Over at Slice, Ingrid Schlueter opines about a pastor:

After looking at an increasingly androgynous Rob Bell in this video, I’d say Bell doesn’t seem limited to a gender either.

Now, I’m curious. Is that personal attack? Does that statement reflect the God that Mrs. Schlueter follows? Does statement reflect the God of the Bible? If this isn’t a personal attack, what is it? What’s the point of it?

In another recent thread we were asked for the proof that ADM’s attack? Well, how about these apples?

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, December 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm and is filed under Blogging, Ingrid, What Can You Say?, Women. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

267 Comments(+Add)

1   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I can’t wait for this thread to turn into a discussion of feminism, “goddess worship” etc. etc.

It’s just too easy considering the blatant personal garbage the High Priestess just vomited.

She and the other lurking imams need to repent.

And NO, the concern of this OP is NOT about defending feminism, etc. etc. It’s about that woman’s behavior.

Such accusations perpetuate the ministry of Satan who is The Accuser.

2   mimi    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

androgynous?

I’d pull the beam out of my own eye first!

3   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Ah, yes, Ingrid once again takes the high road…

Did she steal that line from Mark Driscoll?

4   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I have not listened to bell’s video, however the name El Shadai means “The Breasted One” literally and is translated our Provider. God has no gender, and although He reveals Himself in the masculine for the most part, He has what we would consider feminine attributes. We must be careful.

But again Ingrid warns that open gay acceptance is not far behind. Does the word obsession mean anything? Even if homosexuality is reaching new heights, is the drone of ungracious words the way to redemption? This blog thing has provided a way to camouflage self gratification as bold and couragious verbiage.

The supreme example of boldness and courage is showcased upon two Roman planks exhibiting the Creator of all there is, justified to destroy it all, giving the entirety of Himself for the most worthless deviants that have ever roamed this world. Namely us.

5   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

As far as feminine imagery…there’s even more than the Name of of El Shaddai.

There’s the female imagery God uses to describe God’s self in the minor prophets and elsewhere.

This is not some slide into feminism…this is within the province of the fact that male and female both are representative of the imago dei.

Being female is not some afterthought for the sake of procreation…

But then again…if you are a soft gnostic then the body is a burden and so with it gender, etc.

Ick.

6   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I find it difficult to receive “instruction” about the dangers of the slide toward ecclesiastical feminism from someone who regularly operates in a male capacity. Anyone who accuses me of sliding toward feminism I will punch. (As Biblical evidence to the contrary)

7   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

again, Rick, you’ve pointed out the flaming irony of Ingrid’s ministry of anger to the glory of God…

8   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

seriously…I’m an egalitarian, but after exposure to that toxic religiosity I might have to reconsider my position.

9   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
December 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Uh, Joe, that would be “them apples”, not “these apples”. Or is your English teacher watching?

Otherwise, spot on.

10   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
December 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Rick reaches out and touches someone in Jesus’ name. ;-)

11   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 15th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

For the record, I don’t care if Mrs. Schlueter thinks the pastor in question has a view that is “too feminine.” I’d like to know her qualifications to make such a claim but I want someone from that side to explain to me how this isn’t a personal attack?
How isn’t the prurient pre-school banter that she is always preaching about?

12   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Mimi,

I totally missed your comment…

Yikes!

There’s a way to communicate deserved disdain without going there.

13   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Wow. Yeah Mimi I missed that too. Uncalled for friend. I understand the anger that may have caused that but uncalled for.

14   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Much of Ingrid’s writing comes off as almost schizophrenic. I’m sure after a while it become hard to keep track of exactly who and what you’ve trashed but, really, she talks out of both sides of her mouth.

So Bell is too effeminate for her, but when a pastor talks about sex, he’s trying too hard to prove he’s manly. Seriously, there’s no pleasing her, really.

Abraham Lincoln said can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but apparently with Ingrid, she never pleased at at any time. Hey, at least consistent in her disdain…

15   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

WOW – that is low… even for someone as nasty as Ingrid.

And the link between the feminie aspects of God and hhomosexuality are paranoid.

16   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

“I’d say Bell doesn’t seem limited to a gender either.”

Does that make Bell a doctrinal hermaphrodite?

17   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I think Ingrid is a bit androgynous… as she speaks like a man but looks like a woman…

iggy

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

I find it difficult to receive “instruction” about the dangers of the slide toward ecclesiastical feminism from someone who regularly operates in a male capacity. Anyone who accuses me of sliding toward feminism I will punch. (As Biblical evidence to the contrary)

BTW I just paraphrased Rick’s statment so that a 2 y/o could understand.

19   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 12:18 am

Yikes!
Iggy!
Dude!

Don’t do that.

You know very well that the androgeny slam is about “appearances” not behavior. Don’t get on that train.

That woman offers plenty of other things that deserve critique, but you’re playing her game with that stuff.

20   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:11 am

Seriously.
You should apologize to her and so should Mimi

21   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am

ummm that is what Rick states in essence..are you going to rebuke him also?

SHeesh… She is a woman, but speaks like a man… in the “world” that is a compliment…

Why is Rick able to say that a woman is so beneath him that she cannot rebuke him and no one states that as wrong? I think that is worse than what I stated…

I also think Laura Schlessinger talks like a man at times… and that it is not bad…

Really why is it assumed I meant that as “bad”… as a Christian woman, Ingrid is more outspoken than most men and even on this site her followers have stated Ingrid is more manly than we who post here against her… so even her “fans” call her manly… at least more manly than those who write posts here…

I see that since she uses worldly tactics to take down others that it is fitting she fits the worldly model of acting manly instead of trying to be a strong woman of God.

I never stated she did not look like a woman… I stated she did look like a woman but her behavior… as in her speech is like a man… so again I am not sure what you are saying as I never attacked her appearance at all. Again I stated she looks like a woman… do you disagree with that? LOL!

iggy

22   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:41 am

Igs,

I get what you’re trying to say, but in the context of this thread it just looks bad. You’re a smart guy. Why go anywhere near anything that would make you sound like that, or open you up to being attacked wrongly if that’s not what you intended?

To be clear…I don’t think Rick has ever said women are “beneath him”.

I think you should steer clear since the term and its use as a personal slam is the concern of the OP.

Does that make sense?

23   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:35 am

Iggy – you misrepresent my Biblical conviction with your own common language. There is no male and female in Christ, they are equal. But in my view there are gender specific leadership roles. Do not reduce my words in order to make them sound coarse and chauvenistic, please.

24   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am

Rick,

You have stated many times you believe Ingrid is out of line to rebuke male pastor because she is a woman. I do not hold that view… If that misrepresents you view than I guess you have changed it. In the authority model that you believe, a woman is below the man in it. According to what you have stated a woman should not rebuke a male pastor… Rob Bell is a male pastor and Ingrid not only rebuked him… but crossed the line in attacking him as a person in his appearance. Again if I have misrepresented your view which I do not believe I have… I apologize… but I believe it accurate.

nc,

Again, I did not address her appearance… I simply stated that Ingrid talks like a man though she is a woman… I have not stated anything “mean”… if that is not true then it would be. But if you listen to her talk and how she addresses people and the topics she discusses she sounds more like an opinionated Larry King or even more Michael Savage… at least the latter in attitude.

iggy

25   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
December 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am

I think that maybe those that got onto the ig-meister might have taken his comments in light of the other comments, not just the post. Comments such as mimi’s threw off his meaning (which he later clarified).

I know that I’ve posted comments that respond to the post without reading all the comments that preceded mine. If you take his comment sitting alone with the post, you don’t automatically think he’s talking in the physical sense (that Ingrid has a deep made-for-radio voice).

nc noted “in the context of this thread it just looks bad”. But if you don’t read the thread, it doesn’t.

26   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Iggy – I believe you have sterilized your comment.

“Why is Rick able to say that a woman is so beneath him that she cannot rebuke him and no one states that as wrong? I think that is worse than what I stated…”

That is a hyperbolic representation of my dispassionate view of spiritual leadership. And to say it is “worse” is to assume it is an attack rather than a reasoned interpretation of Scripture, which, by the way, Ingrid probably espouses, and applied to her particular situation.

I think the closest I have come to approaching a personal reference is when I refer to some of her rantings as “screeching”. I have yet to recant of that. :cool:

27   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Rick,

Since I disagree with your view, to me saying on one hand a woman is equal as far as being in Christ, then removing that thought to place them “under” the leadership authority of a male pastor is worse that what I stated. I did not demean the person in that she has no authority to speak her mind. In fact I would fight for Ingrid’s right to speak her mind… the issue is that the things on her mind I most often see as a twisted understanding of the truth. But as far as her being able to rebuke Rob Bell if Rob we out of line or say…. gay… I would have no issue in her rebuke.

Again, I respect your view but do not agree and in my opinion see to use authority to censor someone else who is equal in Christ is worse than saying she talks like a man. I tried to interject some humor and failed… apparently… so please don’t go all self righteous on me and tell me I misrepresent your view. I do not though I disagree with it. And I also think to call her rantings “screeching” is also worse than what I stated. To mean the demeans her more as it implies that she is not intelligent.

:smile:

iggy

28   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am

Weird I am rebuked and seem to be the one defending Ingrid the most! AAAAACK! It is the end of the world!

iggy :lOl:

29   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am

So what I get from this post:

It is wrong to mock Rob Bell looking androgynous
It is okay to mock Ingrid looking androgynous
It is wrong to mock Rob Bell for exploring femininity
It is okay to mock Ingrid for exploring and acting ‘masculine’
Moderns are wrong for not allowing women in leadership
Women should be in leadership and held as equals according to emergents- except for conservative ones like Ingrid.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? The irony? It reeks.

30   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am

So what I get from this post:

It is wrong to mock Rob Bell looking androgynous
It is okay to mock Ingrid looking androgynous
It is wrong to mock Rob Bell for exploring femininity
It is okay to mock Ingrid for exploring and acting ‘masculine’
Moderns are wrong for not allowing women in leadership
Women should be in leadership and held as equals according to emergents- except for conservative ones like Ingrid.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? The irony? It reeks.

What reeks is your inability to see past your agenda.

If you actually read the comments, you would see that we rebuked any suggestion that it’s OK to call Ingrid androgynous. As far as the women in leadership thing goes, I’m actually egalitarian in my view, but as far I know, Ingrid is not. All we are asking is for her to be consistent with her supposed views.

It’s not OK for her to sit and smear women pastors when she herself is taking the role of one herself by her actions.

31   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am

PB,
Why don’t you call Ingrid out for acting in this way, or support what Iggy and Mimi have said because they’ve acted in the same way Ingrid has.

Or would such a course of action require too much intellectual integrity for you to pursue?

32   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am

PB,

The difference is that Ingrid mocked Rob Bells appearance and I did not even do that. I stated she was androgynous as far as how she spoke.

I have also defended her and have stated I have no issue with her as far as leadership roles… The one that would have that view is Rick who is NOT emergent and IS conservative.

So again you mangle twist and distort things to fit your own view and miss reality altogether. ‘

And yes I smell the hypocrisy as you have stated in the interview with Tony Jones you disagreed with your own denominations view on woman in leadership…

iggy

33   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am

After rereading Ingrid’s post, and after looking at Pastor Bell in the video, I am of the opinion it was a personal attack. But I would suggest it is below the level of “painted girls of Sodom”.

Seriously, does anyone truly believe that Christianity is just an ageement with doctrinal truths while being void of the true character of Jesus Christ? Did Christ come to champion the metamorphosis of culture and does He through believers today attack, demean, and make light of unbelievers?

If not for the past two years of evidence, I would not believe someone with any amount of Christian maturity would make light of a person’s appearance, especially insinuating volitional dual gender look connected with a theology. Her children do not need to watch TV to learn how to demean and criticize and roam about with a general sense of your own elevated morality.

Remember, humility is a sign of weakness, just look at the cross.

34   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am

So what I get from this post:

It is wrong to mock Rob Bell looking androgynous
It is okay to mock Ingrid looking androgynous

Then you need to take a remedial reading class, or pray that you will be given some Intellectual honesty. Mimi was called on what she said. Iggy was called on what she said. No where in the post was Ingrid attacked. I should know, I wrote the post.

35   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am

Interestingly Ingrid is not only attacking the looks and theology of Rob Bell… but the imagery of the Bible itself. Rob states plainly that it is “poetry” and not to be taken literally… I suppose as we are to not take that God is a giant mother hen who hides chicks under His literal wings…

So… it is does appear that Ingrid has a disdain for the Bible’s description of God if the description is toward the feminine.

It is also sickening how she twists Rob Bell’s using the Bible’s imagery to be ‘goddess worship”… what a slap to God! Shame on Ingrid… mocking God… and reducing the bibles own imagery of God to “goddess worship”.

iggy

36   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am

Iggy was called on what she said.

Sheesh now I androgynous! :lol:

And I did not attack her appearance… only her how she speaks.

iggy

37   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am

After watching the video I see what’s bothering the ADMs. After all its not often they get actual scripture without the proper commentary and spin coming from an approved source.

Give them a little bit of a break, after all scripture is powerful, it probably just disoriented them a little bit.

38   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

It is wrong to mock Rob Bell looking androgynous
It is okay to mock Ingrid looking androgynous – Pastorboy

Given the fact that those who mocked Ingrid were rebuked, and your failure to comprehend the comments of Bell and others on the Mr. Dumpty post – I am more convinced than ever that you post beofre you actual read and understand what is being said…

39   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Gen.1:27 – So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Gen.5:2 – Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.

God reveals Himself to us primarily in the masculine, however that would seem for our benefit and not in the human gender sense, to be sure. I can understand resisitance to such incursions into such dangerous doctrinal territory, but can we not discuss the sacred without marring His image? To use the bastardization of doctrine by some as an excuse for entrenchment in our pursuit of Christ is to openly suggest we have corralled and inventoried the entirety of Christ and His Person. That would be the height of spiritual hubris as well as spiritual ignorance.

Doctrinal vigilance is necessary, but as long as our energies are used to protect our present state, any progress will be by definition the continued protection of what we now know and exhibit as Christ. That, my friends, looks much more like a surrender than a victory.

40   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

There’s nothing on this thread that indicates this site is ok with insinuating or outright stating that Ingrid blurs the lines of gender, etc.

