I'm working toward a full understanding of the paradigm you're presenting, Anna: it's intriguing, but I don't yet fully grasp it. But I see merits in the parts I do understand :)
I found your comments yesterday, on Aimee's site, both helpful and ones that resonated: Ephesians 4 gives us a clear purpose AND 'wraps it up' in the definitive statement in vv. 15-17, showing us what our combined efforts are aimed at: 'building up the Body' through a process that involves all of us, together, with the goal of reaching the fullness of maturity in Christ as EACH ONE contributes our individual gifts toward this mutual goal! Those who 'equip the saints for ministry' also have responsibility in our 'orchestration' together--fitting us where our gifts are needed, so each one of us is equipped to serve one another, in love, as we engage together. If we simply follow one of the basic rules of exegesis, i.e., interpret the test in its immediate context; we cannot add that comma; because the context involves the participation of the whole body, so each one in the body needs to be 'equipped for ministry!'.
Ephesians 4, along with the other passages you cite, describe our design to function optimally, not in the 'self focused individuality' of our culture, but in God's Design as people made alive and united to one another in love; equipped for every good work, and engaging in unity of mind, heart, spirit and purpose, to our call to be ambassadors of reconciliation in our polarized and divided world, today!
There is a focus on SELF in our world that seems to have permeated the church, rather than the church being 'salt and light' in our world. Self centered elevation of leadership, is the antithesis of the humility of Jesus we are reminded of, when called to PURSUE 'unity of mind, heart, Spirit and purpose' in Phil 2. And Jesus directly showed us the radical difference between Love and self interest, in another of the contexts in which His Own disciples were jockeying for position; the two disciples had brought their mother to lobby on their behalf for a committment to the two positions of highest honor and authority in the Kingdom Jesus was about to establish in His entry to Jerusalem; and that fomented jealousy and arguing among the disciples. Jesus corrects by stating simply that the world chooses leaders for their ability to 'lord it over' others, or even 'exercise authority'; but in His Kingdom, it is not this way; those who lead are the ones who best serve, modelling in their example, the Way of following Jesus! The passages you cite along with Ephesians 4-Romans 12, I Cor 11-14 define for us, a contrast between selfish pursuits and the use of our gifts to build up others, The Corinthians passage is even preceded by a warning that people in the Corinthian church are DYING because of SELFISHNESS during the celebration of the Lord's Supper! We are meant to be a BODY who 'serve ONE ANOTHER in LOVE' and reach out to the hurting world around us with the Love of God, shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, enabling us to become fountains of HIS LOVE flowing OUTWARD to nourish and nurture the hurting people who are our NEIGHBORS, whom we are CALLED TO LOVE!
The opposite of LOVE for the hurting-embodied in the very gospel as JESUS spoke it, is the goal of too many 'leaders' in the christian church, today. It is 'by our FRUITS' not hollow boasting, that we are meant to be known as FOLLOWERS of Jesus, making HIM visible as we follow the path of walking with God in LOVE that is tangible!
There is but ONE Head of the Body of Christ; the Lord Jesus! A central tenet of the Reformation, was 'sola Christo'-signifying that Christ ALONE has authority over the conscience; so many today follow the Pharisees, seeking to bind others to their own conscience (or dictates they don't even follow, too often), rather than recognizing the glorious liberty we have been given, through the New Covenant!
A couple other thoughts...
****
We love because He loved us; He is the Head of the Body; Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1, taken and harmonized-give us this wonderful picture of the Supremacy of Christ, 'in all and for all and through all things'.
In our anthropology, it behooves us to first develop our picture of JESUS, as fully as we can.
a post on the harmony of these two chapters would be useful; but that's not what a comment is for; just reading the two passages and going back and forth between them, invokes Wonder in Who Jesus Is and what He has done. 'all things are summed up in Christ'!
*****
more to follow in a second comment, what i wrote wouldn't fit...
There's a group of people sharing life and talking about God, in substack, that have experienced the opposite of God's Grace from the people who claim to be following Jesus. I have managed to find ways to become marginalized or exiled from both faith and university communities; the two that were difficult, involved trauma and abuse; the first, in a faith community, when I sought help to work through awakened trauma from earlier in life; the next, when I stepped in to prevent an abuser from continuing to abuse the women I worked with, in a medical school...
The church offers little to the hurting in our world; hell bent on following the world in pursuits much like those that are dominant in our very prosperity and 'authority' oriented culture.
But Jesus came to 'seek and save the lost'; Our Creator came to become Our Redeemer, Our JUSTIFIER, Our Savior; taking on human nature, that we might see the perfect representation of God in Jesus..
