Mrs M is a member of a Facebook discussion page aimed at allowing Christians to share ideas and discuss important issues.
She regularly reads excerpts to me and we continue with our own discussion.
I have been saddened recently with the direction some of these web based discussions have been heading which I believe reflects a wider trend.
It seems that regularly someone will take the discussion off at a tangent to an altogether different topic.
This technique is known as creating a straw man. It describes how an individual might seemingly answer a posed question by creating an associated scenario. She/he then begins to dismantle their own construct as if offering an answer to the original proposition.
My wife recently posted a YouTube clip of a church leader describing how we should force children to display appropriate gender behaviour.
He asserts than boys should dig ditches and girls should smell good. He says that a father should hit his son if he develops a limp wrist.
He does this with what his audience appreciate as humour so you could be forgiven for assuming he is not too serious. Unfortunately I suspect he believes what he says.
Now you might think that the subsequent discussion on the Facebook site might centre on discovering what truly represents male and female behaviour.
After all the whole thrust of his argument is that parents should rightly define whether their offspring is acting appropriately.
Unfortunately a straw man has been created and the discussion effectively diverted to become centred around whether it is acceptable for parents to use physical punishment towards their children.
This may well be a worthy subject for debate but it is not the central question being posed by either video content or by my wife in posting it.
Following this discussion was another about the recent rape of a young woman by a footballer.
The original discussion was raised about the abuse of women and the general treatment of women.
Once again a certain commenter decided to create a straw man about the foolishness of young women getting drunk. Again this may well be subject worthy of discussion but it is not the central theme of the argument.
The discussion was about the treatment and abuse of women. The creator of the straw man wants to almost ignore this and focus on women getting drunk.
So let us stop creating straw men and focus on the main topic at hand; perhaps then we can get back to a proper dialogue.
Complementarian Values and the Titanic
Titanic - further thoughts
I am amazed that people are still retweeting John Piper's recent comments linking the Titanic Disaster with the benefits of complementarianism.
Here is the tweet for those who missed it:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
In my original blog I tried show the nonsense of linking this tragedy with either the defence of your theological position or the critique of an opposing one.
Here I want to consider a few more of the generally accepted facts of the Titanic disaster and see whether it is fair to view it as decrying egalitarianism.
Whilst some numbers cannot be given as absolute (there may have been unregistered passenger etc) It is said that the following is a well accepted assessment of the survivors.
200 of the 319 First-Class passengers survived (63%)
117 out of 269 Second-Class passengers survived (43%)
172 out of 699 of the Third-Class passengers survived (25%)
It is hard to resist the thought that in an egalitarian environment the percentages would have been similar for each class.
In light of this it is hard to take seriously Pastor Piper's comment. I remain amazed that he would not consider the wider picture before trying to attack egalitarianism in such a fashion.
Egalitarianism is not just a moment to allow women to find equality with men but also a valuable force that has allowed for the possibility that class will not be the currency by which people, including Pastor Piper, will be judged.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I am amazed that people are still retweeting John Piper's recent comments linking the Titanic Disaster with the benefits of complementarianism.
Here is the tweet for those who missed it:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
In my original blog I tried show the nonsense of linking this tragedy with either the defence of your theological position or the critique of an opposing one.
Here I want to consider a few more of the generally accepted facts of the Titanic disaster and see whether it is fair to view it as decrying egalitarianism.
Whilst some numbers cannot be given as absolute (there may have been unregistered passenger etc) It is said that the following is a well accepted assessment of the survivors.
200 of the 319 First-Class passengers survived (63%)
117 out of 269 Second-Class passengers survived (43%)
172 out of 699 of the Third-Class passengers survived (25%)
It is hard to resist the thought that in an egalitarian environment the percentages would have been similar for each class.
In light of this it is hard to take seriously Pastor Piper's comment. I remain amazed that he would not consider the wider picture before trying to attack egalitarianism in such a fashion.
Egalitarianism is not just a moment to allow women to find equality with men but also a valuable force that has allowed for the possibility that class will not be the currency by which people, including Pastor Piper, will be judged.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
John Piper using a Titanic Iceberg to Sink Egalitarianism
In a recent, Tweet Pastor John Piper (@johnpiper), made the following comment:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
Women in Ministry: A Question of Womanhood
It is very difficult to consider a subject like this without projecting ones own prejudices upon the topic.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)