Tue 19 Sep 2006
God: Rock, Paper, Scissors? Seriously…
Posted by tom cottar under stupid christian stuff, stupid theology, theology
OK…now I'm forced to add a new category to my blog. File this under Stupid Theology. (The first of many, I'm sure…)
Step One: Beginning in the Garden, God begins telling us who He is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Step Two: A plethora of pansy, politically-correct liberals [case-in-point: Presbyterian Church (USA)] aren't comfortable in their gender-confused world.
Step Three: They decide to change the Holy Trinity into non-gender specific roles to "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend".
Yes, God is our Rock.
Yes, Jesus is our Redeemer.
And, yes, The Holy Spirit, can be described as a friend (if you define 'friend' as that nagging voice that convicts you of sin…albiet a sometimes irritating friend, for Whom I am grateful.)
But, seriously. Driscoll says they've taken the action because of a new found chunk of time on their hands, since no one is really going to their church anymore.
He also suggests, that "if the committee is still taking suggestions, maybe we could call God one of the following:
- Rock, Paper, Scissors
- Larry, Curly, Moe
- Beast, False Prophet, Antichrist
- Chocolate, Peanut, Nougat
- Judas, Herod, Pharaoh
- Fastball, Curveball, Changeup
- Momma Bear, Poppa Bear, Baby Bear
And maybe we could start calling mainline Protestant pastors who despise God’s Word something new and compile a new series of title options for them, too, such as:
- Heretics
- Nutjobs
- Wingnuts
- Tools
- Kindling"
All apologies to Christians out there who are confused by this load of guano. And to Our Father for further muddying the waters of who His Word says He is as He relates to us, His children.
Read the entire USA Today article.
24 Responses to “ God: Rock, Paper, Scissors? Seriously… ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
And I thought you were vacating. Just more church stuff!
September 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
…I can’t help it, …
September 20th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
That Mark Driscoll is such a kidder!
September 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
— “Lover, Beloved, Love”
— “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier”
— “King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love.
the interesting thing about the third group listed here is that king and prince still are gender oriented words. this seems to contradict all that was said in regard to why father, son, and holy spirit (which seems redundant with spirit of love) which of course brings up the point…
he is above and beyond gender…get a grip people! he is, was, and always will be GOD!
September 24th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
ooops…meant to say that is why father and son were offensive…king and prince are no less gender based.
unless we consider the new meaning of the word queen…
September 25th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I’m thinkin’ Driscoll is the Marshall Mathers of the evangelical ring…
[Eminem]
September 26th, 2006 at 8:35 am
I still do not get the M & M thing. How do they get those little candies to sing those lyrics?
September 26th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Yes, God is above/outside of gender…
We, however, are not. Don’t ‘cha figure maybe *that’s* the reason HE chose to reveal/relate himself as such?
Remember, we’re SHEEP….not that bright, mostly whiny, and completely lost without our Shepherd.
I have no problem with expanding our view of God–that comes with growth. The problem lies in deleting Biblical references with some kind of revisionist theology….
[sigh]
September 27th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Maybe I missed something in my theology/bible classes….but…
Where did God reveal himself in the Garden as Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
September 27th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Gen 1:32
September 27th, 2006 at 9:13 am
OK…yeah, I didn’t make myself clear. What I meant was since the beginning of our recorded scripture (which begins in Genesis, specifically Creation and The Garden), God has been revealing himself to us in a very specific manner, assigning certain characeristics to Himself as He relates us to us, His creation.
Throughout scripture, the revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are at the forefront.
…although in the creation account, Gen 1:26 is seeminly the earliest we see God speaking to the heavenly court at Creator-King, as found elsewhere (3:22; 11:17; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; somewhere around Job 15; maybe even Jeremiah 22-ish)
(Sorry…SYATP was this morning…I need more Starbucks..)
September 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Yeah, in my Bible, Genesis 1:32 says God revealed himself in the form of Jack Black.
Sacrilage aside, I agree that God uses ways of relating to us to give us insight into his nature and character. To quote my favorite theologian, Carman, “The Psalms say he’ll protect us with his feathers and his wings, but that don’t mean God’s a great big chicken.”
I would also agree that in the accounts you specify that God is presenting himself as both creator and ruler.
Jesus does have a penis. However, when God says, “Let us create man in our own image.” is he specifically speaking of the male gender or is he speaking about the qualities of humanity (which possess both male and female attributes)? Debatable points, sure, but nothing in the text demands we interpret that to mean that the Holy Spirit has a penis as well. Right? I mean, He is Spirit, right? And what God, on solely a pragmatic level, would a penis be to a spirit?
I’m not trying to pick nits, I’m just thinking out loud here.
I guess I tend to think that outside of Jesus, the other two-thirds of the Trinity possess more non-sexual physiology (if a spiritual being would indeed possess a physiology).
