We'll Just Relieve You of Those, Sir

News Flash, from the Center for Biblical Equality, courtesy of blogger Kamilla. Eunuchs, say the conferees, have something to teach the Church. The Church, that old gal in lavender print, has labored under the quaint misconstruction that God created man in the beginning, and male and female he created them. Not so, say the gelders and spayers at the Center for Biblical Equality. There’s an intermediate class of people, once known as hermaphrodites or androgynes, possessing the sexual characteristics of both sexes. So it is as David Mills commented, a birth defect is elevated to the status of the normal, just so that we can tear down the whole idea of the normal.

The point is not to ensure that men and women will be regarded as equal. For the very word “equal” implies distinction. If two things are identical, we do not say they are equal, unless we are dealing with mathematical objects and speaking somewhat informally. Back in high school we were taught trigonometric “identities” -- for instance, that the square of the tangent was the same as the square of the secant, minus one. We say “equal” but what we really mean is “identical”: they are in fact the same thing. But when we are not talking about identities, an assertion of equality is an assertion either of some measurable quantity, or of some metaphysical characteristic. So what must the equalitarians be talking about?

Not some measurable quantity. It is abundantly clear that males and females are not the same. It’s what a member of an alien race would notice first about us. It’s the first thing we notice about someone we meet, and the last thing we forget. They are not, as groups, quantitatively or qualitatively the same in height, muscle mass, vocal pitch, hairiness, bone density, adrenal performance, and age and pattern of maturation to puberty. Their wrists are different, their larynxes, their teeth, their skin, their hair, their reproductive organs -- as someone ought to point out, perhaps with helpful diagrams, to the people at the Center for Biblical Equality. They use different areas of the brain to do things as simple as come up with rhymes, remember names, or total up a list of numbers. They laugh differently, and at different things. One could spend all one’s life studying and appreciating these delightful differences. Indeed, plenty of poets and artists have done just that.

So it must be a metaphysical characteristic, then, that makes men and women equal in any meaningful sense. What might that be? Well, all Christians have affirmed that men and women have been created in the image and likeness of God, and while some medieval thinkers suggested that perhaps the man was a closer image of God than the woman, that idea is about unheard of now (unless I am mistaken, it was never popular in the East, for instance in Gregory of Nyssa). Rather, Pope John Paul II has suggested that man would not, alone, have constituted a being made in God’s image and likeness; it is precisely in the complementarity and union of male and female that mankind mirrors the Trinity. Be that as it may, there is no controversy whatever, on this score, between the equalitarians and, let’s say, faithful Catholics or Orthodox or Protestants who take seriously the distinctions between men and women as they apply to order in the family and the church.

What’s left then is not so much an assertion of equality as an assertion of indifference. Let’s say I have two cars, one red, one blue. They are not the same car. They are not “equal” in a quantitative sense -- not even if they are the same make and model. But, for the purposes for which I require the car -- I want to drive to the local pizza place and pick up a couple of pies for supper -- the cars should be construed as equal. That is, it simply makes no difference whether the cars are red and blue, or Ford and Chrysler, or Fiat and MG. Well, maybe it would make a difference if the car were an MG; there is a significant advantage to having a car whose engine will turn a drive train connected to axles and wheels, so that it will, to use the technical term, “go”. Otherwise, the characteristics are no big deal.

We are to believe, then, that all those things that make men recognizably male and women recognizably female are matters of indifference. For some practical purposes, no doubt some of them are. If you want to twirl an uncooked pizza crust, it will hardly matter if you have a baritone voice (though it might help to have big hands, and a knack for juggling wouldn’t hurt, either). If you have to lull a baby to sleep, it will hardly matter if your hair is glossy and fine (though it might help to have a gentle voice, and an instinct carefully attuned to the needs of small things like babies). But the pavers at the CBE are not thinking about those unimportant things. They are probably not even thinking about toting a rifle and ammunition, or hauling an unconscious adult out of a burning building and down a ladder. They are thinking about such prestigious things as being presidents and priests and generals and chiefs. If you assert loudly enough that sex is a matter of indifference in a priest or minister, then the congregation will themselves treat it with indifference. Here we agree, though not in the way the CBE folks would expect. The congregation do eventually treat it with indifference. Then they indifferently walk away, or never show up to begin with. David Blankenhorn, that liberal Democrat who champions the case of fatherhood in America, discovered this very indifference among men he interviewed. They most positively insisted that a woman could be a perfectly fine head of a household, no question about it. They were also most positively in prison when they said it.

What most intrigues me about the recent frisson at the CBE, though, is that even indifference will not suffice. We cannot say that maleness and femaleness do not matter. After all, so long as we say that, we are continuing to notice maleness and femaleness, and we might come under their spell. We might conclude that wonder and reverence, and reveling in inequality (and this works both ways), are just a lot more fun and a lot more, well, realistic than indifference. So we have to efface the very notion of maleness and femaleness. We have to do the same thing there that homosexual activists used to do with sexual propensities: we place them on a sliding scale, so that nobody is really anything in particular.

At which point I fail to see why we should retain any categories of being at all. I’m reading an excellent introduction to the Renaissance philosopher Suarez, by the Catholic philosopher A. J. Freddoso. Over and over he returns to the contradictions inherent in contemporary empiricism, its “epistemic despair,” and its lapsing into absurd violations of common sense. For just as the CBE trowel-wielders want dearly to reduce talk of men and women to matters of amendable convention, so the contemporary empiricists have no sensible way to talk about what in everyday parlance are called recognizable “things,” without reducing them to aggregates of inherently meaningless matter. In other words, if we can’t talk about men and women, why should we hold our incapacity at that line? What sense can it make to talk about human beings at all, especially when technopolitan hybrids are looming on the horizon? Why not have a sliding scale there, too?

That’s probably not on the CBE radar. Why it’s not, I don’t really know. Scientistic atheists these days have come to admit that even though there are no such things, in actuality, as definably human beings, we should act as if there were; even though the notion of a free will is incomprehensible to materialists, we should suppose in our laws and customs that there is such a thing; even though there is no such thing as a “thing,” properly speaking, it would make life impossible for us if we abandoned that common sense position; we should even, according to a review of the atheist Alain de Botton in the recent issue of First Things, have cathedrals and holy days and feasts dedicated to secular heroes, even though religion itself makes no sense. We are to live in a meaningless world as if there were meaning. The CBEans take the argument in quite the opposite direction. We are, in the instance of man and woman, to live in a meaningful world as if it were meaningless.

Comments

[Benighted Savage]

Professor Esolen writes:

>>> News Flash, from the Center for Biblical Equality, courtesy of blogger Kamilla. Eunuchs, say the conferees, have something to teach the Church. <<<

First a post on circumcision. Then Stuart Kohl's comment on castration. Now it's eunuchs. Something funny seems to be going on here...

Seriously, though, I'm not familiar with the CBE. Would someone mind posting a link to the "News Flash" referred to by Esolen?

[Karen]

You say that inequality is more fun. Certainly for the superior person in the unequal group, but have you ever considered that it really stinks to spend your life being inferior, as you wish all women to be to all men, forever?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You say that inequality is more fun. Certainly for the superior person in the unequal group, but have you ever considered that it really stinks to spend your life being inferior, as you wish all women to be to all men, forever?<<<

Gee, Karen, that sounds like something an inherently inferior person might say. Good thing none of the women in my life whine like that.

[Francesca]

>>Seriously, though, I'm not familiar with the CBE. <<

I think the author meant Christians (not Center) for Biblical Equality.

