Orthodox move for women deacons called 'revitalization,' not 'innovation'
ForumChristianity
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
1John5918
Orthodox move for women deacons called 'revitalization,' not 'innovation' (NCR)
"The reinstitution of the female diaconate does not constitute an innovation, as some would have us believe... but the revitalization of a once functional, vibrant, and effectual ministry"...
Modern Orthodox scholarship acknowledges the existence of a female diaconate in the early church, with many tracing it back to a woman named Phoebe mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. However, "it really fell out of existence in the late Byzantine period... Every now and again there has been one ... but, for the most part, the past few hundred years have not seen deaconesses"
"The reinstitution of the female diaconate does not constitute an innovation, as some would have us believe... but the revitalization of a once functional, vibrant, and effectual ministry"...
Modern Orthodox scholarship acknowledges the existence of a female diaconate in the early church, with many tracing it back to a woman named Phoebe mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. However, "it really fell out of existence in the late Byzantine period... Every now and again there has been one ... but, for the most part, the past few hundred years have not seen deaconesses"
2Guanhumara
Excellent news!
3jwfarq
I agree. The reinstitution of the female diaconate is good news. After all, the Most High Holy Spirit of Light is diaconate-like as a teacher and mother of the Son of God. For how else could the Eternal Father have a Son without a mother?
4John5918
>3 jwfarq:
Not too sure about your theology there, but there is a long tradition of the Holy Spirit being viewed as feminine. However fundamentally God is gender-less - we anthropomorphise and engender God in order to give us something that we can imagine.
Not too sure about your theology there, but there is a long tradition of the Holy Spirit being viewed as feminine. However fundamentally God is gender-less - we anthropomorphise and engender God in order to give us something that we can imagine.
5jwfarq
The long tradition of a feminine Holy Spirit is probably because the Spirit in the Old Testament is feminine. Ask any Rabbi.
6Guanhumara
>5 jwfarq: Certainly שכינה is grammatically feminine. Hebrew has no neutral gender - everything is either grammatically masculine or grammatically feminine. But the fact that a bed is grammatically feminine does not mean that it is conceived of as having feminine properties. So it does not automatically follow that the Shekhinah> has feminine qualities either.
We refer to God as "He", although He is genderless, because neither Hebrew nor English has a pronoun without grammatical gender to use here ("it" being reserved for objects"). This leads some people to think of God as male (which os contradictory to the Bible).
Similarly, some people think of the Shekhinah as female; but not, I think, all.
We refer to God as "He", although He is genderless, because neither Hebrew nor English has a pronoun without grammatical gender to use here ("it" being reserved for objects"). This leads some people to think of God as male (which os contradictory to the Bible).
Similarly, some people think of the Shekhinah as female; but not, I think, all.
7jwfarq
>6 Guanhumara:
Not too sure about your theology there when you say: "We refer to God as "He", although He is gender-less."
My theology is simple: Everything important to God must make passage through the cross like unto a tree of life in order to live forever. I will use one New Testament example:
The Apostle Paul prayed for the power of the Holy Spirit of Light to see the fullness of God like unto a four dimension family-like Cross in Ephesians 3:14-19.
14. For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15. from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16. that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; 17.that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18. may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19. and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:14-19, WEB)
From Eph 3:15 it seems to me that a family in heaven is not gender-less.
Please consider that the family in heaven and earth is daughter (EVEning mother of all living humans on earth Gen 3:20), Son (morning star) in heaven, Mother (Most High Holy Spirit of Light) in heaven and Eternal Father in heaven. So, there are four family-like attributes of God that can be arranged on the cross. How else could the Eternal Father have a Son?
Now consider the cross that Paul defined four-ways with the depth as the foot, then clockwise, breadth, then top, height, then length, shaped like a cross that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Can you see the cross (mental image) of every family in heaven and on earth?
Can you see Paul's four dimension cross of all the fullness of God?
Not too sure about your theology there when you say: "We refer to God as "He", although He is gender-less."
