Beth Moore apologizes for supporting complimentarianism

[J-rap]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Thanks for your response! Always good to hear from you.

Disclaimer: I have an itchy rash, a headache, and a generally fuzzy head after my 2nd COVID vac last week. Sorry if TMI, but I am not at my best. 😉 

I do agree that God makes allowances for where we are at; for example, God once "overlooked the times of ignorance" but now "command[s] all people everywhere to repent" and Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives "because of the hardness of [their] hearts...but from the beginning it was not so."

I also agree that part of the reason for the current order is because of the fall. However, the fact remains, as Scripture states, that woman was made for man, as a helper for him. That does NOT mean--and I would never claim--that woman is not made in God's image or that woman is somehow less worthy or less important. She has a different role, just as Christ as a different role from God the Father.

Scripture tells us that Christ was obedient to death, that He chose to obey His Father's will rather than His own, that He became the ultimate servant. That does not make him less. 

Women were absolutely an important part of the early church and I love that! We see, for example, Priscilla explaining the gospel to Apollos (with her husband and outside the worship service), and Phoebe being called a deacon or servant and helper of many. However, I see no evidence for women holding authoritative roles over men, which would have been contrary to Scripture.

I agree that there are ideals not currently realized, including all animals living their lives in peace as companions rather than food 😉. I look forward to the day when "no one will hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the sea." 

Thanks!  Sorry about your rash and headache etc., but yay for the vaccine!!  Just wanted to let you know that I read this, but won't have time to respond until probably later tonight.

[ktgrok]

Adding to the ways of thinking about it, "head" can mean "source" not just "boss". So the head of the spring/river is it's source. 

[MercyA]

53 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

It has always been curious to me that (Paulist) Christians see the story of human beings gaining moral discernment (and thus being able to differentiate right from wrong) thereby becoming more like the divine--"like us" (in the words of God)--as "The Fall." 

It is also curious to me that a Trinitarian God could seen as have conflicting "wills" if he is indeed "one" conceptually.

Bill

There are a great many curiosities in Scripture and in life! 🙂 

I would say that we lost more than we gained in the fall. 

I would also say that although my husband and I are one, Biblically speaking, that does not prevent our wills from being at times in conflict. 

About a month ago, I was thinking over a St. Patrick's Day lesson for my Sunday School kids. I asked my husband, "Do you think my kids are old enough to understand the Trinity?" He said, "As much as any of us are." 😉 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

 

About a month ago, I was thinking over a St. Patrick's Day lesson for my Sunday School kids. I asked my husband, "Do you think my kids are old enough to understand the Trinity?" He said, "As much as any of us are." 😉 

LOL. Yeah....I've heard it said that there is more heresy preached on Trinity Sunday than any other Sunday during the year - just because it is SO hard for priests to manage to talk about the Trinity without touching on heresy of some sort, lol. 

[ktgrok]

When the topic of women in authority comes up I always want to share this podcast, which I really enjoyed. https://www.missioalliance.org/podcasts/tishharrisonwarrenjonathanwarren/

[MercyA]

nm 🙂 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by MercyA

[kbutton]

19 minutes ago, MercyA said:

About a month ago, I was thinking over a St. Patrick's Day lesson for my Sunday School kids. I asked my husband, "Do you think my kids are old enough to understand the Trinity?" He said, "As much as any of us are." 😉 

Indeed.

I really like this book: https://www.cph.org/p-3104-3-in-1-revised-edition.aspx

I am cracking up because it's a revised edition--someone probably found something questionable and clarified, lol! I have no idea if my edition is revised or not. I am not clearly not Lutheran, but this is a nice publishing house. 

[ktgrok]

22 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

About a month ago, I was thinking over a St. Patrick's Day lesson for my Sunday School kids. I asked my husband, "Do you think my kids are old enough to understand the Trinity?" He said, "As much as any of us are." 😉 

Forgot to say, this is one of the reasons given for paedocommunion - communion children, even infants. That we can't make "understanding it" a prerequisite cause no one would ever pass that requirement!

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

There are a great many curiosities in Scripture and in life! 🙂 

I would say that we lost more than we gained in the fall. 

I would also say that although my husband and I are one, Biblically speaking, that does not prevent our wills from being at times in conflict. 

About a month ago, I was thinking over a St. Patrick's Day lesson for my Sunday School kids. I asked my husband, "Do you think my kids are old enough to understand the Trinity?" He said, "As much as any of us are." 😉 

I look at the story differently. I see the purpose of the story as showing the moment--metaphorically speaking--when people became fully human--more like God--in gaining the capacity to differentiate right from wrong, good from evil.

What would we be as a species without moral discernment? Like beasts, no?

Given we are not perfect--none of us--it naturally flows that having the capacity to understand good from evil but then failing to make the right choices has its problematic aspects. We suffer. And others suffer when we fail. But that makes us human.

Without moral discernment what would it mean to be a human being?

By our natures and our "gift" of moral discernment we experience beauty and suffering and guilt. It's complicated.

To me this is the story of man (male and female He made them) being "completed." It explains human suffering.

Not anything remotely like a "Fall," but rather serving as an origin story for complex beings who know right from wrong, are imperfect, know we are imperfect, and who experience guilt when we go astray. Human.

Bill

 

 

 

 

[MercyA]

[Okay, I'm putting this back up. I was worried it might be offensive in some way. I'm not Lutheran, but find it amusing. This was in response to Katie's comment about the Trinity and inadvertent heresies. 🙂 ]

 

[MercyA]

Obedience does not diminish us. 

[bolt.]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Obedience does not diminish us. 

I think that depends on perspective. Lifelong full obedience to a human being would definitely diminish me.

Edited April 13, 2021 by bolt.

[Moonhawk]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

LOL. Yeah....I've heard it said that there is more heresy preached on Trinity Sunday than any other Sunday during the year - just because it is SO hard for priests to manage to talk about the Trinity without touching on heresy of some sort, lol. 

A million years ago DH and I taught the confirmation class for our parish. We had a class of all adults, who were older than us, so it wasn't always a great dynamic, lol, but it went fairly well. The only "bad" class we had was when we talked about the Trinity. One of the students insisted on an explanation of the Trinity that was heretical. He ended up walking out of the class over it. It was awkward because there are only a few ways to say, "That's heretical," politely, lol. 

[Terabith]

Beth Moore has actually been pretty outspoken against complementarianism in general in the last few weeks, not just as a litmus test for Christianity.  

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

LOL. Yeah....I've heard it said that there is more heresy preached on Trinity Sunday than any other Sunday during the year - just because it is SO hard for priests to manage to talk about the Trinity without touching on heresy of some sort, lol. 

My husband once went up to the priest after the service on Trinity Sunday and very sincerely told him, "Great job not committing heresy!"  It really is an almost impossible task.

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

A million years ago DH and I taught the confirmation class for our parish. We had a class of all adults, who were older than us, so it wasn't always a great dynamic, lol, but it went fairly well. The only "bad" class we had was when we talked about the Trinity. One of the students insisted on an explanation of the Trinity that was heretical. He ended up walking out of the class over it. It was awkward because there are only a few ways to say, "That's heretical," politely, lol. 

I'm curious if you, as one who has taught the subject, believe that the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Triune godhead could have wills that were oppositional and that would require one person (in this case Jesus) to subordinate his will to that of another (The Father)?

Bill

 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

I'm curious if you, as one who has taught the subject, believe that the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Triune godhead could have wills that were oppositional and that would require one person (in this case Jesus) to subordinate his will to that of another (The Father)?

