tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post6647972515510627217..comments2023-08-10T19:27:13.498+12:00Comments on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity: Response 1 to issue raised earlier about WOPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-13528334649172742302009-09-08T06:33:07.906+12:002009-09-08T06:33:07.906+12:00I agree with Howard that the experience of being &...I agree with Howard that the experience of being 'called to minsitry' is subjective - that is almost tautological to say so - but I would say 'necessarily' rather than 'essentially' to avoid being solipsistic because the apostles were bold enough to say 'It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us', IOW they claimed an insight into the mind of Christ which Paul also asserted. Is this arrogance or the unique mark of an apostle? Could/would any Protestant church speak with such confidence today? That was the point of my reference to Jaroslav Pelikan as he left Lutheranism in his last years. <br />Specific texts are not needed to discern a call to ministry, though God may certainly act in such a way. However, the call is not validated by the individual but by the Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-9166691565599621542009-09-08T06:23:20.206+12:002009-09-08T06:23:20.206+12:00Hi Janice
I entirely agree that abuse should be co...Hi Janice<br />I entirely agree that abuse should be confronted ... it can get a bit tricky in the specific context of "comments" on blogs where the "ad hominem" stuff can take on a life of its own, moving far from the immediate issue!<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughts re 'culture' which leads me to enlarge a little on my post above re the great men of theology.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-90569712421929271512009-09-08T00:22:48.240+12:002009-09-08T00:22:48.240+12:00Thank you for that long post Howard, however you ...Thank you for that long post Howard, however you began with a wrong premise, so that I was left wondering who you were in fact talking to. I did not say that we should ‘leave experience out of our approach to Scripture’ .. but rather .. ‘that reminds me strongly of the charismatic debate that experience trumps Scripture.’<br /><br />When you say .. “It is evident that you, like many of us, place reliance on openness to receiving guidance from God as you read scripture.” I hoped I had explained that clearly, perhaps not. I EXPECT God to speak to me everyday through His Scriptures. You also said ..<br /><br />1. Such revelatory personal experiences do not determine the meaning of the scriptural texts themselves. <br />I fear you and I may read the Scriptures somewhat differently. It is in trying to discern what the passage says that one learns. I do not go to the Scriptures looking for guidance for particular problems in my life, or what my next step might be. <br /><br />2. Such personal experiences provide no reliable basis for establishing theology or the common policies of the church. <br />Isn’t that what I said?<br /><br />3. The experiences of one believer should never become a means of evaluating those of another. Isn’t that what I said?<br /><br />3. In this regard, I question the propriety of your asking Rachel for an account of her subjective experience of a call to a teaching ministry when you then go on to refer to how it happened for your husband. It is difficult not to draw the inference that unless she could describe something similar then you would have less confidence in the validity of her call than you did in his. I may be missing the point entirely, and urge you to set me right if that is so. <br />You are quite wrong in your assessment, and really I take exception to your reading into my words what I have not said. You may draw what inference you wish of course, but this one is completely wrong. <br /><br />4. At the very least I hope we all agree that such subjective experiences of a calling, important though they may be for sustaining us in a ministry, are of little weight in the mind of the church communities within which we all serve. <br />Again, if this is not what I said, this is what I meant.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-54278780496654073392009-09-07T22:27:54.503+12:002009-09-07T22:27:54.503+12:00I feel the need to say that your words to David Ou...<i>I feel the need to say that your words to David Ould are 'borderline' re moderation standards on this blog</i><br /><br />Yes. I understand very well. Maybe I should have left out the "pompous ass" bit. But what about this, from <a href="http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/18176.htm" rel="nofollow">John Mark Ministries</a>?<br /><br /><i>When someone strikes you on the RIGHT cheek ([Mt]5:39) - as a master would backhand a slave to publicly shame them - turn the other cheek. That is, invite them to hit you again AS AN EQUAL, because your oppressor can't backhand you on the left cheek with the right hand, and the left hand is not used for food or human contact in Eastern cultures. That is: you are challenging your oppressor to treat you as a person and not a possession. When someone tries to sue you even to the point of taking your coat (5:40), give them your undercoat/shirt as well! That is, challenge them to strip you naked, which in Jewish culture at least, would publicly shame both them and you! Again, this forces your oppressor to take account of what they are doing to you!