tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6864965406462633646..comments2024-03-28T19:03:49.275+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Why would God appoint Elizabeth to be queen and not to be bishop?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34521883110309362332012-02-17T22:13:57.668+13:002012-02-17T22:13:57.668+13:00I feel that arguments trying to defend a primitive...I feel that arguments trying to defend a primitive understanding of the role of women which would suggest that God, in the Church of today, would not harness the ministry of (suitable) women to take responsibility for leadership roles; are just based on prejudice, domination by men, or just plainly inoculated against understanding of evolution in the Church.<br /><br />The horse has already left the stable. It now needs cleaning.<br /><br />You're on your own now, Peter. There are none so blind as WILL NOT see.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16081233738405485082012-02-17T16:44:41.817+13:002012-02-17T16:44:41.817+13:00Hi Ron and Rosemary,
The serious point about the w...Hi Ron and Rosemary,<br />The serious point about the women witnessing to the resurrection is that women were given responsibilities by God in the apostolic era to spearhead the spread of the good news, responsibilities which included communicating the resurrection to men. Building out from the starting point of these gospel stories it is no surprise or deviation from the norm to find Priscilla working with Aquila to put Apollos right on a few things, or to come across Junia named as one of the apostles (and all in a glorious mix of men and women involved in leading the Roman churches), or to read of Paul urging Euodia and Syntyche to sort their differences, describing them as co workers in the gospel mission. We might add that John addressing one of his letters to the 'Elect Lady' is also of a piece with the significant role given to women in the first morning of the resurrection era.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5458098264992699332012-02-17T12:16:39.578+13:002012-02-17T12:16:39.578+13:00Hi Rosemary
No sarcasm intended: I am trying to ma...Hi Rosemary<br />No sarcasm intended: I am trying to make the point (which would be better with voice inflection accompanying it) that I just don't think 'preserve' (a la K'berger) is the right translation (which is no disrespect to a fine argument mounted for this proposal for a word which there is much argument over).<br /><br />I apologise for not answering your question, pleading oversight in haste and not avoidance: Yes, I cannot think of a verse which commands women to take up leadership positions.<br /><br />Yes, I agree, that in respect of what Scripture says, especially via stories with implied lessons, models, examples and applications, there are 'creaky foundations' for what I am arguing.<br /><br />Apologies in advance if I am not taking up other matters you raise. I must fly ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7070368234536581542012-02-17T11:44:02.978+13:002012-02-17T11:44:02.978+13:00You say .. “So, I put it to you that a continuin...You say .. “So, I put it to you that a continuing insistence on constraining the ministry of women in leadership and teaching, based as it is on creaky foundations, must raise the question whether some prejudice or bias exists which is suspicious of women in their womenhood, against women being women, or fearful of what might happen if women lead. Why, in the name of God who created humanity to be male and female, who redeemed men and women to be one in Christ can we not embrace, celebrate and foster the ministry of women in leadership and teaching?”<br /><br />Chuckle .. sounds a bit like Eve in the garden of Eden doesn’t it? ‘Did God really mean…’ Please acknowledge Peter, that the basis for the beliefs you hold, are on equally ‘creaky’ foundations! There is no specific instruction or command, just your modern cultural imperative and recent acknowledgement that we [women] are indeed equal. <br /><br />Ron said .. “Jesus sent a woman - Mary Magdalene - to tell the Good News (Gospel) of his resurrection to the male disciples? The disciples didn't believe Mary. Why? Because they, too, thought, that God would never give a woman that sort of ministry to men.” <br /><br />[Sound of laughter fading into the distance.]Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22416379605101132302012-02-17T11:43:13.516+13:002012-02-17T11:43:13.516+13:00Hmm, sorry Peter, I should have made things clea...Hmm, sorry Peter, I should have made things clearer. I was interested in his discussion of the word ‘save,’ because I suspect it’s understanding that which might give us a clearer picture of this vexing verse.<br /><br />You say .. “if Kostenberger is correct to that point in his paper then we need to urgently (because of spiritual danger) preach that all our women doctors, teachers, nurses, etc give up their work outside the home.”