Bill

 

I think that's pretty standard Christian teaching, and pretty biblical. Also, I am only a single person, and still have to sometimes submit one part of my will to another part, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. 

[Spy Car]

Just now, ktgrok said:

I think that's pretty standard Christian teaching, and pretty biblical. Also, I am only a single person, and still have to sometimes submit one part of my will to another part, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. 

To be clear, you are saying it is standard Christian teaching that the persons in the Christian triune godhead can have differing wills and that there is an implied hierarchy of submission and obedience between the component parts?

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

I think that depends on perspective. Lifelong full obedience to a human being would definitely diminish me.

Re: "full" obedience: I would not obey my husband if it meant disobeying either God or my conscience.

Re: perspective: I'm not obeying a human being for the sake of obeying him; I'm obeying a human being for the sake of obeying God. Like following any other commandment, sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard; sometimes it feels freeing and sometimes it feels frustrating. But it never diminishes me as a person. Indeed, I think it is very much in line with the rest of Scripture: the last shall be first and whoever wishes to be greatest should be servant of all. There is power and strength in obedience.

Edited April 13, 2021 by MercyA

[Danae]

9 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I think that's pretty standard Christian teaching, and pretty biblical. Also, I am only a single person, and still have to sometimes submit one part of my will to another part, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. 

Disagreement between the “eternal submission of the son” faction and the classical Trinitarian faction is part of the SBC’s current meltdown. If by “standard” you mean there are lots of people who teach it, sure.  If you mean common and largely undisputed, no way.  

[Terabith]

10 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

To be clear, you are saying it is standard Christian teaching that the persons in the Christian triune godhead can have differing wills and that there is an implied hierarchy of submission and obedience between the component parts?

I am not even going to wade into this, even with my masters of divinity, because I do not smoke pot and I am pretty convinced that that is a requirement to stay sane if you're discussing the Trinity in any real detail.  

In short....there's Scriptural evidence for this (Jesus praying for this cup to pass from Him but "not my will but Thine"), but historically, this has been a source of a ton of arguments and even schisms in the Orthodox church.  It's a mess.  

Pot is needed.  

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Danae said:

Disagreement between the “eternal submission of the son” faction and the classical Trinitarian faction is part of the SBC’s current meltdown. If by “standard” you mean there are lots of people who teach it, sure.  If you mean common and largely undisputed, no way.  

Yes, sorry, I should have used "common" teaching. There is not one "standard" Christianity, lol. 

And it is based on this verse I imagine, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done"

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

I am not even going to wade into this, even with my masters of divinity, because I do not smoke pot and I am pretty convinced that that is a requirement to stay sane if you're discussing the Trinity in any real detail.  

In short....there's Scriptural evidence for this (Jesus praying for this cup to pass from Him but "not my will but Thine"), but historically, this has been a source of a ton of arguments and even schisms in the Orthodox church.  It's a mess.  

Pot is needed.  

I'm pretty sure you are right. The Trinity and say, multiverses (or any big physics stuff) make my brain hurt, lol. Self medicating is required. Maybe peyote or acid though, not sure Pot will cut it with that stuff. 

[MercyA]

22 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

It does. Any time an adult woman is expected to swallow her better judgement to defer to her husband it does. It puts undue pressure on a young man who was raised obeying his parents and have zero leadership skills in the beginning of a marriage especially to suddenly decide life for two people. My dad and fil have repeatedly said they wish they knew even to ask their wives for advice and in the rare occasions they did they were told they should decide and the wives would obey. Zero communication. Both husband and wife thought this was how a man should lead. 

Speaking only to theologically conservative, Bible-believing Christians:

A woman shouldn't marry a man if she doesn't trust his judgment and ability to lead.

If men are not raised to know how to make decisions, that is not the fault of Scripture. That said, men do not have to be perfect or perfectly wise to be kind and loving leaders. 

The Bible does not teach marriage without communication and without mutual service and submission. It does not teach that women do not have wisdom to offer, but rather that a wise woman is a tremendous blessing to her husband. 

I think when we've seen something twisted and used in a harmful way it may cause us to want to be rid of that thing entirely. But I do not believe that is beneficial to us or that we are at liberty to pick and choose which Scripture to follow and which to discard.

Said with love and respect, @Dreamergal.

Edited April 13, 2021 by MercyA

[Moonhawk]

42 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I'm curious if you, as one who has taught the subject, believe that the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Triune godhead could have wills that were oppositional and that would require one person (in this case Jesus) to subordinate his will to that of another (The Father)?

Bill

 

Eek, It's been 14 years since I taught that class and I regret to say I'd no longer be qualified to talk on the subject. If I could ask DH he might refresh me, but I'd also have to admit I am not making assets for the website so... not an option, lol. 

I do know that the answer has something to do with Christ being wholly human and also wholly divine, and so it is not as much the Son submitting to the Father, but the human will submitting to the divine will [of Christ]. The Divine will of God [who includes both Father and Son] is never at odds with itself, though. At odds being defined as in contradiction or contrary, not defined as simply multi-directional. Since God is Good and God is Love, all things He wills are in alignment with this. 

This is a 3 sentence fuzzy synopsis of something I once knew* that is best explained in very long treatises. And if I type one sentence more, I will probably become a heretic, lol. Hopefully I have not already stepped afoul! Sorry I can't be of more use.

*term used loosely, lol

Edited April 13, 2021 by Moonhawk

[MercyA]

22 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Pot is needed.  

My state is so backwards. 😿

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

Eek, It's been 14 years since I taught that class and I regret to say I'd no longer be qualified to talk on the subject. If I could ask DH he might refresh me, but I'd also have to admit I am not making assets for the website so... not an option, lol. 

I do know that the answer has something to do with Christ being wholly human and also wholly divine, and so it is not as much the Son submitting to the Father, but the human will submitting to the divine will [of Christ]. The Divine will of God [who includes both Father and Son] is never at odds with itself, though. At odds being defined as in contradiction or contrary, not defined as simply multi-directional. Since God is Good and God is Love, all things He wills are in alignment with this. 

This is a 3 sentence fuzzy synopsis of something I once knew that is best explained in very long treatises. And if I type one sentence more, I will probably become a heretic, lol. Hopefully I have not already stepped afoul! Sorry I can't be of more use.

That answer--a conflict between the incorporate human mind vs the (undivided) divine mind makes the most sense to me from the perspective of an interested outsider to Christianity.

Thank you.

Bill

 

[Garga]

Per this, the Genesis scriptures about a woman being a “help meet” to a man, indicate that she is to be a co-warrior of the same nature as the man. 

https://simplemomentsstick.com/2014/02/helpmeet-or-co-warrior.html 

The word used for helpmeet in the Hebrew is the same one used to describe either Israel’s allies or God as our helper.

So...women aren’t just cute, little helpers for men, like some sort of administrative assistant, but are on the same level as military allies or God Himself.

I can understand mutual submission to one another, but not unbalanced submission of only one partner.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Garga

[Harriet Vane]

55 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I'm curious if you, as one who has taught the subject, believe that the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Triune godhead could have wills that were oppositional and that would require one person (in this case Jesus) to subordinate his will to that of another (The Father)?

