By Michael Conlon
Mon Oct 31,11:26 AM ET
The United Methodist Church’s top court has ordered a lesbian minister defrocked, overturning a lower panel’s ruling that had reversed the penalty, the church announced on Monday.
Elizabeth Stroud “was accorded all fair and due process rights” and an appeals committee that reversed her removal from the ministry in April erred in saying church officials had failed to define what a “practicing homosexual” was in terms of church law, the ruling said.
The decision by the nine-member Judicial Council is final. A church spokeswoman said Stroud could ask the panel to reconsider, but the quest would be heard by the same panel, and only two members dissented.
The ruling is the latest development over an issue that has divided Christian denominations. The ordination of an openly gay man as a bishop in the U.S. Episcopal church continues to strain relations between liberals and conservatives in that body and with the worldwide Anglican community.
The Vatican has been conducting an investigation of U.S. Roman Catholic seminaries to determine if there is a problem with homosexuality.
In December 2004 a lower church court stripped Stroud, 35, of her credentials as a minister at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown, Philadelphia, saying she violated the church’s Book of Discipline, which forbids the ordination and appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”
Stroud was allowed to have a lesser role in the church but could not perform ceremonies such as baptisms and weddings.
Stroud told the initial hearing she was in a committed relationship with another woman and had decided to be open about her sexuality because it was the honest, Christian thing to do.
Her stance was backed by many members of her Philadelphia congregation.
more
Note 101. No scripture doesn’t name the 70. Occasionally we commemorate one of the seventy, and every commemoration is male.
Renee,
If you’re looking for a statement that actually said the 70 (72) were men only, or both genders, it’s not there (Luke 10:1 is the passage you reference). But you would be hard pressed to argue from silence that women were included in this number. There are other references in Scripture that point to the disciples (in particular the twelve) as being chosen men.
The Lukan passages emphasis is not so much of Jesus’ choosing and sending, but the mission of the disciples as witnesses of who He is. Some scholars place Jesus in this pericope as the new Moses, who like Moses chooses 70. And by commissioning them as 2 x 2 to “witness” who He is, this keeps with the OT requirements that two are necessary for judgement (as to who Jesus is) to be made.
You’re statement about apostle being a reference for meaning “sent out” is somewhat accurate and somewhat not. In it’s usage through Scripture it’s not though. There are two words in question one being the verb apostello — to send out, [the aorist form apesteilen is used in the sending of the 70 in Luke 10:1.]
The second is the noun apostolos that never means in the NT “the act of sending”. It always denotes a man who is sent with full authority. It is similar to use as the Hebrew word shalah “to send” when used in reference to the prophets. It is an act of commissioning by God. When you look at John 13:16 in the pericope apostolos is used like the Hebrew equivalent in the act of commissioning [in a legal sense as sending a representative].
Renee when trying to grasp how a koine term is understood it’s better to look at how the word and its forms are used throughout Scripture and within the context of the passage. Rather, than relying on the English translation. Many times the nuance of the word is lost in the translation
In regards to your comment about Mary Magdalene being an Apostle, the modern scholarship supporting this is weak. Much is based upon recent discovered Gnostic writings that are rather incomplete. Magdalene apostle scholarship is primarily promoted by feminist theologians looking to justify women’s ordination in this modern age or trying to find a special status for women within the church. I’ve even heard Margaret Starbird (a big proponent of this scholarship) admit that most of her own writings are purely speculative rather than based on accepted evidence. Simply put she feels that its right, so thus it must be the accurate interpretation.
Going back to the “equal of” comment, as the good father pointed out it is in recognition of her efforts to spread Christianity. From my own understanding she isn’t given the title Apostle because she did not receive the commissioning as Peter, James, John and the other chosen received.
Dear Jerry-
You caution me, with good reason, about constructing an argument from silence, and then you set about making one yourself, which seems to be in accordance with what you already believe. Why not just leave it that we are not told if the seventy were male or female, which leaves it open to the possibility that both were involved? I’d also like to remind you, that through history when it comes to theology the silence has mainly been on the part of women, often an enforced silence.
Let me give you a good, recent, modern example of why some of us want things clarified more as to why women are not allowed into the clergy. (I donât say they canât be priests, because all of us who are baptized are part of the royal priesthood. There are different ways to use the term priest, just as there are different ways of using the term apostle).
My daughter is a sophomore at Hellenic college, majoring in Religious Studies. Recently she had a conversation with a teachers aide for one of her Old Testament classes. This is a man in his thirties. He told her that the professor in this class believes she deserves an A for her work, but that he (the teachers aide) was arguing for a B. Puzzled, my daughter asked him why. Because you are female the man replied. At this point my daughter thought that he was kidding, and asked him if he was. No he replied, hear me out. He then proceeded to explain to her that theology always has been and should be the domain of males, and because of that, a female should never garner a grade as high as A, even if her work deserves it.
It is bad enough that this man believes this way, worse that he feels that he can express this openly to my daughter.
Can you imagine how wounding this is, for a woman to be told that she is to be, in essence, punished and excluded from something she earned because of her gender, which she did not choose? Women have been told this so many times and in so many ways down through history, no wonder many misogynists are women. We have been taught to hate ourselves personally, because of our biology, and so we end up hating all women, and not wanting any of them to succeed.
