I heard that a reporter once asked the late Pope John Paul II what his favorite scripture verse was, to whom he immediately replied, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John Paul II was an amazing man; I have gotten the priviledge of seeing him twice. Although I am not normally very emotional, almost everytime he spoke, or glanced up from his notes during a speech, I was just about moved to tears. He was such a reflection of our Father in heaven, such a vessel of God's immense love, that seeing him those few times had truly solidified my relationship with God.
"You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free." It's interesting to hear this scripture verse in contrast to the current trends of society. The trends that say we cannot know truth and that truth is subjective to each person's experiences. People seem to have definitively stated the relativity of truth while being ignorant of the fact that their very own objections to objective truth is, in fact, objectively stated. It seems to me that their argument is intended to point the finger against the Catholic church and its stand for the truth. It is worth noting that everytime a Pope has spoken against particular decisions that society makes, and outlines concequences that will follow their actions, no matter how loud the "free-thinkers" mock the "archaic" and "out of touch" Popes, every single one of the Popes' predictions come into fruition.
Be that as it may, that is not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is people, within the Church, denying, watering-down, or ignoring particular truths for the sake of "being pastoral." Namely: inclusive language.
Sure, when scripture mentions words like "brothers" and "men," it more than often refers to both genders. However, when it comes to referring to God, we cannot assume that it really means, "gods" or "goddesses" or even "her." On this point, our liberty as creative thinkers needs to respect the Author's rights. Who is the author of sacred scripture? The Holy Spirit, aka: God.
A popular argument for gender-inclusive language regarding the Divine is that scripture was written by males, for males; hence, the countless references to God revealing himself as "Father" and spoken of with male pronouns. This includes Jesus' declaration that we ought to pray to God as "Father" during his discourse on a hill (the sermon on the mount).
Thier argument, however, presents many problems. First of all, the idea that scripture is a constrution by men for men, is in direct contrast with the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture. In a nutshell, the doctrine states that when scripture is read within its proper context and in light of Church teachings (the traditons from the fathers of the Church), it is without error. It is important to note that the Bible is not a grammer or a science textbook, so don't get any strange ideas about telling your teacher that he is wrong simply because he teaches something that isn't mentioned in the Bible (like evolution). This doctrine is based on the premise that the Holy Spirit himself is the author of the sacred texts; that he inspired the writers to write whatever He wanted in the scriptures. So, ther is nothing in the scriptures that God did not want in them. Hence the problem of sexism. Why would God be condoning anything that is contrary to His Law of love? Therefore, I would say that an argument that states that the Bible is laced with sexism (i.e. written by men, for men), is more of an argument against the inerrancy of scripture and Christianity in general (due to its many scriptural roots).
Now, I want whomever is reading this to know that I am merely summing up the doctrine, for a thorough examination of what the Catholic Church teaches on the inerrancy of scripture, check out some of the links that I have listed on the right-hand side. Some of them are easier to read/understand than others so, pick whichever suits you best.
- An Empty Clay Pot
- Regina, SK, Canada
- “In order to give life to the world, that true life which is in Jesus Christ, each Christian must become his follower, must make him Master and Lord of his life, must enter into profound communion with him and become familiar with his thoughts, as we find them in the sacred Scriptures.” - Benedict XVI, Nov. 5, 2006
Saint of the Week
St. Anthony of Padua
8 comments:
Being a woman, I have needed to know the One who made me can understand *all* of who I am. God says I am created in God's image, so gender pronouns are simply a language issue. There are times I have felt so alienated and misunderstood by humanity, that I needed to call on God who gathers the chicks under wing, El Shaddi- the many breasted One who nourishes, the woman mixing the dough or looking for the coin, the image of woman I'm created after. God only gave one name for God's self- I AM. I AM all you need, when you need it, where you need it. Humans doled out the rest of the names and genders. It's not so simple for me to God "He" and be done with it.
I find it odd that (not just yourself, for I have heard what you said many times) people take what they want from the bible, from Church teaching, etc., to try and -- I don't know ... fill a need, or a void. The thing is though, no matter how I feel about God, no matter how lost I may be in my own sexual identity, only onbe thing can ev er truly satisfy me: the acceptance of the truth. There is truth. As I mentioned earlier, it is only the Truth that will set us free. Unfortunately, I was not able to finish my wee blog, and there is so much more that I would like to say (like God calling himself a husband and a father to his people -- and no mention of his many breasts!!), but I will be finished this thought process late next week -- after my exams are done!!
When you are done with your exams, here is a question. What makes only the male images truth, if that is what you are saying?
"What makes only male images truth?" In my mind, this goes back to what was said in the forementioned blog about the Holy Spirit being the author of scripture. We need to remember that scripture, when it's read within its proper context, is inerrant. We come to understand this as we assent to the fact that God did not put into the Bible anything that is contrary to His will. To put this back into the context of "male images," we can only worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because that is what He has revealed to us. We cannot add anything to His "identity," and we cannot change the words written in the scriptures to suit our (certainly not new) agendas. To do so, would be in perfect imitation of Adam and Eve in thier quest to be thier own authority.
Another thing, for the people who think calling God Father is unjust -- or sexist -- why would God allow such a destructive sin -- sexism -- to be associated with Him? Or, if an act of omission, why would He condone it? Certainly, there must be more to the meaning of calling God Father than we often assume; there must be more to Jesus being the SON of God than irroneous social norms; there must be more to using masculine pronouns, when we speak of "the Divine," than an inadequate language.
