Posted                       

quote:

---

the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
As a women and an egalitarian I'm horrified by this statement. I do not believe in an underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women, but that men and women are both in the image of God and that apart from a few biological tasks our common humanity outweighs our gender difference.

---

Me too - astounded and disappointed. There is no objective underlying distinctiveness imo, and gender isn't so clear cut and fixed as they seem to be saying.




[ 07. December 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                       

quote:

---

However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Who wrote that piece of dreck? And who advised them? Curious minds would like to know. This is where the issues of women in Holy Orders, equal marriage, and the pink and blue aisles in ToysRus all come together in a giant clusterfuck.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
This is where the issues of women in Holy Orders, equal marriage, and the pink and blue aisles in ToysRus all come together in a giant clusterfuck.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But the complementarianism here holds that one distinction and one distinction only is relevant: not race, creed, height, weight, eye color, hair color, kindness, conscientiousness, basketball skills, or foot size; but sex.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think complementarianism here has a more developed sense than the way you are using it, which is a more general sense. Though maybe a spot of definition about what people understand by the term would be helpful.

---

quote:

---

Being a Jew, being a Palestinian, being a first century man—all these are what we might call, in the language of Aristotelian metaphysics, the "accidents of Christ's humanity"; but his being a man rather than a woman is of the "substance" of his humanity. He could have been a twentieth-century Chinese and been, cultural differences notwithstanding, much the same person he was; but he could not have been a woman without having been a different sort of personality altogether.*

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think complementarianism here has a more developed sense than the way you are using it, which is a more general sense. Though maybe a spot of definition about what people understand by the term would be helpful.

---

quote:

---

Complemenarianism is patriarchy—nothing more, nothing less. (Though it is sometimes called "soft patriarchy.") This was made crystal clear when John Piper announced months ago that Christianity is inherently masculine. Such a view can hardly be described as “complementary” when it excludes one gender entirely. We experience the same discomfort when we realize that, based on the “complementarian” understanding of gender, Fred Phelps would be more qualified to speak to your church on Sunday morning by virtue of being a man than someone like Lois Tverberg or Carolyn Custis James or Christine Caine. When a man with no biblical training whatsoever is considered more qualified to teach than a woman with a PhD in theology or a woman whose work in New Testament scholarship is renowned the world over, we are not seeing complementariaism at work, but patriarchy.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Knowing nothing about the CofE, Rowan presumbably has to have approved it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Are you sure that in your legitimate desire to feel that you are the equal of any man, you have taken it for granted that you are obliged to believe something else about sexual identity as an article of faith, irrespective of whether it is actually true or not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
Last month my Church told me that I was unfitted to exercise episcopal ministry because of my gender.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
Last month my Church told me that I was unfitted to exercise episcopal ministry because of my gender.

---

I think it's more accurate to say that the Church (to the extent that Synod represents her) told you she wasn't ready for you to exercise episcopal ministry until the issue of those who don't believe you can do that has been charitably and reliably sorted out. But I can see how it looks otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
It's a question of calling, Enoch. God calls and the Church tests that calling. God calls unique, gifted Christians to the ordained ministerial priesthood. The Church, seeking to discern God's will, tests their vocations. Parts of the Church have come to the understanding that the Holy Spirit calls women as well as men. This is not understood to be because women have special womanly gifts which the Church now, for the first time, needs at the altar and in the pulpit, but because it is understood that some women, like some men, are called by God to the vocation of priestly ministry. This is an understanding as much about the nature of Christ as a human being as about what it is to be a priest.

---

quote:

---

The inherent sexism of this position is well illustrated by the fact that it's never pitched in the frame of men wanting to be the equal of any woman. There's a definite hierarchy implied.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
Last month my Church told me that I was unfitted to exercise episcopal ministry because of my gender.

---

I think it's more accurate to say that the Church (to the extent that Synod represents her) told you she wasn't ready for you to exercise episcopal ministry until the issue of those who don't believe you can do that has been charitably and reliably sorted out. But I can see how it looks otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

<snip>

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The inherent sexism of this position is well illustrated by the fact that it's never pitched in the frame of men wanting to be the equal of any woman. There's a definite hierarchy implied.

