« Summer after Summer of What? | Main | Revising Lewis »
August 01, 2008
Sanctified Incoherence: The AEF Call Revisted
In the October/November, 2006 issue of Touchstone, the editors gave a resoundingly negative assessment of the Ancient Evangelical Future Call. Perhaps our most prominent objection was the absence of masculine terminology for God. While it employed the masculine pronoun for Christ, in each place “God” was mentioned, where normal English usage would call for a masculine pronoun following, “God” was simply repeated in the customary manner of theological femspeak. “He” or “him” was never once used, thus making the statement acceptable to, and signable by, those who hold a theology in which gendered language for God is either optional or wrong.
Howard Snyder of Asbury Seminary, one of the editors of the Call, responded to Touchstone criticism by pointing out that
None of the theological editors object to identifying the God of the Bible as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While we certainly endorse human equality before God, we do not want to be misunderstood as proposing a “neutered” (as S. M. Hutchens calls it) view of God. We fully believe in and trust the Triune God as revealed in Scripture and believe the church should live under his sovereignty and guidance.Note that Dr. Snyder straightforwardly uses the masculine pronoun for God here, and that on the home page of the AEF Website, it is clearly and prominently stated that “God, the Father, watches over his Church.” Perhaps this was put in place in response to our criticism. But whether or not, it will not do, and one hopes this consortium understands it is playing for a gallery that still does not include us.
I venture the reason one will not find any member of the Touchstone editorial board signing this statement is not because none of the Call’s theological editors object to identifying the God of the Bible as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but because they will not assert it in the Call itself, which never identifies God as Father or Jesus as Son. When such documents are written, as this one was, by experts who are well aware of the present theological atmosphere, such omissions are both deliberate and significant, and it is both right and reasonable to hold them responsible, especially when, after public identification of those omissions, they confirm them by not altering the piece. The problem is not that that it is open to those who do not object to the language of orthodox Trinitarianism, but that it is open to those who do. Thus the Call is both incoherent and self-defeating if its reason for existence is, as it indicates, to summon Evangelicals to a more deeply historical and catholic understanding of the faith. Why write a call to ancient orthodoxy in the koine of modern heresy? Quem deus vult perdere . . . ?
The only logical reason I can suppose is the desire to win to the Christian faith, by mutual striving toward greater truth, those who will not call God Father or Son, or use the masculine forms for the Godhead. If so, the intention is praiseworthy, and unquestionably evangelical, but the method is passing strange. Surely we will be forgiven, not being privy to the secret, for pointing this out and not signing on.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 05:22 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e553c8e10a8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sanctified Incoherence: The AEF Call Revisted:
Comments
Why is it so important to you that God be specifically MALE? What trait do males have that females lack?
Posted by: Karen | Aug 2, 2008 9:33:36 AM
Who woulda thunk hermeneutical postmodernism would have found such an eloquent spokesperson (er . . . spokesman) in S. M. Hutchens?! It's all here: the ideological commitment which functions as hermeneutical grid for an interpretive community, a hermeneutic of suspicion which reduces everything to political paranoia (could one hope for a more lovely example of deconstructionism?), a reader-response interpretation that declares irrelevant authors' intentions to the texts they produce. Formally Hutchens' reading method is indistinguishable from that of feminism -- just its material opposite. So it's all here: game, set, and match to Stanley Fish!
Posted by: Occasional Reader | Aug 2, 2008 10:34:29 AM
My dear Karen, my personal stake in the matter has entirely to do with my responsibility before God, which I have willingly taken on because I think it the truth, to teach the Christian faith, and my fear that he will send me to hell if I don't. I cannot say that I have much affection for God--I don't do it out of what most people would call "love"-- although I hope to eventually. But I DO fear him, believe his Word to be true, know what loyalty is, despise people who sell him out, and don't want to despise myself. My attitude toward him is more like a soldier to his commander than anything else, my main concern in life being to carry out his orders to his satisfaction.