If women in the Church can do or be all things except for that which is reserved for a male clergy, then why donât we see more people empowering this? My daughter went to Hellenic College, not to become part of the clergy, which she is not interested in at all, but because she wants to know and understand God through Orthodox theology. In the atmosphere there, in which women are treated as second class again and again, I am watching her enthusiasm wane and pain setting in. If a mind is a terrible thing to waste, so is a heart.
As far as Mary Magdalene is concerned, I think there are good reasons she is named Equal to the Apostles or Apostle to the Apostles. She was commissioned directly by Christ (God) to go and tell the other apostles that he was alive. She is known in the Church as the very first person to spread the Gospel, of which Christâs resurrection is the core belief. Tradition tells us that she later traveled and spread the Gospel further, often in the company of the Theotokos and St John. Yes, this “tradition” is extra-biblical, but most of the information we get about history of all kinds is not found in the Bible.
Through the centuries people have labored to discredit Mary Magdalene and steal her inheritance, from making her a prostitute, to Jesus lover, to Jesus wife. All of these titles focus on Marys gender, her femaleness, i.e. that which she did not choose, rather than focusing on what she did choose. In a day an age of enforced silence for women, she chose visible faithfulness to Jesus Christ (and to his mother). This was an inheritance she chose and worked for, not one she received because of being a first born male, or something she would have been legally or culturally entitled to.
I do not believe she is called an Apostle in an honorary way, anymore than the Virgin Mary is called Theotokos in an honorary way. Titles,are not given in the Orthodox Church lightly, they are descriptive of the Truth and are given in order to teach us and give us living examples of people that we are to emulate, both male and female.
Renee
Acceptance of the Idea of “Enforced Silence”
If Ms. Zitzloff’s idea of “enforced silence” is accepted at face value, THEN, one must also accept that ALL of Christian theology in its present state is potentially DISTORTED as a result of critical information was has been suppressed by women’s “enforced silence.” Here is the crux of the problem with feminist revisionism, it demands and requires a complete RETHINK of all theology, although they will tell you otherwise in the beginning. This rethinking is necessary because of this “enforced silence of women,” so we don’t really know what theology would have been like if this “silence of women” had not held sway.
Once this approach is accepted, the door is open for every kind of revisionism. Again, these are precisely the theological arguments made in the Prostestant seminaries. While one may rightly protest that Orthodoxy differes greatly from Protestantism, (agreed), the THEOLOGY of the REVISIONISTS is the SAME.
The same arguments about Mary Magdalene were presented to the laity in UMC in the 1970’s , they were the edge of the wedge. They began with Mary Magdalene and eventually instructed us that we could not longer think of God the Father.
The episode from Hellenic College regarding Ms. Zitzlott’s daughter is most unfortunate, but, it doesn’t provide proof of theological positions. It provides proof of the improper attitude of a single instructor. In today’s world, a woman’s complaint of mistreatment is give a full hearing, which all anyone can expect.
Brave enough to be a martyr but still “silenced”
We know that the early Christian communities included women of great faith and great bravery. We know that many Christian women stood up to Roman persecution and refused to deny the Faith even when faced with death.
Yet, Ms. Zitzloff argues that we should assume that these same women were “silenced.” It seems to me that a woman who could stand up to the lions in the Coliseum could not and would not be silenced on matters of faith by anyone.
Renee, your daughter’s experience is really something that should be investigated. If that’s the school’s policy (stated or unstated – apparently stated, given what your daughter was blandly told), I assume they don’t charge women as much for tuition, since their transcripts would reflect the institutional bias. If it’s not the schoool’s policy, that TA should be out of a job.
Renee,
What action is your daughter taking to counteract the position of the TA? Did she speak to the professor who feels she deserves an A? I am curious…is this TA an immigrant from Greece? Just because we have different roles to play in the church doesn’t mean we have to take mistreatment from men who are still living in the stone age.
The Silencing of Women? Precisely how did that happen?
Does Ms. Zitzloff assert that there exists or existed a manuscript containing authentic records of the early Church which was suppressed or destroyed by male members of the Church because of its unacceptably pro-female content?
Does Ms. Zitzloff assert that the reports of the writers of the Gospel were FACTUALLY destorted because of an anti-female outlook of the writers?
Does Ms. Zitzloff assert that the writers of the Gospel omitted significant interactions between our Lord and women because the writers felt that those interactions were excessively pro-female?
If the Gospel writers distorted realty or omitted important events with involving women, how can they be trusted on anything else?
On a slightly different tack:
How could the wishes of the God to be served by female priests be thwarted in His own Church for so long?
When did God decide that he no longer wanted to be served by male priests as in the time of the Old Testament?
Inquiring readers want to know. Feminist theologians, please step up to the plate.
Missourian asks some interesting and thoughtful questions, questions that I think can be generalized with a broader scope:
1) “How could the wishes of the God to be served by female priests be thwarted in His own Church for so long?”
