by Steve | Jul 15, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Why did Jesus think he had to die?
By Michael Green
At first sight this is a foolish question. If Jesus was human, then of course he had to die. But there is something very odd about the emphasis on his death in the Gospels. In any ordinary biography of a great man, the account of his last days and death would normally form only a short chapter in a longish book.
But with Jesus it is very different. The account of his last few days, his death and resurrection occupies very nearly half of the Gospels. What accounts for this remarkable imbalance? There are twelve biblical reasons.
1. We find Jesus teaching that his death is inevitable. It must be so. Early in Mark’s Gospel he says that he, the Bridegroom, will be taken away from the party (Mark 2:19-20). In the next chapter we find him seeing to the heart of the Pharisees, who were complaining at his healing on the Sabbath.
He asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” And immediately a plot was hatched to kill him (3:6).
He knew he had to die. And the theme is repeated time and again in the central portion of the oldest Gospel. He gives the prediction of his fate in almost the same words in Mark 9:31 and 10:33, culminating in the ransom saying of 10:45 to which we will return.
2. His death was necessary in order to fulfill the Scriptures. Jesus clearly believed that the Scriptures had much to say about himself, and that they predicted his death. All the evangelists mention this. Luke represents Jesus after the resurrection as saying: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:25).
3. Jesus sees his death as totally voluntary. He said “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18).
In St. John’s Gospel Jesus repeatedly taught that nobody could touch him because his hour was not yet come. But when it did come, he was to be found making his way to Jerusalem and to his death. It would be hard to make the point more strongly that his death was voluntary.
4. Jesus made it plain that this voluntary death of his was the Father’s will. “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again” (John 10:17). The most sublime words in the whole Gospel make this plain: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son …” (John 3:16). And when the sunshine of those words changes to the night of Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane, it is the same message that comes through. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). As ever, he and the Father were in perfect harmony: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
5. In his death, Jesus identified with sinners. This was totally unlike any rabbi, who despised the people of the land as “sinners” who could never attain to the law of God. But Jesus received such; he ate with them.
6. His death was God’s judgment on the world. Jesus made this plain in direct statements like the following: “Now is the time of judgment on this world. … But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:31).
The theme recurs many times in St. John. But it also comes in more pictorial ways in other Gospels. One of the starkest is the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:1-9). The Jews saw the point, were furious, and tried ineffectually to arrest him. His time had not yet come, but he had made very plain that one purpose of his death was to demonstrate God’s judgment on the sinfulness of a rebel world.
7. Jesus saw his death as a sacrifice. This is very plain from the Last Supper, a meal laden with Passover imagery. Instead of referring to the lamb or the “bread of affliction” eaten by their forefathers in the Exodus, Jesus says, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood of the covenant.”
And lest they should ever misunderstand, lest they should ever forget this supreme purpose of his death, he instituted a meal, the Communion, to be celebrated often in remembrance of him.
8. Jesus’ death was a ransom. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). What can he mean? It can only be that our lives are forfeit, but that they can be liberated by the surrender of his own.
The word “ransom” was widely used in the ancient world. It applied to the release of prisoners of war and the liberation of slaves. It is as if man is a prisoner of war; Jesus has released him. Or as if he is a slave; Jesus has given him his freedom. Or as if his life is forfeit; Jesus delivers man from that terrible predicament, but only by surrendering his own.
9. His death was representative. Lest “ransom” should seem like cheap grace, Jesus also told his disciples that they must take up their cross and follow him (Mark 8:34).
The principle of costly self-giving must mark the disciples as it does the master. When asked by the sons of Zebedee about the position of honor in the kingdom of God, Jesus asked them if they were able to drink the cup he was to drink, or be baptized with the baptism which was to overwhelm him (10:38ff).
10. His death was a victory. St. Mark’s Gospel lays particular stress on his overcoming demonic forces which so assailed his ministry. As early as Mark 1:21-27, we read of the power of Jesus over an unclean spirit. “Have you come to destroy us?” it asked. That is precisely what he had come to do. The culmination of this victory of Jesus is to be found at the cross. During the Last Supper he said he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine until he drank it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25). As he faced the cross he said, “the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me” (John 14:30). Jesus went on to say, “the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 14:30; 16:11). This stress on Jesus the victor is drawn out very much in the Fourth Gospel and in some of the Epistles.
11. His death was total darkness. There was an uncanny darkness which fell on the world during the crucifixion, out of which came that terrible cry of inner dereliction derived from Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).
12. His death was total vindication. Darkness was not the end. The first words of Psalm 22 are probably meant to give indication of the triumphant conclusion to that psalm. Moreover, there are many other occasions on which Jesus predicted a wonderful outcome of his sufferings.
In flash after flash Jesus looks through the calamity of the cross to God’s vindication of him. As he taught the couple on the Emmaus road, in the light of all the Scriptures (particularly Isaiah 53 and Psalm 110:1), “Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:26).
In passages such as these, Jesus is holding together his death and vindication. The cross without the resurrection is utterly disastrous, the sad end of a great man. The resurrection without the cross is utterly banal, the traditional happy ending.
