tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post3964938293218573077..comments2023-10-03T04:23:48.046-07:00Comments on Reformed Mafia: American Christianity: Emasculated and Feminized!Machine Gun Kelleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-72419251684433664892007-09-04T09:52:00.000-07:002007-09-04T09:52:00.000-07:00So Gordon, no more responses to the questions I ha...So Gordon, no more responses to the questions I have raised?Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-79988857726354471242007-08-31T21:03:00.001-07:002007-08-31T21:03:00.001-07:00"...For my money, it was probably a baptist semina..."...For my money, it was probably a baptist seminary."<BR/><BR/>Probably not. The guy who wrote it is a Presbyterian. <BR/><BR/>"The only thing I find truly ridiculous about the article is the author's thought that an aversion to consuming alcohol is somehow a feminine trait."<BR/><BR/>Had to be a joke, or maybe a bit of sarcasm. I think he's from Georgia, so he ought to know that here in Georgia, most of the gals cuss like sailors, smoke like freight trains, and drink like fish!!Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-42153285963399770492007-08-31T14:23:00.000-07:002007-08-31T14:23:00.000-07:00I wonder where this guy went to school.From the va...<I>I wonder where this guy went to school.</I><BR/><BR/>From the vacuous content of his writing, I would suspect that it is a school that is not overly concerned with critical thinking and/or substantive argumentation.<BR/><BR/>...For my money, it was probably a baptist seminary.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-61312873513924781472007-08-31T14:13:00.000-07:002007-08-31T14:13:00.000-07:00The only thing I find truly ridiculous about the a...The only thing I find truly ridiculous about the article is the author's thought that an aversion to consuming alcohol is somehow a feminine trait. I wonder where this guy went to school.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859070918878091126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-59924205933353435812007-08-31T05:51:00.000-07:002007-08-31T05:51:00.000-07:00I never said that Jesus is the ultimate girl. All...I never said that Jesus is the ultimate girl. All I am advocating is that the eternal Logos, incarnate in humanity, recapitulates the totality of humanity. As the imago dei, in which humanity is created, is demarcated by masculinity and femininity, it must be asserted that Christ likewise encapsulates the fullness of the imago dei in personhood.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-90405347766158634112007-08-31T04:58:00.000-07:002007-08-31T04:58:00.000-07:00Rhett, after much thought, I've decided that we sh...Rhett, after much thought, I've decided that we should just admit that E-D's reasoning here is iron-clad. Let's rejoice in the truth: Jesus is the ultimate girl.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-25263430451806623002007-08-29T09:47:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:47:00.000-07:00“The female is as it were a deformed male” - Arist...“The female is as it were a deformed male” - Aristotle (The Generation of Animals)Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-67654344335160857922007-08-28T18:16:00.000-07:002007-08-28T18:16:00.000-07:00Yes, Christ is the ultimate in "maleness." However...<I>Yes, Christ is the ultimate in "maleness." However, the fact of His male body prevents Him from being the ultimate female. However, this does not prevent the sort of recapitulation you advocate from happening. I believe it did happen. Females are equally represented by His work and Person, but femininity is not.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, so is masculinity represented in his work and person? If one is represented and the other is not, there are only two conclusions: 1.) Masculinity and femininity (e.g., genderedness) are not proper objects of recapitulation. Of course, such a conclusion would invariably deny the nature of the imago dei en toto, for it is masculinity AND femininity that, at least in part, demarcates the special nature of the imago dei as imaged in humanity. 2.) It is only masculinity which has been recapitulated by the man Jesus' special association with it. Of course, if only masculinity and not femininity has been recapitulated in the genderedness of the man Jesus, then one must seriously question the viability of your assertion that the female person could be a proper partaker of the recapitulating work of Christ if this very work, by nature of the genderedness of the Incarnation, is necessarily exclusive of half the imago dei as imaged in humans.<BR/><BR/>You say that "you believe" this recapitulation did, in fact, occur. However, by the philosophical looseness with which you treat the categories of discussion, you categorically deny your own (now apparently vacuous) assertions. <BR/><BR/><I>I would say that the different gender roles are culturally determined.