Church of Sweden to formally stop referring to God as "he"

[discipler7]

It's a shame that you have such a low opinion of women, considering that Jesus accepted, taught, healed them, allowed them to follow him and speak for him - and specifically chose a woman to be the first witness of the resurrection. It was a woman who told the men the Good News and gave them a message from the risen Lord.

.
GENESIS.2: =
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Lord Jesus Christ was a Man. So, it was only scriptural for Him to have woman-helpers.

Maybe, the Church of Sweden will also claim that Jesus Christ was a woman or homosexual or transgender.

 

[hedrick]

From the Word commentary on Genesis:

"Elsewhere עזר “helper/help” usually refers to divine assistance, but it is used in three prophetic passages of military aid (Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9)."

So a helper doesn't typically indicate subservience. It could just as well be read that man on is own can't hack it, and needs a woman in order to survive. Gen 2 doesn't use the term "image" of God, but if help typically refers to divine help, then the woman is actually taking God's role here.

Of course in the Christian context things get even more interesting, because in washing his disciples' feet, Jesus showed that it was his role to serve. A helper is definitely in God's image. Christ inverts the world's view of power and glory.

 

[discipler7]

The term "image" is used in Gen 1:27, and is explicitly about both men and women. If you're going to deny that women were made in the image of God, I don't think we have enough in common to discuss issues like this in any useful way.

And what is the image of God.? An image of a man or a woman.?
.
EZEKIEL.1: =
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

2:1 And He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you.” 2 Then the Spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me. 3 And He said to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. 4 For they are impudent and stubborn children. I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’

REVELATION.4: =
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. ...

9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”

 

[redleghunter]

This article is also hidden, but it appears to describe someone who isn't a Christian. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion.

Sophia (Greek for Wisdom) has been used in a number of contexts, some Gnostic, others non-Christian. But Wisdom also appears as a woman in Proverbs. That's the basis of Christian usage. You need to look at at person's actual theology to see whether it's being used in a Christian way or not.

Wisdom is, of course, one of the OT precusors to John's Logos. So it's not a separate god or godess, but an attribute of God. In a Trinitarian context you'd have to view it is one image for the Son. Contra some of the postings here, there's nothing wrong with using female images and language for the Logos.

But there are also unorthodox and non-Christian uses.

Sounds like someone needs a Christianity Today subscription for Christmas.

The author does discuss women who embraced this pagan mysticism straying from their Christian beliefs but returning.

 

[Strong in Him]

.
GENESIS.2: =
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

So your view is that women aren't created in the image of God; probably, in fact, in the image of man (God help us!). And that we were created to be some kind of helper to man. Why? couldn't he cope with the work on his own, or did he just want to be able to delegate?

Scripture doesn't support that view. The word for helper is, I have been told, the same word that Jesus uses when he describes the Holy Spirit as a helper. Genesis also says that women was created because it was not good for man to be ALONE - i.e she was his companion/partner.

.
The Lord Jesus Christ was a Man. So, it was only scriptural for Him to have woman-helpers.

By that logic, his 12 closest disciples should have been women.

.
Maybe, the Church of Sweden will also claim that Jesus Christ was a woman or homosexual or transgender.

I doubt anyone would deny that Jesus came as a man; that is a fact and to try to claim otherwise would be silly.
It doesn't alter the fact though that God is Spirit.

 

[Sistrin]

It's part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, so it isn't surprising.

Wow. Much of that is paganism.

 

[Dennis Hester]

Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord'


I mean, I don't believe God is necessarily physically male or female, but this seems like a bit much. What are your thoughts?

The Bible calls God the Father He. Jesus calls His Father He. Jesus does not have a heavenly Mother, but only a heavenly Father. You can not change the Bible just because a few people are uncomfortable with He. The Bible, God's Word has supreme authority over our opinions.

 

[Strong in Him]

And what is the image of God.? An image of a man or a woman.?

It doesn't mean physical image; it means likeness.

