…

I know quite a few ordained women. I went to an Assemblies college; women tend to get ordained right out of college. The trouble is, there are very few opportunities for women in leadership… in the United States. In the States, they’re allowed to run children’s ministries and women’s ministries. In the mission field, they’re allowed to run whatever needs running. So that’s why you don’t see too many women ministers in the Assemblies anymore: We export them. (Or they get frustrated and quit trying to get jobs in the U.S.)

On the quote, “How one lives his life is more important than whether one affirms Jesus as Lord”:

Actually, I find myself agreeing with that statement. “Why,” pointed out Jesus, “do you call me Lord, Lord, yet don’t do what I say?” (Lk 6.46)

In our churches we have lots of people affirming that Jesus is Lord, affirming the Apostle’s Creed, affirming the authority of the bible, but not living in any way that indicates that these things are more than myths. Christians don’t love their neighbors, love their enemies, and love one another as Christ has loved us. They don’t follow commandments. They don’t radically alter their lives to conform to the will of God. They think that saying the magic words, “Jesus is Lord,” or some form of the sinner’s prayer will get them into heaven; yet they display none of the fruits of the Spirit that are meant to indicate whether God has left His deposit of the Holy Spirit in His children. Magic words are no substitute for a relationship with Christ.

One affirms that Jesus is Lord with one’s behavior, not just with one’s mouth. When Paul said “if you confess with your mouth…” I don’t think he was talking about hypocrites.

We seem to have a lot in common. I loved the Great Divorce too. That’s also a pretty viable idea of hell for me. However motherhood tilted me toward the Orthodox view. Spend enough time holding a 2 yr old in full-meltdown tantrum mode to keep him from hurting himself, and you begin to understand the idea that being embraced by a loving God could really be hell for someone trapped in their own ego and rage.

We also have a bit in common wrt sensitivity to orthodoxy. I grew up in the Bible belt and largely walked away from that version of Christianity as a young adult. Only when studying Judaism led me to studying traditional Christianity did I realize how much of what I had grown up hearing was at least borderline heresy. So I am sensitive to that. What we believe is the grounding for how we live – perhaps one of the reasons I’ve reacted so strongly to something being called heresy which is not.

“I would be interested in references to some of the earlier texts, if you have them.”

The image of “Mother Jesus” was used widely among patristic and Medieval theologians and Christian mystics including: Julian of Norwich, Adam of Perseigne, Aelred, Albert the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard of Cluny, Bonaventure, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Clement of Alexandria, Dante, William Flete, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guerric of Igny, Guigo II the Carthusian, Helinand of Froidmont, Isaac of Stella, Margery Kempe, Peter Lombard, Ludolph of Saxony, Marguerite of Oingt, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Richard Rolle, and William of St. Thierry, as well as in the Ancren Riwle and the Stimulus Amoris. (Most comprehensive summaries I’ve found are by CW Bynum: ‘Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality ofthe High Middle Ages’, 1982 – Berkeley: University of California Press and also ‘Jesus as Mother and Abbot as Mother: Some Themes in Twelfth-Century Cistercian Writing’, The Harvard Theological Review, 1977). I can’t find the links right now, but mother imagery of God/Jesus also appears in writings by St. John Chrysotoam and Clement.

“In addition, the context of the “conservative” hearer is one that has had to put up with such things as liberals/feminists wanting to rename the Trinity…So, calling Christ ‘Mother Jesus’, in the current context can easily be taken for an attempt to redefine God.”

Only if those conservatives rush to judgement – something a good Christian conservative should know is far more against scripture than any feminist re-imagining. If you read the whole of the bishop’s sermon, the reference to Jesus as mother is hardly the dominant theme. She also uses ‘King Jesus’, for instance (something no truly radical feminist would do). In context, the reference to Jesus as mother appears mid-way through:

‘That full measure of love, pressed down and overflowing, drives out our idolatrous self-interest. Because that is what fear really is — it is a reaction, an often unconscious response to something we think is so essential that it takes the place of God. “Oh, that’s mine and you can’t take it, because I can’t live without it” — whether it’s my bank account or theological framework or my sense of being in control. If you threaten my self-definition, I respond with fear. Unless, like Jesus, we can set aside those lesser goods, unless we can make “peace through the blood of the cross.”

That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.’ (http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/75383_76300_ENG_HTM.htm)

There is nothing there that is not completely orthodox and biblical. Only those looking for something to rocks about could see a problem there.