I am with you that God wouldn't associate Himself with the sin of sexism. And I do find words inadequate. However, I believe even Father is too limited: as in Jehovah Nissi-God is my banner, Jehovah Rapha-God the Word, Jehovah Jireh- God who provides- all names for God given when God revealed these images to the people. To me, God goes beyond even beyond gender, but made and knows me.
Christianity is not compatible with eastern mysticism. The popular western interpretation is that we can pick and choose whatever we want from whichever religion, or philosophy, that makes us feel good. Being "spiritual" (or a plurality of beliefs) is "in," while being "religious" (or stuck to one point of view) is not.
First of all, for some reason, people think that they are wise, new-thinkers who are paving the way for a spiritual revolution. However, in reality, this plurality is nothing new (Muhammud left Mecca because he disagreed with the people's relativistic faith -- amalgomating all religions into one worship).
What makes Christianity incompatable with eastern thought is that when Jesus spoke of truth, HE was the Truth; when Jesus spoke of the way to heaven (the way to the Father), HE was the Way; when Jesus spoke of God, HE was speaking about Himself ("before Abraham was, I am," among other refrences to His own divinity.). For some reason, "modern" thinkers are either ignorant of Jesus' claims to divinity, or they choose to ignore them. Eastern mysticism believes in a plurality of faiths, that all are true, and that it would be silly and ignorant to claim that only one is true. Well, Jesus must be ignorant and silly because He said that HE was THE TRUTH and that HIS CHURCH would last forever and that unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you will HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU.
"I believe that even Father is too limited." Please don't take this as a personal attack against anyone -- especially truevyne -- but who are we to say that "Father" is "too limited"? Jesus calls God "Father," and, in the Old Testament, God calls Himself Father; God has revealed Himself to us as Father. Have we, as a society, become so arrogant that we can tell God who He is? Have we become so foolish as to claim authority over our Creator and tell Him how He should speak to us, or how He ought to have spoken to us?
It is about time that we gave our heads a shake and wake up to the reality that we cannot make religion into a tea party; we need to wake up to the reality that we can't tell God how He ought to be, and pretend that we are wise simply because we use Hindu terms with our Christian thought -- when in fact, there was never anything more arrogant, ignorant, and foolish!!
well ... had to jump in with my 2 cents ...
scripture, especially this bible, was not written by god. inspired as paul said all scriptures were ... but definitely, this bible has too many problems in its construction to be in anyway ascribed to being written by god or perfect by any stretch of god's imagination.
when taking in the context of creation of man and women in "our image" as genesis alludes to, it is incumbant to understand the true history of genesis, the fact that it is not anything more than metaphorical (if you are jewish and study the torah rather than the books of moses that christians somehow are now claiming to be the torah) ... this becomes abundantly clear ...
and for "god" to be so limited as to have a sex ascribed to god is just silly. and further proof of the completely inadequate scripture that the bible is for a holistic view of spirituality or god.
AND ... Jesus did say that "HE" was the way, truth, life ... he said "I AM" is the way, truth and the life ... if you study the context of the scriptures and beliefs that Jesus based his teachings on, you will learn what "I AM" means ... it is not a human being ... especially not the one with the name "jesus", it is god within the person that is "I AM" ...
but ... then again, some people don't want to know context ... context means i have to throw out all those ideas and notions i've known my entire life as being based on ... some one else's interpretations instead of listening to "I AM" within themselves ... actually listening to god instead of some external notion ... 'be still and know that I AM god' is the way, truth and can bring life.
my two cents on some of these discussions.
peace & harmony,
elaine
'freedom must be exercised to stay in shape!'
"scripture, especially this bible, was not written by god."
I find it interesting that everybody is correct in their thinking of the nature of God except the Church. I find it funny how the criteria for being correct is that you need to disagree with how the Church has interpreted scripture. It intrigues me to no end whenever I read or hear the statement: "the Church has it wrong, but I, and only I, have it right! If only they would listen to me." According to today's society, the Church, to whom scripture was intrusted I might add, has got it all wrong about how we ought to have interpreted Christ's words.
If we really believe that we are all god, then how do we die? why would we die? do we have a choice in the matter? what about pain, if we are god, then why do we experience it? If we are god, then what purpose does pain and suffering serve? I am certainly doesn't need any lesson that pain can teach, then why does it exist? I am must be a very small being if we are all "I am." Certainly our mistakes, our failures, our murders, our deaths, our illnesses, our blindness, etc, wouldn't be necessary or allowed to exist if we were all "I am." If we were "I am," why would we want, or need, our pain-ridden, vice-stricken, disease-bearing flesh? If that is what it means to be "I am," then I want no part of it -- I should will myself to cease to exist, if I could. I mean, being "I am" would imply that I can't cease to exist -- I am eternal (I will always "be"). What a mizerable and small life I have to live -- if I am "I am," stuck in this stinking and mortal body that is doomed to suffer.
Plus if self-awareness is the key to experiencing this "freedom" of being the "I am," then I am not really much of a god am I? What a small imagination I have if all that I can't even fly from when I was born (before my mind gets all muddled with the lies of the Church, right? Before I get side-tracked from my true purpose of being the great and almighty Being.)
Post a Comment