If you claim to see otherwise then you are either (a) a manipulative accuser–and participating in the ministry of Satan, or (b) an outright idiot.

either way, you lose.

ruach, indeed.

41   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

re: Her children do not need to watch TV to learn how to demean and criticize and roam about with a general sense of your own elevated morality.

You’re right. Who needs TV when SoL is being modeled for you as the way to go?

Wrathfulness is next to godliness…

;)

42   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

phil, considering how little discernment

the churches use

can you blame folks like Ingrid being a little odd and over-angry

43   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

pastorboy, I agree

It is wrong to mock Rob Bell looking androgynous

and Ingrid deserves to be takin to task for that.

but, I also think some of Bell’s false teachings and bizarre behavior should be questioned.

2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4

44   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

J,
Assuming that churches use little discernment is begging the question.

And justifying sin because someone else sins falls under the “two wrongs don’t make a right” category.

Also, claiming to be “discerning” and then saying that you get angry because of what someone else has done that you don’t agree with falls into the category of “not discerning at all with a side dish of hypocrisy.” Anger is foolishness. Which explains a lot of the garbage coming from ADMs.

45   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

oh, really

have churches used discernment when it comes to Rick Warren or Rob Bell or Dallas Willard or Joel Osteen

46   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

bo, your comment:

justifying sin because someone else sins falls under the “two wrongs don’t make a right

you just than basically said that John Piper shouldnt criticize the Prosperity Preachers for their false teachings

while Piper enables Mark Driscoll to be as smutty of a preacher as possible,

not to mention you just said Richard Abanes is a hypocrite by your comments

cause he attacks Oprah Winfrey and Eckhart Tolle

and yet will support anything Rick Warren promotes

regardless of how questionable it is.

47   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

BTW:

anyone else find it offensive that bell calls GOD a woman.

I seem to remember God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing about a “She” in there.

48   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

so there’s a justification for being “over-angry” now?

I mean…you just over angry….

Criticism, per se, isn’t the issue…and the constant insistence by ADM’s that sites like this don’t believe criticism is ever justified is just an outright lie and/or an attempt to paint people into the false dilemma of only 2 options: Their way or total faithlessness and apostasy.

that’s crap.

49   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

As far as personal insults go, when we need to get personal to make a point, it must not be a very strong point.

Rob Bell’s teachings are bad enough that I do not have to attack the man for looking androgynous. That is a personal attack that we as believers should not participate in.

Some of Rob Bell’s teachings are borderline heresy, but we do not have to attack him as a person for that.

It is Jr. high level stuff to attack a person for how they look or how fat or skinny they are. It is below most of you to do so.

50   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

It is Jr. high level stuff to attack a person for how they look or how fat or skinny they are. It is below most of you to do so.

Of course, you mean it is below Ingrid and Ken too, right?

51   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

anyone else find it offensive that bell calls GOD a woman.

No more offensive than someone calling God a man.

52   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

nc, I am over-angry cause I see our churches being turned into pluraist and inter-faith pushing social halls

JESUS threw the money changers out of the temple,

and by your logic

and the persecution of Ingrid

and anyone who uses DISCERNMENT

and anyone is concerned about the Apostasy problem in our churches

you would say that JESUS was a little too over-angry at the moneychangers

or as the moneychangers are called today:

the seeker sensitive movement

——————————–

sometimes anger can be righteous.

53   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

how, so chad

BTW chad holtz:

do you believe one needs JESUS in their heart and life to get to Heaven

JOHN 14:6

54   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

#47 I do not find it offensive as much as I find any gender assignment to God as incorrect. God is Spirit; he is not gender. When he did manifest as human, it was as a male, when the Bible writers wrote about God, they identified Him as a male. But God is Spirit; and spirit has no gender as such. Gender is a quality for created beings not God.

55   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

It’s interesting how many people run to this story of Jesus as their justification for not acting like Jesus. The word anger is found nowhere in the passage. And if you’re going to get it in there you need to be careful for two reasons:

1. You may be in violation of Sola Scriptura which could cause a large amount of posts about you to be written. and
2. You had best be limber (and not baptist) b/c the amount of dancing you’ll need to do will require well lubed hamstrings. Lest one gets pulled.

56   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

The commentary was he looks a little androgynous? I don’t think it is necessary (though, I must admit, I thought the same thing, I think it is the camera angle or his haircut or something)

I wonder if they (the nooma makers) did it on purpose; I am not trying to insult, I am just wondering aloud if they possibly were trying to accomplish something.

Anyhow, That is for anybody; we should not attack a person for their God-given body, face, shape, gender, whatever. That is beneath us as believers.

57   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

# 49.
Well said, PB.
Seriously.

#54.
There’s the beginning of what could be a great conversation.

PB,

are you just one way to the next all the time to keep things interesting?

I have to wonder if there’s a method to your madness…

58   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I find it funny, Joe is attacking anyone for their comments

when Joe believes anyone who uses Discernment should be branded a “pharisee”

or a hateful blogger

has joe ever stood up to a false teacher

and rebuked him for leading people astray

———————————————

I agree with pastorboy:

Rob Bell’s teachings are bad enough that I do not have to attack the man for looking androgynous. That is a personal attack that we as believers should not participate in.

Some of Rob Bell’s teachings are borderline heresy, but we do not have to attack him as a person for that.

(pastorboy:

I think most of Bell’s teachings are heresy.

same with Doug Pagitt and Spencer Burke and Brian McLaren

all 4 of them say that JOHN 14:6 is a lie

————————————————-

What prophecy is currently being fulfilled?

(aka a video that the emergent church dont want people to check out)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB7fz8LrzYk

59   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

It’s interesting how many people run to this story of Jesus as their justification for not acting like Jesus. The word anger is found nowhere in the passage. And if you’re going to get it in there you need to be careful for two reasons:

1. You may be in violation of Sola Scriptura which could cause a large amount of posts about you to be written. and
2. You had best be limber (and not baptist) b/c the amount of dancing you’ll need to do will require well lubed hamstrings. Lest one gets pulled.

Lol…

There will probably also be wine there (more bad news for the Baptists!)

60   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

#53

Chad might be described as a Christian universalist. That is he believes Jesus is the way to heaven, and everybody will participate in that because the price Jesus paid was for everybody.

Or do I have that wrong, Chad?

61   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I’m sorry J, I saw that you were typing but all I heard was barking. Who have I attacked? I just stood up to your poor use of Scripture, so I guess I have stood up to false teachers; you.

62   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Oh, please, pretty please, can we have one thread where don’t talk about universalism? Is that too much to ask?

63   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

PB,

You are right… though God is Spirit He was a Father and yet without any gender…. refered to as male… and yet… at times also female… but still without actual literal gender.

iggy

64   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

how, so chad

BTW chad holtz:

do you believe one needs JESUS in their heart and life to get to Heaven

JOHN 14:6

In your OT, j, whenever you read “ALMIGHTY” you should really insert the name “The Breasted One.”

65   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Though, now we have Jesus, who is God in flesh who is literally male… hmmm and yet literally God.

iggy
So maybe God does have a gender after all at least since Jesus was glorified.

66   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

joe, you refer to anyone online who criticizes

Rick Warren and the emergent church and the seeker-sensitive pastors

as ADM’s, or ODM’s

I mean, Joe, have you ever said anything about Ingrid or Ken that isnt hateful

BTW to Chris Lyons:

radio show hosts Noah Hutchings and Jan Markell

both have spoken out against the emergent church and Rick warren

are they ODMers too

————————————————–

BTW to Chad and Joe and nc and Chris:

or what is difference between radio show hosts Jan Markell criticizing the emergent church

and lets say Ken Silva or Steve Camp or Chris Roseborough

criticizing them

67   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

justifying sin because someone else sins falls under the “two wrongs don’t make a right

you just than basically said that John Piper shouldnt criticize the Prosperity Preachers for their false teachings

while Piper enables Mark Driscoll to be as smutty of a preacher as possible,

not to mention you just said Richard Abanes is a hypocrite by your comments

cause he attacks Oprah Winfrey and Eckhart Tolle

and yet will support anything Rick Warren promotes

regardless of how questionable it is.

Your not terribly good at understanding anyone not like you, are you?

You’re the one that said ADMs had a right to be over-angry because you assume there’s no discernment in churches. You condemned the way they acted, and then justified it because of how other people acted.

Notice there’s nothing in there about commentary in general, nothing in there about Abanes, or anyone else. Only the sin of the ADMs which you and I agree on. The only difference is that you justify their sin, rather than condemn it.

68   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

chad,

you think everything including following JESUS is a joke

dont you

maybe if you stopped acting like a fool and started acting like a Charles Stanley type of preacher

I care about lost souls, that is why I try to take my faith seriously

I admit I am not perfect, but at least I am not trying to

act like a fool like most pastors in america are.

69   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

and the persecution of Ingrid

and anyone who uses DISCERNMENT

Now those are two mutually exclusive groups.

sometimes anger can be righteous.

Really? Can I get some scripture on where Christians are called to be angry? Because all the scriptures I see caution against anger leading to sin, and warn about the foolishness of anger.

70   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Nah, J. Now, you’re either being dishonest or self deceiving. Either way, you’re wrong. You’ve already used Scripture incorrectly in this thread. I don’t typically engage anonymous commenters.
I will answer your last two questions to me:
1. Yes, I have said many things about those people that isn’t hateful. This post being one of them. I simply asked how Ingrid’s personal attack was reflective of the God she claims to serve.
2. I don’t know who your radio host is, so I cannot help you there.
Now, sign your name next time. And bone up on your Bible exposition.

71   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

you think everything including following JESUS is a joke

dont you

maybe if you stopped acting like a fool and started acting like a Charles Stanley type of preacher

I care about lost souls, that is why I try to take my faith seriously

I admit I am not perfect, but at least I am not trying to

act like a fool like most pastors in america are.

Man, even the stick up your butt has a stick up its butt, doesn’t it.

I tend to think a good sense of humor is one of the best signs of a Godly person. If you don’t have joy in your life, I question how your relationship with God is, honestly.

72   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I care about lost souls, that is why I try to take my faith seriously

There is no “try” there is simply “do or do not.”

73   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

J,

Your typing is almost incomprehensible. I don’t mean that as an insult but I cannot track your thoughts. But if you are stating that Jesus was angry, well He was God and the High Priest and prophecy stated the returning King would clear out the temple and set it aside for God. So maybe a bit of anger was there in that context.

Yet, to be upset about someone stating what the Bible states, that God is sometimes referred to as feminine seems to be placing ones anger in the wrong place… why be angry at a teacher who points out what the bible states unless you disagree with the bible?

So again I am not sure what you are angry at… Rob Bell for supposedly looking androgynous? Rob Bell for pointing out that sometimes the bible refers to God in the feminine form? The Bible itself for containing that reference? The writer of that scripture? God for inspiring that reference to Himself?

Can you clarify why you are angry with God for inspiring the writer to write a feminine description of Himself in the Bible?

I hope you can see why I am confused by you…

iggy

74   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

***Going against my anonymous commenter policy***

J, would you mind telling me what it means to be a Christian?
How does one become a Christian? What should one’s life look after one becomes a Christian? What are the requirements to living a “christian” life?

75   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

For those who think Bell looks androgynous I have to wonder what chicks look like in your neck of hte woods? And if they look like Bell, I can understand why you have to preach against homosexuality so much.

76   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I have spoken out against Ken and Chris and Ingrid.

I believe they have made mistakes and have spoken out when they
some bad things

I believe Ingrid was hypocritical when she attacked Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry.

she should have suggested that christians should pray for them.

I believe that all christians that are going astray or leading folks astray should be prayed for.

but I also believe we have a right to speak out when a brother or sister in CHRIST is leading folks astray.

and BTW, at least I am not like

I am not Chris Lyons or Chad Holtz

(who justifies anything about William Young or Rob Bell)

77   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

re:
nc, I am over-angry cause I see our churches being turned into pluraist and inter-faith pushing social halls

True, for some places. But somehow I doubt you attend any of those. And I wonder if some you perceive as such are just people being faithful in their context to the leading of God and you don’t like the “difference”.

JESUS threw the money changers out of the temple,

and by your logic

and the persecution of Ingrid

and anyone who uses DISCERNMENT

and anyone is concerned about the Apostasy problem in our churches

you would say that JESUS was a little too over-angry at the moneychangers

or as the moneychangers are called today:

the seeker sensitive movement

——————————–

sometimes anger can be righteous.

Wow.

dude.
Did you read my comment?
I dont’ have a problem with criticism where it’s deserved.

Don’t tell me I do.
First off, Don’t ever tell me that I think/believe something that I’ve clearly never affirmed.

Second, you said “over angry”.
That indicates “excess” in my book. Unproportional to whatever the perceived problem is. It appears you’re trying to justify excess of anger–at least that’s how it appears when you start defending the idea of being over-angry.

Third, you seriously need to apologize to me and to pretty much the global church if you deploy the term “persecution” to describe the disdain I have for anyone that makes a fake “ministry” out of slamming people on a personal level for their perceived “androgeny” and thus connecting them to being pro-immorality. You want righteous indignation. Read my comments about that woman and you’ll get a taste then of what it looks like. When she, you or me is taken to a courtyard and is shot in the head without trial for a confession of faith you can use that word. There isn’t a word in the english language that can sufficiently describe, nor will their ever be, how incredibly stupid your comment is in this regard.

Fourth,
Jesus, my friend, was NOT over-angry. Don’t co-opt the Christ for your sinful need to be angry to the glory of God and to justify what is unjustifiable.

If you read this post carefully, you’ll see that my comments to you are about the substance of your comment. Not attacks about your perceive appearance and how it must mean something for your theology.

That’s the difference, J.
Seriously.
Just amazing.

I mean, you owe me an apology. Especially with respect to the idea that I would dismiss the perfection of Christ–which you, Ingrid, or myself most decidedly do not share–is downright awful and not able to be derived from even my harshest comments about that woman.

excuse me while I go throw up.

78   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

and BTW, at least I am not like

I am not Chris Lyons or Chad Holtz

Thank you God that I”m not like this sinner over there…. eh J?