Jesus knew that his death would mean total identification with the lot of sinners, though he himself was sinless. He was drawn to that cross to express God’s judgment on the world, and at the same time to offer his life as a sacrifice, a ransom, in which he would be Godforsaken as he bore the sins of the world.
Yet he seems to have perceived that his death would not be the end. God would raise him from the dead, and by going to Calvary he would open a gate through death for believers. And all this would spell God’s victory over evil in all its forms, together with its satanic fount.
That is a powerful combination of answers to the question, “Why did Jesus think he had to die?” Nor must we forget that the disciple is no less called to the path of self-sacrifice.
As Bishop Stephen Neill was fond of observing, “We all have some dying to do. Jesus showed us how it should be done.”
Michael Green is an Advisor in Evangelism to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and a partner in “Springboard,” their initiative for the Decade of Evangelism. His ministry has included teaching, administration, and pastoring at institutions such as St. John’s College in Nottingham, England; Regent College in Vancouver, Canada; and St. Aldate ‘s Church in Oxford, England. This article is adapted from one of his numerous books, The Empty Cross of Jesus. Used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK.
by Steve | May 16, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Re-Imagining and the Fair Name of Ecumenism
By Geoffrey Wainwright
We did not last night name the name of Jesus,” said a participant in one of the worship services at the Minneapolis “Re- Imagining” Conference, and then more generally: “Nor have we done anything in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Her remarks were met by laughter and cheers. Since, then, nothing Christian took place, it might seem that we could stop worrying and forget about the whole thing. Unfortunately, however, some have claimed a Christian status for the Minnesota event. And, in particular, some have invoked the principle of ecumenism to justify the participation by United Methodists. It is the ecumenical question that I want to address.
For all my adult life, I have been engaged in the ecumenical movement; and in recent years, I have regretted it when Evangelicals have tended to contrast themselves with Ecumenicals. For I have always seen myself as standing within classical Christianity: Evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic Christianity. And I have always understood the modem ecumenical movement—from its origins and at its best—to be about the manifestation and attainment of the unity of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. And for what purpose?
The early motto of the ecumenical movement was taken from the prayer of Jesus for his disciples at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one.” And why this unity? “That the world may believe.” Division among Christians diminishes their witness to a gospel that declares “God has reconciled the world to himself.” When, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Methodist layman John R. Mott led his church and others into the ecumenical movement, it was in the service of “the evangelization of the world in this generation.” The same cause inspired the great Edinburgh missionary conference in 1910 and led to the formation of the International Missionary Council (IMC). After World War II, the IMC brought its energies into the World Council of Churches (WCC).
Of course, Christian unity is not simply a matter of assembling a humanly organized community around a humanly contrived message. The Church gathers around the one gospel and correspondingly seeks to confess and proclaim the one faith. That is why matters of Faith and Order have been essential to the ecumenical movement. Through long years of study and reflection, consultation and conference, classical ecumenism has painstakingly brought the churches closer to agreement on the core contents of Christian doctrine and practice. That is the achievement of the Lima text on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (1982), of “Confessing the One Faith” (1990), and of numerous texts produced in bilateral dialogues among the Christian communions. Genuine ecumenism will respect and build on these hard-gained convergences. It is the failure to abide by the ground rules that disqualifies the Minneapolis event, however varied the denominational allegiances of its participants, from any claim to the honorable title of ecumenical. Let me illustrate that with regard to the membership basis of the World Council of Churches.
The constitution of the WCC established it as “a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior.” How then could applause greet a speaker at Minneapolis saying, “I don’t think we need a theory of atonement at all. … I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff”? The WCC makes its confession “according to the Scriptures.” How then could the liturgies of Minneapolis turn the divine wisdom of Proverbs into an independent deity, to be called on in prayer as “Sophia, creator God”? The WCC seeks to accomplish its mission “to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” How then could the Minneapolis event feature as a speaker Chung Hyun Kyung, notorious since the 1991 WCC gathering in Canberra, who duly obliged by introducing a “new trinity” of “goddess”—Cali, Quani, and Enna?
The new general secretary of the WCC, Dr. Konrad Raiser, has claimed that “if the WCC did not exist, we should have to invent it.” That is no justification for the sad decline from the original vision and the abandonment of existing achievements. The disaster of Minneapolis should serve as a summons to recall the World Council of Churches and all ecumenical agencies to their first vocation of uniting Christians for the proclamation of the Name in which salvation is to be found. And the Decade of Solidarity with Women would be better marked by honoring and emulating those who have contributed so much to classical ecumenism: a Suzanne de Dietrich and an Ellen Flesseman-van Leer in their Bible studies, a Janet Lacey in interchurch aid, a Kathleen Bliss and a Madeleine Barot in the cooperation of men and women in church and society, the many women missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and local church leaders who have testified to the one gospel in every land, and the countless millions of women who have united throughout more than a century for the annual World Day of Prayer.
Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright a minister of the British Methodist Church, is the Robert E. Cushman Professor of Christian Theology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He is chairman of the World Methodist Council’s committee on ecumenism and dialogues. Wainwright is a co-editor of the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Eerdmans and WCC Publications) and the author of numerous books.
by Steve | May 15, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: The Beauty of the Cross
By Alister E. McGrath
Corporations spend huge sums of money on designing logos. Advertising agencies are hired to conceive a logo which will express the qualities that the corporation wants to be associated with it in the public mind. These are usually qualities such as stability, reliability, progressiveness, or aggressiveness. This design will appear on their letterheads, on their products, and be prominently displayed at their national and local headquarters. In the 1980s the British Labour party, anxious to shake off its associations with an increasingly unpopular socialism, abandoned its traditional logo—a red banner—in favor of a red rose. A red banner conjured up now unacceptable images of such things as military parades in Red Square, Moscow. A rose evoked more tender and sensitive associations for the British people (traditionally noted for their love of gardening in general, and roses in particular). Militant associations were being rejected in favor of more compassionate and gentle ones, designed to project the image of a caring party. A logo tells us a lot about a corporation or organization—or, at least, about how they would like us to see them.
An organization which chose as its logo a hangman’s noose, a firing squad, a gas chamber or an electric chair would accordingly seem to have taken leave of its senses. It would be sheer madness to choose an instrument of execution as a symbol of an organization. Its members would instantly be regarded as perverted, sick, having a morbid obsession with death, or having a nauseating interest in human suffering. It would be an advertising agency’s nightmare. Only an organization determined to fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible would be mad enough to choose such a symbol.
And yet exactly such a symbol is universally recognized as the logo of Christianity. Christians are baptized with the sign of the cross. Churches and other Christian places of meeting do not merely include a cross; they are often built in the shape of a cross. Many Christians make the sign of the cross in times of danger or anxiety. The graves of Christians are marked with crosses. Careful studies of the origins and development of Christian symbolism have made it clear that the cross was seen as the symbol of the Christian gospel from the earliest of times.
But why? Why choose such a shocking and offensive symbol? Why not choose something more caring and compassionate? Throughout history, people have been scandalized by the cross. Many of its critics have argued that Christianity would have a much more favorable public image if it abandoned this absurdity. Even at the time of the New Testament, the bad press received by the cross was fully appreciated. Paul had no doubts that the Christian emphasis upon the cross was regarded as outrageous by two very significant groups of people. The Jews regarded it as scandalous, and the Greeks saw it as sheer madness (I Corinthians 1:23).
So, given this widespread hostility in the world towards the cross, why not abandon it? Why not allow public relations and advertising agencies to come up with some new symbol of the gospel, which would be far more attractive to the general public? There has never been a shortage of people urging that this should be done. It would, we are told, be much easier to sell the gospel in the marketplace of life if it was more attractively packaged. Get rid of these unpleasant associations with death, suffering and execution. These are barbarous ideas, which needlessly offend the sensibilities of intelligent and cultured people. Then the Christian faith could achieve new heights of influence and acceptability.
But the cross has a relevance of its own, which must not be lost. It is a potent symbol of Christian realism. It declares that any outlook on life which cannot cope with the grim realities of suffering and death does not deserve to get a hearing. This symbol of suffering and death affirms that Christianity faces up to the grim, ultimate realities of life. It reminds us of something we must never be allowed to forget. God entered into our suffering and dying world in order to bring it newness of life. Those outside Christianity need to Learn—need to be told about—its relevance and power for the tragic situation of humanity. It is a sign of a glory which is concealed. It confronts the worst which the world can offer, and points to—and makes possible—a better way. It stands as a symbol of hope which transfigures, in a world which is too often tinged with sadness and tears.
So consider the cross. A symbol of death? No. A symbol of suffering? No. A symbol of a world of death and suffering? Not quite. A symbol of hope in the midst of a world of death and suffering? Yes! A symbol of a God who is with us in this dark world, and beyond? Yes! In short, the cross stands for a hope that is for real, in a world that is for real. But that world will pass away, while that hope will remain for eternity.
Alister E. McGrath is a member Oxford University Faculty of Theology and is lecturer in Christian doctrine at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. This article is taken from one of his numerous book, What Was God Doing on the Cross? Copyright© 1992 by Alister McGrath. Used by permission o Zondervan Publishing House.
by Steve | Mar 15, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Feminist Theology Examined
Sophia and the Bible
by John Oswalt
The recent proceedings at the “Re-Imagining” Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, have been a cause of great concern throughout the mainline denominations. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the gathering was the worship and adoration paid to Sophia. In their desire to educate the attendees the propagators of this form of worship have put forward several theologically unsound concepts. At their roots, these propositions are a reflection of feminist theology, and as such, deserve our critical investigation.
Unfortunately, the feminist theological view cannot be called a valid interpretation of biblical intent, because it refuses at the outset to let the Bible say what it will from within its own self-understanding. The feminist interpretation focuses not so much on what the biblical text says, but upon what it might have said if certain things included in the text were not in the text, and if certain things which are not in the text were in it.