But of course most of the folks getting their knickers in a twist about this haven’t bothered to read the whole sermon or even the ‘mother’ quote in context. Instead, they’ve latched onto one word and and run out to spread the fiction that the new presiding bishop is some sort of militant radical feminist and/or heretic. Given the frequent biblical injunction against gossip and rumor-mongering, it seems to me that the bishop is far more in the right wrt following scripture here.

“I’m not sure what the up-down vote issue was. Not being Anglican, I’ve not kept up with everything going on there as closely as I’d like. What was the issue there?”

In Driscoll’s article he claims the ECUSA proved its lack of orthodoxy by defeating a resolution that declared an “unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved” by not allowing it to come to a floor vote.

But that phrase was not the source of the problem and his summary considerably less than the whole story. The discussion about this resolution pointed out that the church had already committed to these concepts when it approved the Book of Common Prayer and Catechism, and, more importantly, raised objections to another section of the resolution that insisted on a specific (substitutionary) interpretation of the Atonement, noting that it was not in the Anglican tradition to insist on a single interpretation of basic doctrines. The resolution was discharged as handled at a previous convention. (See http://gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=322&type=ORIGINAL.)

It also contained language that could be interpreted as running counter to the widely held Anglo-Catholic concept of ‘baptism by desire’ (since you’re a CS Lewis fan, you’re probably most familiar with this thru the allusion to it in the Last Battle). Since that would not allow for an understanding that God as Sovereign is the final judge when it comes to who is going to heaven/hell (and therefore Jesus can mediate where He choses and is not bound by formulatic profession), it was more than a little problematic.

So rather than showing the ECUSA to a bunch of liberals playing fast and loose with theology, the vote actually demonstatred just how seriously they take the details and implications of their theological statements.

Yeah, I was mainly only citing the Orthodox description of Hell for fun. I’m not really sure where I, personally, stand on that, though I will admit to really liking some of the ideas expressed in Lewis’ The Great Divorce.

As to the ‘Mother Jesus’ idea, I am aware of the Biblical symbolism of ‘travail,’ the hen, etc. I also believe I have heard the symbolism of Christ’s Blood as mothers’ milk. I would be interested in references to some of the earlier texts, if you have them.

Though, I would point out that a ‘Mother Jesus’ idea, is not one commonly known among modern Christians—especially among modern Protestants. In addition, the context of the “conservative” hearer is one that has had to put up with such things as liberals/feminists wanting to rename the Trinity things like Creator/Redeemer/Teacher or Mother/Child/Womb or other such things (note that the first isn’t necessarily wrong, though it does draw some false distinctions, but it defines God in his relation to us, rather than in relation to Himself). So, calling Christ ‘Mother Jesus’, in the current context can easily be taken for an attempt to redefine God. The fact that the comment comes from an Episcopal bishop, for conservatives in other denominations (and probably some conservatives within Anglicanism), makes it seem that much more likely that this is what’s going on.

Regarding poorly educated Catholics, as a Baptist, I’ve always been told that almost all Catholics are poorly-educated about what their Church teaches/what the Bible says/etc. I’ve been pleasantly surprised, however, in my recent discussions with Catholics to learn that this is as true of Catholics as it is of Baptists (i.e., I’ve met some very knowledgable Catholics).

Regarding doctrine vs. actions, for me, the problem is that, as an Evangelical, I’ve heard very often that docrine is divisive, and as long as we love Jesus, and trust in Him alone, we’re okay. This ends up leading to doctrines that were declared heretical over 1500 years ago being widely taught without anyone knowing the better (modalism seems to be the most common example of this). When I’ve challenged this, I’ve been told that, as long as you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you’re okay, and that having a proper view of the Trinity doesn’t affect how we live as Christians anyway.

Given that, perhaps you can better understand my sensitivity to someone appearing to dismiss orthodoxy as unimportant (which is rarely done outright).

And the “bible churches” definately have a hard time with a lot of what Jesus said, mainly because a lot of what Jesus said doesn’t easily jive with evangelical soteriology.

I’m not sure what the up-down vote issue was. Not being Anglican, I’ve not kept up with everything going on there as closely as I’d like. What was the issue there?

Actually I tend more toward the Orthodox description of hell you cite, but what I objected to was the image of Jesus actively torturing people following some sort of Alpha-male take down right out of a nature special on social structure among chimpanezes (one of the few species where the winner actually savages the loser(s) rather than simply killing them outright or releasing them after they show submission, btw).

As to the image of ‘Mother Jesus’ it was completely Orthodox. There’s even a book by the title that traces its history within the church. It reached it’s highest expression among Cisterian monks, but references to Christ’s blood as mother’s milk or images of the Passion as travail go back much farther into the early centuries of the church. And Jesus in the gospels described Himself using the image of a mother hen longing to take her chicks to safety under her wings (something people with no church history, but familiarity with the bible should have known). So the concept was never considered heretical by the church and it’s origins date back to the earliest literature of the church.