Bill

 

Bill, FWIW as a Christian, I do not believe what you describe here is reflected in the Bible at all. There is only one moment in which Jesus is recorded as having a different desire than the will of the Father, and that is when He asked for the cup to pass him by (iow to not face his torture and crucifixion), but then chose to continue on with the plan (continue on through his death and resurrection). This was explained to me by a teacher I respect that Jesus' human nature was weak in that moment ("I wish I didn't have to do this"), but that his divine nature and his connection within the Trinity are what empowered him to stay on course ("I know this is the only way so I'll do it.").

[Katy]

40 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Re: "full" obedience: I would not obey my husband if it meant disobeying either God or my conscience.

But many churches who teach this skip this important part. They argue that being meek and submitting to the unbiblical will win a husband over.  No boundaries or pushback is allowed. There are verses twisted to support this.  There are many women in the church that have never felt the freedom to have their own opinions, let alone their own conscience. It’s a real problem.

9 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Speaking only to theologically conservative, Bible-believing Christians:

A woman shouldn't marry a man if she doesn't trust his judgment and ability to lead.

If men are not raised to know how to make decisions, that is not the fault of Scripture. That said, men do not have to be perfect or perfectly wise to be kind and loving leaders. 

The Bible does not teach marriage without communication and without mutual service and submission. It does not teach that women do not have wisdom to offer, but rather that a wise woman is a tremendous blessing to her husband. 

I think when we've seen something twisted and used in a harmful way it may cause us to want to be rid of that thing entirely. But I do not believe that is beneficial to us or that we are at liberty to pick and choose which Scripture to follow and which to discard.

Said with love and respect, @Dreamergal.

I think it’s ideal to marry someone who you trust his judgment. I did. And our marriage is so much easier than any prior relationship I had as a result. But I don’t think it’s common, not even in the church.  I was often told I was too picky for not marrying men I would not have trusted this way. DH hates the idea of too-traditional gender roles.  He wants us to be on the same page about things, not having me “evade responsibility” in his words, for decisions he wants to make together. 

I remember our pastor asking if we wanted to include “obey” in my vows, or if we both wanted to say obey, or if we should leave it out.  I said I truly didn’t care because if I planned on obeying unless it was against God’s will or my conscience. But then again, if you’re on each other’s side, you’re both going to do that anyway, whether you know the scripture or not. It’s human nature to easily sacrifice the unimportant for those you love. 

I think marrying someone you trust makes life easier. If we disagree there’s an at least 50% chance DH will be right. I know that and it makes it much easier to know when to stand my ground and when to shrug and say, “I don’t agree and I don’t think this is going to go well, but it’s clearly more important to you so do what you want.”

And choosing submission IS a way to both evade responsibility and avoid anxiety if you’re truly committed to it. Several of those trendy books about submitting 10-20 years ago were merely testimonies of women who tried to control everything due to anxiety, decided to stop, and realized that not only did their world not fall apart, but they were happier.  

The real thing, IMHO, is to quietly listen to the Holy Spirit and obey. This is tricky because you have to know the scriptures yourself and listen to the voice of God frequently enough to know and obey.  Which is far too “woo” for most people, even Christians, IMO. But when I’m worrying about something and praying about it, and DH mentions thinking the same way I am about something, it makes it so much easier. 

[Moonhawk]

5 hours ago, Spy Car said:

It has always been curious to me that (Paulist) Christians see the story of human beings gaining moral discernment (and thus being able to differentiate right from wrong) thereby becoming more like the divine--"like us" (in the words of God)--as "The Fall." 

(So I totally should bow out of the thread while I can. And I know you denoted Paulist Christians in particular, so perhaps this is unnecessary: I am not really familiar with the terms used to denote different segments of Christianity.)

We did not become more like the divine in the Fall, we became less like it. We were originally made in God's image: we have an eternal soul, the power to discern, and free will; and the free will allows us to choose good of our own will [also, to choose bad]. The power to discern (ie our intellect) plus our free will means we already have moral discernment and the power to act upon it.

So we did not gain moral discernment when we ate the apple, rather we exercised it BY eating the apple (in direct defiance of God). By exercising our free will for something that is not good (ie, that defiance of God, Who is Good), we became less like God, thus "the fall". 

I also note that while Adam and Eve have always been of special import to me, I am not deeply learned past a general understanding.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Moonhawk

[Spy Car]

2 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

(So I totally should bow out of the thread while I can. And I know you denoted Paulist Christians in particular, so perhaps this is unnecessary: I am not really familiar with the terms used to denote different segments of Christianity.)

We did not become more like the divine in the Fall, we became less like it. We were originally made in God's image: we have an eternal soul, the power to discern, and free will; and the free will allows us to choose good of our own will [also, to choose bad]. The power to discern (ie our intellect) plus our free will means we already have moral discernment and the power to act upon it.

So we did not gain moral discernment when we ate the apple, rather we exercised it BY eating the apple (in direct defiance of God). By exercising our free will for something that is not good (ie, that defiance of God, Who is Good), we became less like God, thus "the fall". 

I also note that while Adam and Eve have always been of special import to me, I am not deeply learned past a general understanding.

By my reading, the words attributed to God in Genesis 3 directly contradict this interpretation.

Genesis 3:22 begins [emphasis added], "Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil." And then God acts to prevent humans from becoming immortal (and even more like the divine).

If Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil--and were like the divine in that regard--the narrative as written would make no sense (at least to my mind). 

They could not "become" like the divine by gaining moral discernment if they already had this capacity. Right?

Further, a "Fall" suggests a lowering of a being's nature. But God has just said man has become more like the divine (not less so).

Therefore suggesting man has "Fallen" would make logical sense to these ears only if becoming more "like God" somehow represents a decline in the human condition, and I'm quite certain that's not the intended takeaway.

I see no evidence of free will in the story. Not without moral discernment (knowing good from evil) do actions have moral consequences.

One can order an animal or an infant not to do something that's tempting--and not be happy if the order is not followed--but that act certainly would not qualify as "sin," as it would be lacking moral discretion. No?

If I left a juicy steak out for Chester, said "don't eat this," and went for a walk in the breezy part of the day, I'd feel hard pressed to condem my dog (and all future dogs) as sinful beings if he transgressed. Same with a baby.

I see the story as a metaphor for humans moving from being like infants who don't know right from wrong--a condition that has some advantages of ignorant bliss, but is very limiting--growing into adulthood, which has both costs and benefits. But we were not meant to be internal babies. With the acquisition of hitherto lacking moral discernment, the story explains why people die, why we suffer, why childbirth--which is necessary to our survival as a species--is painful in a world created by God, but also shows us how we have the spark of the divine in us as a result of the gift of being able to distinguish right from wrong.

At least that's the way I see this story, which I have also found fascinating since childhood.

I do realize my take is very far removed from what's considered Christian orthodoxy (understatement alert), but have also discovered that similar takes have resonated with many Jewish thinkers, and in Judaism generally this story is not seen as a Fall that requires the future sacrifice of Jesus as a way to wash away "original sin."

Bill

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Spy Car

[Moonhawk]

13 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

By my reading, the words attributed to God in Genesis 3 directly contradict this interpretation.

Genesis 3:22 begins [emphasis added], "Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil." And then God acts to prevent humans from becoming immortal (and even more like the divine).

If Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil--and were like the divine in that regard--the narrative as written would make no sense (at least to my mind). 

They could not "become" like the divine by gaining moral discernment if they already had this capacity. Right?

Further, a "Fall" suggests a lowering of a being's nature. But God has just said man has become more like the divine (not less so).

Therefore suggesting man has "Fallen" would make logical sense to these ears only if becoming more "like God" somehow represents a decline in the human condition, and I'm quite certain that's not the intended takeaway.