<br /><br />Is that sarcasm Peter? It’s so hard to know when you can’t hear the voice inflexion, but that is domination Peter, the mistake that’s been made for centuries in the name of ‘protection.’ We must never forget freedom. That we all have the choice, all of us, women included Peter. The ultimate freedom is to choose to obey, just as the ultimate freedom is to choose to submit to His Lordship. You cannot take away that freedom, to do so is domination, not dominion.<br /><br />You have spent part of your time on this board, [with too many posts on it now I suspect] asking and re-asking a commenter to reply to a question you put. I asked both you and Tim to answer a question too Peter, and neither of you did, although it would have been quite easy to say, “No, there is no explicit command to give women leadership positions in Scripture.” There are several specific commands in Scripture for women to consider, but I think the greatest of these is that we are created to be ‘helpmeet.’ An overwhelming honour. However all women need to consider this individually, think about our ‘freedom to choose’ to either submit and obey, or not. I quite understand the sheer frustration of looking at our male counterparts and thinking, “They’re doing such a shocking job.” However in my opinion, that doesn’t let us off the hook of considering that reason for creation. [continued]Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25478690006299964462012-02-16T21:55:47.010+13:002012-02-16T21:55:47.010+13:00I do sometimes wonder, if there is an absolute bar...I do sometimes wonder, if there is an absolute barrier in the Holy Scriptures about women preaching to men, why on earth the Risen Jesus sent a woman - Mary Magdalene - to tell the Good News (Gospel) of his resurrection to the male disciples?<br /><br />The disciples didn't believe Mary. Why? Because they, too, thought, that God would never give a woman that sort of ministry to men. I've heard of going 'back to the Bible', but surely, that's a bit too far? <br /><br />Or - to the sola scriptura people - does that bit not count?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29976477404321187102012-02-16T15:08:11.461+13:002012-02-16T15:08:11.461+13:00Hi Dave,
I suggest there is a difference between t...Hi Dave,<br />I suggest there is a difference between the clarity of your answer to the question just given in the comment above (a clear statement of what the church should do; yes, my question was about the church) and your answer above were, to be honest, speaking about what each minister should seemed to me to be about the convictions of others and not your own. I am none the wiser about your own personal convictions (would you or would you not remarry a divorced person ...) but I accept and acknowledge that you have answered the question. Thank you.<br /><br />I wonder if the church will permit me to live with inconsistent personal convictions?!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39995598251151447982012-02-16T14:51:24.601+13:002012-02-16T14:51:24.601+13:00Peter, I cannot keep playing your game of shifting...Peter, I cannot keep playing your game of shifting goal posts and morphing questions. If you do not want to respond to me – that is your own decision and not dependent on my answering an ever-changing, unclear question. That you are unwilling to address my point does not surprise me, as I do not think you have a response to having one approach to heterosexuals and another to homosexuals. This has been my very point. Homosexuals are a convenient minority to apply some power dynamics which most would not dream of applying to women or heterosexuals. I have honoured the consistency of those here who do apply such consistently (Rosemary, Andrew)<br /><br />For the record I quote your question again: “Now, could I please have an answer to my question about your understanding of what the church should do in response to the many divorced people presenting for remarriage. If you further avoid answering this question I shall consider that any need on my part to further respond to your comments here is at an end.”<br /><br />I responded that the church should allow ordained ministers to be faithful to their personal conviction on this issue. This means some ordained ministers will never take a wedding of someone who has been divorced. Others will take such a wedding. I do not think that a person who continues to divorce and seek marriage again and again without limit should be blessed in church. I suggested, in such a case, seeking the wisdom of the Orthodox tradition of limiting it to three church weddings.<br /><br />+Martin, I understand God’s mercy as much as Peter does, because if you look carefully, you will see that my phrasing is merely replicating his for a not dissimilar issue. <br /><br />DaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53246605659912607192012-02-16T06:16:12.492+13:002012-02-16T06:16:12.492+13:00Hi Andrew,