I have two honest choices: believe and teach Christian doctrine, or cease to be a Christian. There is no third way in which one can have both the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, that is, the God of the Bible, and the egalitarian god. You can be a Christian or an egalitarian; you can't be both. This is simply a matter of study and reason, and I am joined in this opinion by feminist theologians who think that Christianity isn't true. They are more honest than those who wish to eat Christian pudding with egalitarian sauce.
God is not a man, and so is not sexually male, but Christ, who is his perfect manifestation, his very image and likeness, is a male, the Son of the Father. This is fundamental Christian teaching, and it destroys egalitarian teaching at its root. To understand in greater detail why this is, you would have to look into the matter further. Immersion in the Bible does the job for many believers, but you might also want to consult Stephen B. Clark's Man and Woman in Christ. Google that: it is available free on line. If you want more of my thoughts on the subject, much of what I have written is available free to you in the Touchstone archives. There is a great deal out there to be read, but remember, you won't be able to get beyond the scriptures unless you leave Christianity to do it. The texts will continue to reassert themselves as constitutionally Christian, demand to be dealt with as such, and eventually extinguish all attempts to revise them that go against their character.
There was a time when I was much younger that I hoped all this wouldn't be so. How much more friendly and comfortable and status-filled life might have been if I had not come to the convicitions on this that I did, for believe me, I am an unpopular man, and don't enjoy being ill thought-of by nice people with whom I would like to be friendly. But to hell with all that: life is short, and I must soon give an account of myself and my teaching to the Lord. I would rather experience some discomfort in this life than to have him identify me as a coward, a toady, and a false teacher.
And that is why I say what I say in the way that I say it.
As to what traits males have that females lack, er--let me borrow a part of Michigan's state motto: Circumspice: have an honest look around you. Or ask your mother, or something. If you wish to know the theological side of it, I will tell you what I have told my own daughters: Tolle, lege: Take up the book and read. I can't tell you everything, or convince you of anything against your will, and won't try.
Posted by: smh | Aug 2, 2008 10:57:03 AM
Occasional Reader, believing something to be true will do it to you every time, just as the ability to hang labels on things, even if they don't fit very well, gives one the illusion of mastery.
Posted by: smh | Aug 2, 2008 11:18:55 AM
Karen, I could say "masculinity", but in fact the real reason, and only reason, is that God so reveals Himself; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and distinguishes Himself from the pagan female deities, including the various 'white ladies' and modal female trinity of neo-pagan Europe.
The difference is between YHWH and Diana of the Ephesians. It is a question of -who- is God, or who your god(dess) is. Whom do you serve? YHWH, or a creature that is by nature not God?
I would also recommend Werner Neuer's _Man and Woman in Christian Perspective_ for an orthodox, Biblical, Lutheran treatment.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 2, 2008 11:58:43 AM
SMH, if you're referring to anatomy, I have two sons. I know that part. What virtues do men have that women lack?
Posted by: Karen | Aug 2, 2008 12:14:05 PM
Karen,
One would hope you understood the differences between male and female anatomy long before you bore two sons!
Before anyone answers the question you pose in your second post, I think you need to answer a question arising from your first post. Who ever said it is important "that God be specifically MALE"?
It is a common enough ploy among religious feminists to leap from the observation that God reveals himself using masculine language to the assumption that those who defend continued use of such language are claiming God is exclusively male that you should have no difficulty in justifying your use such a ploy.
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 2, 2008 1:02:59 PM
SMH, there was no attempt to "hang labels" (do you really think I would take you for a postmodernist, much less feminist?), only to wonder if you or anyone else would find it ironic that your approach to this document had so much in common with a way of approaching texts that most Touchstone readers would rightly eschew.
So if a framer of the document, says "Well, no, that's not what we are doing," and you say, "But that's what it means to us," it just leaves me wondering what sort of reading strategies are at work. Now I think it is more than fair to say, "Sorry, this is too flawed, too open to misinterpretation, for us to sign," and even to ask and hope for corrections. But it seems that you have also attributed motive as a matter of inference, even when your brother in Christ indicated that there was no such intent. Perhaps I have read too much ideological twaddle from the "other side," but this sort of attribution of malign intent reminds me too much of the bad faith exercises that pass for "hermeneutics" in certain circles these days, and I just think Touchstone is better than that.