[Francesca]

>>Their wrists are different, their larynxes, their teeth, their skin, their hair, their reproductive organs -- as someone ought to point out, perhaps with helpful diagrams, to the people at the Center for Biblical Equality.<<

And perhaps someone ought to point out that their gifts, talents, and callings are different too. Eqalitarianism is not about sameness -- quite the opposite. It is about transcending crude and bigoted categorization by celebrating individual differences, regardless of sex or race.

[Kamilla]

Ah, Francesca, what was that saying about consistency and hobgoblins? By "transcending crude and bigoted categorization" might you include putting women in combat and then demanding they be protected from their big bad fellow soldiers? Now excuse me for thinking it's a bad idea to put women in combat, but if she can't defend herself against her fellow soldiers, how is she supposed to defend me against the enemy?

Benighted, this link should help. Just scroll down through the workshops and you'll find the one mentioned by Tony above:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/events/StLouis09/speakers.shtml

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I am grateful to both Kamilla and Professor Esolen for exposing and commenting on the harmful follies of Christians for Biblical Equality.

Kamilla is to be heartily congratulated for escaping the clutches of CBE and for becoming a complementarian. Way to go Kamilla!

The closest analogue to CBE in the Catholic world that I can think of womenpriests.org. But CBE is significantly worse and far, far more widespread and ingrained. Catholics have it all over the Protestants in this matter: One, they simply excommunicate these priestesses and those who ordain them, and two, well over 90% of Catholics don't recognize priestesses as being valid.

With regards to Tony's commentary about CBE's promotion and discussion of a third category for eunuchs, hermaphrodites, androgynes, or transgendered, here's Professor Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (whom Kamilla knows) citing theories about Adam and Eve from her book, "Good News for Women":

"Some have suggested that before the woman was created Adam was not a specifically male human but was a sexually undifferentiated human. This idea seems to have some plausibility given that the biblical text does not refer to Adam as male until after the woman is taken out of him. In Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 we are told that God created Adam, that Adam was created in God's image, and that Adam was created male and female. These summary statements telescope humanity's two-stage creation so that, whether existing in the form of a single being or as male and female separate beings, humanity is referred to simply as "Adam." This suggests that before the woman was taken out of the man, Adam had in himself somehow a capacity for both maleness and femaleness."

(Pause for Street Vernacular: What a load of crap!)

Rather depressing when one realizes that the aberrant teaching of egalitarianism is rapidly making cancerous inroads into churches and homes.

But for a hopeful and refreshing bright spot, we see former Catholic Pastor Mark Driscoll being profiled in the New York Times Magazine who's known for his staunch defense of complementarianism. Some excerpts:

"Liberals wince at his hellfire theology and insistence that women submit to their husbands. But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism...."

"On that Sunday, Driscoll preached for an hour and 10 minutes — nearly three times longer than most pastors. As hip as he looks, his message brooks no compromise with Seattle’s permissive culture. New members can keep their taste in music, their retro T-shirts and their intimidating facial hair, but they had better abandon their feminism, premarital sex and any “modern” interpretations of the Bible. Driscoll is adamantly not the “weepy worship dude” he associates with liberal and mainstream evangelical churches, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.”"

"Like many New Calvinists, Driscoll advocates traditional gender roles, called “complementarianism” in theological parlance. Men and women are “equal spiritually, and it’s a difference of functionality, not intrinsic worth,” says Danielle Blazer, a 34-year-old Mars Hill member. Women may work outside the home, but they must submit to their husbands, and they are forbidden from taking on preaching roles in the church.

“It’s only since women have been in church leadership that this backlash has come,” says the Seattle pastor Katie Ladd, a liberal Methodist who holds that declaring Jesus a “masculine dude” subverts the transformative message of the Gospel. But New Calvinists argue that traditional gender roles are true to the Bible, especially the letters of Paul. Moreover, embedded in the notion of Adam as the “federal head” of the human race is the idea of man as head of the home."

--------

Pastor Mark Driscoll is clearly more of a Touchstone Christian than Professor Rebecca Groothuis and her CBE colleagues and supporters.

[Benighted Savage]

Thanks for the link, Kamilla. There it is: Megan DeFranza, advocate for the "intersexed."

I thought the entry for her workshop lent itself to parody, so:

"Sobriety Construction in Society and Church: What We Can Learn from the Tipsy**

Because of the story of Noah and his sons, most Christians assume there are only two levels of inebriation (sober and drunk), and that these levels work themselves out in two states of consciousness (clear-headed and blotto). Intersnookered, or "tipsy," persons are those who are neither clearly sober nor drunk. Some intersnookered persons and their advocates are calling for recognition of a third category of inebriation and the rejection of traditional understandings of clear-headed and blotto, an idea not yet adequately explored by theologians. Jesus' miracle of turning water into wine may provide a resource for the intersnookered and open up new ways to think about inebriation and states of consciousness in society and church."

Yes, I'm sure that our households and roadways will become much safer once we shed our outmoded and bourgeois attitudes and embrace the intersnookered.

//parody off

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And perhaps someone ought to point out that their gifts, talents, and callings are different too. Eqalitarianism is not about sameness -- quite the opposite. It is about transcending crude and bigoted categorization by celebrating individual differences, regardless of sex or race.<<<

So, Francesca, you DO accept that women do NOT have a calling to the presbyterate, after all! How lovely!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Because of the story of Noah and his sons, most Christians assume there are only two levels of inebriation (sober and drunk),<<<

Anyone familiar with the Russian language knows that there are literally hundreds of levels of inebriation, and Russian has a specific word for each and every one of them.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>"Some have suggested that before the woman was created Adam was not a specifically male human but was a sexually undifferentiated human. This idea seems to have some plausibility given that the biblical text does not refer to Adam as male until after the woman is taken out of him. In Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 we are told that God created Adam, that Adam was created in God's image, and that Adam was created male and female. These summary statements telescope humanity's two-stage creation so that, whether existing in the form of a single being or as male and female separate beings, humanity is referred to simply as "Adam." This suggests that before the woman was taken out of the man, Adam had in himself somehow a capacity for both maleness and femaleness."<<

To expand on the very accurate "what a load of crap" assessment, I would like to say that the worse thing about this is that it misses a the point of the story entirely. It is about the relationship between Man and Woman.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The Woman is to be loved and treated as if she were a part of Man's own body. Woman is God's gift for Man. Were not Adam the same after the creation as before, this wouldn't be so.

[Rob G]

"It is about transcending crude and bigoted categorization by celebrating individual differences, regardless of sex or race"

No one here that I know of favors crude and/or bigoted categorization; however, "diversity" in and of itself is meaningless, a point that seems to be lost on practically everyone who espouses any sort of 'diversity and tolerance' program. Mere diversity brings absolutely nothing to the table, until you consider what the intention of the diversity is. If you are having a multi-ethnic dinner buffet, it doesn't matter that the five chefs from the five different ethnicities are all 5'7" or under. If, however, you're choosing them not as chefs but as potential members of a pro basketball team, then it does matter, while their ethnicities cease to signify.

By ignoring this common sense notion, the D & T crowd does such things as sing the praises of companies with a "diverse workforce," never mind the fact that that has absolutely nothing to do with the success or lack thereof of the company. Who cares, really, whether the manager is homosexual or straight, or male or female, if he/she can't do the job? In what bizarre universe is it just as important to have a "diverse" management team as it is to have an effective one?

[Tony Esolen]

The idea that the position of the inferior is in itself an offense to dignity is itself an offense to dignity, both God's and ours. It means, since we will never achieve the putative ideal of universal flatness, an incessant struggle for superiority. "For inferior, who is free?" says Milton's Eve, just as she is about to accept the serpent's lies. It's the same attitude that motivates the climbers in Spenser's Garden of Proserpina -- that prescient vision of corporate ladder-climbing, everybody on top trying to push everybody else down.