We could have a principle or an ideal t...Hi Andrew,<br />We could have a principle or an ideal that mixed ministry teams were led by a man with flexibility around exceptions to this. In practice there are parts of the evangelical world (as well as the whole of the Roman and Eastern worlds) where there is utter inflexibility: in absolutely every context imaginable a woman may never ever preach to a mixed gender congregation and never ever lead a ministry team, no matter how gifted, educated, blessed, faithful, true, and pure. This is an extraordinary absolutism to pin to the Bible whether basing it on 'headship' teaching (which is never clearly expounded but needs to be distilled and deducted from various passages) or on 1 T 2:12 as a universal rule.<br /><br />You yourself here write about these passages in a manner which demonstrates the exegetical difficulties and thus uncertainties as to the meaning and application of 1 T 2 and 1 Cor 11.<br /><br />So, I put it to you that a continuing insistence on constraining the ministry of women in leadership and teaching, based as it is on creaky foundations, must raise the question whether some prejudice or bias exists which is suspicious of women in their womenhood, against women being women, or fearful of what might happen if women lead. <br /><br />Why, in the name of God who created humanity to be male and female, who redeemed men and women to be one in Christ can we not embrace, celebrate and foster the ministry of women in leadership and teaching?<br /><br />To support women taking up leadership and teaching roles when they are gifted, equipped and qualified by character to do so does not in any way shape or form lessen the need of men in leadership and teaching to be responsible before God for the discharge of their duties.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31161861621497250792012-02-15T21:59:04.196+13:002012-02-15T21:59:04.196+13:00Hi Peter,
Thanks for developing a considered respo...Hi Peter,<br />Thanks for developing a considered response to my points. I understand it's a bit hard to have a detailed theological debate on a comments thread. I hope you'll understand if my responses are brief as well :) <br /><br />Another preliminary - what I and many others are trying to do here is be faithful to Scripture, to follow the words of Christ and his apostles and apply them correctly to our context. I don't have an anti-women agenda, nor a desire to keep the church in the past or discriminate against women. I have benefited from the ministry of both men and women - ordained and lay, in parishes and outside. I hope all commenters here will recognise that and treat each other with respect and brotherly love.<br /><br />I certainly agree with you that the world is a different place today and women have more opportunities, education, and skills for both "secular" work and ministry - praise God for that. As I've said before, women were part of ministry teams in the NT and hosted fellowships in their homes. If the argument in 1 Tim 2 was about lack of skills or education or a particular problem in the Ephesian church, I would gladly say that's not the same context as today and we can apply the teaching differently to us. But it goes back to the creation of men first, arguing that there is an additional responsibility for men in leadership. I'm not sure the point about deceivability means all women are liable to deception more than men - rather that Eve's deception has consequences for all women, as do Adam's for men. So, the principle seems to be additional male responsibility for the congregation. In our context, I don't think "silence" or "full submission" are required to implement that principle, but rather a male head of a ministry team with both genders. As for child bearing, that's a tricky verse, but I understand some interpreters take it as "birth of a child" ie Jesus, rather than saved through their child bearing.<br /><br />In 1 Corinthians 11, I think it is applying the principle of "headship" to a particular cultural context, regarding length of hair. Notice the women can prophesy and pray, if they have long hair. (Notice too it says nothing about hats - just hair length!) We don't have that cultural issue, so we would apply the headship principle in a different way - having a man as leader of a both gender ministry team.Andrew Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9195090448186674162012-02-15T21:57:21.282+13:002012-02-15T21:57:21.282+13:00Hi Rosemary,
