Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Good topic...
    
    In the last few years, my goal has become "bringing forth the power of
    God".  It changed from "understanding and knowledge of the power of
    God".
    
    I have concluded that the power is made manifest, basically, by
    acknowledging and affirming his Word in our/my life.  Word(s) are to be
    thought and moreso spoken.  Spoken words are the "bringing forth of the
    power."  This is true to the fullest extent.
    
    This topic of "Power" is awesome...
    
    I have more to say, but it's hard to just start in...it's easier to
    answer a question than to write an objective theme on Power.  In the
    Nag Hammadi Library collection, is a book entitled "The Concept of Our
    Great Power"...the title alone is awesome.  I'll have to reread it to
    comment on it however...I will soon.
    
    Playtoe

	I'm going to come from a different angle on this one.

	Jesus never seized power in the conventional sense.  Jesus never
spewed orders to massive military forces.  Though he died a death usually
reserved for insurrectionists, Jesus promoted no violent overthrow of
governmental powers.  Jesus sought no public office.  Jesus never placed
himself at the head of a complex hierarchy.  Jesus was not a manager.
Jesus imposed neither his radical teachings nor his miraculous healings
on anyone.

	Instead, the example Jesus provided for us was one of a servant,
not a monarch, and certainly not a regal figure craving adulation or opulent
pageantry.

Peace,
Richard

    Since God is by definition the Supreme Being, I believe that our human
    conception of God has historically mirrored whatever has served as the
    highest virtues without our value systems.  As a result, in the
    hierarchical and patriarchal societies that have characterized Western
    society up to this day, God has traditionally been perceived as a
    Sovereign, male, omnipotent figure whose agency in the world is through
    force rather than persuasion.  God is thus seen to be "Lord" and
    "King", who reigns over us from "above".

    We have seen this valuing of hierarchy in society's structures, and in
    the organizations of many churches.  Sandra M. Schneiders, in her book
    "Women and the Word", argues that this general conception of power and
    hierarchy as the Ultimate Good derives directly from patriarchal values:

        ...patriarchy is the basic principle underlying not only the
        subordination of women, but of one race to another, of colonies to
        master nations, of children to adults, of nations to divine right
        monarchs, of believers to clergy.  In other words, patriarchy is the
        nerve of racism, ageism, classism, colonialism, and clericalism as
        well as of sexism.  Patriarchy is fundamentally a masculine power
        structure in which all relations are understood in terms of
        superiority and inferiority and social cohesion is assured by the
        exercise of dominative power.  (page 13)

    She summarizes this point by arguing that "patriarchy is essentially
    hierarchy, i.e., the power and authority exercised over subordinates is
    believed to derive from the will of God and is exercised in the name of
    God."  Judith Plaskow, in her book "Standing Again at Sinai", describes
    this as the concept of God as "dominating Other".  She point out that
    "in depicting God's power as domination, the tradition draws on symbols
    of political authority that are not only foreign to citizens in a
    democracy but also morally repugnant", and continues:

        The image of God as male provides religious support for male
        dominance in society, the image of God as supreme Other would seem
        to legitimate dominance of any kind....God as ruler and king of the
        universe is the pinnacle of a vast hierarchy that extends from God
        "himself" to angels/men/women/children/animals and finally the
        earth.  As hierarchical ruler, God is a model for the many schemes
        of dominance that human beings create for themselves. (page 132)

    She elaborates on this issue in considerable detail, which I won't
    repeat here.  She suggests that if we instead conceive of God as lover,
    friend, companion, and cocreator, rather than as lord and king, we are
    defining God's power "not as domination but as empowerment":

        ...they invoke a God who is with us instead of over us, a partner
        in dialogue who ever and again summons us to responsible action. 
        Rather than reminding human beings of our frailty and nothingness,
        they call us to accountability as partners in a solemn compact that
        makes demands on us to which we can respond.  It is not as we are
        subjugated, as we feel our worthlessness and culpability, that we
        can act most responsibly and effectively, but as we know our own
        value, mirrored in the constancy of God as friend and lover who
        calls us to enter into the task of creation.  (Page 164)

    Rather than imaging a God who is "over" us, she suggests images of God
    as "fountain, source, wellspring, or ground of life and being".