</I><BR/><BR/>Would you equally assert that masculinity partakes of the cultural variability of "gender roles?" If such is taken as a given, then how is the "absolute male" Jesus meaningful in an culturally transcendent way to non-ancient Near Eastern understandings of masculinity? That is, if masculinity is recapitulated in Christ, yet this very masculinity is itself culturally variable, then perhaps the masculinity which Christ recapitulated is only applicable to those males which share a common set of cultural mores concerning masculine "roles."<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Thus I believe that as we get better at studying and implementing Scripture in our lives, we will organically be better at defining true masculinity, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>If masculinity is culturally variable as you assert above, such a quest is ultimately impossible as the cultural mores concerning masculinity which you have inherited from your geo-socio-political environment will invariably skew how you go about defining masculinity. <BR/><BR/><I>In reverse, I'd contend that if you have funny or fuzzy ideas about the gender roles (what it means to be male or female in society and in relationships) that points back to funny and fuzzy ideas about more basic concepts like the nature of life itself and its relationship to the Creator.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, but who is determining what funny and fuzzy ideas about these things are? As you have already suggested that these very "ideas" are themselves culturally conditioned, one person's "fuzzy" is another's terror.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-60960273750707018392007-08-28T09:02:00.000-07:002007-08-28T09:02:00.000-07:00Yes, Christ is the ultimate in "maleness." However...Yes, Christ is the ultimate in "maleness." However, the fact of His male body prevents Him from being the ultimate female. However, this does not prevent the sort of recapitulation you advocate from happening. I believe it did happen. Females are equally represented by His work and Person, but femininity is not.<BR/><BR/>I would say that the different gender roles are culturally determined. And I think that religion and language and culture are basically three wheels which turn on the same axle. (Culture being an outgrowth of religious concepts, expressed in human languages, etc.) So my contention is that there is a Biblical culture (not synonymous with Western culture, btw)which results from the implementation of Biblical ideas, as well as the use of Biblical language (in terms of how we speak of things.)<BR/><BR/>Thus I believe that as we get better at studying and implementing Scripture in our lives, we will organically be better at defining true masculinity, etc. In reverse, I'd contend that if you have funny or fuzzy ideas about the gender roles (what it means to be male or female in society and in relationships) that points back to funny and fuzzy ideas about more basic concepts like the nature of life itself and its relationship to the Creator.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-29822895601764660692007-08-27T06:03:00.000-07:002007-08-27T06:03:00.000-07:00The incarnation has meaning for defining humanity....<I>The incarnation has meaning for defining humanity. Agreed. Jesus is the fulness of the Imago Dei. No doubt. In Him all things hold together, not merely people; so you could just as well postulate that He is the model for trees and roaches. The infinite took on the finite: that doesn't make the finite infinite, or else the mystery of Incarnation is lost, having merged the two constituents at the price of eliminating one. Both the finite and infinite are harmonized in Him. The finite flesh can only do so much, even in the Incarnation. Man cannot become woman, for instance, any more than Christ's body could be in two places at once. The divine logos didn't take on a hermophroditic body. The Word chose to become (male) flesh.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not denying the maleness of the man Jesus. What I am proposing, however, is that the fundamental nature of incarnation is necessarily consummative of humanity <I>en toto</I>, both male and female. Historically, the church has understood the work of Christ in Incarnation to be recapitulation, the summing up within Christ of humanity, recreating humanity in the <I>imago dei</I>. If this recapitulation is to be complete, however, Christ must sum up within his person all that humanity is. Therefore, as humanity is unalterably defined by the duality of gender, it must be firmly asserted that Christ recapitulates the feminine as well. To deny such would be to fall into the errors engendered in writings such as the Gospel of Thomas wherein it is affirmed that the female must become the male in order to be reconciled to God. While I am not asserting that you would suggest this, the train of your thought leads inevitably to this conclusion as you would dissolve the meaningfulness of Christ's incarnation in the phenomenology of the Logos' incarnate gender.<BR/><BR/><I>As incarnate God in human flesh, He is equally the model for males and females, then; but He is not the ultimate in femaleness.