Yes, He has revealed himself to us in more masculine roles and with more masculine traits…however…there are places in scripture where he reveals himself with traits normally thought of as more feminine. He’s a nurturer, a protector, comforting bosom, etc. In fact, the very word Ruach has a feminine connotation to it, doesn’t it?
All of this isn’t to say that Kevin Smith had it right when he cast Alanis Morrisette as God in Dogma…but I do wonder, “Isn’t there enough in scripture to warrant a little room for feminine qualities in the Godhead?”
Certainly not to take the side of the PCUSA on the issue, but I really don’t even know where this stuff came from…any links for context of the original quotes would be good…
September 27th, 2006 at 10:14 am
I also forgot to mention the symbology of God revealing himself as a Dove….rather feminine as well, don’t you think?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Shae,
I’m not sure we have to go any further than Genesis 1:27 to find that, whatever it means to be an Eikon of God or the created Imago Dei, it encompasses both men and women.
Other than through the lens that Jesus provides, God is not truly comprehensible to us. Nevertheless, at some level all that we label ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ must fit within the broader concept of ‘image of God’.
With that said, it’s a short step from attempting to recast God into the feminine mold to the dualism of the Goddess and the Horned God. It is certainly possible to recast the Christian story into that mold. I know. I’ve done it.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Scott-
Perhaps because you’ve already done it, it is indeed a short step for you. It’s a far leap to me. It could be that this is one of those places where we each bring our respective histories to bear on our perspectives.
To me, that’s jump is just as far as a jump from a belief in the Trinity would be to a Pantheistic belief in many Gods.
I’m certainly not saying that we hould recast God in a feminine mold. If that’s what you got from my post, help me out - how did you get that? I don’t want to convey that.
What I was trying to say, perhaps not so well, is very close to what you said when you stated, “‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ must fit within the broader concept of ‘image of God’.” I only went from it through the back door. I would affirm what you said completely….and especially in our demands to fit God into “masculine” only, especially when scripture affirms a form of both in one sense or another.
Again, not that I’m laying down my dogma. I’m just throwing out things I think about…
September 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Shae,
I wrote a confused post.
The first part was affirming your point that God is not ‘male’ (other than, of course, the incarnate Jesus) but rather Spirit and the self-defining God who by his own declaration creates men and women equally in his image.
I then moved to a backhand reference to the fact that most people today seem to construct a picture of God in their minds and then use that picture to understand Jesus. And that strikes me as deeply dangerous and anti-scriptural. Jesus is pretty emphatic that if you know him, you know the Father. And that, in fact, the only way to truly know the Father (or understand God) is through him. Know Jesus and know God, not the other way around.
And from that I moved to an illustration of the ease with which we can utterly distort the picture of Jesus if we first try to develop a picture of ‘God’ (even from Scripture) and then try to look at Jesus through that lens. If you take a look at ancient beliefs, you’ll find a lot of stories of gods who are killed and are then reborn. If you don’t dig too deeply into the Christian story, and are coming from a not particularly Christian place, it’s not hard at all to squeeze an understanding of the death and resurrection story into one of those molds.
Thus, different ways of thinking about God through names don’t bother me. Heck, God tends to throw a lot of names out there himself. But recastings like “Mother, Child, and Womb” strike me as more dangerous. Let’s maintain some connection to our story.
Of course, Driscoll was his typical offensive and off-putting self in his comments. That doesn’t mean he can’t sometimes have at least the kernel of a legitimate point.
Oh, and pantheism is the more ‘mature’ form of a ‘many gods’ belief. It’s not many gods, but rather that all is god. This is predominant in the Eastern religions (which I’ve also explored).
September 27th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I love discussion. Thank all of you for sharing perspectives and insights without resorting to flames…as so often happens with discussions like this.
And I rather liked Alanis as God in Dogma…
[more in a minute..]
September 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Well, it’s been considerably longer than a minute.
Oh, and I also find Driscoll’s remarks about nobody going to church in the PCUSA arrogant, filled with his own megachurch mentality, and in the end, untrue. Sure, they have problems right now, just as the american twig of the Anglican communion is currently in great pain. Nevertheless, my aunt was one premier example of the best of that denomination. And they still have pastors like Michael Kruse. (Even if his articles on economics do leave my eyes crossed, nobody can deny his commitment and amazing work for our Lord.) Dissing a part of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if it brings the applause of the groundlings (to borrow from Shakespeare) does no service to our master and savior. Driscoll tends to remind me of the sort of actor Shakespeare is speaking against in Hamlet’s speech to the players.
But that may just be me…
September 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
No, Scott, it’s not just you. I’m not such a fan of Driscoll for much the same reason. Michael Kruse is a wonderful thinker and a very gracious person. His commitment to biblical fidelity and the ministry of the laity is something to be extremely proud of for us, the Greater Community. And then, there’s my friend Wendy, within the PCUSA organization, who is also a shining example of such a life and ministry.
