Burl

12 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Widows are not the same as single women. We agree that there were many of them and that Paul was ok with this and not everyone had to get and be married. He still doesn't give them a voice or a way of being heard. Either you have a husband to talk to or you can't talk about spiritual matters. This is extremely limiting. How would you feel if the only way that you could express yourself spiritually or religiously was through your spouse? & how would you feel about that if you didn't have one?

Today his words are being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel. Luckily it's not succeeding in all groups and all populations. 

This was a small part of a letter written to one particular church, not a sermon.

You seem to have issues with Paul.  Perhaps you could back up and unpack some of those?

6 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

It's not "exclusive" if God does or will do this for anyone and everyone.

I disagree with you, it is not at all what people in PC call the "theistic" god. In fact it is quite the opposite and another thing entirely. It's a universal understanding of God that places Em everywhere and everywhere, including in our understandings and insight and in our inner minds.

Your first sentence I think I disagree with. I think that some very good scholarship does support the idea that Christ may have had an education that stretched across the known world. Perhaps even further, after all he's Christ.

Concerning your second sentence, I didn't take what you said as meaning that. I'm just stating that his education could have gone even further than that. 

The construction of Jesus’ parables is not Jewish but similar to Sufi teaching stories, so there certainly other non-Jewish influences.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

The same biblical book, 1st Corinthians, sates earlier in it's pages that a woman can preach and prophesize in church, the difference being that she should have a covering on her head. (I find this odd because it is well known that in the Jewish tradition it is the men that wear something on their heads and not the women). Scholars have said that they think that 1Cor 14:34-35 may well have been inserted by later editors.

Or it nay simply reinforce the idea of gender equity.  Good scholarship elevates peculiar or contrary scriptures.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

This assumes that every woman has a husband. Which is not so. Nor do all women have fathers that they live with or who are still alive. Single women are left out of this picture entirely. That's a big piece of the population whose needs go unheard and unmet. 

No, it does not assume that all.  It’s just not in this pericope.  

Paul writes about how he does not recommend marriage at all except for the exceptionally horny, and about the need to care for widows so single women are not left out. 

Considering women were chattel, I find Paul to be ahead of his time in his consideration of single women.

Cancel Culture is bullying plain and simple.  

44 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree with the comments about Julia but do you think that things (for women) only fell apart with Constantine or did it begin earlier?

 

Judaism was exclusively male controlled, so we can see the Pre-Constantinian church as an elevation of the status of women.

The classic anti-woman proof text is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.  “It is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It is a classic case of lack of context.  All of 1c14:26-40 is about orderly worship vs. disorderly worship.

1) Women are in the church with their husbands.  Very inclusive compared to Jewish worship.

2) Paul’s preaching that husbands should teach the women at home and that women should ask their husbands to explain ‘everything’.  Again, different and more inclusive than in Jewish households.
 

3) My interpretation of this women were disrupting the worship service by asking questions, etc.  Paul wanted the women taught at home.

4) Acts 2:17-18 declares women shall prophecy, so the arc of feminine inclusion is explicit.  Paul’s epistle was a commentary on the state of how he personally conducted worship at that time, and not a doctrinal truism.

28 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'd like to get back to the original meaning in the opening post, Should Women be Preachers?

Myself, I would say, if there are going to be preachers, then definitely women should be preachers and have equal opportunity along with men.

I've found that there are a number of things that women assume men understand about women, that they don't have much of an idea about. If we don't have a voice and equal say then we don't get understood and our needs get overlooked and disregarded. 

I also think that it's just fair. If you care about someone then you're fair. Men are supposed to care about women and women are supposed to care about men. Anything else is abnormal and a distortion of who we are supposed to be as people. The genders not caring about each other is abnormal.

Thanks for reading

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

Flood stories exist worldwide, so it is likely it was on a global scale.  
 

15 minutes ago, thormas said:

Great point!

It also ignores the fact that life is interdependent and connected.  Tolerance is good starting point, but little more than that.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Personally, I read the Golden Rule in the context of the opening verses where it is found in Matthew 7 - "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye".

So when in verse 12 I read Jesus as saying "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets", I hear him calling one to action in a sense that he is saying "respect differences, love one another, get along, take a chill pill, nobody has all the answers".  Now he might not have meant that (who knows if he even said it) but I think that is a good way to be.

For me, Ben Harper's words sum it up nicely and for me possibly approaches it better because I don't think his words make people think they have to take action a certain way, because to me he is saying live and let live, love everyone for who they are, don't judge,". 

It's funny how it makes you sad but makes me feel happy.  Each to their own I guess.

The reason it’s a bit sad is because it says that the rock bottom humanist ethos is sufficient.  

8 hours ago, vitarimor said:

I've been trying to find a way to deal in a virtual sense with pursuing a need I have for group review / discussion on some topics, and its been difficult to do that in a simple sense, so I'm going to try another approach that is more...suited...to this forum, following some feedback I'll have to acknowledge one of the moderators contributed that made me reflect a bit on accomplishing the task.  I'm really from my approach to this point not embracing the value of a 'forum' by trying to lock it down to a delimited exchange, so I'm going to open my thinking and embrace it for its advantage, (yes Joseph, even an old dog can learn a new trick, thank you for your insight.)  

So, my thinking is to do the following...delineate the topic...I'd request some note of interest from individuals to join the discussion prior to jumping in, as it will involve a sharing of topic/information for review and to then participate in ongoing discussions.  I'd propose to move the marker week to week on the ongoing discussion in a dedicated thread for the topic to allow for virtual discussion...and so long as there is no objection, I'll ALSO set aside a time each week for an open Google Meet session on the off chance that some folk might like to jump into the conversation real time at their leisure, though without obligation to do so for the whole time or at all vs. joining into the virtual one.  

