Egalitarianism stretches further than just a gender issue

[mkgal1]

Forgive me if this comes off a bit scrambled. I'm still in "process mode". I feel as if a lot of scattered thoughts sort of came together for me yesterday. I saw the movie, the Shack--and I really enjoyed it. I hadn't read the book, nor did I really even read any blogs or articles about the book or movie (so I went in w/o any expectations). All I knew was that there was controversy over it. I now think it's a beautiful depiction of the Gospel and of the Trinity. I also think that this sort of unearthed for me that there's more to egalitarianism than just gender equality here on earth. I'd say this movie is an excellent characterization of "egalitarianism" summed up (that God loves ALL His creation--not just a select few that do exactly as He desires).

I think our views of atonement (or "at-one-ment") also are relevant to egalitarianism. I believe the divide is: either one believes in a God that is about a system of "punish and reward" (and some "make it" and others are "out"--there is no in-between).....or we believe in a God that desires to reconcile ALL creation back to the Creator and evil is slowly worked out with the enduring love of God.

I believe that patriarchy has more to do with an overall system of control....much more than it has to do with gender. I see it across this forum---those that are rigid in their beliefs, really seem to view God in terms of "what He punishes" (with a focus on fear) instead of the focus being on love. There's also a certainty with the patriarchal view (ISTM)....things are very formulaic and simplified (with no room for any nuance)---and I wonder if that's the allure? The certainty.

Does any of that make sense? Care to add your thoughts?

 

[Paidiske]

I think you're noticing something significant, there. I don't know that I can articulate it all, either.

But as far as patriarchy goes, I remember reading that it's not that patriarchy is the oppression of all women by all men, but that it is the oppression of most people by a minority of (mostly) men. And that touches on your comment about a "system of control."

In a way I was thinking about something similar yesterday, because someone else had said to me that our views on the ordination of women - whether we're for or against - don't change our understanding of God. And my visceral response was to think that yes, they do, because a God who divides us up into two groups and apportions leadership and teaching responsibility only to one group is a very different God than the one who gifts and calls indiscriminately. But I haven't found the right way to articulate that properly yet, either.

 

[mkgal1]

But as far as patriarchy goes, I remember reading that it's not that patriarchy is the oppression of all women by all men, but that it is the oppression of most people by a minority of (mostly) men. And that touches on your comment about a "system of control."

Ah...okay, I think I've heard that before as well (but it wasn't at the forefront of my mind). There's a sort of "profile" of the people that cling to the patriarchal belief system--and I've noticed that it's very quick, almost knee-jerk, resolutions to questions (and then they're decided--no moving from that). It's almost as if that's what they think of God (and they better watch their step). They also seem to impose that same fear onto others (and I guess that's what really impacted me yesterday)---there's no room for others to have their own perceptions about *anything* without warnings.

As far as your conversation about women's ordination....I can't see how *any* conclusion we come to about our faith leaves our understanding of God out of it.

 

[JackRT]

It was about 30 years ago that I delivered my first sermon as a layman. It concerned patriarchy. I regret that I have since lost my sermon notes. Suffice it to say that my conclusion was that patriarchy is arguably the worst evil that humanity has ever inflicted on itself. And now after all this elapsed time, I in all humility, am forced to conclude that I was right.

 

[mkgal1]

You were far ahead of the class, it seems, Jack. I agree--I think you were (are!) correct. It's really insidious (and harms us all!). It also parades as "righteousness" which is what I believe makes it so truly evil (and I use that word sparingly).

 

[Dave-W]

I think the OP is onto something. I just read a story (couple of weeks ago) about a cult leader in the US named Jane Whaley. She is all about control.

Jane Whaley | Religious Cults Info ~ Resources, Answers and Hope

Another one I ran into 20+ years ago was Gwen Shaw and her "End Time Handmaidens" organization. That group tried to take over the congregation I was in at the time, anointing some person (female) as pastor of our church. None of us had ever met her and we already had a pastor.

Beware the Strange Influence of Gwen Shaw

 

[Paidiske]

Is it just me, or did Dave just turn the premise of the OP on its head?

 

[Dave-W]

Is it just me, or did Dave just turn the premise of the OP on its head?

LOL! Perhaps I did. The OP was talking about "control."

I believe that patriarchy has more to do with an overall system of control.

I gave a couple of examples of how control works both ways.

IMO it is equally destructive either way.

I have my own "rules of power:"
1 - those in power do everything they can to stay in power
2 - having done #1, they do what they can to increase their power

 

[Greg J.]

