Prayer to Jesus
|
I thought Joel and my conversation about biblical grounds of praying to Jesus rather than to God the Father wouldn’t do any more justice to the post ‘Am I sure that I am saved’, so I decided to start this new thread. To answer your question, Joel, what I mean with prayer and if it is biblical to ‘talk’ to Jesus, I want to say that I do see a difference between ‘talking’ to someone and ‘praying’. Paul was indeed ‘talking’ to Jesus on several occasions. But so were the Pharisees when they met him and thousands of other people. That didn’t mean they ‘prayed’ to him. And in many visions of Angels and even Demons and spirits (like Samuel’s spirit) humans were actually verbally and visibly engaging with them. If ‘talking’ means ‘praying’ it is biblical to pray to Angels, for example, precisely because people ‘talked’ to them. Jesus made it clear in many occasions that he was there to glorify the Father. He referred humans to God. He invited them to pray to God in an intimate way, hence the word ‘father’. I do not think there is a lot of ground in using visions of Christ that caused verbal interactions to proof prayer to Jesus is a biblical concept, unless prayer for you is simply ‘talking’ to someone but as I said then you must expand the possibility of prayer to Angels and such also. Yes, possibly Paul requested from Jesus to remove the thorn in his flesh. Possibly it was God the Father. But it was certainly God the Father that Paul directed his thanksgiving to. Even thanksgiving for Christ he directed to God the Father and not to Jesus himself. And that is pretty strong, I think. |
Comments
In Jesus' Name
I think the problem here is semantics. Paulchen does not see prayer with Christ as normative, and most of us do. The issue at hand is not whether Paulchen sees Jesus as divine but rather he is unsure of the role Jesus completes in the divine and based on a normative reading of Jesus’ own words to the disciples not to call him master, he would not be far off. The problem is that his view of things sees this as normative, whereas most of us see it as an answer he made to a specific problem which is not normative.
Many excellent points have been brought up to answer his contentions, and I will not reiterate them now.
All in all, I am reminded of Paul: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill…whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”
And Ignatius: “I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God.”
I would also add this thought. To have Jesus without the Father, which IS a trend in evangelicalism OR to have the Father but deny Jesus, which is also a trend I’ve seen occurring - BOTH are incomplete. We must know God in all of who he is, in the hidden and in the manifest.
Jesus, prayer, and a trip to Prague
I’m more interested in how not praying to Jesus affects your belief about everything else, Paul. There is little doubt that a Jesus who ascends to the Father and pours out the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost places distance between the Spirit and the Father, confirms Jesus in his divine role, and describes ipso facto a triune God (without getting into what he is made of). But that role was evident in his earthly ministry. So isn’t it being deceptive to appease Muslims by not praying to Jesus when we believe he was divine all along?
I don’t want to get too argumentative, as I’m still hoping to visit you in your backpackers’ hostel in Prague. Is the invitation still open?
Paul has a backpackers
Paul has a backpackers hostile in Prague? Darn it!. I may have already blown it. :)
Backpackers hostels by the way - the best place in the world to watch the World Cup. Get a bunch of kids from multiple countries from all over the world, get them away from their home country, give them a few beers and then put the World Cup on. Great show.
"P.S. Joel, why don't we
“P.S. Joel, why don’t we discuss these things with a beer in our pub. Usually this helps:)”
I’m sure it would. Preferably something microbrewed in some small but very fine Christian Monastery. Though we would likley end up dropping the theological discussion altogether and instead discuss our favorite beers instead.
Blessings.
Jesus, prayer, the trinity and Czech beer.
Paul - I was just wondering what practical consequences follow from saying that the NT does not teach prayer to Jesus - or what assumptions might underlie such a view.
Hebrews 7:25b talks of Jesus as one who “always lives to make intercession for them” (“them” being “those who come to God through him” v.25a). If interpreted woodenly, this might lead us to think of prayer being directed to and through Jesus rather than directly to God, Jesus then taking the prayer concerns to the Father personally.
In practice, the name of Jesus and the Father are so closely tied up with each other that we wouldn’t make this complicated distinction, and neither need we make it when we pray. For example, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” - John 14:9. This does not suggest a total absence of distinction between Father and Son, but that they so closely identify themselves with each other that to see one is to see the other. There is no reason why that identity should not be reflected in the way we pray. The titles “Father” and “Son” also encourage this sense of mututal identification.
The Spirit’s role in prayer seems to be to highlight that identification - eg John 16:13-15, and to take a self-effacing role in relation to the focus of our prayers.
It’s impossible to get very far in this sort of discussion without stumbling upon the trinity! But unlike the church Fathers, I think the NT describes how the trinity works, without trying to define it. As you have seen, for me the evidence for a trinitarian God is deeply implanted in the NT, and basic apsects of how our faith works are made incredible without it.
I heard that this Sunday just gone was Trinity Sunday in the church calendar, so maybe there is some relevance to these issues. But I’m much more interested in finding out how the chapel works at the back of your bar. Are worshippers and celebrants allowed to take their Pilsners in there?
Jesus - the valid focus of our prayers
Paul - one or two instances of prayer to Jesus in the NT:
1. The confession “Jesus is Lord” in Romans 10:9, which leads into Romans 10:12 “The same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ ” Calling on the Lord is the same as praying to him, in my understanding.
2. The turning to Jesus as Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:14-18, where turning to Jesus is as much as praying to him.
3. The identification of Jesus and the Father in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, which is as much to say that prayer to both, but on the basis of understanding one by the other, is valid.
4. This kind of interchangeability of Christ and God is a constant feature of the NT which a few verses from 2 Corinthians illustrate: 2 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Corinthians 11:2 (contrasting with Israel’s marriage to ‘God’ through the Torah); 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Corinthians 12:9; 2 Corinthians 13:3,5; 2 Corinthians 13:14
5. The interchangeability of God and Christ in Paul’s language continues in Galatians 2:20 - faith in Christ is equivalent to faith in God (unless Paul was blaspheming).
6. Paul’s ‘prayers’ do address God through Jesus, but the blessings he then describes are those which came through Christ, not, as it were, directly from the Father. Eg. Ephesians 1, where ‘in Christ’ (not ‘in the Father’) is mentioned at least 12 times, not to mention various references ‘of Christ’, ‘through Christ’ etc., but the overriding emphasis is on a Christ who occupies the same territory as the divine Father - he is Lord (Kurios - Septuagint for YHWH), and the accolades reach a climax with Jesus being raised “far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in this age but in the one to come.” This is God-language, so when we pray, whether it is to the Father or to Jesus, our prayers are going to the same divine being.
7. That we should direct our prayers to Jesus is assumed in the description of Jesus as “head over everything for the church, which is his church” - Ephesians 1:22. The “head”, being the source of intelligence, needs to communicate with the body. Communication comes through prayer - and various means of spiritual address (prophecy, words of wisdom, visions, dreams etc). It is inconceivable that there could be any separation between the counsel of God the Father and God the Son in this kind of divine communication and dialogue.
8. Again, in Ephesians 3:14-21, although the prayer is initially addressed to “God the Father”, the blessings which are invoked are described in terms of Christ, so that by verse 21 “Father” and “Christ” are so closely identified that is impossible to find a point of separation between the two.