He came for the hurting-read Luke 4... Jesus read the prophesy He authored, the first part of an extended passage describing our present age (the next part and the several chapters that follow describe for us what 'the church' is meant to actually be engaged in and reveal as His Kingdom continues to grow and expand-and HIs Kingdom is remarkably different than our nation and world!
*******
When we take this overarching context that we are the Body, with One Head, Who is a GLORIOUS Head, what are we meant to learn about God, from our maleness and femaleness.
Again, going to a passage that is helpful; the whole of God's Creation, as Paul tells us, reveals some fundamental truths about man, and God. We are MEANT to see fundamental Truths about God through all He has made; as Paul reminds us in Romans 1: 19-20; God's CREATION is MEANT to reveal 'His Invisible Attributes, Eternal Power and Divine Nature'; 'clearly seen through what has been MADE'. But Paul begins describing the revelation Creation brings us, by saying that the WRATH of God against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of man is revealed, first. So the Nature of God in contrast with the sinfulness of man, is inherently known to all. As is the existence of God, and God's very nature, attributes and power. We ALL see these things, DESIGNED TO BE SEEN through what God has created!
For the believer, a right view of ALL of His Creation, is meant to show us these three things Paul specifically names: His Invisible ATTRIBUTES; His Eternal POWER, even HIS Divine NATURE!
With that in mind, then what WONDER is meant to be revealed when we look at the PINNACLE of His Creation, which is man 'made in the Image of God; male AND female He created them'?!
So how much MORE should our consideration of being made 'male' or 'female' teach us about God and His 'attributes, power and nature'.
very simplistically, we can see BASIC aspects of Who God is-we all have CREATIVE CAPACITY; we delight in BEAUTY, the God of compassion, dwells in OUR HEARTS, and enables HIS LOVE to FOUNTAIN IN US and flow toward others, nourishing and nurturing them.
The Body of Christ is also the Bride of Christ. We can, male of female, follow Jesus in both 'male and female' aspects, as it were. It's not 'unmasculine' to be COMPASSIONATE, or MINISTER TO THE HURTING.
It is malicious ignorance to teach what's being taught about empathy today; when half the female polulation struggles because of a sin that is INVASIVE; and one third of the male population does as well.... (the latest statistics from one of the most reliable sources).
These are the things you are describing that take us further into understanding of aspects of our being made in the image of God, that help us become 'more fully' a Body of Christ that is 'equipped for every good deed'.
We are called to be followers of Jesus; commanded to be united in mind, heart, Spirit and purpose, called to be 'ambassadors of reconciliation, and of course, called to Love one another, and reach out with the gospel of love to the hurting world around us, proclaiming the the Messiah has indeed come, to "preach good news to the poor.. to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed; and to proclaim that the favorable year of the Lord (luke 4, 18-19). Jesus has come, and now reigns in Heaven.
One last thought, related to what you've shared, about comments made by your professors about the way you think... I spent much of my adult life in academics; and learned quite plainly that I think 'differently'. It seems to me, that you may be an academic with a 'dominant right hemisphere' ? I'm right hemisphere dominant (constrained, actually); I have some defects in my left hemisphere; that happened early enough in life, likely during the perinatal period and infancy, that affect regions that involve both 'linear-sequential' logic and communication. It took several years to figure this out (decades of empirical observation, actually). But It's helpful to understand the difference in function between those who are left or right hemisphere dominant; and the fact our world operates in a largely left hemisphere domiant way (since men are unilateral dominant and 90% are right handed, and 'left brained'--or 'sinister' if we borrow from the latin or our own culture, 100 years ago!).
You might find Iaian McGilchrist's work, 'the Master and His Emissary' interesting; he's also taken what he has studies as a neurologist about the function of our hemispheres, and considered it in terms of the impact of being 'under the thrall of the left hemisphere' in western civilization today... in another fascinating two volume work, 'The Matter with Things'.
I'm part way through each of these works; far enough that the overall paradigm has been established; and it resonates strongly with my own observations. I have some understanding of neurophysiology as a physiologist who has collaborated in consortiums with colleagues whose expertise was in neuropharmacology, pyschology in addiction, traumatic brain injury, or aging (I collaborated very widely and am always eager to learn from someone with expertise I lack!).
As someone with some overlap in the way our minds work, it seems, I truly appreciate what you are bringing out, in your scholarship.
Most women are 'right hemisphere COMPETENT; most men are right hemisphere 'adequate' and somewhat 'impaired'.
it's ESSENTIAL to be able to 'grasp the whole'.
