Dan Trabue, liberal God-blogger at Payne Hollow, notes some Scriptural references on relations between the sexes. His conclusion:
Now, this is not a topic that I’ve studied a lot, but just from what I’ve read, I’m willing to accept that the Bible is a document of its patriarchal, pre-modern times and realize that, yes, back then, women weren’t treated right. But even in that context, we see hints of God’s more egalitarian ways shining through. In Christ, there is no “male” or “female,” we see Jesus talking to and treating women as equals, we see women leadership in OT and NT stories.
So, my answer to the larger question – is God sexist? – an absolute No. But the Bible does tell stories that reflect the mores of the day. As long as we don’t try to take those sexist/misogynistic attitudes as literally applying to how we interact as humans today (ie, women remain silent in church, the man is the “head” or master of women, selling our daughters, etc), and embrace the God-given liberty and equality for all, then I think we’re okay.
Now, I’m not going to jump on his “not a topic I’ve studied a lot, but …” which should throw up red flags. It is a good question how the verses he quotes support his conclusions. However, it might be interesting to note some history. Read the rest of this entry
Often praised progressive blogger “hilzoy” at Obsidian Wings writes in reaction to McCain:
“MATT LAUER: “If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”
SEN. MCCAIN: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way.”
“hilzoy” writes:
Several thoughts: First, my initial reaction to this was fury. There are men and women over in Iraq, in the middle of nowhere, counting the days until they come home. There are families who jump out of their skins every time the doorbell rings. There are spouses trying to keep their marriages together while they’re thousands of miles apart, soldiers wondering whether anyone will really understand what they’ve been through and kids growing up without knowing one of their parents. How could anyone say it doesn’t matter when they come home?
Geesh. Can she read at all? Why do families of the troops stationed in South Korea, Germany, Japan and elsewhere not “jump out of their skins” every time the doorbell rings. Uhm, that would be, as McCain noted, “What’s important is the casualties …” Duh.
Because of the low but continued casualties, staffing levels are high and that is one problem. But … we’ve had troops stationed in Germany and Japan for over 60 years and in South Korea for almost as long. The “fury” reaction to that is noticeably lacking … just as is rational thought on the part of yet another progressive blogger.
That is the Question.
In last night’s post, I proposed that the movement away from the liturgical calendar was a motion towards the secular. There were two comments, as I had cross-posted that at the two blogs on which I’m active, and got one from each.
Mr Trabue asks for clarification:
I know you said “arguably,” but I was wondering how exactly you see a move away from a liturgical calendar as being in any way a move towards secularization?
While Kyle points to Zwingli (and do visit as the whole comment is worthwhile)
It has to do with the puritan movement in England, but I forget exactly the argument. I think there was something to do with a radical misapplication of the principle of sola scriptura, so you’ll need to ask Zwingli. If they banned musical instruments because they weren’t mentioned in the New Testament (though actually they are), can you wonder that they also eliminated scheduled holidays?
[…]My personality is such that I’d rather every day were the same – I hate keeping track of dates. But I’ve sort of resigned myself to celebrating holidays, since everyone around me insists on doing it. If I ignore them for no good reason, what am I communicating? But it seems to me that, if we’re going to start celebrating holidays, we might as well celebrate all of them. I suppose we will eventually.
My attempted clarification and further remarks can be found below the fold. Read the rest of this entry
The 12th Carnival of Christian Reconciliation will be held my home blog at Pseudo-Polymath.
For submission guidelines see this post. The carnival submission will be due by Midnight EST Friday June 20th, although technically I’ll probably do most of the work putting the carnival together over the weekend so the real “cut-off” will be some undetermined time on Sunday. It might be important to note that this carnival accepts multiple entries from each person. See the details on posting guidelines at the above link. The Question/Topic-of-the-Month for this month is:
In St. John Cassian’s Conferences Abba Moses teaches that our thoughts come from three sources, the Holy Spirit, Satan, or ourselves. He then teaches discernment is perhaps the most important Christian virtue, to separate those three in our minds and subsequently our actions. Our Church has split from one into so very many over the almost two millennia since Christ’s resurrection. Some have suggested that perhaps the prevalence and predominance of division in our church is a sign that it is God’s will that the Church be divided. But is this so?
In analogy to Abba Moses’ instruction, one might propose that the origins of any one of these divisions arises from the work or activities of the Spirit, Satan, or Man. One would expect that the latter two are the ones which, if one supports ecumenical movement, should be the ones we actively oppose. How should we discern the difference between these, if indeed that is even a thing we should attempt? Is the motive behind the division a thing which we should discern as we try to heal that same division? Is such a discernment (or claims to the same) today even useful?