If you have a Cathoic friend who agrees with Driscoll, I can only say there’s a share of poorly educated Catholics too.

It’s not that doctrine isn’t important. (Even in Judaism where action is paramount, if you believe God is anything other than One, perfect orthopraxy counts for nothing.) But note that the bishop Driscoll was (mis)quoting did not say that it didn’t matter. He said that how we lived in response to following Christ (which rather presupposes holding a Christian view of Jesus) is more important. The sad thing is that bishop McDowell is being reviled as a heretic for saying something that is plainly in the bible. If Jesus came back today and said the same things He says in the synoptics, I can’t help but think that it would be the so-called bible-believing Christians who would be the first to reject Him (‘Just look at that parable He told about sheep and goats! Judgement depends on how you acted toward others? Not a word about what you believed? Heresy!’).

BTW, the up-down vote issue (context of the bishop’s quote) was a matter of political manuvering and frankly had about as much to do with orthodoxy as quite a lot of votes in Congress on bills with lofty-sounding names actually have to do addressing issue in their titles. It was prevented from coming to the floor because it was clearly designed to be nothing more than an instrument for tarring others in the church-equivalent of campaign commercials. For that reason, I am actually rather proud of my church for quashing it no matter how others may twist that fact to make us out as apostates.

I have heard of some who believe that hell is being eternally in the presence of God’s love and hating it. In that sense, Jesus could be considered the tormentor, but it’s really the man/woman bringing the torment upon him-/herself. Not that any of this really matters…

Though I would address some of your other points:

First, “Devotions to ‘mother Jesus’ can be traced back to at least the 12th century.” I would note that many recognized heresies can be traced back further than that, so the fact that the concept appears in the 12th Century, by itself, isn’t a very good argument. In what literature did this concept appear? Was this literature deemed heretical by the Church, or was it accepted as orthodox, or at least mostly orthodox? Obviously, if the concept doesn’t appear in any literature that was received by the Church, there’s a problem.

Granted, the 12th Century was rather late. If there were something earlier, say, 4th or 5th Century, there might be more weight to the argument.

“Only a historically illiterate Protestant who thinks anything he didn’t see in American churches in 1950 is a liberal innovation would make that sort of dumb mistake – let alone publish it in an online sermon.”

I happen to know of at least one Catholic who would side with Driscoll on this point…

“Then there’s the criticism of the ECUSA bishop who said ‘Actions speak louder than proclamations’ when it comes to showing our Christian faith. Guess what? If ‘biblically literate’ Driscoll bothered to read the gospels he’d find Jesus Himself saying the same thing.”

Yes and no. I agree with you in the sense that many Protestants tend to minimize the sayings of Christ in the Gospels, and I agree that “faith without works is dead,” and that one who loudly proclaims orthodox doctrine but doesn’t “work it out” is merely a clanging symbol.

At the same time, the Church has always believed that right doctrine is important. Otherwise, there would be no Nicene Creed, Apostle’s Creed, Ecumenical Councils, etc. Orthodox doctrine has, historically, been important enough to the Church that many believers have risked everything to ensure that the Church doesn’t lose it.

Granted, the statement doesn’t have much context, and that’s important. Without the context, it could easily be heard as, “Proclamation isn’t important; actions are,” and to suspect that the speaker is promoting something that he/she knows is diverging from historical Christianity, but believes is “right” anyway. Perhaps that’s not what was being said (maybe he/she was reacting to the clanging symbols I mentioned earlier, and, if that were the case, I’d be one of the first to agree with the statement).

You really hit the nail on the head wrt ‘masculinized’ Christianity.

If the model for being a ‘real man’ in Christianity is acting like a character in a Blue Collar TV skit, there is something seriously wrong with the concept.

If the problem is that he’s trying to be ‘macho’ instead of be a ‘mensch’, he has a lot of growing up to do.

Okay, I may have Satan’s role in hell more from tradition than scripture, but can I say that I am appalled by the folks who see nothing wrong with the idea of Jesus in the role of active Torturer (and worse yet those who sound like they enjoy the image)?

If that is the vision of Jesus held by non-mainliners, I’ll stick in my mainline church despite all its other problems thankyouverymuch.

Seriously, I know there are plenty of people outside mainline churches who aren’t into throwing stones and actually view Jesus as a loving Savior (hi Brian!), but those of you defending this image what does it say about your theology?