Sexism Is Bad, Liberal Sexism Is Bad And Stupid...

[jamesAMDG]

Someone asked in my blog's comments (gratutitous advertising - http://jamesamdg.blogspot.com) so I'm back. Hopefully I can stick around for a bit and while I'm here, let's pick a fight.

 

 

Does this passages from Sacred Scripture offend you?

 

Saint Paul's Letter to the Epehsians 5:21-24

 

21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

 

I am sure that right now some of the people reading this (if anyone even bothers to read posts by me anymore, given my track record) that at least some are, if my title didn't get them first. Here's my essential beef, there are many in the so-called liberal camp who despise Saint Paul because they see him as a woman-hater whose works have been used throughout history to keep the distaff side of things down. This is one of the particular passages often used to justify this misguided opinion. Unfortuantely this silliness has also found its way into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church too, when this passage comes up during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is an alternate reading offered (depending on the country where the Mass is being offered).

 

Of course while everyone's pants are in a twist they tend to ignore the passage immediately following, namely 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: which spells out the husband's side of marital responsability. This is very important because it shows that the true subjection is from the man's side. Just as Christ Jesus, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, was incarnated as a man and was subject to human beings, to the point of being beaten to death and executed on a cross, the husband is called to give this devotion to his wife. He is called to do anything and everything in his power to protect, keep and save her if she is threatened regardless of the consequences to himself. It is also one of the passages which made Christianity so popular with early converts (particularly women who made up a large portion of converts in the early Church). Pagan religions had always regarded women as subject to their husbands but never drew a corresponding responability on the man's side. Christianity, and this often maligned excerpt from Saint Paul were responsible for the progress which the Western (Judeo-Christian) world has seen in the status of women and their rights and roles within society.

 

But some may ask themselves where does the liberal sexism (bad and stupid) which I referred to in title of my topic? It is to be found in the wholesale revision of history and Sacred Scripture which is currently taking place under the guise of tolerance and political correctness. This manifests itself in many ways, for example, BeachofEden, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI's election went on a tear about the Church being sexist for not accepting women priests, etc. The Liberal assumption here is that a woman is more capable than a man, by virtue of her sex, than a man to be in positions of power and authority. An example of this is the liberal joy (and orthodox, for Protestants, horror) over the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori in the Episcopalian Church as Presiding Bishop.

 

That oughta be enough for tonight.

[flowperson]

[AletheiaRivers]

The Liberal assumption here is that a woman is more capable than a man, by virtue of her sex, than a man to be in positions of power and authority.

 

Hi James.

 

Your comment above is a bit off. I wouldn't argue that a woman is more capable than a man, any more than I would argue that a man is more capable than a woman, to lead a church.

 

I would argue that women and men have EQUAL capability.

 

I do look at Paul's words as being enlightened for their time. Women weren't treated very well back then, and Paul was saying that husbands should love their wives like Christ loves the church. Certainly a step in the right direction.

 

Paul himself commended female disciples as prophets, so his words about women might be read in the context of all he had to say about them. Even the passage where he says women are not to speak in church needs to be interpreted in light of the situation in that particular congregation.

 

Here is one of my favorite passages from Galations:

 

“… For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

 

Nice to have you back, you cranky ole Catholic you.

Edited July 7, 2006 by AletheiaRivers

[darby]

Haven't checked in for awhile, or posted for even longer. But felt like I had to....

 

Alethia--what an even tempered response. Not surprised, though.

 

James--pay attention--you might learn something. Starting off a post with "let's pick a fight" is immature.

[davestelzer]

Does this passages from Sacred Scripture offend you?

 

Saint Paul's Letter to the Epehsians 5:21-24

 

 

 

 

 

 

That oughta be enough for tonight.

 

 

It seems u r confused. If scripture offends it cannot be called sacred... If scripture is sacred why should it offend anyone? Obviously the element missing is the human element: paul is human so is the scripture of paul... the scripture is not sacred inerrant or infallible! I suggest you read J. S. Spong's book: The Sins of Scripture to become a more informed debater.

 

Dave

[AletheiaRivers]

Hi Darby! You have a PM.

[flowperson]

AR:

I was at a loss for words and I really don't like to fight so I thought that facials would suffice. Besides. you've got that neat viking helmet and broadsword that you brandish so well. If Rummy ever gets canned, I'm nominating you for defense secretary.