<br />When a Roman soldier forces you to carry their load (5:41) for one mile (as marked by the Roman milestones on all Roman roads, and as explicitly permitted under Roman law), try to carry it for an extra mile also. This is NOT permitted under Roman law and may get the soldier into trouble - forcing them again to consider what they are doing to you and how they are exploiting you.</i><br /><br />Do we lovingly serve people if we never confront them over their abuse of ourself or of others? If you were one of those <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/iranian.christian.women.refuse.to.recant.faith/23967.htm" rel="nofollow">Iranian Christian women</a> would you agree with your abusers that the mistake was yours?<br /><br />And regarding culture-driven theology, can we, in our modern, Western culture, properly understand the NT if we don't understand the culture(s) in which the NT books and letters were written? After all, as the writer of the above-linked article says, in our culture, "turn the other cheek" sounds, "rather like an invitation to get hit again, and again . . .". But if his understanding of the uses of the left hand and of stripping people naked in NT Judea is correct then the way most people currently understand what it means to "turn the other cheek" needs transforming if our behaviour in response to being abused is to have a chance of producing a transformative effect on the abuser.<br /><br />I think one of our major problems these days, on both sides of the WO debate (and the other ordination debate), is that our culture, or some aspects of it, is driving most people's understanding of Scripture. After all, we all start on The Way from where we were at the time of our conversion, i.e., thoroughly indoctrinated into the cultural norms of the society in which we grew up. And that includes the cultural norms of the translators of whichever version of The Bible we choose to read.Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-58150491617388310182009-09-07T18:35:02.391+12:002009-09-07T18:35:02.391+12:00Rosemary, I apologize for the sarcastic edge to my...Rosemary, I apologize for the sarcastic edge to my comment, accepting your forgiveness and invitation to move on. That said, I want to respond to your call that we should somehow leave experience out of our approach to scripture. I invite you to reflect on the importance at least one form of experience plays in your own understanding of scripture. <br /><br />In a comment to an earlier post you asked Rachel, “Which scriptures convinced you that God was calling you into a teaching ministry?” and later clarified this request: “ I was asking in a personal sense. A calling seems to me to require words…” You then gave an example: “I have a clear memory of the time my husband felt such a calling on his life. It happened over a period of time … I can also remember the specific texts.”<br /><br />It is evident that you, like many of us, place reliance on openness to receiving guidance from God as you read scripture. The particular passages used to guide your husband into his teaching ministry will always have a special significance and power for him. For many evangelicals over the years this process has been the archetypal means of communication between God and the believer, and the basis on which they affirm that God has indeed spoken his eternal Word into their lives. I share such experiences and have no wish to diminish their importance for me or others, apart from acknowledging their essentially subjective nature. Acknowledging that subjectivity leads me to several conclusions, and I am interested to know how far you might agree with me.<br /><br />1. Such revelatory personal experiences do not determine the meaning of the scriptural texts themselves. What I hear God saying to me when I read a particular passage, receiving that by faith as guidance for my life is not necessarily what he may be saying to everyone through the same passage. Nor is it necessarily a reliable guide to what it meant to the original writer and readers. Personal piety is no substitute for scholarly exegesis.<br /><br />2. Such personal experiences provide no reliable basis for establishing theology or the common policies of the church. For instance, they should not enter into a discussion of whether or not scripture supports the teaching ministries of women, which is the present topic. Other denominations may have attempted to found their common policies on the authoritative revelatory experiences of their leaders, but Anglicans have never gone down that path. Our pledge to follow the guidance of scripture defers to the leadership of scholars rather than mystics.