9. Philippians 2:5-11 describes a Jesus who was God, has come from God, and by the time he has returned to God it is he, not the Father, who is given the highest place, highest name, and a name which is to be ‘confessed’ by all. I take it that this confession of Jesus as Lord (=God), holds as good in prayer as it does in praise, and also proclamation of the gospel. And it is not to the detriment of God the Father - who is glorified when Jesus is glorified - Philippians 2:11
Technically Paul, you may be correct in saying that Paul the aspostle tends to open his prayers and thanksgivings to God the Father through Jesus Christ (though note 1 Timothy 1:12 as an exception to this). But overwhelmingly, Paul develops those prayers into paeons of praise to Jesus and what he has done - with no hint of disadvantage to God the Father, and no chink of light being visible between the two.
The phrase “in Christ” (not “in the Father”), repeated so frequently by Paul, emphasises this identification. Once you see the place accorded to Christ by Paul, there is no reason whatsoever to hesitate in complete interchangeability of address in our prayers to the Father and to Jesus. In fact in our thinking, there should be interchanegability, since the address to the one is impossible without inclusion of the other.
What we don’t see in the NT is addressing of prayers to the Spirit, or any sense that the Spirit is to be the focus of our prayers in the same way as Father and Son. We see the Spirit as the energiser of our prayers (eg Romans 8:26-27), and the same kind of self-effacement which was evident in John 16:13-15, in which the Spirit conspires, as it were, with the Father in order to bring glory to the Son, Jesus. If the Father wanted Jesus to be the focus of glory, that should be reflected in the way we direct our prayers.
The Godhead
Paulchen, I agree that the term “trinity” is a Greek one, that the concept of trying to encapsulate God in some theological term is extraneous to say the least.
However…
We cannot ignore the fact that in the course of the New Testament, both Jesus and the Spirit are defined in divine terms, that Paul repeatedly interchanges Jesus’ work and the father’s (i.e. the Resurrection is attributed to both Jesus own ability and to the father’s power).
I think a more appropriate way of viewing this may be to use Biblical terms. Let us call it the mystery of godliness, efsebeia - the term Paul uses in 1 Timothy 3:16 - or the Godhead, theotes - the term he uses in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. These are more precise terms anyway, and they are used by the Apostle who best conveyed the truth of God’s nature to the Gentiles.
The doctrine of the trinity in itself is not a Biblical term but rather a logical understanding of the scattered teachings of the Bible. It may have been defined by the Council of Nicea, but the Council of Nicea did not create it. The understanding that both Jesus and the Spirit were of the same nature as the Father goes back to Paul. The problem was that the definition made by Nicea was stated in such a way as to exclude any other possibilities, which I must admit limits God.
The Jewish tradition proclaims: “YHWH is one!” (Deuteronomy 6) and this is so. This statement must be taken to override any logical derivation, therefore is YHWH is one and Jesus is YHWH, then it stands to reason that he is one…as John succinctly put it in John 1:1. I think we wander into dangerous territory when we try to create definitions greater than that which the writers gave us.
I'm going to refrain from
I’m going to refrain from getting into this one lest I get too involved and frustrated. I’m actually dusting my feet off to a degree, lest I sin. To me this type of thing is evidence of how destructive protestantism in general can become when given over to such radical independance divorced from the historical Christian Faith as articulated first in the NT and then elaborated on and clarified by the Traditions of the Church as recorded in the creeds and the Liturgy of the early Church. The very idea that because the trinity is not mentioned by name in the NT as having any real relevance to its validity or non-validity is so utterly… (refraining here). I’ll just point out that the very word “Bible” is as much of an extra-biblical term as the trinity yet very few, except for the real radicals, ever question the validity of the Bible.
I guess the bottom line is that one’s Theology and or Christology will be ultimately influenced by one’s ecclesiology. Those who adhere to a radical free-church ecclesiology will eventually fall prey to various hyper-individualistic heterodox positions. Nothing is sacred once you declare yourself to be above the consensus of the One Body and declare yourself to be your own Pope.
Paul, We're obviousy having
Paul,
We’re obviousy having a disconnect here. What I’m seeing is that we have a different perception of the development of “extra-biblical” concepts within the traditions of the Fathers. This is a common mistake of Protestants who misunderstand the nature of the early Church, the Creeds and the Fathers etc. The mistake is that they are all lumped into one big collective jumble without consideration of the distinctions within all of them. So for instance, I agree with you that among the writings of those who are called the “Fathers” there is all kinds of things that I disagree with. No one, including Church tradition itself would disagree with this. They disagree with each other and fully acknowledge that they are mere humans. They never claim divine inspiration as the NT authors did. However, the simple writings of the Fathers is a far cry from twhen when the Bishops from all over the world got together by the truck-load and prayed and fasted togteher, seeking and calling on the Holy Spirit due to specific crises’ withon the Church that threatened to divide her and eventually made creeds which addresses these various issues as they arose. These always addressed specific teachings which were influencing the Church. So for instance, the arian controversy threatended to divide the church. Arius taught specifically (arguiing from the Scriptures no less) that Jesus was not God, not divine. Now, maybe you think that the church could contniue to exist with this issue in question. But the men who were commissioned by apostolic sucession, who were ordained by God to watch over the Church felt otherwise. So the first question would be, after reaing Arius’ position, and after reading the Nicean Constantinopolitan Creed, specifically, what do you disagree with?
You have stated explicitly that: “I do NOT believe in the Trinity. And I also beleive that the Trinity is not helpful. I do not say it is ‘wrong’, but not helpful.”
Of course this makes no sense at all. If its not “wrong” then it is “right” right? Or are you simply unwilling to make that jump. Do you think it might be wrong? Or just a little wrong?
You see Paul, rather than viewing this as a Greek versus Hebrew mystery thing, for insatnce, the Eastern Church affirm the Trinity AND mystery. All sorts of mysteries. They love mystery. They embrace the mystery of God. They love the mystery of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trintiy does not de-mystify God at all. But it does clarify some concepts that might seem disputable in the NT. Jesus is God. The Bible teaches this. But not so clearly that it is not possible to twist the scriptures to deny this. After Arius other men with agendas also developed their own ideas about Jesus. Like he was fully divine but not fully human. This also has drastic consequences if taken to its logical conclusions. Whatever Christ did not assume is not redeemed. The incarnation is the healing seed of all the universe. So once again the Fathers in unity got together and sought the council of the Spirit. As usual He was faithful to guide them.
What you seem to advocate in your minimalistic pseudo-sola scriptura (a sola that Calvin would never recognize by the way) is exactly that: minimalism. (please please please consider reading this book) And based on what you have thus far expressed this minimalism is for the sake of unity. But what you fail to understand is that the councils were also for the unity of the Church. Without them the church would have divided far before it did. You say that the trinity is not helpful. But it is comments like this that make me wonder if you’ve ever even read Church history.