I see no evidence of free will in the story. Not without moral discernment (knowing good from evil) do actions have moral consequences.

One can order an animal or an infant not to do something that's tempting--and not be happy if the order is not to do followed--but that act certainly would not qualify as "sin," as it would be lacking moral discretion. No?

If I left a juicy steak out for Chester, said "don't eat this," and went for a walks in the breezy part of the day, I'd feel hard pressed to condem my dog (and all future dogs) as sinful beings if he transgressed. Same with a baby.

I see the story as a metaphor for humans moving from being like infants who don't know right from wrong--a condition that has some advantages of ignorant bliss, but is very limiting--growing into adulthood, which has both costs and benefits. But we were not meant to be internal babies. With the acquisition of hitherto lacking moral discernment, the story explains why people die, why we suffer, why childbirth--which is necessary to our survival as a species--is painful in a world created by God, but also show of how we have the spark of the divine in us as a result of the gift of being able to distinguish right from wrong.

At least that's the way I see this story, which I have also found fascinating since childhood.

I do realize my take is very far removed from what's considered Christian orthodoxy (understatement alert), but have also discovered that similar takes have resonated with many Jewish thinkers, and in Judaism generally this story is not seen as a Fall that requires the future sacrifice of Jesus as a way to wash away "original sin."

Bill

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply, its obvious to me my memory is based on conclusions but not the steps to get there. I will set aside some time soon to brush up how I got to where I did 🙂 

[Spy Car]

4 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Thanks for the reply, its obvious to me my memory is based on conclusions but not the steps to get there. I will set aside some time soon to brush up how I got to where I did 🙂 

As we are both interested in the story I'm happy to hear your thoughts one you gather them, if you are so inclined.

If it just starts seeming like the only bad confirmation class you ever taught all over again, LOL, I don't want to cause you any headaches.

It does seem to me that how people "read" this story is impactful. Has a power that continues to shape our views of what it means to be human and I find that fascinating.

Thank you!

Bill

[Spy Car]

3 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

Bill, FWIW as a Christian, I do not believe what you describe here is reflected in the Bible at all. There is only one moment in which Jesus is recorded as having a different desire than the will of the Father, and that is when He asked for the cup to pass him by (iow to not face his torture and crucifixion), but then chose to continue on with the plan (continue on through his death and resurrection). This was explained to me by a teacher I respect that Jesus' human nature was weak in that moment ("I wish I didn't have to do this"), but that his divine nature and his connection within the Trinity are what empowered him to stay on course ("I know this is the only way so I'll do it.").

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I do find this explanation the most satisfying explanation of Jesus' struggle to me from my position outside the faith.

The human side of Jesus' nature seems to experience a degree of dissonance with his divine nature, and any reluctance to face torture and crucifixion is not a clash of wills between the divine personage of the Father and the Son, whose will is One.

Thank you for that.

Bill 

[TexasProud]

Interesting turn. For what it is worth, here is part of my doctrinal synthesis talking about the Trinity:

 

Brief Statement About Trinity and Christ

I believe in the one true God, (Deut 4:35,39;6:4;32:39; 1 Kgs 8:60; Isa 42:8; 43:10b-11; 45:21-22; Mark 12:29)  eternally existing as three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;(Matt 28:18-19; 2 Cor 13:14) the same essence, equal in glory and yet distinct in persons. Christ is the eternally begotten son of the Father (John 1:14) who is both fully God (John 8:58; 10:30; Heb 1: 1-3; Rev 1:4-6) and fully man (Col 2:9; Phil 2:6-11). He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20) and born of the Virgin Mary (Matt 1:18-25; Luke 1:35). The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son and is fully God (John 14-17; 2 Cor 3:17-18). He serves as a Counselor or Advocate for believers (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13-15).

Exposition on the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ

            Though the word Trinity[i] is not used in the Bible, the doctrine is revealed in scripture.[ii] [iii] [iv] Trinity means that the one true God eternally exists as three persons:[v]  [vi] the Father,[vii]  [viii] the Son, and the Holy Spirit[ix] —one in nature,[x] equal in glory, and distinct in relations.[xi] God set the stage for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.[xii] He provides a clearer picture of the Trinity in the New Testament.[xiii]  God’s attributes of all-sufficiency,[xiv]  omnipresence,[xv] omniscience,[xvi] omnipotence,[xvii] goodness,[xviii][xix] love,[xx] and holiness[xxi] are eternally active.[xxii]  God is all-present in himself alone,[xxiii] displayed in creation and history,[xxiv] [xxv]also above and separate from creation,[xxvi] and yet, within creation as well.[xxvii] Each person in the Trinity contains all the same attributes of God.[xxviii] [xxix]   The three persons of the Trinity[xxx] experience perichoresis,[xxxi] a mutual indwelling that does not diminish their individual distinctiveness. [xxxii] God is a mystery[xxxiii] to our limited minds.[xxxiv]

            The first person in the Trinity is God, the Father.[xxxv] He is the Divine Source of everything,[xxxvi] including the Son[xxxvii] and the Holy Spirit.[xxxviii]  He is a loving[xxxix] Father. [xl] He is the Sovereign Ruler,[xli] Holy Judge,[xlii]  and compassionate reconciler.[xliii] Just as all things originated with the Father, they will also return to him as well.[xliv]

            Jesus, the Son,[xlv] is the second person in the Trinity. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit[xlvi] and born of the Virgin Mary.[xlvii] He is eternally[xlviii] begotten[xlix] [l]- there was never a time when he was not.[li] [lii] Jesus is the Son of God,[liii] [liv] Messiah,[lv]Son of Man,[lvi] and Savior.[lvii] He was crucified,[lviii]dead and buried and on the third day he rose again.[lix] He was fully God[lx] [lxi] and fully man.[lxii] Without this hypostatic union,[lxiii] he would not have been able to atone for the sins of humanity. Through his life and death on the cross, he “perfectly reveals”[lxiv] the Father to believers.[lxv] [lxvi]

             The third person[lxvii] in the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit as revealed in the Old[lxviii] and New Testament is a person who has always existed,[lxix] proceeding from the Father and the Son.[lxx] The Holy Spirit is God.[lxxi] The Spirit inspires the Word of God[lxxii] and draws us into a relationship with the triune God.[lxxiii] He helps us to know and love the Godhead. [lxxiv] A special relationship exists between the Holy Spirit and Jesus.[lxxv] The Spirit convicts the world,[lxxvi]glorifies Jesus,[lxxvii] and helps the believer to experience the Christian life.[lxxviii]

 

 

---

                 [i] Tertullian came up with the term Trinitas to describe the doctrine. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017), 304.

                 [ii] Dr. Chafer rightly observes that though we can and should use our reason in construction our doctrine of the Trinity, because the Bible is true,  “seeks no support from finite reason.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993,290.) Logos Bible Software.

                 [iii] The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is a primary passage.

                 [iv] The doctrine of the Trinity is seen in the following four areas: 1. In the historical evidence of Jesus Christ. 2. The Bible 3. Personal Experience 4. Church Tradition   J. Scott Horrell, “Ch 1 Revelation and Mystery,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 21-29.

                 [v] Dr. Chafer discusses how there must be objects and agents of the attributes.  You can only give love to a person.  Yet,, he also stresses the one essence of the three persons.  Chafer, 293-294.

                 [vi] Elohim and Adonai are plural terms for God, but the Bible uses a singular verb.  J. Scott Horrell, “Ch 2 Veiled Glory,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019),15-17.

