, , , ,

Naturally Violet objected to my post the other day “The Church Impotent, the feminization of Christianity.” I wasn’t going to reply but a couple of things must be addressed and the rest, well comic fodder for my bent sense of humor.

First she accuses, “This accounts for some Christians around the world getting conflicting advice from the Bible and from private discussions with the god God in their own heads.”

Well now, hold up. I wrote a review of Leon Podles book. I wasn’t receiving a Divine revelation or even commenting on the bible. Also, I have never gotten conflicting advice from the Bible that runs contrary to anything God has told me. Never. I sometimes say God is a God of order and simplicity, not confusion and contradiction. God does not play mind games and try to confuse people.

Ironically Violet seems to perceive anything masculine in a negative context and attempts to use the Sermon on the Mount as evidence that Jesus Christ Himself insists on a more feminine faith. She has completely erased the part about chasing money lenders out of the temple with a whip, eluding capture,  or the courage it might take to willingly die in the most tortuous manner possible for the sins of mankind. I realize we often portray Jesus Christ as the epitome of grace and mercy, as the Lamb, but that is only part of the story. He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah, leading a rather rag tag bunch of disciples, fishermen and the like. That’s going to be a decidedly masculine situation, as we see again during His return.

Violet’s last paragraph made me laugh however, and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but she has the feminine listed as these totally moral and spiritual qualities.

“Now we can understand now why the Christian god God would hate to have a church that was feminised! I mean, yuck. In terms of shallow stereotypical gender descriptions, what exactly would that mean? Nurturing, caring, humble, welcoming, inclusive, merciful, loving. Sort of like that horrible mistranslation in the first erroneous Service on the Mount.”

Nurturing, caring, humble, welcoming, inclusive, merciful, loving.  I found it fascinating because none of those qualities are innately moral at all. I mean one can be nurturing someone’s….eating disorder. Their addiction. Their low self-esteem. Oh yes, the feminine likes to do that, too.

“Caring,” I once knew a woman who cared, so, so much, she stabbed this guy in the leg like 8 times. That was her explanation too, I just cared so, so much. “Humble” is good, humble is awesome, except when a mass of Barbary pirates are about to storm the castle and behead everyone. At that point, humble may be the wrong response, especially if people are under your care. “Welcoming” is good, except whom exactly are we welcoming? The pirates that want to behead everyone? Oh, please do come in for tea!

“Inclusive?” Like pedophiles and rapists should be made to feel welcome and encouraged in their life style choices?

“Merciful and loving” are great things, but even those as feminine qualities can leave the realm of all reason and morality. In modern times, we do equate love with morality, so I love my triple tall pumpkin spice latte means it, even as an inanimate object, is  good and moral, and anybody or anything that comes between me and my latte is now evil and immoral.

Not even “love” in the hands of humans can be labeled “moral.” Like that woman who stabbed her boyfriend 8 times…becasue she loved him, so, so much.

If you assume the qualities that we label “feminine” are spiritually superior to the qualities we label “masculine” then you are lost indeed and building and entire belief system on a deception, on one not rooted in reality. In my post the other day, I spoke of power and authority as more masculine qualities, but I was thinking of masculine in a positive context, as in the power and authority of Jesus Christ, the love and provision of the Father.

The Sermon on the Mount does not contradict those qualities at all, it simply turns our human hierarchies on their head. One definition of meek for example, is to be “enduring injury with patience and without resentment.” That’s a quality that takes a great deal of courage and strength. Those who are quick to take offense are not exhibiting masculine characteristics at all. To hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, these are not qualities one can say contradict the masculine,either. So clearly the Sermon on the Mount is not evidence of Christ preaching a feminine faith.

Somewhat comical here too, I’ve never met a single believer that didn’t embrace the masculine, the concept of God the Father, and I’ve never met a single non-believer who didn’t believe faith was supposed to be feminized, who didn’t insist on “God the mother” while at the same time insisting on God the non-existent. Violet is no different, for all her belief in the alleged spiritual superiority of the feminine, she herself rejects her own feminine God.