The new teachings about Sophia are not the result of scholarly and objective look at Christian doctrine. They are an attempt by persons who have rejected the biblical teachings about Christ to remain within the “Christian” Church. Susan Cady, a UM minister and co-author of Wisdoms Feast: Sophia in Study and Celebration, asked herself a very interesting question as she celebrated communion one day. She asked: “What am I doing? Celebrating the experience of some man? What does He have to do with me?” Later that same week Cady wrote about a vision of Sophia, peering through the window of a door and calling to her, “What are you afraid of anyway? Do you think I care about your old theology? Do you think I care what name you name me?” When you are dealing with this kind of rationale, argumentation is of little use.
The feminist outlook makes a very selective use of biblical evidence to support its case that there is a warrant for the Christian worship of a goddess called “Sophia.” Furthermore, a good deal of the argumentation consists of conjectures about what the Bible might have said about the goddess if certain conjectured developments had taken place. In other words, we very frequently find a conjecture resting upon conjectures which rest upon still others.
It has been asserted that the personalization of wisdom is a prominent feature of the “Old Testament.” In fact, the only place in the entire Old Testament where wisdom is personified is in three passages in the early chapters of Proverbs, where the personalization is heavily qualified by the context. The chief support for the theory is actually drawn from the apocryphal books of Baruch, Sirach, and Eccleasiasticus, which the Jewish community never accorded canonical authority. Yet many feminist scholars have chosen to gloss over this very important fact. They then proceed to use the phraseology “Old Testament” to include the Apocrypha, with the result being that uninformed audiences are misled into believing that the canonical Old Testament contains a significant number of these instances of personalization. This is not responsible use of data.
When it comes to the actual biblical statements, feminist scholars show a distressing tendency to assign meaning without paying adequate attention to context, whether within the passage or around it. This is especially true with regard to the Proverbs passages. For instance, hokma, “wisdom,” is regularly treated as a synonym of “understanding” and “discretion.” It is perfectly clear in this context that these latter two words are not proper nouns and that therefore “wisdom” is not either. This setting tells us that, far from declaring that the Jews believed in the existence of a goddess named Hokma, the passages are personalizing an abstract concept for the purposes of impact. Attention to these and other clues within the Proverbs passages themselves makes it abundantly clear that the literary device of personification is being used and that no statement about divine personages is intended.
This contention is further strengthened by a study of chapters 1-8 of Proverbs in the light of chapter 31 and the entire book. Such a study shows that the purpose of the book is to attribute wisdom to the kind of a wife who if clung to faithfully, will build up her husband; and folly to an adulteress who promises everything, asking nothing while actually taking everything and giving nothing. Far from speaking about a Hebrew goddess who can give credence to the agenda of 20th Century western feminism, these chapters are urging us to cling to the accumulated principles for living which the book contains just as one would cling to a spouse who will do nothing but good for her mate.
These scholars completely ignore this contextual shaping of the materials and thus produce an interpretation which is totally at odds with the book; or, if the contextual shaping is finally addressed (as in the previous paragraph), they swiftly categorize that understanding with a hotly pejorative “sexist” label. They then undertake a convoluted consideration of the possible social context of wisdom literature to explain how this unfortunate condition could have come to exist. But their own research concludes that it is impossible to determine why the supposed goddess might appear in such a setting. It hardly warrants mentioning that if feminists had paid adequate attention to the context in the first place, the hypothetical goddess would never have appeared and would need no explanation.
Furthermore, there is a tendency among these scholars to read much more into a statement than plain sense will bear. Several cases in point appear in Proverbs 8. In books such as Wisdom’s Feast, it is suggested that this chapter points to an Israelite belief in a female consort of God who sexually creates the world with him. But a straight-forward reading of the text says none of this. What it says is that wisdom was the first of God’s creations, and was with him as he created the rest of the world, delighting in all he did. Wisdom is a creation, not a divine being. Wisdom does not create, but only accompanies the transcendent God as he creates. As for the idea of “playing” or “delighting in” connoting sexual activity, there is nothing in the context to suggest such a concept. God delights in wisdom and wisdom delights in what he has made, especially human beings.
If feminists have read into the chapter what is not there, then what is the chapter’s point? The chapter is, in fact, saying that the wisdom teachings—the principles for appropriate and effective living that follow in the book—are not simply a human, utilitarian collection. By means of imagery, a common feature of wisdom writing, the chapter is insisting that the wisdom principles of the Bible are inherent in creation itself. In fact, these principles were built right into creation by God. That is why it is so important to live by them, and that is why they will be such a blessing to the person who does live by them. There is no goddess here.
The New Testament
The feminist treatment of the New Testament is similar. Scattered passages are read in ways which neither their espoused world view nor their contextual shaping will permit. Then, when these scholars are asked why even with this kind of radical surgery there are still so few passages to support their case, they answer that the other statements (which do not exist) were suppressed. This is not responsible use of the text nor of the rules of evidence.
A reading of Paul’s half dozen references to wisdom in their contextual settings makes it clear that for him God’s wisdom is God’s determination to save the world by means of the death and resurrection of his son. Thus, Jesus is the embodiment of that wisdom, and it is an offense to the Jews and folly to the Greeks. There is no female figure either implicit or explicit here. Even more to the point, the independent female deity which these scholars have constructed is not here.