If you’re asking how the Church can act contrary to an omnipotent Being’s wishes for so long, the answer seems obvious: you may as well ask how an omnipotent Being who wishes for Christian unity can allow such separation and disunity within His Church (think of the numerous sects of Christianity that, to this day, disagree vehemently on theological issues, even if not the point of putting people to death for those views as they used to). Repetition alone does not guarantee that the acts in question are of God’s will, I would think. There are perhaps a dozen major denominations in America, all filled with no doubt very devout Christians, yet doctrinal disagreements (think of the differences in views on transubstantiation and infant baptism) still exist. The answers on issues of great importance are not always provided.
2) “Does Ms. Zitzloff assert that there exists or existed a manuscript containing authentic records of the early Church which was suppressed or destroyed by male members of the Church because of its unacceptably pro-female content?”
Now I wouldn’t suggest that, but if we think that various churches haven’t discarded or ignored various sections of Scripture, we’re sadly mistaken. Think of the Apocrypha which is accepted by some denominations but not others. I actually picked up a Bible from some evangelical group which had the entire chapter of James excised (probably because of that nettlesome stuff about “works” over “faith”).
3) “Does Ms. Zitzloff assert that the reports of the writers of the Gospel were FACTUALLY destorted because of an anti-female outlook of the writers?”
I wouldn’t say factually distorted, but they definitely had a different idea of women and their worth. Consider the Old Testament where a woman was deemed “unclean” for TWICE as long as she would have been had she had a male child. Also, consider Leviticus 27:6 where a child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.”
I’m not sure what sort of outlook this is to be considered: is it “anti-female”? I don’t know. It doesn’t really seem “pro-female”, at least to me. If I were a literalist, I’d use this passage to suggest women should be paid less than men for exactly the same work.
I’m not necessarily in favor of female ordination (I’m pretty much indifferent on the issue). Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to look at the objections in the context of how they fit in to the Church at large.
Technical question – how is it that some responses that appeared later get posted as if they appeared earlier? Iow, when I replied to Renee’s note about her daughter, my comment appeared as the next comment after hers. Some hours later, two comments from Missourian (109,110) appeared between Renee’s comment and my response. How does that happen?
#116 Some poster’s messages get trapped in a questionable file. Someone needs to go in manually and approve the posts. It’s a matter of when someone gets a chance to do this.
Thanks for the explanation!
James, Feminist Theologians, How do you Account for the Difference?
Feminist theologians assert that they have something NEW to say. My question is EXACTLY what is NEW or DIFFERENT about feminist theology??
If female theologians have something NEW and DIFFERENT to say, I would like to know the SOURCE of the difference.
Hence, the question no one answers. Do female theologians give authority to a set of ancient texts that PREVIOUSLY had not been recognized as authoritative? If so which ones?
Do female theologians QUESTION the authenticiity and authority of ancient texts which HAVE been recognized as authoritative? If so which ones?
The point is this: “Are we working with the same authoritative texts?”
If female theologians are working from the the same authoritative texts, WHAT PRECISELY is different about their conclusions BASED on those texts? How do they precisely differ from those of male theologians?
Do female theologians claim that the person who first placed a pen to parchment (or whatever they used back then) and wrote down the stories of the New Testament Gospels DISTORTED the TRUTH due to their misogynist bias?
If so, how can we trust the Gospels, at all, if they are defective in this manner?
Any time I read a female theologian, her stance is always that she has the moral authority to stand as some point of reference outside the Church and challenge the Church according to a set of standards drawn from somewhere else? This, of course, is heresy or a very rank sort.
Emotional blathering about the “silencing of women” just ain’t enough. Facts, please, some facts. How does this alleged “silencing of women” affect theology and church history. Remember, we have to be convinced that women strong enough to face a lion in the Coliseum were timid enough to be “silenced” about their Faith. Not too believable, and I think a disservice to the great women of the Church. Shame on Rene Zitzloff, those women were not intellectual weaklings shushed into silence.
“Do female theologians claim that the person who first placed a pen to parchment (or whatever they used back then) and wrote down the stories of the New Testament Gospels DISTORTED the TRUTH due to their misogynist bias?”
My understanding of their thought is this: (Fr. Hans or Michael B please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong): Many theologians approach revelation as Truth that is slowly revealed over time and in stages. There are numerous traditions throughout the Old Testament that might have been understood as critical for that time and place for reasons which we can’t fully grasp that are no longer embraced today. The “ritual purity” laws of Leviticus are but one example. (You might look here for further information.)
These traditions regarding purity (of sacrifices, food an the like) were abolished with the New Testament. “When we get to the New Testament and the issue of whether or not a Christian ought to eat this meat or not eat the meat, it is not a matter of black or white. It is not a matter of yes or no, and no in between. It is a matter of personal conviction. The Christian there may eat it freely, knowing that God has given him all things to eat. There are others however who have different scruples. If they cannot eat in good conscience, they should not eat. If I can eat in good conscience, but I cause a weaker brother to go ahead and eat and defile his conscience, then it is sin. The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does! ”
I believe it is with this in mind that many women see the exclusively male priesthood as something that is not in the domain of “forever” but rather as a tradition that is no longer necessary for Christians. It’s not that they’re considering the Old Testament prophets as sexist pigs (although some might), it’s simply that “Things change”, even in Scripture. Additionally, though Paul spoke of the female priesthood, Christ Himself never did, and Paul was in fact erroneous in several of his beliefs, including the imminent return of Christ. I think the relative silence of Scripture of Christ’s word on this matter is what leaves it open in many people’s minds.