Anybody who reads my post here with something approaching charity will see that I've specifically said that the gift of inequality is something for everybody, just as obedience is a virtue for everybody. There are no exceptions here. Surely that principle may be admitted? Otherwise we cannot submit in reverence to anybody who has a legitimate claim on our deference: not to our elders, not to our governors, not to those who are wiser than we are, not to any excellence at all. Or, if we do so submit, we do it superficially and grudgingly, rather than with real joy: we keep our envy at bay, but we don't kill it, and we settle for the superiorities of others, while really wishing that it were our own after all. I frankly don't see how any community can be built upon that sort of attitude.

Then if the acknowledgment of superiority is but acknowledging something real, and if reverence for it is a virtue, and if, to boot, obedience is a virtue, then the only question is whether being a man or a woman has any bearing here. That involves at least two sub-questions: whether men and women, in general, have been given recnognizable and differentiable gifts which ought to command our respect; and whether, in the family and in the church, obedience to the word of God and a reasonable pursuit of the common good demand that we not see men and women as simply interchangeable.

A personal note: I'm without question the least "good" person in my family. In dozens of ways my wife is better than I am, and I honor her for that, as she knows -- because I tell her, and I act accordingly. But I'm the head of the family, because that, simply, is my job, and it's not a job that my wife could do easily or at all consistently without me -- as she tells me, and she acts accordingly. That virtue of obedience applies to all of us, not only because we all must obey, but because even when others are obeying us, we -- if we happen to be in a position commanding obedience, say a teacher of students, or the mayor of a town -- must submit our desires to the common good of those whom we are leading. This is standard wisdom from the philosophers, theologians, and poets. In a good family, it works. Among people who are indifferently virtuous, it at least provides order. One of my greatest disappointments in life has been the early death of my father, 18 years ago, depriving me of a good man whose counsel I could heed. I've made up for it in part by placing myself under spiritual direction -- obedience. Call it preparation for the ultimate reality.

[Karen]

Mr. Esolen, I obey my boss because he can fire me. That is the only reason. If your wife doesn't obey you, what is your enforcement mechanism?

That is the problem with your position: you ignore that the one single and essential characteristic of authority is the ability to inflict pain on the disobedient. If it were really true that every person who has a position of authority were in fact actually better in all respects relevant to the position that every other person, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the real world, however, bosses and police officers and, yes, husband are no more likely to be better than their subjects at much of anything. They just have the badge of office and the ability to make life very, very painful for those who don't obey them. If they can't use force, they don't have authority. I'm sorry I can't link to it, but the best illustration I've ever seen of this is a cartoon by Kliban, famous in the early 80's for drawing cats. In this one, a king stands on a balcony, with the caption "I'm king and you have to do what I say or I can't be king anymore." If a husband can't make it painful for his wife if she disobeys him, then whatever he has, it isn't "authority" in any recognizable sense.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is the problem with your position: you ignore that the one single and essential characteristic of authority is the ability to inflict pain on the disobedient. <<<

Your constant and irrational harping is inflicting pain on me right now. Does this mean I am inferior to you, and if so, can I claim to be an aggrieved class?

>>> If a husband can't make it painful for his wife if she disobeys him, then whatever he has, it isn't "authority" in any recognizable sense.<<<

This is such unmitigated bullshit! You obviously have no understanding of the meaning of authority, which can illustrated nicely by Stalin's assessment of the Pope: "How many divisions does he have?" But, in the end, the Pope is still here, and Stalin and his successors are gone, because the Pope had authority, and all Stalin had was power. Power may be able to coerce compliance, but it can never win willing and loving obedience.

And. again, I reiterate--if you feel inferior, it's probably your own fault, judging by the tenor of your posts.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Esolen, I obey my boss because he can fire me.<<<

Why, then, do you obey God? Can he fire you? Can he inflict pain on you? Your answers will be most illuminating.

[David R.]

Karen, the society you describe is tyranny, nothing less. To submit to someone is not to cower in fear of them. Yes it is to place oneself under another, but that does not imply punishment. Should we only submit to God because we fear he will punish us? Certainly we should 'fear' the Lord, but that fear is not of a dictator who would treat us unjustly, rather it is the fear that a pure and righteous and just God would treat us with justice, instead of grace. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians we read, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Where in scripture do you read submission as license to inflict pain?

p.s. If the only reason you obey your boss is because he can fire you I suggest you get another job.

[marie]

"That is the problem with your position: you ignore that the one single and essential characteristic of authority is the ability to inflict pain on the disobedient."

I would like to disagree with this point. We are told in Titus 3:1 "to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good..." As a Christian, this should be more than enough incentive to "obey" those in authority over me. I also think that the ability to inflict pain should be the last motivation to obedience that is used in many situations. If your premise as I am reading it were true, we would have a military full of fearful people who are only doing what they're told to do because they're afraid of the consequences. My uncle is a general in the marines and he has gained the respect and love of his men by being a Godly and upright man. He does not have to threaten punishment to gain obedience. His men want to obey him. This, in my opinion, is the flaw in your statement. I feel like I have a Biblical responsibility to be submissive to my husband. I choose to accept this position and am submissive because of my love for God and His word and for my love and respect for my husband. Granted, it's not easy and I am nowhere near perfect in following through but I certainly do not feel compelled to obey because of fear of punishment or pain. I have found that the times that I actually submit when my husband asks it of me, his love and respect towards me increases. This tends to increase my respect and love for him and helps me to submit more willingly the next time I am asked to do that. I find that this only increases the love and respect in a marriage instead of making one person the servant and the other the master with a whip at the ready.

[Karen]

Mr. Koehl, if I had any authority over you I'd tell you to shut the hell up until you learned some manners.

As for the rest of you, yes, I do obey God because God has the power to inflict serious pain on my disobedience. I suggest you all read the parts of Bible that use the word "smite" once more if you think differently. Jesus didn't smite but He certainly can if he wants to.

Also, no one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? What can he do his wife if she doesn't obey?

[David R.]

Also, no one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? What can he do his wife if she doesn't obey?

The same way God enforces his authority upon us when we sin. While God certainly has the power to give us justice, he instead gives us grace. As illustrated in the story of Stalin and the Pope there is a vast difference between power and authority. Authority which has it's root in human power to inflict pain is no real authority at all, especially when it comes to marriage. The bible says that we are to emulate Christ in all things, including marriage. For men this means that we are to love our wives even to the point of giving our lives for them. It is true that in general a man can inflict pain upon a woman, and if that has been your observation I am truly sorry, but that is the human corruption of marriage, and not the true meaning of marriage.

So to answer your question, "how does a husband enforce his authority?" He doesn't, he gives grace.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>Also, no one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? What can he do his wife if she doesn't obey?<<

I've never had to. I do the driving, and my wife doesn't mind. I mow the lawn and she does the cooking an cleaning and rearing of the children. Decisions are made and life goes on. I will start a sentence and she will finish it--correctly. And vice-versa. We have a very traditional marriage.

The scriptures about the authority of the husband over the wife are descriptive. They are only prescriptive in the sense that those who follow them will have a happier marriage than those who doesn't.

