hater of evil, and zealous in the work he was sent by his Father to do. Though he did behave toward women in way that was counter-cultural, showing them a respect that was unusual for the time, there is nothing we read about Jesus that suggests that he was trying to blur the lines between the sexes, that he was androgynous in his manner, or that he thought male-female distinctives should be totally thrown over for the sake of equality.

Why does Jesus repeatedly speak of his Father in heaven, rather than his Mother? Was Jesus being sexist? Was he just capitulating to chauvinist cultural pressure? Or is there something in the nature of God that is more reflective of the characteristics of a male than a female? That certainly seems to be suggested in Jesus' choice of descriptor for God the Father and the male pronouns he used to refer to the Holy Spirit.

Does all this mean women are inferior to men? No. Does any of this mean women are second-class citizens in God's kingdom? No. The roles of men and women are different, however, particularly in the area of spiritual leadership.

Selah.

Fact is, many Christians do a lot of chest thumping, present God as a warrior king, the stereotype of the ruthless, all-controlling male warrior. Fact is, many do believe that Jesus was male because the male is spiritually superior to the female. Certainly Paul and the Bible go that way, putting women in second place, forbidding them from speaking in church, being priests, etc. The fact that Jesus did not call God mother does not negate the fact he appeals to the passive, empathic, receptive dimensions of God, traits traditionally associated with females. That's why the Christian mystics often spoke of God in the feminine, as we find in John of the Cross.

 

[Paidiske]

But you are wrong: Adam was created, and Eve, though fully human in stature, was a mere part and taken out of the man. You make them proportionately equal in your own mind - but God made the women as an aside - which I see as great, because He then compares us all, male and female, to being His own bride. In such a comparison, men are not over women, but God is over both...as it should be. But if you make women equal to men - you make them equal to God, which is a grievous error.

Again...your conjecture does not represent the truth, leaving you with a distorted idea of the nature of God.

One of us has a distorted idea... but which one is not something we can establish in this thread. I can only put forward my ideas for others to weigh.

My point was that it is absolutely clear that humankind, male and female, are in the image of God. You cannot deny that without rejecting Genesis 1:27. Women are not an aside but necessary for the completion of the good creation of humankind (man alone is the first thing God describes as "not good" in all of creation).

That God is over both, I agree. But that maleness somehow equals God, in a way that femaleness does not... frankly I think that's a form of idolatry, worshipping masculinity rather than realising that no part of the creation ought to be worshipped.

 

[Hoghead1]

But you are wrong: Adam was created, and Eve, though fully human in stature, was a mere part and taken out of the man. You make them proportionately equal in your own mind - but God made the women as an aside - which I see as great, because He then compares us all, male and female, to being His own bride. In such a comparison, men are not over women, but God is over both...as it should be. But if you make women equal to men - you make them equal to God, which is a grievous error.

Again...your conjecture does not represent the truth, leaving you with a distorted idea of the nature of God.

Again, your conjecture does not represent the truth, leaving you with a distorted view of God and the nature of women.

 

[Hoghead1]

One of us has a distorted idea... but which one is not something we can establish in this thread. I can only put forward my ideas for others to weigh.

My point was that it is absolutely clear that humankind, male and female, are in the image of God. You cannot deny that without rejecting Genesis 1:27. Women are not an aside but necessary for the completion of the good creation of humankind (man alone is the first thing God describes as "not good" in all of creation).

That God is over both, I agree. But that maleness somehow equals God, in a way that femaleness does not... frankly I think that's a form of idolatry, worshipping masculinity rather than realising that no part of the creation ought to be worshipped.

Amen to that.

One of us has a distorted idea... but which one is not something we can establish in this thread. I can only put forward my ideas for others to weigh.

Amen to that. I am curious. Are you clergy?

My point was that it is absolutely clear that humankind, male and female, are in the image of God. You cannot deny that without rejecting Genesis 1:27. Women are not an aside but necessary for the completion of the good creation of humankind (man alone is the first thing God describes as "not good" in all of creation).

That God is over both, I agree. But that maleness somehow equals God, in a way that femaleness does not... frankly I think that's a form of idolatry, worshipping masculinity rather than realising that no part of the creation ought to be worshipped.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I'm an Anglican priest in the diocese of Melbourne, Australia.