The case is somewhat different in the book of John. Here the general similarity in language with some of the apocryphal wisdom literature does suggest that John has appropriated some of the descriptions of personalized wisdom to talk about Jesus. But what does that say? Not nearly what feminist scholars claim for it. First of all, this connection of Jesus to wisdom is far from being the organizing principle of the book.
Secondly, they do not understand the program of the Gospel of John. Quite clearly, the evangelist is saying that all the fragmentary philosophies which were current in the religious culture of the period between the Old and New Testaments have found their goal and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. What none of those philosophies could do in saving the world, he has done! For their incompleteness he gives completeness. All that is right and true about them is to be found in him, and it is by comparison with him that what is right and true about them emerges. Thus, John is far from identifying Jesus with the hypothetical wisdom goddess in an effort to garner some of her supposed fame for his messiah candidate, Jesus. Rather, John was saying to those Jews of his day who were viewing wisdom as their own equivalent to Greek philosophy, that what they were actually looking for was Jesus. John is not identifying Jesus with the supposedly glorious Sophia; he is incorporating wisdom into Jesus! According to John, it was Jesus for whom the Jews were groping in their increasingly elaborate images of wisdom during the intertestamental period.
It might be surprising that Sophia proponents give so little attention to the book of James, which is the one book in the New Testament that could be called a wisdom book. Their inattention is explainable, however, because the wisdom discussed in James is so clearly connected to principles for living that there is no room for the hypothetical goddess.
The Early Church
The treatment of early Church history by feminist scholars shows the same kinds of errors which characterize their biblical exegesis. Particularly distressing are the drawing of large conclusions from small amounts of evidence and the use of hypotheses as though they are facts. We are told by some proponents of Sophia worship that their practices were very important in the early church, yet almost no evidence is given in early Christian documents to support the assertion, and what is given is highly ambiguous. It is then argued that Sophia worship was lost because it became associated with Gnosticism in the Christological controversies and became a casualty when gnostic theology was defeated.
First of all, we know almost nothing directly about Gnosticism; what we do know is largely by implication from the writings of its opponents, and those implications are subject to multiple interpretations. Second, it does not follow that the supposed Sophia worship was part of Gnosticism merely because we believe the gnostics sponsored salvation by means of intellectual accomplishment. Third, to say that what does not now exist—that is, evidence that any Christians ever believed in a goddess of wisdom—does not exist because it was rewritten and ultimately written out, is to beg the question in a most serious way. But even if all the above could actually be shown to be matters of fact, which they cannot, since those who gave Christian theology its distinctive shape would have declared Sophia worship heretical, how can we now lift it up as a worthy choice for Christian belief?
Conclusion
In their reaction against what they see as the sins of Western Christendom, feminist scholars have chosen a way which, throughout its long history, has produced the very opposite effects of those they hope for. What they have chosen is the way of paganism, in which the gods are simply an expression of this world. This is the world view of all the great world religions except Judaism, Christianity, Islam—all three of which have been shaped by the Old Testament. The feminist world view, known as continuity, holds out the hope that we can be one with “Mother” earth and, in so doing, overcome the tragic limitations which life seems to impose upon us. But it is all a mirage. Continuity and the religions it spawns are a false hope. Where in those religions are women treated as persons? Where in those religions are the poor seen as possessing rights? Where in them is oppression attacked? Where in them is wholeness of persons and communities and nations and the world seen as a goal? It is only finally in the Christian faith that these understandings are to be found. To be sure, we Christians have often fallen far short living up to them, and it is very probably because of many of us men. But if so, the way back is not to destroy the faith. Insofar as feminist spirituality denies the biblical world view and adopts an alien one—to that extent it separates itself from anything rightly called Christian and sells itself into prostitution to a way that has never produced anything but bondage. If Sophia is God, we all, men and women alike, are lost. If God, the transcendent God of the Bible, is the dispenser of a wisdom far above that of human imagination, there is hope for us all.
John Oswalt is the chair of the Biblical Studies Division and Beeson Professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is a noted Old Testament scholar in the area of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, literature, and language. Dr. Oswalt is also a contributing editor to Good News.
by Steve | Mar 9, 1994 | Archive - 1994
The Cult of Sophia
By William R. Cannon
March/April 1994
The cult of Sophia is the strangest phenomenon to arise in the church in this generation. In many ways it is reminiscent of the “God is Dead” movement of 30 or more years ago. There is, however, one major difference between the two. The “God is Dead” movement was confined to the works of less than half a dozen religious philosophers and was limited to academic circles. It never got off college and university campuses. It had no influence whatsoever in the life of the church or society in general. It was short-lived, lasting little more than a year, so that one might say it was dead almost as soon as it was born. In contrast, the cult of Sophia is more general in its manner of expression, appealing to the popular rather than to the academic mind. It is not limited to literary and oral exposition but is accompanied by rites and ceremonies, bringing with it an agenda for worship, a program for action, and its own ministry and mission. Its purpose is enhance the value of women in society, and its manner of doing this is to project feminism onto ultimate reality or to enshrine womanhood as such in the very nature of the Godhead itself.