Missourian writes: “If female theologians have something NEW and DIFFERENT to say, I would like to know the SOURCE of the difference.”
Christianity is a developmental religion. Most of the distinctive things in the traditional churches developed over time. The source of a change could be nothing more than a change in moral reasoning over time.
Missourian: “Do female theologians claim that the person who first placed a pen to parchment (or whatever they used back then) and wrote down the stories of the New Testament Gospels DISTORTED the TRUTH due to their misogynist bias?”
It’s not a matter of distorting the truth at all. First of all, the gospels don’t talk about priesthood as it developed in Christianity. But looking at the larger history of Christianity, it developed during a particular time in history in which women had certain roles, and there were certain expectations of them. Suffice it to say that had Jesus appeared in recent years the development of Christianity would have taken a much different turn.
Missourian: “Any time I read a female theologian, her stance is always that she has the moral authority to stand as some point of reference outside the Church and challenge the Church according to a set of standards drawn from somewhere else? This, of course, is heresy or a very rank sort.”
How is this heresy? Again, virtually all of the things that we take for granted in Christianity developed over time. For example, one looks in vain for anything like a canon of New Testament writings in the New Testament itself. Jesus never wrote anything down, and there is no indication that he ever commanded anyone to write anything down. The gospels are not quoted with any regularity until around 150 a.d. The writings of Paul were not even referenced by certain church fathers in the first couple hundred years.
More importantly, the New Testament and subsequent documents record real disputes in the early church. These disputes continue for hundreds of years, with people saying fairly nasty things to each other. There were real differences of opinion that had to be worked out. Disputes continue on into the middle ages — disputes over authority, science, politics, all sorts of things. Disputes over the relationship of Christianity to Judaism continued on into the 20th century.
You seem to present a picture in which the early dudes sat down, flipped through the ancient documents, and said “well, I guess that’s the way it is.” It didn’t work like that.
Christianity came out of Judaism, and it certainly didn’t work like that in Judaism either. The gospels record various Jewish groups at odds with each other, and there were yet other Jewish groups not mentioned in the gospels.
The tradition of Jewish religious disputes is well-documented in the Talmud. The disputes of Hillel and Shammai are legendary. There is also an extremely interesting (and funny) story in the Baba Me’zia tractate of the Talmud, in which Rabbis Eleizer and Joshua are arguing with each other. I can’t remember the whole story, but basically what happens is that one rabbi performs a series of miracles in order to prove that he’s right about the tradition — trees move, walls start to fall down, water flows backwards, and so on. The other rabbi responds with “yeah, big deal, those don’t prove anything.” Finally a voice from heaven supports the first rabbi. The other rabbi says that even the heavenly voice doesn’t prove anything. Eventually God laughs at the whole situation, all the other rabbis vote, and go with the opinion of the rabbi whose opinion wasn’t supported by all the miracles. The point is that this is the kind of culture that gave birth to Christianity. Not something that is all figured out and stable, but something that is dynamic and where people put on the gloves and duke it out while God watches – and even laughs sometimes.
Note that I’m not arguing for the ordination of women. I’m arguing for the discussion.
Early Church History
Jim, many of your comments are sensible, but, my point was directed at debates about the events transpiring during the first and early years of the Church. Whatever those events were, they are frozen in time, what happened happened. Much of the debate about women’s ordination involves feminist theologians arriving at conclusions based on study of the actual events which transpired during a critical historical period. One example, what was the gender of the 72 persons sent out by Jesus to preach and make new converts. This is an event that actually happened at a point in time involving real people.
Many feminist theologians will directly state or imply that church history, the sacred texts, the texts acknowledged as authentic records of the time of the early church were in fact tainted by the misogyny of the persons who either wrote them (when single individual authors can be ascertained) or reduced them to writing. These conclusions differ markedly from conclusions of previous scholars. The differences need to be accounted for. If one accepts the idea that such important texts and records are tainted, then one can open up every theological issue one by one and arrive at different conclusions.
It is important to remember that these people are not dispassionate scholars looking for truth, they are advocates looking for arguments to support their desired outcome. Orthodoxy and Protestantism may be very different theologically, but, revisionist feminist heresy is the same across American religious bodies.
Zitzloff doesn’t articulate it clearly but she strongly implies that church history has been distorted by the “silencing of women.” I will grow old and die before those vague terms are reduced to specific activities that would have distorted or falsified Church history. When you don’t have proof of individual wrongful acts then to point to things like the “silencing of women” or “institutionalized whateverism.” It is dead-on rhetorical give away, sign to be watched for.
Orthodoxy and Protestantism may be very different theologically, but, revisionist feminist heresy is the same across American denominations. People hate it when I make the slippery slope argument but look at every Church which opened the door to their feminist theologians. They all ended up with Clown Eucharists and Druid dance liturgies. (gag!)
