|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Thanks, Gordon, for the links, quotes and other opinions on the Kroeger's book. I think it all goes to prove that it is a tricky verse, and subject, and not so black and white as some (not necessarily on the Ship) would have us believe!
However, I did follow The Undiscovered Country's post with this remark:-
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
I'm hoping someone will answer that!!
And yes, I think the Bible should reflect the context in which it was written, though there are still some dodgy translations from gender neutral into male-speak which can have a malign influence on readers!
But the liturgy is different. Surely it should reflect the congregation, modern views of gender and the place of women?
I can read the Bible knowing that women were regarded as nothing. I don't see why I should have to go to church and start thinking "I am a woman, and its OK to be one, its just that men think they are the ultimate in the creation, etc. etc." when I should be able to concentrate on worshipping God, and bringing myself to him as I am.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...
Thanks Ken. You got there before me and used fewer words than I would have.
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...
Thanks Ken. You got there before me and used fewer words than I would have.
Okely doke. In that case it's a bad illustration. I said earlier that the arguments placing limitations on women in regard to preaching don't relate to ability or character, but to a difference in the relationship between men and women that was established at creation and argued for by Paul in 1 Timothy 2*.
What is there about being a pilot that is affected by the relationship between men and women? Nothing, as far as I can see. Whereas that is not true of preaching and congregational leadership.
*Whether or not you think Paul is talking nonsense in this chapter is beside the point. the fact remains that he argues his case on the basis of the created difference between men and women
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Yes, and I suspect that part of Paul's clampdown on women is due to concerns that some parts of the early church were too wild, too filled with 'spirit', too inclined to overturn what Paul, and others, saw as the established order. The fact that Paul needs to comment is surely proof that not all early Christians saw things his way.
Edited to say: Cross-posted with Gordon. Need I add that the 'Yes' was addressed to Ken and not to Gordon?
[ 16. June 2005, 14:21: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
This would make a fascinating new thread. I would like to see some proof for the link you make here Ken. In my experience, the really dynamic, growing Pentecostal churches in Sydney are led by dynamic, small-c charismatic male leaders overseeing tightly run and hierarchical structures. I don't know of any where women are prominent in leadership in the teaching sense, although there are some prominent husband-wife teams.
The appeal seems to be totally unrelated to gender issues, but a great deal to do with liveliness, youth, excitement, dynamism, the promise of health and wealth, and ecstatic worship experiences.
I don't like their theology but they have tapped into the secret of growth on a massive scale (although they often have a large back door too).
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Okely doke. In that case it's a bad illustration. I said earlier that the arguments placing limitations on women in regard to preaching don't relate to ability or character, but to a difference in the relationship between men and women that was established at creation and argued for by Paul in 1 Timothy 2*.
What is there about being a pilot that is affected by the relationship between men and women? Nothing, as far as I can see. Whereas that is not true of preaching and congregational leadership.
It's not? As far as I can see, there is nothing about preaching which is affected by the relationship between men and women. Nor leadership for that matter. If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
Carys
I seem to recall discussing this on another thread.
I can't answer for me, but basically, it's to do with where creation order should be modelled. I think the Biblical material suggests that the two places where it should be modelled are in the redeemed community, and in redeemed households.
Saying it should be modelled in society is rather putting the cart before the horse - in the same way as expecting any Christian morality to be seen in society is doing so. IMHO.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Are you arguing for a complete separation between church and state, Lep? IIRC when we had a thread a while back about family values you were agin' the state recognising gay partnerships as marriage. I know that none of us wants to debate gay marriage ever, ever again but it seemed to me that in that instance you wanted the behaviour of secular society to conform, in some sense, to a Christian understanding of what marriage is.
Incidentally, I am a Christian studying for a Ph.D in theology whose supervisor is a) a Christian and b) (insert Little Britain voice) a lady. Should we be concerned?
[ 16. June 2005, 15:05: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
I believe any decision about applications beyond what Paul himself makes (and I say Paul because he's the only one that seems to address the issue of application to church life directly, although Peter clearly believes similar things - see 1 Pe 3:1-6) are matters of Christian liberty, particularly given the number of examples of women in positions of respect and authority that we find in other parts of the New Testament.