                 [vii] In today’s culture, feminism has objected to the name of Father for God; however, Bruce Waltke cautions, “God, not mortals, has the right to name himself.  It is inexcusable hubris and idolatry on the part of mortals to change the images by which the eternal God chooses to represent himself.  We cannot change God’s name, title, or metaphors without committing idolatry, for we will have reimagined him in a way other than the metaphors and the incarnation by which he revealed himself.”  Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 244.

                 [viii] Although God was only described as Father 14 times in the OT. His progressive revelation in the NT uses the term 245 times.  J. Scott Horrell, “Ch 3 Father Who Draws Near,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 8-11.

                 [ix] Saint Augustine wrote “this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God.”  William Benton, “Augustine,” in Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1953), 339.

                 [x] In Deut 6:4, called the Shema by the Jews, the word ehad is used for the word one.  It means “one-through-many,” a sort of composite type as opposed to the word yahid which translates “only, solitary.”  Yahid is never used for God. This wording certainly works with the one essence of God having three persons.  Horrell, “Ch 2,” 13-14.

                 [xi] This definition is taken directly from Scott Horrell, “Ch 1,” 17.

                 [xii] Augustine said “in vetere testament novum latet et in novo vettus patus,” commonly translated “The New is in the Old contained and the Old is in the New explained.” Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, 2.73. quoted in Horrell, “Ch 2,” 8.

                 [xiii] The gospel of John is particularly good at fleshing out the doctrine of the Trinity.

                 [xiv]  All-sufficiency means God does not lack anything. He did not create because he was missing something. (Acts 17:24-25; Ps 50:9-12; 90:2, Rev 4:11) Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J Svigel, ed., Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture and the Triune God, (South Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 147.

                 [xv] 1 Kgs 8:27; Jer 23:23-24; Isa 57:15.

                 [xvi] “Omniscience means that God knows everything, things actual and possible, effortlessly and equally well,” Ryrie, Basic Theology 41. quoted in J. Scott Horrell, “Attributes of God,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 14.

                 [xvii] Rev 4:11; Ps 135:5-6; Isa 43:13, 44:24, 45:7

                 [xviii] “The substance of God consists in nothing else but in goodness” Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God, Intervarsity Press, 1991, 47) quoted in Horrell, “Attributes of God,” 25.

                 [xix] Ps 25:8, 34:8; Mark 10:18.

                 [xx] D. A. Carson suggests five aspects of the Trinitarian love of God: 1. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit love each other. 2. God loves creation. 3. God has a “salvific love” for a fallen world. 4.  God has a particular love for the “elect,” whether that is Israel, the church or individuals. 5. God’s love is conditional.  D.A. Carson The Difficult Doctrine of Love, (Crossway, 200). quoted in Horrell, “Attributes of God,” 27.

                 [xxi]Both the Old (Isaiah 6:3) and the New Testament (Rev 4:8) contain the Trisagion, which means “three times holy.” Holsteen, 153.

                 [xxii] This gives evidence of the Trinity as it would make no sense for God to be loving if he had no one to love. So, these qualities have existed before creation.  Chafer, 291-2.

                 [xxiii] Theologians use the term immanent Trinity. Horrell, “Ch 1,” 19.

                 [xxiv] Theologians use the term economic trinity to describe God’s work in creation. Horrell, “Ch 1,” 20.

                 [xxv] See Holmes for an in-depth discussion of Rahner’s Rule which says that the economic trinity is the immanent trinity and vice versa.   Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2012), 9-12.

                 [xxvi]  Theologians use the term transcendence. Jeremy Begbie stresses that transcendence and immanence work together.  Transcendence does not imply “disconnection or detachment, let alone disinterest or remoteness.” Rather God is “propelled by ceaseless and holy love” most when working in the world.  At the same time “God’s immanent presence to the world can never mean that the creature is crushed or robbed of its integrity, but rather is established, enhanced, and brought to fulness, immanence presupposed transcendence.” Jeremy Begbie, Redeeming Transcendence in the Arts: Bearing Witness to the Triune God, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2018), 120.

                 [xxvii] Immanence means God is present within creation. Horrell, “Attributes of God,” 18.

                 [xxviii] Augustine wrote: To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. Benton, 625.

                 [xxix] Chafer, 295.

                 [xxx] It is important to reiterate that these three persons exist at the same time so as not to fall into the heresy of modalism.  Modalism considers each of these to be different modes of God. See Alister E McGrath to see the difference between chronological and functional modalism.  Alister E McGrath,  308-310.

                 [xxxi] Many theologians see this as a model for all relationships in a Christian life: marriage, the church, etc. Alister E McGrath, 305.

                 [xxxii] John Zizioulas sees the Trinity as monarchical whereas Leonardo Boff focuses on perichoreses, resulting in very different interpretations.  Boff prefers the freely giving love and submission serving as a model for the church rather than Zizioulas’ strict hierarchical approach. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity, 25-26.

                 [xxxiii] “As he [God} draws near to us, we begin to realize how high he is above us, and as he unveils himself to us in truth, we begin to grasp how far he is beyond our understanding.” Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: A Theological Dramatic Theory, 5 vols., trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988-90), 3.530. quoted in Horrell, “Ch 1,” 37.

                 [xxxiv] Augustine said, “Si comprehendis non est Dues” sermon117.

                 [xxxv] In modern culture there as been debate about using masculine terms for God. Bruce Waltke rightly observes, “God, not mortals has the right to name himself…We cannot change God’s name, titles or metaphors without committing idolatry, for we will have reimaged him in a way other than the metaphors and the incarnation by which he revealed himself.” Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 244.

                 [xxxvi] Eph 1:11; 4:6; Acts 17:24-25, 28.

                 [xxxvii]  Hongyi  Yang discusses the implication of the Son’s submission to the Father on salvation. See Hongyi Yang, “Conclusion,” A Development Not a Departure, (P&R, 2018), 299-305.

                 [xxxviii] Church tradition has supported the doctrine of fons totius divinitatis as evidenced by the Nicene Creed.

                 [xxxix]  McGrath discusses “three major personifications” of God in the Old Testament: As wisdom in Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Word of God in Psalms and Isaiah, and the Spirit of God in Isaiah and Ezekiel.  Alister McGrath, 303.

                 [xl] Jesus refers to Yahweh as Father in  Matt 7:21; 10:32-33; 12:50;18:10; 20:23; 25:34; 26:29, 30, 42.  In the Garden of Gethsemane he refers to him as Abba in  Mk 14:36.  Allan Coppage, The God Who is Triune: Resolving the Christian Doctrine of God, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007), 26-27.

                 [xli] This is the primary role for God the Father (Deut 10:14, 17; Matt 11:25, Luke 10:21), though he does give the authority to the Son at times. God rules over all nations (1 Chron 29:11-12; 2 Kings 19:15). Scott Horrell, “Ch 3,” 16-18.

                 [xlii] God is the plumb line for what is considered right and wrong. Sin is “anything contrary to God’s moral perfection and declared will.” He will judge the nations. (Exod 12:12) Horrell, “Ch 3.” 19-21.

                 [xliii] God the Father is the one who gave the world His son. (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-9; 2 Cor 5:18-19).

                 [xliv] 1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 1:8.

                 [xlv] Some scholars have issues with Jesus being referred to as prototokos “firstborn.” This does not refer to him being born first (hence implying he has not always existed and is not divine), but rather has the meaning of his being God’s chief heir or object of a special love. J. Scott Horrell, “Ch 4 God Made Flesh,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 43.