The phrase "system of control" reminds me of The Matrix movies and how they associated systemic control with deception and maintaining control over humans. It is not the patriarchy or any other authoritarian structure that is bad—after all God giving more than 600+ commands and obey if you want to be blessed, and disobey and you will be cursed, could be viewed as the biggest system of control ever.

What really matters is the intent and capabilities of those with power. God gives authority for the purpose of protecting and helping those under that authority (the same purpose as the 600+ commands and requiring obedience). But if evil men come into power, they can use the 600+ commands and requiring obedience as their tool of oppression. What is in their hearts and minds matters far more than what tools they have at their disposal.

One way to view the New Covenant in Christ is God's way of destroying the power of rules, legalism, and evil intent. The problem is that people still think, act, and believe they are still under the old system, and Satan steps up to accommodate them—sometimes through humans. However, people full of the Truth can blow away the comparatively feeble power of the oppressors. Hence the huge and lethal problem of deception and suppressing the Truth.

Being a disciple of Jesus (in study, trust, and obedience) brings Truth to the disciple, and it is the Truth that sets a person free.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32, 1984 NIV)

LOL! Perhaps I did. The OP was talking about "control."

I gave a couple of examples of how control works both ways.

IMO it is equally destructive either way.

I have my own "rules of power:"
1 - those in power do everything they can to stay in power
2 - having done #1, they do what they can to increase their power

He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. (John 7:18, 1984 NIV)

Power does not corrupt one who's actions are from their heart for God (who knows all and holds him accountable).

 

[mkgal1]

LOL! Perhaps I did. The OP was talking about "control."

But there's a system of control in most of the Christian church--that's what I was referring to. It's not just limited to outlying cults.

It is not the patriarchy or any other authoritarian structure that is bad—after all God giving more than 600+ commands and obey if you want to be blessed, and disobey and you will be cursed, could be viewed as the biggest system of control ever

This is what I was referring to. THIS system here--the punish/reward system.

I believe God's system is more of a love/heal system (as depicted in the Shack).

What really matters is the intent and capabilities of those with power. God gives authority for the purpose of protecting and helping those under that authority (the same purpose as the 600+ commands and requiring obedience). But if evil men come into power, they can use the 600+ commands and requiring obedience as their tool of oppression. What is in their hearts and minds matters far more than what tools they have at their disposal.

That's what I believed for a long time (and have only shed that belief in the last few days). What if the purpose isn't so much about the justice of punishing evil men--but instead to focus on the "less of these" and raising them up (and the powerful being the ones to create boundaries that leave no room for evil)?

Someone (I can't recall who or even what thread) posted the other day about restorative justice, and I believe that's far closer to the heart of God than any penal system we've had.

 

[mkgal1]

The phrase "system of control" reminds me of The Matrix movies and how they associated systemic control with deception and maintaining control over humans

I'm really going to have to sit and watch that movie. It seems to come up in conversation all.the.time.

 

[mkgal1]

The system of control appeals to our [probably misplaced or immature] sense of justice. That's why it's the basis for most cults. If someone does something "wrong" (defined by us)...we want them to pay for it. That's where the penal substitutionary atonement theory comes in. If we believe that God endorses that---it gives it that much more validity.

But I now don't believe that God required an act of violence in order to satisfy Him because of our sin. I don't think His mind needed to be changed. I believe it was more to endear us to Him. Richard Rohr put it this way: "Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God".

 

[Dave-W]

I'm really going to have to sit and watch that movie. It seems to come up in conversation all.the.time.

Indeed you should. But beware - it can be very - unchristian - at times. Violent, immoral and a bit cultic.

 

[Greg J.]

But there's a system of control in most of the Christian church--that's what I was referring to. It's not just limited to outlying cults.

There was a minor system in one of the three churches I have attended. No such system in the other two.

... (and have only shed that belief in the last few days). ...

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Someone (I can't recall who or even what thread) posted the other day about restorative justice, and I believe that's far closer to the heart of God than any penal system we've had.

One of the great causes of falling away from God these days is through the idea that justice, in the sense of paying for wrongs, needs to be restorative to the perpetrator. The One who defines justice has demonstrated repeatedly this is not true. If any restitution can be made, it is made to the victims in the context of the well-being of society. Unfortunately, people darkened by their sinful nature are not blessed by justice no matter what criteria for "justice" are used.

 

[mkgal1]

I do think it all goes back to what we believe about the cross.