That’s an ancient prayer that’s been prayed by your kind for centuries.

79   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

phil, considering how little discernment

the churches use

can you blame folks like Ingrid being a little odd and over-angry

YES!

80   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

good question, Joe

1:

believing in JESUS CHRIST

and accepting him into your heart

ROMANS 10:13

2:

Repent and be willing to turn from your sins

Russ Lee- Live What I Believe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mHiTVuGaKM

81   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

oh, really

have churches used discernment when it comes to Rick Warren or Rob Bell or Dallas Willard or Joel Osteen

Yes.

82   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

phil, considering how little discernment

the churches use

can you blame folks like Ingrid being a little odd and over-angry

Whatever happened to not returning evil for evil? I guess the golden rule no longer applies once you’re angry enough or if the “truth” is on your side…

83   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

It is Jr. high level stuff to attack a person for how they look or how fat or skinny they are. It is below most of you to do so.

Which is pretty much the whole point of taking Ingrid to task for it…

84   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

J,
I can’t watch YouTube at work. I’m curious if you would answer those questions in your own words. I don’t really care what some guy says on YouTube. I want to know how you’d answer those questions.
Thanks.

85   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

1:

believing in JESUS CHRIST

and accepting him into your heart

ROMANS 10:13

2:

Repent and be willing to turn from your sins

Russ Lee- Live What I Believe

Wait a goshdurn minute here. I though it was faith alone. How can there be two steps if it’s sola fide?

86   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I admit I am not perfect, but at least I am not trying to act like a fool like most pastors in america are. – J

At some point the hyperbole becomes silly and self-defeating…

87   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

nc, at least someone is saying that
some churches are going astray.

most christians in america refuse to see that cause most dont care what happens to churches in america.

your comment:

True, for some places. But somehow I doubt you attend any of those.

And I wonder if some you perceive as such are just people being faithful in their context to the leading of God and you don’t like the “difference”.

MY RESPONSE:

my issue is with churches watering down the gospel in order to be relevant.

my issue is with churches pushing pluarlism
and saying we need to ingore JOHN 14:6

to Bo Diaz and everyone else:

how come If I am so bad

why arent you guys praying for me and Ingrid and others to change

if Ingrid and Ken and me are the badguys

you guys should be praying for us to change and be more christ-like then.

also, do you guys pray for Ken and Ingrid and me and the others to be more christ-like

or is it you guys are just as bad as

ingrid when she attacked Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry

(Ingrid should have said on her blog

that people should pray for them, not act holier than thou)
————————————————-

The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:16).

Matthew 5:44

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

88   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

phil, that is faith

BTW, you arent implying that I should knowingly SIN on purpose

after I accepted JESUS into my heart and life.

89   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

J,
Do you have thoughts on the questions I asked that are original with you?

90   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

phil, I agree on your comment:

Whatever happened to not returning evil for evil?

but you see, that statement has nothing to when it comes to DISCERNMENT.

we should speak out against false teachings,

I mean can you honestly say we should turn a

blind eye to the prosperity preachers like Hinn and Paula White

when they say say stuff that isnt true.

91   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

joe, I do

you are just upset I am not giving the answers you want your itching ears to hear.

92   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

to Bo Diaz and everyone else:

how come If I am so bad

why arent you guys praying for me and Ingrid and others to change

if Ingrid and Ken and me are the badguys

you guys should be praying for us to change and be more christ-like then.

also, do you guys pray for Ken and Ingrid and me and the others to be more christ-like

or is it you guys are just as bad as

ingrid when she attacked Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry

(Ingrid should have said on her blog

that people should pray for them, not act holier than thou)

This is actually a somewhat good question. I would hope that we would be challenged to pray them more. I guess at some point though, the Pharisees need to be called out. Jesus sure didn’t hesitate to call out spiritual abuse when He saw it. And that’s what I see the ADM crowd as – spiritual abusers.

In reality, they should be mature enough as to know it’s not right to attack other Christians, but unfortunately they act like a clique on an elementary school playground that pushes everyone else off the monkey bars. Eventually, these kids need to learn wrong from right.

93   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

joe, I do

you are just upset I am not giving the answers you want your itching ears to hear.

Haha!!! What’s the matter, you afraid you’ll be held accountable for what you write?

94   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Joe:

I know this was not addressed to me, but I cannot help but answer.

would you mind telling me what it means to be a Christian?

It means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Those who have obeyed the Gospel are called ‘little Christs’ or Christians.

How does one become a Christian?

Through repentance and faith; it is a process started and completed by God called being born again. When one is saved, it is a past tense (Justified, reconciled) a present reality (sanctification) and a future promise (glorification)

What should one’s life look after one becomes a Christian?

As John the Baptist taught, and Paul affirmed, the believer should ‘bear fruit in keeping with repentance’ articulated in Galatians 5:22.

What are the requirements to living a “christian” life?

The only one is to be Born again, then we are to be conformed and transformed by submitting yourself as a living sacrifice. (Romans 12:1-2)

95   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

J
You’re use of Scripture or misuse is appalling. Why don’t you tell us what it means to be a Christian? How do you determine if you are being successful at the Christian life? Surely, it’s by more than coming here and misusing Scripture.

96   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

It means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

So you have no problem with the term, “Christ Follower”?

97   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

BTW, you arent implying that I should knowingly SIN on purpose

after I accepted JESUS into my heart and life.

I’m not implying anything other than that by making repentance a requirement of salvation, you are going against one of the basic tenants of the Reformation – Sola Fide!

Now I do believe people will be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit after their profession of faith, but I can’t with a good conscious say repentance is a qualification of salvation. It may be an immediate by-product, but when you try to make someone repent, you are trying to the work of the Holy Spirit. And you most likely suck at doing His job…

98   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

chad,

you think everything including following JESUS is a joke

dont you

maybe if you stopped acting like a fool and started acting like a Charles Stanley type of preacher

Yeah, you found me out, j. I think following Jesus is a joke. Every morning that I look in the mirror I think: you joker, you.

I should take lessons from you on how to “stop acting like a fool.” Then when I look in the mirror instead of only seeing a joke I can laugh at what an ignorant fool I am.

I love when people exhort others to be like that guy who I like rather (Stanley) rather than Jesus. Thanks, but no thanks.

99   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

joe, I have no problem with the term

“Christ Follower”?

100   j    http://www.urgentprayers.com
December 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I dont think they are exactly attacking.

In some cases,

yes,

some fellow online bloggers on both sides

have gotten mean-spirited

BTW: there is a difference between REBUKING someone and ATTACKING someone.

if I am critical of a false teaching that Rob Bell is pushing, that is called rebuking

attacking Rob Bell’s looks= attacking someone

101   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

J,
Thanks but until you answer my questions as John has, you and I have nothing to discuss. I’ll not be part of spiritual circus.

102   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I am still waiting as to J to clarify what they are so over angry about… I mean if God inspired a writer to refer to Him in the feminine and a pastor who preaches the Bible uses the bible reference… how can j be over angry.

And Jesus was not over angry… He was justly angry.

iggy

103   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I’m not implying anything other than that by making repentance a requirement of salvation, you are going against one of the basic tenants of the Reformation – Sola Fide!

Repentance is indeed necessary for salvation and it is not works – for goodness sake!!

Mark 1:

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Acts 2

– on the day of Pentecost, after the followers were **oh my** actually convicted by Peter’s preaching:
“Brothers, what shall we do?”

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…”

Did Jesus and His apostles have it all wrong?

Without repentance (ie: an actual turning around of your life) there is no faith, just lip service.

104   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

By the way – that was the one of the sorriest little skits/videos I have ever seen. How sad.

105   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Repentance is indeed necessary for salvation and it is not works – for goodness sake!!

I’m not saying repentance isn’t a necessary follow-up to a profession of faith, but I do not believe a person is saved through repenting. They are saved through faith alone.

The only reason I bring this up, is because it is something I have abused a lot. By making repentance a requirement of salvation it takes away people’s assurance of salvation (how can I know I’ve repented of everything?) and it encourage spiritual abuse.

By the way, if you’re going to cite this verse as a prooftext:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…”

then it would follow that baptism is a requirement for salvation, also…

106   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I find it curious that those who claim an absolute view of Biblical inerrancy can demean an ordained pastor with a guiltless immunity, and this is not over a dinner table, this is publicly. Believing in inerrancy encompasses much more than just a piecemeal obedience, it means we must all strive to obey all of it regardless of how certain parts seem obstructive to our perceived callings and comfortable verbiage.

How one who claims to follow Christ can use Nazi references to a group of sinners or anyone will always astound me. And how someone’s wife can be loosed to speak without clear Biblical authority to not only confront ordained men concerning doctrine, but use labels and speech attacking elders that I would never allow to come from my grown children’s lips in my presence. I may not believe Paggit believes the entirety of the Scriptures, but I must conclude that many of his attackers do not as well, only different parts.

The power of the pen corrupts, and when someone is attacking approved targets the Biblical parameters seem to expand proportionately to allow that someone the Biblical accommodations necessary to continue. And all this from those who claim a masculine Lord but who chooses to correct through female lips. Does the Lord represent/misrepresent Himself as a feminine judge when He supposedly rebukes men through women? I see a complete hypocrisy in all of it, and I am not speaking of women being less in Christ then men.

The irony of it all is this: God rebukes men about teaching His feminine side through a woman. I am feeling somewhat dizzy…

107   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

J,

Comments that begin with “Most churches…” or “Most Christians…” are not to be taken seriously unless you have the data to back it up.

My hunch is you are not so much opposing the watering-down of the Gospel as you are opposing change.

108   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

(how can I know I’ve repented of everything?)

This misses the point… Asking for forgiveness for every little sin we’ve ever committed is not necessary, but repentance – an actual re-orienting of your life towards Christ, is.

I think you are confusing the two (forgiveness and repentance).

In regards to those 2 scriptures, I just used the 2 that popped to mind – there are others as well, of course. But I think Jesus was pretty plain in Mark 1, no?

The fact that people actually debate the “necessity” of repentance and baptism is evidence of too much time on your hands… Why is it so difficult to acknowledge what is so simple, I wonder?

109   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

By the way – that was the one of the sorriest little skits/videos I have ever seen. How sad.

yeah, the way he referenced all that scripture was just awful.

110   John Hughes    
December 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

To me the “gender of God issue” is an argument for argument’s sake, just to be controversial with a less than hidden agenda. The linkage of the word “Shaddai” to breasts is just one of MANY theories on the origin of the word. To base an entire theology on this obscure and debated original meaning indicates a specific agenda is afoot. I certainly don’t question that God exhibits traditionally feminine characteristics such as nurturing for example. But the Biblical record is clear as hundreds of Scriptures attest:

Israel recognized God as masculine:

Isaiah 63:16 – For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us And Israel does not recognize us You, O LORD, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.

God identified Himself as masculine:

Jer 3:19 – “Then I said, ‘How I would set you among My sons And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!’ And I said, ‘You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.’

Jesus only addressed God as Father in reference to gender:

Matthew 11:27 – ” All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Jesus gave explicit instructions to address God as masculine:

Matthew 6:9 – ” Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.

Though God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit beings and technically have no sex they have inarguably both self-expressed/revealed themselves to Their creation as masculine and have been addressed by their covenant creatures as masculine. It is both un-Scriptural (and repulsive in my opinion) to address God as “she” and is well outside the pale of historical orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

111   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge what is so simple, I wonder?

If it were “so simple” I don’t believe there would be the debate. The fact is that people have read the same verses out of the same Bible and come to differing conclusions to some extent.

As far as the repentance thing goes, I stand by my original comment. It may go hand in hand with faith, and I would question a profession of faith of someone who doesn’t exhibit repentance, but I can’t say it’s necessarily a step in salvation.

Salvation is a gift, and faith is reaching out to receive that gift. I think the Holy Spirit will convict people of sin, not us. When we try to do it, we end up generating more doubt in people – I know because I’ve seen this in action.

112   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

It is both un-Scriptural (and repulsive in my opinion) to address God as “she” and is well outside the pale of historical orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

I agree, however still believe that Spirit has no gender.

113   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

It is both un-Scriptural (and repulsive in my opinion) to address God as “she” and is well outside the pale of historical orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

That’s not entirely true. There is feminine imagery used for God in scripture. Luke 13 and Matthew 23 both use the image of a hen protecting her chicks for God. There’s also OT references to characteristics which Hebrews would have termed to be feminine characteristics that are applied to God (as Bell pointed out, compassion being one of them). The hovering of the Spirit over the waters in the creation poem is usually seen as an example of this as well.

Unfortunately, references to God as she are usually theologically loaded statements, but that has far more to do with particular axes that have been ground than it does with actual concern over the scriptures. I don’t think this is the case with Bell however as he immediately identifies the masculine imagery that is found in scripture and he does so as a point of fact and in a positive light.

I think its a credit to Bell, and an indication of his faithfullness to scripture that he’s willing to examine these portions of scripture even though they’ve been misused so much he knows the reactions will be overwhelmingly negative by those who would prefer to ignore scripture in order to be seen as “truly orthodox”.

114   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

I think the Holy Spirit will convict people of sin, not us.

Who is trying to replace the Holy Spirit? And yet, it is the word of God that people must hear, who (as on the day of Pentecost) “pricked them to their heart.”

Phil – if you can, illustrate for me how you can have faith without repentance please. Is there a particular example or hypothetical you can reference?

115   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Phil – if you can, illustrate for me how you can have faith without repentance please. Is there a particular example or hypothetical you can reference?

Well, the thief on the cross in Luke 23 for one. When did he repent?

As far replacing the Holy Spirit, I’d say that when presentations of the Gospel are built around getting people to admit to certain sins, that’s someone trying to do the Holy Spirit’s job.

116   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom

I would argue that this illustrates repentance and faith in concert, Jesus recognized it as so. The thief agreed with God that he had done wrong, his punishment was just, and looked to Jesus for salvation.

117   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

He did repent – it was an exceptional instance of repentance in my view. After admitting that he was being crucified justly, he then defended Christ and then asked Jesus to remember Him when He returns to establish His kingdom.

Another example would be Zaccheus – it was when he admitted his wrong and made amends (pay back what he robbed) that Jesus said, “Today has salvation come to this house.”

