Many heresies spring from failure to apply basic critical thinking skills. Such is the case with TEC's 'sexual ethics' and with 'gender-neutral' Bibles. What do these have in common? They share an erroneous biblical anthropology.
There is no ontological difference between male and female. Both are human and both are fully in the image of God. Both crown the Creation, being created on the 6th day. Yet it is obvious that men and women are different. The Bible understands the difference as supplementarity. To understand the biblical worldview we must grasp the concept of binary distinctions and the concept of supplementarity. These concepts must be held together to avoid heresy and understand what the Bible teaches us about the created order.
In a sense, woman being created last, is the gemstone of the crown of creation. And of course, this is what Orthodox and Catholic Christians say about THE Woman, the Theotokos, from whom Christ our God became flesh by the Holy Spirit. If we say that the woman is of a substance different from the man, we fall into heresy, because that would mean that the substance of Christ (which HE took from his mother) is different from the substance of men. This is impossible, of course, since Jesus was born a male.
The Faith we've received from the Afro-Asiatics through Abraham recognizes a distinction and supplementarity between male and female when it comes to the order of creation. The man was made first, then the woman. The headship of males was expressed in the blood work of hunting, war, execution of lawbreakers, and in animal sacrifice by the ruler-priest. So Evangelical Anglicans who ordain women as priests but not as bishops on the Principle of Headship are missing the point!
The blood work of women is different and supplementary to the blood work of men. Women sacrifice blood in first marital intercourse. They bleed in their monthly cycle and in childbirth. The blood shed of women represents life and is distinct yet supplementary to the blood shed by men in hunting, war and animal sacrifice.
Among the Afro-Asiatics it was taboo to allow distinct entities to become confused. This is why both men and women were circumcised (a custom that continues in many parts of Africa). Male circumcision was seen as an enhancement of maleness by removing the flabby foreskin that resembles the female organ. The supplement to the circumcised male could only be a circumcised female. In Pharaonic circumcision, the clitoris and labia minora are removed to make the female organ less like the male organ. (Read more about this here.)
The prohibition against mixing types, be they fibers, seeds or blood, is like the prohibition against confusing the holy with the unholy, or blurring the distinction between life and death, such as happens when a baby goat is boiled in its mother's milk (forbidden 3 places in Scripture). That is why each seed is to go to its own kind. As plants are born from the earth, so the seeds of plants return to the earth. As the man is born from the woman, so the seed/semen of man is to return to woman. The spilling of seed called 'onanism' is regarded as an unrighteous deed, a violation of the order of creation. So obviously is homosex.
Bloods were never permitted to mix or even to be present in the same space. And of course, this is what Orthodox and Catholic Christians say about the Eucharist, where Christ's Blood alone is to be present. (That's why, according to ancient instruction in the Priests' Manuals, the priest must immediately leave the Holy Place should he accidently cut himself and bleed.) This is why women never can be priests and why they are "churched" after childbirth, following the ancient custom.
God's ordering of creation is for the benefit of those who would know God's Nature (as St. Paul tells us in Romans). As male and female alike are in God's Image, and God is not divided, neither can we divide in substance the male and the female. In marriage the two are able to become one because they are of the same "kind" and supplementary. Supplementary means that one cannot be perceived to exist without the other. This is a picture of the Godhead - for the Father and the Son (Logos) can't be perceived to exist one from the other. To say that the Word became flesh is to say that the Son of God became human in order to redeem and restore believing humanity to our original state. We fall into heresy when we leave out the part about the "Son" of God. The language of Father and Son is not coincidental to what God is revealing to us. The Father delivers the Kingdom to the Son. The Father presents the Church as a pure and radiant Bride to the Son.
The supplementarity of opposites is evident only when their distinctions are clear. Satan directs a good deal of effort to blurring distinctions by encouraging androgenous dress, homosex and fanning the flames of feminism. Yet if we attend to the binary distinctions of the created order which God declared "good" and we affirm their supplementarity, we are less likely to stray from the one true Path, which is not thing, but Person.
Saint Thomas à Becket
2 hours ago
6 comments:
Thank you Alice. That is very clear, and it would explain why the liberals/homosexualists are so dismissive of the Levitican ban on mixing fibers and mixed planting. On some level they know that those bans are foundational, and speak against their liberal agenda.
"This is a picture of the Godhead - for the Father and the Son (Logos) can't be perceived to exist one from the other."
Alice, You have just given support for the Filioque.
I arrived at this same conclusion meditating on the Ikon of the Trinity by Rublev and posted some thoughts on this Ikon and the Filioque a weeks ago:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-word-never-fails.html
From what you are saying, it seems that from the union (not sexual) that is the united single will and purpose (redemption/restoration) of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is sent by them both, and proceeds to earth to finish the third phase of the triune work of redemption of humanity and the creation: *Revelation: the gift of faith from the Father *Salvation: gift of propitiation and power over sin from the Cross and Resurrection of The Son
*Sanctification: leading us into all truth, giving light, the work of the Holy Spirit in this age.
You've posted similar things before, but I think this is the first time you stated this as one post.
I have to wonder at just how much of progressive thought is cultural and temporal elitism (we know so much better now) and how much is anti-semitism. Your work certainly bolsters the traditional aspects of Christian thought and practise.
Thank you.
Georgia,
If what I wrote gave you the impression that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son, I would say that I do not believe that to be the case. John's Gospel is clear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father while the Son is 'Begotten' of the Father. Here again we must make careful distinctions.
You are correct that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 16:7). In this we see the unity of the Father and the Son. However, being sent by the Father and the Son is not in dispute. The filioque has to do with source or origin of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Nicea held that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Father and the Son. You might want to read more on the doctrine of procession.
Alice,
Great post, as usual!
Angela
Father Rick Lobs has made this response to a woman who read this essay at a clergy listserve. I'm copying a part of his response from his email. The woman to whom he is responding disagrees with the points made in this essay, especially the significance of female circumcision (to which I will respond later).
"This will disappoint you, but I fully affirm what Alice said about blood, but, here is my way of putting it. Men shed blood in death - women in life. They are very different and of critical importance in the order of things. That this will never ever be acknowledged in TEC, or any hip portion of our culture, is a foregone conclusion but it is a profound loss for our Western culture. Women especially would gain from this most ancient understanding. That is why, until basically the 1950's, in no culture, anyplace on earth, was it the task of women to bury the dead - they prepared the dead for burial. Males were about death and burial is about death.
I experienced a seminal moment way back in the middle-seventies, while doing post-graduate work. The car in which I was riding as a passenger was stopped by the police for a traffic violation. As the passenger I could only see the mid-section of the officer. I was shocked to realize it was a female. At that time, as a reminder, female police officers were rare. My thought, my dominating thought, and I do not mean for this to be offensive, was, holy cow, look at the gun belt strapped around her life-giving ovaries. I have offended some with that observation. I still hold it. I am not sure if this issues from my imagination - from the collective consciousness or the collective memory of how males and females function. What am sure of is that it is Hebrew thinking and understanding, which carries over into the New Covenant.
Women are life givers. Men life takers. The blood of the two should not be mixed."
Post a Comment