Posted by: Occasional Reader | Aug 2, 2008 2:01:22 PM
Karen,
Thank you for what I want to believe are honest questions.
Males are given by God a higher place in the human hierarchy not because of their superior "virtues," or "traits," or necessarily even abilities. They are assigned the leader/provider/protector tasks simply because God decided they should depict Him in His relationship to His creation (the masculine vis a vis the feminine).
If you think about it, men may well be the ones with the harder lot, for they will be held accountable to represent God in ways we women aren't required to.
With regard to the question of value (implicit in your inquiry), we Christians must concern ourselves foremost with our value to God. We believe we best serve Him, and most please Him, when we conform to His design, regardless of how we are perceived by our society.
Diane
Posted by: Diane | Aug 2, 2008 2:21:49 PM
Dr. Steve Hutchens: "...my personal stake in the matter has entirely to do with my responsibility before God, which I have willingly taken on because I think it the truth, to teach the Christian faith, and my fear that he will send me to hell if I don't."
Same for me. Same for me.
Incidentally, a cumulation of recent events, newsworthy and otherwise, has put me in a mood to contend very strongly and earnestly against the aberrant doctrine of egalitarianism and WO. These events range from the Church of England's General Synod ramming through the approval of women bishops without adequate provision for dissenting Anglo-Catholics to contesting a staunch egalitarian by the name of "Sue" on Denny Burk's blog to reading Dr. Ephraim Radner's highly lauded essay Women's Ordination and the Church's Order.
I stand with Dr. Steve Hutchens. I issue a general invitation to all egalitarians and all pro-WO'ers to come to this thread and vigorously debate the complementarian vs. egalitarian issue, the pro-WO vs. the no-WO issue, whether from a sacerdotal or biblical exegetical/hermeneutic perspective. Come one, come all.
Professor John Stackhouse, Francesca, "Sue", Peter Kirk, Dr. Ephraim Radner, Dr. Christopher Seitz, whoever..., please come so that we may all contend for the glory of God!
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 2, 2008 2:35:55 PM
SMH: "You can be a Christian or an egalitarian; you can't be both."
Surely this is a statement that can spark heated discussion, eh?
As for myself, I neither disavow, nor support this statement at this time. I just don't know.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 2, 2008 2:52:38 PM
TUAD,
Heated discussion? I can think of a few better terms for what has occurred with those who believe Dr. Hutchens to be wrong in his assertion. I wouldn't dignify the immaturity and deliberate mischaracterization rampant in some of those places with the label of "discussion". I know you have seen some of this for yourself.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 2, 2008 3:20:58 PM
For purposes of these postings I wish to emphasize that this is clearly what C. S. Lewis believed--becoming a Christian requires rejection of egalitarianism. Jane Studdock's conversion from egalitarianism to Christianity is one of the principal parts of That Hideous Strength.
Certainly Lewis does not say that an egalitarian might not be ethically better or far more pleasant than someone who is not, simply that Christian and egalitarian doctrine (anthropological or theological--these are bound in Christology) oppose each other, just as Christianity and Marxism do, so that if someone says he is both Christian and egalitarian, he is involved in a contradiction. Eventually, he will have to decide one way or the other. In the meanwhile, I am doing what I can to keep Evangelical egalitarians, especially, from muddying these waters by making themselves out as sharing the faith of C. S. Lewis, who, by his principles, could not recognize them as Christians.