118   John Hughes    
December 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Bo: That’s not entirely true. There is feminine imagery used for God in scripture. Luke 13 and Matthew 23 both use the image of a hen protecting her chicks for God. There’s also OT references to characteristics which Hebrews would have termed to be feminine characteristics that are applied to God (as Bell pointed out, compassion being one of them). The hovering of the Spirit over the waters in the creation poem is usually seen as an example of this as well.

Bo, I agree. There is traditional feminine IMAGERY used to describe some of God’s attributes. I certainly do not deny that. All males exhibit some traditionally feminine traits. But that is a far cry from the advocation of addressing God as a “she”.

Perhaps I am off topic as I have not viewed the video. I am speaking to the over-arching topic. What exactly did Bell conclude with his video entitled “She”?

119   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Perhaps I am off topic as I have not viewed the video. I am speaking to the over-arching topic. What exactly did Bell conclude with his video entitled “She”?

As usual, really nothing. This was just an intro anyway.

120   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

I find it absolutely ridiculous when people reduce repentance to works, as if it is evil or somehow contrary to the vein of scripture.

What do they do with Jesus’ words: “Strive to enter in through the strait gate…”? Do they try to ‘explain away’ the word “strive” somehow?

This is the problem with systematic doctrine (old wineskin, if you will) simply not accepting anything beyond the bounds of its ability to explain – even when it’s staring you in the face.

121   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

He did repent – it was an exceptional instance of repentance in my view. After admitting that he was being crucified justly, he then defended Christ and then asked Jesus to remember Him when He returns to establish His kingdom.

I think you’re reading too much systematic theology into this. First of all, when the thief said “remember me when you come into your Kingdom”, he most did not have the idea of the Kingdom of God as we did. He was probably still thinking that Jesus would somehow either come off the cross alive, or at the general resurrection. He was thinking of Jesus in messianic terms as other Jews of his day. He most likely was asking Jesus to avenge his death.

So the incredible thing is that Jesus forgives him despite this flawed confession of faith. The man was probably not actually repentant of his rebellion against Rome. Remember these men were most likely failed revolutionaries of some sort. This man recognized that Jesus had not led a revolt against the Romans even though He was being crucified for it.

122   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Repentance means “to change your mind”.

From unbelief to faith. Repentance.

123   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

OK – I watched the clip of the preview.

What’s the big deal?
What did Bell say that was not biblical?

Again, an ADM springboards into all sorts of pet peeves and phobias…

Unless the actual video goes beyond the preview – there’s nothing here to be addressed.

SHAME on Ingrid for mocking the appearance of a brother in Christ…

SHAME on Ingrid for taking a balanced look at the poetic genre of Scripture and turning into something sexual…

Neil

124   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Repentance means “to change your mind”.

From unbelief to faith. Repentance.

If that is the definition we go with, I’ll buy it. But in my experience, a lot of people add stuff to this.

I’m not trying to be difficult.

125   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

From unbelief to faith. Repentance.

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. You simply cannot believe (with true faith) without repentance (a change of heart and mind that filters, over time, into your feet).

126   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I’m not trying to be difficult.

No, I don’t think you are. The way I see it is that someone cannot have a genuine experience with Christ, and remain unchanged and unrepentant (ie: Zaccheus, or countless others).

Jesus demands a change of life: commitment and discipleship, and He gives us grace as we embark on the journey and grow in Him.

Paul captured this transition beautifully:

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

BTW, I’ve never read any book at all on systematic theology (just for the record).

127   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

No, I don’t think you are. The way I see it is that someone cannot have a genuine experience with Christ, and remain unchanged and unrepentant (ie: Zaccheus, or countless others).

I agree with this, too. It’s just that I don’t necessarily think this experience will be the same for everyone.

I guess what got me started is that for some, it seems repentance means “being crushed by the realization of your sinfulness” or something like it. I’ve met some people who have had experiences like that, but I also know people who just realized that God loved them the way they were and they were drawn by that love. Their sinfulness seemed to have little to do with it.

So, I’d say faith should inspire a change in perspective, as it were. But that doesn’t always have to look the same.

128   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

So, I’d say faith should inspire a change in perspective, as it were.

Phil – thou are not far from the kingdom of God (always wanted to say that!) :)

The only change I’d make is replacing “should” with “must”.

129   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

The only change I’d make is replacing “should” with “must”.

Or what?

130   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Or what?

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?… But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

131   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Paul. I’m still curious.

Or what?

Not trying to be difficult.

The passage you cited I believe to be a wonderful exhortatoin to people who already believe to take serious that salvation is an invitation to a vocation – it is an assignment.

132   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

IOW, doing something has nothing to do with saving you in God’s eyes.

133   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I agree that no one can be ‘good enough’ to warrant God saving them, but once He has granted us repentance (as Paul puts it to Timothy) there must be a change of life that ensues otherwise that faith is no faith at all. That’s what James was saying:

“Great. You say you believe in God – good for you. But guess what? The demons also believe, and at least they tremble.”

Faith cannot stand alone, apart from repentance – or it is not faith at all.

This is the narrative through the gospels as well. The woman caught in adultery did nothing to warrant Christ’s mercy – it was His goodness alone. Yet, once He addressed her, he gave her a commandment to live by, “Go and sin no more.”

In other words, re-orient your life now that God has shown you mercy.

The same happened with Zaccheus, Paul, the other apostles… the list goes on and on.

What was Christ’s commission to Paul?

Acts 26: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

134   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I agree that no one can be ‘good enough’ to warrant God saving them, but once He has granted us repentance (as Paul puts it to Timothy) there must be a change of life that ensues otherwise that faith is no faith at all. That’s what James was saying:

Yes, but that still does not mean one is not saved. It just means they are of little faith.

That is why Phil’s “should” is better than a “must” IMO.

In other words, re-orient your life now that God has shown you mercy.

Bingo. You are saved. Therefore, repent.
:)

135   John Hughes    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Uh its Repent and Be saved. Not be saved and repent. Anywhoo, I think the repentance unto salvation has to do more with turning from unbelief in God and the worship of self to believing in the person of Christ and who He is and what He has done than repentance of sins. Although this type of repentance itself is part and parcel with salvation. Perhaps these facets of repentance are ultimate so closely related in time that they can’t be effectively separated.

136   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 16th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Bingo. You are saved. Therefore, repent.

Nice try. I seem to remember Jesus saying, “They that endure to the end, the same shall be saved.”

God has started a good work in us to be sure, but we can backslide or lose out or be deceived and end up being lost in the end.

137   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Uh its Repent and Be saved.

That means repentance is a work, John. You can’t have it both ways. You are either saved by grace or you are not.

Btw, it was Calvin who said the core truth of the gospel was “you are saved, therefore, repent.”

The adulterous woman, the thief on the cross, the soldiers that put Jesus there – none of them “repented.”

But that is neither here nor there.

I think we make the mistake of thinking repentance is some static event. Like, if I repented 3 years ago at the alter I can check that off the list of things to do to get right with God. Repentance is a daily attuning to the desires of God rather than the desires of self. It is why we pray that God “daily give us our bread” and why we “daily” pick up our cross. Repentance is not separate from salvation – as if salvation is what happens when you do that. No, repentance is part and parcel to our salvation. We are being saved to the extend that we are being repentant – continually turning to the heart of God.

138   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Repentance is the response to what God did with Jesus on the Cross… Repentance is coming to faith by grace in Christ Jesus. It can be emotional, intellectual, right at the time one is saved, soon after… and so one… though

truthfully once we repent. we have entered into the light and from then on live a confessional life. Repentance is a one time event that we move in response to the kindness of God and then once we received the life and live in relationship, we confess to God which means we “agree” with God as He teaches us.

I know some will not get what I stated… but that is what

Hebrews 6: 4. It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6. if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Notice it states “it is impossible to be brought back to repentance” which does not mean one loses salvation, rather it means that repentance happens once or else we are crucifying the Son of God all over again… Repentance is the response of faith and we are saved by Grace through faith.

iggy

139   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Paul C says,

God has started a good work in us to be sure, but we can backslide or lose out or be deceived and end up being lost in the end.

But the Paul the Apostle said,

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

Sola Scriptura baby

140   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
December 17th, 2008 at 2:17 am

I am not Chris Lyons

I bet Zan’s even happier about that than you are.

141   flabbergasted    
December 17th, 2008 at 6:02 am

Wow you guys are outraged by Ingrid’s little comment about Rob Bell’s looks. Does not Corinthians say in essence that men should look like men, and women should look like women? I don’t entirely agree with Ingrid’s statement – probably a little careless – but he does have a “metro” look.

Still, that’s neither here nor there compared with his appalling video message:

“God is moon-like. This is a feminine image for God.”

Far. Out.

Seriously who looks at the moon and thinks of their mother or wife or girlfriend? I think “Man, I wonder what the view would be like from there.” or “isn’t it amazing how the moon is just the right distance away from the earth to make an eclipse?” or “I wonder what it would be like to walk on the moon.”

So where did Rob Bell get his imagery from? (btw, thanks for ruining the moon for me.) Not sure, but the first thing that popped into my head was stuff I’ve heard about moon gods being female, apart from Allah I guess!

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/polytheisticreligions/tp/MoonGods.htm

Tell me: how else do you get from moon-like to feminine without appealing to some kind of extra biblical revelation?

And you know what Rob? Compassion is not exclusively a feminine characteristic. Who had compassion on the crowds? The same guy who carefully and deliberately made a whip of cords and drove out those who were profaning the house of God.

I mean, seriously, what is his point? Is this what the world needs? This is just as bad as Doug Pagitt’s “rhythms of God”, as if God is some kind of drum-machine.

Maybe the church hasn’t feminized Jesus enough already with it’s music, or with it’s adoration of Mary in the case of some.

142   flabbergasted    
December 17th, 2008 at 6:04 am

does “God is moon-like” really reflect the God you serve?

143   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:45 am

flabbergasted,
I think you pretty much proved a point I made in another thread. The fact that you let this little phrase derail you from the whole point of the talk seems pretty telling.

It seems to me that we are to judge pastors by their fruit. As far as I can tell, Mars Hill is producing a lot of good fruit. It seems to me that God is honoring Bell’s ministry.

144   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am

“I wonder what it would be like to walk on the moon.”

Funny, while reading your post I thought you might be commenting from there.

145   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am

So, unnecessary derision aside, what was Bell’s point with the God is moon-like comment?

Neil

146   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 10:58 am

Wow you guys are outraged by Ingrid’s little comment about Rob Bell’s looks.

Yes.

147   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am

It’s odd to me. I have used all the NOOMA’s in both youth and adult Sunday school classes and NEVER get the sort of reactions I find by the ODM’s.

When I showed “She” to a group of about 15 adults, all who would be classified as conservative, rural American Christians, not one of them had anything to say remotely negative. They all took something profound away from it and it challenged them into a deeper, more intimate relationship with God. Of course, I have them all brain washed as their pastor into believing that Rob Bell is God’s prophet and I am her spokesman, but that is beside the point. :)

148   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am

Tell me: how else do you get from moon-like to feminine without appealing to some kind of extra biblical revelation?

“Grasping at straws” is the first thing that comes to mind here… you dislike an illustration so immediatly ot has to be something nefarious.

I mean, seriously, what is his point? Is this what the world needs?

Maybe you are right… maybe what the world needs is more self-proclaimed wallwatchers trolling the internet looking for specks in the eyes of their brothers and sister sin Christ.

If you don’t like Bell subject matter you a free to ignore him.

149   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am

So Chad, what’s Bell’s point in the “God is moonlike” illustration? I have seen the preview but not the whole video.

Neil

150   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am

Neil –

All my nooma’s are at the church and it has been a couple months since I watched it. Off the top of my head I cannot remember but I know it was nothing nefarious. Perhaps someone else here can say more. If not, I will watch She later tonight and let you know.

151   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am

It doesn’t help that Bell is artsy and a bit edgy… folks like Ingrid and many of the other ADM’s have a set view of what is “normal” and “acceptable” when it comes to Christian arts, behavior, etc… We all have comfort zones – of course.

It becomes a problem though when your “comfort zone” becomes synonymous with God’s…

Neil

152   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am

It’s one thing to say that God has characteristics that we traditionally think of as feminine (although, as “flabbergasted” pointed out, why does, for example, “compassion” have to be considered a “feminine” characteristics.)

It’s another thing to emphasize that God is She. I would be wary of what underlies that emphasis.

What “God is moonlike” means is a good question.

I have personally seen someone become open to Mother Goddess ideas through a certain medical field, and seen that person becoming open to the “feminine” side of God as something that helps her connect with herself (right.) I am fearful that this kind of spiritual venture can lead one away from the true God.

Personally I am wary of what Rob Bell is doing here.

I also think that Rob Bell’s audience needs to be considered. His audience includes people who are immersed in this culture and who are knowingly or unknowingly open to Mother Goddess ideas.

The first time I had a question about Rob Bell (as I recall) was regarding the “Breathe” video. It’s interesting to me that the idea of God being all around one so that one can breathe him in, and the concept of the Holy Spirit as “She” had been already introduced to me through a book by an author who influenced the psychology program at Fuller Seminary, where Bell attended.

153   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am

So “metro” means feminine.

Huh…so having good hygiene, a hair style, and a sense of how to dress is now feminine and declared so by Scripture?

C’mon…

154   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am

It’s another thing to emphasize that God is She. I would be wary of what underlies that emphasis. – Amy

Are there references in the actual video to God being female – or is it just emphasizing his feminine attributes?

Neil

155   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am

It’s one thing to say that God has characteristics that we traditionally think of as feminine (although, as “flabbergasted” pointed out, why does, for example, “compassion” have to be considered a “feminine” characteristics.)

Seriously, as a whole, you would not say that “compassion” is more prevelant in females than males?

Neil

156   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am

The rhythm of God stuff is just a metaphor with the idea of being in step with the movement of God in our everyday life.

something everyone should be seeking in their walk.

157   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am

People need to relax…

these are all just ways of deploying culturally recognizable forms to help people get their minds around the infinite, trans-categorical range of God’s being and interaction with us.