 

[Radagast]

but God made the women as an aside

That's a misrepresentation. The Bible says: "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." (Gen 5)

I can only guess that the two-stage creation described in Genesis 2 is to help husbands appreciate their wives more.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, I'm an Anglican priest in the diocese of Melbourne, Australia.

Nice to meet you. I am a theologian, a lay theologian. I was able to enter into the doctoral program with an M.S. in psychology. I thought of also going for a M.Div. along the way, as many of my courses overlapped with those of clergy. In fact , I lived at the seminary. However, you could not be enrolled in two degree programs at the same time. I wanted to teach more than preach, so I stuck with the doctoral program,. My AOS is process theology, specifically process pneumatology.

 

[aiki]

It’s a good question. Unfortunately it often requires rather detailed exegesis. Let me give you an example.

Thank you for the example. While what you wrote was rather familiar territory to me, perhaps some of it was of interest to other readers.

 

[Paidiske]

My AOS is process theology, specifically process pneumatology.

That's interesting stuff. My knowledge of process theology comes mostly from Polkinghorne's work, which I found very helpful when I was doing my BSc and a lot of my religious assumptions were being shattered!

I imagine that process pneumatology would be closely linked to the idea of already-inaugurated eschatology; that is, the unfolding process is bringing us closer to the fullness of what creation is intended to be...?

 

[Hoghead1]

That's interesting stuff. My knowledge of process theology comes mostly from Polkinghorne's work, which I found very helpful when I was doing my BSc and a lot of my religious assumptions were being shattered!

I imagine that process pneumatology would be closely linked to the idea of already-inaugurated eschatology; that is, the unfolding process is bringing us closer to the fullness of what creation is intended to be...?

Yes, it is. However, nothing is guaranteed in process. We could also end up in a nuclear holocaust and wipe ourselves off the face of the earth. Sorry, but I am not in the guarantee business. My dissertation, "Toward a Process Pneumatology," which was published in book form by Susquehanna University Press, focused on the connection between process and the Christian mystical tradition.

 

[Paidiske]

My dissertation, "Toward a Process Pneumatology," which was published in book form by Susquehanna University Press, focused on the connection between process and the Christian mystical tradition.

Now that is an unexpected connection. I always think of mysticism as kind of a timeless experience.

 

[Hoghead1]

Now that is an unexpected connection. I always think of mysticism as kind of a timeless experience.

Many do. Mysticism has the reputation of being a static, world-negating religion. Lewis Ford, major theologian and process thinker, has argued with me that when the chips are down, the mystics all capitulated to classical theism. However, I disagree. What I stressed is the world-affirming aspect of mysticism. For example, Meister Eckhart, world negating as he can be, saying time is an illusion, also has a deeply world-affirming side where he does see the universe as the body of God, without which, God would be unconscious.

 

[Paidiske]

Does seeing the universe as the "body of God" in some way diminish the gulf between creator and creation, for you?

 

[Hoghead1]

Does seeing the universe as the "body of God" in some way diminish the gulf between creator and creation, for you?

Yes, that's what it is intended to do.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd be completely comfortable with that, theologically... but it is a very interesting connection to make and explore.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd be completely comfortable with that, theologically... but it is a very interesting connection to make and explore.

That's understandable. Process is the new kid on the block, and classical theism is deeply ingrained in our culture. Yu might find it interesting to read Norman Pittenger some time on process. He is an Anglican bishop.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, I'm okay with some aspects of process theology; the idea of creation which unfolds with a degree of freedom makes a lot of sense alongside apparently random aspects of the observed universe. It's the identification of creator with creation which edges over into more worrisome space for me.

I didn't know of Pittenger, though, so thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Radagast]

He is an Anglican bishop.

Was.

And even by the standards of the Episcopal Church of the USA, he was a little, shall we say, extreme. He argued with C. S. Lewis over Christology, for example. Pittenger denied the deity of Christ, and seems to have remarkably cavalier about misquoting and misrepresenting Lewis in his multiple attacks. I'm not sure in what sense one can actually describe Pittenger as "Christian."

My knowledge of process theology comes mostly from Polkinghorne's work

Wasn't he the guy who famously said that the god of process theology was "too weak"? That process theology "doesn't give a strong enough picture of God's relationship to created reality to make God the ground of hope, or to give an account of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who raised Jesus from the dead"?