Kostenberger mounts a good argument. ...Hi Rosemary,<br />Kostenberger mounts a good argument. <br /><br />I find it strange that having argued so strongly and comprehensively that 1 T 2:15 means women must be centred on their home-making role (in order to be preserved from spiritual danger) he suddenly introduces from nowhere in 1 Timothy the notion that this does not means their roles are limited to the home. I am sorry Rosemary but if Kostenberger is correct to that point in his paper then we need to urgently (because of spiritual danger) preach that all our women doctors, teachers, nurses, etc give up their work outside the home.<br /><br />I don't think he is correct, which will be a relief to many women readers here, because he at best is speculating on the parallel between 1 T 2:15 and 4.14-15. It is a strange shorthand which anticipates rather than follows the longer version of an explanation.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67308150460377058902012-02-15T12:11:35.849+13:002012-02-15T12:11:35.849+13:00I know this website has it's enemies, but thi...I know this website has it's enemies, but this chap doesn't have their full approbation in his effort to answer the difficult question found in 2T2:15. I'd be interested in your reaction to it. http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-4/Saved-Through-ChildbearingRosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77329374688889420522012-02-15T11:36:59.222+13:002012-02-15T11:36:59.222+13:00Bearing in mind the fact that this post is really ...Bearing in mind the fact that this post is really about the place of women in the leadership of the Church, I shall, after this one point, not engage further with +Martin's egregious discourse on my theological capability, by drawing reference to his latest assertion, concerning his ecclesial status; in attaching a + (normally reserved for Bishops) before his name, as:<br /><br />"a medieval touch which (as learned people know) means "a sinner under the cross", and is there to keep him humble".<br /><br />Whether his assertion of 'keeping him humble' is true - or not - I will leave that to others to judge.<br /><br />Saint Francis once implied in his discourses to his Brothers, that: "Learning can be a terrible burden to be overcome, which should be borne lightly, and without boasting".Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64616755631635355432012-02-15T06:35:15.184+13:002012-02-15T06:35:15.184+13:00Hi Andrew
Brief comments about 1 Corinthians 11:
...Hi Andrew<br />Brief comments about 1 Corinthians 11:<br /><br />(1) If the 'creational basis' of the teaching here is important, why do we not see in evangelical Anglican churches an insistence on women wearing head coverings and not have their hair cut short?<br /><br />(2) If the creationally-undergirded application of 1 Corinthians 11 re head coverings and hair length is routinely ignored, why is it insisted upon in respect of 1 Tim 2:12? (To invoke "Dave" here on this thread, where's the consistency!?)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20696712376515798932012-02-15T06:30:14.148+13:002012-02-15T06:30:14.148+13:00+Martin isn't "anonymous", at least ...+Martin isn't "anonymous", at least by any dictionary definition he knows of that word.<br />+Martin isn't an (ecclesiastical) bishop either: the (admittedly whimsical) prenominal "+" is a medieval touch which (as learned people know) means "a sinner under the cross", and is there to keep him humble. :)<br /><br />I am not concerned here with metaphorical uses of "marriage" to denote some kind of social union, e.g. a business amalgamation or a political union like the UK - which can involve more than two parties (political polygamy, if you like). Ron has only confirmed my point, and even here he fails to note that in the Bible's metaphorical "marriage of the lamb" the Church is the wife and Christ is the husband. I can only go by Ron's written words, and they inspire no confidence that he understands catholic teaching on marriage, but rather he is a liberal Protestant who sits loose to the actual teaching of Scripture and considers modern liberal thought as his grid for interpreting and evaluating the Bible. Well, be that as it may - but that isn't catholic theology, it's bog standard liberal Protestantism. Ron may not like this, but this is the path that ex-Anglo-Catholic Richard Holloway took - en route to his current atheism. Ron should read some good catholic theology on marriage: John Paul II on the theology of the body on the Roman side, Geoffrey Bromiley ('God and Marriage') on the evangelical side. <br />+MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80370863387689634442012-02-15T06:20:31.226+13:002012-02-15T06:20:31.226+13:00Hi Andrew,
Necessarily concise responses rather th...Hi Andrew,<br />Necessarily concise responses rather than expansive (and, no, I cannot quickly point you to an internet paper re 1T2:12):<br /><br />(1) If I understand Tim correctly, both he and I are asking why God's lordship over the running of the world is gender-indifferent re government but not re the church. What advantage for the gospel accrues from prohibiting women from leading? (One can go further and argue that in the new world order we live in, where I resolutely argue that life is very different today from the Bible for (educated, franchised, freed from fear of death in childbirth, freed from annual pregnancies constraining life to hearth and home) women, it is a disadvantage to the gospel for the church to insist that the Bible "clearly" teaches the prohibition of women from leading and teaching mixed gender congregations). There is a theological context, in other words, for seeking to understand how 1 T 2:12-15 applies in our world, and a reasonable theological question to raise whether this passage in toto established for all human generations, all human changes, and all human contexts that a woman may never ever lead or teach a mixed gender congregation.