sacred feminine

[orthodoc]

I didn't realize this thread had continued, and that people had asked me particular questions ... sorry. I want to apologize for the tone of my initial post, which was pretty unpleasant. I should have phrased things differently and not used the icon. From now on I'll try not to post when I'm angry ...

As far as my statement that the Church is feminine in nature goes, first I should say that I'm only referring to the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic. The Orthodox view of the Church as feminine probably starts with various passages from the New Testament that refer to Christ as the Bridegroom. The Orthodox don't typically proof-text (we refer to larger sections of Scripture, so that verses aren't taken out of context, and we don't rely solely on Scripture to discuss an issue), but a few places where the Bridegroom references may be found are Matt. 9:15, 25:1-13; Mk 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Eph. 5:25.

The first several references are developed in the Bridegroom Matins services at the beginning of Holy Week (the week leading up to Pascha, known as Easter in the West). These services take the references as applying mostly to individuals and the need to be ready for either our own deaths or the second coming of Christ; however, there is also an understanding that the Church is represented by the virgins in that parable. Some references, where Christ refers to Himself as Bridegroom, mention the Apostles as His 'friends'. The Bride is implied, here. The illustration of Christ as Bridegroom and the Church as Bride comes from the portrayal in the Old Testament of the covenant between God and Israel as a marriage covenant. The covenant is fulfilled with Christ as Bridegroom and the Church (the New Israel) as Bride.

In the Ephesians reference, Christ is again portrayed as a Husband to the Church. Many people read this passage as being demeaning to women, seeing only the admonition to wives to respect their husbands; however, husbands are admonished to love their wives sacrificially, to the point of being willing to give up their own lives (whether physically or figuratively), in imitation of what Christ did for the Church. The entire passage is a compressed discussion of marriage as a mystery that, ideally, portrays the relationship between Christ and the Church.

A further concept is that, within the Christian community and especially during services, the priest is a 'type' of Christ, and the congregation is the Church; they are masculine and feminine 'types'. Masculine and feminine are fulfilled, balanced and working in harmony in the fullness of the Kingdom. The priesthood is not about power or privilege (again, please, I am not referencing any RC ideas, only Orthodox); it is about servanthood and accountability. The priest is shown respect as a 'type' of Christ, while every member of the community is shown respect as an icon of the image of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Church members are censed during services as an indication that they are 'living icons'. If Christ had never become incarnate, we would not have known how to represent Him; but He came to us as a Man (fully God and fully man) and He is represented in icons and in the community as a man.

I'll post a few direct citations from Church Fathers regarding the nature of the Church shortly ...

[orthodoc]

I found a few references from the Church Fathers in my home library that mention the concept of the Church as feminine. Here goes ...

''For the Scriptures say, 'God made man, male and female' (Gen. 1:27). The male is Christ, and the female is the church. And the books and the apostles declare that the church is not of the present, but is from the beginning. For she was spiritual." Second Clement (c. 150), 7.521.

"He said, 'It is the church'. And I said to him, 'Why, then, is she an old woman?' He replied, 'Because she was created first of all. On this account she is old. And the world was made for her sake.' " Hermas (c.150), 1.12.

"The mother draws the children to herself; and we seek our mother, the church." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195), 2.214.

"The Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the church." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195), 2.220

"Can he have God as his father, before he has had the church for his mother?" Cyprian (c. 250), 5.388.

"The church is formed out of His bones and flesh. And it was for this cause that the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be 'joined to His wife.' ... And He willingly suffered death for her, that He might present the church to Himself glorious and blameless - having cleansed her by the bath." Methodius (c. 290), 6.319.

The above quotes aren't exhaustive, and there are many writings that refer to the Church as female. The Church is also given other names, such as ark, garden, Paradise, fountain, pillar and ground of the truth. The feminine aspect is only part of the imagery . However, this aspect is important in the imagery of a marriage covenant, and of how Christ loved and gave Himself up for her, as a husband. (The RC doctrine of the Atonement, of a death being needed to satisfy the stern justice of a vengeful God, etc., is not Orthodox, by the way. The RC ideas sprang from the writings of Augustine, and were developed by Anselm of Canterbury more than a thousand years after Christ.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Clement was born probably c. 150 of heathen parentage at Athens. The circumstances of his conversion are not known. It is supposed that he was troubled, like Justin, by the problem of God and, like him, was attracted to Christianity by the nobility and purity of the evangelical doctrines and morals. His conversion, if it had not yet taken place, was at least imminent when he undertook the journeys spoken of in his writings. He set out from Greece and travelled through southern Italy, Palestine, and finally Egypt, seeking everywhere the society of Christian teachers.