Missourian, you use “female theologians” and “feminist theologians” interchangeably – is that deliberate? (Iow, are you writing off all female theologians?)
Jim, good point about the rabbinic approach to argument. Christianity can be seen as one *highly* developed midrash …
Jim wrote:
What’s your source? Some kind of citation would be nice.
Note 120. “First of all, the gospels don’t talk about priesthood as it developed in Christianity.”
No, but the epistles do. The term priest is derived from the term “presbyter” which means “leader of the assembly” — a term still used in the Orthodox Churches in the original Greek. “Episcopos” is translated “Bishop” or “Metropolitan” which means “overseer” (the priest who oversees the priests) — and also still used in Orthodox Churches. These terms and concepts are found in Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-11. No mention of females, BTW.
Jerry writes: “What’s your source? Some kind of citation would be nice.”
I don’t have a source, per se. It’s an observative based on everything I’ve read on the topic. But just as something to consider, when you look at the New Testament there is no mention of a “priest,” as that position functions in dispensing (if that’s the right word) the sacraments. In fact, most sacraments are not mentioned. There’s no liturgy, no vestments, no icons, no well-defined church hierarchy. There’s no canon, no creeds. In fact, some of these things don’t show up for several hundred years. That’s what I mean by the developmental nature of the church. These things were not present at the beginning, but came about over time.
Note 120. Jim writes:
I’ve read enough feminist theology to know that it leads to the same place: the denial of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Why? Because feminist theology has to deny Christ’s maleness. One way to deny it is to banish gender specific language in religious discourse including theology, worship, prayers, etc. This then reduces Christ’s “maleness” to a literary vestige of a patriarchal society. Ontological reality is reduced to metaphor.
Hence the quick slide into neo-paganism once the feminist ideas are adopted.
This is one “development” we can do without.
Fr. Hans writes: “The term priest is derived from the term “presbyter” which means “leader of the assembly” â?? a term still used in the Orthodox Churches in the original Greek. “Episcopos” is translated “Bishop” or “Metropolitan” which means “overseer” (the priest who oversees the priests) â?? and also still used in Orthodox Churches. These terms and concepts are found in Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-11. No mention of females, BTW.”
Yes, these concepts are in place, but only in seed-form, if you will. The churchly offices are things that developed over time, along with everything else. I’m not offering that as a criticism, just pointing out that that’s the way it was.
Concerning the no mention of females — I don’t think we can read much into that. Let me give you an example of what I mean:
I have surveyed early Christian literature, and I can’t ever remember reading anything written by a female. Fairly late in the tradition we get writings from certain female monastics and mystics. But my impressions is that it was a thousand years, or longer, before any Christian writings by females even show up.
Now one could easily use that as an argument that women should not write about religious topics. No one makes that argument. But it would be a very strong argument.
Another interesting issue is WHY are there are no women’s writings in that time period. If it was not the religious “role” or “place” of women to write back then, why is it now? If women were illerate, but not men, why was that? If both women and men wrote, but only the men’s writings were preserved, why was that? What is the effect on theology when women are written about by men, but don’t themselves do the writing?
Juli, Note 122 Female or feminist theologians
Female theologians vs. feminist theologians
Juli, I applaud your concern for fairness. I have not performed a survey to check to see if there are any female theologians who are not also feminist theologians. There may well be such people, however, we all know from experience that they are not common and not influential.
You ask if I have “written off” female theologians? Hmmm, I wouldn’t put it that way. I would say that they have a stiff burden of proof. Academics do not overawe me, I have been exposed to them for 11 years of my adult life and they are just another group of people doing a job. A few academics are bona fide scholars but most are just people holding down a job. Most academics suffer from a form of psychological arrested development because they have never left school. The rest of us left school and held down responsibility in other areas of life.
Feminist theologians have a track record. It is entirely fair to take the track record of female theologians into account. They have done VERY great damage to American Christianity and American society. They should be held responsible for that damage.
I fully grant that there are very great differences in the theology of the Christian theologies into which feminist theologians have sunk their teeth, however, there is a very great similarity among the theology that these feminists are bringing to their benighted host organism.
I get hives when I hear the words “inclusive” and “dialogue.” Their language is mushy and bland and deceptive. They will use phrases like “we need to make sure that the Church benefits from the gifts of all of its members.” This is weasal language, it is designed to CONCEAL their true intent. This is CODE for we want women’s ordination. There is an extreme amount of loathsome condenscension towards faithful laity, as well, as out and out intellectual dishonesty and trickery. Just a few friendly observations from watching these folks for several decades.
Don’t you remember that I quoted to you an article found on St. Nina’s site, in which someone argued that the “maleness” of Jesus was irrelevant. This is a CLEAR effort to advance the acceptance of androgyny or the idea that differences between the sexes are artificial, socially constructed and insignificant. There are only a few logical steps from this to genuinely pagan concepts. This approach would vitiate that part of Scripture which describes Jesus as the bridegroom of the Church, and much more. This approach would make a fool of God who created male and female, if we decided the maleness and femaleness meant nothing.