 

James:

To err is human, to forgive divine. I believe that you've seen an example of this principle here. Tell your other non-progressive friends about what understanding can do.

 

flow....

[Carl]

I am not offended by that text at all. I recognize it for what it is, a piece of writing from a given person, to a given audience in a given culture, at a given time.

 

Just because St. Paul says those things - does not mean that they are necesairly to be followed to the letter today.

 

I am not offended by this text because I understand and view it through its historical and cultural context. I would be offended if a person used these texts to justify gender discrimination today.

 

Also - As pointed out above - I don't feel that woman are MORE qualified to lead a church than a man is.

I feel both genders are EQUALLY qualified to follow the call of God in their lives, including calls to ministerial leadership. As noted above, St. Paul did commend many woman church leaders of his day.

 

Also, many scholars understand St. Paul's words quoted above to be a specific instruction to a particular church that was having problems with women disrupting their worship services - not as a prohibition on their work in ministry. So even many people that do feel the need to take all of Paul's comments literally today have accepted woman in pastoral leadership with that Biblical justification.

[AletheiaRivers]

AR:

I was at a loss for words and I really don't like to fight so I thought that facials would suffice. Besides. you've got that neat viking helmet and broadsword that you brandish so well. If Rummy ever gets canned, I'm nominating you for defense secretary.

 

 

flow....

 

Hehehe. Do I also get to wear lederhosen? And have a leather bustier?

 

 

OH NO! Here comes my husband to make a smart ass comment.

Edited July 8, 2006 by AletheiaRivers

[felix angler]

Hehehe. Do I also get to wear lederhosen? And have a leather bustier?

OH NO! Here comes my husband to make a smart ass comment.

 

As your husband I say yes. Please, please, please wear the Viking helmet and leather bustier, lederhosen are optional. Helmet and broad sword go without saying.

[des]

Hi darby, Welcome back! :-)

(Not that I have been too much around either lately). James, James. I would expect you not to "pick fights".

As per St. Paul, well, as you know most of us here do not take the scriptures as literally written by God (or dictated), but are rather writings by humans in their particular time and place. Since the "rule of thumb" was common place (ie "don't hit your wife with anything bigger than the width of your thumb"), it was as Aletheia suggests, no doubt an enlightened stance. And there, may, as Carl suggests have been other factors for writing his statements (for instance, it could have been some particular women/woman). Or some other things for which we aren't even aware.

 

As for liberals being sometimes sexist the other way (I mean female against male), I think sadly that is so. It is pretty human though. I think to imply in some way that the new leader of the Episcopal church shares that view is decidedly unfair. I also think it is unfair to allege that progressives as a group share that idea,

even though individuals may. The celebration over the first women leader of the Episcopal church doesn't imply that that we would now be upset if a man were to be elected next!! In many of our views it is a milestone, more similar to the first woman astronaut or something like that. It doesn't mean we wouldn't want any more male astronauts. (Maybe others wouldn't make that type of contrast, but I do!!)

 

James, I wish you would not attack certain members, I happen to feel that one you attacked is not really in a good place about the church and her own feelings on it, due to past experiences.

 

BTW, Dave, I don't think James would like Spong. :-)

(Sometimes he's even a little liberal for me. :-))

 

 

--des

[flowperson]

As your husband I say yes. Please, please, please wear the Viking helmet and leather bustier, lederhosen are optional. Helmet and broad sword go without saying.

 

 

LOL you guys!

 

As a former husband, I can vouch for the fact that husbands do like alternative realities, and sometimes costumes and assumed identities do help. But then, I've been divorced twice, so what do I know anyway?

Anyway, have lots of virtual fun you guys, but be VERY careful with the broadsword AR.

 

flow....

Edited July 8, 2006 by flowperson

[AletheiaRivers]

I can't believe you didn't comment on my avatar flow. I found it just for you!

[flowperson]

AR:

 

LOL

I imagine that James would probably zone-out if he came back to the thread for the fight he picked and saw what it had devolved into.

 

I learned, when I worked in intellectual property matters, that true invention is "non-obvious". While your avatar is a scream, I think I liked you better as the redhead with the short cut. People have alweays warned me about redheads, but then my mom had auburn hair before she became silver in her 40's. I've still got a few red hairs on my arms. but I'm mostly silver now too.