My theology is simple: Everything important to God must make passage through the cross like unto a tree of life in order to live forever. I will use one New Testament example:
The Apostle Paul prayed for the power of the Holy Spirit of Light to see the fullness of God like unto a four dimension family-like Cross in Ephesians 3:14-19.
14. For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15. from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16. that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; 17.that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18. may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19. and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:14-19, WEB)
From Eph 3:15 it seems to me that a family in heaven is not gender-less.
Please consider that the family in heaven and earth is daughter (EVEning mother of all living humans on earth Gen 3:20), Son (morning star) in heaven, Mother (Most High Holy Spirit of Light) in heaven and Eternal Father in heaven. So, there are four family-like attributes of God that can be arranged on the cross. How else could the Eternal Father have a Son?
Now consider the cross that Paul defined four-ways with the depth as the foot, then clockwise, breadth, then top, height, then length, shaped like a cross that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Can you see the cross (mental image) of every family in heaven and on earth?
Can you see Paul's four dimension cross of all the fullness of God?
8John5918
>7 jwfarq:
As I said in >4 John5918:, "we anthropomorphise and engender God in order to give us something that we can imagine". Likewise we use the image of family.
I think your analogy of "four family-like attributes of God that can be arranged on the cross" is stretching things.
On the "family" in heaven, aka the Trinity, I've found Richard Rohr's The Divine Dance to be thought-provoking.
As I said in >4 John5918:, "we anthropomorphise and engender God in order to give us something that we can imagine". Likewise we use the image of family.
I think your analogy of "four family-like attributes of God that can be arranged on the cross" is stretching things.
On the "family" in heaven, aka the Trinity, I've found Richard Rohr's The Divine Dance to be thought-provoking.
9jwfarq
>8 John5918:
I checked out The Divine Dance and read the four reviews in the thread. Interesting.
Allow me to anthropomorphise the Trinity in order to give you something that you can not only imagine, but something that you can also SEE.
The names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are specifically named together only once in the Bible in Matthew 28:19. The resurrected Jesus spoke these words to his disciples:
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)
Notice there are four entities underlined above that arrange themselves on a cross with all the nations on the foot of the cross on earth, then (Clockwise) in heaven the Son, then in heaven on the apex, the Most High Holy Spirit and finally in heaven the Father.
(Note that the Son is on the right hand side of the Father facing reader.)
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, ASV)
Perhaps you can understand that all the nations is also all humanity who is EVEning mother of all the living humans (Gen 3:20). Perhaps you can see how the cross connects humans on earth to the Trinity in heaven. This is what Isaiah and Jesus meant when they said one must both SEE and hear in order to both perceive and understand.
Can you now see what Paul meant with four family-like attributes of God as daughter, Son, Mother, Father? For how else could God have a Son?
I checked out The Divine Dance and read the four reviews in the thread. Interesting.
Allow me to anthropomorphise the Trinity in order to give you something that you can not only imagine, but something that you can also SEE.
The names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are specifically named together only once in the Bible in Matthew 28:19. The resurrected Jesus spoke these words to his disciples:
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)
Notice there are four entities underlined above that arrange themselves on a cross with all the nations on the foot of the cross on earth, then (Clockwise) in heaven the Son, then in heaven on the apex, the Most High Holy Spirit and finally in heaven the Father.
(Note that the Son is on the right hand side of the Father facing reader.)
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, ASV)
Perhaps you can understand that all the nations is also all humanity who is EVEning mother of all the living humans (Gen 3:20). Perhaps you can see how the cross connects humans on earth to the Trinity in heaven. This is what Isaiah and Jesus meant when they said one must both SEE and hear in order to both perceive and understand.
Can you now see what Paul meant with four family-like attributes of God as daughter, Son, Mother, Father? For how else could God have a Son?
10John5918
>9 jwfarq:
No, I can't see. I think your cross analogy is a nice little pious construction which I'm sure will help some people just like all the other pious imagery (I'm a Catholic, so I should know about pious imagery!), but I don't see it as having any theological or universal relevance.