We can show love, because God who created us, is love.
We are concerned with justice and peace, because God is just, Jesus is the prince of peace and God is a God of order.
We are creative, because God created the universe.
We have gifts, because God is all things and gives us the ability to be, and do, all things - pastor, teacher, evangelist, giver of hospitality etc.

All the good qualities that you can find in human beings you can find in God.
Also, we talk about being born again, being nurtured; Scripture says that God chose to give birth to us, James 1:18. Giving birth is something women do; nurture and care of children also tend to be mostly associated with women. God does all these, and cares for us as a mother cares for her children. The Holy Spirit (female) was hovering, or brooding, over the waters before the earth was formed.

 

[Vicomte13]

I was speaking of the John 16 translation. The NABRE uses the Koine Greek as do the translators of the NIV.

I believe it is because the masculine is inescapable in this passage which are the direct words of Jesus.

The Eastern Orthodox also come to the same conclusion in John 16:

12 I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now. 13However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth because he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will tell you of things that are yet to come. 14He will glorify me by taking from what is mine, and he will declare it to you. 15Everything the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take of [what is] mine and will declare it to you.

BASED ON THE OFFICIAL TEXT OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH (PATRIARCHAL TEXT OF 1904)


What I meant by the masculine in the above passage is demanded is based on the Interlinear handling of ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) in verses 13 and 16. The parsing key has this:


Part of Speech: Demonstrative Pronoun

Case: Nominative
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular

John 16 Interlinear Bible

The problem at the heart of this is that pneuma is neuter, but John has used a masculine pronoun, which is grammatically incorrect. So, either John has made a grammatical error - which is possible - or John is breaking the rules of grammar to make a point that the Spirit of Truth, to whom he refers here (note please, this text does not say "The Holy Spirit", but "The Spirit of Truth", which may or may not be the same spirit - there are many spirits of God, not just one. This one is taking a masculine pronoun where it shouldn't. That tells us something.

The same thing happens in Genesis 1. "Elohiym" - Powers - is a plural noun in Hebrew, and takes a plural verb. But when referring to God, it takes a masculine single verb. So, "God" is plural, but a He, the very first time that God appears as a separate word in the Bible.

And the Spirit of God - the one hovering over the face of the waters in Genesis - is a singular "she" the first time she appears.

So this argument cuts several ways. It cuts FOR a plural/single God (support for the inner plurality of the Trinity, though not perforce the number three (although the pictographs actually DO cut for the number three in Genesis 1:1), John's Greek cuts FOR a masculine "Spirit of Truth" in John 16:13. And it cuts FOR a feminine "Spirit of God" - the Ruach Elohiym that hovers over the face of the waters.

Given that in Genesis 1 we have already seen the Hebrew author break the grammatical rules to use the singular pronoun for "Gods" or "Powers" we cannot make that argument and then turn around a sentence later and disregard the "she" for Ruach Elohiym, not if we're honest anyway.

(You will note that the way I go about these things is not to find the version of the language that favors a position that I "want" to be so - I just recount what it says. In truth, I don't care, myself, what God's gender is, so it doesn't offend me either way. It DOES offend me when somebody starts screaming that it's a HERESY to identify the Holy Spirit is a "she" - because it's actually biblical. Ruach Elohiym is "the spirit of God" and that's a she. The Spirit of Truth, that's a he. There are seven spirits of God burning before God's throne, so to assert that the "Holy Spirit" is ONE is itself a traditional assertion, not actually a Scriptural one. And once again, I am indifferent to the facts of it - don't care what the real answer is. But I am not indifferent to Christians who assert things affirmatively without authority and who weaponize argument with words like "heresy". THOSE people are jackasses who need to be thrown off their horses, and I look for the contradictions in Scripture to force them down - dare they contradict Scripture itself? On what authority? Their own. Which is nothing.)

 

[Sistrin]

God does all these, and cares for us as a mother cares for her children. The Holy Spirit (female) was hovering, or brooding, over the waters before the earth was formed.

Were either of them named Sohpie?

 

[Vicomte13]

But God is Spirit.

God is also flesh and blood, material.

