I have reached the chapter mentioned in this post from The Ethics of Beauty. I agree with the inversion of roles in the chiastic structure but do not agree with the conclusion. Men are representative of the head (and note that this is only representative. Each of us must have the integration of the masculine head and the feminine body to follow Christ in the Way.) and women are representative of the body.
The body acts in the world by touching, feeling, and experiencing. The head acts in the world by seeing, hearing, and thinking. The female, then, is in the reality of the world, interacting with it in a concrete way. She draws the male into that reality (often drawn by its beauty). Beauty is the culmination of the feminine.
The male pulls the female up from reality. He becomes her Sabbath rest, giving her respite from all the bodily functions of a woman--birthing children being the most labor intensive. How wrong has our society gone? Especially Christians, believing that women should be the rest for men. We got it exactly backwards.
So, if we look at these from Patitsas's perspective, the woman was a false prophet in the Garden. The man was a false king. In the church, we reversed these in the wrong way. Now, we have only the men as prophets (and he says women as kings. I suppose maybe I agree?? Kings in the sense that many men have abandoned their kingship in the family and left it all to the woman.). This reversal is not a good thing. We're actually still in the throes of sin.
So, how should it be? As I said, the male raises up the female, exalts the female; the female draws the male. Where do they meet? At the center of the cross. The highest role of a male or female is neither that of prophet nor king but that of priest. This is where we find the High Priest--the center of the cross. The cross has become the ladder where heaven descends to earth. The center is where Heaven meets the Earth.
So, what does this look like in our churches? This is what it does not look like. Women do not step forward without the men to confront evil alone; men do not hang back and wait to see what the serpent does to the woman. They are together, especially in marriage. Neither does the man tear "asunder" what God has joined together by ignoring the woman; the woman does not usurp authority by speaking for the man. How that plays out in the Church has to be prayerfully considered. Women cannot take the prophetic role from the man; men cannot take the kingly role from the woman. But there has to be a coming together, a meeting of the minds, between the male and female. Both are needed to fully image God.
Thanks for your work in this series. It's very helpful.
Thanks for sharing all of that. I would love to see how you engage with the scriptural touchpoints for your representational paradigm. Perhaps that’s in your book?
I am not sure which scriptural touchpoints you speak of. I do depart from the traditional view of God as only masculine. I think scripture upholds the feminine aspects of God. I think when we look at feminine aspects of God--creation (life), mercy, wisdom, and beauty--we associate those with the Holy Spirit. My biggest departure from the more orthodox view of scripture is that I think the Comforter is as much a Person as the Father and that both the Comforter has a Spirit (the Holy Spirit) and the Father (the Spirit of Power in 2 Timothy). Jesus breathed out the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost. I believe the "promise of the Father" ... drumroll please ... was the Father. In John 14:23, Jesus said He and the Father will make their home with His followers.
I believe the Holy Spirit already indwelled the disciples on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit brought the Father to the disciples, manifesting as the fire on their heads. I think a case can be made that fire is associated closely with the Father. Air, breath, wind is associated with the Holy Spirit. It seems our church fathers ignored the Father's presence unless I missed something--or say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and is the Father's Spirit. That does not make sense to me since God is Spirit. How would the Holy Spirit be different than the Father? Anyway, the scriptures seem to make more sense when seen in light of the Trinity. I am probably oversharing. :) Did that answer your question?
I have given this a quick read but will come back to study this some more. Just wanted to say that I am reading Timothy Patitsas, The Ethics of Beauty right now. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I have reached the chapter mentioned in this post from The Ethics of Beauty. I agree with the inversion of roles in the chiastic structure but do not agree with the conclusion. Men are representative of the head (and note that this is only representative. Each of us must have the integration of the masculine head and the feminine body to follow Christ in the Way.) and women are representative of the body.
The body acts in the world by touching, feeling, and experiencing. The head acts in the world by seeing, hearing, and thinking. The female, then, is in the reality of the world, interacting with it in a concrete way. She draws the male into that reality (often drawn by its beauty). Beauty is the culmination of the feminine.
The male pulls the female up from reality. He becomes her Sabbath rest, giving her respite from all the bodily functions of a woman--birthing children being the most labor intensive. How wrong has our society gone? Especially Christians, believing that women should be the rest for men. We got it exactly backwards.
So, if we look at these from Patitsas's perspective, the woman was a false prophet in the Garden. The man was a false king. In the church, we reversed these in the wrong way. Now, we have only the men as prophets (and he says women as kings. I suppose maybe I agree?? Kings in the sense that many men have abandoned their kingship in the family and left it all to the woman.). This reversal is not a good thing. We're actually still in the throes of sin.
So, how should it be? As I said, the male raises up the female, exalts the female; the female draws the male. Where do they meet? At the center of the cross. The highest role of a male or female is neither that of prophet nor king but that of priest. This is where we find the High Priest--the center of the cross. The cross has become the ladder where heaven descends to earth. The center is where Heaven meets the Earth.
So, what does this look like in our churches? This is what it does not look like. Women do not step forward without the men to confront evil alone; men do not hang back and wait to see what the serpent does to the woman. They are together, especially in marriage. Neither does the man tear "asunder" what God has joined together by ignoring the woman; the woman does not usurp authority by speaking for the man. How that plays out in the Church has to be prayerfully considered. Women cannot take the prophetic role from the man; men cannot take the kingly role from the woman. But there has to be a coming together, a meeting of the minds, between the male and female. Both are needed to fully image God.
Thanks for your work in this series. It's very helpful.
Thanks for sharing all of that. I would love to see how you engage with the scriptural touchpoints for your representational paradigm. Perhaps that’s in your book?
I am not sure which scriptural touchpoints you speak of. I do depart from the traditional view of God as only masculine. I think scripture upholds the feminine aspects of God. I think when we look at feminine aspects of God--creation (life), mercy, wisdom, and beauty--we associate those with the Holy Spirit. My biggest departure from the more orthodox view of scripture is that I think the Comforter is as much a Person as the Father and that both the Comforter has a Spirit (the Holy Spirit) and the Father (the Spirit of Power in 2 Timothy). Jesus breathed out the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost. I believe the "promise of the Father" ... drumroll please ... was the Father. In John 14:23, Jesus said He and the Father will make their home with His followers.
I believe the Holy Spirit already indwelled the disciples on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit brought the Father to the disciples, manifesting as the fire on their heads. I think a case can be made that fire is associated closely with the Father. Air, breath, wind is associated with the Holy Spirit. It seems our church fathers ignored the Father's presence unless I missed something--or say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and is the Father's Spirit. That does not make sense to me since God is Spirit. How would the Holy Spirit be different than the Father? Anyway, the scriptures seem to make more sense when seen in light of the Trinity. I am probably oversharing. :) Did that answer your question?
I have given this a quick read but will come back to study this some more. Just wanted to say that I am reading Timothy Patitsas, The Ethics of Beauty right now. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.