As soon as something becomes a matter of Christian liberty, the one who claims liberty leaves themselves open to the charge of inconsistency. Should I eat meat offered to idols? Should I observe the Sabbath? Should I get circumcised? The answer in the NT seems to vary from situation to situation, but Paul and the other NT writers refuse to take the easy way out and formulate a one-size fits-all rule. Sometimes Paul will tuck into a dinner of pork, sometimes he won't. Sometimes he will tell people to get circumcised, other times he will as much as say that the person who gets circumcised has lost touch with the gospel.
In the same way, I want to resist the temptation to consistency and say that there is no rule for whether a woman can be prime minister/ bishop/ monarch / CEO /fighter pilot etc. The answer will depend on an applicaton of grace and Christian wisdom to the situation.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are you arguing for a complete separation between church and state, Lep?
Well, yes as it happens, I would be very much in favour of that, but I think it's by the by in this discussion.
quote:
IIRC when we had a thread a while back about family values you were agin' the state recognising gay partnerships as marriage. I know that none of us wants to debate gay marriage ever, ever again but it seemed to me that in that instance you wanted the behaviour of secular society to conform, in some sense, to a Christian understanding of what marriage is.
Precisely because because I think "marriage" is a Christian concept. I'm not per se against civil partnerships, although I'm not sure they are very helpful to society, but that, as you say, is another issue.
quote:
Incidentally, I am a Christian studying for a Ph.D in theology whose supervisor is a) a Christian and b) (insert Little Britain voice) a lady. Should we be concerned?
My view is probably not, although I'm not sure. But as, I guess, my opinion will make no difference to your studies, I'm not sure why you are asking.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
You are, of course, quite right that I'm not about to write to the head of the theology department if you take issue with my academic arrangements. I think what I am trying to drive at Lep, is that according to those who do not suffer a woman to teach a man, it is a terrible thing that our reader pops up in the pulpit once a month and delivers a ten minute sermon. On the other hand I can be supervised for a Ph.D by a woman and it isn't, apparently, an issue.
This strikes me as being inconsistent.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You are, of course, quite right that I'm not about to write to the head of the theology department if you take issue with my academic arrangements. I think what I am trying to drive at Lep, is that according to those who do not suffer a woman to teach a man, it is a terrible thing that our reader pops up in the pulpit once a month and delivers a ten minute sermon. On the other hand I can be supervised for a Ph.D by a woman and it isn't, apparently, an issue.
This strikes me as being inconsistent.
I didn't realise it was a theology Ph.D when you posted earlier, Callan—thought it mighta been Dr Who or something ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It's possible this arrangement is unwise; it's possible that it's just fine. Priscilla and Aquila supervised Apollos in his studies of the faith.
My understanding is that the best Ph.D supervisors will be very careful to be guides, sounding boards and questioners, and that those who take a more directive and overly didactic line are either doing a bad job or worse, doing the candidate's work for him/her. So I can't see the problem in principle.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
Maybe it's a problem. Depends how it's done. "Callan, I order you to stop watching Dr Who, go sit in the corner and read your Barth!"
Actually that would be bad coming from a man or a woman. The postgrad supervisors I've had have asked questions and made suggestions. They've made helpful suggestions and asked me to set and work to agreed goals. Hardly teaching authority in the sense meant in 1 Ti 2, I would argue. Preferably in Kerygmania, but here if necessary.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Ken said
quote:
quote:
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
And Gordon replied
This would make a fascinating new thread. I would like to see some proof for the link you make here Ken. In my experience, the really dynamic, growing Pentecostal churches in Sydney are led by dynamic, small-c charismatic male leaders overseeing tightly run and hierarchical structures. I don't know of any where women are prominent in leadership in the teaching sense, although there are some prominent husband-wife teams.
Some of the AOG churches have woman pastors. I have met "Pastor Joy" for example. But my experience in such churches has been that the male Pastors simply don't even think about inclusive language. "Father God, I wonder..." hadn't even got "son" changed to child! Except by me, singing 'child' out very loudly!