The Sophia cult gained attention through Wisdom’s Feast: Sophia in Study and Celebration, a book written by two United Methodist ministers and a Roman Catholic in 1988. It provides liturgies and services of worship to Sophia. One such service was conducted in the chapel of the Theology School of Drew University, as a substitute – so we have read in news reports – for Holy Communion. It would appear, therefore, that the present day Sophia cult is prominently promulgated by some pastors of the United Methodist Church.
It is further assumed that they got their justification for the worship of Sophia from a series of ancient gnostic manuscripts discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. We have known of Gnosticism long before this discovery was ever made through the writings of the Fathers of the Church, as early as the Second Century, when Gnosticism was declared a heresy and its adherents were expelled from the Church. These manuscripts provide no new information, though one of them may well be the writings of Valentinus, the most important of the gnostics.
The promulgators of present-day Sophia worship claim that they are using Sophia as just another name for God, and they do this in order to show that there is a female side to God and that God must no longer be referred to by male names and images alone. From a historical point of view, the name Sophia is a very unfortunate choice. Ancient Gnosticism did not depict wisdom in either the Greek or the Hebrew meaning of the word, or as we understand wisdom today. Sophia was a clever, mischievous, misguided, and misplaced entity at the very end of the chain of emanations. She produced the demiurge, who at her behest, created a world so evil that God had to send help in the form of another emanation named Jesus to rescue us from it and return us through knowledge (gnosis) to an ordered existence. The whole gnostic system was a tapestry of speculation, fantasy, and mythology, with no basis in fact and history. And the same seems to be true of present-day Sophia worship. Those who promote it offer their own thoughts and theories as truth and, as did the gnostics of old, substitute their beliefs for the New Testament account of the nature of Christianity.
In contrast to all other religions which advance teachings or the thoughts and opinions of their founders, Christianity rests on the mighty acts of God in history. It is a religion of fact which antedates and creates faith. It begins with a babe in a manger in Bethlehem, focuses on a teacher and performer of miracles in Galilee, points to an old rugged cross, and a man dying on it, and culminates with an empty tomb in a garden outside Jerusalem and a Savior risen from the dead. Christianity rests on history, not ideology.
It is pitiable that a group of feminist enthusiasts within the church find that the only way they can advance the cause of women in this “Ecumenical Decade: Churches in Solidarity with Women” is to modify the doctrine of God to the degree that the feminine principle is made a part of the Godhead. If they only thought through carefully the teachings of Christianity, they would realize that this is unnecessary, even redundant. There is more than enough in the Bible that affirms the importance of women and gives them their opportunity of leadership and creativity in society alongside and equal to that of men. In the Old Testament there are Miriam, Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, and Queen Esther, who serve as role models along with David, Solomon, and the prophets. In the New Testament there are Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, Lydia, and Priscilla, all of whom either played an important role in the earthly ministry of Jesus or else joined and supported the apostle Paul in the formation of the Church. Except for our divine Lord himself, there is no person in the Bible more significant than the Virgin Mary. It was through her, a woman, that the incarnation took place. It was Mary, a woman, who was the mother of the Incarnate God. Mary said of herself in the Magnificat, .. All generations will call me blessed, for the mighty one has done great things for me” (Luke 1:48-49). It is not possible to conceive a position more noble than that of the Virgin Mary – a woman – mother of Christ.
There is not a single instance to be found in the Bible where the name Sophia is used as a female name for God. To be sure, Wisdom is personified by the use of the feminine gender in chapters 7-10 of the Book of Proverbs, but this is purely a literary device used to enhance the value of wisdom and its importance in the conduct of life. Never is wisdom in those passages equated with God. On the contrary, wisdom is equated with us. Our marriage to wisdom and her marriage to us is essential to our success and happiness in life.
Since this Sophia cult appears to offer a service to Sophia as a substitute for Holy Communion, in which milk and honey take the place of bread and wine, this act contradicts history. When God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, he took the form of a man, not a woman. No matter how one feels or how intensely one wishes it might have been otherwise, it is impossible to alter history. Historically speaking, we cannot transpose the principle work of Jesus on to someone else. We cannot change Jesus of Nazareth into Sophia.
When any person or group of persons, male or female, exalts its own interests and values above everything else, especially to the extent of trying to alter the concept of reality to suit its own aims – then that person or group of persons collapses into idolatry, worshipping self and class rather than God. They are described correctly by the pre-Socratic philosopher who said, “If horses and oxen had hands, they would make God in their own image.” This is precisely what the adherents of Sophia have done. These extreme feminists have made for themselves an idol and they call that idol God. Without knowing it, they are worshipping themselves.
Christianity rests on God’s own disclosure to us. It cannot tolerate our projection of ourselves on to God. We are bound, body and soul, to the teachings of the Bible. One dares not add to or subtract anything from those teachings. St. Augustine deals succinctly with this matter when he writes: “If you believe what you like, and reject what you dislike in the Gospel, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourselves.”
William R. Cannon is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church, former dean of Candler School of Theology, former chairman of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council, and author of 14 books.