    I find this conception very compelling.  It is consistent, as Richard
    has pointed out, with the way that Jesus lived out his own life. 
    Violence and warfare are social evils that, I believe, necessarily
    result from the conception of the preference of force to persuasion,
    and the need to control others, at all costs.  This view is also
    consistent with what process theology teaches.  Process theology
    rejects the concepts of God as male and as a Controlling Power. 
    Whitehead argued that God acts by persuasion rather than force, viewing
    persuasion as superior to force.  Commenting on "Plato's publication of
    his final conviction, towards the end of his life, that the divine
    element in the world is to be conceived as a persuasive agency and not
    as a coercive agency", he writes in his book "Adventures of Ideas":

        This doctrine should be looked upon as one of the greatest
        discoveries in the history of religion....The alternative doctrine,
        prevalent then and now, sees either in the many gods or in the one
        God, the final coercive forces wielding the thunder.  By a
        metaphysical sublimation of this doctrine of God as supreme agency
        of compulsion, he is transformed into the one supreme reality,
        omnipotently disposing a whole derivative world.  (page 170).

    Whitehead then mentions the biblical depiction of the life of Christ:

        The essence of the appeal of Christianity is the appeal to the life
        of Christ as a revelation of the nature of God and of his agency in
        the world....There can be no doubt as to what elements in the
        [biblical] record have evoked a response from all that is best in
        human nature.  The Mother, the Child, and the bare manger: the
        lowly man, homeless and self-forgetful, with his message of peace,
        love, and sympathy:  the suffering, the agony, the tender words as
        life ebbed, the final despair:  and the whole with the authority
        of supreme victory.  I need not elaborate.  Can there be any doubt
        that the power of Christianity lies in its revelation in act, of
        that which Plato divined in theory?" (pp. 170-171)

    Hartshorne comments on Whitehead's doctrine in his book "The Divine
    Relativity".  Pointing out that God not only creates, but also
    responds, and thus is influenced by us, he defines divine power in
    which God presents him/herself

        as essential object, so characterized as to weight himself as
        essential object, so characterized as to weight the possibilities
        of response in the desired respect.  This divine method of world
        control is called "persuasion" by Whitehead and is one of the
        greatest of all metaphysical discoveries, largely to be credited to
        Whitehead himself.  He, perhaps the first of all, came to the clear
        realization that it is by molding himself that God molds us, by
        presenting at each moment a partly new ideal or order of preference
        which our unself-conscious awareness takes as object, and thus
        renders influential upon our entire activity.  The total or
        concrete divine mover is self-moved, as Plato correctly said.  Only
        he who changes himself can control the changes in us by inspiring
        us with novel ideals for novel occasions.  We take our cues for
        this moment by seeing, that is, feeling, what God as of this moment
        desiderates. (page 142).

    Thus God's persuasion is seen as the expression of divine love.  God's
    power is in His/Her power to inspire, to comfort, to lure us into
    making the best possible choices.  This is my view of God's power.

    -- Mike

    RE: 2
    
    You say you want to take it in another direction, that of the power, or
    the examples of "power", Jesus manifested in his life on earth...I
    assume this is the direction.  Yet you've effectively pointed out that
    Jesus imposed not upon us, did "reign" over us, commanded no military,
    etc...all forms of worldly power.
    
    Which brings me to ask you, what type of power did Jesus manifest?  And
    what are you really trying to say with "Christianity and Power"?  
    
    I would also mention that the scriptures say, "others who come after me
    will do greater works than I".  Works take power/energy.  So IMO, the
    miracles, the message, the whole of the story of Jesus is a matter of
    power, the power of God.  And what Jesus did, the power he manifested
    can be manifested by all who have faith...thus "The Concept of OUR
    Great Power"....can we somehow synthesize your objective with mine?
    
    Playtoe

    RE: .4
        
        
    >I would also mention that the scriptures say, "others who come after me
    >will do greater works than I".  
    
    
     Who do you think Jesus was talking about when he said this?  And what
     do you think he meant by it?
    
     Carole

Re: 262.4

	I perceive the matter to be one of control.  Jesus declined
power and control in the conventional sense when it was offered him
(Luke 4.1-13, Matthew 4.12-17, Mark 1. 14-15).

	This is not to say that Jesus exercised no power.  It's more
that Jesus declined the use of force.  Moreover, Jesus did not control
or manipulate, though I suspect it might have been an ongoing temptation
for him to do so.

	I submit that there's a lesson in Jesus' example.

	Yes, I believe a synthesis can be achieved, Playtoe.  The power
you spoke about, I suspect, is an unconventional and extraordinary power.

Peace,
Richard

    
    	To say that Jesus did not exhibit power is to overlook 90% of his 
    public ministry.  The pharisees and common people observed that he
    taught not as the regular teachers but as one having power & authority.
    
    	The difference is that his power was exerted in the spiritual
    realm.  Acts 1:8 is the delagation of that spiritual power and the 
    instrument which it comes through.
    