 

But, on the other hand, the blond pig tails are cute sticking out from under your helmet of horns. And all of us here within the boundaries of debauchery in the eastern Mojave desert KNOW that blonds have LOTS more fun ! I heartily approve of your new TCPC identity, as long as felix does also. I really like your fish pic on CR, but then, I'm partial to the species, and not just as food.

 

flow....

[des]

AR (hey I like that, cuts out trying to figure out how to spell it), I really like your alternate avatars

(I have picked one and stuck with it) but this one is the best!!! Of course, except for one memorable

program on the Vikings discovering America on National Geographic, what I know about Vikings is

pretty much summed up in a cartoon (can't recall the name). :-)

 

 

Flow, I love devolving (or perhaps progressing) this thread! (normally I am not for it so fast).

Can we discuss sexism in Vikings? LOL!!

 

--des

[MOW]

I like your new Avatar too AR.

 

Since we're sort of talking about the problem of taking passages of the Bible literally, I'd like to share something that happened at a church where I was organist. One of the members got up to read the Old Testament lesson for the day. When she got up to the microphone ,in the pulpit , she says in a loud voice"CIRCUMSIZE YOURSELVES TO THE LORD!!! ". Everybody kind of jumped . I thought to myself ,"you mean right now". I glanced over at my choir, and they were practically on the floor .

 

After service I asked the pastor what scripture that was. She( it was a woman pastor by the way) said the wrong Old Testament lesson had been read . I looked it up and the passage the member had read by mistake was Jeremiah 4 verse 4.

 

"Circumsize yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem."

 

Anyone who wants to take that literally ,is welcome to try.

 

 

MOW

Edited July 9, 2006 by MOW

[flowperson]

des, AR, &MOW

 

Okay fellow horny helmet wearers, haunches and mead on the table and altogether now let's yell when the chief's vessel floats away from us after being lit by fire......OOOODINNNNNN !

 

(I got that scene from a very old film called (I think) The Vikings starring Michael Douglas' father Kirk, Tony Curtis, and Sidney Poitier. Only hollywood could bring a blue-eyed gentile, a jew from Brooklyn, and an african brother together in a viking saga. See what you starteds AR ? Devolution, devolution, devolution, Devo....hey that's a, 80's band from Cleveland isn't it ? Whip it good !!!

[AletheiaRivers]

AR:

 

LOL

I imagine that James would probably zone-out if he came back to the thread for the fight he picked and saw what it had devolved into.

 

James, how red is your face right now?

 

While your avatar is a scream, I think I liked you better as the redhead with the short cut.

 

Do you mean this one?

 

But, on the other hand, the blond pig tails are cute sticking out from under your helmet of horns.

 

Did you know that the horned helmet and vikings is actually a myth?

 

I heartily approve of your new TCPC identity, as long as felix does also. I really like your fish pic on CR, but then, I'm partial to the species, and not just as food.

 

Heh! I wouldn't say it's my new identity, but I might keep it for a while until the fun of this thread dies out. As for my CR avatar ... Dory is my hero!

 

 

AR (hey I like that, cuts out trying to figure out how to spell it),

 

Yeah. Everyone forgets the second "e" in A-lethe-ia. AR is much easier.

 

I really like your alternate avatars

 

Google image is so much fun. I love looking for different pics to fit my mood of the day.

 

Of course, except for one memorable program on the Vikings discovering America on National Geographic, what I know about Vikings is pretty much summed up in a cartoon (can't recall the name). :-)

 

Hagar the Horrible?

 

Can we discuss sexism in Vikings? LOL!!

 

Fine with me!

 

 

Since we're sort of talking about the problem of taking passages of the Bible literally, I'd like to share something that happened at a church where I was organist. One of the members got up to read the Old Testament lesson for the day. When she got up to the microphone ,in the pulpit , she says in a loud voice"CIRCUMSIZE YOURSELVES TO THE LORD!!! ". Everybody kind of jumped . I thought to myself ,"you mean right now". I glanced over at my choir, and they were practically on the floor .

 

...

 

Anyone who wants to take that literally ,is welcome to try.

MOW

 

ROFLMAO! Thanks, now I have to wipe coffee off my monitor.

 

 

See what you starteds AR ?

