> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snippage throughout> [me] When so much of what is supposed to be 'the word > > > > of God' makes little sense to my learning and > > > experience, > > > > I would be scissoring out....the bits that > > > > mesh with my reasoning. [Dan]> ....most of scripture makes > > > sense to my learning and > > > experience. Part of it, I think, is that I have > > > studied the context a bit > > > more than you have. From what it sounds like, > > > your interpretation seems to > > > be influenced by the folks with baggage that you > > > have talked with. > >....Several things > > gradually changed my self-acknowledged status; > >I've previously mentioned the issue of belief as a > > Gift and my inability to accept that Belief is in > itself a Grace or Gift, because that means that God > >withheld that Gift from some of my friends....why? > > The issue of woman's status had several tendrils > as > > well, one of which was my initial dislike of the > > thought of women as pastors...yes, *me,*.... It > >felt 'wrong' to me that a woman should be a > > pastor.... because *of what I'd heard in the > > church all my life*.... I should have said "all my young life" because we belonged to the Missouri Synod Lutheran church when I was a child, and changed to the more liberal what-is-now-ELCA (a combination of 3 groups) during my teens. Women were ordained in these groups beginning in the 70s: "...the ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. It was formed in 1988 from three church bodies which began ordaining women in the 1970s..." http://www.wfn.org/2000/05/msg00020.html The Missouri Synod still does not ordain women; this is a 2004 site from Colorado: "...There is even an ELCA ordained woman pastor, Ms. Teri Lyn Forbes included in the listing....It should be no surprise, then that on the JFL website [a more liberal group from within the ranks of the MS] is the clear statement that, �We advocate no position on women�s ordination.� Of course the Scriptures do have a position on the ordination of women � they oppose it." http://www.oslcpagosa.org/Response%20to%20Jesus%20First.htm 1 Timothy does appear to back up the above position: 11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14: and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15: Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. http://wyllie.lib.virginia.edu:8086/perl/toccer-new?id=Rsv1Tim.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 And this 2003 on-line discussion from a 'Christian singles group' also asserts that women should not be ordained, although they may 'instruct an unsaved, or newly saved man if no man is available to preach to/instruct him' [it wouldn't let me copy/paste; the particular part I paraphrased is ~1/3 of the way down, posted 8/5/2003: http://www.crosslove.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14&whichpage=1 > So, might I suggest that, if you went to a church > which had a woman pastor, > you would have been far more likely to accept women > as pastors? Of course. [me]> > Read any of the Creeds again -- the boundaries > > > > are....laid out. And "binding God" is > > > > precisely what nearly all religions embrace, > > > >in that 'this is the best (or only) way.' > > > I bet you have not read Anthony De Mello, then. > :-) > > Which Creed is his? ;) > He is probably the most influential Catholic mystic > of the last 30 years. > He has written a number of books on prayer, and he > is very well respected > among people doing work in contemplative prayer. He > has studied and > written extensively on Eastern techniques for > Christian prayer. > He talks about the impossibility of putting bounds > on God. I'd bet that Rob would approve of such outreach <waves at Rob>; what do less liberal Catholics think of him, if they have heard of his writings? And -I am not deliberately trolling- but what does he say about ordaining women as priests? >Writing about > shared faith is not the same thing as bounding God. Agreed. > A good example of this > is the Presbyterian view of reformed, always > reforming. The shared > confessions and creeds do not bound God, they "give > a reasonable > understanding of what scripture leads us to > believe." In particular, it is > clear that, in the literal sense, the confessions > contradict each other. I > know as a fact that the authors of later confessions > knew this full well. > They were not going for the letter of the law. I am now nearly arguing the other side from what I wrote in response to Travis: if internal contradiction is accepted, and one can 'reasonably' be 'lead' to 'understanding,' without the law's letter, why is the Missouri Synod's interpretation of Paul's writing above less correct than yours? > > I agree that a community of faith is a very good > >way to impart....good values....I > > noted in a previous post that if I had a child I > > _would_ want to find a church for those reasons. > > > But I am writing of why _I_ am not active in