Bishop Hunt Addresses Sophia
UMNS
Recent efforts by some Christians to fuse worship of “Sophia” with Christianity is nothing more than an “attempt to reconstitute the godhead,” a heresy that “staggers the religious mind,” said UM Bishop Earl G. Hunt at the January meeting of the Congress on Evangelism.
“No comparable heresy has appeared in the church in the last 15 centuries,” observed the retired bishop from Lake Junaluska, North Carolina.
“When the church seems to be losing its struggle with powers and principalities, weird things begin to happen,” he told the convention of more than 1,000 lay people and clergy.
Bishop Hunt called the current interest in Sophia ” a weird prostitution of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Saint Sophia” and said that “this is material which must be eradicated from Christian thinking now.” He called upon his fellow bishops to deal with the heresy “forthrightly and firmly.”
In a list In a list of steps that could be taken to renew the denomination, Hunt said that the church must be “cleansed of heresies old and new.”
He warned that “one of the danger signs is that church leaders, in effect, have declared ours to be a post-heresy age” in which almost anything can be construed as “Christian.”
Hunt said emergence of such trends signals a need for a “deep and sweeping change, a radical transformation” across the denomination.
Bishop Hunt is president of the Foundation for Evangelism, which raises money to fund evangelism professorships at United Methodist seminaries.
Adapted from United Methodist News Service.
by Steve | Jan 16, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: United Methodist Women Get Taste of Sophia Worship
by Dottie Chase
A standing ovation for lesbians. A service of milk and honey to the goddess Sophia. A presentation denying the atonement of Jesus Christ. What is going on here? And why are there so many United Methodist women attending this conference?
Billed as “A Global Theological Conference By Women; for Women and Men,” this meeting was promoted by Christian churches. Orthodox Christians, however, would find little historic Christian theology. Convening in Minneapolis, this was ” Re-Imagining,” an ecumenical gathering associated with the World Council of Churches (WCC) for those of the feminist, “womanist,” or lesbian perspective. Many of the speakers voiced similar themes: condemnation of patriarchy and the exclusion of lesbians and homosexual men in the church.
Of the 2200 registrants, 391 were United Methodist. The Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) staff and directors were urged to attend this conference as this quadrennium’s theological workshop (Women’s Division staff and directors expenses were paid for by the division).
“They are exploring the sensual and sexual side of the divine, rooting around in the contemplative and introspective interplay with God,” observed reporter Martha Sawyer Allen of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “and talking about women’s daily experiences of the divine in every culture as central to theology today.”
Participants gathered around “talking” tables and were asked to scribble out spiritual thoughts with crayons, re-imagine God through emotional images, and sing a song of blessing to Sophia, the goddess of Wisdom.
When asked what she thought of the Sophia-oriented liturgy, one United Methodist Women (UMW) director said that she had never heard of Sophia before, but was sure she would learn more about her. This same UMW director decided not to participate in one of the table activities, but was encouraged to join in by her table facilitator even though participants were told from the podium that they were either free to participate in activities or to abstain.
At one point in the conference, Melanie Morrison, co-founder of Christian Lesbians Out Together (CLOUT), requested time to celebrate “the miracle of being lesbian, out, and Christian.” Then she invited all other lesbian, bisexual, and transexual women to join hands and encircle the stage.
Religious News Service (RNS) estimates that “roughly 100 women converged upon the dais, many smiling. One held high the rainbow flag, which has become a symbol for the diversity among lesbians and gay men. Many of the women remaining in the audience rose to their feet and began to applaud.”
The Rev. Kittredge Cherry, a minister in the predominately homosexual Metropolitan Community Church, was one of the women holding the rainbow flag. She told RNS that the goal of the demonstration was to help people “re-imagine” the church as the embodiment of justice for everyone, including lesbians and homosexual men.
The lesbian theme was heard repeatedly from major speakers. In a workshop called “Prophetic Voices of Lesbians in the Church,” Nadean Bishop, the first “out” lesbian minister called to an American Baptist church, claimed that Mary and Martha in the Bible were lesbian “fore-sisters.” She said that they were not actual sisters, but lesbian lovers.
Janie Spahr, a self-avowed lesbian clergywoman in the Presbyterian Church USA who was prevented by that denomination from serving a local church, said at the conclusion of her presentation that her theology is first of all informed by “making love with Coni,” her lesbian partner. She then gave this challenge: “Sexuality and spirituality have to come together—and Church, we’re going to teach you!”
Judy Westerdorf, a United Methodist clergywoman from Minnesota, told the workshop that the Church says God gives sexuality as a good gift, but that 1 out of 10 is a bad gift and you’re not supposed to open it. (She was referring to claims that 10 percent of the population is homosexual, statistics that have been proven to be inaccurate.) Westerdorf added, “The Church has always been blessed by gays and lesbians, … witches, … shamans.” She joked about the term “practicing homosexual,” noting that her partner says she’s not practicing, she’s pretty good.