---

That is largely true for adults. Curiously though, the opposite message is very widely conveyed and ingrained into children at primary school.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There is more to this than meets the eye.

If there were no difference between men and women apart from the procreation bits, why would some people struggle so much with gender identity?

The necessity for both to be involved in procreation is obvious, but is there more to it than that? Are the traditional female nurturer, male provider roles purely man-made inventions? Do they have some root in the reality of their respective natures? What of role models for children?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Raptor Eye, you'll probably not be surprised if I say I agree with you, and don't agree with Crœsos.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The inherent sexism of this position is well illustrated by the fact that it's never pitched in the frame of men wanting to be the equal of any woman. There's a definite hierarchy implied.

---

That is largely true for adults. Curiously though, the opposite message is very widely conveyed and ingrained into children at primary school.

---

And exactly how many primary-school-age bishops does the Church of England have? My rough guess would be "zero", but I'm prepared to be surprised.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I hesitate to step into an arena to have my head blown off, but has complementarian now also become a random insult devoid of any meaning?

---

quote:

---

Most of those who support womens' ordination whether as priests or bishops do so at least in part on a complementarian argument. As soon as one says that women bring something different to ministry, whether it be a more caring nature, a feminine perspective, the completion of something that was once one-sided and is now binary, or whatever, that is a complementarian argument.

---

quote:

---

There is an alternative, utilitarian, argument that there is no difference between men and women at all. So we might as well ordain women, particularly if we are short of male applicants and the law says we must not discriminate on grounds of sex. Not many people are actually saying that. The few that are tend to be men. Most women priests are saying that bring something extra that the previous all male priesthood did not have.

---

quote:

---

The same applies if one says that sexual identity is not simply binary, but more subtly nuanced over a spectrum. That doesn't make sense at all unless one starts from an assumption that there are some characteristics that are more usually male and others that are more usually female.

---

quote:

---

Even if one does actually believe that the only difference between men and women is that they have different genitalia, procreation still requires two sexes. When you take the implications of that apart, most people turn out not really to believe that but to be reacting emotionally to views presented by people they disagree with.

---

quote:

---

The notion that men and women can't 'both be the image of God' unless there are 'no underlying, objective, distinctivenesses between them' is, to put it as respectfully as I can, a serious non sequitur. Even without our differences of sex, we each have different personalities. Yet we are all both in the image of God, and loved by him equally and individually, as he called us into being through the generative activities of our parents. Even if we don't agree with some of the conclusions some people draw from this, we have to accept that God created a world in which in most species, there are two sexes.

---

quote:

---

Are you sure that in your legitimate desire to feel that you are the equal of any man, you have taken it for granted that you are obliged to believe something else about sexual identity as an article of faith, irrespective of whether it is actually true or not?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Trevor Dennis has an interesting discussion of male and female and the imago Dei in Ánd Sarah Laughed'. He points out that woman wasn't made from man's 'rib' but from his side, almost as though pre-split adam/man was both though he doesn't think the text quite supports this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
More generally, can anyone point me to anything the CofE has produced on its understanding of gender (as distinct from sexuality)? If not, how can a statement such as this be made on its behalf? Has it even done anything on transgender issues? There is at least one transgender vicar in the CofE as I follow her on twitter! I must get hold of her book 'Dazzling darkness'

Carys

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
... CofE h Has it even done anything on transgender issues?

---

quote:

---

Some issues in human sexuality four Church of England bishops have surveyed some of the theological responses to the existence of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) people in society and the Church. Chapter 5 explores gender identity, in its broadest sense, in history and theology, while Transsexualism is examined in Chapter 7. The authors make a valiant attempt to be even-handed, quoting the Evangelical Alliance report and Roman Catholic moral theologians alongside other Christian writers who are prepared to justify gender re-assignment and the godliness of transsexual people. The bishops’ method is to summarise their review of the arguments in a series of, apparently, open questions; though one has the impression that these have been ‘closed’ in the earlier sections in favour of so-called ‘traditional’ teaching about gender and sexuality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It is also a bit subjective. You seem to be saying, 'we ordain women because suddenly they started coming forward saying they believed God has called them to be priests'.

---