 

Don't blame this all on me!

 

When a problem comes along

You must whip it

Before the cream sits out too long

You must whip it

When something's going wrong

You must whip it

 

now whip it

into shape

shape it up

get straight

go forward

move ahead

try to detect it

it's not too late

to whip it

whip it good

 

WHAT IS WITH THE BOARD PUTTING ALL MY REPLIES IN ONE POST!?! Argh!

Edited July 9, 2006 by AletheiaRivers

[des]

AR, your summary was dandy. I think I'm too lazy.

 

Anyway, yes it is Hagar the Horrible. All my "knowledge" of the Vikings (except for National Geographic).

 

Of course the horned helmet is a myth, but I wouldn't think that would stop us all from evaluating the

mythiness :-) of the whole thing, being Progressives and all. For instance, perhaps it was a nice analogy

of the machoness of the Vikings--- who were not lost like Colombus and really did know where they were going and didn't take on slaves or cut off too many heads.

 

Another might be that they went out with out any women on board and were horny.

 

 

--des

[flowperson]

Just to show you how retro we progressives must be, I met a couple from a Cleveland suburb today and they were unresponsive when I mentioned that great Clevelend band, Devo.

 

This was fun guys. Let's do it again sometime, and I really appreciate the lyrics to the song...

AletheiaRivers !

 

flow....

Edited July 9, 2006 by flowperson

[jamesAMDG]

Wow, apparently putting in a full stop, laughing face isn't enough to indicate that someone might not mean they're actually looking for fisticuffs. I might be a jerk, but sheesh that seems a bit excessive (and if I can recall correctly I've started a bunch of posts with similar things)

 

My face isn't particularly red though. A little bored I suppose though with things changing from the topic I proposed to, role-playing and costumes in the bedroom. That seems like an odd segue, but this is the internet after all.

 

Dave was the only one who said anything realted to the topic so I guess I can answer him. (des wasn;t far off the mark on Spong though)

 

Dave

 

It seems u r confused. If scripture offends it cannot be called sacred... If scripture is sacred why should it offend anyone? Obviously the element missing is the human element: paul is human so is the scripture of paul... the scripture is not sacred inerrant or infallible! I suggest you read J. S. Spong's book: The Sins of Scripture to become a more informed debater.

 

I'm actually not especially confused.

 

What is your premise for saying that Scripture isn't Sacred if it offends? Jesus said a few things that he acknowledged were offending people (His description of the Real Presence in the Eucharist comes to mind - Gospel of Saint John 6) John the Baptist wasn't afraid to offend Herod and it cost him his head and the desceration of his body by having the head showed around on a silver platter. And certainly the Prophets of the Old Testament weren't afraid to offend people, they were stoned to death with an alarming frequency. Being asked by God to work on His behalf is more often than not a short route to the gallows (or historical/cultural equivalent). Are you saying that when the prophets called for justice for the poor that they weren't prophesying for God? That all the offensive stuff Jesus said about loving your neighbour and turnining the other cheek were the unDivine parts of Scripture? I must admit that would seem to be a new tactic for someone who, seemingly (given the endorsement of Spong), a progressive.

 

As for Saint Paul, admittedly he was a man. I doubt you could find a Christian who would call him divine. But he claims to speak in the name of the Lord often during his parts of Holy Writ. So are you saying he's a liar? Or a lunatic? Or thruthful? I imagine you've heard of the trilemma before, but I'm interested to see if you have found a way out of it.

 

I appreciate the offer to read some of Spong's silliness but I think I would rather re-read the DaVinci Code before I got into that. And that's saying alot. I don't want to go too far about him here though, back in the olden days I got in trouble for referring to him as John "Always-Wrong" Spong (this is included for historical purposes only and shouldn't be construed as an attempt to insult him again)

[AletheiaRivers]

Dave was the only one who said anything realted to the topic so I guess I can answer him

 

If you think my first post, heartfelt and sincere as it was, was not related to the topic you proposed, then, well ... fine. Stick it in your ear dude.

[davestelzer]

Wow, apparently putting in a full stop, laughing face isn't enough to indicate that someone might not mean they're actually looking for fisticuffs. I might be a jerk, but sheesh that seems a bit excessive (and if I can recall correctly I've started a bunch of posts with similar things)

 

My face isn't particularly red though. A little bored I suppose though with things changing from the topic I proposed to, role-playing and costumes in the bedroom. That seems like an odd segue, but this is the internet after all.