But other charismatic churches (notably the Baptist church I attended) were almost paranoid about women "being under the headship of men". We weren't even allowed to be in the pulpit! I'd better add that the pulpit was raised impressively at the front, where the altar would have been in another church, high above the stage where the baptismal pool was(covered over). The Pastors and Elders sat up there in posh chairs.
Women there were not allowed to be Home Group leaders in their own right, but only as part of a husband and wife team. Single women were just about tolerated, but women marrid to non-Christian husbands were regarded more or less as sub-standard!
Is it any wonder I am a bit of a Christian feminist!
And what happened to my question about God not separating sacred and secular?
[ 16. June 2005, 22:48: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
Well, it rests on:
a) what Paul means by "teaching" - and think it's fair to say that the reader giving the sermon probably falls into what Paul was instructing Timothy about, the theology lecturer not so much. Especially if it is a "secular" institution. (I don't know whether it is or not in Callan's case)
b) the issue of liberty as outlined by Gordon above.
It's like concentric circles - the church family gathered together (and the Christian family IMHO) is definitely in the middle circle; as you move further out from the middle it gets less clear. We are at liberty to work it out in those areas.
This was a protracted discussion on the Headship thread about this - I don't really think it has that much to do with inclusive language does it?
Nicodemia
quote:
And what happened to my question about God not separating sacred and secular?
What do you mean "what happened to it"? Aren't we discussing it?
[ 16. June 2005, 15:50: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Gordon
Every time I return to this thread you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot! The exercise of authority amongst Christians is to be a matter of footwashing, i.e. servant leadership (Matt 20 v 25-28). And yet here you go equating authority with telling someone how to behave or think - and then having to correct yourself! I spy a plank in your eye, so I do ...... (said he, taking the plank out of his own). Maybe you should start a Kerygmania thread?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
This was a protracted discussion on the Headship thread about this - I don't really think it has that much to do with inclusive language does it?
Lep, we've moved onto this because GC's main argument for exclusive language is that "gender subordination" is part of God's plan for the world, and that we all need to be reminded of this constantly.
I agree, that is some distance from the OP.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
If Gordon could somehow should that it's tacky to have women in teaching authority over men, perhaps more Anglicans would come over to his way of thinking. I am only worried that studying theology will imperil Callan's immortal soul, which is nothing when set next to tackiness, as we all know.
Seriously, the limits of authority women can or should wield over men as Gordon has discussed here seem very inconsistent. To drag things back a bit closer to the topic and away from the dead horse, should women get to be on the committees that write/approve liturgies for use in our churches? This also gets us back to the idea of people being "compelled" to use certain kinds of language.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
To drag things back a bit closer to the topic and away from the dead horse, should women get to be on the committees that write/approve liturgies for use in our churches?
Yes, Ruth, I think they should. They then could at least put a woman's viewpoint. I'm afraid that exclusive minds lead to exclusive language. And many men simply can't see the problem, because they have never had to be in the position of a woman!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
But if writing liturgy can be in any way thought of as "having authority" then (according to GC) women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near.
In my opinion, liturgical writers probably have more long-term effect upon "average Christians" than any preacher will have. How much of any sermon is remembered from one week to the next? But if liturgy is being used repeatedly (even if not every week), it seeps into the subconscious.
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
Again, it's a matter of Christian liberty (speaking as one who holds GC's position). Depends who. Depends where. Depends why. Depends what. Depends how.
Fiddle the dial on any of those five variables and you can come up with different answers. As 'liberty' really does mean 'liberty', near identical conditions could lead to quite different applications, with both being equally right.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul goes from apparently endorsing one view about eating meat offered to idols to suggesting the other within the same 13 verse chapter. He then comes back to the issue in chapter 10 and offers a different conclusion. How's that for consistency?
Answer: it's perfectly consistent, because Paul believes in wise use and application of gospel freedom. So there is your one-size-fits-all answer that you desperately want for all those situations about women's ministry that the Bible doesn't address. Love Jesus. Love your neighbour. Understand the foolishness of the cross (and in consequence be though an idiot by the rest of the world). Do whatever you jolly well please.