Before the fall, God stated 'it is NOT GOOD for Adam to be alone', a statement made while Adam and God were TOGETHER IN COMMUNITY....
Hmmmmm..... it's NOT GOOD for Adam to be 'in community with God, ALONE'...
BEFORE SIN ENTERED THE WORLD?
It's NOT GOOD?
So God created EVE. Adam and Eve TOGETHER in communion with God, was then 'GOOD'.
WOW.. that's an interesting anthropological and FIRST ORDER truth.
But how much MORE, now that we are 'partakers of Christ' who TOGETHER, comprise 'the BODY of Christ' AND 'the BRIDE of Christ', is it when we understand these central paradigms of our new Life-that we are BOTH the BODY and the BRIDE of Jesus! and find our WHOLENESS in this Wondrous paradigm.
To understand what it means to be the BRIDE of Christ-requires we grapple with the concept(s) you are helping bring to the fore.
In academics, it was obvious that men and women approach complex intellectual challenges, in very different ways. I developed a 'spiel' about the differences in men, who are 'unilateral dominant' and not very consciously aware of the 'holistic' paradigms our right hemisphere's construct, though these are the 'operating models of the real world' built from our observations over our lifetime; that become the active, very dynamic lens through which we see the world. It takes us a couple years to begin to COMMUNICATE back-it takes that long to build a language paradigm to communicate with, that contains definitions that are 'inherent' that we use to name what we see or have experienced. These inner models of reality are what we engage when we interact with the outside world; they form the lens through which we interpret the world around us in a very dynamic fashion. A simple example is visible in how we see things and 'know' their attributes-like 'color'. This dynamic model of the world allows us to see something and immediately say 'this is red'-we don't have to use an organized, left brain logic table of colors to name them, we filter what we see and categorize it without thinking consciously-it all happens quickly at a subconcious level (unless there's a problem or until we begin to show signs of aging-where this dynamic, right hemisphere based process, slows down). We SEE through a filter of reality that is always operating-and so the 'color' is immediately attached to the sensory input, as we look through this filter-we know something's color 'intuitively'.
Women have greater ability to integrate information between the left and right hemispheres, but both sexes recognize and use both hemispheres; men have a dominance of the left hemisphere; women may be dominant in the right hemisphere or simply more 'engaged' in both hemispheres; but the net result is that women 'think more holistically' while men focus on a 'linear logic chain'; we consider 'how fast did someone reach an answer' when there is a problem-men, using a narrower focus can often arrive at an answer more quickly; but its vital that we consider multiple factors when we want to be sure we have arrived at the RIGHT or BEST solution.
It's SAD that our world discounts the right brain by using terms like 'intuition' rather than ascribing holistic, relational, weighted, integrated logic, as true and valid (and often a better form of) logic!
What's happened in the American church, is that we've constructed paradigms that are faulty; but they are 'inherent' in our thinking. So Piper, in his introduction to the first treatise expanding complementarianism, doesn't use his normal style of careful exegesis-but defaults to 'what hangs TOGETHER' as the basis for saying 'this FEELS RIGHT' as justification for the paradigm.
Unfortunately, though, what 'hung together' and was validated by 'seeming RIGHT IN HIS EYES' reflected the CULTURAL PARADIGM built up in his 'inner model of our world'!
It was NOT from CAREFUL CONSTRUCTION OF A BIBLICAL PARADIGM BASED SOLIDLY, tenet by tenet, constructed into a whole paradigm, but one that was essentially INTUITIED-this MATCHES what I BELIEVE, which meant it easily embodied an INTEGRATION of SOME scriptural tenets INTO A CULTURAL PARADIGM!
So HOW DO WE ADDRESS such truly 'bastardized' paradigms, that COMBINE the WORLD's paradigm with paradigms derived from biblical truths?
We HAVE TO 'deconstruct them', and then test each element to see 'does it MATCH what the Word of God TEACHES'. and then we need to reassemble them after jetisonning the false (or even corrupt) elements.
and that is a process well underway in the American church today.
And it's happening in our culture at large, as well.
Your sharing of the paradigm of 'the Body of Christ' gives me a place of integration which brings understanding of your anthropology. The two do relate; and the paradigm of us as the Body is integral to understanding the anthropology.
This was helpful, to think through what I've been learning from you and others, in a context where a paradigm of what biblical anthropology. thanks, Anna!
Thank you, Bill. You have given me a lot to think about. It may account somewhat for the crickets when I post. But I do think that the Bible has a linear and chronological unfolding, acorn to oak, that is ignored when it comes to considering who we are as male and female. To me, it seems that the inbuilt organic development of the Scriptures reveals the triune God we worship and the Son who condescended to become man for us and for our salvation. We should expect that the understanding God gives us of ourselves should magnify his perfections and decree, not ourselves. Thank you again for your thoughts, and all your kindness and support.