As far as discussing all this here is concerned, I'm not excited about the prospect. I can't imagine anything more can be said than has already been said, and discussion should not be used as a vehicle for temporizing. (Ephraim Radner's 2006 essay on women's ordination is unusually clever, but contains nothing new.) The main points of contention are theological, and they have already been thoroughly mooted. One just needs to find and read the texts. This Website is one of the places some of that can be done. Read what Frs. Reardon and Manikowski have written on it, and my stuff as well. I don't think there is a better compte rendu from our side than Steve Clark's book, which I have mentioned. And of course, one of our most powerful advocates is C. S. Lewis himself.
Posted by: smh | Aug 2, 2008 4:06:38 PM
Kamilla: "I wouldn't dignify the immaturity and deliberate mischaracterization rampant in some of those places with the label of "discussion". I know you have seen some of this for yourself."
Yes, of course I have. BTW, thanks Kamilla for fighting the good fight. I have seen your comments over at the Bayly brothers blog and Fr. Bill's.
SMH: "As far as discussing all this here is concerned, I'm not excited about the prospect."
I understand. It's same old, same old. But you still have to unsheath the battle-worn sword again and again because the Medusa-witch keeps growing new heads with every new and deceived generation.
"I am doing what I can to keep Evangelical egalitarians, especially, from muddying these waters by making themselves out as sharing the faith of C. S. Lewis"
My bad. Sorry for missing your larger point. I now understand. I was deeply unaware that egalitarians were wrongfully misappropriating C.S. Lewis and enlisting him as endorsing their theologically aberrant position. Can you provide a link?
"(Ephraim Radner's 2006 essay on women's ordination is unusually clever, but contains nothing new.) The main points of contention are theological, and they have already been thoroughly mooted."
You, Fr. Reardon, and Manikowski have already critiqued and "thoroughly mooted" Radner's 2006 WO essay?? Really? If so, I must google-search immediately for your mooting (booting?) of Ephraim Radner's assay.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 2, 2008 8:36:06 PM
Dear Steve,
No luck google-searching for yours, Fr. Reardon's, or Manikowski's critique of Ephraim Radner's 2006 essay defending WO.
If you have time, can you provide a link?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 2, 2008 8:44:35 PM
I stop by here occasionally. Have noticed, of course, this very firm belief in gender hierarchy you guys share, but do you really think those who believe in gender equality are heretics, and can't be called Christian? Wow; that is going really far. CSLewis could have been wrong on that count, you know, just as he was wrong on a few other things, too....
Posted by: anna | Aug 3, 2008 6:43:26 AM
Anna,
I should warn you to be careful about stopping by here too often. I used to believe in "gender equality" and look what happened to me - by the reckoning of some, I'm the worst of the lot around here!
You know the old saying, the truth will out . . .
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 3, 2008 10:54:19 AM
>>CS Lewis could have been wrong on that count, you know, just as he was wrong on a few other things, too....<<
CS Lewis was wrong on several counts, but gender equality is not one of them. And it's not like we're reading this from the Lewisian Testament. We are reading this from 1500 years of Jewish heritage that suffused the identity of the ancient Church, which was born of Second Temple Judaism.
As for whether the gender equality crowd are heretics and cannot be called Christian, I will say definitely that they are heretics, but I am not going to judge their place in Christ and say they are not Christian. Rather, I view them in need of correction--just like I do members of denominational groups whose doctrine I disagree with. The difference here is that the fear of and submission to God is completely subverted by gender equality, and thus the need is far greater.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 3, 2008 10:17:36 PM
Also, let me add that it is not a concern of "equality", but rather function. As all are made equal in Christ and are likewise equal in their sin apart from Him, male and female are equal; they serve different purposes in His creation, though. This "gender equality" speak is nothing more than a subtle hijacking of the terms by the liberal opposition. To paraphrase a certain prolific Biblical writer, "as if an eye were better than an ear or feet better than hands. Feh."
Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 3, 2008 10:22:21 PM
"In the meanwhile, I am doing what I can to keep Evangelical egalitarians, especially, from muddying these waters by making themselves out as sharing the faith of C. S. Lewis, who, by his principles, could not recognize them as Christians."