<br /><br />(2) The creational aspect of 1 T 2:13-14 (that is, that 2:12's prohibition rests not on local concerns but on an understanding of the general, universal character of women following from Eve's deception) is a two-edged sword in today's world. One the one hand it offers, prima facie, a wider basis for 2.12 applying to more than the church in Ephesus; on the other hand, prima facie, it is saying that the problem is the inherent flaw of "deceivability" of all women, in every generation, including your and my wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, female friends and colleagues.<br /><br />To the latter I say, "nuts"! So I dig deeper into the passage, and I do so on the basis that elsewhere in the Pastorals, women are entrusted with teaching sound doctrine (to other women and to children). That leads me to ask of 1 T 2:12-15 what it actually means, especially the extraordinarily enigmatic 2:15 which (again, prima facie) is teaching salvation by works - the works of bearing children (but that doesn't fit with the gospel of grace, and doesn't work for women unable to bear children so, again, I dig deeper to see if I can understand what is really going on here). What am I left with?<br /><br />(a) Incomprehension<br />(b) A question: is Paul here dealing with a controversy, the other side of which we do not see clearly? <br />(c) Another question or two: is the controversy about human sexuality and its inherent goodness (cf 1 T 4:3 re teachers who forbade marriage)? Is Paul prohibiting forceful (don't usurp authority) women teachers (don't teach deceitfully about sex and marriage) and encouraging women susceptible to their false teaching (go ahead, marry and have children because this will not affect your salvation)?<br /><br />So: the prohibition does arise because of circumstances in Ephesus, but it does have wider application: to all churches where forceful women are teaching deceitfully.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49787254726685776082012-02-14T22:16:18.339+13:002012-02-14T22:16:18.339+13:00Peter, and others on this thread; You may be inter...Peter, and others on this thread; You may be interested to learn that WATCH (Women and The Church), a movement in the Church of England, has just sent this message to the House of Bishops:<br /><br />"This debate is about the place of women.<br /><br />The opposition to women bishops is based on their being women - whether that is about an interpretation of the Bible which maintains that women are forbidden to have authority over a man, or about following the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in not recognising that women can represent Christ at the altar."<br /><br />This is only part of their letter which can be read in full at the weblog 'Thinking Anglicans".<br /><br />The current 'Code of Practice' arrived at in G.S. 2011, and later affirmed by the majority of the dioceses of the C.of E. allows opponents of Women Bishops to be ministered to by a male bishop - at the express invitation of the Woman Diocesan. Sadly, the 2 Archbishops want to bend backwards to further undercut the authority of the (Woman) Diocesan - a procedure which would result in a two-tier episcopate. That would be a pity.<br />One prays that the Code of Practice remains unaltered in G.S. July.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77133025525172271682012-02-14T22:01:22.824+13:002012-02-14T22:01:22.824+13:00"I said Rom Smith doesn't understand the ..."I said Rom Smith doesn't understand the catholic theology of the nature of marriage." - Anonymous +Martin -<br /><br />Bishop Martin (Anonymous) - has no idea what I understand to be Christian Marriage - except that it might, in some way, be different from his. I do wish, +Martin, you would stop that silly habit of presuming to discern my innermost thoughts of theological precepts.<br /><br />There are other biblical understandings of marriage - than that of a heterosexual coupling. One of which is the 'Marriage of the Lamb'. Also, in secular talk there is a marriage of minds. One doesn't want to be so narrow-minded as to bring all things down to a common denominator - lest there be alternative ways of describing a ritual relationship.<br /><br />I find biblical literalists are often pedantic about securing what they see as the only meaning to a set of words. What do you, for instance, make of Jesus teaching mainly in parable form? No attempt at literal accuracy there. God obviously intends us to use our minds in communion with the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />This is what worries me about the promotion of the gift of tongues as 'THE sign' of Baptism in the Spirit There is sometimes a questionable interpretation given, that is swallowed hook, line and sinker..<br />without proper corroboration.