Amy Michelle Smith

@_AmySmith16

wife•mama•homemaker•music lover•saved by Grace through faith

Charlotte, NC

Joined September 2012

174 Following

77 Followers

1.7K Posts

_AmySmith16 retweeted

𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐨 ⛪︎ 🌲

@MichaelCarlino

14 days ago

C.S. Lewis's review of this appalling decision circa 1948: "Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as 'God-like' as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round. Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does. Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask 'Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?' But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul. The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters. With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us." From "Priestesses in the Church?"

MichaelCarlino's tweet photo. C.S. Lewis's review of this appalling decision circa 1948:

"Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as 'God-like' as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask 'Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?'

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul.

The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.

With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us."

From "Priestesses in the Church?"

525

498K

Amy Michelle Smith @_AmySmith16

over 3 years ago

Sabbath Rest in Jesus Part II https://t.co/3QPHURvtJE

_AmySmith16 retweeted

Timothy Keller (1950-2023)

@timkellernyc

over 3 years ago

1st reason to read thro the whole Bible regularly: We cherry pick our favorite ideas from the Bible to create a theology of our making, not God's. Reading the entirety regularly confronts us with teaching we don't like and keeps us listening to God rather than just our own hearts

248

171K

_AmySmith16 retweeted

Dane Ortlund

@daneortlund

almost 5 years ago

Why did the Son of God become a tiny human? So that you and I, tiny humans, can become sons of God. Why did the inn, and all this world, kick him out? So that heaven would bring us in. Why was he born in backwoods Bethlehem? So that you are I could reign in the celestial city.

246

Amy Michelle Smith @_AmySmith16

almost 5 years ago

Tell me you just moved from Minnesota without telling me you just moved from Minnesota.. “steps outside” *wow it’s nice out! I don’t need a coat!* “gets in car” *wow it’s 29 degrees out… maybe I should have brought a coat..*

Amy Michelle Smith @_AmySmith16

almost 5 years ago

Hey @VancityReynolds, how about you send my husband a new phone since your company, @Mintmobile has so far managed to get ZERO of the two phones we ordered through your company and he has now been without a phone for two weeks. 🙃Please and thank you. Signed, #aloyalminter

_AmySmith16 retweeted

Timothy Keller (1950-2023)

@timkellernyc

almost 6 years ago

The secret to freedom from enslaving patterns of sin is worship. You need worship. You need great worship. You need weeping worship. You need glorious worship. You need to sense God’s greatness and to be moved by it — moved by who God is and what He has done for you.

561

_AmySmith16 retweeted

Paul David Tripp

@PaulTripp

almost 8 years ago

Nothing in creation (not your spouse, children, friends, job, possessions, etc) was designed to give you identity, no, the function of created things is to point you to the One in whom identity can be found.

700

200

Amy Michelle Smith @_AmySmith16

almost 8 years ago

@MarshallSelina7 One time, when I was waitressing, a guy at the bar asked for my number-I said I had a boyfriend and he said “okay but not even for a rainy day though?” Me 😒 I don’t even remember what I said in response but in my head it was probably “oh you wanna meet him?” Haha