<br /><br />3. The experiences of one believer should never become a means of evaluating those of another. In this regard, I question the propriety of your asking Rachel for an account of her subjective experience of a call to a teaching ministry when you then go on to refer to how it happened for your husband. It is difficult not to draw the inference that unless she could describe something similar then you would have less confidence in the validity of her call than you did in his. I may be missing the point entirely, and urge you to set me right if that is so. <br /><br />4. At the very least I hope we all agree that such subjective experiences of a calling, important though they may be for sustaining us in a ministry, are of little weight in the mind of the church communities within which we all serve. Any ministry is established and validated within the church by its manifest effects on others. Does the community in which we are called to serve experience our ministry as life-giving, and honoring to God? That is the most crucial criterion. It is also essentially subjective, experiential and culture-bound. <br /><br />In my view, there is no escape from the influence of experience this side of heaven, even when we are reading scripture. This is the way God has made us, and our experiences have been created by him to shape who we are, individually and collectively. I would not have it otherwise.Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-14681953434777549542009-09-07T18:33:28.609+12:002009-09-07T18:33:28.609+12:00'the development of doctrine in the life of th...'the development of doctrine in the life of the church'<br />- now there's an interesting topic! You know that the most eminent historian of this in recent years was Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran who, er, became Orthodox...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-59892928658896456162009-09-07T11:00:45.969+12:002009-09-07T11:00:45.969+12:00Hi Rosemary
The answer to the question "Can w...Hi Rosemary<br />The answer to the question "Can we please stick to Scripture?" in the context of observations about the role of culture/experience admits of no easy answer ... so I will not attempt one here, suffice to note that sometime I would like to post on the issue (which I will call) 'the development of doctrine in the life of the church', an issue which is treated differently in the three great traditions (Roman, Eastern, Protestant) and accordingly tears Anglicans apart 'cause we are a bit of each!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-2100938552097359842009-09-07T10:54:17.057+12:002009-09-07T10:54:17.057+12:00I do understand just how easy it is to fall into t...I do understand just how easy it is to fall into the trap of ad hominem debate, that needs to be forgiven and lets move on. However I will be sad to see this discussion reduced to a cultural and/or experiential one.<br /><br />That our culture should drive our understanding of Scripture is, I would have thought given recent events .. proven to be a very dangerous route to take. Especially as it implies that our Creator God, did not anticipate our arrival at this place and time, when He clearly DID.<br /><br />Or that because the Nelson Diocese [and others I hope] has experienced such harmonious togetherness, it is necessarily God's Will. That reminds me strongly of the charismatic debate that experience trumps Scripture.<br /><br />Can we please stick to Scripture?Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-24292605113344511822009-09-07T09:31:44.491+12:002009-09-07T09:31:44.491+12:00Hi Anonymous
Fair response!!
"Calling" i...Hi Anonymous<br />Fair response!!<br />"Calling" is that discerned by the church as a whole (represented in the Bishop and his or her advisers in respect of ordination and by Boards of Nomination for parish appointments) so the crucial thing is not how an individual feels but the guiding or prevailing theology in dioceses ... hence my "petitio principii" is dangerous only where dioceses cannot distinguish the difference between the two issues of women seeking ordained ministry and people neither married nor single seeking ordination.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-66479244161786047132009-09-07T08:33:47.547+12:002009-09-07T08:33:47.547+12:00Peter, I was simply saying that there is NO positi...Peter, I was simply saying that there is NO positive evidence for what you suggest (that some women "might" have been ruling and teaching elders over men in NT churches) and a lot of evidence that points the other way. As a historical claim it simply doesn't fly.<br />Your second paragraph "in the face of many signs of God calling women to ordained ministry..." is petitio principii, and dangerously like the arguments used for gay ordination ('God has called me..').Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-47112923409290502692009-09-07T07:08:28.462+12:002009-09-07T07:08:28.462+12:00Hi Janice
Thanks for your comment with its importa...Hi Janice<br />Thanks for your comment with its important points which contribute to understanding significant differences between Jesus' day and ours.<br /><br />However - gently - I feel the need to say that your words to David Ould are 'borderline' re moderation standards on this blog ... on this particular thread there has been a range of comments either received as (intended or not) or intended as 'ad hominem' remarks ... and, however, much it could be argued that X deserves riposte Y, because of their jibe Z, I do not wish to see any thread here get tangled up in ad hominem jousting ... which is to say that a number of remarks, not yours alone, herein have been borderline and I may have to apply a stricter standard in future!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-16457180307215276592009-09-07T07:00:35.126+12:002009-09-07T07:00:35.126+12:00Hi Anonymous,
It depends what one is arguing!