                 [xlvi] A rich, multifaceted relationship exists between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Not only was he conceived through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit descended on him at his baptism (Matt 3:16) and lead him into the wilderness (Matt 4:1). Yet, he also seems to command the Spirit such as when he baptizes “with the Holy spirit and fire” (John 1:33). He promises to send the Holy Spirit from the Father to the disciples. (John 15:26, 16:7).

                 [xlvii] This sentence is found in the Apostle’s Creed which dates to around A.D. 150, showing it was widely accepted by the early church.

                 [xlviii]Jesus has always existed. (John 1:1-3; 17:5, 24; Col 1:15-19; Heb 1:2-13)

                 [xlix] As opposed to Arian who believed that God created Jesus sometime after creation. Therefore, he was not equal to God, nor made of his essence.  Michael Reeves. Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2012), 21.

                 [l] The term begotten is important. C.S. Lewis noted that the word implies begetting “something the same kind as yourself.  A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers,…” whereas the word create implies making something different than itself.  C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York:Macmillan, 1952), 138. quoted in Horrell, “Ch 4,”47.

                 [li] See Holmes “Quest for the Trinity” for a detailed exploration of Barth’s thoughts on Jesus being eternal.

                 [lii] Barth did not like the term persons but rather German word, Seinwiese. He felt like using person implied tritheism.  Holmes,  9.

                 [liii]   See  Coppedge, 26-30 for a detailed description of Jesus referring to God as Father and the Father relating to Jesus as son.

                 [liv] He is called the Son of God by Nathanael (John 1:49), demons (Mt 8:29), the disciples (Matt 15:33, Peter Mt 16:16).  Jesus makes the claims in Matt 27:43, Jn 10:36 11:4 .   Coppage,  27-28.

                 [lv] Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament coming as Messiah: Greek christos or Hebrew mashiah.  Alister E McGrath,  209-210.

                 [lvi] This term describes the humanity of Christ, but it can also refer to the prophesies of Ezekiel and Daniel.  See Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, 211 for a more in-depth discussion of the nuances of meaning.

                 [lvii] The Greek term kyrios had been traditionally reserved for God, but the apostles and Paul (Rom 10:9) use this word to refer to Jesus.

                 [lviii] Phil 2:7 refers to kenosis, Jesus emptying himself.  He could not empty himself of his divinity or he would not be God.  Some have interpreted this to mean he chose not to use some of his divinity.  However, this verse is difficult to understand.

                 [lix] Again, this is from the Apostle’s Creed.

                 [lx] Biblical writers in “high Christologies” identify Jesus as divine: Col 1:13-19; 2:9; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:1-14

                 [lxi] Jesus is not a similar substance (homoiousios) but the same substance  (homoousios) as God. Alister E. McGrath, 301.

                 [lxii] The Council of Chalcedon in 451 explicitly detailed the “truly divine and truly human” form of Jesus. Alister E McGrath, 207.

                 [lxiii] Several other terms can be used to describe the humanity and deity of Christ.  First is enhypostatic union where  the divine essence sustains the human nature. The second is  anhypostasis which means would not have been a human nature without a divine nature. Finally communicato idiomatum which specifies that although they shared the person of Christ the divine and human natures did not comingle. J. Scott Horrell,  “One Person, Two Natures of Christ,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 3-5.

                 [lxiv] Michael Reeves, 97.

                 [lxv] The idea that Jesus was the “revelatory presence of God” is unique to Christianity. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, 208.

                 [lxvi] John 14:9

                 [lxvii] It is important to reiterate that the Holy Spirit is not some nebulous force.  The Holy Spirit has intelligence, volition, affection and is capable of relationships. Tradition   J. Scott Horrell, “Ch 5 The Other Comforter,” unpublished class notes for ST 102 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2019), 31.

                 [lxviii] The Hebrew term ruach has a variety of meanings in the Old Testament: 1. wind (Ex 14:21) 2. Breath (Gen  1:2; 2:7;  Job 26:12-12; Psalm 104: 27-31; and Ezek 37:1-14 3. Charism – filling someone with the spirit of God (Gen 41:38-9; Ex 28:3; Deut 34:9; Isaiah 61:1; Ezek 2:1-2; Micah 3:8; Zech 7:12) Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, 280-281.

                 [lxix] The Holy Spirit participated in creation (Gen 1:2; 2:7; Job 33:4; 26:13; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37:9).

                 [lxx] The controversy over adding filoque (which means from the Son) to the Nicaean Creed was a major cause of the division between the Western and Eastern churches. Alister E McGrath, Christian Theology, 287-288.

                 [lxxi] Matthew 28:19 equates the name of the Holy Spirit with the name of God.  In Acts 5:3-9 Peter equates lying to the Holy Spirit as lying to God.  In 2 Cor 3:17-18 Paul writes, “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” Horrell, “Ch 5.” 23-25.

                 [lxxii] 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21

                 [lxxiii]John Paul II wrote in the Redemptoris Missio that the Spirit “serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ…” Alister E McGrath, Christian Theology, 295.

                 [lxxiv] Reeves says the big problem atheists have with God is their conception of God like the ruler of North Korea.  “The picture changes entirely, though, if God is fundamentally the most kind and loving Father, and only ever exercises his rule as who he is—Father.”  Reeves, 110.

                 [lxxv] Allan Coppedge discusses the six types of relationships 1. Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit ( Mt 1:18,20; Lk 1:35). 2. The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus at his baptism ( Mt 3:17, Lk 3:22 ) 3. He anoints Jesus to do his work. 4. Jesus teaches about the Holy Spirit. 5. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit as a Counselor and Comforter (Jn 14:16). 6. He breathes on them telling them to “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (Jn 20:21-23) , Coppedge, 30-33.

                 [lxxvi] John 16:8-11

                 [lxxvii] John 16:14

                 [lxxviii] Jurgen Moltmann put it this way, “It [Holy Spirit] is God himself, the creative and life-giving, redeeming and saving God. Where the Holy Spirit is present, God is present in a special way, and we ezperience God through our lives, which become wholly living from within.”  Jurgen Moltmann, The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 10.

[maize]

6 hours ago, Spy Car said:

By my reading, the words attributed to God in Genesis 3 directly contradict this interpretation.

Genesis 3:22 begins [emphasis added], "Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil." And then God acts to prevent humans from becoming immortal (and even more like the divine).

If Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil--and were like the divine in that regard--the narrative as written would make no sense (at least to my mind). 

They could not "become" like the divine by gaining moral discernment if they already had this capacity. Right?

Further, a "Fall" suggests a lowering of a being's nature. But God has just said man has become more like the divine (not less so).

Therefore suggesting man has "Fallen" would make logical sense to these ears only if becoming more "like God" somehow represents a decline in the human condition, and I'm quite certain that's not the intended takeaway.

I see no evidence of free will in the story. Not without moral discernment (knowing good from evil) do actions have moral consequences.

One can order an animal or an infant not to do something that's tempting--and not be happy if the order is not followed--but that act certainly would not qualify as "sin," as it would be lacking moral discretion. No?

If I left a juicy steak out for Chester, said "don't eat this," and went for a walk in the breezy part of the day, I'd feel hard pressed to condem my dog (and all future dogs) as sinful beings if he transgressed. Same with a baby.

I see the story as a metaphor for humans moving from being like infants who don't know right from wrong--a condition that has some advantages of ignorant bliss, but is very limiting--growing into adulthood, which has both costs and benefits. But we were not meant to be internal babies. With the acquisition of hitherto lacking moral discernment, the story explains why people die, why we suffer, why childbirth--which is necessary to our survival as a species--is painful in a world created by God, but also shows us how we have the spark of the divine in us as a result of the gift of being able to distinguish right from wrong.