a > > Christian church, and cannot profess a Creed > without > > perjuring myself before the Divine. I am not > > attempting to convert anyone to "my" way - > > especially since I'm figuring it out 'on the fly.' > I think my intent in arguing this point with you is > not clear. What I had > particular difficulty with was the idea of picking > and choosing things that > fits one's internal feel, without any external > reference. That gives no > chance for dialog. If, on the other hand, one has a > creed one can express, > the chance for dialog exists. Commonality and > differences can be discussed. Well, since I am not using any particular scriptures as justification for what I believe or do (except for 'Love God, love your neighbor as yourself' which I think pretty much encompasses how we ought to live - although it deserves to be thought upon long, because while the words are simple, what they demand is not), I suppose we really don't have an argument... ;) But when various groups cherry-pick scriptural passages to justify their suppression (or worse) of other groups - be they Jews, Gentiles, homosexuals or women - I find it abhorrent. I think most main-stream denominations have embraced at least a degree of ecumenicism, and can be pleased that they have progressed (but ought not be complacent with how much further they have to go). > IMHO, discernment is very difficult. I consider > those who think it is > automatic "of the milk." Dialog helps discernment; > we are more likely to > go astray if we have no external checks. That > doesn't mean we just follow > the crowd; it means we are in dialog with others. <nods> It is nevertheless sad (to me) how many refuse to consider dialog because they already "know" the Truth. > At the end of your post, you list a personal creed. > That is, IMHO, a step > up from cutting and pasting to suit one at the > moment because it involves a > standard that you agree to be held to. Of course that doesn't mean I always manage to adhere to those standards, but I do try. <grin> One reason I liked the title of a class I was in back then: 'Saints and Sinners (but mostly both at the same time).' > > It's simply worse among the fundamentalists of all > the > > 'people of the Book,' but the second-class status > > of women is there, albeit quite subtly, across the > board > > - although....Jesus [was] recorded as > > treating women far more equally than his > > contemporaries.... > What is very frustrating about this for me is that > you are assuming that a > provably false interpretation of scripture must be > true. I'll comment as we go along. You're saying it's provably false - then why do conservative Lutherans, conservative Jews, Catholics and various other groups deny ordination of women, state that man is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the Church, and so on? I am not trying to be a victim here, but from the perceived status of women alone, I would have to join the ranks of those who call themselves "followers of Jesus" rather than "Christians," because of the negative connotations of the latter (if that was my only major sticking-point with Christianity). [Dan] > >... With all due respect, I don't get > > > the feeling that you've > > > studied the bible as well as the typical BSF > > >person. Amy and I understand it better, so that > > >helps a lot. > > ....if I as > > an intelligent layperson feel that there is a > definite > > anti-female bias in Christianity (and Judaism and > > Islam and Hinduism....) that ought to be at least > > a yellow flag, if not a red. > OK, say we have a yellow flag. What's the next step, > then? I'd argue that > it is reading the scriptures with > historical/critical techniques to better > answer the question. If one does that, one tends to > understand Gomes > straightforward rules for understanding scripture. First - is there a website with Gomes' rules on it? Second - You (and others of course) are willing to look critically at scriptures, and use historical context, and *think* about what it says to you today. Others interpret things far more literally, and with far less tolerance for deviation from that viewpoint. How can a layperson with little training in scriptural interpretation get a fundamentalist layperson (who is equally untrained, but sure that they hold The Truth) to just think that the Truth they grasp is not quite complete? Heck, we can't even get certain fellow Listmembers to _consider_ that belief in a Divine Presence is not the mark of an unbalanced mind. :P What I see as the only sure protection for those who are not Holders of The One Truth is strict separation of church and state. Dialog with learned folk on both sides is good and needed, but my only guarantee of freedom in public is our Constitution. Which is under fire from those who ought to be defending it. > For example, it is clear that the people who God > favored in scripture were > not perfect....There is no way to > argue that scripture intends that we should use > David's