There are two topics of note that I'll probably undertake at the same time.  The first is focused on teaching discipleship and leadership to others and is focused on a group reading and discussion week to week.  This once started would be about reading say 1 ch/week and start of discussion after that week.  The second topic is focused on video review, focused on the merger of our calls to salvation vs. our vocational callings; the structure here is sharing of a video link with those interested (typ about 20 min), followed by again group discussion on the topic that I'd put some structure to each week.  This too would include the non-mandatory option to participate in a video chat session regarding the topic that week.  These would proceed over about a 2 month and 1 month period respectively.  I'm giving the details to see if I get a response of interest from enough people to see if worthwhile pursuing.  

If one or both appeal to your interest and you'd like to participate, please feel free to send me a message.  I'd probably look to start this in say 2 weeks, if the interest is there.  I appreciate the consideration of any readers regardless.

VR

If you want to do a proper bible study of a particular book I am interested, but I am not interested in stripping a particular topic out of context.

30 minutes ago, thormas said:

I should be more clear in that (I believe) God persuades in the most subtle of ways through creation and specifically through humanity: we are 'called and encouraged' through and by other human beings (and through creation itself) 'to grow into ourselves' or to become 'fully Human.' This is even done when others are not consciously intending (or realizing they are doing) to do this. It is, if you will, 'natural' and the religious or spiritual person believes that there is 'more' going on than meets the eye: i.e. God.

John Wesley called this prevenient grace.

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

I like that Ellen.  For me, I think any 'word of God' can be summed up in the lyrics of my favorite Ben Harper song:

My choice is what I choose to do
And if I'm causing no harm
It shouldn't bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And if your causin' no harm
Then you're alright with me

I can't imagine this being any less pure than the 'Golden Rule'.  

Really?   The Golden Rule is about people helping each other.  It is a call to action.

This song is just about everybody leaving each other alone.  Kinda sad imo.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I take your point about the steps but not sure how much of any dogma has sufficient rational support. 

Also not sure how we would measure or even know if most pCs reject many of the 8 steps.

Why do you say that PC is an Episcopal mission to the unchurched? That is sort of intriguing.

 

The definition of dogma is insufficient rational support.  Compare with doctrine which does.

Bishop Spong was Episcopal and the director is an ordained Episcopal priest.  Obviously from the liberal camp, of course.

43 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree as it seems that Progressive Christianity is all over the place - perhaps that is good but also a bit hard to present to others.

I’ve had this discussion with Joseph.  If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma.  My argument was that is substituting one dogma for another.

The 8 steps are indeed dogmatic.  They are put forth as truth without sufficient rational support.

I think most progressive Christians reject many of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.com. 

PC is an Episcopal mission to the underchurched.  The 8 points are a ‘least common denominator’ designed to increase inclusiveness.

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Hi,

I'm wondering why you say "This is progressive Christianity with a small p"?. . . . Just asking.

This N.T. Wright video popped up after I watched the one that you posted. It's on the same subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSZPyZFWQI0

I thought it was pretty good, at least 80 or 90 % good. Myself, I pretty much believe in evolution into Christ and don't hold much to a literal understanding of the creation stories in Geneses. Just like people didn't need to know that the earth is round in order to be "saved", they/we don't  need to know exactly how human creation has taken place.

I also tend to think that the reasons that there is pain in childbirth are because the human skull has evolved to be so large, as well as because, since we stand upright, women's muscular development has evolved  to accommodate all this.

Myself, what I pretty much think we need to be "saved" from is our evolutionary mixed-up-ness and perhaps even negative-ness. I do think that we can "evolve into eternity".

Thanks for reading

 

Small p progressive Christianity is a generic term.   Capital P Progressive Christianity.com is a specific theology.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

When time permits, I would be interested in your more mystical take on lamentation (or anything else). 

Never really thought much about lamentation until this article.

Right now I gotta find out more about this visible comet.  Never saw one before.

11 hours ago, thormas said:

Also well said - even though he is verbose.

You asked my take on lamentations, and I like to simplify.  Wright is verbose compared to me, but he is a scholar and a genius and I am not.  
 

I do not criticize Wright .  I just have a more mystical and less academic viewpoint.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

In the interview, Wright states  "......the whole biblical tradition of lament — lament without a note of penitence because, at the moment, there’s nothing to repent of."  In my experience, this is true and rightly said: we meet crisis, sickness, death and there is indeed lamentation but there is nothing for which the sufferer must or should repent (nor is there an acceptance that 'God did it and could have prevented it.'). Herein is mystery and it seems the happenstance of creation.

Good find.

Wright is rarely wrong.

6 hours ago, thormas said:

Burl,

What is your take on Wright and on Christian lamentation?

I find Wright too detached and a bit verbose.  Too intellectual.

Lament is a type of prayer.  A prayer for protection, a prayer for understanding.

Christ is how the impassable God experienced human pain and suffering, so one would expect to find differences between the OT and the NT.

Just realized this as I was composing this, but this comparison is interesting.  I immediately think of Job compared to the martyrs but haven’t had time to really pursue that thought.

N.T. Wright on the pandemic and Christian lamentation.

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/n-t-wright-says-the-pandemic-is-giving-christians-a-chance-to-learn-what-it-means-to-lament-1/

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Good find, I enjoyed it.

This is progressive Christianity with a small p.

I would buy Hillary at 1:51   

A good chance she replaces Biden at the convention.  I would sell my wager at a nice profit on her nomination.