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5164412810952786762012-02-14T21:43:00.615+13:002012-02-14T21:43:00.615+13:00Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response. I wasn't o...Hi Peter,<br />Thanks for your response. I wasn't only arguing about QE2 but more generally that in NT times, God through the scriptures does not proscribe particular forms of government or requirements for state leaders. The focus is much more on helping Christian believers to grow in faith and flourish under whatever leader or system of government they have.<br /><br />I think perhaps your position over-emphasises the continuity between God's people and the world, ie there should be a consistent position on female leadership in both domains. I would argue that there is also a discontinuity, and that different principles apply. To give another example, we don't insist that state leaders have to be Christians or follow the 10 commandments or worship at a church regularly, because we apply different principles. <br /><br />As for the theological justification, Paul's argument in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor 11 rests on creation order - men and women are both created in God's image as equals, but there is an ultimate responsibility laid upon men. If Tim Harris (or you) have an article where he or someone else explains more fully why you think that only applies to that particular context I would be happy to read it. I'm not sure I agree that a creation order argument has to apply to the whole creation. After the fall, God seeks to redeem the whole creation through choosing a particular people with special responsibilities, in order to bless all peoples. The Jewish law didn't apply to other nations, but to Israel, in order that other nations might see the wisdom of the God of Israel and come to worship Him also. Likewise, apostolic instructions to the church do not automatically apply to the state. Again, I am happy to consider anything that argues a different perspecitve.<br /><br />On another topic, I noted Canterbury diocese (CofE) has approved the covenant - made me wonder if some other Canterburians of the NZ variety might soon follow suit?Andrew Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16636204583528305432012-02-14T16:40:11.848+13:002012-02-14T16:40:11.848+13:00Hi Rosemary,
OK I can live with "dominion&quo...Hi Rosemary,<br />OK I can live with "dominion" as (I can't think of a better term) "stewardship", perhaps even "guardianship" (kaitiakitanga) rather than "lordship."<br /><br />I like your farming illustration of care and responsibility. Thank you!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46216249197839018272012-02-14T16:32:05.119+13:002012-02-14T16:32:05.119+13:00Sigh .. I wish everyone was a farmer’s son or da...Sigh .. I wish everyone was a farmer’s son or daughter!!! I really don’t know why you think dominion is about lordship. Well I suppose I can just about grasp it .. but not in the sense, taken from Genesis, that God gave us ‘dominion’ over the earth and all that is in it. Peter, I’m not a theologian, nor do I pretend to be one, in fact with my flibberty gibberty mind, it’s impossible that I should be one, so I’ll leave it to you to discuss ‘lordship,’ ‘headship’ and whether the word should be ‘source’ or not. Sigh .. it’s a good way I suppose of not answering my question yet again though!!! <br /><br />As a farmer, you have ‘dominion’ over the farm and everything in it .. not just the sheep and cattle, but the birds that fly over it, the flies that gorge on the dead beasts .. everything. And one of the first things that you learn is that everything is interconnected, held in balance if you like. If you put too much fertiliser on the land, or the wrong sort .. it isn’t just the land that suffers, it’s everything else, the cows, sheep, birds and flies. It’s also you the farmer, so it behooves you to CARE, to have RESPONSIBILITY for that farm. That is the meaning of dominion as far as I’m concerned. It has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty, domination, subjection .. all terms I hear connected with the word dominion. If you as a farmer have dominion meaning sovereignty, domination or subjection over your farmland and everything that lives and grows on it .. you’ll fail BIG TIME, in fact you’ll likely starve!!! Same in a parish, you have care for .. and responsibility for the people of that parish, and it behooves you shoulder those responsibilities carefully. Sometimes you have to make what might appear to be tough decisions .. to cull for instance. The land will only provide for so many .. so there comes a time when you must cull .. so be it. Well you can see where I’m going I’m sure.<br /><br />There .. I’ve answered your question.