At least that's the way I see this story, which I have also found fascinating since childhood.

I do realize my take is very far removed from what's considered Christian orthodoxy (understatement alert), but have also discovered that similar takes have resonated with many Jewish thinkers, and in Judaism generally this story is not seen as a Fall that requires the future sacrifice of Jesus as a way to wash away "original sin."

Bill

 

 

 

 

Your take has resonances in LDS theology.

There are complexities here, but we do not overall view Eve and Adam's choice to partake of the forbidden fruit as a negative; rather as a necessary step in an ongoing path of progression; part of growing up to become more like God.

My understanding of this is not that we didn't have moral agency before the fall, but rather that the scope of that agency was limited. Adam and Eve in the garden were like children living at home, protected and cared for by a parent. The Fall, by removing us from the Garden and the direct presence of God, gave us the chance to go out in the world and exercise our agency more fully; blundering and making mistakes along the way and growing in ways we could not as a child at home.

We tend to see wisdom in Eve's choice as the first to take that step, and in Adam's decision to follow her example and walk forward by her side.

All of which is certainly outside of mainstream Christian theology.

 

 

 

[maize]

With regards to leadership and submission, I find any position that demands one human submit their own moral agency to another problematic for both. Too much responsibility given on one hand and too much given up on the other.

Humans, with all our imperfections, are not able to carry full moral authority for another. 

I've been married for almost two decades to a man who struggles with chronic mental illness--a brain that quite simply malfunctions at times. It would have been disastrous had I felt a need to submit to him in family decision making rather than rely on my own agency to make decisions for myself and our children. I do not believe that God would place such a demand or burden on either him or me. 

I am confident that God expects me to use my own faculties to exercise my agency as best I am able, not to look to another to make decisions for me.

Edited April 13, 2021 by maize

[TexasProud]

Disclaimer: I have not listened to this at all. I have no idea in which camp this lies. Just thought I would share that a radio station in Dallas has this on their blog today:

https://www.kcbi.org/what-is-biblical-submission/?fbclid=IwAR3mWlbuewdfggfWgtjPKY4V2kRp7g-R8VEzD89aLbnlh6fIPVLDx3upV-E

[Pam in CT]

re Eve taking one for the team, for the sake of humanity's "growing up" and progressing toward greater sanctity

2 hours ago, maize said:

Your take has resonances in LDS theology.

There are complexities here, but we do not overall view Eve and Adam's choice to partake of the forbidden fruit as a negative; rather as a necessary step in an ongoing path of progression; part of growing up to become more like God.

My understanding of this is not that we didn't have moral agency before the fall, but rather that the scope of that agency was limited. Adam and Eve in the garden were like children living at home, protected and cared for by a parent. The Fall, by removing us from the Garden and the direct presence of God, gave us the chance to go out in the world and exercise our agency more fully; blundering and making mistakes along the way and growing in ways we could not as a child at home.

We tend to see wisdom in Eve's choice as the first to take that step, and in Adam's decision to follow her example and walk forward by her side.

All of which is certainly outside of mainstream Christian theology.

 

 

I have always loved this take on the story.

[chiguirre]

12 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

For me, these verses are as harmful as the slavery verses. Because abuse has been heaped upon people based on these verses. There are very few verses in the Bible like that, directly responsible for ill treating people for centuries. I used to think it was different in the West, because Christianity in my country of origin is very much entwined with culture. But it was shocking to see how it was in America, the same nonsense and without the backing of culture. Secular society seemed different. 

In the West, Christianity is so entwined with culture that it can become invisible, like the cliche about a fish not knowing what water is. Christianity as a defining feature of Western culture was just assumed until the post WWII era. The change to a more secular world accelerated with the downfall of European fascism because of the obvious lethal effects that it had. The process was slower in the US since Christianity tended to have adherents on both sides of our central struggle for civil rights for all.

That struggle is continuing within American Christianity but with the added element of a large chunk of the population outside that community and looking in (like Bill and me). The Nones have their own moral commitments to add to the debate, but those only apply to the civil society we'd like to see and not to the direction of any faith community. We don't have a voice in the dispute about complementarianism or latent racism in churches but we sure do feel the effects of those debates on our whole society. It can be very frightening to see a backlash that could take us back to a time before Civil Rights became enshrined as a national ideal.

[kbutton]

9 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Genesis 3:22 begins [emphasis added], "Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil." And then God acts to prevent humans from becoming immortal (and even more like the divine).

If Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil--and were like the divine in that regard--the narrative as written would make no sense (at least to my mind). 

They could not "become" like the divine by gaining moral discernment if they already had this capacity. Right?

Further, a "Fall" suggests a lowering of a being's nature. But God has just said man has become more like the divine (not less so).

Therefore suggesting man has "Fallen" would make logical sense to these ears only if becoming more "like God" somehow represents a decline in the human condition, and I'm quite certain that's not the intended takeaway.

I wonder if the being more like God part is knowing the consequences of the moral or immoral choice--so they were always able to choose the moral or immoral option, but they did not understand the repercussions. The fall, then, might be that they now have this ability to see consequences, but they had forever shattered the perfect ability to choose to always do right. 

I appreciate listening to your perspective on these things. 

13 hours ago, Danae said:

Disagreement between the “eternal submission of the son” faction and the classical Trinitarian faction is part of the SBC’s current meltdown. If by “standard” you mean there are lots of people who teach it, sure.  If you mean common and largely undisputed, no way.  

Thanks for mentioning this. @Spy Car, this is the terminology I've been introduced to if you are interested in current controversy. Some denominations have already rejected it as heresy, or so I've been told by a family member in another denomination. A lot of the current movement to make complementarianism more patriarchal is linked to this line of thought from what I understand. 

1 hour ago, Seasider too said:

I spent many years in authoritarian/patriarchal-masquerading-as-complementarian  institutions and do not wish the same for my children. But I also desire to see their faith remain vibrant. There is a wind of change blowing, and I hope the chaff goes with it. 

This wording exactly describes my thoughts on the kind of complementarianism that the SBC seems to be headed toward. Thanks.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Random thoughts (because I don't have the time or bandwidth for actual debate on this):

I have always said that I believed in complimentarianism but all I meant was that my husband and I complement each other:  our strengths and weaknesses.  I guess that I'd better not say that any more!

Re. the fall.  I do not see that as a good thing at all.  Adam and Eve, even more than us, knew the Creator first hand.  They had seen all the animals that had been created and of course in Adam's case, he had seen how God had created Eve for him.  So the issue was not simply one of giving into temptation or not.  It was more a matter of whether they were going to trust the Creator with their lives.  And that is ultimately what God wants from each one of us.  He had provided everything they needed in that garden (with one thing only off limits) and He provides everything for us now, including salvation.  Eve trusted the word of a created being (the serpent and even Lucifer himself were created) over that of the Creator.  Adam chose his relationship with Eve over his (initial) relationship with the Creator.  That ultimately is the definition of sin - choosing to go away from the will of the Creator and substituting our own will and trusting in our "own understanding".  I have had a lot of dark times in my life where I don't know what the end result will be and when suffering will end (in this life) but I need to put my trust in the Creator who has a plan for my life even if that plan seems incomprehensible to me.  (And no, I don't think that a life that includes suffering is any reason not to trust that the Creator knows best and has my best interest at heart.) 