[marie]

I don't think that a husband should take any kind of physical action against a wife who won't submit. There are avenues of discipline through the church...at least the one that I go to...if that is necessary. As someone mentioned above, I think it's important to note the difference between "power" and "authority." The biblical form of submission that many of us hold to, the husband does not have control or power over his wife. She can refuse to submit to him but in doing so she is disobeying (in my opinion) what God has required of her. For this kind of relationship to work, the husband and wife both have to accept their God-given positions and decide on their own to take on the responsibilities that these positions hold....those of a loving leader for the husband and a submissive helper for the wife. In my opinion a wife has quite a bit of power over her husband because she can decide to really help and support him or she can make his life miserable if she doesn't like what he's asking her to do. So often the husband will give up his role of leader in order to keep his wife happy and keep some sort of peace in the home.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As for the rest of you, yes, I do obey God because God has the power to inflict serious pain on my disobedience. <<<

Then you are both an idiot and a heretic. God is love--says so, right in the book. God desires all men to be save--ditto. And, of course, God so loved the world that He sent his only-begotten Son that all who believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting.

God does NOT inflict pain. God is NOT the origin or instrument of evil. His response to our disobedience is not wrath, but rather letting us bear the consequences of our actions, because He desires us to be mature adults. A God who rules through fear is not a god worthy of worship, but rather a tyrant. Someone like, say, the Allah of Mohammed--but not the Triune God to whom we offer the sacrifice of praise. If you were more than an inch-deep Christian you would know this.

>>>Also, no one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? What can he do his wife if she doesn't obey?<<<

A husband enforces his authority in the same manner as Christ--through his kenotic sacrifice which inspires obedience through love. A wife who would disobey such a husband is no wife.

What you seem not to understand is the sacramental nature of marriage, and necessity, as with every sacrament, for those who receive the gift of grace to cooperate with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. without which the Gift is not efficacious.

I am sorry that your life is so pathetic that you go to work only to avoid being fired, that you worship God only to avoid being punished, and that you would obey your husband only to avoid being beaten. If you feel like an inherently inferior being, as I said, it's your own damned (and I mean that literally) fault.

I'll get some manners when you get some brains. Deal?

[David R.]

I'll get some manners when you get some brains. Deal?

Stuart, you're one of those wonderful people, who even when they're right, manage to be right in all the wrong ways. Bravo...

[Kamilla]

Karen,

Some of us have tried, and failed most spectacularly, to convince Stuart to be just the teensiest bit "nicer", more irenic, etc. But we love and appreciate him anyway.

As for your definition of authority, it is remarkably narrow, the same ugly single note most Egalitarians whine.

We're not equal, never have been, never will be and we can't make it so by pretending we are. The only real freedom, the only genuine blessing of worth and value is to recognize who we are, where God has placed us and what the boundaries are. The one who runs along the edge of the cliff is much freer than the one who keeps putting his foot over the edge, trying to make the sea come up to the cliff -- for he will eventually stick his foot out a little too far and will then know what inequality truly is.

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, you're one of those wonderful people, who even when they're right, manage to be right in all the wrong ways. Bravo...<<<

Well, what can one expect when dealing with a person who enters into a discussion in such a disdainful, truculent manner and then compounds her arrogance with a degree of belligerent ignorance that would try the most gentle of saints. I imagine someone like Jerome, Tertullian or Cyril of Alexandria would have been pushed past the point of making all of Karen's most wild antipaternal stereotypes come true.

[Stuart Koehl]

Kamilla,

Visited the site you referenced, have to admit i was underwhelmed by the theological and intellectual firepower displayed there. Also noted the predominance of women among the workshops and panelists--something beyond 2-to-1, if I counted correctly--and is it my imagination, or do most of the men associated with this shindig look as though they know a few more show tunes than is good for a man (though I should not talk in this regard)?

[Judy K. Warner]

I'm sorry to be personal, but I would bet that Karen did not and does not have a loving father. I say that only to point out that fewer and fewer children have fathers at all, let alone loving ones, and this does serious damage to their view of relationships with with God, other authorities and spouses. It takes some work to see God as a loving God if you have not had a loving father. Likewise it takes work to understand what a godly marriage should be if you have not seen one. And if the example of an authority in your everyday life has either been absent or has not acted with true authority, which includes love and grace, then it is difficult to understand how a relationship of authority is also one of love.

[Karen]

Mr. Koehl, if you don't believe God will inflict deserved pain on sinners then you are the heretic, not me. I mentioned that I fear God's ability to punish my sin; I said nothing about God inflicting pain in the manner of a tyrant. I assume you believe in Hell? Is that not under God's authority? Pain is quite often the logical and necessary result of sin. Even Earthly authorities have the right to use force against those who break the law, and at least in the industrial world, those authorities mostly use force for good reasons. You failed to read my comment or think about it.

For the rest of you, I have learned that you believe that husbands are the source of grace for wives. Please explain to me how that isn't idolatry? I was always taught that God is the source of grace, not any human. To make males founts of grace for females is worshiping the creature, not the Creator.

[Francesca]

Rob G. writes: "Who cares, really, whether the manager is homosexual or straight, or male or female, if he/she can't do the job?"

My point exactly! Who cares whether (what was it?) "their wrists, their larynxes, their teeth, their skin, their hair, their reproductive organs" are different when larynxes, etc. rarely pertain to success on the job? OK, maybe if you're looking for bass and soprano vocal artists, but other than that?

The woman pastor I now have is vastly more effective and talented as a spiritual leader than the very indifferent male priest I had as a Catholic. I fired my daughter's male pediatrician because he was incompetent and we now work with a much more highly qualified female specialist. The sex of these people is completely irrelevant to me. I look for talent and competence in people. I have no interest in making primitive evaluations of people based on their body parts. Skill in most areas these days depends on intellectual and psychological abilities which are not dependent specifically on sex.

In terms of male/female superiority -- what a quaint notion! When Abraham Lincoln said, "...there must be the position of superior and inferior ... I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man," (I wonder what he would think of Barack Obama?) his bigotry could be forgiven as a sign of the benighted times in which he lived. I am sure people will look back on these male/female arguments in the same way.

Assertions of the inferiority of women belong to the ilk of that demented Pat Robertson, one of whose claims regarding the intellectual superiority of men was this little pearl: "The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There's never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I'll buy some of the feminism...". Quite apart from the fact that there were three at the time, all of whom could easily have beaten him blindfolded, how funny that such a dumbo would have said this! His stupidity no doubt fed his bigotry.

Why on God's green earth would either a man or a woman want to be "in charge" in a relationship unless there was some sort of dominance-submission issue going on? A marriage should be a relationship between equal partners who love and respect one another. In such a relationship, there's no need for "a leader."

For those who claim biblical authority for the dominance of the male, I suggest taking a look at what the Bible has to say about slavery. If you want to take every word of the good book literally, you're stuck with the whole thing -- Leviticus, warts, and all.

[Beth from TN]

Karen, no one said that husbands are the *source* of (saving) grace for their wives. That would indeed be idolatry. What was said is that husbands should *act* *with* grace toward their wives. This has nothing to do with how one is saved, but how one lives after one is saved -- like Christ, by His grace and power.

[David R.]

I have learned that you believe that husbands are the source of grace for wives.
Good grief, I don't know where you learnt that from. Anyone can give grace to anyone else, grace being defined as unmerited favour. There is no idolatry there, it is merely us emulating Christ. This is not grace which saves us, which of course comes only from God, but it grace nonetheless.

I mentioned that I fear God's ability to punish my sin
There is no question that the fear of the Lord is a good thing, however this fear does no paralyze us, rather it helps us understand the depths from which Christ has saved us. God has already meted out the justice for our sins; Christ bore that for all. We need not live in fear that God will one day 'come and get us', rather we live with the joyous hope that one day God will indeed come and get us.

[Kamilla]

Francesca,

You might have a point if slavery were a created difference as maleness and femaleness are. But since it's not . . .

