| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'They don't know what they're doing:' Six reasons not to believe in a 'gender-neutral' God |
| 2023-02-24 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Sergey Khudiev [REGNUM] In his annual address to the Federal Assembly, Vladimir Putin touched upon the problem of revising traditional values: “The Anglican Church, for example, plans (…) to consider the idea of a gender-neutral god. What can you say? God forgive me, they don't know what they're doing. How did Anglican theologians come up with this idea? Talk about a "gender-neutral language of worship" in the Anglican Church has caused the widest comments - and, perhaps, it is worth saying a few words about them. This idea is not shockingly new. "Feminist theology" is a rather old phenomenon, and its main idea is that the traditional perception of God in European culture is shaped by a patriarchal society that assigned women a subordinate role. Women, argue feminist theologians, or rather theologians, were viewed as beings of lower nature, and therefore theological language, starting from the Bible, sees in God exclusively a man - Father, Spouse, Judge, King. This patriarchal perception is not only born out of millennia of injustice and oppression, but also keeps injustice alive by giving it a sacred status. Women, like minorities, find it more difficult to turn to God, who is traditionally labeled as a "patriarchal oppressor." The time has long come to get rid of these archaic remnants - and move away from the language that emphasizes male superiority. Moreover, God obviously does not have a biological sex. These considerations have received strong support from the LGBT movement and especially its latest, transgender phase. From the point of view of the LGBT, a terrible hereditary sin of Christian culture is "heteronormativism" - the idea that "He who first created male and female created them ... Therefore, a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Mat. 19). :4,5). The belief that people are divided into men and women, and that a normal, natural, socially encouraged form of sexuality is monogamous and, of course, heterosexual marriage is perceived by LGBT adherents as a source of unbearable oppression. By changing the language in which the believing community speaks about God to a more “neutral” one, according to the thought of bold reformers, it is possible to create a softer, more welcoming and “inclusive”, that is, “inclusive” religion. Why are these attempts resented by traditional Christians? First , Christianity is a religion of divine revelation— it stands on the ground that God revealed himself to men, first through the prophets of the Old Testament, and then, in a unique and comprehensive way, through his only begotten son, Jesus Christ. The task of theology is to understand what God has revealed, not to adapt one's faith to the secular ideologies that are popular at this stage, whether it be eugenics, Marxism, feminism or LGBT. If you want to understand what the interlocutor is saying to you, you delve into his words, and do not try to remake them. It is the same with biblical revelation - it should be tried to understand, not to rewrite. Secondly, behind attempts at reform of this kind is what the conservative Anglican writer Clive S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery" - the belief that our age has finally discovered the truth. We are wiser and more perspicacious simply because we live in "our enlightened time." We can agree that the Bible is not a direct dictation, inspired authors remain people of their era and culture. But after all, we, too, are people of our era and culture. People constantly take the current ideological fashion as the last word of goodness and truth - and then this fashion passes and the next generation looks at it with extreme bewilderment: how could you go so crazy? It is very likely that in a couple of decades people will look at the entire LGBT movement as an example of mass insanity - and Christians should not rewrite their faith, chasing every fad. Thirdly , the "male" images of God in Scripture cannot be attributed to manifestations of a "patriarchal culture." In extremely patriarchal pagan cultures, people may well have worshiped goddesses. We can recall, for example, the ancient Greek Athena or the Indian Kali. Fourthly, the image of God as a father or spouse carries a number of important meanings that would be lost in a "gender-neutral" language. A man and a woman biologically play different roles - a woman bears, gives birth and raises children, which sharply limits her ability to take care of herself; this care is taken over by her husband. He protects and takes care of housing and food. At least that was the case in the world of the Bible - and in many ways it will be considered now. A father is one who takes care of his family. The mother is the one who needs his care. In the Bible, God is called the "husband" of the people of God, and Christ is the "bridegroom" of the Church. The female image of God would give rise to a completely different system of ideas. In the Bible, God creates the world like an artist, and does not give birth to it like a mother. Unlike some Eastern religions, we are not begotten, but created by God. This is important, in particular, because evil, sin, and imperfection in the world are possible precisely because the world (and ourselves) are not co-natural with God. We are called to what Orthodox theology calls "deification" - participation in the eternal and blessed life of God himself - but we receive this life as a gift, we do not possess it by nature. Fifth, the central event of salvation history is the Incarnation. The eternal Son of God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is fully human, like us in every way except sin, and he is not gender neutral. He's a man. Moreover, Jesus constantly speaks of God as a father; it is hardly possible to attribute this to the peculiarities of the era and culture - because Jesus was never afraid to say things that did not fit into the era at all and terribly annoyed his contemporaries. And if we adhere to Christianity in any form, we must admit that Jesus knew better. Sixth, and most strikingly, the proposed change in the language of worship is a clear adaptation to the current dominant ideology, and such an adaptation is meaningless and detrimental to the church. Liberal communities in the West are rapidly losing parishioners - the progressive public did not go, and does not go, those who believe in God are moving to where the Scriptures are still revered. However, the pressure to impose an "agenda" on everyone - including religious communities - and the fight against "heteronormativism" will only increase, and we will see not only "gender-neutral language", but also a lot of the most wild and bizarre things. This is hardly surprising. February 23, 2023 |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #3 If Allah can be burned, he ain't no big thang... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2023-02-24 07:24 |
| #2 Lastly, scripture is not just "inspiration": “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" Islamists tried to emulate this by saying anyone who burns the Koran is burning Allah himself, and their Penalty is Death is over the top proof of that, even though they miss the point. Burning a book is not very effective in trying to actually attack a god. |
| Posted by: Mad Eye Omeretch7959 2023-02-24 03:05 |
| #1 We can agree that the Bible is not a direct dictation I respectfully disagree slightly with that assertion. 1) The Author of all 66 books is one "Person", the Holy Spirit communicating through the prophets for over 1600 years. 2) A study of sentence structure and word usage once by academics indicated one Author speaking through the prophets. |
| Posted by: Mad Eye Omeretch7959 2023-02-24 02:54 |