In fact, the PCUSA has published a report about this very issue. The report opens with the following:
“Did the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) vote to replace the language
“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”?
In a word, no. The report states, “The language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rooted in scripture and creed,
remains an indispensable anchor for our efforts to speak faithfully of God.”
It then goes on to state the following:
One of the ways to help us reclaim the doctrine of the Trinity in the church’s theology, worship, and
life is to provide ways of speaking of the glory of the Triune God. These echoes of work of the
Triune God are not replacements or alternatives to the anchor language of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. They are ways to expand and enhance our appreciation of the one God: “If our lifeline to the
anchor is frayed or severed, the historic faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic church risks
being set adrift. With this anchor in place, however, we are liberated to interpret, amplify, and
expand upon the ways of speaking of the triune God familiar to most church members.”
You can actually read the whole thing by downloading it at the following link:
http://www.pbyofnewcovenant.org/forms/2006_07_06_TrinityFAQFINAL.pdf
September 27th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Sorry for the jacked up formatting up there.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I tried to leave a reply … did it work?
September 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
No.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Let me try it again without the html tags (I’m not too good at this … and Shae already posted the links. Original post follows:
Shae begged me to blog in on this … so here goes.
First, I encourage you to read the report before assuming that what people say it says is what it really says.
Secondly, the report is a study document that was “received” by the church not a confession or theological policy that was adopted by the church. Study documents are meant to shed light, stretch and question and interpret doctrines and issues within the church and society … they are a tool to use in studying together. That’s the uniqueness of Presbyterians … we believe that there is not one answer for all time, because language itself cannot describe something which is beyond us. That is why we are a church that is “reformed and always being reformed.”
Thirdly, the report doesn’t say that we (the PCUSA) ought to throw out the ecumenically and historically recognized Trinitarian formula, Father Son and Holy Spirit. The report was meant to offer other suggestions or ways to understand the concept of the Trinity using non-traditional terms that are also taken from Scripture in describing God. (the other sets of three used in the report are all scripturally based, though not necessarily used together or used to describe the persons of the Trinity.)
Fourthly, the paper was meant to get beyond our discussion about the trinity as a math formula (how does 1=3 and 3=1) and begin to see the real meaning behind the corporate understanding of one God … that God’s grace truly overflows all boundaries.
Ok … all that aside, let’s talk about the real issues that were raised as the controversy brewed even within the PCUSA after the report was received by the assembly in Birmingham this summer. (yes, I was there)
Feminine descriptions of God … as many of the commenters on this blog already asserted, God is beyond gender. Many have said, God is neither male nor female. I prefer to think of God, instead, as being both the best of male and the best of female. In our culture, in the 21st century, it’s important to realize that many of the masculine-only images of God are not helpful in leading some people (men and women) into a life-giving relationship with God. The images, in their minds, can actually be a hindrance in their understanding of the grace of Christ, due to many reasons some of which relate to experiences with abusive husbands, fathers, etc. Therefore, the Church is stretching itself to be more gender-sensitive in its names/metaphors for God.
The naming of God … this is the most interesting to me. As we were leaving the great hall in the Birmingham convention center after the vote on the Trinity report, I overheard an irate commissioner saying something like, “We can’t change the name of God; we need to use the name that God chose for himself.” Hmmm … first of all … my recollection is that while the human incarnation of God had a gender and a name (Jesus), God has consistently avoided being “named”. God says to Moses from the burning bush, “I am as I will be”. No name. I think, because names limit; they don’t allow us to know by experiencing. Secondly, most of us are going by names that other people give to us, because of their perception of us, their relationship with us. My daughter calls me “mom” or “mommy”; her friends call her by a nickname they gave her which they say really “fits” her. Our names are not chosen by us, but given to us out of other peoples’ experiences of us. So it makes sense that Jesus calls God “abba”. I might call God “mommy” or “gentle wind beneath my wings”. Having a multitude of names for God allows us to understand the many ways in which God makes Godself known to us.
The Concept of the Trinity … is more about the nature of God than the name of God. It’s about a corporate/communal nature of God which is apparent from creation. The doctrine of the Trinity, though, is something which was created much later by the Church as a way to understand this fundamental communal reality of God. Genesis doesn’t say God was “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. We only read it that way because we are looking back through the lens of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is a tool for understanding truth, but it isn’t the truth itself. Personally, I love Fred Beuchner’s explanation of the Trinity best … he describe it as a way of understanding God as God beyond us, God among us, and God within us. Yes.
So, now I’ve weighed in using way too many words … please direct flames to shae or tom … kidding, of course.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
thanks to Wendy and Shae for some clarification. The link to the report was very helpful.
Perhaps my initial response was a knee-jerk reaction to my fundamental upbringing. Thanks for the thoughtful remarks!
(things have been WAY busy since I posted this…please don’t take my silence for anything other than busyness..)
blessings!