    
    	And you shall receive power after that, the holy ghost is come 
    	upon you and you will be my witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and to
    	the uttermost parts of the world.
    							Acts 1:8

Heard a sermon last Sunday that I found very meaningful.  The preacher
talked about power and what real power is.

Supposing you were going to "do a double power-lunch," to put it in Yuppie
terms.  One lunch would be with the CEO of the Fortune 500 company of your
choice.  The other would be with Mother Theresa.

To the lunch with the CEO you'd probably want to wear your power tie, your
crisply conservative business attire, and you'd want to make sure you're
power groomed.  You might want to have a copy of your resume handy, or
perhaps a list of your accomplishments.

Your lunch with Mother Theresa might be more of a problem.  She probably
won't be as impressed by the cut of your clothes or your accomplishments.

Yet, which one of these two is more likely to possess real, abiding power?

The business leader?  Or the one who serves the poorest of the poor?

Peace,
Richard

Zechariah 4:6  Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This [is] the
word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by
power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts. (KJV)

One of my favorites.

Peace,
Richard

    229.145
    
    Power - Yes, it is an element of other acquisitions and desires.
    
    However, there are many kinds of power and many ways in which
    power can be employed or applied.  My guess is that you'll agree
    with me on this.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Can I stir up some stuff and add a feminist note.  
    
    The will to power is perhaps the strongest drive of Men.  The desire to
    control one's own destiny.  To make oneself secure.  To be independent. 
    Much of traditional Christianity prophecizes against this.  Orthordox
    Christianity calls "mankind" to submit to God and find meaning not in
    creating themselves but in relationship to the Divine.  The Bible and
    most books on theology are written by men.
    
    The strongest drive in women is the drive toward relationship.  A
    woman's relationship to her babies is probably the strongest
    human/human relationship but women also take responsibility for the
    relationships with their husbands and to the family.  Many women
    neglect their own self-actualization in relating to others.  They find
    their meaning in their husbands and in their children.
    
    So my thesis, which is not original but I don't remember where I read
    it is that what may be 'mans' greatest sin, the will to power and the
    will toward personal achievement does not apply equally to women. 
    Women may in fact need more encouragement toward independence and
    personal achievement and to self actualization with less emphasis on
    relatedness to others such as husband and children.  I'm not saying
    that relatedness is bad.  I am saying that there are differences of
    emphasis.  Traditional theology speaks more toward men and what their
    issues are and not as much toward women.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .11
    
    Are the differences between men and woman bad? 
    
    Marc H.

    Marc
    
    The differences are not bad they just are.  I think it is important to
    understand real difference and not just impose differences.  The point
    is if we accept that there are real differences we must also accept
    that men cannot speak to all human experiences and woman cannot speak
    to all human experiences.  
    
    That is why there is a major problem with a patriarchal bible.  It does
    not fully speak to women's experience.  If the writers of the Bible
    know that "man's" will to power, man's competitiveness, and man's drive
    to be separate and independent from others including God are major
    "sins" then the bible speaks to those sins.  Those are problems that
    women too experience but not the same way as men do.  Most women need
    theological symbols that encorage them to be independent, and encourage
    them to find their own power and be powerful and not to be overly 
    submissive.  It means something very different to tell a man to be
    humble and submissive than it does to tell a women to be humble and
    submissive.  I too recognize that these are generalizations but there
    are some clear observable differences in the way men and women think,
    feel, and behave.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .13
    
    Interesting........
    
    Marc H.

    RE:  Note 262.11 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN 

    I take it you feel that the characteristics you outlined are
    bio-chemical/genetic rather than cultural.

    > The desire to control one's own destiny.  To make oneself secure.  To
    > be independent.

    Hmmm... Do these traits sound more like a John Wayne or Gloria Steinem?
    I am making no judgments regarding the traits themselves, I'm just not
    sure they're their gender is exclusively male.

    Interesting question, though... I'll think about it some more.

    	Eric

Christianity is about God's power and humankind's obedience to His power.

    Eric,
    
    I think there is both biological and cultural basis to the difference. 
    Many are cultural.  The differences are not dualistic.  Not all men have
    a strong will to power and not all women are relational.  There is a 
    tendency toward those differences.  Are youngest children are taught these differences
    even in homes where the parents try not to.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    I can add a little to this.
    
    My son has not been brought up to believe in conventional dominance,
    that is, the use of coersion or force.  And yet, either from the
    rest of our culture or from testosterone or some other biological
    factor, he has acquired a yen for the most blatently physical kinds
    of power.  I'm hoping that as he gains a greater sense of
    self-confidence, he'll outgrow this desire.
    
