tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post350645912174449989..comments2024-03-19T08:14:09.776+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Don't blame the laity!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-24002730456847745422012-11-26T18:48:29.272+01:002012-11-26T18:48:29.272+01:00Fern, you are welcome. This is why I would have be...Fern, you are welcome. This is why I would have been very interested to hear from John what in this description he disagrees with *as an interpretation of Eph 5*. <br /><br />This is the kind of headship I can believe in--and which I think the general public would also recognise as genuinely godly, and possibly even attractive.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-87837528884563485032012-11-26T18:40:51.744+01:002012-11-26T18:40:51.744+01:00Ian Paul, thank you SO much for posting those word...Ian Paul, thank you SO much for posting those words of Dorothy Lee's. They articulate exactly what I have observed - those (usually men) who put such huge emphasis on women's submission and obedience actually invert scripture by requiring only the woman to live a life of self-sacrifice. Fern Winter, London<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-18074436735851198252012-11-26T18:15:24.552+01:002012-11-26T18:15:24.552+01:00Peter, I've been involved in just such an enga...Peter, I've been involved in just such an engagement for two years. The papers have all been published. The summary statement is here http://www.awesome.org.uk/?page_id=607Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38096451085499657732012-11-26T18:13:15.869+01:002012-11-26T18:13:15.869+01:00http://dorothylee7.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/husbandl...http://dorothylee7.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/husbandly-love.htmlIan Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-22120893849476210572012-11-26T18:11:00.567+01:002012-11-26T18:11:00.567+01:00But the complementary reflection, which is also co...But the complementary reflection, which is also common, is that we are a long way behind eg USA (and Australia?) in our focus on lay training/theology/catechesis...Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23772807631457308552012-11-26T18:09:07.144+01:002012-11-26T18:09:07.144+01:00Ian, thanks for this quote from Dorothy Lee - very...Ian, thanks for this quote from Dorothy Lee - very cool. Where is this from? PetePeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-70315053447816470052012-11-26T18:07:31.265+01:002012-11-26T18:07:31.265+01:00I think some sort of proper engagement between dif...I think some sort of proper engagement between different views on this topic among evangelicals could be helpful. Both "sides" seem to think their readings are basically obvious (and that the alternative readings are imposing all sorts of ideological constructs onto the text). I'm not sure if a blog is the best venue though, since blogs never have the kind of topic discipline that Ian plots, and Christian discussions need a face-to-face dimension. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57937977221089925622012-11-26T17:43:13.073+01:002012-11-26T17:43:13.073+01:00I said that. It is the history of the church. And ...I said that. It is the history of the church. And it would appear to be the sub-text to the horrified reverends responses to the GS voting. I'm sure that lay people who've been on Deanery Synods (like I have) would echo the idea (perhaps not in such an extreme form). Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28477105278050267602012-11-26T11:41:11.034+01:002012-11-26T11:41:11.034+01:00I am sorry to hear that, and perhaps most sorry th...I am sorry to hear that, and perhaps most sorry that you feel the need to dictate the terms of the debate. I am not good enough for you as a dialogue partner, so despite my willingness to engage seriously, we have reached an impasse. I think last week's vote was this phenomenon writ large.<br /><br />If you come to a change of mind, be assured that I will always be willing to continue the discussion. Seriously engaging with Scripture, and allowing ourselves to be shaped by it, must for me take priority over delicacies of my feelings. <br /><br />For me, this is what it means to be evangelical.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-50171569109163979302012-11-26T11:30:30.226+01:002012-11-26T11:30:30.226+01:00Ian, from your comments I'm not really picking...Ian, from your comments I'm not really picking up the attitude I'm looking for. It might be worth considering how the Goddard to Goddard debate was conducted and Andrew's attitude to Giles, which I think was good.<br /><br />So no, I think I'll step back from this.<br /><br />JohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-2880285793198342342012-11-26T11:02:22.933+01:002012-11-26T11:02:22.933+01:00How about these for ground rules:
1. Let's s...How about these for ground rules: <br /><br />1. Let's stick with the texts to hand, and not keep moving to a different text when it suits.<br /><br />2. Let's be ready for some robust engagement, and not decide to bail out when we don't like the other's 'tone'.<br /><br />3. Along with this, let's continue to engage, as the alternative is to become like Giles Fraser or Gerald Bray.<br /><br />4. Let's agree that we need to allow the texts to critique both our conclusions and our presuppositions, and be ready to admit when we hide behind either.<br /><br />How does that sound?<br /><br />As to content, can you explain why you see the language of 'suitable helper' as expressing hierarchy? I see none, and in fact believe that this phrase emphasises equality and partnership.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-29573564167844071332012-11-26T10:12:05.413+01:002012-11-26T10:12:05.413+01:00On the first para I'm with and I see the point...On the first para I'm with and I see the point in the second. I suppose my point is, that it's not clear, when all is said and done, whether we would have got the same result at GS, because we don't really have the information.