By Mr. Hutchens' reasoning, N. T. Wright is not a Christian. He is a proponent of women's ordination; this is logically incompatible with Christianity. Why, then, was Wright permitted to write an article about C. S. Lewis for Touchstone?
Posted by: TNW | Aug 3, 2008 10:27:54 PM
I did not mean to indicate that Mr. Clark, Frs. Reardon and Manikowski, and I, have specifically critiqued Radner's essay, but that there is no substantive point in it which we and many others had not already spoken to years before he wrote it. This material is easy to find, and those who are interested in the subject should find it and read it.
Let the Anglicans amuse themselves in their customary fashion, and come to their own end. For years I was among those who tried to help the Episcopal Church, spilling gallons of ink in publications like The Evangelical Catholic, and in the end coming to the conclusion that trying to help its "orthodox" party was a fool's errand.
I didn't know how much "orthodoxy" was only Prayer Book traditionalism, how much it was bound up not with concern for souls, but church properties, and how many of those who were opposed to women's ordination felt that way because they were homosexuals and misogynists. Now I know. I see no reason to think the same isn't true in the Church of England, and I am not interested in getting involved in the stinking mess one sees perpetually circling the Lambeth drain. The cloacal mere is much, much deeper than the women's ordination issue, which is only one of the larger rafts of ordure floating on its surface.
Posted by: smh | Aug 3, 2008 10:55:16 PM
Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright (quite possibly the next Archbishop of Canterbury) did write this paper titled The Biblical Basis for Women's Service in the Church.
If you'd like to hear the audio link of Wright addressing the Christians for Biblical Equality annual conference the summer of 2004, please click here to the Bayly brother's post: N. T. Wright: Feminist.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 3, 2008 11:08:09 PM
Touchstone has no rule that its writers must be Christians. I can imagine instances where an orthodox Jew, for example, could produce and excellent Touchstone article, because mere Christianity arose from mere Judaism: they are connected at the theological and ethical root. (Theologically orthodox Judaism is not egalitarian either.) Be that as it may, the Wright article was published over my objection, as others have been. I'm giving no details on why--that's an in-house matter.
Let me make it clear that I judge no one's soul--only God can do that. What I'm saying is that egalitarianism and Christianity contradict each other. A great many people are confused on that: they recite the Creed and honestly think they believe the scriptures, not understanding that the system which allows them to believe also in women's ordination is un-Christian, just as a Haitian might go to Mass on Sunday and a Voodoo ceremony on Friday. Eventually they will all have to decide for one and against the other.
I'll have to leave you all to it. I've had some time this weekend to write, but that's now over.
Posted by: smh | Aug 3, 2008 11:18:22 PM
I recall attending a conference where a spiritual directress, referring to God, used the term, "Godself". I misunderstood and caused snickers, glares, and a longsuffering clarification when I asked what she meant when she spoke of "God's elf".
Posted by: ODIrony | Aug 4, 2008 8:38:54 AM
>I should warn you to be careful about stopping by here too often. I used to believe in "gender equality" and look what happened to me - by the reckoning of some, I'm the worst of the lot around here!<
I'll take my chances, :-) but frankly, so far am not tempted to abandon my "heretical" postion one whit! The alternative presented seems dismal in the extreme.
>The difference here is that the fear of and submission to God is completely subverted by gender equality, and thus the need is far greater.<
You must have met wierd egalitarians if you got the idea that gender equality ranked higher for them than God Himself. For me, thats just one issue, and one that I can keep on the back burner anytime it seems to be too divisive. I have no desire to divide Christians further than we have already managed to divide ourselves. Which is why i find your "egalitarians are heretics and not Christian" position rather extreme and divisive in itself. But thats up to you (shrug)
Posted by: anna | Aug 4, 2008 9:42:14 AM
Anna: "The alternative presented seems dismal in the extreme.
It only seems "dismal in the extreme" because of what Kamilla has said earlier: "I wouldn't dignify the immaturity and deliberate mischaracterization rampant in some of those places with the label of 'discussion'."