Kamilla

[Francesca]

>>I'm sorry to be personal, but I would bet that Karen did not and does not have a loving father. I say that only to point out that fewer and fewer children have fathers at all, let alone loving ones, and this does serious damage to their view of relationships with with God, other authorities and spouses.<<

I'm sorry to be personal, but one might equally well ask what Freudian peculiarities of parenting went on in the lives of these poor, insecure, castration-complexed men who are so terrified that any succesful or "uppity" woman must be wielding a knife? Or that the sky will fall on their heads and they'll "be relieved" of, um, a larynx? if their wives view them as (oh the horror!) equals? In this post-feminist age, both women and men should be past those sort of stereotypes.

[Kamilla]

I keep wondering what kind of idiot the indifferentists/Egalitarians think God must have been to create us male and female when, according to them, it obviously doesn't matter except for strictly reproductive functions. Sad that He couldn't keep Paul from referring to the creation order of the sexes, isn't it? I mean, really, hasn't God ever heard of asexual reproduction? Goodness, what a mess of argument and injustice could have been avoided if He just had us either inseminate ourselves or simply divide in half. Now that really would level us, wouldn't it?

Kamilla

[David R.]

For those who claim biblical authority for the dominance of the male, I suggest taking a look at what the Bible has to say about slavery. If you want to take every word of the good book literally, you're stuck with the whole thing -- Leviticus, warts, and all.
Francesca, do you really think that no one has studied the bible before? Some of the most brilliant minds in history spent their lives studying scripture, and none of them came to the conclusion that you have. Does this not give you any pause? Considering the oppressively politically correct times in which we live do you really believe that you are able to objectively study the bible and come to the 'correct' conclusion, which happens to be different from what Christians have always believe?

In this post-feminist age, both women and men should be past those sort of stereotypes.
In regards to this post, your inability to distinguish between equality in worth and equality in function is as flawed as Karen's inability to distinguish between authority and power.

[Kamilla]

And the complete persistence of those stereotypes across time and cultures tells you nothing, Francesca?

Having the great blessing of counting a number of patriarchs as my dear friends, I know for a fact they would gladly lay down the mantle of husbandly, fatherly, and pastoral authority were God to call them to do so - and I don't believe for a heartbeat that it is a castration complex that prevents them from doing so.

Kamilla

[Francesca]

>>I keep wondering what kind of idiot the indifferentists/Egalitarians think God must have been to create us male and female when, according to them, it obviously doesn't matter except for strictly reproductive functions.<<

I would think "strictly reproductive functions" are rather important, at least at this point in our technological progress. And then I wonder why God gave each and every one of different intellectual and social abilities if these "obviously don't matter" either?

>>Considering the oppressively politically correct times in which we live do you really believe that you are able to objectively study the bible and come to the 'correct' conclusion, which happens to be different from what Christians have always believe?<<

Many Christians are "egalitarians" and not "complementarians." Thankfully, not all Christians believe the same thing or interpret the Bible the same there. How terrible to think of a world full of Pat Robertson clones!

But I'll leave you all to your grotesque contortions. I have a paper due.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.Mr. Koehl, if you don't believe God will inflict deserved pain on sinners then you are the heretic, not me. I mentioned that I fear God's ability to punish my sin; I said nothing about God inflicting pain in the manner of a tyrant.<<<

Thanks, but I would rather take my stand with St. Gregory of Nyssa, and a number of the other Greek Fathers, who believed that the Uncreated Light and the fires of hell were in fact the same thing. Just as a brilliant light may be a tormenting pain to one who has been in darkness too long, so the light of Christ may seem like burning fire to those who turn their backs on Him. In short, Christ's judgment upon us is no more than showing himself to us as He truly is; it is our response to that which determines our fate; we do indeed damn ourselves.

[GL]

As I read this, I can't help but think about the wonderful sermon I heard this morning. The text was from Philippians 2:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There's a lot there to contemplate -- for both men and women. Unfortunately, grasping for equality is something of which we are all guilty. Adam and Eve's grasping for equality, in fact, is what got us into to this mess in the first place. And taking the form of a servant (more accurately, bondservant or slave) is not much in vogue -- and never has been.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In regards to this post, your inability to distinguish between equality in worth and equality in function is as flawed as Karen's inability to distinguish between authority and power.<<<

But not at all unexpected.

Bishop Kallistos wrote an article on "How to Read the Bible", in which he makes the following observation:

FIRST OF ALL, when reading Scripture, we are to listen in a spirit of obedience. The Orthodox Church believes in divine inspiration of the Bible. Scripture is a "letter" from God, where Christ Himself is speaking. The Scriptures are God's authoritative witness of Himself. They express the Word of God in our human language. Since God Himself is speaking to us in the Bible, our response is rightly one of obedience, of receptivity, and listening. As we read, we wait on the Spirit.

But, while divinely inspired, the Bible is also humanly expressed. It is a whole library of different books written at varying times by distinct persons. Each book of the Bible reflects the outlook of the age in which it was written and the particular viewpoint of the author. For God does nothing in isolation, divine grace cooperates with human freedom. God does not abolish our individuality but enhances it. And so it is in the writing of inspired Scripture. The authors were not just a passive instrument, a dictation machine recording a message. Each writer of Scripture contributes his particular personal gifts. Alongside the divine aspect, there is also a human element in Scripture. We are to value both. . .

. . . Because Scripture is in this way the word of God expressed in human language, there is room for honest and exacting inquiry when studying the Bible. Exploring the human aspect of the Bible, we are to use to the full our God-given human reason. The Orthodox Church does not exclude scholarly research into the origin, dates, and authorship of books of the Bible.

Alongside this human element, however, we see always the divine element. These are not simply books written by individual human writers. We hear in Scripture not just human words, marked by a greater or lesser skill and perceptiveness, but the eternal, uncreated Word of God Himself, the divine Word of salvation. When we come to the Bible, then, we come not simply out of curiosity, to gain information. We come to the Bible with a specific question, a personal question about ourselves: "How can I be saved?". . .

. . . We are better at talking than listening. We hear the sound of our own voice, but often we don't pause to hear the voice of the other person who is speaking to us. So the first requirement, as we read Scripture, is to stop talking and to listen - to listen with obedience. . . .

. . . IN THE SECOND PLACE, we should receive and interpret Scripture through the Church and in the Church. Our approach to the Bible is not only obedient but ecclesial.

It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture. A book is not part of Scripture because of any particular theory about its dating and authorship. Even if it could be proved, for example, that the Fourth Gospel was not actually written by John the beloved disciple of Christ, this would not alter the fact that we Orthodox accept the Fourth Gospel as Holy Scripture. Why? Because the Gospel of John is accepted by the Church and in the Church.

It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood. Coming upon the Ethiopian as he read the Old Testament in his chariot, Philip the Apostle asked him, "Understandest thou what thou readest?" And the Ethiopian answered, "How can I, unless some man should guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31). We are all in the position of the Ethiopian. The words of Scripture are not always self-explanatory. God speaks directly to the heart of each one of us as we read our Bible. Scripture reading is a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ - but we also need guidance. And our guide is the Church. We make full use of our own personal understanding, assisted by the Spirit, we make full use of the findings of modern Biblical research, but always we submit private opinion - whether our own or that of the scholars - to the total experience of the Church throughout the ages. . .

. . . THE THIRD ELEMENT in our reading of Scripture is that it should be Christ-centered. The Scriptures constitute a coherent whole because they all are Christ-centered. Salvation through the Messiah is their central and unifying topic. He is as a "thread" that runs through all of Holy Scripture, from the first sentence to the last. We have already mentioned the way in which Christ may be seen foreshadowed on the pages of the Old Testament.