<br /><br />In terms of getting on DS I have to say we found it fairly straightforward - two churches with four lay members on DS and both me and the incumbent on as clergy. It seems to me that mostly if there's a willingness to do it, people can. I think one problem in terms of the laity is deciding who they represent (electoral roll - how many are actually involved in the church, PCCs, confirmed, regular attenders and so on) and so who can have a say, on the whole I quite like a system that encourages fairly seriously committed people to be involved, which I think we now have, while I accept the limitations. That's one of the reasons I'm a little sceptical of the criticisms of the HoL, it seems to me that they are criticisms of people who, at least, care enough about the church to spend the time getting involved, if they are not representative of those who don't, I'm not sure that's so bad.<br /><br />That said, I do agree with the point that in some ways the approach to getting on DS and GS for laity is odd.Stephen Watkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07705271736290224271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-89778121110869146102012-11-26T10:09:15.117+01:002012-11-26T10:09:15.117+01:00Ian, I'm sorry but I just don't like your ...Ian, I'm sorry but I just don't like your tone. If there is going to be any sort of discussion with a scholarly basis it can't be like this.<br /><br />I'm therefore signing off on this one unless you want to agree some ground rules.<br /><br />JohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-50475689357646303142012-11-26T09:40:59.503+01:002012-11-26T09:40:59.503+01:00John, this post is so revealing, and in many ways ...John, this post is so revealing, and in many ways eclipses everything else.<br /><br />First, you say that Eph 5 is the heart of the matter. I then offer you Dorothy's reading of Eph 5 and ask whether this is a good reading of a man 'giving himself up' as Christ.<br /><br />Rather than engaging this, you then change the subject, and say it is all about Gen 2 after all. And you don't even seem to be aware that you are doing it!<br /><br />Why is this conversation 'fraught'? Because you keep moving from one thing to another. OK, then let's look at Gen 2.<br /><br />What is it in the phrase 'suitable helper' which has the slightest hint of gender hierarchy about it? Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-4652792707080995542012-11-26T08:41:03.937+01:002012-11-26T08:41:03.937+01:00Ian, on reflection I do have a further comment on ...Ian, on reflection I do have a further comment on Dorothy Lee's remarks, which is that they seem to buy into the notion that 'career' and 'work' would be better for a mother than mothering.<br /><br />Of course a man should 'help with the housework'. So should a woman. In my experience, though, a division of labour into 'pink' and 'blue' jobs is neither uncommon nor iniquitous.<br /><br />The biblical prescription seems to be that being a wife means consciously being 'an ezer ke'neged' a man. Your life is indeed 'subject' to his. Being a husband requires being a 'go'el' to a woman. You are obligated as her kinsman redeemer. It is NOT 'and vice versa' - the obligations are mutual but not 'equal'.<br /><br />But it is also not a 'rights based' relationship. In the end, it must be sacrificial on both sides to work.<br /><br />Finally, it occurs to me what amazing things Christians find to battle over. Even the gift of marriage. We are so far from unity in the truth, aren't we?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-75323243447440989322012-11-26T00:32:40.384+01:002012-11-26T00:32:40.384+01:00Regarding Genesis, look on the bright side. At lea...Regarding Genesis, look on the bright side. At least I didn't take the position of Jerome Gelman in Gender and Sexuality in the Garden of Eden, Theology and Sexuality, Volume 12(3): 319-36, 2006. The abstract reads as follows:<br /><br />"Various attempts have been made to argue that the plain meaning of the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 supports a feminist, or at least a woman-friendly, understanding of the gender and sexual relationships between Adam and Eve. I counter that these arguments are not convincing and are hard to square with the biblical text, by considering four central elements in the story: (1) The sexual nature oiha'adam, Adam/the earthling<br />at the start of our story; (2) God's 'curse' of Eve; (3) The meaning of the woman being a 'helper' to Adam; and (4) Adam's naming of the woman. I conclude that the most plausible meaning of these chapters is that Adam dominates Eve sexually and otherwise from the very moment of Eve's creation."<br /><br />'Nice'!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-13210345633098948482012-11-25T23:48:02.680+01:002012-11-25T23:48:02.680+01:00Ian, I'd really like to see a bit more engagem...Ian, I'd really like to see a bit more engagement with my article about the 'namings' of Eve, both to show that I have misread you and that I offer no evidence of an 'authoritative' naming. (Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by 'authoritative'.)<br /><br />As to the 'two way submission', that is the nub of the problem isn't it? You would have to say on this basis that the church submits to Christ "as" Christ submits to the Church, or as parent submit to their children, etc. If the 'submission' is implicit in v 22, and there must be <i>some</i> verb we put in there, it is nevertheless nowhere implicit in a sentence regarding men.<br /><br />5:21 sets up the following instances, but they are not instances where the outworking of the relation is reversible.<br /><br />Furthermore, I think 5:33, which summarizes the instructions mutually to each, goes against the notion that this is, as you suggest, "primarily a corrective to husbands who are lording it over their wives".<br /><br />You rightly observe elsewhere that in 1 Corinthians 7, for example, there is mutuality. I think we find that here also: "Nevertheless tlet each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects [lit: fears] her husband." Nevertheless, though these are mutual obligations they are not <i>identical</i> obligations.<br /><br />I'm not sure what response you want from me on the Dorothy Lee comment. It depends on the family, really, doesn't it?