I’m not sure of you are aware of it, but my primary ministry empahsis is outreach/dialogue with Muslims. Its been an interesting journey. I’ve personally seen dozens of folks like yourself, who begin by questioning the various foundational issues of the Historic Christian Faith, who see their own reasoning as being superior to the consensus of Church wisdom and guidance, who after extended dialogue with Muslims end up converting not the Muslims to Jesus, but they themselves to Islam. I’ve met too many pastors and lay-people alike who converted to Islam. After delving very deeply into the Islamic concept of strict Unitarian Montheism versus Christian Trintiarian Montheism or even Jewish Unitarian Monotheism, I am convinced that apart from the trinity, we have nothing. It is not surprising then that when one actually studies Jewish Theology, there is this tension in trying to create a multi-faceted Unitarian God through such concepts as the Shekinah (which they believe was divided into many parts at the fall of the temple) or the Metatron (the angle of the Lord, not quite fully God, but nothing less) or the Sephirot (which are the various emanations from God so popularly emphaisized in Kabbalah). You see even the Jews realized the fault in their own concept of God and the inability of their reactionary Unitarian theology to fully explain God. Only the Christian doctrine of the trinity can do this. If you’re not bored, here’s something that I wrote sometime ago to a Muslim friend which sheds light on my reasonings.
Bottom line Paul, the Creeds defined and clarified that which was always true. And I would challenge you to find one word within the Creeds that you think is wrong or the result of “man”.
Paul,
Paul,
Are you one of these guys that thinks that the Catholic Church is full of Pagan Babylonian cultic influences as well?
The reason I ask is becuase what you have just articulated is essentially on the same par as that protestant anti-Catholic gutter scholarship.
My guess is you’re a Bart Erhman fan?
Oh Man...
I didn’t know it was possible to insult someone by using the name of a writer!
Ehrman
Bart Ehrman isn’t so much “gutter scholarship” as he is simply a crank with bone to pick and something to prove (IMO).
But to reduce Nicea to being merely a politcal event where the powerful prevailed over those poor Arians is also IMO a gross and sadly typical protestant repainting of a great historical triumph of the Church as I said on par with such wonderful feats of scholarship as some of those classic anti-Catholic chic tracks.
Uhoh, He Dragged Chick into it to!
Ok, granted that the Chick tracts are some classic examples of paranoia run rampant…incidentally, Chick is a classic example of someone reading a single book, in this case Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons and running with it - failing to even check his sources for accuracy. Hislop’s own arguments are so fool (purposely misspelled) of inaccuracies and incomplete research that it would be funny if there wasn’t a part of the Church that so eagerly embraced them.
The fact is that the Bible clearly teaches a transcendent union of the three-in-one. Personally, I’m confident enough in the literal interpretation of Scripture that I don’t have a problem NOT studying the historic creeds, etc. The Word of God is pretty plain and clear…its people that aren’t. I don’t need a creed or a council to tell me that Jesus is God - partaker of the divine nature and yet separate from the Father and the Spirit - the Bible tells me that. And there’s no reason we can’t use Biblical words (see my post above) to indicate that truth.
Out of curiosity, if the historic creeds are of such tremendous value, when do they stop being of said value? When there were four popes? or when the pope and the patriarch of Jerusalem excommunicated each other? Biblical truth is not, in my humble opinion, not a decision for the majority vote to make, supposedly led by the Spirit or put under political pressure. Truth is truth - the Bible is what the Bible is and what it says is what it says.
That may sound ignorant and abrasive, but as I’ve said before, I’m not on this site to persuade people. Man! I could use a Czech brew right about now!
How on earth (or heaven) did we get to this anyway?
The question as to when the
Perhaps my problem is that I’ve been drinking Harp Beer Lately - Irish Beer. ;)
The question as to when the councils began to get off is a good one but also a bit indicative of our preconditioned protestant mentality. We imagine the church councils as being somewhat like the US congress, with the bishops being the law makers, the scene replete with slimey lobbyists paying the Bishops off on the side to tack some strange pork barrel Marian doctrines onto some random anathemas being issued against the persecuted protestants. We imagine a compounding of new laws and doctrines being piled on daily etc until the point that the Church is unrecognizable. And though we may laugh at the chick tracks, we still subtley feel as though they reflect a measure of truth. But this predjudice is often dissolved to a large measure when we really take the time to read opposing perspectves: maybe a Catholic perspective of Church History or an Orthodox. Then we realize that many of our predjudices are quite unfounded and over-exaggerated.
The councils were really so far and few in-between and generaly only spoke to issues that were needed. They are not nearly as abundant as we sometimes might imagine. I’m certainly no expert (obviously), but my personal feelings are that once the One Church split between East and West, things changed. The Body of Christ, that until then had genuinely managed to stay together was fractured. Things were no longer as they should be. Eventually the Protestant reformation took place and the shattering and bone splintering snaps, crackles and pops can still be heard to this day. Once again, I’m pushing this book as a fantastic tool of understanding for such discussions. (The author is Baptist pastor who teaches at a Catholic University.) But I think that it is important for us to be aware and understand that things are not as they should be. Christ’s prayers for unity are not presently being realized and each of us has a role to play in this sin. As such, we all need to be wrestling through your question. Your take is that one only need to go back to th Bible to remain true to Christ’s vision. Again, I will point out that it was the councils that determined which Bible is the Bible. I will also point out that Arius and other soul-destroying heresiarchs also utilized the Bible to defend their positions. I do agree with you however that the trinity is there. (I had to fight off the Jehovah’s Witnesses for the first two years after I converted to Christ.) But the councils use langauge that bury the hatchet each time. I will also incedentally point out that the Bible also shows us that the apostles established the very episcopal structure of the Church through apostolic sucession which eventually gave birth to the councils. Am I faithful to that or do I put myself in a camp all on my own? Again for me personally, I go back to the Church as she existed at least prior to the split and seek to at least remain faithful to that. Anything after that to me are non-essentials, anything before that to me are things that I wish to in humility submit to. I’m on a journey, but at least for now, them’s my feelings.
A digression from Prayer to Jesus
(A new thread was started with the content of this comment.)
Re: Trinity over the Bible
I’m wondering if you might enjoy reading a pretty unconventional creative nonfiction book I’ve written (169 pages), entitled, PIVOT POINT: Is Jesus your God or the SON of your God? It’s just leaving the editing phase at Tate Publishing, so I’m guessing the release date will be in April (around Easter). I describe it as a book written by a layperson for laypeople. The book is meant to encourage ordinary people to set aside what they’ve been taught to believe and re-examine the Bible along with their personal understanding of God. When I did this myself, I would ask a question, then read through the whole New Testament with just that one question in mind, taking notes as I went along. After going through this process many times, something began to take shape that I’d never seen there I believe I’ve uncovered an element that is missing in today’s Christianity, which might explain the widespread trend toward Jesus-Only, ‘Jesus is our God’ religion. If I’m right, this could be very big (I know my Christian publisher seems quite excited about it, and says it is very “marketable”). It’s a book that even non-Christians can read and discuss on a purely intellectual level, since it doesn’t have to be filtered through the ‘expert’ interpretation of theologians - it just takes what the Bible actually says and applies common sense and logic. If you have a heart for helping out a first-time author, a review and/or endorsement would be much appreciated. Regardless, would you do me the honor of reading my book? Thanks for your consideration!