Too much sturm und drang today…

158   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am

I am fearful that this kind of spiritual venture can lead one away from the true God…I also think that Rob Bell’s audience needs to be considered. His audience includes people who are immersed in this culture and who are knowingly or unknowingly open to Mother Goddess ideas.

If you want to live your life in the fear of how your words may be misinterpreted you should pretty much stop talking all together.

Seriously, at what point does this “It might be misinterpreted” end?

I have seen far worse – how about those who portray God as an American Republican? I fear that they are leading many away from God…

159   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Are there references in the actual video to God being female – or is it just emphasizing his feminine attributes?

To the first question: NO. To the second: YES.

Bell does a great job in deconstructing our very male-centered view of God and opens the discussion to something beyond that nonsense.

Personally I am wary of what Rob Bell is doing here.

Big surprise. Have you even seen, She, amy?

160   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am

The first time I had a question about Rob Bell (as I recall) was regarding the “Breathe” video. It’s interesting to me that the idea of God being all around one so that one can breathe him in…

Yeah – let’s push a metaphor to an illogical conclusion then attack it…

Anyway, the late Bill Bright used this “breathe” metaphor long before Bell even understood what breathing was all about… but it was acceotable then…

161   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am

I have seen far worse – how about those who portray God as an American Republican? I fear that they are leading many away from God…

Good point, Neil.

Or how about those who portray God as a MALE?
I fear they are being led away from the true God. How is the talk of God’s “maleness” not just my attempt as a man to connect to God? Why are women debunked for doing the same?
It’s hypocrisy.

162   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Are there references in the actual video to God being female – or is it just emphasizing his feminine attributes?

To the first question: NO. To the second: YES.

So this whole discussion is simply over an investigation of the feminine characteristics of God as found in the Bible?

163   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am

So this whole discussion is simply over an investigation of the feminine characteristics of God as found in the Bible?

yup.

terrible, isn’t it?

And the charge comes from those who would say Bell doesn’t take ALL of scripture seriously. I love irony.

164   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Or how about those who portray God as a MALE?

A friend of mine is an artist who illustrates biblical passages – quite well I think… he NEVER draws God for this very reason.

165   john b    
December 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Bell looking increasingly androgynous…

Ingrid is indeed a hoot. I don’t see too many bald women….unless they are going through chemo. IMO she has some pretty serious obsessions.

166   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

John B,

it is kind of funny, isn’t it?

I mean “flouncing 8 year olds”, painted girls of Sodom, and when men refuse to be emasculated and lay down for her whining then they’re feminized…

yeeesh.

167   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Wow – being out of pocket (ISP problems), you miss a lot:

J: at least I am not like

I am not Chris Lyons or Chad Holtz

(who justifies anything about William Young or Rob Bell)

*boggle* What did I say?

So many questions…
1) Who is William Young?
2) While Chad is my brother in Christ, there are a few significant things (if you’ve been reading the comments lately) with which we don’t see eye-to-eye, even though I suspect that you, Chad and I agree on far more than what we disagree on…
3) I believe I’ve stated my disagreement with Rob and his church’s policy on females in eldership roles (among some other finer points of disagreement), so how this “justifies anything about Rob Bell”, I’m just not getting…
4) Why when I read this, does the faint echo of “‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.” seem to be present?

anyone else find it offensive that bell calls GOD a woman.

No, because he didn’t.

He didn’t assign God a gender, but rather he was emphasizing that God’s character contains both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ qualities (with a higher level point being that God transcends (is beyond) humanity, and that when we anthropomorphize Him with only traditionally male qualities, we miss out on part of His character. This is not about assigning God a gender (because He is beyond gender – He is not human, nor is he a sexual being), it is about appreciating all of the characteristics of God – not only the those traditionally associated with one gender or the other.

JESUS threw the money changers out of the temple,
[...]
you would say that JESUS was a little too over-angry at the moneychangers

or as the moneychangers are called today:

the seeker sensitive movement

He certainly did. Can you exegete why he threw them out, though? If so, can you see why you might not be all that discerning in trying to apply that principle here, and that you’ve chosen an example that is 180-degrees off from what Jesus was teaching at that moment?

BTW to Chris Lyons:

radio show hosts Noah Hutchings and Jan Markell both have spoken out against the emergent church and Rick warren

are they ODMers too

J: Bob Hennigan and Jesse Wharton (two names pulled randomly from the phone book) said the sky is pink and that the water in Pakistan is laced with LSD.

Does that make them the Dali Lama?

chad,

you think everything including following JESUS is a joke dont you

Not to speak for Chad, but I’ve never gotten the impression that he believes that following Jesus is a joke. In fact, quite the opposite.

Question (a serious one): Since you’ve chosen relative anonymity, we know nothing about you – but I’ve really got to wonder if you’re not off your meds today. Is this the case?

Question #2 (less serious): Is there any way you can communicate in sentences and paragraphs, rather than choppy, disconnected phrases – you may be coming off angrier than you’re intending, as this is what is often communicated by short, choppy thoughts (when the fight/flight center of the brain kicks in and overrides rational thought, full sentences and paragraphs (grouped thought) are often the first thing to go)?

J (to chad): maybe if you stopped acting like a fool and started acting like a Charles Stanley type of preacher

While it might surprise you, Andy Stanley is one of the 4 weekly podcasts I subscribe to… I would say that there is a wideness in God’s mercy, and there is a breadth of allowed diversity of views within His church. (And yes, I believe we should discern and root out true heresy, but not every disagreement in doctrine is heretical). How about we allow Chad to be Chad, Charles to be Charles, Rob to be Rob, Mark to be Mark, Piper to be Piper, and JMac to be JMac? I believe all of them are brothers in Christ.

Phil: Man, even the stick up your butt has a stick up its butt, doesn’t it.

You make me laugh at so many unexpected times, dude… (and when Joe follows up by channeling Yoda, it’s golden…)

Watch this [insert cheesy YouTube link]

You really need new material, J. The whole “false teachers” video is an affront to basic Christian teaching (let alone good taste), and is rather overwrought (to understate it)…

how come If I am so bad why arent you guys praying for me and Ingrid and others to change

Who says we are not? Can we not pray for y’all (along with praying that we not falling into the same trap) while at the same time trying to bring you back into the fold? One key difference between us – we are communicating to/about folks that we know are listening, and who (sometimes more often than others) respond (though not always positively). To my knowledge, Ken, Ingrid, PB, Chris R and you have all had the same number of conversations with Rob Bell – which is to say none. Of the ADM’s, Chris R has spoken to Rick Warren once, and he was so scourged by the rabid dogs he runs with that he’s been back-peddling on the meeting ever since. Somehow, I suspect that if the ADM’s ran their characterizations of Bell, Warren or Driscoll by their respective ministries first – asking “is this what you meant when you said ___?” rather than prooftexting and making up their own meanings, that the ADM’s would likely not exist. They are a cottage-industry of putrescence gussied up in righteous garb – gossip rags that make the National Enquirer look respectable.

I mean can you honestly say we should turn a blind eye to the prosperity preachers like Hinn and Paula White

When have we said a word in support of the prosperity gospel? I think that we did comment that the feeding-frenzy of White’s divorce was unseemly, but that in no way was support of the prosperity gospel (which I believe, along with hyper-Calvinism and Universalism, are the unholy trinity of false teachings in our time).
_________________

re: Faith and Repentance -

I do believe that if you truly have faith, repentance will follow (as a response, not as a work, as Iggy notes). However, I think too often we’re in the business of making lists of others’ faults they need to repent of.

Example: Imagine your house/apartment has not been cleaned for years, with all sorts of junk and clutter piling up, mold growing in the sink (and the fridge), and the whole place has gone to pot. Then one day, your life turns around and you realize that your place really ought to be spotless, and then you go back and look in hour house/apartment – where on earth do you start? If you try to do everything at once, it is just too overwhelming. It’s not that you don’t believe it should be clean or that your mind hasn’t really changed – it’s just too overwhelming to tackle it all at once. So you get someone to help you prioritize the cleaning, and you work on it – in steps you can handle. Even if it may never get finished in your lifetime, you are always working towards cleaning it.

In the same way, we’ve all messed up our lives so much and there’s so much sin there in our day-to-day actions that we cannot hope to “take care of it” all at once. Rather, we’ve been given someone (the Holy Spirit) to help us prioritize the cleaning and to live out what we were made to be. What the Holy Spirit convicts us of, and what we first repent of, may not be what someone else would do first. It doesn’t mean there is an absence of repentance – but perhaps the conviction of that sin has not yet come.

I see it as a process, not a one-time event.
__________

what’s Bell’s point in the “God is moonlike” illustration? I have seen the preview but not the whole video.

I saw the video when it was released in its entirety for one day on Facebook, but I don’t remember this illustration, either, though I know it wasn’t about goddess-worship or the like…

168   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I see it as a process, not a one-time event.

re:repentance, Chris L, I agree. I have found myself repentant of many things the more I walk with Jesus (you know, the thing that I find to be a “joke”) :)

even though I suspect that you, Chad and I agree on far more than what we disagree on…

I couldn’t disagree more with this perfectly agreeable statement.

Hogwash.

I saw the video when it was released in its entirety for one day on Facebook, but I don’t remember this illustration, either, though I know it wasn’t about goddess-worship or the like…

I second that. I will grab my copy at church tonight and watch it. I’ll quote Bell over the moon stuff later tonight on here.

peace.

169   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Re: questions addressed to me. Let me just say that my comments should be taken as coming from one who has been personally connected with someone dabbling in mother-goddess stuff and as a result of looking into that area, has been overwhelmed with how Mother Goddess beliefs/practices permeate our culture.

As I said before:

I also think that Rob Bell’s audience needs to be considered. His audience includes people who are immersed in this culture and who are knowingly or unknowingly open to Mother Goddess ideas.

I have not watched the “She” video in entirety. The Title itself causes my wariness. In short,I think that if someone is going to make a video called “She” that has as it’s only intent to address characteristics of God that are overlooked, then within that video there needs to be some teaching, warning, about how the Mother Goddess religion permeates our culture.

I would definitely have to see the video myself before deciding that it was harmlessly, simply looking at the “feminine” side of God.

Yeah – let’s push a metaphor to an illogical conclusion then attack it…

Neil,
Re “Breathe.” My understanding was that Bell was teaching the same thing I read in the book I mentioned earlier. I had the teaching further explained to me by someone in the book itself.

Always with me, there is this underlying mystery of why/how Bell’s teaching lines up with the author connected with the psychology department at Fuller Seminary. And always I am wondering from where some of the ideas originate.

170   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I would definitely have to see the video myself before deciding that it was harmlessly, simply looking at the “feminine” side of God.

But you’d have to see it yourself to say that it is bad/harmful too right?

171   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Joe – what are the objectives of the little videos produced by Bell?

172   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

…if someone is going to make a video called “She” that has as it’s only intent to address characteristics of God that are overlooked, then within that video there needs to be some teaching, warning, about how the Mother Goddess religion permeates our culture.

I do not see the need for the creator of what is essentially an extended video illustration to also anticipate the manners in which it may be applied erroneously then include those in the illustration itself.

173   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Always with me, there is this underlying mystery of why/how Bell’s teaching lines up with the author connected with the psychology department at Fuller Seminary. And always I am wondering from where some of the ideas originate

.

It’s hard to address something this nebulous; Bell went to seminary whose Psych Dept. was influenced buy a guy who wrote a book you read… and I;m not sure I want to know. Seems like there are a lot of links in that chain of reference.

174   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

But you’d have to see it yourself to say that it is bad/harmful too right?

That depends on exactly why it’s titled “She.”

Apart from that issue (which may be a major one) I would have to see it myself (or read a transcript of it, or see in context quotes from it by someone I trusted) to SAY that it was definitely bad or harmful.

I would not have to see it to think that it could be harmful, or to say I am wary of it.

Just looking at the title and the short clip of it I would say that those who are immersed in mother goddess religion, whether they know it or not, are likely to really like it and may come away thinking that it reinforces their ideas about who God is. (Unless there is something else in the rest of the video which would counteract that.)

175   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Just looking at the title and the short clip of it I would say that those who are immersed in mother goddess religion, whether they know it or not, are likely to really like it and may come away thinking that it reinforces their ideas about who God is. (Unless there is something else in the rest of the video which would counteract that.)

So what? Gandhi really liked the sermon on the mount… does that mean Jesus was too vague and guilty of it being misapplied?

I understand that this is significant due to relationships you have, and I hope you are able to help them with their error… but I do not think it it fair to project those concerns onto Bell.

176   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Joe – what are the objectives of the little videos produced by Bell?

They aren’t produced by Bell. He is just the person, for now, who is the spokesman.

As for the objective? To destroy the fabric of the Christian church, of course.

177   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Apart from that issue (which may be a major one) I would have to see it myself (or read a transcript of it, or see in context quotes from it by someone I trusted) to SAY that it was definitely bad or harmful.

And even then it would only be your opinion based on your own understanding of God and faith.

As I said, I have shown it to my adult sunday school class and it most definately GOOD and FRUITFUL, not “bad” or “harmful.”

178   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

As for the objective? To destroy the fabric of the Christian church, of course.

You forgot about trying to turn us into Buddhists, Hindus, or at least godless atheists…

179   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

You forgot about trying to turn us into Buddhists, Hindus, or at least godless atheists…

All of whom are going to heaven anyway…

180   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Amy – From the NOOMA site:

We didn’t have anything to do with our birth. We are all here because some woman somewhere gave us life. Her pain, her effort, for our life. And when a mother gives like that to a child, she is showing us what God is like. But sometimes this part of God’s nature is overlooked. A lot of us are comfortable with male imagery for God. But what about female imagery for God? Is God limited to a gender? Or does God transcend and yet include what we know as male and female? Maybe if we were more aware of the feminine imagery for God we would have a better understanding of who God is and what God is like. (emphasis mine)

The point of the video was that God does not have a gender – He is beyond gender. Rather, he made man and woman in His image, and His qualities are on display in the character he gave to both of them.

181   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

All of whom are going to heaven anyway…

Well, duh. :)

Thanks, Phil. I forgot about “Buddhists, Hindus, or at least godless atheists.” I guess I was just thinking of people other than myself for once.