Bill, you have put these thoughts together so well, and you have directed us to our end, worship. Thank you, not only for these thoughts, but your willingness to read and interact.
I find the idea of woman as eschatological symbol for the heavenly realm very interesting. Nic Ansell, a reformed theologian from the Institute of Christian Studies (ICS) in Toronto, Canada, also sees the eschatological signficance of the woman in Genesis 2. While Ansell also connects the woman with Glory and the temple, he makes a connection in a wider sense as well. Ansell sees the woman as the man's help and glory the same way he sees God as Israel's help and Glory. The woman is the man's help and glory because the man is helpless or he cannot fulfill the cultural mandate of Genesis 1 alone. Ansell sees the woman as the end or telos to the man, but in eschatology, the end also means a new beginning. The creation of the woman fulfills creation, but also brings the creation to it's fulfillment in the wider sense of Genesis 1. The creation of the woman moves human progress forward to fulfill the cultural mandate to dominion and filling the earth. Adam was shown how to work and guard the garden before the creation of woman, but this doesn't make him solely the person responsible for this. Alone Adam stagnates and goes nowhere. With creation of Eve, Adam has the help to move human progress forward in the cultural mandate and fill the earth the same way that God will be all in all in the world to come. The woman symbolizes God to the man in her work as help and glory, but this doesn't make her his superior. This makes her his equal in the cultural mandate. So as the New Jerusalem signifies the end, but also the beginning of a new world, the woman brings an end to creation and helps the man move human progress forward in the cultural mandate and beyond to the New Jerusalem. Ansell is more egalitarian in his idea of the woman as Help and Glory. So I don't buy that only men should be elders. I see Deborah, a prophetess judging Israel, as an elder described as "a mother in Israel". The use of mother in this way is the semitic usage as a type of elder or chieftain in the ancient world. In the same way, the wise woman of Abel Beth Macaah uses the term "a mother in Israel" to describe either herself or the city (depending on what translation you use) she is trying to defend. Cheryl Exum’s ‘”Mother in Israel”: A Familiar Figure Reconsidered” looks at this term in Judges and Abel Beth Macaah as well in the book of Judith and defines it as " “a mother in Israel is one who brings liberation from oppression, provides protection and ensures the well-being and security of her people.” Well, if the New Jerusalem is seen as "a mother from above" and women symbolize her, this could mean what women, as mothers and the symbol of the people, are supposed to play roles as elders to protect their children and the well being of the people. Genesis 2 clearly establish matrilocal marriage where the man leaves his family and joins the woman's family. Matrilocal marriage was established by God, but has since been twisted in the fall since this type of marriage is usually seen in tribes that worship pagan deities of "mother earth" etc. While I don't agree with the pagan meaning here, women in traditional matrilocal societies usually have matrilocal and matrilineal marriage patterns with control over resources and the economy. Women often has a say in who becomes elders or may even become elders themselves and is far more egalitarian than patriarchy. You can see this in indigenous tribes like the iroquois. Societies with this kind of pattern has more maternal values as it's core where children are nurtured by everyone, child abuse is rare, rape and spousal abuse are almost non existant, etc., and things are decided by consensus. Men are not the final authority, but they may be spokespersons for the family. However, if women and children's rights are violated by an male elders, the women can depose him and elect someone else. Women are respected not treated by all male elders like Aimee Byrd was treated in the OPC. So I believe that Deborah the wise woman of Abel Beth Macaah are types of what a "mother in Israel" or "a city" should be as far as the role of women. Just my take. Nic Ansell's ideas can be found here-https://ir.icscanada.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c1004beb-1224-46fe-99ae-a6f8bf703609/content
I appreciate your thoughts! I have downloaded Ansell's article and look forward to reading it. You wrote, " . . . the New Jerusalem signifies the end, but also the beginning of a new world . ." So one of the things others have brought out is that Zion is mother (beginning), daughter (end), and bride. If we look for her meaning in the Song of Songs, we see that she is also sister (4:9–10, 12; 5:1, 2) and friend (5:16). When we come to the end of John's epistle and his Apocalypse, all these metaphors will be heightened: mother and offspring (Rev. 12); bride (Rev. 19, 21); sister and friend (John 20). The "sign" apostle sees through the mist and finds her. I love the work of Aaron Hann on this: https://substack.com/@onceaweek. Thanks again so much for your thoughts.