Theological Smorgasbord
The “Re-Imagining” event presented a smorgasbord of cultural ideas and religions, allowing attendees to pick and choose to their liking. “Be speculative,” participants were told by conference organizers, “there is no ‘answer.’ We can’t imagine what God is like. Being together in our own images is the ultimate.”
There were other workshops that dealt with feminist theology, politics, music, and belly dancing.
One of the conference speakers lashed out against alleged oppression by Christian missionary teachings in India. Aruna Gnanadason, a native Indian feminist, explained that the red dot on her forehead was a form of protest against those who said her forehead was only a place for the sign of the cross. She invited participants to join her in protest by crayoning a red dot on their foreheads as well. Gnanadason said that the red dot represented the “divine in each other.” In this instance, the mark of those not wearing the red dot was a very visible sign of those not fully participating with the conference activities.
Chung Hyun Kyung, one of the speakers, identified herself as a “recovering colonized Christian and a recovering feminist fundamentalist.” The ideal is the “reincarnation of good,” she said. Kyung explained that Asian theology totally rejects the idea of sinful man, propagating the understanding that humans are good and become better from the god within.
One major seminar was titled “Jesus,” although no orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus was discussed. This seminar, attended by about 500 individuals, began with singing to Sophia, and “bringing attention to our own bodies” and swaying to and fro. Participants were told that the ideal is to re-image Jesus within the feminist understanding from our cultural roots.
Presenter Delores S. Williams, a “womanist” theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, said, “I don’t think we need a theory of atonement at all.” Her remark was greeted by applause. “Atonement has to do so much with death,” she said. “I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff.” Continuing, she said, “We do not need atonement, we just need to listen to the god within. … If Jesus conquered sin, it was in the wilderness and life, not his death (resurrection). The first incarnation of God was not ‘some dove on the shoulder,’ but in Mary and her body.” At this point, all the participants were encouraged to call out “through a woman’s body.”
Another feminist theologian who led the “Jesus” seminar was Kwok Pui-Lan. She said the Asian experience can’t imagine any Jesus. She stated, “We cannot allow others to define our sin. What is our sin? Who is this funny God that would sacrifice a lamb. We don’t even see a lamb in the Asian experience. The Chinese do not have a word to compare to the Hebrew/Greek word for God.” Dr. Pui-Lan indicated that the Chinese do not believe God stands outside creation but that the humanist Confucian tradition emphasizes the propensity for good in humankind, and that they develop moral perfection and sainthood by maturing and emphasizing enlightenment.
Another seminar focused on the history and future of The Ecumenical Decade/Churches in Solidarity with Women. Begun by the United Nations, this program was limping along until the World Council of Churches gave it priority. It was noted that it is “truly amazing” that women have even stayed within the patriarchal churches. Participants were encouraged to ignore any charges of divisiveness; and not to worry about the collapse of unity within the churches.
Named as United Methodist sponsors for this event were: Bishop Forrest C. Stith, UM Co-Chairman of the U.S. Committee of the Ecumenical Decade/Churches in Solidarity with Women; Jeanne Audrey Powers of the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns and a member of the Re-imagining Steering Committee; and Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher (Minnesota). UM funding sources were the Minnesota Conference Commission on the Status and Role of Women; Minnesota Conference UMW; Women’s Division of the GBGM; and Wesley United Methodist Church as a neighboring host.
“The seminaries and the Vatican can keep on defining orthodoxy largely for the passing-on of the traditions through the ordained clergy,” conference speaker and feminist theologian Elizabeth Bettenhausen told the Star-Tribune. “But we laity have always crossed our fingers behind our backs when they lay out what orthodoxy is. We know in our daily lives theology has to be much fresher and more flexible than the definitions of orthodoxy can ever be.”
For a conference which drew upon the mainline Christian denominations for its supporters, funding, and participants, this event utterly failed to represent the historic Christian faith of these denominations. To the contrary, the “Re-imagining” conference, the Women’s Division’s choice as the quadrennium’s theological workshop, truly abandoned any form of orthodox Christian theology. As evidence, read the following liturgy of the service of milk and honey dedicated to Sophia:
“Our maker Sophia, we are women in your image: With the hot blood of our wombs we give form to new life. With the courage of our convictions we pour out lifeblood for justice . …
“Sophia, creator God, Let your milk and honey flow. Sophia, Creator God, Shower us with your love. …
“Our sweet Sophia, we are women in your image; With nectar between our thighs we invite a lover, we birth a child; With our warm body fluids we remind the world of its pleasures and sensations. …
“Our guide, Sophia, we are women in your image. With our moist mouths we kiss away a tear, we smile encouragement. With the honey of wisdom in our mouths, we prophesy a full humanity to all the peoples. …
“We celebrate the sensual life you give us. We celebrate the sweat that pours from us during our labors. We celebrate the fingertips vibrating upon the skin of love. We celebrate the tongue which licks a wound or wets our lips. We celebrate our bodiliness, our physicality, the sensations of pleasure, our oneness with earth and water.”
Dottie Chase is a United Methodist laywoman from Willard, Ohio. She has been a delegate to General Conference and has served on various national program boards for the UM Church. Susan Cyre of the Presbyterian Layman contributed research to this article.
