Rachel, I'm wondering the same.
your image here is, I have to say, unhelpful. It hardly promotes a generous attitude to those that you disagree with.
David, I think you are probably right. It's a reflection of our fallen natures that pain does express itself. There are a lot of women in Christian circles who every now and then make their pain visible. They do not hide it. Their human spirit groans, if you like, in anticipation of how it might be when they are truly able to worship their Lord freely. I have been learning from Gordon Fee that all the work of our minds, our intellects, the academic investigations into the Bible etc are a form of doxology if done in step with the Spirit. To then prevent women from this sharing in praise to the Father, Son and Spirit as they edify the body, encourage their brothers and sisters and exalt Jesus with their teaching, as happens in many churches who interpret 1 Tim 2:12 in a certain way,well, it's enough to make us all weep. Ideally, I would put a man there in tears too.
But Rachel, again your comment betrays the same lack of generosity to those you disagree with, specifically by restating your opponents' position as something that they themselves wouldn't recognise.So, specifically in this instance,1. The picture that you post and a number of the commentors on the thread that you link to communicate that the complementarian position is one that denies women a voice in all arenas.You know very well that that is simply a misrepresentation of what complementarians are saying. By posting the picture you perpetuate the myth and end up arguing against a straw man. As I've also mentioned before, it makes you look as though you aren't really interested in being fair to your opponents.2. In a similar way, it is rather restating the point in an incorrect way to claim that the complementarian position seeks to "prevent women from ... sharing in praise".Again, this just does not do justice to the rather more sophisticated position that is held by the majority of mainstream complementarians. We are all free to praise God, but we are not all free to do so in the manner that we want. Quite often our wants and desires are incorrect.For instance, when you are in charge of the pulpit in a church you would not simply open it up to anybody who felt they were called to preach! You would show some discernment over who should and should not be given that awesome privilege. Furthermore, if the denied party then claimed that you had restricted their right to "praise God" you would, quite rightly, point out to them that they were free to praise God in any number of ways - just not in one that you felt (given your position of authority and responsibility) was incorrect and, actually, damaging to the church.So why not make the assumption that your opponents are acting with equal integrity? Surely the least you can do is actually meet them where they are at, rather than contributing to the endless stereotyping over this issue.I would much rather you strove to have this approach than exhibit what I have seen in your writing over the past 2-3 months which is a rather distressing slump into poor argumentation used to buttress increasingly caricatured representations of complementarian arguments.I have sought to point both out to you regularly and won't stop doing it. For your own sake if nothing else. I understand that will come across as patronising but I promise it's not intended as such.
Patronising - yup!
Interesting - use of wants and desires languageWomen preaching and teaching desire? What about men 'called' I suppose?
as for being "patronising", I guess I'm going to keep having that label put upon me for as long as you persist in not being accurate enough in defining the complementarian position.In terms of women "desiring", I made no distinction between men and women so I'm not sure why you think that I have. I simply stated"We are all free to praise God, but we are not all free to do so in the manner that we want. Quite often our wants and desires are incorrect."Quite how you have turned that into a statement only about women is beyond me. Is it, perhaps, once again because you've not taken the time to engage with the actual argument being made? Or is that patronising? Because it's one or the other and ISTM that you're not actually engaging with what I specifically wrote.
Post a Comment