182   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I would have to see it myself (or read a transcript of it, or see in context quotes from it by someone I trusted)

Then I guess you can ignore the transcript I will post later tonight.

Better to wait till Ken or Ingrid get a hold of it.
I can see the headline at Apprising tomorrow:

PASTOR CHAD HOLTZ BELIEVES GOD IS A WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO ROB BELL.

183   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Joe – what are the objectives of the little videos produced by Bell?

I don’t know, you’d have to write him or ask him. Of course, you could read the sleeve the DVD comes in and it would tell you. You could always go to the Nooma site too. That might tell you.

184   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I understand that this is significant due to relationships you have, and I hope you are able to help them with their error… but I do not think it it fair to project those concerns onto Bell.

Projecting my concerns on Bell in a negative way would be to write negative things saying that he is absolutely guilty of trying to promote mother goddess thinking based on one short clip of a video plus a title.

Being wary because of my relationships and the knowledge I’ve gotten because of those relationships is simply being wise, in my opinion.

It is because of not being careful, of not being wary, that many young girls get into a religion that seems good but isn’t. Can you grant me the freedom to be wary? Attach anyone’s name to the “She” video and I would say the same thing.

Sometime if you would like look at New Zealand/mother goddess subjects and see how young girls are falling for what seems good and pure but is really a big lie, something that becomes not just head-belief but practiced from the heart and is spiritually oppressive.

185   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Is God limited to a gender? Or does God transcend and yet include what we know as male and female?

Just like Vishnu :) . Or perhaps :( .

BTW, has Rob Bell studied Hinduism?

186   flabbergasted, though slightly less so    
December 17th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

John Hughes #110 makes some excellent points.

Neil #123 said “SHAME on Ingrid for mocking the appearance of a brother in Christ…”. What was the point of Paul’s discussion of men and women’s looks in Corinthians? He wasn’t mocking them but Paul seemed to have a strong opinion on how men and women should look, while being culturally sensitive. I would like to hear your thoughts on this passage.

To all: So I will restate my question: how else do you get from moon-like to feminine without appealing to some kind of extra biblical revelation? God is never described as moon-like. What does that mean? Allah is the most well known moon god. Not saying Rob Bell worships Allah, but when you start exploring ideas like “God is moon-like” you are opening up a can of worms. God is NEVER described as being moon-like. Whatever that means.

#155 Neil Instead he could have said “God is Jesus-like. Or Jesus is God-like. God appeared in the Son, Jesus Christ who had compassion on the crowds. Compassion is not always easy for guys, or gals for that matter. That’s something we ALL struggle with. We ALL struggle with love. We ALL struggle with grace. We ALL struggle with these things. Because we’re sinful. And the problems we see in the world, the evil that people do etc…. talk about sin, and then construct a biblical theology of compassion from which we learn to love in the way that Jesus did, whose supreme act in dying on the cross was the demonstration of God’s love and justice. That’s where true compassion is found.
To say God is moon-like is a distraction, a mis-direction. It’s empty and has nothing to do with God’s love and compassion or indeed God himself. Apart from the fact that He made the moon. He is talking about a completely different “god”.

#167 “They are a cottage-industry of putrescence gussied up in righteous garb – gossip rags that make the National Enquirer look respectable.”

Wow. Strong words. When the prominent spokesmen for “the church” get to saying “God is moon-like”, or when another jokes and says “Give Jesus a 60 day trial” – when people’s lives are on the line – you don’t think something else is putrefying?

How can I respect these “leaders”, when I work with people who joke about going to hell and having a good time down there and all these people can spend their time doing is poor PR for Christianity (or speaking at muslim public affairs conference), and saying stuff like “God is moon like” and “contemplating” and “Give Jesus a 60 day trial”. Do you not see the problem here?

#180 Chris L wrote “The point of the video was that God does not have a gender. Rather, he made man and woman in His image, and His qualities are on display in the character he gave to both of them.”

If ALL Rob Bell is saying is that God has what we ascribe to be masculine and feminine characteristics, or that the Bible uses this imagery, then it’s nothing new.

Therefore, Chris L, while I agree with your statement in part, this would need to be tempered by John’s comments. When I say God does not have gender I mean that I don’t think he has the anatomical structures that distinguish male from female. (That said, there is more to being male and female than just the anatomical structures)

To say he has no gender or that gender language does not matter is very dangerous territory. If God is female, then you will end up saying “our mother who art in heaven” then you will start sounding like you are praying to Mary or someone else, and not the one to whom Jesus prayed. Jesus said when you pray, pray like this… and then demonstrated what he meant. btw What does “Abba, Father” mean?

NB: I hate writing email and text. There is no nuance. No expression. No facial expression. No eye to eye contact. But I can’t sit idly by and hear people say in essence Ingrid is bad and the whole online discernment ministry is off the track when popular influential people like Rob Bell say things like “God is moon-like”. There is something fundamentally wrong with that that comes from somewhere and while it is true that Ingrid may have been a little careless in her words, we’re all guilty of saying insensitive things from time to time.

187   Bo Diaz    
December 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

amy,
It must be tiring to be you. I can’t even imagine the energy it takes to invent boogie men behind every bush.

188   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Just watched SHE again. Will comment on it in a moment ….after I stop laughing.

189   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

There is something fundamentally wrong with that that comes from somewhere and while it is true that Ingrid may have been a little careless in her words, we’re all guilty of saying insensitive things from time to time.

In in Ingrid’s case, “time to time” seems to mean “on an almost daily basis”.

190   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

It must be tiring to be you. I can’t even imagine the energy it takes to invent boogie men behind every bush.

You also can’t imagine the energy it takes to fight the “invented boogie men.”

191   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

“while it is true that Ingrid may have been a little careless in her words,”

And careless in her “calling”.

192   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Here is another in a long line:

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/uncategorized/gay-marching-band-at-obama-inauguration/

And a gratuitous swipe at Rick Warren to boot! This gay thing is obsession at its best without any gracious offer of redemption. By the way all you Calvinists, God hasn’t seen fit to “grant” them repentance so take it up with Him.

Like mocking a blind man as he trips over a roller skate.

193   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

who is “flabbergasted”?

194   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

NOOMA: SHE

Sometimes I have to work hard to find something that illustrates a point I want to make. Other times, but not too often, they fall from the sky like meteors and beg to be shown off. I couldn’t have dreamed of a better way to illustrate just how silly the ODM crew and their groupies truly are and how ignorant people look who criticize things they do not even take the time or effort to investigate for themselves.

What prompted me to watch this again was flabbergasted said this:

Still, that’s neither here nor there compared with his appalling video message:

“God is moon-like. This is a feminine image for God.”

Far. Out.

Amy, in post 152 mused:

What “God is moonlike” means is a good question.

I could not remember anything about moons but did not remember anything remotely nefarious and said I would watch it again tonight and share what I find.

The word MOON is not uttered- once. In fact, I am quite certain there is not even a camera shot of a moon in any frame.

Context:

Bell begins with a story about how he was attacked by a Mother Goose while he was bike riding. The mother was protecting her children. Bell says:

There is this universal truth: When it comes to her children a mother is not messing around. If she thinks you are a threat to her kids you are in trouble.

He then goes on to talk about how mothers have this “maternal impulse, this ancient nurturing instinct and it transcends time. It transcends culture, it transcends economics. There is an ancient mothering impulse and it’s also a divine impulse.”

So, where does the “MOON” bit come in? Bell continues….

Throughout the Bible, God is described as compassionate. In Hebrew, the original language of the Scriptures, it’s teh word ‘raham.’ It’s also the word for ‘womb.’ So, ‘God is compassionate’ is ‘God is womb-like.‘ This is a feminine image for God.

Granted, “Womb-like” sounds a lot like “moon-like” but to my knowledge have little, if nothing, in common (I don’t recommend telling your pregnant wife she looks like a moon). But if someone actually watched this video with true discernment and a desire to “get the truth out” they never would confuse “womb” for “moon.”

Bell says: Feminine images of God we are not so comfortable with – but male imagery we tend to be fine with. He asks, why?

After sharing a few of the feminine images of God Bell says:

These images can be helpful for us to understand God, but Jesus said God is Spirit. And spirit has no shape, i thas no form, it has no physical essence. I mean, God is in essence beyond male and female. Or perhaps you could say it more accurately: God transcends and yet includes what we know as male and female.

Bell makes a pastoral point:

If you’re a woman and you’ve been made to feel second-class in the Jesus movement, maybe you’ve been taught blatantly or you’ve picked it up subtly that like, ‘It’s nice that you’re here but the men do the real work around here,’ that is just not right. I’m sorry youve had that experience because it’s not what Jesus had in mind.

In the discussion guide, these probing questions are asked which allow groups to drill deeper into the matter:

Have you ever been made to feel second-class? If so, how did you respond?

Have you ever viewed women as somehow less than men?

How does your view of women affect your view of God?

How does your view of God affect your view of women?

He says of the revolutionary role of women who were with Jesus….

It was women who supported Jesus’ early ministry…. A lot of scholars argue that Paul’s letter to the Galatians is the first place in human history where someone argued for the equality of the sexes.

If you don’t have her leadership, if you don’t have her wisdom, her voice, her perspective, you’re not just missing her, you’re missing something central to the very core of who God is.

Why is that? Because as he points out just prior, both male and female are created in God’s image. Both sexes are in some way included in image of God – both reflect God’s nature.

But Bell also rebuffs any notion of sameness or dumbing down of our differences (making Ingrid’s “androgynous” insult even less discerning). Bell says:

Equality gets confused with difference. As though we are all the same. What gets lost is the uniqueness. You don’t need to run from the differences you can embrace them.

Some women are mothers, some aren’t. Some run companies, some stay home. Some live out very traditional roles, others break all sorts of new ground. ANd it’s all a reflection of the creativity, of the diversity, of the variety of the God who’s bigger than any of our language.

To conclude, Bell brings us back where he began- the compassionate God. Some have commented here and wondered why Bell limits compassion to females. That is false. Bell is allowing Scripture to be his guide.

He quotes Isaiah 66:13, “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.” He then adds…

And when Isaiah is speaking to his people who are wondering if they even have a future, they’re disillusioned, they’re filled with despair, they don’t have any hope. Of all the images Isaiah could use, Isaiah essentially says to them, ‘Have you ever seen a mother comfort a child? Well that is what God is like. And that is what God is going to do for you.’

The discussion guide is helpful here:

When was the last time that you needed comfort?
Were you comforted? IF so, by whom?
When the difficult times come, would you trust God to comfort you? (emphasis mine. A question many in the church and outside the church need to grapple with).

And a few more questions bringing home the point that Bell is not saying God is a mother, but like one….

Have you ever considered God to be like a mother? Why or why not?
Is your view of God limited by a gender?
If so, do you think you are missing aspects of God’s nature?

And the benediction:

So may you embrace the God who’s bigger than any of our language. May you celebrate all of the images and pictures and metaphors that help us better understand who God is and what God is like. And may you be comforted as a mother comforts a child.

195   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Chad,
Thank you for that synopsis. It seems like someone owes Bell apology…

196   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

It seems like someone owes Bell apology…

No doubt. I have the utmost confidence, however, that those “someones” will find an excuse not to.

197   amy    
December 17th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Amy, in post 152 mused:

What “God is moonlike” means is a good question.

Seriously, Chad, what was your point in quoting me here? Are you criticizing me for saying this? I had no reason to think that someone could have been misquoting something. If Bell had said that “God was moonlike” and someone wanted to know why, it would have been a good question.

Am I one of those people who you describe here, preceding flabbergasted and my remarks?

how ignorant people look who criticize things they do not even take the time or effort to investigate for themselves.

If you are talking about me, note that I wasn’t criticizing. I didn’t start talking about moon theology or anything. I simply said that what he meant by it was a good question.

Why didn’t you quote Neil’s musing?

So Chad, what’s Bell’s point in the “God is moonlike” illustration?

198   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Amy-
Because Neil didn’t also make comments like this:

Personally I am wary of what Rob Bell is doing here.

which you made in the same post where you wonder about the moon-like business. Neil wasn’t already presuming guilt whereas you were.

This is just one example of the many that come up where people speak ill of something they know nothing about. I think the term for that is gossip.

199   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

In 174, amy, you said:

That depends on exactly why it’s titled “She.”

Apart from that issue (which may be a major one) I would have to see it myself (or read a transcript of it, or see in context quotes from it by someone I trusted) to SAY that it was definitely bad or harmful.

You now have far more evidence before you than you had moments before. And you save yourself $10 (you are welcome). Are you any closer now to moving away from being so negative about it to at least acknowledge that Bell is not leading people into goddess worship or any such nonsense (something any of us here could have told you with authority with or without seeing this video – why? Because we have actually listened to Bell for years, unlike his armchair detractors).

200   flabbergasted might have mistaken "moon" for "womb"    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

nc Says: who is “flabbergasted”?
that is like asking who is “nc”?

I am flabbergasted that I might have mistaken “moon” for “womb”. My sincere apologies for mishearing Rob Bell.

If he did say “Womb”, this makes ALOT more sense now, and I apologize for bringing in ancient moon goddesses when it was undeserved. This language actually smells more like an allusion to Gaia / Gaianism or some such thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology).

http://www.gaiaswomb.com/about.htm (read the first two paragraphs)

along similar lines to what amy has been talking about.
So thanks to the person who pointed out the exact quote. This clarifies my concerns and raises them up a notch, as this view is much more pervasive and popular in Christianity than moon goddesses of old, but in many ways just the same. But my other question still stands, which I’m surprised no-one addressed:

To say he has no gender or that gender language does not matter is very dangerous territory. If God is so female, then you will end up saying “our mother who art in heaven” then you will start sounding like you are praying to Mary or someone else, and not the one to whom Jesus prayed. And then what does “Abba, Father” mean?

Jesus said when you pray, pray like this… and then demonstrated what he meant when he said to pray to the Father, just as he did when he prayed in the garden.

201   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 12:26 am

So thanks to the person who pointed out the exact quote. This clarifies my concerns and raises them up a notch, as this view is much more pervasive and popular in Christianity than moon goddesses of old

Mr. or Ms. Ignorant, I mean, flabbergasted,

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in awhile here – and there is much of that, believe me.

