Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Men offering sacrificial love, the sacrifice of privilege?

A few weeks or even a month back, posting on man/woman relationships, I noted that perhaps we could talk more about men's sacrificial love for women than about women submitting to me. I have done no more work on that myself, but today I chanced upon this post, which may interest readers here.


Anonymous said...

Deep sigh. Magisterial it isn't. Biased? Most certainly. Why is it posted here? Because it agrees with the blog owner.

Rosemary Behan

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Rosemary
I posted it because it relates to views I have. I have not read it slowly enough to see whether I agree with it in its entirety. Hence a question mark in the title.

It is up for discussion and disagreement!

(Sometimes I post things, or link to things so the link is not lost if I want to later come back to it).

Anonymous said...

Peter, I find your posts on this subject very thought provoking, particularly because JP2 (or in my RC lingo Pope St John Paul II)agrees with mutuality in Mulieris Dignitatem Ch VII. Although this apostolic letter might not be magisterial enough for Anglicans (though short of a council of your own bishops on the subject I'm not sure what would be)this apostolic letter must be of some use for the (sorry Fr Ron I agree they don't define it)orthodox. I also should encourage you to blog on the subject without fear. It is not useful for others to say that you have not listened (admittedly in prior threads) or offer deep sighs. Let's interpret the text, but let's be consistent.


Father Ron Smith said...

"Gender and power go together. In the New Testament period this was quite true. When it came to sex, for instance, Roman men had specific roles they could play and still remain “manly.” - cf:article

Not only is this true of the articulated conservative view of women as second class citizens in the Church & World, it is also patently the impetus for con/evo view of the phenomenon of homosexuality.

Jean said...

I was walking today on the walk of witness and had a discussion with a boy probably around 8 ish...

What is your name I asked?
Henry he said and I know what that means.
Oh I said what does it mean?
Head of the Household
Right, so what do you do as head of the household?
I am very kind. I also know a lot about Easter and Christmas.
I do give a lot don't I mum?

From the mouth of babes!! No wonder Jesus loved children. No doubt he is already well on the way viewing the idea of headship as being the one with the most responsibility to serve and give, and wash others in the word!


Anonymous said...

Peter, I understand exactly what Jean says but Fr Ron trespasses on the irrelevant. Most subjects of discussion have nothing to do with homosexuality and headship in marriage is a prime example. I personally think that Mrs Behan might be correct, but Christians need to work out what the consequences are and how we address that. Nick.

Father Ron Smith said...

You may not have noticed the subtlety, Nick, of the article's reference to the macho male as being revered by the Church. I realise your own Church does not have women clergy, so that might support your argument discounting my reference to homosexuality as a parallel subject. However, there is a very basic level on which macho males have a rooted fear of homosexuality. It might seem to appear to be a blot on their manhood.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I did not find the article convincing. Although Ephesus was part of the Roman Empire, its inhabitants were not Latin Romans and quotations from Cicero (the archetypal Roman orator) are not relevant to the Greek culture on the ground in Ephesus. The definition of gender is not one I'll be quoting. Regardless of all that, mutuality is, in my view correct, though ( having considered comments from others on this site) I am now exploring the intellectual robustness of mutuality in light of the clear text. I'd be happier about headship if its advocates did not accept divorce. It seems to me that that you cannot believe in both.