Martin Luther might have said "Sin boldly". As one of my favourite characters on the teev said, "You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment".
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
Again, it's a matter of Christian liberty (speaking as one who holds GC's position). Depends who. Depends where. Depends why. Depends what. Depends how.
Fiddle the dial on any of those five variables and you can come up with different answers. As 'liberty' really does mean 'liberty', near identical conditions could lead to quite different applications, with both being equally right.
Is it me or are you getting completely vague and confused?
What you seem to be saying is that the "traditional evangelical" position and the "liberal" position can be both equally right.
In fact, what I think you're trying to say is that you want to have your cake and eat it too - you want to be able to choose when to apply the "women must not be in authority over men" and when not. Frankly, it doesn't convince me. If the principle applies, then it applies across the board. There are no grounds for cherry-picking when it will apply and when it won't - at least not that I can see anywhere in the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So there is your one-size-fits-all answer that you desperately want for all those situations about women's ministry that the Bible doesn't address. Love Jesus. Love your neighbour. Understand the foolishness of the cross (and in consequence be though an idiot by the rest of the world). Do whatever you jolly well please.
I'm not sure what you're really saying here at all. Certainly I don't see how it applies to the point that I was making. I am not "desperate" for "a one-size-fits-all answer" - I'm merely trying to understand how you can apply what you claim to be Biblical principles in such a selective (and even random) way.
There is (as I see it) a deep inconsistency in your argument.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Aren't there women on the committees deciding new liturgy, then?
It would be interesting to see the proportion of M:F
I must also take a look in the foreword of 'Common Praise' (our new hymn book with several gender-specific word changes) to see what is said about there being women on the committee and sensitivity towards gender inclusiveness....
It was my understanding that many feminist theologians had long moved away from merely protesting about gender-specific references in the bible - in fact, several have become post-Christian in the process. So who is left to keep this issue in the forefront of modern theological thought? (I'm a bit out of touch here these days)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is it me or are you getting completely vague and confused?
What you seem to be saying is that the "traditional evangelical" position and the "liberal" position can be both equally right.
Although tempted to reply in as non-purgatorial vein as this response, I won't. The traditional evangelical position is right. The liberal position is wrong. (add necessary qualifiers, IMNSHO, etc.)
But people can come at the same problem from radically different perspectives and sometimes, come up with an identical solution.
An illustration: I might say "Turn off the life support on a Terri Schiavo because it will save the state time and money and compulsory euthanasia is the best invention since sliced bread". You may say "Turn off the life support on a Terri Schiavo because she is a precious human being in God's image who has clearly expressed that she doesn't wish to be sustained in a Persistent Vegetative State".
You see? We have come to the same conclusion about a specific situation, you because you understand the goodness and grace of God and its application to human dignity, me because I am a near psychopathic serial killer who likes to see the state's money used efficiently. [Lest there be any confusion, may I say that I don't support the argument I just gave, I am using it merely to illustrate that two radically opposed perspectives on life my come to the same practical conclusion about a specific situation].
So it is possible that you haven't understood christian freedom, yes. Or it's possible that I have expressed myself in a confusing way. However I am a persistent soul, as you may have gathered, and if God is gracious I will manage to get it right for some of the people some of the time.
In the meantime, if I am having my cake and eating it too, then so is Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 on the issue of meat offered to idols. 1 Corinthians is actually a brilliant and lucid attempt to apply the gospel of grace to all sorts of knotty contemporary problems, and I am trying to apply (possibly unsuccessfully) the same pattern of thinking to the 'women writing liturgy' question.
Which brings me back to the clear and decisive answer I gave earlier: it depends.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Aren't there women on the committees deciding new liturgy, then?
New liturgy? Is outrage! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So it is possible that you haven't understood christian freedom, yes.
Yes, I know. I'm not a trad evo do therefore I cannot possibly have understood something like this. Only trad evos have the right answers, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Which brings me back to the clear and decisive answer I gave earlier: it depends.