If you think this “womb” language is even more problematic than take your issues up with the very scriptures from which Bell is getting his verbage. Do you deny that the Hebrew word raham also means “womb”?

To say he has no gender or that gender language does not matter is very dangerous territory. If God is so female, then you will end up saying “our mother who art in heaven” then you will start sounding like you are praying to Mary or someone else, and not the one to whom Jesus prayed. And then what does “Abba, Father” mean?

I owe you an apology. I quoted you above and said that was the most ridiculous thing I had read in awhile. I was wrong. This is.

“To say that [God] has no gender?” God has no gender! He is neither male nor female – God is Spirit. Do you deny that?

And no one is advocating praying “Our Mother who art in heaven.”

The only thing flabbergasting around here is your logic.

202   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 12:42 am

Flabber -

nc Says: who is “flabbergasted”?
that is like asking who is “nc”?

Most regular commenters here know that “nc” is Nathan Claris – but since we’ve got about 4 Nathan’s that comment (or write here) from time-to-time, he went to “nc” to distinguish himself from the others. You, however, we have no identity for.

This language actually smells more like an allusion to Gaia

Tell me, do you always look for the worst in Christian brothers, seeking to ensnare them in your petty language games? How exactly does that square with love “always hoping” and “always persevering”?

If you read the entire synopsis, you’d know that “She” had nothing to do with Gaia, but with how God has characteristics we often classify as “feminine” in addition to the ones we more commonly stress (which are “masculine”). It has nothing to do with Gaia or goddess worship. Nothing.

This clarifies my concerns and raises them up a notch

Really? Bizarre.

But my other question still stands, which I’m surprised no-one addressed:

To say he has no gender or that gender language does not matter is very dangerous territory. If God is so female, then you will end up saying “our mother who art in heaven” then you will start sounding like you are praying to Mary or someone else, and not the one to whom Jesus prayed. And then what does “Abba, Father” mean?

Go back and read what Bell said:

These images can be helpful for us to understand God, but Jesus said God is Spirit. And spirit has no shape, i thas no form, it has no physical essence. I mean, God is in essence beyond male and female. Or perhaps you could say it more accurately: God transcends and yet includes what we know as male and female.

Now, you might read what Jerry wrote yesterday on this subject. In one of the first comments, he also notes:

There are no verses in the bible that refer to God as a ‘female.’ However, neither are there any verses that refer to him as a ‘male.’ These are distinctly human constructs and are meaningless to God, a Spirit.

To be sure, and I pointed this out in the OP, there is a significant, huge, massive difference between saying there are ‘feminine’ metaphors about God in the Bible and that the God of the Bible is a ‘female.’ I affirm the former, and reject the latter. To be sure, this is simple grammar.

This squares with what Bell is saying in the video.

Now, if you go back to Genesis, the very first mention of God is actually plural – it doesn’t even mention gender.

Later in the chapter, we read:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God created man in his image – male and female he created them.

When God is referred to, yes He is given a male pronoun. However, we are taught throughout Scripture that God is not man – and that Jesus is God on earth as a human – but that God is spirit. But since we write about him, we anthromorphize him, and in doing so, we tend to emphasize his “male” characteristics (which are more aggressive) and deemphasize his “female” characteristics (which are more caring and nurturing) – but he is both and more.

Jesus said when you pray, pray like this… and then demonstrated what he meant when he said to pray to the Father, just as he did when he prayed in the garden.

I would suggest that the use of “Father” was not anywhere near the point of Jesus’ model prayer (which was a combination of 6-7 og the shimone e’tzra, the eighteen prayers said multiple times each day by faithful Jews in Jesus’ day and today).

Bottom Line: Bell is not teaching that God is a woman. He is simply trying to demonstrate that God’s characteristics are not only male, and that women are not ’second-class citizens’ in the kingdom. You would agree, yes?

203   nc    
December 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am

the last name’s “Clair”.

But that’s fine, Chris Lyen….

Juuuuuuuuuust kidding!

;)

204   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:42 am
But you’d have to see it yourself to say that it is bad/harmful too right?

That depends on exactly why it’s titled “She.”

Amy,
if you are familiar with Bell’s Nooma series you will now that usually the name of a specific DVD refers to the illustration he uses in that DVD and not the subject that he talks about. Examples:
Rain: The illustration he uses is of him and his son hiking when it starts raining. The point he is making is that God never leaves us but caries us through difficult and scary times
Luggage: While the message is about forgiveness, the images are about luggage and the point he is making is that we shouldn’t carry luggage of unforgiveness with us.
Matthew: A boy that Rob’s acquainted with died and he uses this as an illustration of how we should support each other in times of grief.

In “She” he continues this method of naming the DVD’s, “She” referring to the illustration(s) of a mother caring for and protecting her children. Bell NEVER refers to God as “She” or “Her”. He only points us to the feminine imagery of God used in Scripture so that we can better understand who God is.

BTW the images playing in the background of a mother travelling across a city to leave her daughter in the care of (I assume) her grand mother so that the mother can go to work in order to support her family is just so powerful. It reminds me of a God who would travel across a spiritual divide to save, care and sustain his children…

Amy, I hope this helps you to be less weary about the feminine imagery of God used in Scripture.

205   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 18th, 2008 at 5:47 am

“This language actually smells more like an allusion to Gaia”

You are giving anthropomorphic qualities to words on a page that actually give off an odor? I cannot just receive your words as metaphorical since words actually mean something. You sound New Age if I ever “saw” it and before long you will take the Spanish language and have two masculine nouns and place them together in a sort of linguistic gay cabal.

Sir, I demand to know where you stand on the issue of multiple masculine nouns in the same sentence!

206   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 18th, 2008 at 5:53 am

Sir, it has now been five minutes without a reply and unfortunately I must assume and publish the very worst about you, it is my solemn duty.

207   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am

Eugene, thank you for your words above.

While watching She again last night I was struck by something new that I had not considered the first time around.

At the beginning Bell is talking about the Mother Goose who charges after him, hissing at him, scaring him away so as to protect her children. Bell said that there is nothing a mother will not do when it comes to protecting her children. If she thinks you are a threat you are in trouble, he said.

On my note pad I wrote this question:

How might a better understanding of God as Mother refine our thinking of God’s hatred over anything that might hurt God’s children?

God as Mother helps me see the extent to which God will go to ward off, defeat, destroy that which seeks to harm me (sin). This God will stop at nothing to protect her children – even if it means becoming one of us and dying on a cross for us. And why? Not because I am a terrible child and God despises me but because there is something threatening to destroy me and God will not allow it.

208   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am

Further reflections on God as Mother Goose

209   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am

I left out some important words in #206:

Matthew: A boy that Rob’s acquainted with died and he uses this as an illustration of how we should support each other in times of grief.

Should read:
Matthew: A boy, named Matthew, that Rob was acquainted with died and he uses this as an illustration of how we should support each other in times of grief.

Amy, I hope this helps you to be less weary about the feminine imagery of God used in Scripture.

Should read:
Amy, I hope this helps you to be less weary about the feminine imagery of God that Bell referenced to as used in Scripture.

210   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am

…sigh…

On one hand, it’s kind of amazing to me to see people still upset about this after Chad’s synopsis, but, on the other hand, I’m not surprised at all. It’s like there are some Christians who just feel it’s their duty to be suspicious of everyone and everything. I know, because I grew up around it.

It wasn’t my parents so much, but other people in the brand of Christianity I grew up in. I knew people who insisted the Smurfs were demonic, that Tom and Jerry were dangerous, that listening to non-Christian music would cause all sorts of problems. Oh, and having even an occasional drink would lead to alcoholism down the road for anyone.

So, now that I’m older, I know plenty of people who watched the Smurfs or Tom and Jerry, listened to rock music, and even have a beer now and then, and from what I can tell, they still seem to be Christians – they still love Jesus. So the people who are screaming loudly today will have to excuse if I don’t give a crap. In fact, I’ve decided I’ll even fight back to some extent, because it’s not right to let people take things God has given us to enjoy and call them evil.

211   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am

Chad, Mother Goose? I think it’s a good thing Rob Bell didn’t choose that as the title! :lol:

212   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am

That is why he is Rob Bell and I am not. :)

213   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 10:56 am

the last name’s “Clair”.

But that’s fine, Chris Lyen….

My apologies – I’ve gotten far too used to looking at your email address that your last name morphed for me.

:)

214   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am

On one hand, it’s kind of amazing to me to see people still upset about this after Chad’s synopsis,

Phil, I hate that my post 196 was correct. I wish I had been proven wrong.

215   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am

Seriously…

What disturbs me is the the hyper-jump to assume the worst of a brother in Christ – Bell said moon therefore he’s a crypto-muslim…

What disturbs me is the lack of interaction with Scripture and Bell’s words by those opposing him – Bell said womb, therefore he’s a crypto-pagan…

How’s bout one of you detracted actually interacting with what Bell said and showing just ONE shred of evidence that it is not biblical?

Neil

216   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

If you read the entire synopsis, you’d know that “She” had nothing to do with Gaia, but with how God has characteristics we often classify as “feminine” in addition to the ones we more commonly stress (which are “masculine”). It has nothing to do with Gaia or goddess worship. Nothing. – Chris L. [responding to Flabergasted

Chris L.,

It has become painfully clear that original intent and meaning are unimportant (and they accuse us of being PoMo’s). What IS important is what can be derived through hyper-suspicion, twisting, and caricature building.

We can point out how the Lectio Divina is NOT a Hindu mantra – does not matter, they have created a caricature and will not budge from it – even to the point wondering if Bell has studied Hinduism and wants to promote it…

We can dispel all rumors of Bell calling God “she”, or promoting moon-worship – yet something is still afoul even though they offer no evidence

We can show definitive statements from Bell himself showing that he is not a universalist – yet some would rather wallow in the filth of their own creation that bask in the light of reality…

…OK, end of rant…

217   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

What disturbs me is the lack of interaction with Scripture and Bell’s words by those opposing him – Bell said womb, therefore he’s a crypto-pagan…

How’s bout one of you detracted actually interacting with what Bell said and showing just ONE shred of evidence that it is not biblical?

Because it does not fit with the predetermined diagnosis they’ve made for Bell – “apostate”. Therefore, any data which does not fit the diagnosis is discarded, and anything which might remotely fit is seen as confirmation…

218   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Because Neil didn’t also make comments like this:

Personally I am wary of what Rob Bell is doing here.

which you made in the same post where you wonder about the moon-like business. Neil wasn’t already presuming guilt whereas you were.

Chad I said,

It’s another thing to emphasize that God is She. I would be wary of what underlies that emphasis.

Followed by another paragraph that said:

What “God is moonlike” means is a good question.

The whole theme of my paragraph is “God is She.” Yes I wondered about the moon quote and I wanted it to be addressed. That doesn’t give you the right to say that I was “presuming guilt.”

219   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Are you any closer now to moving away from being so negative about it to at least acknowledge that Bell is not leading people into goddess worship or any such nonsense (something any of us here could have told you with authority with or without seeing this video – why? Because we have actually listened to Bell for years, unlike his armchair detractors).

Have I said that Bell is leading people into goddess worship? Have I?

Why should I listen to what you tell me with authority?

220   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Bell NEVER refers to God as “She” or “Her”.

(Eugene)

This God will stop at nothing to protect her children – even if it means becoming one of us and dying on a cross for us.

(Chad)

Looks like Bell and “my authority” Chad must be on a different page then.

221   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Chad, to Amy’s point – I would not ever refer to God as “she” – even though He has feminine characteristics – because that is not how He has been referred to in Scripture.

That, I believe, is the difference between recognizing characteristics and assigning gender. Does that mean that God is male? No – it just means that this is how He wants to be anthromorphized when we speak of Him.

222   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Have I said that Bell is leading people into goddess worship? Have I? – Amy

You came pretty close.

223   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Okay, I’m going to write a comment before doing any further reading of comments to respond to:

I’m struggling with this idea that compassion is “a feminine image for God.”

Throughout the Bible, God is described as compassionate. In Hebrew, the original language of the Scriptures, it’s teh word ‘raham.’ It’s also the word for ‘womb.’ So, ‘God is compassionate’ is ‘God is womb-like.‘ This is a feminine image for God.

Apparently the words translated “womb” and “compassion” share the same root letters (consonants). They are actually two different words, that may or may not come from the same root.

But let’s assume that they are from the same root. What does that tell me? It tells me that in the Hebrew language Hebrew-speaking people used the same root for “compassion” as they did for “womb.” It doesn’t tell me that compassion is a feminine image for God.

Now I could SPECULATE on why womb and compassion might be from the same root if they are. I would speculate that semantically they could think of the womb as being a protecting, nourishing place, and that they saw those same elements in being compassionate. (Although there is much more to how the word compassion is used in scripture.) Or I could speculate that womb could have been one of those words that was used in a larger sense to denote the essence of caring motherhood.

I have a difficult time jumping from these ideas (which are already speculation ) to the the idea that compassion is a feminine quality, and that therefore seeing God as compassionate is seeing a feminine side of Him.

****God is compassionate. One could say that He had that that was part of His nature BEFORE a womb was ever created. *****

It’s one thing to recognize that the Bible uses images of motherhood to describe God’s love. It’s another thing to for some reason manipulate language (intentionally or unintentionally) so that God’s traits can be viewed as feminine images.

224   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Chris L,
Do you think that Marcus Borg’s teaching is the primary source of Bell’s thinking here?

http://integraltheology.com/2008/08/06/on-be-womb-like-as-god-is-womb-like/

225   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Do you think that Marcus Borg’s teaching is the primary source of Bell’s thinking here?

I honestly have no idea if he picked this up from Borg, or if he picked it up elsewhere.

From Hebrew, it’s not uncommon to note that God is plural (Genesis 1) and that He has adjectives/descriptions which have both linguistically feminine and masculine in their rendering. Part of the problem, linguistically, is that English is built upon abstract concepts whereas Hebrew is built upon concrete objects. Thus, when we speak in English, most of the words are linked back to latin roots (”theology” – theo = God; logos = words; God words – words about God), whereas (as you know) Hebrew words are linked back to something concrete (ruach = a strong wind = spirit).