Addressing the relevancy and timeliness of this book:
What is missing in today’s Christianity?
Fern Holm, author of PIVOT POINT, a creative nonfiction study intended to be the first of a series, believes GOD is missing - or soon will be - unless hearts are turned to the Father.
The widespread trend among Christians toward a Jesus-Only, “Jesus is our God” religion has sidestepped very important point - a pivotal point, in fact. PIVOT POINT nails it down by asking, “Is Jesus your God or the SON of your God?” Many Christians would say He’s both.
Tradition teaches that Jesus is the Son of the Trinity. From there, one can extrapolate that - as one of the three Persons of the Trinity - Jesus basically sent Himself to earth, which makes Him both “God” AND “Son of God”. According to the unconventional view expressed in PIVOT POINT, both logic and the Bible would have an equally hard time supporting this theology since Jesus is - as logic would tell us - the Son of the Father, and - as Holm reminds the reader of 1 John 4:14 - “the FATHER (not “the Trinity”) has sent the Son as Savior of the world”.
Does the author deny the divine nature of Christ?
“Not at all! God (also called ‘Father’), the “Son of God”, and the “Spirit of God” share the same divine (everlasting) nature, but not the same office or function. I have the same human nature as George W. Bush, but that doesn’t make me President.”
What about the Trinity?
“Yes, there is a Trinity, a ‘tri-union’, defined even in the Old Testament: “The LORD God and His Spirit have sent ME (the Messiah)” Isaiah 48:16, but it is undeniable, at least to the objective reader, that ‘the LORD God’ is the Father alone.”
So, what happens when people make Jesus their God? Ever heard of the Antichrist? Well, as PIVOT POINT explains it, if you can believe 1 John 2:22, “He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” Jude 1:4. By this standard, there’s a whole lot of “Antichrist” going on… and not much worship of the only true God, according to Fern Holm, author of PIVOT POINT.
Summary:
Do you dare to compare popular teachings with scriptural truths? This author did, and it led to evidence of a missing element which, she believes, could set end time events in motion and usher in the return of Christ! PIVOT POINT reveals the absence of the “everlasting gospel” in much of today’s evangelism. As Fern Holm sees it, when this gospel of the Father’s kingdom is preached - together with the message of salvation through Christ - the resulting synergy will release the prophetic, worldwide outpouring of the Holy Spirit (mankind’s final revival)… “and then the end will come” Matthew 24:14.
This author did, and it led to evidence of a missing element which, she believes, could set end time events in motion and usher in the return of Christ!reveals the absence of the “everlasting gospel” in much of today’s evangelism. As Fern Holm sees it, when this gospel of the Father’s kingdom is preached - together the message of salvation through Christ - the resulting synergy will release the prophetic, worldwide outpouring of the Holy Spirit (mankind’s final revival)… “and then the will come” .
Excerpts from my book, PIVOT POINT:
Is Jesus your God or the SON of your God?
from the Introduction:“As I took a fresh look at the Bible over the past several years, I was surprised to find that something seems to be missing from the typical Christian gospel as it is preached today, an omission which I believe is also the probable cause of the “Jesus-Only” trend that is gaining ground, and not just in the Oneness Pentecostal churches. I’m not saying the widely-accepted gospel of salvation through Christ is wrong, but that it is incomplete. What we are missing is the inclusion of the “everlasting gospel” of Revelation 14, the one that has always been so: the gospel of the king-dom of God.
Jesus said this gospel of the kingdom of God will be preached in all the world, and then the end will come. An angel preaches the everlasting gospel to every nation in Revelation 14, and then the end does come: Babylon falls! The disciples, after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, preached both “the kingdom of God, and the things concerning Jesus” to the unsaved—something much of today’s church is neglecting to do. This imbalance has finally swung theology around to a point where Jesus is no longer the Son, and God is no longer the Father.”
Chapter 3:
“The Popular Christian Gospel”
September 11, 2001: The horror of that day and the images we saw as the twin towers fell are permanently imprinted on our brains. It was as unexpected as the bombing of Pearl Harbor, actually more so. At least that attack happened during a world war and targeted a military base. This one came out of nowhere and was meant to kill many thousands of innocent civilians. In the days afterward, we were told the perpetrators performed this atrocity in the name of their God. Then commentators pointed out that Muslims and Christians worship the same God—the God of Abraham, a Jew, is also the God of Ishmael, Abraham’s son who birthed the Arab nation.
Christians were aghast at this unwanted association. Christian spokespeople went on television, trying to differentiate between the two religions. Unfortunately, in some cases the terrorist fanatics were seen to represent the entire Muslim faith, which would be similar to linking all Christians with the Crusaders who would plant a Jew in the sand and cut off his head if he didn’t confess the name of Jesus Christ. Rather than acknowledging that Jews and Arab Muslims worship the same God and both are in need of the same Savior, Yeshua (Jesus), Christians publicly denied the God of the Muslims, calling him false. The problem became a false God, not false teachings about the true God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and, yes— Ishmael.
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.” Gen. 17:20. God also gave, to the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin, Hittite wives from the Arab country of Syria. Later, King David married Bathsheba, also a Hittite, who became the mother of Solomon. Was this a way that God chose to include the descendents of Ishmael in His covenant with Abraham, and to make a place for them in the New Jerusalem of Revelation?
In an attempt to disassociate themselves from the God of the Muslims, Christians began looking for a way to make an absolutely clear distinction. I witnessed its shocking culmination when a man with a world-famous ministry looked at his audience from the TV screen and declared, “‘God’ is too generic a term. We go around saying ‘God this’ and ‘God that.’ People need to know exactly who our God is—that our God is Jesus.”
This statement and other public professions like it, seemed to open the way for the local churches, especially the nondenominational or charismatic churches, to come right out and say what they had previously only implied. Wherever I went, whomever I listened to, whatever songs were sung and prayers prayed, the underlying message would often be that Jesus is our God.
This distinction has very effectively eliminated the God of Ishmael from any association with Christianity, but in so doing, I am afraid it has also eliminated the same God as that of Abraham. My concern is that “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers,” who “glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13), “the God of our Fathers” who “raised Jesus” (Acts 5:30), is to be God no longer in the Christian church. Can Christians who say Jesus is their God still stand beside Paul as an adopted child of God and say, “I worship the God of my Fathers”? (Acts 24:14). Did those Jewish fathers worship the coming Messiah as their God? Jesus has been exalted to sit at the right hand of God, and God has given Jesus the position of the great “High Priest.” Did Jews traditionally worship the high priest of the temple as their God?
Even before the reaction to 9/11—long before—the evangelistic church at large has preached a gospel that has at least the potential to lead people to Christ alone. Some samples of the gospel message and the recommended prayer of salvation, publicly displayed on the website of each of these organizations, are quoted below.
AFLC: Association of Free Lutheran Congregations:To receive Christ as Lord and Savior right now, you might pray a prayer like this:
“Lord Jesus, I come to You a lost and lonely sinner. I confess that only You can take away the burden of my sins. I believe You died on the cross for all my sins. Come into my life right now. Forgive all my sins. I surrender my life to You and want to receive You as Lord of my life. Please give me the assurance of the Holy Spirit that I belong to You. Amen.”