I'm working toward a full understanding of the paradigm you're presenting, Anna: it's intriguing, but I don't yet fully grasp it. But I see merits in the parts I do understand :)
I found your comments yesterday, on Aimee's site, both helpful and ones that resonated: Ephesians 4 gives us a clear purpose AND 'wraps it up' in the definitive statement in vv. 15-17, showing us what our combined efforts are aimed at: 'building up the Body' through a process that involves all of us, together, with the goal of reaching the fullness of maturity in Christ as EACH ONE contributes our individual gifts toward this mutual goal! Those who 'equip the saints for ministry' also have responsibility in our 'orchestration' together--fitting us where our gifts are needed, so each one of us is equipped to serve one another, in love, as we engage together. If we simply follow one of the basic rules of exegesis, i.e., interpret the test in its immediate context; we cannot add that comma; because the context involves the participation of the whole body, so each one in the body needs to be 'equipped for ministry!'.
Ephesians 4, along with the other passages you cite, describe our design to function optimally, not in the 'self focused individuality' of our culture, but in God's Design as people made alive and united to one another in love; equipped for every good work, and engaging in unity of mind, heart, spirit and purpose, to our call to be ambassadors of reconciliation in our polarized and divided world, today!
There is a focus on SELF in our world that seems to have permeated the church, rather than the church being 'salt and light' in our world. Self centered elevation of leadership, is the antithesis of the humility of Jesus we are reminded of, when called to PURSUE 'unity of mind, heart, Spirit and purpose' in Phil 2. And Jesus directly showed us the radical difference between Love and self interest, in another of the contexts in which His Own disciples were jockeying for position; the two disciples had brought their mother to lobby on their behalf for a committment to the two positions of highest honor and authority in the Kingdom Jesus was about to establish in His entry to Jerusalem; and that fomented jealousy and arguing among the disciples. Jesus corrects by stating simply that the world chooses leaders for their ability to 'lord it over' others, or even 'exercise authority'; but in His Kingdom, it is not this way; those who lead are the ones who best serve, modelling in their example, the Way of following Jesus! The passages you cite along with Ephesians 4-Romans 12, I Cor 11-14 define for us, a contrast between selfish pursuits and the use of our gifts to build up others, The Corinthians passage is even preceded by a warning that people in the Corinthian church are DYING because of SELFISHNESS during the celebration of the Lord's Supper! We are meant to be a BODY who 'serve ONE ANOTHER in LOVE' and reach out to the hurting world around us with the Love of God, shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, enabling us to become fountains of HIS LOVE flowing OUTWARD to nourish and nurture the hurting people who are our NEIGHBORS, whom we are CALLED TO LOVE!
The opposite of LOVE for the hurting-embodied in the very gospel as JESUS spoke it, is the goal of too many 'leaders' in the christian church, today. It is 'by our FRUITS' not hollow boasting, that we are meant to be known as FOLLOWERS of Jesus, making HIM visible as we follow the path of walking with God in LOVE that is tangible!
There is but ONE Head of the Body of Christ; the Lord Jesus! A central tenet of the Reformation, was 'sola Christo'-signifying that Christ ALONE has authority over the conscience; so many today follow the Pharisees, seeking to bind others to their own conscience (or dictates they don't even follow, too often), rather than recognizing the glorious liberty we have been given, through the New Covenant!
A couple other thoughts...
****
We love because He loved us; He is the Head of the Body; Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1, taken and harmonized-give us this wonderful picture of the Supremacy of Christ, 'in all and for all and through all things'.
In our anthropology, it behooves us to first develop our picture of JESUS, as fully as we can.
a post on the harmony of these two chapters would be useful; but that's not what a comment is for; just reading the two passages and going back and forth between them, invokes Wonder in Who Jesus Is and what He has done. 'all things are summed up in Christ'!
*****
more to follow in a second comment, what i wrote wouldn't fit...
There's a group of people sharing life and talking about God, in substack, that have experienced the opposite of God's Grace from the people who claim to be following Jesus. I have managed to find ways to become marginalized or exiled from both faith and university communities; the two that were difficult, involved trauma and abuse; the first, in a faith community, when I sought help to work through awakened trauma from earlier in life; the next, when I stepped in to prevent an abuser from continuing to abuse the women I worked with, in a medical school...
The church offers little to the hurting in our world; hell bent on following the world in pursuits much like those that are dominant in our very prosperity and 'authority' oriented culture.
But Jesus came to 'seek and save the lost'; Our Creator came to become Our Redeemer, Our JUSTIFIER, Our Savior; taking on human nature, that we might see the perfect representation of God in Jesus..
