tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post7419958133219845207..comments2020-03-04T22:28:59.473+00:00Comments on A fitting name: Out of the theological closet: I am (for want of a better word) Egalitarian.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post-79017201491003188032009-11-27T18:37:53.315+00:002009-11-27T18:37:53.315+00:00Hi Swifty, thanks for posting. The counter is a bi...Hi Swifty, thanks for posting. The counter is a bit odd but I get a notice in my mail when a comment is made so I will find them, worry not!<br /><br />Good clarification. I intend it to mean all roles within the institutional church, eg. preaching, ministerial, eldership. I would however hold back my opinion on marriage. It seems to me that the traditional roles of men and women are natural and would not usually be usurped. However that is not to say that that is not always the case. Honestly I am unsure whether this extends to marriage or not. However as I was once told "Marriage is a partnership, not a dictatorship".<br /><br />I am interested by your interpretation however I will stick to what I said. I believe that your interpretation is based solely on fitting into your Complimentarian view and is no way a natural reading of the text. I believe that one must interpret the text in its own right before one begins to compare them. If an interpretation cannot be gained, or at least be plausible, on the single text alone, the interpretation is to be abandoned as inconsistent.<br /><br />Re Trinity I am confused as to what you mean. From my understanding the terms are 'Economic Trinity' (how the trinity relate in history and function) or 'Ontological Trinity' (what the trinity is). I do not see this as incompatible but rather two ways of understanding the Trinity. As Kahl Rahner said "The 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity, and vice versa." However if I have misunderstood what you meant then please do correct me. For now however I shall try to work out what you mean.<br /><br />I think your implication from your interpretation of Genesis 1 goes a little too far. Certainly we are given 'authority' (for want as usual of a better word) over creation. Not a problem. You are indeed right that we can (at least to some extent) see a difference in the persons of Trinity but to use this to imply a Complimentarian position is not acceptable. All we know is there is a difference.<br /><br />As for Genesis 2 again I think you take this too far. Firstly there is a clear distinction made between 'eve' and the animal (v20b). Secondly the way he named her was different. He called her "'ishshah" (woman) in V23, which is a play on the word "'iysh" (man). She is the one who is from man. Of course this theme of woman being from man is then taken up again in V24. Man was one flesh, woman was taken from man, they will be joined together again thereby becoming one flesh once again. Also it is worth noting that she was made to be a companion, a helper: One who is suitable man. It is a whole other step to say that she therefore cannot teach man. Therefore I do not accept a Complimentarian position pre-fall. It is again a position which is place over a natural reading of the text.<br /><br />I would argue however that in some circumstances it would be inappropriate for a woman to be in a position of power e.g. in a culture where that isn't acceptable, or in a congregation where that would do more harm then good. I do agree however that the roles in which we agree on are undervalued and need to be supported.<br /><br />I've been wearing trousers for years, but they are functional and in no way are needed to prove my masculinity. An despite what Steven Anderson said, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta9LSx8-9Vc" rel="nofollow">Jesus definitely did not wear trousers.</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post-20985401025249183062009-11-27T13:38:07.789+00:002009-11-27T13:38:07.789+00:00I posted a response but it doesn't seem to cou...I posted a response but it doesn't seem to count it on your main blog page.<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />BumpThe Ramblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564688882211354683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post-55464074230551129052009-11-27T10:35:44.987+00:002009-11-27T10:35:44.987+00:00Yo Pedro,
First a point of clarification: in the ...Yo Pedro,<br /><br />First a point of clarification: in the above article is its scope to intended to include just preaching or wider issues such as eldership and roles within marriage?<br /><br />On the 1st Timothy passage you create a false dichotomy between a greater inherent disposition to be deceived and the woman at the time were ignorant; I have an alternative: the reason Paul gives for the women to teach is that Adam was created first and then Eve, demonstrating the creation order of husbands being the head of the wife which is translated in some respects to Church order; so the point about Eve being deceived isn't that she's more liable to but that this is an empirical result of usurping the created order.<br /><br />Implied in your essay is a functional economic trinity rather than an ontological economic trinity which you use in support of your position- here's a brief case for the ontological version: in Genesis 1:26-27<br /><br />26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."<br /><br />27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. <br /><br />From here we get two things here: first that mankind has authority of creation and second that there's a diversity in God which isn't purely numerical since the reader would obviously know that men and women are different and it implies something similar in the nature of God. <br /> <br />Now moving on to Genesis 2 it is Adam not Eve who names the animals, furthermore Adam himself names Eve thus showing his authority over both. To further buttress the point Adam is called to task post fall first rather than Eve. This shows a pre-fall order of differentiation of roles of the sexes and since the different sexes are related to the nature of God implies an ontological economy rather than a functional one since the redemption plan was not yet in action.<br /><br />For similar musings on men and women see this (although it's primarily an article on marriage)-<br /><br />http://the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com/2008/12/cu-is-not-meat-market-its-delicatessen.html<br /><br />Finally I do think the church has not supported women in their appropriate ministries in the past and also their role of prayer and of prophesy (I need to research more on what that actually is)<br /><br />I'm off to put my trousers on now.<br /><br />The RamblerThe Ramblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564688882211354683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post-15008462530068573032009-11-27T00:29:54.099+00:002009-11-27T00:29:54.099+00:00Thanks for posting Kevin. Always nice to hear ones...Thanks for posting Kevin. Always nice to hear ones not standing on their own.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851163058242072594.post-21149010310420013572009-11-27T00:09:43.366+00:002009-11-27T00:09:43.366+00:00great post. I agree with your conclusionsgreat post. I agree with your conclusionsKevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.com