whole life as a > role model. Yet, the principals of scripture from > that time are clear and relevant today. What, it's not OK to lust after another man's wife and arrange for his death?! <evil grin> Aside: how does this tie in with an earlier discussion on public leaders, and wanting them to display virtue, _at least in public_? Or as I wrote in today's Indivisible post: "we humans want our leaders to be 'better than most others,' else why would we follow them?" That's for another post, I think! :) [me] <sigh> So what is the parent to do with the child > > during _regular_ service, when the texts are read > > 'as is' with any interpretation done afterward? > In addition, I have taught Jr. high for years. Most > of them remember > Sunday School stories. There is next to no memory > of the readings in > church. You may have been fairly unique as a child > to be more influenced > by the passages of scripture read during the service > than by your Sunday school class. <grim smile> I think that LC-MS site above will explain that well. But it's true that I had an impressive visual (for writing) and aural memory (I think I've already told how I'd literally be dozing in class and yet be able to answer a question correctly when called upon). > ....I'll accept that > the OT was written in a time where the social status > of women was low. > That is a historical given. The real question, > then, is how scripture > deals with that given; not the sociology of the > times. I think it equally important how those in power - spiritual or temporal - interpret those passages. > I saw my daughter preach on a minor female character > in scripture last > Sunday. She is strongly inspired by the OT > women...how they are great > examples for us, even given the prejudices against > them. So she gives a positive interpretation, to a receptive membership. She nevertheless wouldn't be allowed to preach at any number of churches here in the US. [Dan].... What Adam did was Adam's fault, > > > what Eve did was Eve's > > > fault; they are both equally to blame for the > > > mess they created. > > I quite agree; I think you will find that the > general > > lay public's interpretation of that scripture > >differs, however. Frex that Christian singles site above. > So, the answer is education, not dissing scripture. I am denouncing the way scripture has been used - and continues to be used - to supress several groups. And one of the reasons I support public education, and am against school vouchers. And want the Constitution upheld. > > What happened after that (disaster for women.... > > http://www.religioustolerance.org/lfe_bibl.htm > > [Incidentally, this site supports both my view > that we > > do not have "Jesus-anity" and *your* position that > > we _don't_ have "Paul-anity"! > It also supports the position that the basic > principals of Christianity are > not anti-woman, and all one has to do is return to > the roots to see that > "there is no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free, no > man or woman, all are one > in Christ Jesus." That is an absolute statement of > equality by Paul. If > you add the fact that Paul treated women as equal > partners in the teaching > of the new faith, referring to one woman with the > technical term > "co-worker" another as "apostle", and still others > as the leaders of the > church he was writing to, you will see a radical > remake of the ancient world. <wry> Then what do you make of the 1 Timothy verses above? Was he having a bad day? > Alas, these often fall short in revisionism. But, > accepting women as equal > to men needs to seen as truly accepting the gospel > of Christianity, not as > modern revisionism. That doesn't mean that you need > to be a Christian; it > means that rejecting it because it is against women > doesn't reflect an > understanding of its true principals. Addressed above, including the self-selecting part. > One can take the two great commandments and Paul's > statement about total > equality, and interpret scripture through them. Again, what to do with the quotes above? > You have, above, given a basic creed. Its a > reasonable one; and is > accepted as a cannon within a cannon by many. The > real difference that I > see between us is whether one cuts out scriptures > that seems to contradict > that, or interprets them in light of that most > fundamental cannon one > holds. I'd argue that there is a lot more to be gain > by reinterpreting than by cutting. Since I really don't hold the Bible as more than a collection of works which have inspired many to deeds both good and evil, and as mentioned before think that at least a passing aquaintence is needful to be truly literate in Western society, I'll agree with your reinterpreting as more desirable. (But I'd still be _really_ picky about which passages I allowed any child of mine to hear before they reached the age of critical thinking.) Debbi My Longest Post - Or Was That Nukular? Maru ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