 

Dave was the only one who said anything realted to the topic so I guess I can answer him. (des wasn;t far off the mark on Spong though)

 

Dave

I'm actually not especially confused.

 

What is your premise for saying that Scripture isn't Sacred if it offends? Jesus said a few things that he acknowledged were offending people (His description of the Real Presence in the Eucharist comes to mind - Gospel of Saint John 6) John the Baptist wasn't afraid to offend Herod and it cost him his head and the desceration of his body by having the head showed around on a silver platter. And certainly the Prophets of the Old Testament weren't afraid to offend people, they were stoned to death with an alarming frequency. Being asked by God to work on His behalf is more often than not a short route to the gallows (or historical/cultural equivalent). Are you saying that when the prophets called for justice for the poor that they weren't prophesying for God? That all the offensive stuff Jesus said about loving your neighbour and turnining the other cheek were the unDivine parts of Scripture? I must admit that would seem to be a new tactic for someone who, seemingly (given the endorsement of Spong), a progressive.

 

As for Saint Paul, admittedly he was a man. I doubt you could find a Christian who would call him divine. But he claims to speak in the name of the Lord often during his parts of Holy Writ. So are you saying he's a liar? Or a lunatic? Or thruthful? I imagine you've heard of the trilemma before, but I'm interested to see if you have found a way out of it.

 

I appreciate the offer to read some of Spong's silliness but I think I would rather re-read the DaVinci Code before I got into that. And that's saying alot. I don't want to go too far about him here though, back in the olden days I got in trouble for referring to him as John "Always-Wrong" Spong (this is included for historical purposes only and shouldn't be construed as an attempt to insult him again)

 

 

 

James

 

Words can inspire us and move us emotionally. Movies can inspire us and move us emotionally. I don't worship words or films per se I really am concerned with the inspired feelings. The inspiration makes me feel good, feel happy or sad, feel like justice was done, etc.

 

If I am inspired by God's holiness or sacredness it may be her 'separateness' that I feel is astounding. God never speaks or appears to us directly. God speaks indirectly, through the universe we are placed in. So in this way all the universe is sacred to reveal the meaning of God.

 

Yet paradoxically if all is sacred then nothing is actually sacred or more especially inspiring than the next: secular. Therefore everything is sacred and everything is secular to me.

 

By the way, i'm a jerk too!

 

Paul became the first to write of Jesus. Some of what he wrote is inspiring to me, but not sacred because other of what he wrote like, homosexuality is caused by incorrect worship of birds and creeping things,etc. just is not true. He may have been partly inspired and partly way off. He wasn't 'informed' by modern science and research. Paul was human. To me paul is to blame for our modern cultural scism over same sex marriage, etc. Paul is not 'holy writ' to me, just another opinion.

 

I'm different than you since I don't feel that being offensive is the goal or credential to obtain... I feel being informed is the goal... or no? I hope debating with you will encourage you to be less offensive and more informed. I guess I'm more gnostic than I realized! Oh, well.

 

Dave

[des]

I also said something in my first post related to the topic. Maybe you would take the clue though.

The fact that the thread degraded (or progressed! :-)) means that maybe not too many people

were all that interested in discussing it. Some of us, myself among them, see little point in

arguing with conservatives. My sister is one, and I tire of that pretty fast. Most of us did

not get on a progressive board to rehash conservative ideology or debate.

 

If you consider the texts mentioned divinely written and infalable your point of view

is going to be highly different from those who view the same texts as written by men--

human and flawed. I don't see even any grounds for common argument on that particular

point. If you want to discuss what to do with that faith then that might be a more worthy

topic.

 

I think Viking games are more interesting than debatign you.

 

 

--des

[DCJ]

God never speaks or appears to us directly.

Woah, woah, woah... You might want to familiarize yourself with Point 6: "By calling ourselves progressive,we mean that we are Christians who find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers."

 

"Circumsize yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem."

 

Anyone who wants to take that literally ,is welcome to try.

Of course it's meant to be taken literally -- in the sense that the author intended. In this case, he's using physical circumcision as a figure of speech to convey total dedication to God. Like being a seemingly-paradoxical "living sacrifice".