No, I can't see. I think your cross analogy is a nice little pious construction which I'm sure will help some people just like all the other pious imagery (I'm a Catholic, so I should know about pious imagery!), but I don't see it as having any theological or universal relevance.
11jwfarq
Pious imagery? Thanks nice. I like that. I understand your view. The Catholic view is a traditional one where all interpretation must be made through the lens of its Church Fathers. Saint Irenaeus is the church father who is primarily responsible for the Cross of Four Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Progressive revelation of a fourfold God occurred with Church Father Saint Irenaeus from the early second century. Irenaeus is the earliest witness to see the canonical character of all four gospels that fit on the cross. He wrote in his principal work “Against Heresies” (c. 180) that the Word of God was fourfold in form held together by one Spirit.
The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)
So, according to your Church Father any view of God that is not fourfold in form is a heresy.
Progressive revelation of a fourfold God occurred with Church Father Saint Irenaeus from the early second century. Irenaeus is the earliest witness to see the canonical character of all four gospels that fit on the cross. He wrote in his principal work “Against Heresies” (c. 180) that the Word of God was fourfold in form held together by one Spirit.
The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)
So, according to your Church Father any view of God that is not fourfold in form is a heresy.
12John5918
>11 jwfarq:
No, the view of one Church Father, however revered, does not define heresy, although we do have an old Catholic joke that whatever is not forbidden is compulsory and vice versa. The fourfold model may indeed by a pious image to which the Church has no objection, but a far as I know it is not compulsory.
No, the view of one Church Father, however revered, does not define heresy, although we do have an old Catholic joke that whatever is not forbidden is compulsory and vice versa. The fourfold model may indeed by a pious image to which the Church has no objection, but a far as I know it is not compulsory.
13jwfarq
>12 John5918:
No? Oh. I see. Only one church father who defined four gospels to begin the New Testament was not important, since there was not a committee. Maybe it was all just a coincidence. Wait! There was a committee. But we weren't there. All we true believers know is that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God. We are left with this:
From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit.
It is nice to know that the Church has no objection to the fourfold God of Creation if that is true.
but a far as I know it is not compulsory
It is compulsory. Believe me. I can give you 250 examples. Would you settle for three?
No? Oh. I see. Only one church father who defined four gospels to begin the New Testament was not important, since there was not a committee. Maybe it was all just a coincidence. Wait! There was a committee. But we weren't there. All we true believers know is that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God. We are left with this:
From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit.
It is nice to know that the Church has no objection to the fourfold God of Creation if that is true.
but a far as I know it is not compulsory
It is compulsory. Believe me. I can give you 250 examples. Would you settle for three?
14John5918
>13 jwfarq:
Nobody is disputing the four gospels, nor that Irenaeus likened them to the four points of the cross. It's a nice image, but it is not fundamental to Christian theology.
Nobody is disputing the four gospels, nor that Irenaeus likened them to the four points of the cross. It's a nice image, but it is not fundamental to Christian theology.
15jwfarq
>14 John5918:
You wrote: It's a nice image, but it is not fundamental to Christian theology.
If you believe that then Jesus died on the cross for NOTHING!
You wrote: It's a nice image, but it is not fundamental to Christian theology.
If you believe that then Jesus died on the cross for NOTHING!
16John5918
>15 jwfarq:
Rubbish. Nobody is denying the power of the cross, only pointing out that the constant imagery of forcing everything into a fourfold cross is not a fundamental part of Christian theology. The cross itself is.
Rubbish. Nobody is denying the power of the cross, only pointing out that the constant imagery of forcing everything into a fourfold cross is not a fundamental part of Christian theology. The cross itself is.
17jwfarq
Oh. I see what you are saying. The constant imagery of forcing everything into a fourfold cross is not CURRENTLY a fundamental part of Christian theology. You are correct about that.
We need to change not currently to currently in order to finish what Jesus tried to show us on the cross when he died on the cross, when he taught the cross and when he said one must pick up their OWN cross.
We need to change not currently to currently in order to finish what Jesus tried to show us on the cross when he died on the cross, when he taught the cross and when he said one must pick up their OWN cross.