If o...Hi Anonymous,<br />It depends what one is arguing!<br />If one is arguing that, on the pages of the NT is crystal clear evidence of women overseeing the church and teaching mixed congregations, then your list may be assessed as 'four or five arguments do not amount to one strong argument'.<br />I am trying to argue that there is sufficient variety of activity of women in ministry and in mission in the pages of the NT, including reference to women prophesying, to (1) cast doubt on whether 1 Timothy 2:12 represents the uniform and universally applied ruling that no woman ever taught or oversaw a mixed gender congregation; (2) give reason to think twenty centuries later when we are in a new cultural situation in respect of the roles of women that it is a fair trajectory from the pages of the NT to affirm women in ordained ministry rather than to deny that opportunity to serve the Lord.<br /><br />The converse of what I am saying, using 'weak' and 'strong' is this: in the face of many signs of God calling women to ordained ministry, gainfully and fruitfully employing women in ordained ministry, and generally seeing the church operating as a body in which a variety of ministries shared between men and women, lay and ordained, work together harmoniously (as in the Diocese of Nelson where I have the privilege of serving), is 1 Timothy 2:12-15 a 'strong' enough reason to reverse the trend of extending the ordained ministry to include both men and women because it lays down a universal, everlasting rule applicable to each and every culture?<br /><br />(I would ask the same question of the argument that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 should be combined with certain ideas about headship and roles derived from interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and/or certain notions about eternal subordination within the Trinity).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-54914903984409410572009-09-07T06:44:21.982+12:002009-09-07T06:44:21.982+12:00Hi Rosemary
Thanks for responding with both convic...Hi Rosemary<br />Thanks for responding with both conviction and feeling!<br /><br />You feel I have ridiculed you and I acknowledge that - I simply say it is not my style to ridicule, nor is it my intention to do so with any commenter, least of all you; but in my ham-fisted way my words have been read differently to my intention.<br /><br />I am flabbergasted, however, by this comment, "Would it be too much to ask that you recognise that those who believe as I do, have, on your own admission above, scriptural reason for not supporting WO." I cannot think of ever thinking that those not supporting WO did not have scriptural reasons for their belief. Even Roman Catholics, with their arguments against WO, different to your arguments, have 'scriptural reasons' in their mix of reasoning!<br /><br />Your last comment points to something which is ever present in all your writings on these matters: your concern for spiritual welfare.<br />Thank you.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-64135296606644421532009-09-07T05:53:22.275+12:002009-09-07T05:53:22.275+12:00Alas, four or five weak arguments do not amount to...Alas, four or five weak arguments do not amount to one strong argument.<br />1. There is no evidence that Lydia 'was the first leader of the church in Philippi'. That she was an influential character was not doubted.<br />2. Allowing that 'Junia' is a woman and likely the wife of Andronicus, the Greek doesn't state that they were 'apostles' (a pretty select band, remember!), and if they were, 'apostles' would have the broader sense of 'missionaries'. As husbands and wives (Aquila and Priscilla) did work together in ministry, maybe that is in view here.<br />3. There is no evidence that Euodia and Syntyche taught men.<br />4. The Seven in Acts 6 are NOT called 'deacons'. That they later became elders seems likely (see Beckwith).<br />5. Romans 16.1 could be general in meaning; it might not denote anything as specific as the diakonoi of 1 Timothy 3.<br />Much as I admire Richard Bauckham's scholarship, we must be wary of seeing what we want to see or letting our imagination run free from the stony facts. Roger Beckwith's study 'Elders in Every City' is a careful examination of the origin on the presbyterate and its relationship to the Twelve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-41781514851753810732009-09-07T01:43:27.728+12:002009-09-07T01:43:27.728+12:00How unfortunate that this has degenerated into a d...How unfortunate that this has degenerated into a discussion of personalities and personal attacks. Yes Howard, I too read your post as a personal attack. Your post was certainly not ironic, it was sarcastic, a mistake I make often enough that I recognise it clearly. By the way, I'm not in New Zealand, hence the hour of my posting.