Today, Thorn and I prayed over a snack:
Me: Shall we pray?
Thorn: Ok!
Me: Say with me: God...
Thorn: God...
Me: Bless...
Thorn: Bless...
Me: Cookies!
Thorn: Cookies! No way! Silly God.
Thorn giggles, ascribing humor to God. "Silly God!" he repeats, wondering why I'm laughing so hard, but eager to get extra applause. Later, as I munch a few grainy, gluten-free squares with my boy, I consider Thorn's clarity of vision. Even though the first cultural constructions have already begun to box him, his mind is still amazingly unfettered. He sees nothing odd about pouring tea on his soy yogurt, calling his Latino soccer player doll "mommy," or praying for his uncle's dog's knee. It has been particularly interesting to me to see his theological development. What is God to a child?
Papa: Where is God?
Thorn: In the picture.
Papa: No...where is God?
Thorn: Oh no! Missin'.
Thorn has always seen Jesus in pictures, and the similarity in how he is portrayed allows Thorn to point out "God" whenever there's an image in his picture Bible, framed on the wall, or in Sunday school. (Amusingly enough, the similarity is less in skin color and more in the white robe and red sash.) For Thorn, God has a definite shape. God is also a person, because Thorn talks to God, and expects to be heard. How, then, can God be there when Thorn prays, but missing when he looks for a visible presence? Then again, we're talking about a kid who thinks he's invisible if he covers his eyes...
What are your own experiences with young children and God?
--
Addendum from the breakfast table (Thorn calls himself "Tah"):
Me: God loves Tah.
Thorn: God loves Tah so much.
Me: Where is God?
Thorn: God follow Tah home in car.
Me: From church?
Thorn: Uh huh. God see mommy from back chair.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Book Rants
Apologetics Bible Rant:
Hey, article-writers in my apologetics Bible. I'm getting a bit annoyed at your setting up postmodernism as the straw man, using the most extreme of its arguments to characterize it (no one can truly know anything), and then using postmodernist deconstruction and historical point-of-view to prove your points. Please acknowledge that postmodernism has and does inform current historical methods, including the ones you're using.
Pornland Rant:
To Gail Dines: not all of your readers are going to be liberal feminists. Some are moderate or conservative feminists, who may not agree with your usage of politically-charged metaphors. Don't alienate your allies.
Also, you are not up to date on women's usage of the Internet. There are more women on the 'net than men, and roughly half of porn viewers are women. Please add five or six more chapters to your book to deal with this.
/Rant
Hey, article-writers in my apologetics Bible. I'm getting a bit annoyed at your setting up postmodernism as the straw man, using the most extreme of its arguments to characterize it (no one can truly know anything), and then using postmodernist deconstruction and historical point-of-view to prove your points. Please acknowledge that postmodernism has and does inform current historical methods, including the ones you're using.
Pornland Rant:
To Gail Dines: not all of your readers are going to be liberal feminists. Some are moderate or conservative feminists, who may not agree with your usage of politically-charged metaphors. Don't alienate your allies.
Also, you are not up to date on women's usage of the Internet. There are more women on the 'net than men, and roughly half of porn viewers are women. Please add five or six more chapters to your book to deal with this.
/Rant
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Women as Pastors; Women as Wives
"903.5. Women in Ministry," Manual 2009-2013, Church of the Nazarene:
The purpose of Christ's redemptive work is to set God's creation free from the curse of the Fall. Those who are "in Christ" are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). In this redemptive community, no human being is to be regarded as inferior on the basis of social status, race, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28).
Acknowledging the apparent paradox created by Paul's instruction to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:33-34), we believe interpreting these passages as limiting the role of women in ministry presents serious conflicts with specific passages of scripture that commend female participation in spiritual leadership roles (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9; Romans 16:1, 3, 7; Philippians 4:2-3), and violates the spirit and practice of the Wesleyan-holiness tradition. Finally, it is incompatible with the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
If Nazarenes can interpret Paul with this sort of nuance regarding ministry, why do I still hear the same stone age preaching about men ruling the spiritual household in marriage from Nazarene pastors and teachers? Those admonitions regarding women in marriage come from the same Pauline letters as the admonitions regarding women in the church. The Manual says women can be pastors, and therefore lead a church. Are pastors therefore saying that because women are female, they cannot use a spiritual gift of leadership in the home? What if the man has no gift for spiritual leadership? Does he lead by virtue of his penis?
I have seen this passage from Genesis used as a reason for gender division in marriage:
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16, to Eve)
But this is a CURSE, people! This is part of the Fall of Humanity. The Manual clearly states that being Christian frees us from the curses of the Fall. Why, then, did I see this verse used in church as an insight about marriage?
Marriage is a partnership. There is no rule, save that of God. Women don't need an intermediary between their souls and Christ. And children don't need all members of the household to have a penis in order to lead them spiritually. There is no "obey" clause in a Nazarene wedding service, and there shouldn't be an "obey" implication in Nazarene sermons.
The purpose of Christ's redemptive work is to set God's creation free from the curse of the Fall. Those who are "in Christ" are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). In this redemptive community, no human being is to be regarded as inferior on the basis of social status, race, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28).
Acknowledging the apparent paradox created by Paul's instruction to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:33-34), we believe interpreting these passages as limiting the role of women in ministry presents serious conflicts with specific passages of scripture that commend female participation in spiritual leadership roles (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9; Romans 16:1, 3, 7; Philippians 4:2-3), and violates the spirit and practice of the Wesleyan-holiness tradition. Finally, it is incompatible with the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
If Nazarenes can interpret Paul with this sort of nuance regarding ministry, why do I still hear the same stone age preaching about men ruling the spiritual household in marriage from Nazarene pastors and teachers? Those admonitions regarding women in marriage come from the same Pauline letters as the admonitions regarding women in the church. The Manual says women can be pastors, and therefore lead a church. Are pastors therefore saying that because women are female, they cannot use a spiritual gift of leadership in the home? What if the man has no gift for spiritual leadership? Does he lead by virtue of his penis?
I have seen this passage from Genesis used as a reason for gender division in marriage:
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16, to Eve)
But this is a CURSE, people! This is part of the Fall of Humanity. The Manual clearly states that being Christian frees us from the curses of the Fall. Why, then, did I see this verse used in church as an insight about marriage?
Marriage is a partnership. There is no rule, save that of God. Women don't need an intermediary between their souls and Christ. And children don't need all members of the household to have a penis in order to lead them spiritually. There is no "obey" clause in a Nazarene wedding service, and there shouldn't be an "obey" implication in Nazarene sermons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