Can’t resist on old joke. If you don’t believe that men and women are different, just stay married for five days. Although my husband and I have been married for eleven years and we see eye-to-eye on many things, we still occassionally take strikingly different approaches to the same issue. Many of those differences arise from the differing psychological make-up of men and women. Like I said, get married and you will have the time to study this phenomenon in depth, it really keeps life interesting.
As in UMC so in UCC and so Everywhere Else
Probably the most important goal for feminist theologians is the removal of gender specific language from the sacred or revered texts of Christianity. Again, the theology of the Christian community may differ from case to case but the end result desired by the feminist theologians is the same.Here is an example quoted from an article explaining why one individual church left the national UCC organization. The local congregation objected to actions taken by the national church:
BEGIN QUOTE
For example, using inclusive language for God (Father / Mother) in liturgy. Also, removing masculine (Father, Son, He) and authoritative (Lord, King) language for God in its New Century Hymnal (published in 1995
END QUOTE
SOURCE:http://mcj.bloghorn.com/ Posted January 10, 2006 titled A Few Names in Sardis
Please note at the St. Nina’s website has an article claiming that the maleness of Christ was insignificant, if that assertion is accepted then language changes are coming soon.
Again Jim what is your source for this? Bultmann? Something with a name rather than ” I’ve read it at places ” would be a better answer.
Because you really showing you don’t have insight into the material your referencing from your comments.
On Fairness
From “The Rebirth of Orthodoxy,” by Thomas C. Oden (a Protestant clergyman and professor):
“In our lifetime many changes have occurred in our perception of fairness. The civil rights movement has awakened us to institutionalized racism and sought by legal and political remedies to overcome it. The women’s movement has heightened our sensitivities to the oppression of women. … All these are among the signs of the ‘fairness revolution.’
“Much about this revolution is commendable. But it is not without its blind spots. …
“We who were born in this time of supposedly gretater fairness now view dimly the courage and integrity of all who were born in former times of lesser fairness. This vast group includes, of course, the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and ancient teachers of scripture. Our fortuitous birth in this time has become our claim to absolute moral superiority. This claim is our modern version of announcing ourselves to be a chosen race, our way of saying that we are better.”
Juli, Change Language, Limit Thought
Everybody pulls out Orwell sooner or later, but, he made the point that the authorities in his dystopia actively sought to control thought by controlling language.
Feminist theologians almost uniformly demand changes in the language of sacred or revered Christian texts. This is a very lethal assault on the underlying system of thought. I have noted that feminist revisionists “dumb down” and “smooth out” the language and images of orthodox Christianity; something like taking a fine Stilton cheddar cheese and turning it into Velveeta. The pungent and complex imagery and poetry of the language is replaced with bland uniformity. A great deal is lost in the re-translation (intentionally so). After the language has been transformed it is more difficult to formulate certain ideas or think certain thoughts.
Who would want to do such a thing and what could be their motivation? Power is their motivation; human beings have a deeply seated drive to acquire power, this is just another variety of that.
Jerry writes: “Again Jim what is your source for this? Bultmann? Something with a name rather than ‘I’ve read it at places’ would be a better answer. Because you really showing you don’t have insight into the material your referencing from your comments.”
Jerry, I have a hard time answering this, because to me these are garden-variety observations that are just obvious. They are not controversial. Many of these things are personal observations. For example, I claim that the gospels are not quoted with any regularity until Justin Martyr, around 150 a.d. I base that not on some church historian, but on my reading of the extant documents of the early church. If you can find counterexamples, great, bring ’em on. I claim that the New Testament does not mention anything like a canon — there are no lists of approved books, no command of Jesus to write down anything, no command to create a canon. Again, if you find something different, let me know.
Jim you’re not familiar with earlier works such as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (95 – 97 AD; and also referred to as the Roman Letter to the Corinthians) which quotes James, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Peter?
Or the Letter of Ignatius (scholars have placed them at between 110 – 117 AD; Eusebius dates them at 107 – 108 AD)which quote from John, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, Matthew, 1 Timothy, and makes references to Luke and Hebrews.
You might want to review the series The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew of Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus by Edouard Massaux, I know the first three volumnes have been translated but I haven’t seen the last two in English.
Anyhow, I’m not sure why you stress the importance of Justin Martyr when there are earlier writings of church fathers?
Or, the Didache which quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke
Note 132, Change language, limit thought…
Orwell was on target in elaborating this idea, and Missourian/Cassandra has it exactly right, too. I used to ignore this truth and support “language reform” so I could be a nice guy. Now when someone tells I should change the words I routinely use because it would be fairer or more inclusive, it gives me much the same feeling as if they said they’d like to know my social security and VISA numbers because it would be a friendly thing to do.
Augie, Changing the Language Disconnects Us from the Past
We know that languages change slowly across the centuries. If you could travel back in time in Olde England, you would reach a point where you would not be able to understand a native English speaker. However, changes like these are natural and they take centuries, if not millenia.
Agreeing to changing our language at the behest of the feminists would be a way of unnaturally accelerating this process. It would have the effect of cutting us off from our linguistic heritage; whether that heritage is recorded in English, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin. Imagine being raised on one of their revised feminist Bibles full of “smooth speak,” rather than something like the King James Bible full of magnificent poetry, powerful drama, intense tragedy and transcendent beauty. For the average person, the old languages and words would be MORE foreign and MORE strange and LESS comprehensible, eventually they would be totally foreign to the common reader. Maybe that is what they want.