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 4, 2008 11:53:23 AM
Well, no, not just because of that, though I would agree that discussion on these issues is rarely conducted with maturity. For me, hierarchical Christianity is dismal because God reflected back through this lens is rigid, is a respecter of persons, is biased and rather whimsical in His character - none of which fit in, I think, with the Biblical picture of God.
Posted by: annamma | Aug 4, 2008 12:08:22 PM
The rot spreads:
http://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/08/woman-pastor-to-lead-worship-at-lcms.html
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 4, 2008 12:12:08 PM
"The rot spreads:"
This...is...painful!
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 4, 2008 12:26:56 PM
"For me, hierarchical Christianity is dismal because God reflected back through this lens is rigid, is a respecter of persons, is biased and rather whimsical in His character - none of which fit in, I think, with the Biblical picture of God."
Is your womb evidence of bias and whimsy? Is your call to submission to your husband rigid?
If God is our creator, and we know that all his ways are righteous, then that includes his giving men and women different roles both within his creation broadly and within his church specifically. This command is entirely within his rights as God, is at root a good thing for his people, and is entirely fitting with his revealed character (I've never found God to be a particular advocate for democracy and individualism; then again, I am a Presbyterian ). If God has authority over his creation, then he also has the authority to divvy out that authority to others.
Posted by: AMereLurker | Aug 4, 2008 12:36:05 PM
>>For me, hierarchical Christianity is dismal because God reflected back through this lens is rigid, is a respecter of persons, is biased and rather whimsical in His character<<
The God who laid out 617 laws in the Torah, specifically appointed judges and kings via his prophets and chose one group to carry his light to the world, not to mention having the foresight to create something as ridiculous as the platypus, is rigid, a respecter of (individual) persons, biased and rather whimsical? And we find this a problem?
Who'd'a thunk it?
Posted by: Michael | Aug 4, 2008 12:42:05 PM
Who'd'a thunk it?
[Per Jeopardy game show format]
Who are the "egalitarians"?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 4, 2008 2:15:55 PM
Perhaps it would help if we did not equate hierarchy and/or authority solely with wielding of power. Jesus died an ignominious death on the cross after washing the Apostles' feet. Many bishops and pastors--the most easily identifiable of believers--have been martyred down through the ages (not to mention the first six? Popes). Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ does His Church. Real fathers have put up with grueling, often-times degrading work for the sake of their families. Men and women are all called upon to sacrifice, but in oft-times different modes.
Mary Conces
Posted by: Mary Conces | Aug 4, 2008 2:39:35 PM
I think Ms. Conces has hit upon an important point. I'd be as dead set against hierarchy as any egalitarian, if I thought it meant the mere exercise of power. But power and hierarchy are very different things.
Despite the protestations of Rousseau, hierarchy does not create power inequalities. Such inequalities exist in nature, arising from all the natural differences between people. Hierarchy rather responds to this preexisting state of affairs. It is an ordering of power within a system of responsibility. That is, it consists of obligations owed by the members of the hierarchy to one another.
When we think of hierarchies, we often dwell on the obligations that the lower members owe to the higher ones. So we think of the taxes a medieval peasant owes to his lord, or the obedience an army private owes to his sergeant.
But these are not the most important elements of a hierarchical relationship. Indeed, in the absence of hierarchy, the stronger member would be able to simply compel such things from the lower by dint of superior strength. The lord, due to his riches and military power, could do whatever he wished to the poor farmers who worked on his land, anything from treating them as slaves to annihilating them down to the last babe, if he did not recognize them as belonging to the same system of relation as himself.
What hierarchy recognizes is that the stronger members also owe obligations to the weaker. So the lord owes his peasants defense from the predations of bandits and invaders. His own extractions from the peasants are also limited to the agreed upon taxation rates, rather than leaving him free to bleed them dry at his whim. Because he is related to his subjects in an ordered system, the lord is compelled to recognize that in order to be a good man, he must be a good lord to his peasants.