SBC: Southern Baptist Convention: “Salvation”
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.
Salvation Army:
“Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.”
BGEA: Billy Graham Evangelistic Association:
“Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as Lord and Savior. In Jesus’ name. Amen.”
TBN: Trinity Broadcast Network:
Prayer of Salvation: “Dear Jesus, I believe in You. I believe You are the Son of God, that You died for my sins, and that You were buried and rose again as written in the Bible. I’m sorry for the things I’ve done that hurt You. Forgive me for all my sins. Come into my heart, take charge of my life and make me the way You want me to be. With Your ever present help, I renounce all my sinful practices of the past. Cleanse my heart with Your precious blood. Write my name in Your Book of Life. I confess You now as my Lord and Savior. Fill me with Your Holy Spirit. Thank You, Jesus! In Jesus’ Name, Amen.”
Can you see the total focus on Jesus in each one, even praying to Jesus in Jesus’ name? Something is definitely missing in this circular prayer that seems to fold in upon itself. Jesus is “the Way”—not the Destination. An arrow, not a circle. There’s a mystery here, one that’s begging to be solved. Something is missing, but what is it?
In my own attempt to be a Berean, I think I’ve come across a possible solution. The answer to this mystery could be contained in what Jesus called, “this gospel of the kingdom of God”—the gospel Jesus says He was sent to preach and did preach, the one to be preached in all the world before the end comes. This gospel was apparently lost somewhere back in history—let’s see if we can find it back.
******************************
(End of Chapter Four)This gospel of the Kingdom of God will be preached in all the world—and then the end will come. The everlasting gospel will be preached to all nations—and then Babylon will fall. The everlasting gospel proclaims three things: We are to fear God, give glory to Him, and worship the One who made the heavens and the earth. As you may have seen in this book’s addendum, Jesus, as our example and Forerunner, lived the gospel of the “King-dom” of God. He feared, glorified and worshipped the Father, whom He acknowledged as “greater than all,” and “greater than I”—and He still calls the Father His God, all the way to the end of the Book. Jesus says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved” (Mt 16:16). Whoever believes this gospel of the kingdom of God AND is baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ will be saved from eternal separation from God. This is the gospel of the Father, preached together with the gospel of the Son. Both are necessary for salvation and, ultimately, are inseparable.
Somehow, somewhere in history, there was a separation, and even an elimination, and the repercussions are snowballing as we come closer to the end. Where has it led? What lies ahead? Get ready to consider a very disturbing possibility.
CHAPTER 5:
“Today’s Gospel, Today’s World”
At a Christian conference held in Jerusalem in 1986, a word from the LORD came forth, which included this devastating prophecy, presumably from the heart of God: “And there will be Christianity without ME.” What? Could we possibly have “Christianity” but not have God? I’m afraid it is not only possible, but it is already happening—most blatantly in the “Jesus Only” Oneness Pentecostal churches but even, to a growing degree, throughout much of Christendom.
The incomplete, lopsided gospel we now see so many preach is like a wagon missing a wheel. Many have already jumped off this wagon as they see it veering off the path and careening into a ditch, where Christianity is sitting, stuck in the mire of ineffectiveness. According to the U.S. Center for world missions, the number of people in the world who were “adherents to the Christian religion” in 2000 was at 33% and dropping, despite pockets of phenomenal growth in previously unreached countries, such as China. That same study showed Muslims at 20% and rising, the only established religion which is actually outstripping the world population growth rate.
This alarming trend is even more distressing when you pair it with the fact that so much of the world is hearing the Christian gospel preached—many more people than ever before—but it is believed and received by fewer and fewer. Christians see themselves as certainly being obedient to the call to “go and preach the gospel,” but understand they can only present it. It is then up to the Holy Spirit to bring that person’s heart to the act of belief, then surrender. If Christians are doing their part, why isn’t God, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, doing His? Do you think God might be trying to tell us something? How can He bless the sowing of a gospel that has the potential to actually turn people away from Him?
****************************************
(Chapter Five, continued)
If the church as a whole (not just the Oneness Pentecostals) is moving toward a Jesus-only, “Jesus is our God” theology, then we need to ask why this is happening. I think, if we dig beneath the surface, we will see its roots in the early Christian creeds, which first correctly made this profession: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord,” but later responded to man’s inclinations by formulating creeds that proclaimed Father, Son, and Spirit to be equally “God.” Making the Persons of the Trinity equal in office and title, as well as nature, effectively removed any distinction between them. It becomes just as fine to worship and pray to the Son if one so chooses. What does it matter? As I’ve been told, “It’s all ‘God,’ anyway!”
************************************************
The subtitle of this book asks, “Is Jesus your God, or the Son of your God?” If you answered, “He’s both!” I’d like you to think that through. We’ve been conditioned to see Jesus as the Son of the Trinity, and therefore “God” in His own right—but is that what the Bible actually says? Did Jesus, as part of the Trinity, send Himself to earth? No, “The FATHER has sent the Son as Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14); “For GOD so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16); and “Him (Jesus) God has exalted to His right hand to be PRINCE and Savior” (Acts 5:31).
The Prince of heaven, Himself, has told us His Father is the only true God—the eternal King of the king-dom of heaven. Our thinking got off track when someone decided that ‘God’ equals ‘the Trinity’, which makes Jesus the Son of the Trinity (basically the Son of Himself!), rather than who He really is: the Son of the FATHER. Can you see how this popular teaching became a pivot point that turned us away from the Father? And put Jesus in the position of God?
Paul, Thanks for diverting
Paul,
Thanks for diverting the discussion over here. The shrinking paragraphs of this site certainly discourage mutiplied responses.
Obviously I understand that people talked to Jesus while he was alive on the earth, in the flesh. But is it okay to lay in bed at night now and talk to Jesus? Is this prayer or is this something else? You have expressed that one should not pray to Jesus. I’m now asking you to explain what you mean by “prayer”. Paul clealry stated that he “entreated” Jesus to remove the “thorn in his flesh” on three separate occasions. Is this pray or not? Or are you simply saying that one may only pray to Jesus if he literally visually sees Jesus as in a vision or epiphany? How is the prohibition to prayer to Jesus nullified by visually seeing him? And again, most importantly to this discussion: May we sing to Jesus as unto the Father? May we thank Jesus? May we worship Jesus in song? These type of questions contexualize this discussion much better IMO.
Again, I do not deny that the emphasis in the NT is toward the Father with regards to prayer, but to either ignore the exceptions or by trying to deconstruct them out of existance is IMO fairly irrelevant. The result ends up being a strange list of how or how one may or may not now relate to Jesus.
1.) One may only speak to Jesus if he sees him in a vision, but never otherwise.
2.) One may not thank Jesus as this too is unbiblical.
3.) One may never ask Jesus for anything (unless rule number 1 applies).
Etc etc etc Do you see how foolish this can get quickly?
Paul,Your reply is pretty
Paul,
Your reply is pretty much what I was expecting. You express a measure of confidence that prayer to Jesus is not biblical yet you would never go so far as to say that it is wrong or anything like that. You do however express that it may be completley ineffectual, as if Jesus is unable to answer prayer: “Maybe, Jesus can translate our requests to the Father”. Maybe? You are also confident that prayer directed to Jesus is not the approach that should be taken, yet when asked exactly what prayer is, you reply with, “Hard to say”.