He came for the hurting-read Luke 4... Jesus read the prophesy He authored, the first part of an extended passage describing our present age (the next part and the several chapters that follow describe for us what 'the church' is meant to actually be engaged in and reveal as His Kingdom continues to grow and expand-and HIs Kingdom is remarkably different than our nation and world!
*******
When we take this overarching context that we are the Body, with One Head, Who is a GLORIOUS Head, what are we meant to learn about God, from our maleness and femaleness.
Again, going to a passage that is helpful; the whole of God's Creation, as Paul tells us, reveals some fundamental truths about man, and God. We are MEANT to see fundamental Truths about God through all He has made; as Paul reminds us in Romans 1: 19-20; God's CREATION is MEANT to reveal 'His Invisible Attributes, Eternal Power and Divine Nature'; 'clearly seen through what has been MADE'. But Paul begins describing the revelation Creation brings us, by saying that the WRATH of God against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of man is revealed, first. So the Nature of God in contrast with the sinfulness of man, is inherently known to all. As is the existence of God, and God's very nature, attributes and power. We ALL see these things, DESIGNED TO BE SEEN through what God has created!
For the believer, a right view of ALL of His Creation, is meant to show us these three things Paul specifically names: His Invisible ATTRIBUTES; His Eternal POWER, even HIS Divine NATURE!
With that in mind, then what WONDER is meant to be revealed when we look at the PINNACLE of His Creation, which is man 'made in the Image of God; male AND female He created them'?!
So how much MORE should our consideration of being made 'male' or 'female' teach us about God and His 'attributes, power and nature'.
very simplistically, we can see BASIC aspects of Who God is-we all have CREATIVE CAPACITY; we delight in BEAUTY, the God of compassion, dwells in OUR HEARTS, and enables HIS LOVE to FOUNTAIN IN US and flow toward others, nourishing and nurturing them.
The Body of Christ is also the Bride of Christ. We can, male of female, follow Jesus in both 'male and female' aspects, as it were. It's not 'unmasculine' to be COMPASSIONATE, or MINISTER TO THE HURTING.
It is malicious ignorance to teach what's being taught about empathy today; when half the female polulation struggles because of a sin that is INVASIVE; and one third of the male population does as well.... (the latest statistics from one of the most reliable sources).
These are the things you are describing that take us further into understanding of aspects of our being made in the image of God, that help us become 'more fully' a Body of Christ that is 'equipped for every good deed'.
We are called to be followers of Jesus; commanded to be united in mind, heart, Spirit and purpose, called to be 'ambassadors of reconciliation, and of course, called to Love one another, and reach out with the gospel of love to the hurting world around us, proclaiming the the Messiah has indeed come, to "preach good news to the poor.. to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed; and to proclaim that the favorable year of the Lord (luke 4, 18-19). Jesus has come, and now reigns in Heaven.
******
oops-3 comments worth...
One last thought, related to what you've shared, about comments made by your professors about the way you think... I spent much of my adult life in academics; and learned quite plainly that I think 'differently'. It seems to me, that you may be an academic with a 'dominant right hemisphere' ? I'm right hemisphere dominant (constrained, actually); I have some defects in my left hemisphere; that happened early enough in life, likely during the perinatal period and infancy, that affect regions that involve both 'linear-sequential' logic and communication. It took several years to figure this out (decades of empirical observation, actually). But It's helpful to understand the difference in function between those who are left or right hemisphere dominant; and the fact our world operates in a largely left hemisphere domiant way (since men are unilateral dominant and 90% are right handed, and 'left brained'--or 'sinister' if we borrow from the latin or our own culture, 100 years ago!).
You might find Iaian McGilchrist's work, 'the Master and His Emissary' interesting; he's also taken what he has studies as a neurologist about the function of our hemispheres, and considered it in terms of the impact of being 'under the thrall of the left hemisphere' in western civilization today... in another fascinating two volume work, 'The Matter with Things'.
I'm part way through each of these works; far enough that the overall paradigm has been established; and it resonates strongly with my own observations. I have some understanding of neurophysiology as a physiologist who has collaborated in consortiums with colleagues whose expertise was in neuropharmacology, pyschology in addiction, traumatic brain injury, or aging (I collaborated very widely and am always eager to learn from someone with expertise I lack!).
As someone with some overlap in the way our minds work, it seems, I truly appreciate what you are bringing out, in your scholarship.
Most women are 'right hemisphere COMPETENT; most men are right hemisphere 'adequate' and somewhat 'impaired'.
it's ESSENTIAL to be able to 'grasp the whole'.