Jerry writes: “Jim you’re not familiar with earlier works such as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians.”
A good and interesting question. I wish I had more time for an answer, but for what it’s worth —
This letter does mention Paul and Peter. As far as Jesus, little actual mention is made. The majority of the content is devoted to Old Testament passages. Very little refers to anything that could have come from the gospels. For example, Clement refers to the image of a sower and corn (24:5) but doesn’t mention the parable of the sower. When he talks in detail about the resurrection (chapter 25) he offers the example of the legendary phoenix bird, and quotes from the book of Job, but cites no details whatsoever from the gospel accounts. Clement ignores all the teachings of Jesus, mentions no miracles, cites no specific events from the life of Jesus.
Concerning the Didache — that’s an interesting case. You mention that it quotes from the gospels, but it’s not clear that it actually does.
The only time it mentions Jesus is in reference to the Eucharist. It cites teachings that resonate with the gospels, but the author doesn’t identify these teachings as being from Jesus. It does not refer to any specific gospels. And some of the teachings clearly are not from the gospels (” . . . it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.”) It appears that the writer is quoting from a collection of teachings or sayings, some of which perhaps came from or ended up in the gospels, though it also cites the Lord’s Prayer, saying that it is from “His gospel.” Baptism here is supposed to be done in running water (“living water.”) It talks about Eucharistic prayers, but ones that are quite different from today’s liturgy. Neither the apostle Paul nor his writings are cited or even alluded to.
The letters of Ignatius are also interesting. In the letter to the Trallians, in chapter 9 he references certain details about the life of Jesus, but never quotes from or references any gospel. His letter to the Smyraens appears to reference a gospel account of a post-resurrection appearance.
But let’s look at some other things. The Epistle of Barnabas is filled with allusions to and quotations from the Old Testament, but contains not a single quotation from the gospels. The apostle Paul is never mentioned. It contains all sorts of teachings, but nothing from the gospels. No miracles are mentioned. It talks extensively about the life of Jesus through the Old Testament, but never references anything specific in the gospels.
Also interesting is that if you look at the non-gospel books of the New Testament, none of them reference anything related to the historical Jesus — no miracles, no virgin birth, no baptism of John, no teachings, nothing (except for a reference to Pilate in II Timothy).
My point is that the extent to which the gospels and other New Testament writings were known and available to the early church is very uneven. It is hard to know if the silence concerning, say, Paul, is due to a lack of familiarity with his writings, or due to a disagreement with him. This is one example of what I mean by the developmental nature of Christianity.
Jim writes:
Well, in a way, yes, but an acorn is an oak, not an elm.
Note 132. Limit language.
Language control is thought control.
The imposition of feminist approved language, especially within the technical religious vocabulary, is an attempt to minimize, and eventually obliterate, the fact that Christ was male. Further, the male gender of Christ is crucial for maintaining a central truth of Christianity (and Judaism before it) that distinguishes it from all other religions: God is ontologically distinct from His creation (note the masculine pronoun — very important).
Feminist theologians (as distinct from female theologians) seek the subversion (and ultimate overthrow) of Christianity under shiboleths of the progressive left: fairness, justice, equality. It’s Marxian social dogma applied to religion. Anyone who has read the material, as I have, will note the arguments for replacing language never deal with the meaning of terms in relation to their original language — usually Greek, but on vaguer constructs concerning “patriarchal oppression” and the like. It really is post-sixties social deconstruction.
This is for Cassandra/a/k/a Missourian it will sound very familiar from her days in the UMC (because all the usual suspects are there). And she is 100 percent correct when she talks about the insidious nature of feminist theology. It’s the same movement from denominaiton to denomination. And, it’s not about understanding a revealed God, but creating a new god.
While doing some research for another project I came a book review for this book Ungodly Rage: The hidden face of Catholic Feminism
Here are some excerpts:
full review
Jerry,
Yes, this is all distressingly familiar. I have a “temper control” problem when I encounter these people (O.K. truth be told, I am not the most temperate person in the world.) But, it is harder than ever to hold my temper with these people around.
Hmm, what irritated, annoyed, or enraged me the most? Probably their thinly disguised and supercilious contempt for the those with strong and simple faith. Sometimes if you are lucky enough, you encounter people with deep faith, they are generally charactertized by an irenic personality. They are quiet and don’t stand out. They are genuinely humble and don’t talk about how humble they are. They aren’t on a crusade, they just help out whenever they can. You get to know them and after a while, it enters your thick head that they have a very deep and untroubled faith.
It is precisely, these quiet, gentle, genuine people of faith, for which our “feminist” sisters have so much contempt.
Well, my thorazine is wearing off so I need to sign off.
Jerry
Rosemary Reuther is one strange cat. How has she been able to function and exert influence?
One of the truly weird aspects of the UMC feminism has been a move to equate Islam with Christianity. Of course, these women would have been stoned in an Islamic society. They are oblivious to this fact or they are intentionally concealing it from the laity. UMC has accepted inter-faith couples unreservedly. Oddly enough, these “inter-faith” couples are raising the children in Islam without objection by the Christian parent or reproof from the UMC.