</I><BR/><BR/>Is Christ, then, the ultimate in maleness? If recapitulation is to occur, surely the female would need an equal representative? Or is feminine salvation only proximate to that of the male?Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-67320773466459419362007-08-26T12:51:00.000-07:002007-08-26T12:51:00.000-07:00The incarnation has meaning for defining humanity....The incarnation has meaning for defining humanity. Agreed. Jesus is the fulness of the Imago Dei. No doubt. In Him all things hold together, not merely people; so you could just as well postulate that He is the model for trees and roaches. The infinite took on the finite: that doesn't make the finite infinite, or else the mystery of Incarnation is lost, having merged the two constituents at the price of eliminating one. Both the finite and infinite are harmonized in Him. The finite flesh can only do so much, even in the Incarnation. Man cannot become woman, for instance, any more than Christ's body could be in two places at once. The divine logos didn't take on a hermophroditic body. The Word chose to become (male) flesh.<BR/><BR/>As incarnate God in human flesh, He is equally the model for males and females, then; but He is not the ultimate in femaleness.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-58096894755655456942007-08-26T12:34:00.000-07:002007-08-26T12:34:00.000-07:00Nah... I think I'd rather stick to inserting sarca...Nah... I think I'd rather stick to inserting sarcastic remarks every now and then.Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-30580596150974587432007-08-26T11:17:00.000-07:002007-08-26T11:17:00.000-07:00Aye yie yie yie yie...Perhaps you could articulate...<I>Aye yie yie yie yie...</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could articulate just a bit more as to your objections concerning what I have taken the time and thought to write.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-86853126145481431142007-08-26T10:36:00.000-07:002007-08-26T10:36:00.000-07:00Aye yie yie yie yie...Aye yie yie yie yie...Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-38639347509432848172007-08-26T10:24:00.000-07:002007-08-26T10:24:00.000-07:00And you're worried about other peoples' theorizing...<I>And you're worried about other peoples' theorizing falling upon the rocks. Nice.</I><BR/><BR/>So the fact that the eternal Logos became incarnate in humanity has no meaning for defining the feminine? Surely you cannot be serious, for denying such would be to evacuate the Incarnation of meaning for the feminine. <BR/><BR/><I>There is a vast difference between asserting that all humans should follow Christ and be conformed to His image, and saying that Christ was the epitome of what it means to be female.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. However, I do not understand what problem you have with the notion that the Incarnate Logos becoming incarnate in humanity is meaningful for defining femininity. If the image of God--delineated by the two-fold union of the masculine and feminine--is that in which all humans participate, then surely Christ--the incarnation of the God in whose image both males and females are created--is the model of each. To deny such is tantamount to denying that the feminine has a share in the imago dei.<BR/><BR/><I>Would you also assert that Mary is a good model of masculinity?</I><BR/><BR/>As Mary is not the Incarnate Logos of God, I hardly see why this question is relevant.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-84576756251944521142007-08-26T06:36:00.000-07:002007-08-26T06:36:00.000-07:00"Christ...is a model for femininity."And you're wo..."Christ...is a model for femininity."<BR/><BR/>And you're worried about other peoples' theorizing falling upon the rocks. Nice.<BR/><BR/>There is a vast difference between asserting that all humans should follow Christ and be conformed to His image, and saying that Christ was the epitome of what it means to be female.<BR/><BR/>Would you also assert that Mary is a good model of masculinity?Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-10922143515125690582007-08-26T05:57:00.000-07:002007-08-26T05:57:00.000-07:00To me it comes down to being suspicious of 1.) att...To me it comes down to being suspicious of 1.) attempts to formulate a schema of masculinity based upon the recorded stories about Jesus, the man and, intimately related, 2.) failing to be careful to separate out propositional language about the nature, form and function of masculinity (and femininity) from culturally defined parameters concerning the same.<BR/><BR/>That is, while Christ is, to an extent, certainly a model for masculinity, I would argue that it is not primarily because Jesus was a male. In the same vein, I would equally argue that Christ--as the God-human--is a model for femininity. Such a conclusion removes consideration of gender "roles"(or even anatomical differences) as being the primal differentiation between sexes and rather roots the discussion primarily in the beginning points of submission to the will of God and love for God and neighbor. It is here--and only here--where true masculinity and femininity can find legitimate foundations, and any potential theorizing about their natures and limits which begins anywhere else is bound to fall upon the rocks of cultural mores concerning gender relations, never even approaching the unity and harmony imaged in the Incarnation of God in Christ within the human community.