In the same way, inequality of power between the sexes is a fact of nature. On the simple physical level, men possess greater strength than women. History is also filled with evidence that the masculine temperament, unrestrained, is easily capable of exploiting the feminine in the worst ways. There is no way to escape this fact, though we've certainly taken every technological step to try.
Of course, this is commonly taken as evidence of the evils of sexual hierarchy, usually pejoratively called "patriarchy," a term I happily embrace. But true patriarchy is actually the restraint of this power to dominate, the replacement of the simple capacity to exploit with an obligation to lead.
This is precisely what Jesus and Sts. Paul and Peter are talking about in all their discourses on the proper relationship between men and women: he who would lead must become the servant.
But this is impossible when the very idea of leadership is dismissed. I don't think the enemies of patriarchy realize how dangerous their position is. For as the reflective Christian knows, when the idea of leadership goes, so too goes the idea of servanthood. The absence of hierarchy is not equality. The absence of hierarchy is tyranny.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 4, 2008 4:00:24 PM
Well said, Ethan. Very well said.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 4, 2008 4:37:33 PM
Karen: "Why is it so important to you that God be specifically MALE? What trait do males have that females lack?
Anna: "Have noticed, of course, this very firm belief in gender hierarchy you guys share, but do you really think those who believe in gender equality are heretics, and can't be called Christian? Wow; that is going really far."
Karen and Anna, please see Ethan C.'s excellent comment above at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 4, 2008 4:45:23 PM
>Well said, Ethan. Very well said.
That is probably Ethan's best post every...
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 4, 2008 4:57:36 PM
>>That is probably Ethan's best post every...<<
Agreed. Three cheers and kudos to Mr. Cordray.
If only it had mention of a platypus to be funnier. ;-)
Posted by: Michael | Aug 4, 2008 6:06:50 PM
>>The absence of hierarchy is tyranny.
ETHAN C.'s entire post is indeed worth observing, but allow me to protest that tyranny is rightly understood as the opposite extreme, the hierarch's abuse of his own authority. The absence of hierarchy is bullying, might-makes-right, molossocracy, what is now frequently referred to as "thugocracy."
The effect is largely the same, but the tyrant rules with a pretense of legal authority, while the dog/thug rules purely by force of intimidation.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 4, 2008 7:31:18 PM
That's an important clarification, DGP. Perhaps I should have said, "The absence of hierarchy is predation."
There are, of course, numerous ways in which hierarchy can go wrong, and people never tire of discovering them. But to propose that abolishing hierarchy is the solution is a bit like proposing to cure pneumonia by removing the lungs.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 4, 2008 10:43:38 PM
>>The absence of hierarchy is predation.
Oh, all the better! I'll inscribe that on my diocesan directory.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 5, 2008 6:18:34 AM
"There are, of course, numerous ways in which hierarchy can go wrong, and people never tire of discovering them. But to propose that abolishing hierarchy is the solution is a bit like proposing to cure pneumonia by removing the lungs."
Absolutely right. As Wendell Berry pointed out in STANDING BY WORDS, the egalitarian's mistake is to attribute the errors and abuses of unjust hierarchies to hierarchy per se. This mistake results in the view that all hierarchies are unjust.
Posted by: Rob G | Aug 5, 2008 6:37:27 AM
[Cough, cough]
Ahem, didn't Satan object to the hierarchy that God set up over him?
Could it not then be said that Satan is an egalitarian? In fact, isn't it fair to say that Satan is the first egalitarian?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 5, 2008 7:38:55 AM
I agree, certainly a kindly patriarchal sysytem and a benevolent patriarch is better than tyranny and a bullying despot. But still better, IMO, is a partnership where leadership is not abolished, Ethan, but it is shared - with leadership moving fluidly from one to the other, as per the gifts of the people involved. But yes, it requires grace and maturity from all concerned, the grace to sometimes be the one who is following, and the maturity to step forward and take the lead when required.
