Is God Masculine?

I'm currently proofing a book for a friend (many of you know him), and I'm finding it a very interesting read. I haven't asked for permission to post on the book, so I'm just going to address one point from one chapter.

The argument that I'm going to address regards the masculinity of God. I don't know if you were taught this or not, but I can remember being taught in college ("Christian" college, that is) that while Jesus was a male and masculine, God is neither male nor masculine (the reason for the masculine pronoun "He" used for God has nothing to do with sex, and is simply a grammatical issue that gets misunderstood when translated into English).

The following is an outline taken directly from the book, intended to promote thoughtful discussion in the comments section.


AN OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE FOR WHY GOD IS MASCULINE

I. How We Know God Is Masculine

A. He is always called He in the Bible. He is never called "She."
B. God identifies Himself in masculine roles and offices.
C. Jesus is male and masculine.
D. Jesus unites many "polarities" in Himself, but never masculinity and femininity.
E. The masculinity of God and Christ have always been confessed by Jews or Christians in history.

II. Objections to the Masculinity of God

A. God is compared to a woman.
B. God is a genderless spirit.
C. The Bible shows a patriarchal bias.
D. When men are compared to women...

III. Why God's Masculinity Matters

A. The Bible reveals a masculine God. If He is not masculine then the Bible is wrong.
B. The Bible reveals a male and masculine Jesus.
C. The real issue is the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Thoughts?

read more

Where Are the Heroes?

I began reading The Hobbit tonight (actually early this morning), and something Tolkien wrote reminded me of the state of affairs today:

"I tried to fine one [hero]; but warriors are busy fighting one another in distant lands, and in this neighborhood heroes are scarce, or simply not to be found. Swords in these parts are mostly blunt, and axes are used for trees, and shields as cradles or dishcovers; and dragons are comfortably far-off (and therefore legendary)" (30).

It seems that many of us, like Eustace, have simply been reading the wrong books.

Any thoughts?

read more

Remembering Grandpa

Wednesday night I was out with some of my buddies when my brother called. I decided to let it go to voicemail, and I would just call him back later. When he called the second time, I knew it was important. I answered the phone, and a shaky voice on the other end of the line explained to me that Grandpa had died just minutes after getting home from the hospital (he had just gotten over a bad case of pneumonia). Rebekah and I raced over to my parents' house (my grandparents live with them) to help out however we could. Grandpa's body was still on the floor where the EMT's had furiously tried to save his life. It was a strange evening.

Last night, Bekah cooked for the family, and after dinner we spent many hours remembering Frank Leganger Richardson; beloved grandfathter, father, and husband. My mom has asked all of us grandkids to write a paragraph or two about him for the funeral on Monday, so I'll have a go with mine here.

There are three things that come to mind when I think about my grandpa: He was skillful, strong, and godly.

Whether he was working in the garden, or singing a tenor solo from Handel's Messiah, he was skillful. He worked hard at everything he did, and settled for nothing less than excellence. My dad once told me that Grandpa used to sing "Comfort Ye, My People," at about half the speed it should be sung, and would seem to sing forever on just one breath, and perfectly on pitch. I never saw my grandpa do anything half-heartedly; he was a skillful man who took pride in all his work, for he knew that his work in the Lord was not in vain.

If you've ever shaken hands with my grandpa (even if it was only last week), you know he was strong. My wife still has bruises on her back from the way he always slapped it when he hugged her. If he ever felt weak or in pain, none of us ever heard about it. I can remember a few short years ago when we visited him in New Jersey, he refused to let any of us carry our luggage up the stairs to the bedrooms. He picked up as many parcels as he could muster, and bolted up the stairs, making sure he never waivered. Was it difficult for him? I imagine so, but he wanted us to know that he was strong.

I believe you could examine every aspect of my grandpa's life, and you would come up with the same conclusion: he was above reproach. He faithfully loved his wife in word and deed, as well as his family. When he prayed over a simple meal, every word was intentional, every word mattered. They were the kind of prayers that made you want to shout, "Amen!" Everything he did in life was done to the glory of God. Grandpa is indeed one of the heroes of the faith, one in the great cloud of witnesses.

I saw his corruptible body on Wednesday night, and I'm so happy that I will see him again on the last day, when the perishable will have put on the imperishable, and the mortal will have put on immortality. Then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?"

read more

Why Men Hate Going to Church

Sorry it's been so long since I blogged last; my world has been anything but sane lately, and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon. However, I will do my darndest to get some good bloggin' on in spite of the hectic schedule.

I'm currently reading a book for which I had high hopes, Why Men Hate Going to Church. So far, however, I have been extremely disappointed. One of my good friends put it best: "It's a mix of Leon Podles book, The Church Impotent, and John Eldridge's famous Wild at Heart." Unfortunately, it has more in common with the latter than the former.

In this post, I'm not going to get into the main problem I have with this book, rather I want to look at just one section that has been bugging me a bit. Murrow is explaining that there are different kinds of churches, most of which are an absolute turn-off to men. He describes one of these as the Ceremony Church:

"We please God by performing rituals. Familiar sacraments, prayers, and traditions are the keys to a succesful worship service. The true (yet unspoken) purpose of church is not to change the world; it is to preserve tradition.

Rituals and tradition are deeply meaningful to some men, especially those who grew up in high churches. But most liturgical churches do a pitiful job reaching unchurched men, who are drawn to the practical rather than the mystical. As Chip MacGregor puts it, 'Men want reality, not more ritual'"(30).

First of all, I agree that sacraments, prayers, and tradition are indeed the keys (at least some of the keys) to a succesful worship service (the author disagrees with this statement). But the second statement in no way follows from the first; it is a non-sequitor. I believe that part of the way the world is changed, is through changing ourselves first, by means of the sacraments, prayers, traditions, etc. Preserving tradition is a very good thing; it's just not an end in itself. We preserve tradition so that we can change the world.

What man would not be drawn to a worship service in which the sacraments are understood clearly and celebrated; the prayers are prayers that are biblical, robust, and masculine; and the traditions are laid out as a road map (liturgy) so that he can know where he is in the service, and where he is going?

Secondly, Murrow states that "most liturgical churches do a pitiful job reaching unchurched men." So what? He has already made the case elsewhere that almost all churches are doing a pitiful job reaching men. The fact that liturgical churches stink at reaching unchurched men has nothing to do with the fact that they are liturgical, and everything to do with the fact that they have forgotten why they are liturgical. Why do we insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

This whole book is just so pragmatic. It asks the wrong question, namely "How can we sell the church in a more attractive way, so that men will want to come back?" The better way to address the problem is to recognize that the men are absent from church because we have failed to be the Church. So how do we get back to being the Church that God has called us to be; the Ancient Church which attracted men and women by the thousands, and whose purpose was worth dying for?

This could all be developed further, but I don't want this post to get too long. Hopefully there are some good discussion points on the table.

read more