I think part of the solution is to realize that all of these terms for God are metaphors and as such have a purpose but that purpose should not be taken too far.

And I really appreciated Eric W’s comments about the contrast between the Old and New Adam, the Old and New Creation. I felt this revealed a real grasp of and understanding of what Paul actually teaches on this subject in Galatians and 2 Corinthians. I think he really hit the nail on the head when he said:

“In other words, Patriarchal Hierarchilism is a remnant of the Old and Fallen Creation, and the Old Covenant(s), which is one reason why it’s so common in so many societies and religions, Christian and non-Christian – i.e., it’s the way Adam does things.

Which may also be why leaving what “everyone believes and does” can be a fearful thing for some. It’s like entering a new and unknown Kingdom where different rules and laws and natures operate.”

Kamilla’s commentary brought to mind some passages in James B. Torrance’s WORSHIP,COMMUNITY & THE TRIUNE OF GRACE that might be of interest to everyone:

“The Nicene debate seems to me to be of fundamental importance today, in the light of accusations that talk of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is sexist, with male images projected onto God by a male-dominated, sexist culture. The contention, therefore, is that we need new images of God, for example, female images. This was the basic theme of the 1994 Minneapolis Conference on “Re-Imagining God, Community and the Church,”…Behind this contemporary demand by many feminists for new images of God, there is a very genuine legitimate protest and a cry for justice. There is the fact that for centuries–from the very beginning?–the church has been largely male-dominated, patriarchal, hierarchical. Women have been excluded from the ordained ministry and from holding certain offices. The false argument has been used that only a man can represent a male Jesus. But this portrays an inadequate understanding of the Incarnation. The Son of God, in assuming our humanity, became a man, not to sanctify maleness, but our common humanity so that, be we men or women, we can see the dignity and beauty of our humanity sanctified in him” (pp.101-102).

yes, otherwise we have the Messiah coming to save only males and not all humans, male and female.

ISTM that Evangelical Protestantism basically eliminated baptism and communion as being “sacraments” as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches view them when it eliminated the priesthood/priest function, but retained or elevated the reading of the Scripture as the “sacrament” in the sense of being the thing by which grace and change are imparted to the recipients (the hearers of the Word).

In the RC Church and the EO Church, the priest (i.e., the one who administers the sacraments and thereby brings God’s grace via them to the congregation) is a male because he represents Christ to the people (and when praying for the congregation, he represents the people to God); since Christ was a male, the priest also has to be male, so they argue (in fact, the RCC says the priest stands in persona Christi).

I think Evangelical Protestantism visibly retains this idea when it insists on having a male pastor and/or male elders be the only ones who can administer the Word (i.e., the “sacrament”) to the congregation.

Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, an Orthodox priest, has said that the Orthodox Church could theoretically allow women to be priests if its understanding of the incarnation became more focused on the fact that Christ became HUMAN, rather than became a MALE human.

That is something I think Complementarian Evangelical Protestantism has to deal with. By restricting their version of the “priesthood” (i.e., the one who represents Christ to the people and represents the people to God) – even though they call it the pastorate or eldership, not the priesthood – to males, they are buying into the RCC and EOC concept that Christ’s maleness was at least as important as his humanness.

This to me raises all kinds of questions about the difference between men’s sin nature and women’s sin nature and how Christ saved men versus how He saved women.

BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Which is why restricting the priesthood or the pastorate to males creates real problems in my mind for the doctrine of the Incarnation.

My whole life.. I was told women couldn’t lead at church… and certainly, finding a community that was more egalitarian was impossible even I was in a state that was considered to be more “liberal”. Frankly, I found a more moderate community where we could talk about these issues.. the real issues in the church and still evangelical.. but it took a long time… and it was really hard to change my mind set that had stronghold in me so long. I still caught myself thinking I want to.. but I’m a woman so I can’t. Gradually process.. and certainly was fearful because I felt like if someone find out my perspectives changing.. then people will accuse me of believing in heresies…

Maybe God has left some things in scripture a bit vague (liable to be translated in different ways) to see what we love more…our opinions or our sisters and brothers in Christ.

It was worded better than I remember, but this is the essence. I have always thought it was a good way to look at ‘debatable’ passages.

In other words, Patriarchal Hierarchicalism is a remnant of the Old and Fallen Creation, and the Old Covenant(s), which is one reason why it’s so common in so many societies and religions, Christian and non-Christian – i.e., it’s the way Adam does things.

Which may also be why leaving what “everyone believes and does” can be a fearful thing for some. It’s like entering a new and unknown Kingdom where different rules and laws operate.