From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Handmaid (was "I feel threatened...")
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:55:37 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Charles S. Collins 726-9461 (chuck@ssd.kodak.com) wrote:

>>The Handmaid's Tale is the story of the Republic of Giliad
>>as seen through the eyes of one of the handmaids.  I would 
>>recommend it, at least to see why some people are freightnened
>>of the rise of right wing fundamentalism.
>
>
>I would also recommend a new book by Virginia Mollenkott: "Sensuous 
>Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism."  In the second chapter she
>contrasts Offred's story (from "Handmaid's Tale") with that of the Virgin
>Mary (the handmaid of God).  Interesting reading!

There seem to be a number of people around who were fundamentalists
in the past, but who aren't now and who are critical of those whom
they have left behind. But one question they should look at is their
own impact on the health of the church. It just seems to me that the
trendy leftys do not see anywhere near the same level of conversions
from non-Christians to trendy lefty Christianity as the fundamentalists
do in converting non-Christians to fundamentalist Christianity.

I would like to suggest that it would be better for the trendys to
try to catch the people who fall out the back doors of fundamentalist
and other conservative churches rather than engage in fundy bashing
and publicly promoting a mythological understanding of the Bible.
As a person with liberal views on scripture and a number of other
Christian issues, but one who still attends a conservative pentecostal
church, I see no hope for the continuing life of the liberal churches
unless they find some way of getting people who have become dissatisfied
with conservative Christianity into their churches. In my experience
most of these people just fall by the wayside. There is little that
conservative churches can do to bring these people back, their need
is for a Christianity which openly acknowledges all the problems
but but which doesn't abandon its roots.

The perception of people in the general public of those who espouse
liberal Christianity is that they don't really believe it, but think
that religion is a good thing. I have read some of Lloyd Geerings
work, he used to teach at the Presbyterian theological college
in Dunedin, and as far as I can tell he appears to be an athiest who
thinks religion gives people meaning in their life. To most non-Christians
this is insufficient reason to practice a religious faith. The
Christian ``mythology'' is pretty lousy compared to many other mythologies.
Most people feel that if they want fairy stories, they will read
mother goose. To assign significant chunks of the Bible to the catagory
``myth'' misses the point that the ancient writers believed that God
revealed himself through non-recurring acts within history. Thus the
recording of history for theological purposes was important to them.
This appears to be unique within the ancient world. Their religion was
not based on a mythology, which is what liberal Christians seem to be
claiming is the basis of much of Christianity, but on historical events
in which the work of God was evident.

>Warning:  If you are offended by inclusive language, particularly 
>references to God as female, beware.  Ms. Mollenkott intentionally
>refers to God as female to balance the deeply engrained notion
>that God is male.  Personally, I think she is right in doing so.

You can think what you like, but you must realise that if you change the
imagery with Christianity, then you will change Christianity. Men have
taken it in the neck from radical feminists for about three decades
and the last thing they want is to find that God has deserted them and
turned into a man hating feminist as well. In this country the gender
balance in the church is around 55% women and 45% men. In my experience
the only people who like refering to God as a woman are feminist women
and a few trendy lefty men.

The problem that both Hebrew and English have with ``inclusive language''
is that the languages themselves don't lend themselves easily to such useage.
I quoted this once before here but it won't hurt to repeat  it.
From Watlke and O'Connor's ``An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew 
Syntax'', pages 108 and 109

``The grammatical forms for God are masculine and the representations of
God are mostly masculine. Although God does use a comparison to a 
woman in childbirth (Isa 42:14) nonetheless there is a strong scholarly
consensus that God is regarded as non-sexual. "If sex must be applied
to Israel's diety, it would be monosex, and this is either an incompleteness
or a contradiction in terms". This consensus finds explicit support in
Deut 4:15-16
  You saw no form of any kind on the day YHWH spoke to you at Horeb ... so
  that you do not ... make for yourselves an idol, an image in any shape,
  whether formed like a man or a woman.
One fact providing inferential support is the use of both sexes of a 
sacrificial victim as offerings to God. In the ancient Near East it was
customary to sacrifice male animals to (male) gods and females to godesses.
In Israel's cultus both males and females were sacrificed to God (cf Lev
3:1, 4:23,28). One cannot change or remove the masculine figurative 
representations of God without distorting the text of the Bible''

The few feminine images of God in the Bible aren't all sweetness and light. 
The evil spirit from God which afflicted King Saul is clearly gramatically
feminine. The people who want to bring in inclusive language have to
face the fact that they are making a significant departure from the
Biblical roots of Christianity. In this respect I think the conservatives
are right to oppose this change particularly as it is intended to
satify a small group of discontented people. In the past people who
could not find a home for themselves within existing churches have
formed new denominations. I think that there is a better case for
those who want to try to make a significant departure like this to
form a new denomination rather than to impose their ideas on the
existing churches.

Now forming a new denomination might sound rather a radical suggestion
but I think in this case it is appropriate. Attempts to bring in
inclusive language almost universally creates trouble and disputes.
Furthermore, we don't know if it is a good idea. So those who want it
should set up their own denomination as a kind of experiment. If it
thrives, well and good, we have found a new way of reaching people with
the gospel, if it fails, probably not much will have been lost.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Maybe you consider him trendy, but I think the novels of Greeley use
female references to God in a way that is both tasteful and
theologically sensible.  But I agree that this seems rare.

--clh]