From a theological point of view, one of the chief aims of Clement was to determine the relations between faith and reason and to show what philosophy has achieved to prepare the world for Christian Revelation and how it must be used in order to transform the data of this revelation into a scientific theology. The solution given by Clement is, on the whole, exact. He is accused of a few errors in the details of his work which are not always proved to be such. It would be surprising if, in so vast and so new a subject, there could be found everywhere the finest discrimination and absolute exactness of expression.

Sounds to me like in Clement's time, nearly 200 years AD, there were a lot of different views on what Christ and his teachings were all about and how they related to the masses. I take it he was trying to learn them all and put them all together, to figure where it was at.
This was before the Roman Catholics figured out that by being aggressive they could quell any competing philosophy to assure power and wealth.... make it a business, as it were.

[Pie]

L. Ron Hubbard!

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sounds to me like in Clement's time, nearly 200 years AD, there were a lot of different views on what Christ and his teachings were all about and how they related to the masses. I take it he was trying to learn them all and put them all together, to figure where it was at.
This was before the Roman Catholics figured out that by being aggressive they could quell any competing philosophy to assure power and wealth.... make it a business, as it were.

There were two Clements whose writings have come down to us from the early Church: Clement of Rome, who lived c. 30 - 100, and Clement of Alexandria, who lived c. 150-200. Clement of Rome was Bishop at Rome immediately following Peter and Paul. He was almost certainly a disciple of these Apostles. Clement of Alexandria was the head of the first formal theological school, in Alexandria.

It is true that, by the time of Clement of Alexandria, various heresies were being widely propagated. (The word 'heresy' isn't synonymous with 'different but equally valid opinion'. It refers to a teaching contrary to orthodox or accepted doctrine, propagated by someone from within the Church (i.e., who ought to know better). It does not refer to any form of non-Christian teaching.) Given human nature and the distances and difficulties in communication and travel that existed at that time, it's inevitable that various people would come up with ideas that contradicted accepted doctrine, and at times blend these with non-Christian ideas to create a teaching that superficially resembled Christian doctrine but had never been taught before. (It's interesting that Irenaeus wrote against various heresies of this sort, and pointed out that, although they claimed to support their ideas from Scripture, they did not possess the authentic teaching directly from the Apostles that gave the correct interpretation of those Scriptures. They were both taking verses out of context and making up idiosyncratic interpretations of their own. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.) It is not the case that Christianity was just a mish-mash of competing and equally valid theories about the nature and message of Christ. There was always the Apostolic teaching, which was carefully preserved by the Bishops who traced their ordination directly back to the Apostles. A rich oral tradition was in place in addition to the writings that became accepted as the canon of the New Testament - not surprising given the culture at the time, which heavily relied on oral tradition and exact memorization for the transmission of teachings. (The writings included in the canon of the New Testament as Scripture were not the only writings circulated and respected within the early Church. There were many others that were highly respected, but not considered to be of sufficient authority, reliable provenance, or universal importance to be included. There were many others that were not accepted, as well.)

The periodic councils that formulated written definitions, guidelines, and creeds were called in response to major heresies of the time, in order to formally state the previously and continuously accepted beliefs and principles of Christian teaching. Nothing new was 'invented' or decided at these councils. The teaching had always been in place; it was only necessary to formally write out creeds and definitions when erroneous teachings threatened to confuse laypeople.

The Church was one for several hundred years, before the schism in which Roman Catholics and Orthodox went different ways. Christians were heavily persecuted into the 4th century, and the Edict of Milan merely rendered Christianity legal, rather than making it the official religion of the Roman Empire. It did not become 'official' until considerably later, and even then was subject to persecution from Emperors who weren't Christian (such as Julian the Apostate).

While it is true that the Roman Bishops became progressively more concerned about authority and jurisdiction once the capital moved to Constantinople, leading to one of the issues that was critical to the schism (the papacy), the idea that in AD 300 the Roman Catholics somehow instantaneously set up shop as Big Business isn't accurate. To view Christianity as simply the Vatican is to remain unaware of much of the history of the Church.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes two Clements. I was speaking of the second because he's the one you quoted the most in the concept of the Church as feminine.
When I read...

He set out from Greece and travelled through southern Italy, Palestine, and finally Egypt, seeking everywhere the society of Christian teachers.

it made me wonder why he traveled so much if the catholic Church was established and the fountain of true Christianity, it claims to be.
Of course the winner always writes the history.