Before the fall, God stated 'it is NOT GOOD for Adam to be alone', a statement made while Adam and God were TOGETHER IN COMMUNITY....
Hmmmmm..... it's NOT GOOD for Adam to be 'in community with God, ALONE'...
BEFORE SIN ENTERED THE WORLD?
It's NOT GOOD?
So God created EVE. Adam and Eve TOGETHER in communion with God, was then 'GOOD'.
WOW.. that's an interesting anthropological and FIRST ORDER truth.
But how much MORE, now that we are 'partakers of Christ' who TOGETHER, comprise 'the BODY of Christ' AND 'the BRIDE of Christ', is it when we understand these central paradigms of our new Life-that we are BOTH the BODY and the BRIDE of Jesus! and find our WHOLENESS in this Wondrous paradigm.
To understand what it means to be the BRIDE of Christ-requires we grapple with the concept(s) you are helping bring to the fore.
In academics, it was obvious that men and women approach complex intellectual challenges, in very different ways. I developed a 'spiel' about the differences in men, who are 'unilateral dominant' and not very consciously aware of the 'holistic' paradigms our right hemisphere's construct, though these are the 'operating models of the real world' built from our observations over our lifetime; that become the active, very dynamic lens through which we see the world. It takes us a couple years to begin to COMMUNICATE back-it takes that long to build a language paradigm to communicate with, that contains definitions that are 'inherent' that we use to name what we see or have experienced. These inner models of reality are what we engage when we interact with the outside world; they form the lens through which we interpret the world around us in a very dynamic fashion. A simple example is visible in how we see things and 'know' their attributes-like 'color'. This dynamic model of the world allows us to see something and immediately say 'this is red'-we don't have to use an organized, left brain logic table of colors to name them, we filter what we see and categorize it without thinking consciously-it all happens quickly at a subconcious level (unless there's a problem or until we begin to show signs of aging-where this dynamic, right hemisphere based process, slows down). We SEE through a filter of reality that is always operating-and so the 'color' is immediately attached to the sensory input, as we look through this filter-we know something's color 'intuitively'.
Women have greater ability to integrate information between the left and right hemispheres, but both sexes recognize and use both hemispheres; men have a dominance of the left hemisphere; women may be dominant in the right hemisphere or simply more 'engaged' in both hemispheres; but the net result is that women 'think more holistically' while men focus on a 'linear logic chain'; we consider 'how fast did someone reach an answer' when there is a problem-men, using a narrower focus can often arrive at an answer more quickly; but its vital that we consider multiple factors when we want to be sure we have arrived at the RIGHT or BEST solution.
It's SAD that our world discounts the right brain by using terms like 'intuition' rather than ascribing holistic, relational, weighted, integrated logic, as true and valid (and often a better form of) logic!
What's happened in the American church, is that we've constructed paradigms that are faulty; but they are 'inherent' in our thinking. So Piper, in his introduction to the first treatise expanding complementarianism, doesn't use his normal style of careful exegesis-but defaults to 'what hangs TOGETHER' as the basis for saying 'this FEELS RIGHT' as justification for the paradigm.
Unfortunately, though, what 'hung together' and was validated by 'seeming RIGHT IN HIS EYES' reflected the CULTURAL PARADIGM built up in his 'inner model of our world'!
It was NOT from CAREFUL CONSTRUCTION OF A BIBLICAL PARADIGM BASED SOLIDLY, tenet by tenet, constructed into a whole paradigm, but one that was essentially INTUITIED-this MATCHES what I BELIEVE, which meant it easily embodied an INTEGRATION of SOME scriptural tenets INTO A CULTURAL PARADIGM!
So HOW DO WE ADDRESS such truly 'bastardized' paradigms, that COMBINE the WORLD's paradigm with paradigms derived from biblical truths?
We HAVE TO 'deconstruct them', and then test each element to see 'does it MATCH what the Word of God TEACHES'. and then we need to reassemble them after jetisonning the false (or even corrupt) elements.
and that is a process well underway in the American church today.
And it's happening in our culture at large, as well.
Your sharing of the paradigm of 'the Body of Christ' gives me a place of integration which brings understanding of your anthropology. The two do relate; and the paradigm of us as the Body is integral to understanding the anthropology.
This was helpful, to think through what I've been learning from you and others, in a context where a paradigm of what biblical anthropology. thanks, Anna!
Bill
Thank you, Bill. You have given me a lot to think about. It may account somewhat for the crickets when I post. But I do think that the Bible has a linear and chronological unfolding, acorn to oak, that is ignored when it comes to considering who we are as male and female. To me, it seems that the inbuilt organic development of the Scriptures reveals the triune God we worship and the Son who condescended to become man for us and for our salvation. We should expect that the understanding God gives us of ourselves should magnify his perfections and decree, not ourselves. Thank you again for your thoughts, and all your kindness and support.