Which is still a cop-out in my eyes. Paul's position is that he has a clear principle of his freedom, and a clear explanation of why in some circumstances he would choose to curtail his own freedom and defer to the wishes of others. Alas - this is NOT the case with your position over women in authority. Your basic principle is clear enough (you're agin it) but what is not at all clear is why you would apply this in some areas of life and worship and not in others.
Quite apart from anything else, I cannot agree that there is a correlation between Paul exercising his freedom over whether to eat meat sacrificed to idols and you (or anyone else) deciding whether or not a woman should be able to have "authority". In the latter case, it is not about someone "exercising freedom" at all - but about others having their freedom restricted.
I see that there is a new thread in Kerygmania on Jesus and authority and I look forward to seeing how that develops. In the meantime, I think that the issue of what we mean by "authority" is really a different matter to what this thread was about. I'm not sure that it is one that has discussed recently, so I think it would be best to start an appropriate new thread.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I feel we are in danger of being engulfed in newspeak:
Christian freedom = gender subordination.
The good news of the gospel = oppression of women.
GC it does get jolly confusing for the rest of us when you say you believe in liberty but, when it comes down to specifics, the only freedom you advocate for women is the freedom to make ravioli. What does "Christian freedom" look like for women, from your perspective? (I may not be around to respond for a bit as I'm about to go away for the weekend. However I will catch up once I return as this is a genuine question, and I am curious about the answer.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
What does "Christian freedom" look like for women, from your perspective?
Ah, freedom... Well, Gordon may subscribe to an older idea of freedom:
Freedom for Excellence 1
Freedom for Excellence 2
I certainly do, and it is the traditional (well, ancient to medieval) idea of Christian freedom.
Then we can re-phrase your question as: "What does it mean to be an excellent woman?" Because living this excellence will be the utmost freedom a woman can achieve - rather than "Being able to do everything." Hence we can define freedom positively, as achieving something, rather than merely negatively, as not being forbidden anything.
Using this concept, Gordon may well be able to defend certain prohibitions as not actually restricting female freedom - namely precisely when the activity in question is not part of what "womanhood" is about. Doing these things then is not exercising freedom, but at best a distraction, at worst it is actually limiting freedom. However, if Gordon uses this defense, then he must also be willing to state what goal of "womanhood" he is judging against. Let's hope that it is not just about cooking ravioli in silence... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
This line of argument always reminds me of the celebrated contretemps between Albert Camus and J.P. Sartre about the difference between formal and bourgeois freedom and 'true' freedom.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
So presumable Nicodemia you think adultery should be illegal? Or lying? Or idol worship?
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large - so what is it if concentric circles doesn't float your boat?
Re: freedom. Presumably as Christians we all have a different view of "freedom" from "being able to do anything you want". For those who disagree with IngoB's "classical definitions" what do you think "freedom" is?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This line of argument always reminds me of the celebrated contretemps between Albert Camus and J.P. Sartre about the difference between formal and bourgeois freedom and 'true' freedom.
How about a short summary for people like me, who have never had time for existentialist lamentations?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Formal/ bourgeois freedom = the freedom to do what you think right (within the usual socially agreed limits).
'True' freedom = the freedom that comes from faithfully serving the revolution.
The analogy stems from, on the one hand, the idea of freedom in its bourgeois/ Occamian sense as being liberated to be the best judge of your own welfare and the 'true' freedom/ freedom for excellence as being free to fulfil yourself according to a norm that someone else, acting in the name of a higher authority (God/ The Revolution/ The Church/ The Party) has set out for you.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
So, just like this ancient concept, really:
“Eternal God, who are the light of the minds that know you, the joy of the hearts that love you, and the strength of the wills that serve you; grant us so to know you, that we may truly love you, and so to love you that we may fully serve you, whom to serve is perfect freedom, in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Prayer of Saint Augustine)
Only it just begs a whole lot of questions, doesn't it?
Wanderer - thanks for the newspeak translation ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 17. June 2005, 10:14: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Leprechaun said
quote:
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large
What non-believers in society at large do is their own affair. I am wondering how those Christian men and women who believe that women should not be in authority over men are expected to work this out in society at large. Does God have a double standard?
However, this is dangerously near expired equines apparently, so unless you can answer it in a one liner, you had better PM me!