Just out of curiosity Paul, do you believe in the Trinity?
Some more comments/questions:
You challenge my claim that “the practice of the historical church shows what is ‘correct’.”
What is your authority Paul? The Bible? What Bible? Who decided which books are included in this Bible of yours and which were left out? How do you know that the books that you appeal to are the “correct” books? Who decided this, when did they decide it and what is your opinion of these men and their decisions?
(Prayer is): “first of all to express my thankfulness to the ONE I owe everything to.”
Do you owe thankfullness to God the Son or strictly to God the Father?
“‘is it okay to lay in bed at night now and talk to Jesus?’ - I would say it is better to pray to Jesus than not to pray at all. Maybe Jesus (like the Holy Spirit) can translate our requests and thanksgiving to the Father?”
Maybe, but you’re not sure? Okay. Is it also better in your opinion to pray to Mary than to not pray at all?
“‘Or are you simply saying that one may only pray to Jesus if he literally visually sees Jesus as in a vision or epiphany? ’ - this is what happened in almost all examples from the Bible that we have. For me this is almost like saying: ‘We should all now talk to burning bushes’, because there was an example of God speaking to Moses through a burning bush.”
??
Moses was talking to God, not the bush Paul. If God talked again through a bush then would you advise not responding? Likwise, Paul (the apostle) was talking or more specifically “entreating” Jesus to do something that only the sovereign God could do.
“May we sing to Jesus as unto the Father?’ I feel like saying: well if you want to then do it - but this doesn’t make it more biblical.”
Let me rephrase the question: Do you ever personally sing to or worship Jesus?
Do you think this is Biblical? Do you think that it pleases God?
Paul,I'm about as straight
Paul,
I’m about as straight of a shooter as you will find. No wishy-washy Emergent avoidance here. In all fairness, you asked me the Mary question quite a while back. I just didn’t want to get diverted off the subject. And this one is a major other issue if you ask me. But to answer your original question:
I have no problem at all with praising Mary or asking her to intercede for me any more than I would asking you to pray for me. In fact, I do so occasionally when I read from Orthodox or Catholic prayer books. This is perhaps the biggest protestant buggaboo there is. Protestants grow up with books teaching us that Rome is the Great Whore. They show us pictures of Mary next to ancient Greek godesses and Babylonian fertiltity statues of a women with ten breasts and say that this is the same demonic spirit as Mary. They tell us that Catholics actually worship Mary. Paganism intermingled with an utterly distorted version of Christianity. The sad thing is that we are so utterly ignorant and reactionary that we have swallowed this nonsense for far too long.
In my opinion, protestants need to wake up and realize that they have been handed a handful of very poor reactionary polemical propaganda. In searching for the early Church, they would be surprised to find out that the Catholic Church is far more defendable than our multiplied masses of splinter Churches and groups and the cults that we have spawned. But that’s another issue also. Protesatnts have reacted far worse against Mary than most Jews have reacted against Jesus. And while I agree that there may be abuses of Marian devotion within the Catholic or Orthodox Church among the people, if one actually reads the stuff officailly written by the Churches, and actually ponders their rational, I have very little problem with it. Did that answer your question?
If you wish to contniue this discsussion about Mary, I think it might be best to do it on another thread. Although, to be honest I may not participate.
If you wish to begin exploring this issue, here’s a start:
And a few books on it that cover this subject.: here here here and here
Okay, now that I’ve done my part, I’m still waiting on you to get some clear answers from several responses ago: http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/925#comment-3791
Still waiting on this one too:
“With regards to your mention that you disagree that the earliest Church did not pray to Jesus, what references or reasons do you use to support this? Just curious.”
You’re squirmier than Brian Mclaren jello wrestling at a Church Council.
PCUSA and God as mother
A recent stirring in the American Presbyterian church (PCUSA) has been seen quite negatively by many within the evangelical movement (see especially the conversation here).
The idea is that formulations for the Trinity such as “Lover, Beloved, Love”, “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier”, “King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love”, or even “Mother, Child, Womb” could complement the more traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”. People seem to balk at “Mother, Child, Womb”, and I was wondering why referring to our ‘heavenly Father’ as a ‘heavenly Mother’ is so offensive. That it is a break from Christian tradition, I readily acknowledge… but does that make it wrong?
Source, Word, Breath
I have read several reasons against the “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier” formula, but I don’t necessarily buy them. First, identifying God the Father as the sole “Creator” implies the other two members of the Godhead were not present or active during creation. One translation of Genesis 1:2 reads that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” and even though the Hebrew word translates more literally as a “wind from God,” the corpus of Christian Biblical tradition ascribes this and other “Spirit of God” references to the Holy Spirit. Along those same lines, the author of John 1:3 links Christ with creation when he writes, “Through him [Christ, or the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” The point: God is our Creator, in all three ways he represents himself. And the same could be said to apply to our salvation and sanctification. Is it not God’s will to sanctify us? And are we not sanctified as a result of Jesus’ work on the cross? (Quick aside: There’s a noticeable bump in this line of thinking. Wasn’t it the authors of the Nicene Creed that dubbed God “the Father, the Almighty / Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen?” Identifying the Father with the act of creation is at least as old as the fourth century.)
Especially in the West, Christian writers and theologians try to explain the Trinity using abstract philosophical language. In his most awkward, confusing passage in “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis wrote that the Holy Spirit generated from the eternal love between the Father and Son and necessarily morphed into his own person through a questionable process that sounded more like voodoo than Anglicanism. Orthodox Christians tend to think of God as three persons who are mysteriously one, as opposed to a single being who is mysteriously three – the difference is subtle, but real.
What remains constant, at least until the last 100 years or so, is the masculine language used to express the Trinity. God is Father, not a genderless Parent – although in the back of our heads there’s a nagging feeling that the Almighty must be beyond our very human understanding of masculinity and femininity. God is Son, not a mystical Child-being who brings back memories of Stanley Kubrick’s rendition of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” This seems fairly natural because, to the best of our knowledge, Jesus was not an eunuch. The Holy Spirit has mostly escaped the gender police, but somehow calling God an “it” seems disrespectful so we stick with the pronoun “he.” I read that the Hebrew words used to describe the Spirit of God aren’t as masculine as our English Bibles suggest, but I haven’t confirmed whether that’s true or not.
To me this is how many evangelical Christians view the Trinity, if they think about it at all. They scoff at “Mother, Child, Womb” because sola scriptura teaches them that non-Biblical language, especially language involving God proper, is a no-no. I once read in a wacky article that praying to God as mother necessarily leads to pagan goddess worship, but I ignored it because it sounded too much like anti-feminist drivel. What I had a harder time ignoring was a proposed explanation why God the Mother was unthinkable to early Christians: like their contemporaries, they viewed men as the active partner in child-making, where a woman’s womb is a garden “in the secret place … in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15) for their seed to be planted. Wouldn’t an all-powerful feminine Creator give a different perspective on the act of creation, which might be presented more as a cyclical, evolving, birthing process and less as a quick event where the heavens and the earth are once-and-for-all spoken into existence? And how does God the Mother “beget” her Son if women don’t beget anyway?
