The God we worship [unlike the false “gods” of the heathen], whose son [who is God] we follow, is luring [calling] us into an unexpected [unexpected for those who do not know God’s Word revealed in Holy Scripture] and radically open [straight and narrow] future.
It’s hard enough to understand the actual meaning when a bona fide theologican uses the term, “radical.” When an avocational theologian uses the word, I guess its meaning is up for grabs.
Radically open?
Radically: going back to the basics? (probably not, given the source)
Radically: to an extreme? (getting warm)
Radically: drastically; promoting anarchy (getting warmer)
Radically: existing inherently (?)
She “witnesses†to such an activism, a call to humanist energy spent on idealistic endeavour. Where oh where is the sense of divine gracious rescue? When oh when shall we see her “come to her sensesâ€? The two questions are of course linked: the depth of the Father’s gracious loving heart is revealed only to desperately needy returning prodigals. Who thereafter offer a richer form of reconciliation among competing, warring human beings – or so St Paul’s example suggests, in Philippians, in 2 Corinthians.
I can’t read the PDF yet, but when the PB was in Milwaukee, she used the term “Body of God” to refer to the Abrahamic faiths of Judiasm, Islam and Christianity. (To me, it seemed she was about to use the term “Body of Christ” and stopped because that term doesn’t make sense w.r.t Judiasm or Islam). I think “body of God” is her way to go beyond Christ and be more inclusive.
Driver 8 et al. If I recall correctly, it was Grace M Jantzen who first seriously opted for “Body of God” language. In her case it was both pantheistic and somewhat ‘process’ driven – the latter being used by sundry science types over the years (unhelpfully, I would contend). In which case, I cannot myself read her piece without such echoes lurking in the wings – but perhaps I am biased. For I have to perform interfaith dialogue rather differently than any of this, again!
I couldn’t even get past the second paragraph. Here she is talking about chaos theory? I thought that God brings order out of chaos. Her imagery is a confusing mix of pantheism and post-modern quasi-intellectualsim. She may know a lot about the life cycle of the giant squid; but she doesn’t know beans about theology. That’s just my personal opinion.
Michael+
#8. driver8,
“She seems to be affirming the view that the world is the body of God. Am I misreading her?” No, I believe you are correct. this is my translation Gaia = Body of god.
#10. Sacerdotal451,
“Here she is talking about chaos theory”. Yes, in Genesis God created cosmos out of chaos and KJS is in the process of turning cosmos back into chaos.
She does a remarkable thing: in the space of two pages and two lines, she uses the phrase “body of God” 7 times! Paul, who used the phrase “body of Christ” more than anyone else in Scripture used it only 4 times in all of his epistles:in Romans once;(7:4), 1 Corinthians (10:16, 12:27) and in Ephesians (4:12). [He also used “his body” four times]
She has a remarkable theology that turns Paul’s theology on its head:
Whereas Paul says the “body of Christ is the “church”; she uses the “body of God” to mean “the whole of God’s creation”.
Whereas Paul looks to the “body of Christ” to bring healingto the world; she believes the “body of God” needs healing.
Whereas Paul believes that it is the Spirit at work in the body that brings the healing; she believes that we must bring lasting changes that “moves toward healing the body of God”.
That is what you get when you trust Sallie McFague rather than Paul!
Thanks moheb (#12) – your last line says it all! And raised a wry laugh And # 10 (sacerdotal 451) – sadly your assessment is pretty accurate: the more I hear/read from this lady, the more staggered I become. “To think it has come to this.”
Once +KJS starts to speak of “the God we worship,” let me be the first to say that she speaks not a word thereafter for me.
The Body of God? She must be joking. It’s the Body of Christ – how in the world does she remain in office?
bb
The God we worship [unlike the false “gods” of the heathen], whose son [who is God] we follow, is luring [calling] us into an unexpected [unexpected for those who do not know God’s Word revealed in Holy Scripture] and radically open [straight and narrow] future.
It’s hard enough to understand the actual meaning when a bona fide theologican uses the term, “radical.” When an avocational theologian uses the word, I guess its meaning is up for grabs.
Radically open?
Radically: going back to the basics? (probably not, given the source)
Radically: to an extreme? (getting warm)
Radically: drastically; promoting anarchy (getting warmer)
Radically: existing inherently (?)
She “witnesses†to such an activism, a call to humanist energy spent on idealistic endeavour. Where oh where is the sense of divine gracious rescue? When oh when shall we see her “come to her sensesâ€? The two questions are of course linked: the depth of the Father’s gracious loving heart is revealed only to desperately needy returning prodigals. Who thereafter offer a richer form of reconciliation among competing, warring human beings – or so St Paul’s example suggests, in Philippians, in 2 Corinthians.
She seems to be affirming the view that the world is the body of God. Am I misreading her?
I can’t read the PDF yet, but when the PB was in Milwaukee, she used the term “Body of God” to refer to the Abrahamic faiths of Judiasm, Islam and Christianity. (To me, it seemed she was about to use the term “Body of Christ” and stopped because that term doesn’t make sense w.r.t Judiasm or Islam). I think “body of God” is her way to go beyond Christ and be more inclusive.
Judaism, of course. Sorry about the typo.
On the up side, not as overtly pantheistic as any of us expected reading the title… just check yourself, am I right on that?
Driver 8 et al. If I recall correctly, it was Grace M Jantzen who first seriously opted for “Body of God” language. In her case it was both pantheistic and somewhat ‘process’ driven – the latter being used by sundry science types over the years (unhelpfully, I would contend). In which case, I cannot myself read her piece without such echoes lurking in the wings – but perhaps I am biased. For I have to perform interfaith dialogue rather differently than any of this, again!
I couldn’t even get past the second paragraph. Here she is talking about chaos theory? I thought that God brings order out of chaos. Her imagery is a confusing mix of pantheism and post-modern quasi-intellectualsim. She may know a lot about the life cycle of the giant squid; but she doesn’t know beans about theology. That’s just my personal opinion.
Michael+
#8. driver8,
“She seems to be affirming the view that the world is the body of God. Am I misreading her?” No, I believe you are correct. this is my translation Gaia = Body of god.
#10. Sacerdotal451,
“Here she is talking about chaos theory”. Yes, in Genesis God created cosmos out of chaos and KJS is in the process of turning cosmos back into chaos.
#5 and #8: Re. the body of God:
She does a remarkable thing: in the space of two pages and two lines, she uses the phrase “body of God” 7 times! Paul, who used the phrase “body of Christ” more than anyone else in Scripture used it only 4 times in all of his epistles:in Romans once;(7:4), 1 Corinthians (10:16, 12:27) and in Ephesians (4:12). [He also used “his body” four times]
She has a remarkable theology that turns Paul’s theology on its head:
Whereas Paul says the “body of Christ is the “church”; she uses the “body of God” to mean “the whole of God’s creation”.
Whereas Paul looks to the “body of Christ” to bring healingto the world; she believes the “body of God” needs healing.
Whereas Paul believes that it is the Spirit at work in the body that brings the healing; she believes that we must bring lasting changes that “moves toward healing the body of God”.
That is what you get when you trust Sallie McFague rather than Paul!
Thanks moheb (#12) – your last line says it all! And raised a wry laugh And # 10 (sacerdotal 451) – sadly your assessment is pretty accurate: the more I hear/read from this lady, the more staggered I become. “To think it has come to this.”