And yes, adultery, lying and idol-worship are all wrong, whoever does it! Doesn't seem to stop people doing it, though! And sometimes the first two are illegal!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
So presumable Nicodemia you think adultery should be illegal? Or lying? Or idol worship?
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large - so what is it if concentric circles doesn't float your boat?
I think you're confusing two different things - what Christians in society should do and what society as a whole (bearing in mind it's mainly non-Christian) should be forced to do.
Society decides what is right for society at large - through voting, Parliamentary legislation and so on.
It would always be wrong (for instance) for Christians to worship idols or commit adultery. However, this does not mean they should be banned in society at large.
So the question is: should Christians avoid situations where women are in authority over men? Should they refuse to work for a female boss, or does only apply within 'church' settings. We don't say idolatry is only wrong in 'church'.
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
So, just like this ancient concept, really:
“Eternal God, who are the light of the minds that know you, the joy of the hearts that love you, and the strength of the wills that serve you; grant us so to know you, that we may truly love you, and so to love you that we may fully serve you, whom to serve is perfect freedom, in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Prayer of Saint Augustine)
Only it just begs a whole lot of questions, doesn't it?
Wanderer - thanks for the newspeak translation
Well, if you compare what Wanderer thinks with what Augustine thinks, I think I'll stay with the big A at this point, thanks very much. It's true, though, Wanderer did a good job of translating some of Augustine's ideas into newspeak.
Freedom seems to be associated in Wanderer's mind (and others) with independence. But if we were created for service, then not to be a servant is in itself a terrible bondage, like being a fish liberated from the drudgery of swimming in water.
We are describing two different religions, however — an Augustinian religion and another one, which is a helpful understanding to have reached.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, if you compare what Wanderer thinks with what Augustine thinks, I think I'll stay with the big A at this point, thanks very much. It's true, though, Wanderer did a good job of translating some of Augustine's ideas into newspeak.
How many sticks can you grasp the wrong end of at once, Gordon? Wanderer was, I think, translating what you said into newspeak. I was comparing what Augustine said with what Callan said about 'serving the revolution' in relation to the Camus/Sartre debate.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
I think you're confusing two different things - what Christians in society should do and what society as a whole (bearing in mind it's mainly non-Christian) should be forced to do.
No. I'm not. The issue is AFAIC see - communities and how they make rules for what goes on in their community.
If you see Paul's instructions as being about the Christian community, then it doesn't apply outside that community. There are "rules of membership" for the church that don't apply to society at large.
The further away you get from the context to which he was speaking, the less applicable the rule becomes. I don't think that's hard to understand.
It also, incidentally, highlights what I think all of 1 Timothy is getting at, with the church as the pillar of truth in the communiyt - that the church is the place where creation order is modelled for the rest of society to see, rather than the church bringing creation order to bear on a society that doesn't know Christ.
IMHO of course.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It was the Blessed Augustine, of course, who compared the body to a wife in one of his sermons advising his congregation to "love it and beat it". In the Confessions he commends St. Monica for her proper subordination to her husband and points out if other wives were to follow her example they'd be less likely to be slapped around by their husbands. So I'm quite happy not to be at one with Augustine on this issue.
But I'd be wary of suggesting that gloomy Gus thought that subordination was a natural or desirable state. Augustine did believe in natural hierarchies - the soul is higher than the body, children are subordinate to parents and (natch) women to men. But he also argues that some forms of hierarchy are unnatural, like that of master and slave and ruler and ruled. Of course, Augustine wasn't anything like a liberal or democrat in the modern sense but it is possible to derive an emancipatory politics from his theology which suggests that subordination derives not from 'nature' but from libido dominandi. In a peculiar sense Augustine is the intellectual ancestor of the great masters of suspicion, who confronted with a 'natural' order unmask the ideological imperatives behind it.
So you can have the shell Gordon, those parts of Augustine's thought that derive from Augustine's Romanitas* and we'll have the kernel, those parts that derive from his critical engagement with same. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(*I allude to the Empire, not the Church just to avoid a highly unnecessary tangent.)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
OK - I'm back! Did you miss me?