Much modern critical study of Scripture in the West has adopted an analytical approach, breaking up each book into different sources. The connecting links are unraveled, and the Bible is reduced to a series of bare primary units. There is certainly value in this. But we need to see the unity as well as the diversity of Scripture, the all-embracing end as well as the scattered beginnings. Orthodoxy prefers on the whole a synthetic rather than an analytical approach, seeing Scripture as an integrated whole, with Christ everywhere as the bond of union.

Always we seek for the point of convergence between the Old Testament and the New, and this we find in Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy assigns particular significance to the "typological" method of interpretation, whereby "types" of Christ, signs and symbols of His work, are discerned throughout the Old Testament. A notable example of this is Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem, who offered bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14:18), and who is seen as a type of Christ not only by the Fathers but even in the New Testament itself (Hebrews 5:6; 7:l). Another instance is the way in which, as we have seen, the Old Passover foreshadows the New; Israel's deliverance from Pharaoh at the Red Sea anticipates our deliverance from sin through the death and Resurrection of the Savior. This is the method of interpretation that we are to apply throughout the Bible. Why, for instance, in the second half of Lent are the Old Testament readings from Genesis dominated by the figure of Joseph? Why in Holy Week do we read from the book of Job? Because Joseph and Job are innocent sufferers, and as such they are types or foreshadowings of Jesus Christ, whose innocent suffering upon the Cross the Church is at the point of celebrating. It all ties up.

A Biblical Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, on every page of Scripture, finds everywhere Christ. . .

[Karen]

Francesca, I think this is the best psychologizing of the writers and commenters on this website. I get told I'm stupid and my father was a weak tyrant because I don't agree with them.

[David R.]

And taking the form of a servant (more accurately, bondservant or slave) is not much in vogue -- and never has been.

GL, thanks for your post, I appreciated that.
David

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.<<<

Hard to avoid this one in my neck of the woods, since St. Basil the Great wove it into the Anaphora of his Divine Liturgy, one of the most moving and succinct confessions of faith ever written.

[Francesca]

>>Francesca, I think this is the best psychologizing of the writers and commenters on this website. I get told I'm stupid and my father was a weak tyrant because I don't agree with them. <<

Hey, the good, old RWA theory! That was my conclusion about a year ago!:-)'Nothing like finding a nest of lab rats to observe, though:-p

Take the insults as a compliment, given the source. If "stupid" = "disagreeing with some of the assertions made here," you should certainly feel proud to be "stupid."

[Tony Esolen]

Karen, if the only reason you obey your boss is because he can fire you, then you are not obeying your boss. You are complying, not obeying. Then you are not participating in your boss's authority; you are the sufferer of it; you do not take it into yourself and make it your own, the way a trusted major domo unites himself with the authority of his employer. If you don't like that analogy, return to Scripture and consider that Jesus's saying that He and the Father are one is inextricable from his saying that He obeys the Father.

The distinction between compliance and obedience, which is a crucial one, is laid out in Russell Hittinger's sort-of-recent book on the natural law, The First Grace. God will respect that compliance in His own case; if you refrain from disobeying because you fear the pains of Hell, that is sufficient -- minimally sufficient -- for your salvation. It is, however, hardly to be characterized as obedience, and is certainly not the prefection of that virtue. (It bears the same relation to genuine obedience as bossing around bears to the genuine exercise of authority.) The etymology of the word "oboedire" in Latin adverts us to the heart of the virtue: it has to do with hearing, or heeding. The word for "hearing" in Hebrew is used in a similar way (though the common word for "obey" is rather the word for "keep" or "guard"): to hear is to heed, to take what you hear and place it in your heart.

I repeat here that the virtue of obedience applies to everyone. If we could imagine a one-sex world, the virtue would apply. It applies to monks in a monastery, players on a football team, soldiers in an army, men on a hunting expedition, guys laying pipeline, farmers raising a barn, whatever you can think of that's more complicated than sitting and chatting. That's not counting the relations between children and parents, even when the children are grown, and youth and elders, and the governed to their governors, and so on.

By the way: it's Jesus Himself who delegates authority to his apostles, and tells them that when people do not hear them, they do not hear him. He does not ask them what they think of his chosen delegates, who apparently did not have to pass some sort of crowd-approved exam.

I note that in passing that Francesca is apparently welcoming the ghastly prospect of the technological takeover of our begetting and bearing children. If that is where sexual indifferentism leads, then it's not only the Bible that's at stake, but our humanity. But that returns us to what prompted the post in the first place.

[Bill R]

"Also, no one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? What can he do his wife if she doesn't obey?"

General speaking, a husband doesn't enforce his authority because the penalty is a deformation of the marriage. A wise husband and a wise wife will wish to avoid this, for the penalties for disobedience to the order God created are inherent in the nature of such relationships. This is what makes it so obvious to traditional Christians, but makes it nearly opaque to all others. What can the husband do if the wife doesn't obey? Repent, I suppose, of the sin of being the type of man whom his wife doesn't want to obey.

[Rob G]

"Hey, the good, old RWA theory! That was my conclusion about a year ago!:-)'Nothing like finding a nest of lab rats to observe, though."

Yeah, nothing like being psychoanalyzed by a bunch of women experiencing an existential crisis because they can't pee standing up.

"inability to distinguish between equality in worth and equality in function"

Exactly. The average person outgrows this around the age of 10 or so, but innerleckchuls seem to be able to maintain this juvenile trait for long periods.

"If you want to take every word of the good book literally, you're stuck with the whole thing -- Leviticus, warts, and all."

Ah, the Christopher Hitchens school of Biblical Hermeneutics...the same argument you get on atheist Facebook pages by glum 17 year olds who wear a lot of black and listen to Tool and Nine Inch Nails.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Francesca and Karen,
It appears to me that there is a lot more heat than light being created with this exchange, but I would like to try to save it. Having listened with an open mind for quite a while, what I've learned is that the male/female thing is not about superiority/inferiority. It is about the recognition of the separateness of maleness and femaleness.

I will put this paragraph is secular language. The authority/submission thing is a recognition that, in the natural state of the human animal, the men are dominant within the tribe. (The evidence I would offer for this is that women have demanded "equality" and haven't just taken it.) The reaction against the CBE stems from its desire to ignore the differences. In my opinion, ignoring such real differences even in the cause of fairness is idiocy doomed to failure. We much recognize the differences, embrace them for what they are, and grow within them to become the fullest human beings we can.

I work for a woman who is the best boss I've ever had. I don't have any difficulty submitting to her; her job is dean and mine is to be assistant dean. We each have our own particular talents and roles. The talents come with the individual and the roles come with the job.

A marriage is like that. Each member of the marriage comes with talents and roles. One role of the husband is protector and one role of the wife is nurturer. The talents depend upon the individual. The superior/inferior interjection into the discussion is foreign to my way of thinking. I don't think of someone who has done as much work rearing our children as being inferior.

I could say more, but I've got to go to work. See you there. :)

Bobby

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Some of us have tried, and failed most spectacularly, to convince Stuart to be just the teensiest bit "nicer", more irenic, etc. But we love and appreciate him anyway."

Hmmmmm. Is Stuart the Simon Cowell of the MereComments blog?

;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hmmmmm. Is Stuart the Simon Cowell of the MereComments blog?<<<

Hmmmmm. Does that make Francesca the Paula Abdul of the MereComments blog?

[Nick]

You're giving her far more credit than is due Stuart. I'll have to let my wife read Karen's argument for submission. I am willing to bet money it will earn an eye-roll.