<br /><br />I feel a need to bring an end to this discussion for now, it is no longer fruitful is it? My final remarks are these ..<br /><br />1. I believe Peter, that you are indeed unaware of just how disrespectful you are towards me. You genuinely believe I am wrong in my theological view, and feel no hesitation in ridiculing my position .. because after all, I'm wrong!<br /><br />2. After the brickbat, a bouquet. My thanks Peter for admitting that neither in Genesis, nor from the mouth of Jesus, can you find justification for the licensing of women to teach and have authority over the whole church. Perhaps sometime we could discuss your remark that you also cannot find justification for the licensing of men to teach and have authority over the whole church .. grin .. because quite obviously, I disagree!<br /><br />3. Would it be too much to ask that you recognise that those who believe as I do, have, on your own admission above, scriptural reason for not supporting WO. I don't understand why God has organised it that way, but it is my firm belief that this is so. Therefore I do my best to submit to my Lord in that.<br /><br />4. There is a problem here that needs to be recognised and spoken about. I don't think many are going to change their minds on this issue, it IS therefore, an issue that could be divisive. Howard has pointed out that I am writing on this issue, but my husband isn't. There's a reason for that. He has NEVER publically spoken against, or indeed about this issue, because over 20 years ago, he was called to work in a church that had made this decision. It is not for him a first order or salvific issue, therefore we have worked both for and within a church that views the matter differently, very happily. Recently however, things have changed. Various people within our church have made it quite clear that those who hold my views, are no longer welcome members of our church. This is therefore, an issue that must be faced up to and discussed, presumably first, by those who have now arrived at the conclusion that it is not in fact a second order issue, but one that must be adhered to by all church members. In other words, there is no longer recognition that those who hold my views have any theological reasons so to do.<br /><br />5. I have an underlying concern that I wish to articulate. I am deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of both men and women, and it is this as much as anything else, that prompts me to speak out at all on this issue.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-12671453051869941712009-09-06T22:42:17.100+12:002009-09-06T22:42:17.100+12:00One thing that interests me is that, under the Mos...One thing that interests me is that, under the Mosaic covenant, Israelite women were exempted from many of the religious obligations men had to fulfil. They didn't have to pay the temple tax. They didn't have to attend all the festivals. One could argue that this is because God was not interested in having women serve him in any formalised way. Or one could argue that it was because God was showing mercy towards women because of the exigencies of their lives.<br /><br />Jesus came to fulfil the Law of the Mosaic covenant. Some argue that the fact that he chose twelve males to accompany him on all his travels and learn from him shows that only men should be pastors/teachers. I suspect that Jesus was showing mercy to women because of the exigencies of their lives. <br /><br />Imagine if he'd said to some woman, "Follow me." She didn't have the freedom to just get up and go but would have had to ask some husband or father if she could. Whichever man would have complained about who was going to look after the children, do the cooking and cleaning and make the clothes, and who was going to accompany her as a chaperone. If she wasn't pregnant or breast-feeding (not great for travelling about and sleeping rough) she would have been regularly menstruating, which made everything she touched unclean (not great for everyone else with whom she was travelling). Imagine if 6 of the 12 had been women and all were menstruating at different times. That would have caused some serious bogging down of Jesus' mission.