This year, Eastern and Western liturgical calendars were about as far apart as they can be, the Western Easter was in March and won’t be that early calendrically for over a hundred years, while the Eastern Pascha was in May. Next week … the East celebrates the ending of its Paschal season (and to be honest with the feast of the Ascencion just past much of the Paschal liturgical changes have been removed). Pentecost begins “ordinary time”, marking the days between Pentecost and the Nativity fast (although at least 2 “minor” fasts exist between Pentecost and Easter).
Liturgical time is a reflection of the non-secular nature of Church. Secular, coming from the Latin, saeculum has to do with marking time. Liturgical markings of time, the liturgical season strikes a “fork” into our daily time-bound lives grounding us periodic reminders and connections to the timeless. The secular “holidays” that come closest to this like the major sports finals seasons, right now we have the NBA playoffs and coming up the Summer Olympic games, NHL, MLB and NFL as well as many other sports all have their “holidays”. These games are in one way notably unlike liturgical holy days (holi-days) in that typically our “games” are numbered but specifically and purposefully, liturgical holidays are not. There is good reason why Pascha this year is not the 1975th Paschal/Easter celebration. Pascha/Easter is a connection, via liturgy, a forging of a connection to the original Eucharist and the historical resurrection of our Lord, as well as to the eschatological Pascha out of or beyond time. It is a communing with God and our Theosis outside of time.
I’m curious, some Protestant churches have abandoned essentially all but Easter and the Nativity from their set liturgical calendar. The Protestant Reformation was a rejection of many practices in the Roman church that deemed to have mislayed the essence of the Christian faith and were drawing the laity away from their calling and a distraction. I’m curious. If you belong to a church which does not follow a full liturgical calendar, marking Nativity, Epiphany, Lent, Annunciation, Pascha, Ascension and Pentecost in your season as well as the myriad of lesser feasts (for example coming up “next” in the Orthodox calendar at the end of June is the St. Peter and St. Paul fast and feast). Why? What was the reason for that move, a move arguably toward a secularization of Church?
In the prior post, I queried for a resource (hopefully online) for the 14th oration of St. Gregory the Theologian, which is on poverty. In a book that I am reading about St. Gregory, John McGuckin’s St. Gregory of Nazainzus: An Intellectual Biography, heightens my interest in this. One of the things Mr McGuckin relates in his book is that in this particular oration St. Gregory calls for what he terms Byzantine “city-monasticism” that is monastic cenoboetic (communal) communities, which are not withdrawn from the world, but which served to staff hospitals and other philanthropic institutions.
American in particular is a barren desert when one considers its monastic presence. Could encouraging young and old to a commitment to serve in such a community work? Would it not be a good thing?
The poverty paradox present in Christian ethics is obvious to any casual onlooker, and was brought up in an earlier post. In that post I hinted that I’d offer my resolution to the paradox later, this is that later “resolution.”
Christian tradition, Scripture, and praxis all value rejection of material things and the ascetic embrace of poverty. At the same time however, the Christian virtue of charity calls the faithful to assist those in need. But why, the state of being poor is a state to value. Should the Christian not instead, envy the downtrodden and those without means? To summarize:
In an earlier discussion on Liberation Theology and its ties to Marxism here at Stones Cry Out (a group blog which has graciously permitted me to join), I was asked in a comment thread/discussion what, if anything, was evil about Marxism. In that discussion I had tied much of the evil inherent in Marxism to Leninism, noting Zizek a prominent Leninist political theorist and philosopher crafted a syllogism. That syllogism was Lenin is to Marxism as St. Paul is to Christianity. This I took as a teaching of what Lenin means to Marxism, not the reverse.
But … there is indeed evil (or at least moral error) inherent Marxism and it is the same evil that is found in poverty and why the Christian responds vigorously against it.
For poverty is indeed a blessed thing. It is indeed a thing to which the best and greatest of our fellowship embrace, live, and dwell. From St. Antony,St. Mary of Egypt, St. John Cassian (who brought monasticism to the West), and other in the first millennial ascetics, the entire Eastern and Western monastic traditions, to the modern ascetics such as more famously the Mother Theresa of Calcutta. However there is an essential difference between their embrace of poverty and the Haitian or African child and family eating fried mud because they have no other food. The problem is one of choice. Poverty is a blessed good and a thing to aspire to if you choose it. Choice is the ultimate and crucial difference between poverty as virtue and why we aid those who are afflicted by this particular virtue when it is not of their choosing.
That too is the essential problem with Liberation theology and its embrace of Marxism. Marxism and Christian cenobitic communities both embrace renouncing private property and sharing and sharing alike. However, Christian communal communities are joined by choice. Marxism is a political system which imposes, like poverty in Zaire or today in Myanmar/Burma itself on those it afflicts with no regard to choice.
It is not for nothing that Genesis is a crucially important book. The eden stories of early Genesis teach well that God values our free will. We ignore that at our peril.