And good grief Karen, quit your job if it really is that bad. However, you do illustrate a good point. Women are generally poor at understanding hierarchies and insist in either flattening them or perching at the top in a way men, who have formed armies for thousands of years, don't feel nearly as compelled to do. I shudder to think of a world run by thousands of Queen Bees.

[Tim]

Last week at our Bible study our learned leader emphasized that when one is submitting to another in a marriage, one is not submitting to the other person but to the marriage itself. To think of first and foremost submitting to the other person can breed counting, resentment, and bitterness while submitting to marriage, a God made and given sacrament, is to be, as I think Prof. Esolen talks about, to be part and parcel, in an inferior relationship, with God. In this case, one's in this relationship with one's spouse, too. This orients us to look first, together, to our marriage and to God the source of it, and to seek, alone and together to obey Him and his "requirements" for our participation in this sacrament. For us as individuals and together as one flesh in matrimony*, the Cross is our symbol of the submitting we are to do in a marriage. Like Christ, we submit to God and His sacrament, not to another human (although we are, like Christ, doing something good for another). Or, I think that's what our learned leader said. I know that after this learnin' all of a sudden submitting didn't seem like such a bad thing. In fact, the earlier fears I may have had in "being taken advantage of" by my spouse, superior or inferior (and I know without a doubt that she is superior in oh so many ways), are blown away with such a picture of ordained love. As it is supposed to be, our orientation and vision moves beyond the fears of our fearing selves (our default in our fallen state) and towards the Other and the amazing thing he has wrought for us, marriage. Is that at all accurate, fellow Christians?

*question: anyone know why the word matrimony is rooted in the feminine? [Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, from Latin mtrimnium, from mter, mtr-, mother; see mter- in Indo-European roots.]

[Tim]

Ooops...
correction: that's not "to be part and parcel, in an inferior relationship, with God." but "in an inferior position in relationship with God."

[labrialumn]

Tim Ware errs in his claim that the Bible is written from the outlook and perspective of the human amanuenses. The Bible says that 1 Peter 1:20 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

[female libido supplements]

The debate would never end. IMO, the borderline between inequality and equality is respect. Acknowledge the differences and improve the indifferences.

[David R.]

The debate would never end. IMO, the borderline between inequality and equality is respect. Acknowledge the differences and improve the indifferences.

I'm really not sure if this is spam or the merely the words of someone who has been subjected to one too many corporate sensitivity training sessions.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Tim Ware errs in his claim that the Bible is written from the outlook and perspective of the human amanuenses.<<<

I might dare to call him "Tim", but never to his face, to be sure. If I were you, I'd remember my place and refer to His Grace Bishop Kallistos, Metropolitan of Deiocleia. And I fail to understand why I should give the time of day to your understanding of biblical exegesis over that which was taught by the Fathers and is embedded in the Tradition of the Church.

[Rob G]

"I fail to understand why I should give the time of day to your understanding of biblical exegesis over that which was taught by the Fathers and is embedded in the Tradition of the Church"

Ditto. Labrialumn has the habit of dropping these annoying little smoke bombs, then fleeing the scene of the crime. I'm still waiting for a response from him to some of the challenges from you, WFO, and myself on the 'Endless Scripture' post.

[Bill M]

Some of you may recall that Asimov (an atheist of some kind or another) projected that the hermaphrodite being was the future of human evolution in his Foundation series. In "Foundation and Earth" (I think... it's been a long time), his characters encounter a planet where the humans who settled there have developed to such a degree that they not only no longer need each other for companionship, they no longer need each other for procreation. Each person is born with a complete set of male and female parts and traits - the perfect blend of him and her. "I am whole!" one of them declares. These beings are portrayed as increasingly isolated from one another, disdainful of human contact, self-absorbed, and mad.

[Peter Gardner]

The Solarians in Foundation and Earth were portrayed as the dystopian version of the future, while the Gaians (a group mind) were portrayed as being the better possibility, though he made it clear that he wasn't particularly comfortable with that either.

[William Tighe]

On just about every thread that he posts, Labrialumn (or his doppelganger "Sodbuster") has shown himself to be little more than an ill-mannered opionated troll: he makes critical comments and then, like a coward or an ignoramus, he flees the premises and never responds to those interlocutors who question the veracity, accuracy or even the meaning of his pythonesque utterances.

I've lost track of how many times he's done this, but I remember two in particular: one, months ago, his assertion that the Ingrian Lutheran Church was in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, an assertion which (when I demanded evidence) he modified to the statement that the Russian Orthodox Church "recognized the Orders" of the Ingrian Lutherans, and which (in response to my further demand for evidence) he qualified or attenuated by remarking that the late Patriarch Alexy and the Ingrian Lutheran bishop, Arre Kaukappi, was a "childhood friend" of the late patriarch. When I discovered, after further investigation, that the late patriarch was born in 1929, and bishop Kaukappi in 1953, ans asked how they could be childhood friends, he never replied.

Then, moire recently, there was his more bizarre, and equally ill-informed claim that, in ther light of subsequent divisions, only the Assyrian Church could claim to have "valid Orders."

[Ethan C.]

How refreshing, after a long absence, to return to find so little changed. Anthony is as eloquent as ever, Stuart is his prickly old self, Bobby is conciliatory, and Francesca continues to promote her charming psychological theories.

Karen, however, you are a new voice for me. From my reading of what you've written, it seems to me that you see tyranny (as shorthand for any relationship compelled by force) and equality as the only possible alternatives in human relationships. I'm curious how you see this working out in the social and political realms.

You've already alluded to the compulsion you feel in the matter of employment. Do you see such tyranny as being unavoidable, or do you believe there is a possibility of some equalitarian alternative? If the latter, would you identify yourself as an anarchist? If the former, why do you complain that Stuart and the others are being Authoritarians, if such arrangements are unavoidable?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Tony's excellent expose of the Christians for Biblical Equality sort of highlights how perceived inequality by the egalitarians leads to their underlying accusation of the transgression of non-inclusiveness. This is particularly evident when speaking with egalitarians about WO, women's ordination.

Please note the following article about "Sex and the Seminary?" It speaks to the issue that bothers egalitarians so, namely, a lack of inclusivism. See what egalitarianism is sowing and reaping. (Note: CoE Bishop of Durham NT Wright is a staunch egalitarian and WO supporter). Also, I would wager that nearly all, if not all, of these liberal seminaries are egalitarian. Furthermore, if memory serves, Professor Esolen has had exchanges with Rev. Debra W. Haffner who is mentioned in the article below:

"The release of a report entitled "Sex and the Seminary" is certain to attract attention -- which is no doubt why the report was produced in the first place. In this case, the report is an attempt to push the sexual revolution through institutions designed for the training of ministers. As "Sex and the Seminary" makes clear, many liberal institutions joined the sexual revolution long ago.

The report was released January 8, 2009 by the "Sexuality Education for the Formation of Religious Professionals and Clergy" project, which is jointly sponsored by Union Theological Seminary in New York City and the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing in Connecticut. As might be expected, the report calls for an overhaul of how issues of sexuality are treated within the seminary curriculum.

"At the time when many denominations and faith communities are embroiled in sexuality issues, there is an urgent need for leaders who understand the connections between religion and sexuality," the report announces.

Then:

Seminaries are not providing future religious leaders with sufficient opportunities for study, self-assessment, and ministry formation in sexuality. They are also not providing seminarians with the skills they need to minister to their congregants and communities, or to become effective advocates where sexuality issues are concerned.

As a reading of the report reveals, the entire project is really about turning seminaries into agencies for a liberal and revisionist sexual agenda. As the analysis in the report demonstrates, some of these schools embraced those agendas long ago -- and in a big way.