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48627231560038977682012-02-14T10:28:28.060+13:002012-02-14T10:28:28.060+13:00"My response, Martin, is that a similar appro..."My response, Martin, is that a similar approach can follow for blessing committed same-sex couples: having having done the exegesis and found the teachings of the Bible to be against this, we respond to homosexuals instead in a merciful way. This has nothing to do with your misinterpretation that it requires such a relationship to be marriage – it is merely a consistent response to exegesis that we no longer apply, and I have given a long list where such is the case."<br /><br />And my response, Dave, is that you have given up the struggle to be a consistent biblical Christian, and there is no point belonging to a "church" where God's mercy is so savagely misunderstod.<br /><br />Dave: the Cross IS God's MERCY. Do you not understand what that means? The implications for living the Christ-shaped, God-pleasing life? Do you know what that means?<br /><br />Further, I don't know what you mean by "my misinterpretation". I said Rom Smith doesn't understand the catholic theology of the nature of marriage.<br /><br />+MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76588840732379036992012-02-14T09:51:17.110+13:002012-02-14T09:51:17.110+13:00Hi Rosemary
In a way I do not wish to continue thi...Hi Rosemary<br />In a way I do not wish to continue this conversation, but you use some words which raise a question for me:<br /><br />if we grant that Scripture does not give explicit instruction that women should have "dominion" over men, where is the explicit instruction that men should have "dominion" over women?<br /><br />"Dominion" is about lordship and I am interested in where I am instructed to have lordship over my wife and daughters, let alone the women of my congregations!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33267814121658828552012-02-14T09:19:04.299+13:002012-02-14T09:19:04.299+13:00Sigh .. so the conversation is over, or has mov...Sigh .. so the conversation is over, or has moved on. <br /><br />Never mind Rosemary, they will have to answer those questions one day! What’s more, it will become obvious to all that the male gender leaders failed so spectacularly to give the Gospel message at Christmas, and they WILL give thanks for the woman who HAS got an audience of millions who did give it!! Maybe even wonder why the Lord provided her at this point in time! They’ll eventually be forced to answer the question .. where is the [explicit] instruction in Scripture that women should have dominion over men .. and they’ll work out the difference between church and state .. honestly they will!!! .. Just not to me. Proper thing too.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81374813305421211862012-02-14T09:04:40.612+13:002012-02-14T09:04:40.612+13:00Hi Dave
You are starting to be clearer (thank you)...Hi Dave<br />You are starting to be clearer (thank you), but you have not actually told us whether your own approach is (a) or (b). You refer instead to "Each ordained ministers needs to ..." Given your strong critique of my position it is hard to respond with a critique of your position when you will not declare it.<br /><br />I understand the passion being brought to the questions of homosexuality (compared to the situation with divorce/remarriage) to be engendered in part by the fact that there is a prospect of (and beginnings already of) schism over the former and not over the latter. If we are going to divide I think it worth checking out whether we have our arguments investigated well. (You must notice that this thread started with the ministry of women in the church, a non-issue for many, but a lively issue for others, especially where schism is in prospect, as it seems to be in the C of E).<br /><br />I think divorce and remarriage is a notoriously difficult issue for 'biblical Christians' not because arguments continue over it (rightly you observe they more or less do not) but because it is a notorious weak point in associated arguments about homosexuality, a matter (as you rightly observe) on which Jesus said something but which we act (if not believe) is trumped by mercy. I suggest it is a notoriously difficult issue, further, because in my experience divorce and remarriage in the life of a (to use labels) conservative biblical evangelical Christian is often associated with a paradigm shift towards a liberal/progressive (but in its way still biblical) theology.<br /><br />In the end, inconsistent though I may be charged by you and others to be, I think there is consistency in arguing that it is impossible to find from the Bible any support for formal ecclesial blessing of same sex partnerships but it is possible to find support for the blessing of a new marriage (at least on a case by case basis) as well as for the leadership of women of mixed gender congregations, while at all times being required to show mercy to all people.<br /><br />But I would like to know, without prevarication and resort to talking about what position others might hold, what your own position on divorce and remarriage is. I look forward to the partial clarity of you previous comment becoming full clarity.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com