There are a couple of points I want to pick up here. Lep, you said: quote:
If you see Paul's instructions as being about the Christian community, then it doesn't apply outside that community.
This does resolve a lot of problems, but I'm not sure it is consisitent with Paul's aim, or Jesus before him. When they condemned something, be it hypocricsy, self seeking or lieing (just to grab three examples that spring to mind) I don't think they meant: "These are only wrong within the Christian community", I think they meant: "These are wrong wherever they happen". So restricting your interpretation of Paul to the church is convenient, but I'm not sure it is faithful to Paul.
InigoB, thank you for reminding me of your analogy of a different way of looking at excellence, which I found very helpful when you first posted it. However (to use your analogy) it still leaves me asking: "What is the concerto that a woman is allowed to play once she has undergone the discipline of learning scales and practising?". I agree, none of us have a right to preach, lead whatever. The heart of Christian ministry is service and self sacrifice, following in Jesus' own example. But all this talk of women only being allowed to work in certain highly restricted areas makes me think of men jealously guarding their "rights"; I'm afraid it does not resemble Christian generosity or sacrfice (according to my limited perception anyway).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
InigoB, thank you for reminding me of your analogy of a different way of looking at excellence, which I found very helpful when you first posted it. However (to use your analogy) it still leaves me asking: "What is the concerto that a woman is allowed to play once she has undergone the discipline of learning scales and practising?".
Precisely! "Freedom for Excellence" does not really provide an answer to the question at hand. One has to specify the "goal of womanhood", at least in some vague terms, before one can work with this concept to provide actual answers. All I wanted to point out is that restrictions are not by default evil, which is a basic consequence of Ockhams's Freedom of Indifference. This does not mean that any particular restriction is not evil under Freedom for Excellence.
I think the problem we are facing is to define what "equality" actually means among people who are clearly unequal in all kinds of features (including gender). I think our current answer is actually one of resignation: endless abuse and injustice made us give up on giving everybody a fair go, rather we now try to give everybody the same go. And we are getting so used to this that we have started understanding "fair" as "same" rather than as "appropriate"...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Sorry IB, I'm a simple man and you are losing me here. Certainly when you say: quote:
endless abuse and injustice made us give up on giving everybody a fair go
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
[ 20. June 2005, 06:39: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
You didn't misunderstand it, you illustrated it. The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. Hence I can generalize Churchill: "Sameness is the worst form of fairness except for all those others that have been tried." Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted by individuals trying to "play the system" (whatever system it may be) for their own unfair gain. We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
And we are getting so used to this that we have started understanding "fair" as "same" rather than as "appropriate"...
And just who decides what is "appropriate"? Isn't that what all this is about really?
Men have decided that "the women" ought to be allowed to have a go at some things, but they will decide what is appropriate for them to attempt!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. ... Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted ....
Well, in the UK the slogan for a long time was 'Equality of Opportunity' (is that what you'd call 'appropriateness'?) - that was around when schools became comprehensives. It's tended to die out a bit under attacks from the left (because "it just means the opportunity to become unequal") and the right (just because) and also because it is incredibly difficult to work out and apply. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, though. It's the closest to 'fairness' you can get, IMHO. quote:
We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
In what sense are you using the word "solved" - do the quotation marks change the meaning significantly? Cos, brother, I ain't lookin' at a world in which the social problems are solved - if you are, tell me where it is and maybe I'll move, or at least mosey over for a looksee. And the concept of "sameness" is not really applied - the whole social justice thing is based on respecting diversity, but maybe that's what you meant by 'appropriateness'?
As for stability - I'm not sure that you can use this as a measure of success for social policy since there are so many other factors involved: such as the pace of technological change, for example.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
1/ Ingo's argument basically states that we are freer within certain constraints than outside them. Now this is basically sound. A free society depends on the rule of law, not anarchy. Someone using the scientific methodology is freer to find scientific truth than someone who makes it up as they go along. I am freer by adhering to the highway code than a three year old who exercises his liberty to play in the traffic. A celibate sixteen year old, all other things being equal, is freer than a sixteen year old who has exercised her freedom to get pregnant. So far, so uncontroversial.