Hasn't it been noticed that in many homes, most conservative, hierarchical, patriarchal or call-it-what-you-will ( :-)) christians practise this form of shared leadership, while paying lip-service to the male-only-leadership model?
I merely say, lets make it official : This is the better way...
However, to each his own...Shrug
Posted by: anna | Aug 5, 2008 10:14:34 AM
Did the slave traders of old say the same thing, i wonder? And kings, before they were stripped of their crowns? :-)
A lot of the time, it is our social systems which divvy out the authority, not God.
Posted by: anna | Aug 5, 2008 10:24:46 AM
Anna, I do not know if you have ever tried ballroom dancing. When you do - or when you watch a couple dance - does your man lead, or do you share? In principle the man leads, he dances the woman. But in accordance with that principle, the steps that the woman dances in response could be far more difficult and more intricate than the man's. In fact, when you watch the most graceful and elegant dancers, the man does lead. It's not the case that the theorists give lip-service to hierarchy while the best actual dancers practice shared leadership.
Graceful home leadership is like that too.
By the way, dance is not only about physical complimentarity- it is also an exercise for complimentary souls. You don't just put a small man in the woman's leotard and still call it a dance.
And I add my congratulations to Ethan for his post, exceptionally clear on the subject.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 5, 2008 11:29:28 AM
Clifford,
Isn't that comparing apples and oranges?
Ballroom dancing is perhaps that way, (I am no expert) but I could as easily compare the home to a game of doubles in badminton or tennis..:-)
Here, couples vary in the way they play; often, there is no fixed "leader"; the one with a strong baseline game stays back, and the other retrieves from the front; when one is receiving the serve, whatever their game is like, the one receiving tends to stay back, unless it is a short serve, in which case they switch places...
That requires flexibility and grace, too....
I find our choice of examples interesting in going against the stereotype too. You gave an example from ball-room dancing, supposedly a female thing, while I gave one from sports, supposedly a male thing...
Posted by: anna | Aug 5, 2008 12:43:19 PM
I am egal.
Of course there are hierarchies in the Bible among humans, parents are to rule their kids. God rules everything. Hierarchies are not wrong in and of themselves.
For marriage, the question is whether the spouses are to be in a hierarchy, egals say no, non-egals say yes. The ONLY place in the Bible where I see God-approved authority in marriage is in 1 Cor 7, where the authority is mutual in the bed. I can find pagan-approved authority of husband over wife in Ester 1, this does not prove it is wrong, but makes me suspicious. As far as I can tell, the rest is a matter of interpreting some verses that are not explicit in mentioning authority in one way or another.
Posted by: Don | Aug 5, 2008 12:48:40 PM
Anna,
I see what you mean about different examples meaning different things. However, I'm sure you'll agree that some examples may be better than others, and just because one can propose an alternative metaphor that the alternative is equally applicable. Not all hierarchies are identical in their dynamics. We don't have to choose between the master/slave dynamic and pure equality (even if pure equality were a possible choice). Once we agree that marriage is a form of hierarchy, then the next question is, what sort of hierarchy is it?
That is to say, the question of whether marriage is more like ballroom dancing or badminton is an anthropological one. It depends on one's view of the natural differences between men and women, and of what the purpose of marriage is.
As to your earlier comment:
>>Hasn't it been noticed that in many homes, most conservative, hierarchical, patriarchal or call-it-what-you-will ( :-)) christians practise this form of shared leadership, while paying lip-service to the male-only-leadership model?<<
On what basis do you call it "lip service?" Has it occurred to you that perhaps the give and take of mutual submission is only possible within the framework of male headship? To lay aside one's prerogative to rule, one must possess it in the first place.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 5, 2008 1:02:35 PM
Anna,
Ballroom dancing involves a male and a female. I know from considerable experience playing tennis doubles that *it* does not. For this reason alone, it is less likely to be applicable as a metaphor to the situation of marriage.
Don,
If you are serious, you are deeply ignorant of the Pauline corpus--unless you think Paul wasn't the author of Ephesians.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Aug 5, 2008 1:08:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