This pernicious equation of Islam with Christianity is pushed the most vigorously by the feminist branch. They are forever organizing inter-faith meetings and preaching to the UMC members about the danger of Islamophobia. It simply defers all reason or logic. They actually argue that any who seeks to assert that Christ is “the way, the truth and the life” is a bigot because they are exclduing non-Christians from salvation. They also argue that anyone who criticizes Muslim society or Islamic doctrine is speaking from ignorance.
Ray of hope. One stalwart minister refused membership to accept an man who openly practiced homosexuality and who refused to repent of it. His female Bishop initially disciplined the minister. Her disciplinary action was later overturned by a higher Church counsel. This is good news, but, it is a shame that a Church has to have a Court system with all sorts of “cases” constantly roiling through it. Those cases are generated by provocateurs who maneuver themselves into a positions in the UMC for the purpose of assaulting the original teaching of Wesley and Scripture and Christian tradition and …..(add your sacred tradition or theological principle here).
I’ve seen it all now:
Feminist Mormon Housewives
Missourian the movement in general is pretty bizarre and why anyone would follow any of these women is beyond me. If you want to take a journey down the bizarre read some of the writings of Fiorenza.
I still remember the women’s “re-imaging” conference in 1993 — sponsored by the World Council of Churches — where they worshiped God’s feminine side, Sophia.
Here are some gems from the conference:
more details
Some other thoughts about the conference:
more
Norman Geisler (Reformed theologian) has an interesting article on the link between feminism and polytheism.
full article
Twenty Years from now:..
20151. Nora, when you alleged that it was unfair that sopranos are not allowed to sing bass during religious services, and buttressed it with material from the St. Amelia web site, all I can say is that when the Lollards went though this back in the seventies — I forget which seventies — the result was total destruction for the denomination. I know about these things because I’ve been around singers for 57 years. Believe me, you are wrong. Think about what you are trying to do.
Comment by Can’t Stand It Any More f/k/a Nebraskan — January 15, 2126@ 3:15 am
20152. I used to think it would be cool if the sopranos sang bass, but that was before I realized how much I had been duped by the religious left. And there is a religious left, you know. Now I realize that we all need to keep the proper vocal ranges — down to the semi-tone. Unfortunate about the Lollards, isn’t it. You and I could be next.
Comment by Frankie — January 15, 2126@ 3:19 am
20153. My dear sister Nebraskan, I hope you will realize my concern for you. Even though you appear to be such a so harsh, I’m sure you are really a nice person. However, I can no longer continue in this conversation. This time I mean it.
Comment by Fleur — January 16, 2126@ 4:05 pm
20154. During the first three years of the current administration, there were more than 500 sopranos imprisoned in secret jails in a small European country because they were accused of trying to sing bass, most of them just once. In fact, many of them were there merely because they had hit a few mid-tenor notes. What is more, according to reliable sources in the amnesty community, they were tortured by neocons, who forced them to listen to punk music alternating with Lieder, sometimes for hours on end. Carl Rove was behind it. Pass it on.
Comment by Josh — January 16, 2126@ 5:17 pm
20155. Frankie, you must be joking. Think about all the men who sing in their upper register from time to time. Even when they get close to a real falsetto, no one criticizes them. Not a word, at least if they stay on pitch. Besides, there’s nothing in early law or tradition that requires women not to sing bass.
Comment by Emmitt — January 16, 2126@ 5:47 pm
20156. There is so much opportunity for all of us to sing together, to make beautiful music in the voices we are accustomed to. It seems like a shame to spend time trying to change this or argue about it when we could be singing.
Comment by Yelena — January 17, 2126@ 9:05 am
20157. Even though I don’t necessarily advocate that sopranos begin singing bass right now, I think we need to recognize that many women expect to find more chromatic opportunity than they had in the past. Indeed, the traditional past can guide us. For example, a historic way that a similar situation was dealt with was for women to sing the tenor part when there were no tenors available. So all we need to do is get rid of the tenors.
Comment by Nora — January 17, 2126@ 4:05 pm
20158. Thank you all for participating. Because it has become too expensive to maintain a thread with over twenty thousand comments, and because several of our participants have entered nursing homes during the last several years, I have decided to close this topic. But it’s been real.
Comment by TheManagement — January 17, 2126@ 5:00 pm
Uh, sorry folks, I couldn’t resist — Augie
Note 144 Reimaging Conference.
I was living in Minneapolis – where and when the reimaging conference took place and watched it closely. It was a naked attempt to craft a goddess tradition out of the bible, using the feminine gender of the greek word sophia (wisdom) and attaching it to Agia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) Cathedral in Constantinople/Istanbul. This was proof, the feminist revisionists asserted, that a goddess tradition existed in the bible.
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune was eager to publish the revolutionary new finding, so I wrote a letter (it was published to my surprise) explaining that in the scriptures the wisdom (sophia) of God is Christ, and that in Orthodox tradition the naming of that Orthodox Cathedral refers to Christ and not some goddess recently discovered.