2/ Within the Christian tradition this has led to the view that we are freest when our wills are oriented to the will of God. According to Augustine, Adam was freer before the fall than afterwards. Sin is essentially addictive. Rather like someone who exercises their freedom to have a rebellious fag behind the bike shed the sinner becomes enslaved to a dependency which can only be removed fully by supernatural grace. Hence the prayer Qlib cited about Gods service being perfect freedom. Again, I go along with this.
3/ Now this approach is based on an ontological ordering. Human beings are created for fellowship with God and without that fellowship cannot find contentment or freedom or anything else. Again, no argument from me.
Now here is the problem.
4/ Ingo's argument only stands if women are ontologically ordered towards a certain role in life which is subordinate to that or men. Now Gordon denies that female subordination is ontological, insisting that it is merely functional. In this context, however, following this line of reason function cannot be divorced from ontology. Women are ordered to certain roles as a fulfilment of their intrinsic good as created female beings. So Gordon needs to decide either that women are ontologically subordinate to men or to explain to us why he thinks he can get the conclusions based from female inferiority from a professed belief in female equality.
5/ Oliver O'Donovan described Christian ethics as being "epistemologically revealed and ontologically natural". His argument is that whilst we cannot find moral truth through unaided reason we will recognise that truth on some level when we find it because it is what we are created for. So, for example, Augustine could point to the reality of life in the Roman Empire and say: "Look! Is that really what we were created for? Is this really how we find our highest fulfilment?" The shortcomings of invariably putting ourselves first are apparent through their consequences. (This is not to say that Augustine was a consequentialist, I hasten to add). Whether in the stony cruelty of antiquity or the smash and grab society of today we can see that self love has undesirable consequences. C.S. Lewis has a damned soul lament: "I see now that I spent my life doing neither what I liked or what I ought". We recognise the good when we see it. Even if, through our sinful natures we continue to put ourselves first there will be an element of 'divine discontent' in our lives.
On that 'taste and see' level it is not as easy to point to the role of women in modern society and point to their ontological ordering to subordination as it is to point to our ontological ordering to love God and our neighbour. If the removal of a form of subordination is experienced as a liberation then we need to enquire why.
Now Aidan Nichols, who I think would follow Ingo's line of argument all the way here takes the line that, in fact, there is an element of divine discontent in our society about the emancipation of women. He argues boldly that women are created for motherhood and that the abandonment of that vocation makes them deeply unhappy alleging that working women are prone to depression (He cites, however, no research to back this up).
If women are ontologically ordered towards certain roles then there should be none of this guff about: "Its fine for them to supervise Ph.D's just as long as they are subordinate to their husbands and don't deliver 45 minute exegeses on Leviticus in the main Sunday morning service". If female subordination models a creation order within the Church then women should find greater fulfilment - even allowing for their fallen state - doing the flower rota and leading the womens Bible study group than they do working as CEOs in multinational corporations (or whatever) from Monday to Friday.
6/ Finally, apart from those of us who are full time clergy, (and not even them, really) Christian ministry and vocation is not exercised in an exclusively 'church' context. Christian ministry is not merely exercised in whatever time we can spare for our parish church but in our family lives and our jobs as well. It would be daft to say that someone who works eighty hours a week as a doctor and does vast amount of work for a secular charity on the side, is only exercising a Christian ministry when they read the epistle in church once a quarter. So the idea you can bracket off 'church' as modelling how the created order is supposed to be from 'real life' which is merely flawed and subordinate strikes me as being unrealistic. For most Christians the majority of their time is not spent in a 'church' context, nor should it be.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
And just who decides what is "appropriate"? Isn't that what all this is about really?
Well, that's what it tends to be about once a decision has become necessary because doubts have arisen about what is appropriate. That this is now often the case is in my eyes a sign that there are no real communities in the modern Western world anymore. That the consequence is invariably some kind of race for decision power is in my eyes a sign that the intent to (re-)build some form of communal life is also lacking. For me the question would be if this has to be so, and whether it can be called "Christian"? But I believe we are straying too far from the OP now. Perhaps on a new thread...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