Bill, you have put these thoughts together so well, and you have directed us to our end, worship. Thank you, not only for these thoughts, but your willingness to read and interact.
I find the idea of woman as eschatological symbol for the heavenly realm very interesting. Nic Ansell, a reformed theologian from the Institute of Christian Studies (ICS) in Toronto, Canada, also sees the eschatological signficance of the woman in Genesis 2. While Ansell also connects the woman with Glory and the temple, he makes a connection in a wider sense as well. Ansell sees the woman as the man's help and glory the same way he sees God as Israel's help and Glory. The woman is the man's help and glory because the man is helpless or he cannot fulfill the cultural mandate of Genesis 1 alone. Ansell sees the woman as the end or telos to the man, but in eschatology, the end also means a new beginning. The creation of the woman fulfills creation, but also brings the creation to it's fulfillment in the wider sense of Genesis 1. The creation of the woman moves human progress forward to fulfill the cultural mandate to dominion and filling the earth. Adam was shown how to work and guard the garden before the creation of woman, but this doesn't make him solely the person responsible for this. Alone Adam stagnates and goes nowhere. With creation of Eve, Adam has the help to move human progress forward in the cultural mandate and fill the earth the same way that God will be all in all in the world to come. The woman symbolizes God to the man in her work as help and glory, but this doesn't make her his superior. This makes her his equal in the cultural mandate. So as the New Jerusalem signifies the end, but also the beginning of a new world, the woman brings an end to creation and helps the man move human progress forward in the cultural mandate and beyond to the New Jerusalem. Ansell is more egalitarian in his idea of the woman as Help and Glory. So I don't buy that only men should be elders. I see Deborah, a prophetess judging Israel, as an elder described as "a mother in Israel". The use of mother in this way is the semitic usage as a type of elder or chieftain in the ancient world. In the same way, the wise woman of Abel Beth Macaah uses the term "a mother in Israel" to describe either herself or the city (depending on what translation you use) she is trying to defend. Cheryl Exum’s ‘”Mother in Israel”: A Familiar Figure Reconsidered” looks at this term in Judges and Abel Beth Macaah as well in the book of Judith and defines it as " “a mother in Israel is one who brings liberation from oppression, provides protection and ensures the well-being and security of her people.” Well, if the New Jerusalem is seen as "a mother from above" and women symbolize her, this could mean what women, as mothers and the symbol of the people, are supposed to play roles as elders to protect their children and the well being of the people. Genesis 2 clearly establish matrilocal marriage where the man leaves his family and joins the woman's family. Matrilocal marriage was established by God, but has since been twisted in the fall since this type of marriage is usually seen in tribes that worship pagan deities of "mother earth" etc. While I don't agree with the pagan meaning here, women in traditional matrilocal societies usually have matrilocal and matrilineal marriage patterns with control over resources and the economy. Women often has a say in who becomes elders or may even become elders themselves and is far more egalitarian than patriarchy. You can see this in indigenous tribes like the iroquois. Societies with this kind of pattern has more maternal values as it's core where children are nurtured by everyone, child abuse is rare, rape and spousal abuse are almost non existant, etc., and things are decided by consensus. Men are not the final authority, but they may be spokespersons for the family. However, if women and children's rights are violated by an male elders, the women can depose him and elect someone else. Women are respected not treated by all male elders like Aimee Byrd was treated in the OPC. So I believe that Deborah the wise woman of Abel Beth Macaah are types of what a "mother in Israel" or "a city" should be as far as the role of women. Just my take. Nic Ansell's ideas can be found here-https://ir.icscanada.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c1004beb-1224-46fe-99ae-a6f8bf703609/content
I appreciate your thoughts! I have downloaded Ansell's article and look forward to reading it. You wrote, " . . . the New Jerusalem signifies the end, but also the beginning of a new world . ." So one of the things others have brought out is that Zion is mother (beginning), daughter (end), and bride. If we look for her meaning in the Song of Songs, we see that she is also sister (4:9–10, 12; 5:1, 2) and friend (5:16). When we come to the end of John's epistle and his Apocalypse, all these metaphors will be heightened: mother and offspring (Rev. 12); bride (Rev. 19, 21); sister and friend (John 20). The "sign" apostle sees through the mist and finds her. I love the work of Aaron Hann on this: https://substack.com/@onceaweek. Thanks again so much for your thoughts.