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-890991430405713972007-08-25T21:07:00.000-07:002007-08-25T21:07:00.000-07:00I meant to add that, then, it follows that if you'...I meant to add that, then, it follows that if you're modelling what it means to be a godly man on that former Jesus, you're missing the mark.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-18929133622279615442007-08-25T21:06:00.000-07:002007-08-25T21:06:00.000-07:00Not sure what I "obviously have in mind." But I do...Not sure what I "obviously have in mind." But I do know the Jesus that is preached in patriotic Ameri-gelical churches, liberal churches, and emergent unchurches; and I know it isn't the same one proclaimed by the four Evangelists.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-20027553809261708012007-08-25T19:08:00.000-07:002007-08-25T19:08:00.000-07:00The Scripture says the Messiah would be the Son of...<I>The Scripture says the Messiah would be the Son of David, meaning there really is some resemblance (I'd say strong) between King David and the Messiah.</I><BR/><BR/>I would suggest it is quite a stretch to apply this to notions of masculinity. The prophets seemed to imagine the resemblance between the two operating on the level of mission, not the measure of each man's maleness in comparison to the other.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, David was fallen and he sinned greatly: no one has suggested adultery and murder is the masculinity we're talking about.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, fair enough. Your last post did not really specify what it was that was to be the points of comparison between the two, so I assumed it was an open-ended statement.<BR/><BR/><I>You have to ignore a great many portions of the Gospels to get a Jesus who is all about being gentle and indiscriminately compassionate. Jesus was not a Republican, but He wasn't a Peace Corps volunteer either.</I><BR/><BR/>A commitment to non-violence and compassion has very little to do with the kind of gentleness which you obviously have in mind.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-3157394057320023012007-08-25T17:43:00.000-07:002007-08-25T17:43:00.000-07:00"Jesus was not a Republican, but He wasn't a Peace..."Jesus was not a Republican, but He wasn't a Peace Corps volunteer either."<BR/><BR/>Amen to that... Judging by the things some people say about the Lord Jesus, you'd think their Bible translation was totally lacking Matthew 23 -and other such passages!Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-6803613174300455052007-08-25T17:19:00.000-07:002007-08-25T17:19:00.000-07:00Well, that's partly my point, there ED. The Script...Well, that's partly my point, there ED. The Scripture says the Messiah would be the Son of David, meaning there really is some resemblance (I'd say strong) between King David and the Messiah. Yes, David was fallen and he sinned greatly: no one has suggested adultery and murder is the masculinity we're talking about. You have to ignore a great many portions of the Gospels to get a Jesus who is all about being gentle and indiscriminately compassionate. Jesus was not a Republican, but He wasn't a Peace Corps volunteer either.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-77837155234093698952007-08-25T15:41:00.000-07:002007-08-25T15:41:00.000-07:00"Which is it, then? Testosterone dripping like cor..."Which is it, then? Testosterone dripping like corn syrup off the pages, or no discernable difference between the sexes?"<BR/><BR/>That might depend on if you are reading a TNIV or not!Machine Gun Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-14456222995795909572007-08-25T15:00:00.000-07:002007-08-25T15:00:00.000-07:00King David was an adulterer and a murderer--not to...King David was an adulterer and a murderer--not to mention horrifically brutal and violent. That Christ would bear no resemblance to such is a good thing.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-39489139707415363862007-08-25T14:49:00.000-07:002007-08-25T14:49:00.000-07:00Liberals and postmoderns can't have it both ways.1...Liberals and postmoderns can't have it both ways.<BR/><BR/>1) Either the Bible is oppressively masculine and/or paternal, and thus the great need for things like Womynist Theology, or<BR/><BR/>2) You can't possibly hope to develop a Biblical portrait of masculinity.<BR/><BR/>Which is it, then? Testosterone dripping like corn syrup off the pages, or no discernable difference between the sexes?<BR/><BR/>I still contend that the evangelical and liberal Jesus bears more resemblance to Davey Jones than to King David.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.com