My thinking on the matter is that we should (or perhaps already do) have two sets of words to describe God. The first describes God in totality: Creator, Savior, Redeemer, Savior, Sanctifier, Providence, Rock, Judge, Holy One of Israel, etc. Each of these emphasizes a different aspect of God in all his fullness. The second set explains God in relation to himself and how he interacts with us as revealed by Jesus in New Testament writings, most commonly using the “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” rhetoric. Of course, other phrases would work for this and not only remain true to the meaning but provide a richer vocabulary to describe our Creator, phrases like the gender-ambiguous “Parent, Child, Spirit” or the Presbyterian church’s intriguing proposals: “Lover, Beloved, Love” and “King of Glory, Price of Peace, Spirit of Love.” I like these. In fact, I’d throw “Source, Word, Breath” into the mix because it seems to get to the heart of traditional Trinitarian thinking fairly quickly without sounding like politically correct mumbo-jumbo.
Does “Mother, Child, Womb” go too far? I know the language used to describe God and our relationship to God is predominantly masculine, but it might be best left up to women to answer whether or not the problem is big enough to require a linguistic overhaul. The ultimate question is this: Can we express God in the feminine without losing our understanding of who God is in the process? And does our motivation for using this language reflect what limited information we know and experiences we have, or does it have more to do with what we want – a personal ideal and not the real deal? Any decent answer would also have to recognize gender for what it is: our cultural understanding of what it means to be biologically female or male. Beyond that, I’m not sure where to begin.
Umm....
You guys do realize that the reason we refer to the Godhead as Father, Son and Spirit is because Jesus did, right?
“Baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT/BREATH
Matthew 28:19
question
So then the question at hand (or at least the question that interests me) is: are there other (additional) ways of expressing God’s triune nature that tap into feminine metaphors for God?
Rephrased: is it beneficial for the emerging church to re-express the traditional (inherited from Jesus, certainly) phrase “Father, Son, Spirit” in new ways? Should we update our images for the Trinity? If so, why, and are there limits (e.g. no calling the Father ‘Mother’)?
A feminine Creator-Deity
To make my answer simpler, I’ll break apart your long and multiple-part question into separate questions. The first is the simplest: Are there additional ways to express the Trinity that are valid and reflect both a Biblical and traditional understand of the Godhead? Certainly. Read the opening passages of most of the epistles in the New Testament and you have diverse ways of expressing God as three in one that are richer than the “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” box. Two of my favorite passages that suggest the Trinity even reverse the typical ordering. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, Paul writes:
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
He uses this same pattern in Ephesians 4:4-6:
There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
I summarize the second part of your question as this: Is it beneficial for the emerging church to repackage the original Trinitarian formula? To this I say “yes” once again under the provision that our repackaging remains faithful to our understanding of the Godhead. This is nothing new, either. In her book “Amazing Grace,” Kathleen Norris gives an example:
A few days later I happened across a metaphor for the Trinity, in Tertullian, of all people, arguably the most curmudgeonly theologian of all the curmudgeons in the early church. It’s an image of the Trinity as a plant, with the Father as a deep root, the Son as the shoot that breaks forth into the world, the Spirit as that which spreads beauty and fragrance, “fructifying the earth with flower and fruit.”
Perhaps we can benefit the most from using new language to expand what we already have: the tested and true “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” motif (which, yes, I knew came from Jesus). The Trinity has the enormous potential to teach that unity and diversity, though seemingly disparate, do exist and that these two qualities, which are especially relevant within the context of American multiculturalism, are made perfect in God.
The third part is the most intriguing: Should we use feminine language to describe God? Or does this go too far? Maimonides, a twelfth century Jewish scholar, outlined thirteen principles that get to the heart of Judaism from the Middle Ages to today – a Christian equivalent might be the five fundamentals of the Niagara Bible Conference in 1910. The third such principle reads: “That the Creator is not a physical being. Physical concepts do not apply to Him. Nothing at all resembles Him.” Absorb this for a second. Is something wrong? Wait, wait, there it is. If God is not physical and does not resemble any biological entity, why is God a “he” in the first place? Jesus was not the Messiah, or moshiach, of Jews from the Middle Ages, so Maimonides could not argue that the Christ, in whom “the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9), was a man – therefore, God must also be masculine. In fact, today’s Jewish theologians are more likely than their Christian counterparts to insist that God is sexless.
So why the insistence on masculine language to describe the Holy One of Israel? An article on askmoses.com, probably the only website that keeps conservative Jewish scholars on standby to answer theological questions 24-hours a day, 6-days a week (can we get one of these sites up and running for fundamentalist Christians? I have a few questions), offers the ever-present “seed” metaphor. Our Creator must be a “he” because God, much like a sperm donor, does his creative act in a once-and-for-all event and expects humanity, the crown of his creation and his “bride,” so to speak, to cultivate the world. The natural extension of this line of thinking is that an all-powerful, supreme Goddess would be too attached to creation to stand on a firm theological foundation, that creation would evolve much as a fetus grows in the womb and that God and her creation might be one and the same until the figurative “umbilical cord” is cut. The more and more I study the sacred feminine, the more than more I notice that arguments against a heavenly Mother center on the implications of having a feminine Creator-Deity. Is there any weight to this?
Once again, I wrote a long-winded, overly analytical answer to a simple question, which instead of answering the question asks another. But, hey, isn’t that the whole idea behind Open Source Theology?
Related Links
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=227&o=510
Is it proper to pray to our Mother Jesus?
I can see where this is going:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4318
That doesn't make any sense
No. I’ve honestly never heard of anything like that before. Is this common? The gender-bending would confuse a transgender person, and I know transgender people. Here’s the complete text of Katharine Schori’s homily: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76300_ENG_HTM.htm
Very Bad Joke
I was being facetious of course. It was a play on the title of thread. But while I’m asking dumb questions, anyone heard this one:
Q: Why can’t Episcopalians play chess?A: because they’re always confusing the queens and the bishops…
Very bad idea
Joel - you’ve no idea what you may have started. I’m speaking at a gay Christian group in a couple of weeks’ time, and I’m going to use your joke as an ice-breaker. Alternatively, it may cause the ice to form over the meeting, and could be the last time I get invited to speak there. I hope nobody from the group is reading this comment.
Where Does This End?
I have nothing but respect for Katharine Jefferts Schori as a person. She is a faithful wife and mother, and her daughter is currently an Air Force pilot. She has persisted in a field dominated by men (although considerably less so in the Episcopal church).
However, I cannot accept a reference to Jesus as a female. For one thing, it smacks of gnosticism and neo-Platonism and denies the simple, literal interpretation of Scripture.
The acceptance of the concept of an asexual Jesus or a non-gendered God figure is quite simply anti-Biblical. I don’t particularly care who makes the statement or what the ancient philosophers might have had to say about it.
God is not physical, and thus he may not have gender as we perceive it, but God is Father because he said he is father…end of discussion. If we choose to probe into the divine further than He himself reveals to us, we are no better than the wiccan or the pagan who seeks God in what they can know and feel of the natural world.