So, when Scripture is read in Hebrew, we get a ‘picture’ of what is being said. When Scripture is read in English, we get a ‘concept’ of what is being said. Bell’s observation (whether he used Borg or not) is ‘not news’ in Hebrew circles, because many of the concrete-words that describe God are already feminine, so to see God with these attributes is not unusual. In English, though, our gender-characteristic-linkages rely on traditional and not linguistic cues to become apparent, so this is not as organic a linkage. Not to steal from Brendt, but Bell’s observations that God has feminine attributes, to a Hebrew, would be the equivalent of saying “water is often wet”.

226   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

This God will stop at nothing to protect her children – even if it means becoming one of us and dying on a cross for us.

(Chad)

Looks like Bell and “my authority” Chad must be on a different page then.

Amy, when you decide outright to be negative and find only things to detract than that is exactly what you will find.

If you read my piece on Mother Goose with any bit of objectivity you would notice that I am taking artisitic license to illlustrate a point. I am playing with the concept of God as mother – in this case, mother goose. As such, I was keeping my pronouns consistent.

And even if you disagree with my use of pronouns in that post – who cares? It takes nothing away from Bells telling of the story in She and does not refute the FACT that Bell did NOT refer to God as SHE or HER.

Chad, to Amy’s point – I would not ever refer to God as “she” – even though He has feminine characteristics – because that is not how He has been referred to in Scripture.

That, I believe, is the difference between recognizing characteristics and assigning gender. Does that mean that God is male? No – it just means that this is how He wants to be anthromorphized when we speak of Him.

Chris, I understand the sentiment here. Personally, I use the masculine pronouns when addressing God. But that is more out of habit than because I feel that that is what God wants. If we are going to say with conviction that God is neither male nor female but insist we must call him a man than we come off sounding, well, someone schizophrenic.

I think wrestling with this issue is important. I think our language of God says something more about us as human beings who tend to project maleness upon God than anything else – it is perhaps something we need to consider as part of our fallen nature.

Like Bell says: ALL language about God fails us – God is bigger than any pronoun we can give God.

227   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

If we are going to say with conviction that God is neither male nor female but insist we must call him a man than we come off sounding, well, someone schizophrenic.

God is neither male nor female. However, going back to Creation order and the Hebrew concept of “headship” – (example, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”) – God is always referred to in the masculine pronoun (including “Father” – Abba – noting that Abba is most correctly translated as “daddy”, i.e. very informal and childlike, but still in the masculine) in Scripture as a recognition of our submission to him as our ‘head’.’

Not schizophrenic. Not fallen. Honoring, by His own provided definition.

228   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I think the Father pronoun is representing of authority, but His attributes are infinite and surely not limited to what usually is thought of as male.

229   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Well, considering how scriptures were written by men for men it should come as no surprise that God has masculine pronouns.

To call God a man is not necessarily honoring God as much as it is honoring a long history of male centrism.

But I am not interested in another debate over male/female hierarchy. It was enough to simply prove for the purposes of this OP that Bell is not promoting goddess worship nor is Bell saying we should call God a She or Her.

230   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I think the Father pronoun is representing of authority, but His attributes are infinite and surely not limited to what usually is thought of as male.

I think that is an excellent way of putting it, Rick. “Father” is not to denote maleness but, in that culture, the one who is head of the household (which includes even beyond one’s wife and kids). “Father” speaks to the one who is Lord and sovereign over all affairs of the home (world). To call God “Mother” in that culture would say something altogether different.

231   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

To call God a man is not necessarily honoring God as much as it is honoring a long history of male centrism.

From your own review of She:

But Bell also rebuffs any notion of sameness or dumbing down of our differences (making Ingrid’s “androgynous” insult even less discerning). Bell says:

Equality gets confused with difference. As though we are all the same. What gets lost is the uniqueness. You don’t need to run from the differences you can embrace them.

This is not an issue of ’sexism’ or ‘inequality’ or ‘male-centricness’, it’s just one of “difference”…

232   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

…and is there any argument, as a whole, females are more compassionate than males?

233   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

This is not an issue of ’sexism’ or ‘inequality’ or ‘male-centricness’, it’s just one of “difference”…

I’m not sure how this applies, Chris. The bit I quoted from Bell is true – for us humans who are different from one another in our male ness and femaleness. Yes, we should embrace those differences rather than run from them.

That does not mean we project those differences upon God or insist that God wants to be called a male over a female.

What sort of message do we send to all women when we say God wants to be referred to as a man? Is it beneath God to be referred to as a female any more than it is for God to be called a man? I would say that BOTH pronouns fall short of who God is so therefore neither one should be heralded as the “honoring” one over the other.

234   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I would affirm Rick’s statement,

I think the Father pronoun is representing of authority, but His attributes are infinite and surely not limited to what usually is thought of as male.

Chad:

I would say that BOTH pronouns fall short of who God is so therefore neither one should be heralded as the “honoring” one over the other.

True, but because God placed the role of ‘headship’ in the male, this is why we use the masculine pronoun – out of honor for His ‘headship’ – not because of his ‘maleness’.

I’ll just let this drop, though, since we won’t agree (as you do not accept that God has used gender as one of the ways He uses ’separateness’ in roles within the church).

235   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I’ll just let this drop, though, since we won’t agree (as you do not accept that God has used gender as one of the ways He uses ’separateness’ in roles within the church).

Correct, I do not accept that. And I am glad we can let it drop – we’ve been down that road enough for this year – let’s wait till 2009 and perhaps pick it up again :)

peace.

236   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

From Hebrew, it’s not uncommon to note that God is plural (Genesis 1) and that He has adjectives/descriptions which have both linguistically feminine and masculine in their rendering.

because many of the concrete-words that describe God are already feminine

I’m not sure what you mean here. A word used grammatically as an adjective to describe Yahweh would take on a masculine case because it would be agreeing with God, a masculine noun.

I don’t know if any of the names for God are feminine in case. If they were then the adjectives that described them would be feminine.

As for concrete words that describe God – I guess you are talking about a word which is a noun that is feminine. But that is linguistically feminine. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with gender. Unfortunately,
I’m not up on my Hebrew enough to give examples, although I’m working on it. But consider German, madchen, for example, which means “young girl” and is neuter.

If the word for “womb” or for “compassion” was linguistically feminine or masculine, that’s neither here nor there in my opinion.

Not schizophrenic. Not fallen. Honoring, by His own provided definition.

Well said.

237   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

…and is there any argument, as a whole, females are more compassionate than males?

Judging by the girls’ basketball tournament I’m involved in this week, NO.

Seriously when I think of “compassion” I think of Jesus. And when I personally feel an unexplainable compassion for some person or people that overwhelms me I believe that it is God’s compassion, not my own. And that compassion is available to both men and women believers alike.

238   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Do you think that Marcus Borg’s teaching is the primary source of Bell’s thinking here?

And why would that even matter? If something is true, it’s true regardless of who said it first. Borg has said plenty of stuff I think is wrong, unorthodox, but he has said some stuff that is quite good. He has some good historical insight on some things, but on other stuff he’s off in left field. There’s nothing wrong with agreeing with the stuff that’s correct.

239   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Seriously when I think of “compassion” I think of Jesus

Which is fine. But that is not who Isaiah thought of when he thought of compassion. He thought of a mother caring for her children. That was all Bell was saying. Isaiah could have used any image to describe God to a people who were lost and fearful and he chose to use the image of a mother. That’s it. There is no conspiracy here.

240   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

And that compassion is available to both men and women believers alike. – Amy

Which all would agree with – I hope. But that’s a different issue. It is unarguable that women (as a whole) express compassion better and more often than men.

241   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Also, if I wasn’t clear before, Bell never says females are more compassionate than males. No more than he says God is moon-like.

242   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

What sort of message do we send to all women when we say God wants to be referred to as a man?

You send the message that God wants to be referred to as a man.

I for one don’t need to see the Word of God changed to feel better about being female. God Himself loves me for exactly who I am, and has blessed me with children. I can’t imagine a greater blessing than to be allowed to carry children and bring them into this life and have such close contact with them, especially when they are in the infant stage.

What do you think of Mother Goddess images? Are they depictions of the God of the Bible?

243   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

The whole question of compassion being a feminine trait is rather moot… if you disagree fine… that just means you disagree with Bell’s use of it as an illustration.

It has no reflection though on the biblicality of “She.”

244   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

But that’s a different issue. It is unarguable that women (as a whole) express compassion better and more often than men.

I think that would be a general rule of thumb, Neil. Certainly within the context of what Bell was saying about mothers caring for thier children and the natural, maternal instinct that is so strong. I marvel at that instinct in my wife as it is tuned into our 4 kids. Yes, I am compassionate, but Amy? wow. It says something deeply powerful to me that Isaiah would liken God to this.

245   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

You send the message that God wants to be referred to as a man.

whatever.

What do you think of Mother Goddess images? Are they depictions of the God of the Bible?

I think all images fall short of depicting the God of the Bible.

246   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
What sort of message do we send to all women when we say God wants to be referred to as a man?

You send the message that God wants to be referred to as a man.

This begs two responses: 1) when the second person of the Trinity became human he became a man and a son… so at least 1/3 of the Godhead should be referred to as a man, and 2) The question is not about referring to God as a man – but male.

If we forget the second distinction we fall into the same error as the ADM’s assuming female references must mean we call God “She.”

247   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

What do you think of Mother Goddess images? Are they depictions of the God of the Bible? – Amy

I would say they are not – fortunately Bell does not go there…

248   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I am not getting how some like Amy can read this thread and have people clearly state to her what Bell stated… and that she continues to overlook that NO ONE HAS STATED GODDESS WORSHIP IS RIGHT OR THAT BELL IS STATING GOD IS FEMALE OR ADVOCATING CALLING GOD “SHE” OR THAT THEY SHOULD ADDRESS GOD AS MOTHER!

If I had enough hair to pull out… I would be balder…

Why even try to reason with someone who seems to not listen to anything anyone states and then keeps hammering on about what no one is saying?

Ignore her please!

iggy

249   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Neil- I think it can make for a fascinating and enlightening coversation to discuss the necessity of gender distinctions about God and how language is often a barrier to our understanding of God. However, iggy has a point. It is almost impossible to do so when certain people have an agenda that is less than fruitful and seeks only to find the negative in everything said.

250   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

…hammering on about what no one is saying?

Removing this from Amy and the present issue… this pretty much sums up about 90% of the ADM playbook.

And on this blog in particular it pretty mush sums up most if Pastorboy’s comments as well.

Hmmmmmm…..

251   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Neil- I think it can make for a fascinating and enlightening coversation to discuss the necessity of gender distinctions about God and how language is often a barrier to our understanding of God.

Agreed – but I share Chris L’s opinion that the Bible clearly shows the pattern of referring to God using male pronouns… most likely as an honoring device.

252   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

most likely as an honoring device.

It’s the “most likely” that makes it such an enlightening and intriguing conversation :)

253   amy    
December 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

It is unarguable that women (as a whole) express compassion better and more often than men.

Agreed.

In “She” he continues this method of naming the DVD’s, “She” referring to the illustration(s) of a mother caring for and protecting her children.

It seems like this would be a matter of interpretation, especially with questions like “Is your view of God limited by a gender?”

What Rob Bell could do to help people like me who are wary and careful is carry on a discussion with Chad.
I’d really like to see what Bell would say to some of Chad’s ideas.

254   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

It seems like this would be a matter of interpretation, especially with questions like “Is your view of God limited by a gender?”

Well, IS your view of God limited by a gender? If so, why?

What Rob Bell could do to help people like me who are wary and careful is carry on a discussion with Chad.
I’d really like to see what Bell would say to some of Chad’s ideas.

Well, while I would love nothing more this ain’t gonna happen.

I have a better idea, one that is more realistic: Why not actually watch the DVD, read the discussion guide that comes with it, and perhaps even do so in a group setting with an attitude of “What might God desire to teach me today?”
You are welcome to come to my church to do just that.

255   Neil    
December 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
In “She” he continues this method of naming the DVD’s, “She” referring to the illustration(s) of a mother caring for and protecting her children.

It seems like this would be a matter of interpretation, especially with questions like “Is your view of God limited by a gender?”

It might be a matter of interpretation if all you had was the title. But the actual video (as Chad synopsized) puts all the wariness to rest.

256   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Well, while I would love nothing more this ain’t gonna happen.

For a truckload (I’m talking Semi) of Yuengling, I’ll email you his number. What you do from there is up to you.

257   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Joe, you tempter you. Even now I am adding up the figures.

How about an email addy for a case? :)

258   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

LOL.
That is tempting, but I’d be forced to cheat and give you the one that just goes to the general email at Mars.

259   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Well I have that one! If you did that then I would be forced to cheat and send you relabled bottles of Old Milwaukee. :)

260   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

For a truckload (I’m talking Semi) of Yuengling, I’ll email you his number. What you do from there is up to you.

It’s so funny to me to hear people talk of Yuengling like it’s something rare. It’s pretty cheap in this neck of the woods – of course you would know that. Do they sell it in Michigan?

261   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Phil, where are you at?

Joe has been begging me to send some so I guess they dont have it in Michigan- which is odd. We have it here in NC. In fact, Joe, I’ll be picking up a 6 pack tonight – got some Pittsburgh friends coming over for dinner.

262   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I’m in State College, PA – good ol’ Happy Valley…

I grew up near Pittsburgh.

263   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

My brother went to Penn State for a year and many of my friends from high school graduated from there. I was born in Brookville (near Clarion) and lived there and around Irwin for many years. most of the fam is still back that way.

264   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

I’ve driven through Brookville once…

I pass it on I-80 on the way to my parents house.

265   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Amy,
It seems you are bent to keep on doubting Rob Bell no matter what anybody says. I agree with Chad – watch the DVD, preferably with someone objective and with an attitude of humilty and wanting to hear from God and come back to this thread. I gave my best, most honest in the sincere hope that it would help you. I think I wasted my time.

266   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Do they sell it in Michigan?

Sadly, no. There is a place that sells here in my town whenever they get it, but that’s very hush hush. I never realized how good I had it in Pa. until I moved away from it. :(

267   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Afetr further review, I now consider God the “Collective” and we are The Borg. Please call me “7 of 9″ from now on.