[WildflowerMom]

Everything Jean said.   
 

Also, I learn so much from y’all.  I’d not even heard of complimentaryism (or however you spell it).  I’ve also not thought real deeply about the “obey” stuff either.   Dh has strengths.  He leads in those areas.  I have strengths. I lead in those areas.  If he tells me something that is in his area of strength, I go along with it, because that’s his ‘area’, and vice versa.   I don’t really think it has to be more difficult than that.    When it came to raising ds, dh automatically deferred to me on everything.   That was one of my strengths and dh knew it, so I made those decisions.  We both give input, even if it’s not our “area of expertise”.  

[bolt.]

14 hours ago, MercyA said:

Re: "full" obedience: I would not obey my husband if it meant disobeying either God or my conscience.

Re: perspective: I'm not obeying a human being for the sake of obeying him; I'm obeying a human being for the sake of obeying God. Like following any other commandment, sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard; sometimes it feels freeing and sometimes it feels frustrating. But it never diminishes me as a person. Indeed, I think it is very much in line with the rest of Scripture: the last shall be first and whoever wishes to be greatest should be servant of all. There is power and strength in obedience.

First point: Fair enough. I still think that the "nearly full" obedience you are describing would diminish me

Second point: I can see the logic and consistency of your thinking here. But, since I don't read any such command for marital intra-human obedience in the Bible, I don't see any reason to tie together the concepts you see as related here. (a) Since there is no command, there is no reason to do it, and whether or not I find it 'hard' is irrelevant. (b) By your logic the sense of servanthood gained by women wouldn't be available to men. If it's a good thing, why isn't it available to all Christians? If obedience elevates women, why are they being singled out for elevation in that way? (For me, servanthood -- without intra-human obedience -- is expected of all Christians and does benefit all Christians to experience it.)

[kbutton]

6 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

It is absolutely amazing how a girl who has been raised in a gender equal way thinks. How much confidence it gives. She just leaps into anything without hesitation. My mil, mom and I often sit and marvel at her thinking back to the girls we were. My DH cannot relate at all because he was raised in a completely different way, more like DD is and allowed to be who he is from a young age. 

Because of the way you phrased this, I wanted to say this again, but I don't want to diminish what you are saying because I think it's important. I think some complementarians really espouse patriarchy, not complementarianism. I completely agree with you that some women do not get to learn to make decisions, and that in some homes, girls are basically trained to be married and nothing else. Among older generations, plenty of men struggle to cook, clean, and do laundry if they are widowed. Patriarchy helps no one.

But there are definitely girls who grow up in complementarian homes that feel utterly free to speak their minds the way a boy would, and whose fathers amplify women's voices/solicit female opinions, etc. They become lawyers and doctors and whatever they want to be. They play sports, coach sports, and even play "male" sports like football. Plenty of kids learn to do a wide variety of household chores, regardless of gender. 

I grew up with lots of uncles and boy cousins (numerically more common), and the girls in the family hold their own, lol! Not all have the same religious beliefs, but they were raised in a general, complementarian, 1950's kind of household (except that my grandmother definitely taught them all to cook, clean, etc.) I know my parents have some funny stories about when they were getting married and what was said by various family members when the officiant asked about "obeying," but yet, I think my parents would consider themselves complementarian.

In some contexts, it's truly only about role. Single women are subject to no one in the home or church that males are not also subject too (children subject to parents, all subject to spiritual authority, all subject to the laws of the land, etc.). There are differing views of what a wife's submission to a husband looks like, which I think is absent in the more patriarchal views that are emerging in the SBC (and maybe never left some denominations). 

I think some denominations, like the SBC, are using ESS doctrine of the Trinity to circle the wagons and impose patriarchy but calling it complementarianism. This fairly complementarian women is agog at what is passing for complementarianism. 

[ktgrok]

20 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Because of the way you phrased this, I wanted to say this again, but I don't want to diminish what you are saying because I think it's important. I think some complementarians really espouse patriarchy, not complementarianism.

This is a good discussion point. I'm not sure what patriarchy means, in a broad sense, beyond male led society/families. Which seems to be the same as complementarianism?

That said, my personal view is that men and women are both supposed to submit, but that Paul was addressing a particular issue in that letter. 

[Jaybee]

9 minutes ago, kbutton said:

This fairly complementarian women is agog at what is passing for complementarianism. 

Yep. My dh cleans the bathrooms. Our sons take turns with the vacuuming and mopping. Our daughters all have college degrees, two of them with masters. My dh has always supported me in my endeavors, and not in a patronizing way. This present thing going on? It just feels different.

I mentioned this before, but believe it bears saying again: I'm personally seeing this authoritarian mindset being directed toward men, as well; moving from more mutual back/forth discussion to authoritarian-style leadership. (Knowing that there were always some who operated this way.) It's disturbing.

[Indigo Blue]

A married couple I know live with the husband as head of the family, and the wife as helper. He believes he should make all major decisions. She is willingly supportive and fills her role as they believe she should. Once, I mentioned yoga which helps me with pain. It’s in no way a form of worship or meditation for me. It’s just for my body. I need it. She said her dh would never “let” her do yoga. This works for them and they are living the way they believe they should. But they believe this is right for them and should be right for all as Christians. 

This makes me have a lot of thoughts. What about families where the husband wants to leave it up to his wife to manage the finances because he’s not good at it? What about a family where, if it weren’t for the wife’s initiative, there would be no college fund set up for the children? What about families where the husband isn’t prone to question the advice of doctors and do his research online so as to be informed so the best medical decisions can be made? What about families where the husband doesn’t concern himself with being educated about healthy food choices and the wife must solely influence the children’s health habits?

And these are families where the husband is hard-working and honest, but the wife must, out of necessity, do these things.

I just can’t imagine someone telling me I am not allowed to practice yoga because it’s a form of Eastern worship when I know logically and fully well I’m doing it only for tight muscles.

This couple is happy this way, and they think it SHOULD work for everyone if they are living a Christian life, but it just doesn’t seem so simple. 

I say this, but I’m not really debating. These are just thoughts that come up when this topic gets brought up.

 

[Jaybee]

3 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

A married couple I know live with the husband as head of the family, and the wife as helper. He believes he should make all major decisions. She is willingly supportive and fills her role as they believe she should. Once, I mentioned yoga which helps me with pain. It’s in no way a form of worship or meditation for me. It’s just for my body. I need it. She said her dh would never “let” her do yoga. This works for them and they are living the way they believe they should. But they believe this is right for them and should be right for all as Christians. 

This makes me have a lot of thoughts. What about families where the husband wants to leave it up to his wife to manage the finances because he’s not good at it? What about a family where, if it weren’t for the wife’s initiative, there would be no college fund set up for the children? What about families where the husband isn’t prone to question the advice of doctors and do his research online so as to be informed so the best medical decisions can be made? What about families where the husband doesn’t concern himself with being educated about healthy food choices and the wife must solely influence the children’s health habits?

And these are families where the husband is hard-working and honest, but the wife must, out of necessity, do these things.

I just can’t imagine someone telling me I am not allowed to practice yoga because it’s a form of Eastern worship when I know logically and fully well I’m doing it only for tight muscles.

This couple is happy this way, and they think it SHOULD work for everyone if they are living a Christian life, but it just doesn’t seem so simple. 

I say this, but I’m not really debating. These are just thoughts that come up when this topic gets brought up.

 

To my understanding, this is patriarchy, not complementarianism.