<br /><br />But now we're under the New Covenant in Jesus' blood. Nothing makes us impure but what comes out of our own hearts (Mr 7:21). Most pastors/teachers live settled lives and go home to their own beds every night. There are schools and day-care and, furthermore, women are considered worthy of being educated these days and a great number of them have been very highly educated indeed, including in theology. <br /><br />Too bad about the new female subordinationists. How long before they start wondering what point there is in educating girls if they're only going to be housewives and mothers? Then watch the infant mortality figures rise.<br /><br />And, David Ould, Adam didn't name the woman "Eve" until after the Fall. Calling her "woman" (or "isha") is not bestowing a name. <br /><br />Furthermore, David Ould, your inability to understand that a failure of communication is not only the fault of the the one who receives the communication, but must also be laid at the feet of the one doing the communicating, seems to characterise many of your interactions with others in the blogosphere. Certainly it characterises the ones I've followed or been a party to. Frankly, I would say that on your part, "it betrays an unwillingness to actually listen in any sense to those you are disagreeing with." And, frankly, it makes you look like a rude, pompous ass. Ordinarily I prefer not to deliberately insult other people but I feel a great need to make an exception for you because you lack the humility to consider that you may have misunderstood but just assume that whatever you perceive someone else has said must be what they intended to say and, on that basis, you have shown yourself to be perfectly willing to insult others. I hope that you will take my insult to heart because, really, I wish you well.Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-10631563986225067262009-09-06T21:45:21.233+12:002009-09-06T21:45:21.233+12:00Hi Howard
I did put a ":)" at the end of...Hi Howard<br />I did put a ":)" at the end of my comment: 'twas intended to be comedic!<br /><br />I do not mind a healthy lack of respect etc ... and sometimes I receive an unhealthy respect ... well, maybe when a blue moon is shining!!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-47136214913219022982009-09-06T21:41:51.771+12:002009-09-06T21:41:51.771+12:00Well, OK Peter ... how about a healthy disinclinat...Well, OK Peter ... how about a healthy disinclination to pull her own punches even though you are both male and a recognized teacher in the church. Neither you nor I would ask that of her ... but then we don't hold to her position. I am simply pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency between ideology (unhealthy) and practice (healthy).Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-80045550745051976382009-09-06T21:27:04.761+12:002009-09-06T21:27:04.761+12:00... I am having a wee think about the 'healthy...... I am having a wee think about the 'healthy lack of respect for his gender and office' ... :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-6600490314199730242009-09-06T21:22:45.872+12:002009-09-06T21:22:45.872+12:00David, you obviously have no taste for irony, so i...David, you obviously have no taste for irony, so in my own defence let me state plainly what I thought was implicit in my last comment.<br />1. I admire feisty women, including Rosemary.<br />2. I cannot abide any doctrine, including "the complementarian position" that forces some women to hide their sharp minds and forceful opinions behind a veil of submission.<br />3. The church of God needs all the teachers it can get, male and female, and their healthy interaction with one another must frequently be argumentative in tone.<br />4. Rosemary's tone in arguing with Peter shows a healthy lack of respect for his gender and office that I can only applaud.<br /><br />Now, which part of that is uncharitable, unpleasant or sophomoric?Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-34223171718747288202009-09-06T19:05:49.917+12:002009-09-06T19:05:49.917+12:00Hi David