You guys should know by now that I don’t try to persuade people who disagree with me, but I beg you to consider the implications of introducing this foolishness into your thinking.
foolishness?
Schori’s comment about Jesus being our “mother” is clearly metaphorical and is not intended to say anything about Jesus’ biological gender. It’s a word-picture, and, if you read her entire speech, a very appropriate one in context.
“God is Father because he said he is father”—hopefully you don’t mean that God is truly a father. This title is metaphorical—as is “Son of God”. God, as spirit, cannot biologically have a son. But the metaphor works, and is profoundly biblical, so we use it. Again, the question is not ‘shall we ditch the idea of God as Father?’, but rather ‘can the idea of God as Father be complemented with the picture of God as Mother?’. It’s not an either/or (which would be impossible, since God is spirit), but rather both/and.
Either/or thinking can only apply to Jesus because of his embodiment—and Jesus was clearly male and therefore NOT female. God the Father, however, may also conceivably be God the Mother because both titles are poetic imagery, and therefore not necessarily contradictory (Jesus’ masculinity, on the other hand, is a very concrete thing, and mixing up genders would be contradictory in his case). Am I making sense?
Good luck with the episcopal joke, Peter… :-)
Am I Making Sense...
To be honest, no…
I had read her entire homily before I posted this, and I still think her metaphor is still inappropriately Gnostic. I think Ockham’s razor is easily applied here - Do not overcomplicate the answer.
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps YHWH chose the figure of the sole father to distinguish himself from the Mother cults that infested every other religion in the ancient world?
God is Father - not Mother. The concept of a “Great Mother” was abhorrent to him in the Hebrew Scriptures, and I don’t see how the church has the right to create new metaphors for him. If God wanted us to use a different metaphor, he would have put it in the Scriptures.
I’ll probably be classed as a chauvinistic bigot, but I’m ok with that. God created men and women with specific, natural roles; then he chose to identify himself as a Father, i.e. a masculine being. Since the term Father is applied to him throughout Scripture, I don’t think I’m being narrow-minded to believe that he wants us to identify him that way. Maybe the problem isn’t the image of Father as God sees it, but rather the way we view fatherhood.
Jesus
Does anyone know if God was called ‘Father’ before Jesus? I have this strange impression that he may have introduced the term—in which case it would be closely tied to his lacking a biological father… If this is the case, the title “Father” for God is intrinsically tied to the person of Jesus (God is Jesus’ father—since he was conceived of the holy spirit). ‘Mother’ then, would be a title that distracts from the concrete narrative of Incarnation.
Any thoughts?
-Daniel-
God the Father in the OT
One of the verses of a song attributed to Moses reads in Deuteronomy 32:6:
Do you thus repay the LORD,Psalm 29:26 identifies God as “my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation” and a coronation psalm attributes these words from God to his royal king, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7) Referring to God as one who begets brings an image of a father, not a mother. Jews today have no problem calling God their father; by comparison, the Qur’an specially bans Muslims from identifying God as their “father.”
you foolish and senseless people?
Is not he your father, who created you,
who made you and established you?
There are also several references to God the Father in the Prophets, and elsewhere. See Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 3:19.
I had wondered whether Jesus called God his Father because Joseph, his stepfather, is missing and presumed dead in the New Testament, but it seems more likely that he simply acted upon the already existing Jewish tradition to refer to God as a heavenly father figure. When his contemporaries questioned him for calling God his Father, it was because he expressed a relationship that made him an equal with God, not because of the word “father.”
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father
father
Michael, thanks for the input. That’s exactly what I needed.
That Wikipedia entry is pretty thorough, though I thought it interesting that it would say: “He is thought of as dominant (not submissive), powerful (not weak), fatherly (not motherly), dispassionate (not emotional), whose ways are too high for his children to understand.”
I know a number of people who would take issue with all four of those. God’s dominance (vs. submissiveness) is reframed in light of the incarnation, as is his power (what is more weak than our God on a cross?). There is a strong thread of passion (viz. emotion) running through both old and new testaments. And I still think, because calling God ‘Father’ is metaphorical, one may call God ‘Mother’ without contradiction. My only thought would be that such a title constitutes a break from the biblical narrative.
I’m still trying to weigh the pros and cons of using ‘Mother’ as a title for our Creator. For now, the cons seem to outweigh the pros, but in a different cultural context… who knows?
Re: Prayer to Jesus
Not to rehash old arguments, but I noticed this related thread after discussing with John13 whether Jesus is identical with or distinct from the Father. I didn’t read every word in this thread due to its length, so forgive me if I am just covering the same ground all over again.
As someone who prays to Jesus on a regular basis, I have a vested interest in the answer to this question. At heart, the question seems to be: “current evangelical practice aside, is there a basis for praying to Jesus?” I believe there is Scriptural basis for this practice.
John 14.13-14: “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”
Please notice that when one prays in the name of Christ, it is not necessarily the Father who answers. Christ says “I will do it”. This at least implies that he is the recipient of some prayer.
Perhaps stronger grounds for praying to Jesus can be found in 1 John 5.14-15:
“And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”
I am not an NT scholar, so I cannot tell you precisely what the “him” of verse 14 refers to in the Greek text, but in English, it can only refer back to the “Son of God” of verse 13. John discusses the importance of belief in the Son of God throughout the chapter and says in verse 13 “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”. Therefore when he gets to verse 14, what he really means to say is:
“And this is the confidence that we have in [the Son of God], that, if we ask any thing according to [the Son of God’s] will, [the Son of God] heareth us: And if we know that [the Son of God] hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of [the Son of God].”
These examples aside, it seems to me that the argument really hinges on whether we will regard Christ as co-equal with the Father or not. Colossians 3.11 says “Christ is all, and in all”. Also, in John 16.15 Christ is quoted as saying “All things that the Father hath are mine” (which I would think includes the prayers of Christians). Verses like these (and there are others) do not ask us to qualify or limit Christ’s divinity in any way. If anything, they ask us to broaden and expand our view of Jesus.
Socinianism revisited?
I’m wondering where this thread (and the conversation it has generated on the ‘Am I sure?’ thread) is coming from - and where it might be going. The issue of addressing prayer to Jesus is a subset of a larger question about Jesus being perceived in the NT as human, divine or both. Addressing prayer to Jesus (or not) connects with other issues: was the word ‘Lord’ in relation to Jesus (before and after his resurrection) an implicit recognition of his divinity, or was it no more than a human term of respect? Does the NT use the phrase ‘Son of God’ in an undeveloped OT sense, or as one which added to the former sense new associations of divinity? And did God (the Father) require a human sacrifice to atone for Israel’s (and the world’s) sin - or did he participate personally in that sacrifice?
I’ve a feeling that previous, very extended conversations about the trinity and the humanity/divinity of Jesus may be about to resurface - but I’d like to ask Paul: what is the significance for yourself of affirming that prayer is only made to the Father and not to Jesus? What are the consequences which follow from making this distinction? I imagine, if the logic is followed through, you come to a very different kind of Christian faith from the historic variety. I’m not objecting to that; I’d just like to know!