How and why would God need a “blood sacrifice” before God could love what God had created? Is God that needy, unfree, unloving, rule-bound, and unable to forgive? Once you say it, you see it creates a nonsensical theological notion that is very hard to defend. Many rightly or wrongly wondered, “What will God ask of me if God demands violent blood sacrifice from his only Son?” Particularly if they had a rageaholic or abusive parent, they were already programmed to believe in punishment as the shape of the universe. A violent theory of redemption legitimated punitive and violent problem solving all the way down—from papacy to parenting. There eventually emerged a disconnect between the founding story of necessary punishment and Jesus’ message. If God uses and needs violence to attain God’s purposes, maybe Jesus did not really mean what he said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), and violent means are really good and necessary. Thus our history.

In Franciscan parlance, Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God. This grounds Christianity in pure love and perfect freedom from the very beginning. It creates a very coherent and utterly positive spirituality, which draws people toward lives of inner depth, prayer, reconciliation, healing, and even universal “at-one-ment,” instead of mere sacrificial atonement. Nothing changed on Calvary, but everything was revealed as God’s suffering love—so that we could change! (Please read that again.)

 

[Greg J.]

Indeed you should. But beware - it can be very - unchristian - at times. Violent, immoral and a bit cultic.

The first time I watched it, I noted about 30 references to Scripture. The script was written according to the story of Jesus Christ as savior. But I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[mkgal1]

No such system in the other two.

I'm considering even the system of "you do what pleases God and you will be blessed" and even further "you go to heaven, you go to hell" as a system of control. The "you're in---you're out" way of thinking; "you're good, he's evil"; "they're a godly bunch, but those others are following the devil". All of that I see as a system of control.

 

[Dave-W]

But I now don't believe that God required an act of violence in order to satisfy Him because of our sin.

I was raised with the substitutionary atonement theology as well. But these days I lean toward a more covenantal reason - that no covenant can be initiated without shedding blood - Heb 9.17-18.

Forgiveness of sins is a provision of being in the New Covenant:

Jer 31.33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[Greg J.]

I'm considering even the system of "you do what pleases God and you will be blessed" and even further "you go to heaven, you go to hell" as a system of control. The "you're in---you're out" way of thinking; "you're good, he's evil"; "they're a godly bunch, but those others are following the devil". All of that I see as a system of control.

There never has been, and still isn't, a system of "do what pleases God to go to heaven." As for Deuteronomy 28 (be blessed or be cursed), it needs to be read in the context of the spiritual nature of the universe (Romans 5:13-14) and that all humans have a nature, and confirm it's the nature they want, that cannot survive God's presence (particularly after they physically die).

CAC article said:
How and why would God need a “blood sacrifice” before God could love what God had created? Is God that needy, unfree, unloving, rule-bound, and unable to forgive? Once you say it, you see it creates a nonsensical theological notion that is very hard to defend. Many rightly or wrongly wondered, “What will God ask of me if God demands violent blood sacrifice from his only Son?” Particularly if they had a rageaholic or abusive parent, they were already programmed to believe in punishment as the shape of the universe. A violent theory of redemption legitimated punitive and violent problem solving all the way down—from papacy to parenting. There eventually emerged a disconnect between the founding story of necessary punishment and Jesus’ message. If God uses and needs violence to attain God’s purposes, maybe Jesus did not really mean what he said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), and violent means are really good and necessary. Thus our history.

Not sure why you included this, but it sure is messed up, starting with the false proposition in the first sentence.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Actually, your quote below is what I was referring to. I got a bit ahead (and did assume some) but you actually clarified better than I could have.

One of the great causes of falling away from God these days is through the idea that justice, in the sense of paying for wrongs, needs to be restorative to the perpetrator. The One who defines justice has demonstrated repeatedly this is not true. If any restitution can be made, it is made to the victims in the context of the well-being of society. Unfortunately, people darkened by their sinful nature are not blessed by justice no matter what criteria for "justice" are used.

Where do you get the idea that supports the bold text?

I believe that victims need to be supported and healed by the love of many (but, honestly, I think that there's a lot of improvement necessary in that area).

I also do not believe our focus on "punishing" is serving any one well. I see it being used from misunderstandings between friends instead of a go-to attitude of love and restoration (for one example of how it covers all areas of our lives). If one has that attitude of "punish the sin".....ISTM that there's NO room for love (and, actually, many consider punish = love ). That seems to me to be where patriarchy has taken us.