[Faith-talk] Matthew 15:10–20 revised addition

[Bill Outman]

Hi, all.  

I've heard that joke before myself, the intent of which is for us to focus on the fact that Jesus saves.  I hadn't heard it with the twist of the possibility of a feminine God.  

I recall, Linda, that around the time you are speaking of in the early '80s there was an article in U. S. News & World Report about a proposed Bible version that would attempt gender neutral references where possible, such as referring to God the Father as the Source, for example.  The article discussed the debate over this, which was understandably very emotional.  

At the risk of some possibly taking some offense and wondering if I am out to lunch or have gone off the deep end, I'd like to share some thoughts I've had about the nature of God that relate to this issue.  I've been reluctant to discuss these ideas outside of family and close friends, mindful it could be a flash point for some, especially in view of my brief seminary experience before losing my vision totally.  I wish to point out that even in view of what I am about to articulate, I consider myself a born again believer in Christ.  

I would first note that as Paul wrote we know in part and prophesy in part.  This is because we are finite beings trying to distill and infinite God.  This being the case, perhaps we would do well not to limit our conception of God.  

Ultimately God is spirit, so perhaps it is not predetermined that God is masculine or feminine.  Perhaps God is both or neither.  Perhaps this is part of the complexity and mystery of the Trinity, after all orthodox belief says God is one entity but simultaneously three persons.  Nothing is impossible with God.  Is it not possible that God in creation expressed both paternal and maternal qualities?  
	One thing that is interesting to remember about this is that in some churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Mary is referred to as the mother of God.  Admittedly coming from a Protestant and non-denominational background I struggle with that concept, though in the expanded concept of the spirit of God possibly having both male and female aspects, this could in fact be a valid concept, perhaps not with Mary but with the Father/Mother person of the Trinity, if we view Jesus as the only begotten Son of God.  

Yet when God incarnated as the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us, the historical Jesus was a man.  It appears to me this was because our civilization had developed in such a way as this became the only manner acceptable to us as humanity in which God could reach out to us.  

Another thing we cannot be totally sure of, though,is the exact nature of Christ's resurrected body or our promised glorified bodies as believers.  

The question is how should we view and apply our understanding of God today.  Though I may feel comfortable with an expanded understanding of God's nature, I understand others may not be.  What is important is what will bring each individual into a relationship with God.  Perhaps, for example we can keep the traditional male references for well-known hymns and maintain the availability of traditional Bible versions, but be open to gender sensitive renderings of readings, contemporary music, and Bible renderings for those for whom this is more edifying.  Prayer is communication with God, so if communicating in other than masculine reference brings you closer to God, then by all means do so.  We should not look down on another believer for approaching God in a different manner of reference than we do, if this is more edifying for that believer.  

So what I would conclude it we should proceed as the Holy Spirit leads and in the manner and pace at which we are able to receive wisdom, not judge too harshly, and await the full knowledge we will have in heaven.  

I hope we will all give prayerful consideration to these Ideas and follow God's lead.  

Bill Outman 


-----Original Message-----
From: Faith-Talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Linda Mentink via Faith-Talk
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:06 PM
To: Faith-talk, for the discussion of Blindness in faith and religion
Cc: Linda Mentink
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] Matthew 15:10–20 revised addition

Hi Ericka,

I wish you would have said it was a joke in the first place.  Way back in the early 1980s, when I was in the United Methodist Church, we said a prayer once in unison that began, "Our Father, Mother God," I was unhappy about that, and didn't say it.  
There's plenty of religious stuff out there like that, and it's only going to get worse!

Blessings,

Linda

_______________________________________________
Faith-Talk mailing list
Faith-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/woutman%40earthlink.net