 

[Kenny'sID]

God refers to himself in the masculine sense, and so will I.

Some things are just simple, as are people who make the simple complicated.

 

[hedrick]

Wow. Much of that is paganism.

Some of it. However since it's all taken out of context, it's hard to know how much is paganism and how much is attempting to get people to see God as having both male and female aspects. The only overtly pagan example was from a conference that seems to have been interfaith. So having non-Christians speakers would be expected. It was also at "herchurch," which we already know is on the fringe of the ELCA.

Liberal theology is generally based on Jesus' teachings, seen through the best historical scholarship. That would make Gnosticism out of character. However as I've noted elsewhere, there are two strains of liberal religion. One is based on historical liberal theology. The other is skeptical. In most of our churches the former predominates, but there's certainly weird stuff on the left edge. Of course there's equally weird and disturbing stuff on the edge of conservative Christianity. Some of which we've seen in this discussion, like the idea that women aren't in the image of God.

 

[Biblewriter]

The problem with all this, is that this is a decided attempt to get rid of a stereotype that was consistently used by God, in giving us the scriptures. It is an attempt to remove a significant portion of the word of God. And for that reason, it is not simple error, but a willfully designed rebellion against the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not all Christians hold to a regulative principle. Lutherans certainly do not. We have a very different understanding of the purpose of worship from some other Christian groups. Worship is not about pleasing God in any way for us. It's about God serving us. Whether or not we use particular traditional language seems very much secondary. The main thing about our worship is preaching the forgiveness of sins and administering the sacraments in Jesus name.

While we are generally traditionalists, if it's not prohibited by the Bible, we are reluctant to condemn it without good reason.

 

[Biblewriter]

Not all Christians hold to a regulative principle. Lutherans certainly do not. We have a very different understanding of the purpose of worship from some other Christian groups. Worship is not about pleasing God in any way for us. It's about God serving us. Whether or not we use particular traditional language seems very much secondary.

While we are generally traditionalists, if it's not prohibited by the Bible, we are reluctant to condemn it without good reason.

Adding anything to the Bible, and taking anything away from it, are equally and explicitly condemned in the Bible.

 

[FireDragon76]

Adding anything to the Bible, and taking anything away from it, are equally and explicitly condemned in the Bible.

That's an overly broad interpretation of a passage in Revelation, considering that the time the book was written, there was no closed canon of the Scriptures.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We have a very different understanding of the purpose of worship from some other Christian groups. Worship is not about pleasing God in any way for us.

Have you always been Lutheran, and if not, at what point did you become Lutheran, and why?

 

[FireDragon76]

Some of it. However since it's all taken out of context, it's hard to know how much is paganism and how much is attempting to get people to see God as having both male and female aspects. The only overtly pagan example was from a conference that seems to have been interfaith. So having non-Christians speakers would be expected. It was also at "herchurch," which we already know is on the fringe of the ELCA.

I think many ELCA Lutherans are either unaware of Herchurch, or they are aware of it and don't really approve of what goes on there, but at the same time they are reluctant to resort to church discipline because of the public image that would present in a post-Christian world, where that behavior would be prone to being misunderstood. It would be easy then, to portray the ELCA as simply acting like the medieval church. Given that most of the demographic for which we would have natural pastoral responsibilities is sensitive to this issue, this kind of church discipline is not something to be undertaken lightly, as we could potentially alienate many people from wanting to hear the Gospel. And we are a Gospel-center people, it is what our church stands on and it shapes all our ethics.

 

[Charles Smith]

No, I cannot quote Scripture, as you wish, and I have no problem with those of you who are concerned about this matter. Also, like most people, I tend to view God as a Father in Heaven. However, I just see no real harm in seeing him as a mother, as well as a father. After all, I doubt that God has a sexual identity like humans or animals do. Does it somehow harm our faith to quit referring to God as Father? I guess that is up to each person. It should not make much difference one way or the other, as long as we love God and keep His commandments.

To not take a stand against what we know to be false is to condone it. We should know better than this if we care for the truth of the scriptures.