The study was conducted by Kate M. Ott, study director for the project, with assistance from many others. Among those most frequently acknowledged is Rev. Debra W. Haffner, director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing. Debra Haffner's name will be recognized immediately by anyone involved in issues of sexual controversy in recent decades. She is an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, but previously she served as chief executive officer of SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and, among other positions, as an official with Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington. She has been pushing a radical sexual agenda for a long time.

Thirty-six seminaries cooperated with the study -- almost all on the liberal side of the theological divide. These schools were measured in light of the "Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary" document that had been "developed by a multifaith group of seminary educators, administrators, and sexuality educators."

The report found virtually all of the seminaries deficient to some degree. The report lamented the fact that half of the schools "do not have policies for full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons" and over 60% "do not have full inclusion policies for transgender persons."

While the report calls for a thorough restructuring of seminary education, it also calls upon the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada [ATS], the main accrediting agency for theological schools to require accredited schools to make sexuality issues (in terms of "sexual justice") standards for accreditation. The Religious Institute also pledged to "work with ATS member schools as they advocate for changes in and contribute to revisions of the ATS Standards for Accreditation scheduled for 2012."

Well, we have been warned.

The report makes for riveting reading. Almost half of the schools queried indicated that worship experiences in chapel at least occasionally focused on gay, lesbian, or bisexual experiences. Seven of the 36 schools also offered worship focused on transgender issues.

Consider this section of the recommendations:

Seminaries also must assure a supportive environment for sexuality-related issues. Seminaries must have anti-discrimination, sexual harassment, and full inclusion policies that reflect sexual and gender diversities. It was a welcome surprise that almost 9 out of the 10 seminaries have anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and half have such policies for transgender students, staff, and faculty; other seminaries, unless prohibited by their faith traditions, should implement such policies. In addition, seminaries must provide opportunities for worship and advocacy that reflect the diversity of sexuality issues students will encounter in their ministry.

All this adds up to a huge effort to redefine what is normative in theological education, but the larger agenda is to remove the churches as obstacles to the deconstruction of biblical sexual morality.

Obviously, many of these schools have already joined that bandwagon. They long ago abandoned biblical authority and the Gospel and transformed Christianity into a form of sexualized paganism. The "worship" practices revealed in the report suffice to establish that point.

If nothing else, this report underlines the great divide that now exists among America's theological schools. There is good reason to ask whether any shared basis of accreditation is possible, given the depth and significance of this divide. Time will tell, but the aim is clear -- to put seminaries committed to a normative biblical morality on notice that such schools may for a time be tolerated, but the standards will push schools toward "inclusion" of "sexual and gender diversities" among students, staff, and faculty.

The moment regional accrediting agencies or the ATS moves in that direction, the writing on the wall will be clear. Sanity may yet prevail, but "Sex and the Seminary" is a sign of where the liberal schools want to see theological education, the church, and the society go.

No doubt, schools committed to biblical authority and confessional integrity must do a better job of preparing ministers to understand the issues of sexuality. But the goal must be to inculcate knowledge of and commitment to a biblical model of human sexuality centered in the glory of God and obedience to God's Word. We must also train pastors to be compassionate in teaching and applying God's revealed truth. These goals are not, however, the goals or recommendations of "Sex and the Seminary."

"Together," the report concludes, "we can assure that future religious leaders will indeed be pastors for sexual health and prophets for sexual justice." If you understand what those words mean, you will see that statement for the threat that it is."
--------------------

Theological Liberals and Emergers (young liberals in drag) are delivering a crotch kick to Conservative Christians (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox) and saying:

"We'll Just Relieve You of Those, Sir"

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I have found a rather interesting and perhaps provocative comment which I will excerpt here (it comes from a blog post about an Anglican bishop who supports WO and disclaims Scripture in order to support WO):

"It wouldn’t be hard to buttress your argument by expanding your short, illustrative list of eminent biblical scholars who firmly oppose the “gay is OK” delusion and yet are pro-WO. Besides Richard Hays and Ben Witherington (both Methodist), Robert Gagnon (Presbyterian), and Christopher Seitz (Anglican of course), whom you appropriately highlighted, there are other renowned centrist scholars like Marion Soards (Presbyterian), Karl Donfried (Lutheran/ELCA), and our own illustrious Anglican model of a very scholarly evangelical bishop, N. T. Wright.

As for my detractors like Ol’ Bob above, I’m sorry if I provoked you again. My comment was intended irenically, hence my allusion to that marvelous Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee. After all, Dr. Fee is an inerrantist and a defender of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters (including 1 Timothy), but he also strongly supports granting women full freedom to preach and function as pastors.

Or consider the case of a man who isn’t a scholar at all, but who is a very influential evangelical, charismatic leader, Loren Cunningham, the much-admired founder of YWAM (Youth With A Mission). Cunningham recently wrote a fine and very accessible book defending the place of women in ministry; it’s called “Why Not Women?” Both Fee and Cunningham interpret 1 Tim. 2:11 as a text whose appplicability is limited by implicit cultural factors lying in the background (as is also the case with regard to the similar issue of whether all women still universally have to wear veils in church, ala 1 Cor. 11).

In other words, Dr. Witt is quite right. There are good, conservative church leaders and eminent scholars on BOTH sides of the WO issue. But they would all agree that homosexual behavior is clearly contrary to the consistent and emphatic teaching of the Bible, which is unequivocal on the subject. And they would all stoutly uphold the divine authority of the Bible as truly being the Word of God. Just as I also do."

Coherent argument or not? And are the other scholars that are being cited coherent or not?

P.S. I say incoherent even though I may appreciate some of their other writings.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Let me clarify. Perhaps the measure of coherency is not the right measure. I take some exception to this statement:

"There are good, conservative church leaders and eminent scholars on BOTH sides of the WO issue."

I think the key word is "conservative". If you support WO, I don't see how you can consider yourself "conservative".

As I have learned from Dr. William Tighe, it is often the case that today's conservative is yesterday's liberal.

[Ephilei]

As a Christian, I am utterly disgusted at this post! The author clearly does not know whom he's making fun of (he can't even get the name right). He has taken one paragraph and begun rambling on an unrelated subject. As a founder of a CBE chapter and whose parents are life-long members, I can say this has completely mis-stated CBE's principles. Things like this make me question attending All Saints parish.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

As a Christian, I am utterly disgusted at this post!

That's fine. As a Christian, I am utterly disgusted with CBE.

The author clearly does not know whom he's making fun of (he can't even get the name right)."

I think he does. Center for Biblical Equality may actually be more apt than Christians for Biblical Equality.

He has taken one paragraph and begun rambling on an unrelated subject.

You mean like how egalitarians take the one verse of Galatians 3:28 so as to promote an unbiblical agenda that's unrelated to the context of Galatians 3:28?

As a founder of a CBE chapter and whose parents are life-long members, I can say this has completely mis-stated CBE's principles.

If you don't mind, please explain in what way.

Things like this make me question attending All Saints parish.

Would that be All Saints Pasadena with priestess Susan Russell? Regardless, you should indeed question yourself as to whether you should be attending All Saints.

[Kamilla]

Ephilei,

I'm very sorry I missed your response when it first appeared. Since I am the source for Tony's post here and am also very familiar with CBE myself (I was personally acquainted with several of the founders and a friend of the current president of CBE) - I can assure you he did not miss the mark. But perhaps you know something we don't since you describe yourself as a chapter founder and your parents as life-long members - your family must be truly remarkable indeed since
CBE is only 21 years old!

But, since I have visited your, ahem, interesting website I can see why you would be confused and even disgusted by the post. This is to be expected from one of your commitments.

Kamilla