I agree that Adam naming the woman (your ...Hi David<br />I agree that Adam naming the woman (your 2 above) is something we must struggle to understand (but this is the first time on this thread that this particular matter, distinct from naming the animals, has actually been mentioned).<br /><br />I do not think that your 1 above negates the necessity to engage with 2, and I certainly do not think that a full engagement with 2 "would undermine" my position.<br /><br />But any engagement with the observation that Adam names the woman just as he names the animals, raises the question 'what does this tell us about their relationship with one to another"?<br /><br />I assume (e.g. in respect of a comment you make above) that Adam naming the woman Eve does not signify that Adam is superior to Eve in the way that Adam is superior to the animals. Adam and Eve are of the same kind (homo sapiens) and, as you say, 'both are fully human with all the dignity that it implies.'<br /><br />It is possible (making, I think, a reasonable guess about where you might head on this) that it implies that Adam and Eve are differentiated in terms of 'roles' (because A is a namer of animals and people, E is not), and also that Adam is (in some sense) the 'head' of Eve since, in Genesis 2, Adam (through his rib) is the source of Eve, and Adam has the responsibility of naming Eve. But perhaps that is enough for now as I may be running off in a different direction from what you have in mind by drawing attention to Adam's naming of Eve.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-21728124753382815842009-09-06T18:44:41.737+12:002009-09-06T18:44:41.737+12:00But Peter, it only leads to "absurdity" ...But Peter, it only leads to "absurdity" (as you put it) if you insist upon an exact equivalence in the relationships.<br /><br />Instead, how about we read it properly and recognise 2 things -<br /><br />1. that men and women together are created in the image of God. Both are fully human with all the dignity that it implies.<br />2. nevertheless, Adam names the woman <i>just as he names the animals</i> and thus we must struggle to understand what that tells us about their relationship one to another.<br /><br />You seem to be arguing that 1 negates the necessity to engage with 2. I would also suggest that you avoid this topic because you realise that a full engagement with 2 would undermine your position.David Ouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622248017352143637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-60108633751260252922009-09-06T18:29:53.564+12:002009-09-06T18:29:53.564+12:00Hi David
Thanks for the clarification.
I still thi...Hi David<br />Thanks for the clarification.<br />I still think the point holds, that focusing on the role of Adam naming animals as a basis for arguments about the ordination of women is a mistake because the extrapolation of that role forward to life in the modern Western world would raise questions about other roles, questions which, I suggest, could lead to absurdity.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-44421851998034415172009-09-06T18:24:11.653+12:002009-09-06T18:24:11.653+12:00Peter. perhaps, then, it's worth taking anothe...Peter. perhaps, then, it's worth taking another look at what you wrote and actually considering whether your opponents are actually arguing silly stuff like "women shouldn't be scientists".<br /><br />Frankly, it makes you look unpleasant when you use such arguments because all they do is communicate that you think your opponent is an idiot. you may not intend that but it's certainly what comes across.David Ouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622248017352143637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-25161210438456936282009-09-06T18:21:35.725+12:002009-09-06T18:21:35.725+12:00Hi David
We may have to agree to disagree!
At no p...Hi David<br />We may have to agree to disagree!<br />At no point have I attempted to or sought to caricature Rosemary's position, a person for whom I have a great respect; however I acknowledge that you read my attempt to engage respectfully with her arguments in almost the opposite manner from what is/was intended. Part of my respect is, of course, that I do engage and take some trouble through many words to attempt to do this!<br /><br />Now, a further matter on which we might have to agree to disagree: namely about the meaning of this comment, "You note that Adam's naming of the animal implies some form of superiority. This, as you note, you must concede. But then you struggle to apply the same already-observed principle in the same text. Now obviously nobody is arguing that Adam is "superior" to the woman in the same way as he is to the animals and yet the similarity of the language is striking."<br /><br />Clearly you understand yourself to be making some kind of important point here. I understand Adam as superior to the animals (because he names them). I understand that "obviously nobody is arguing that Adam is "superior" to the woman in the same way as he is to the animals". But what I do not understand is what is being argued about Adam as animal-namer in relation to Eve by making the observation that Adam names the animals.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com