    My step-daughter, on ther other hand, has never been taught by us
    to be squeamish around spiders and other creepy-crawlies.  But she is.
    I urged her to not allow herself to fall into the stereotype of the
    helpless female.  But she has.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    RE: .18
    
    Similar stories here too, Richard. My wife and I have gone out
    of our way to bring up the boy and girls equally....but.....there
    are some differences that seem to be "built in".
    
    Marc H.

    .19
    
    Amen.  I can verify the truth in that.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    So the point is that what is needed is a spirituality that overcomes
    the testorone in boys and the squeemishness in girls not one that tells
    everyone that they have to overcome their will to power.
    
    Patricia

 There you go!  We know God screwed things up by creating man and woman
 differently and assigning them different roles and responsibilities, so 
 lets see if we can fix his mistakes for him!






 Jim

re Note 262.22 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  There you go!  We know God screwed things up by creating man and woman
>  differently and assigning them different roles and responsibilities, so 
>  lets see if we can fix his mistakes for him!
  
        Nothing of the kind has been stated in the past few notes, so
        I assume that this is your twisted personal opinion.  :-}

        It is one thing to say that boys TEND to have certain
        characteristics and girls TEND to have others, and it is a
        far greater leap to say that there are certain things that
        boys must not do and certain other things that girls must not
        do (aside from what is determined by the obvious physical
        characteristics).

        Bob

     Note 262.13 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN
                   
    > The differences are not bad they just are.
    
    		.
    		.
    
    Note 262.22 by CSLALL::HENDERSON

    > There you go!  We know God screwed things up by creating man and woman
    > differently and assigning them different roles and responsibilities, so 
    > lets see if we can fix his mistakes for him!

    
    Huh?
    
    





 Jim
    

    It sure seems to me that is Patricia's agenda.  That the God of the
    Bible is not fair to women!
    
    Now understandably those who do not hold the Bible inerrant are not
    submissive to the Word therefore can just think up whatever they wish
    about God and have it apply... but those of us who hold the Bible
    inerrant find the suggestion that God's Word is not applicable to
    EVERYONE is unacceptable.
    
    God has defined our roles and they don't need anything more then proper
    teaching from the Word to address those roles.  Every  year my Pastor's
    wife and the Pastor's wife from another church puts on a Woman's
    conference in which the needs of the woman are addressed via God's
    word.  I challange you Patricia to come to this woman's conference then
    tell me God's word just doesn't cut the mustard for our needs.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    The Bible is not fair to women.  The God to whom the Bible is supposed
    to help lead us is not at fault for the excruciatingly exalted
    position which the Bible has over those who choose it that way.
    
    If this conference, for example, were to be operated under strict biblical
    guidelines, you, Nancy, as a woman, would be rebuked for even voicing
    your opinion.  And you would be powerless to do anything about it.  You
    would be forced to accept it as your role or be told you were simply
    unsubmissive to the Word.
    
    Richard

    .26
    
    Richard I disagree with you.  I think if you looked at the Bible
    properly and not through the eyes of humanity you wouldn't even spout
    such dribble. :-)

    Well, Nancy.  I think I have a solid understanding of the Bible.
    You say I do not.  You are allowed to do so, but only because you're
    not living under the culturally-dictated gender roles of biblical times.
    
    And I think the word you're trying to use is drivel, not dribble.
    
    Richard
    

    .28
    
    Naw it is dribble  [slurp slurp]...
    
    I wasn't discussing your understanding of the Bible.. why did you
    bringit up?  I was referring to buying the human Bible.. versus the
    Spiritual Bible... which is alluded to in several of my other notes in
    this conference as well.
    
    You think you are pointing out hypocrisy and if that makes you feel
    articulate, then by all means do so... but I disagree.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    .29
    
    What's clear is that my drivel is no worse than your senseless twaddle.
    
    Richard
    

    .30
    
    Richard, 
    
    Are you talking dirty to me?

    It sure sounds like he's talking dirty to you!!!
    
    :-)

    Twaddle????
    
    No theres a word I haven;t heard in awhile.....
    
    

    .33
    
    Marc you should now by now I'm a lover not a fighter.. I won't shrink
    from conflict, but I don't relish in it... I'd rather be frank, concise
    and open.. even if that places some uncomfortability in the discussion.
    
    But I still respect Richard even though he talked dirty to me. :-)
    
    The morning after wasn't so bad today.
    
    
    
    WHERE'S YOUR SENSE OF HUMOR??????

    RE: .34
    
    Nancy,
     No problem here at all. Twattle paints a picture of two adults
    on the edge of laughing, talking to each other.
    
    Marc H.