<br /><br />I'd still like to hear from you about the mention of 'obey' in 1 Peter, but I fear this is becoming rather fraught as a conversation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73939552265508211932012-11-25T23:03:43.988+01:002012-11-25T23:03:43.988+01:00Briefly: I think your comment on Gen 2 is mistaken...Briefly: I think your comment on Gen 2 is mistaken, and misreads me. My point about naming was that we do not find an 'authoritative' 'naming' of the woman in Gen 2, and you don't offer any evidence to contradict this. The phrase 'suitable helper' really emphasises the equality of the two, so there is no hierarchical relation here.<br /><br />Yes, wives submit to men, as men submit to wives--the sentence makes it clear that all submit to all others, not (as I think Wayne Grudem suggests) some submit to some. It is clear that the men need more help in understanding this; as Ben Witherington argues, this cannot be used to reinforce the prevailing sense of men having authority over their wives. If Paul meant men to exercise authority in marriage, why does he not say so? <br /><br />I am really interested that you don't response to Dorothy Lee's interpretation of this. I think it makes the point very well.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65236072157113927812012-11-25T22:41:08.080+01:002012-11-25T22:41:08.080+01:00Ian, I'm not sure you're accepting my vers...Ian, I'm not sure you're accepting my version of what I think I said and why. You say my comment was "four-square in the centre of [a] narrative", but not what the comment itself was. Perhaps we should just let that one drop.<br /><br />Many people, ourselves included, have studied the relevant texts in detail. I cannot speak for others, but I presume you have read my article here: <a href="http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-woman-eve-so-good-adam-named-her.html" rel="nofollow">The woman Eve, so good Adam named her twice</a>, which engages with some of your own thinking.<br /><br />I take Ephesians 5 as the heart of the debate, because it is where the Pauline doctrine of marriage meets the Pauline doctrine of salvation related, I believe, to his understanding of union with Christ.<br /><br />There has, of course, been much debate about the meaning of the word 'head', but an often overlooked element in this is the meaning - and theological significance - of the word 'body', running from 1:21 onwards. It is the 'body' that the wife represents in marriage, according to Ephesians 5.<br /><br />The lack of a break at 5:22 is not secret - certainly I make no secret of it. But nor do I think it matters to the 'authority' debate, one way or the other. You say, "there is no verb 'submit' applied to wives", yet a moment later in 5:24 we have, as I quoted earlier, "ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῳ̂ Χριστῳ̂, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναι̂κες τοι̂ς ἀνδράσιν" -- "as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to the husbands" (NB, the 'tois idiois' of 5:22 is not repeated here -- thus although the former can be rendered "to their own husbands", "your husbands" is perfectly serviceable. It would be odd to suggest an implication that without 'idiois' they should act in whatever way is being urged towards a husband who is someone else's.)<br /><br />In other words, the details you are observing do not <i>require</i>, though they may fit with, an 'egalitarian' reading of the text.<br /><br />Whilst we're on the subject, though, I wonder what you make of v 33 "ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβη̂ται τὸν ἄνδρα".<br /><br />I would also just add that there is the 'obey' comment in 1 Peter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-1957922046704928242012-11-25T22:11:17.825+01:002012-11-25T22:11:17.825+01:00In CEEC, despite the fact there are different view...In CEEC, despite the fact there are different views on the issue of gender relations, despite the fact that CEEC does not represent the range of evangelical positions, despite the fact that the membership has been rigged, yet time after time people set out the idea that their reading of these texts are the only ones which are truly biblical, and I'm sorry to say that your comment was four-square in the centre of this narrative.<br /><br />In contrast, I spent a good deal of time in a series of discussions about all these texts, in OT and NT, and the conversation was fascinating. When we looked at Gen 2, I said to a participant (whom we both know), after exploring the Hebrew text in some detail 'I cannot see any suggestion whatever of hierarchy in gender relations. Can you point out the words or phrase that indicate this?' His reply was 'I don't know--I just see it.' This is not a convincing hermeneutic.<br /><br />If Eph 5 really is 'the heart of the debate' then you are going to have to justify not just the idea of headship--I believe in headship--but the grounds on which you believe this has something to do with authority, against a significant pile of evidence to the contrary. Whenever I speak on this in churches, and point out that there is no para break at v 22, that in fact this is one sentence, that there is no verb 'submit' applied to wives, that the husbands are 'idioi' your own, that this is emphatic despite being omitted by most ETS, that there are many more words to husbands than to wives, that it appears as though the passage is primarily a corrective to husbands who are lording it over their wives rather than being Christ-like...and they uniformly say 'Why has no-one ever told us these things before?' <br /><br />The answer is that people like Angus MacLeay suggest that the meaning is uncontested, and means what he says--and that is both irresponsible and misleading.<br /><br />Here's an insight worth pondering, from Dorothy Lee:<br /><br />But in what way will the husband metaphorically give his life for his wife? Will he support her career? Will he look after the children so that her work will thrive? Will he share the housework with her, if not do the bulk of it when required? Will he be prepared to give up his career for hers? Will he ensure she has regular time for herself and her own development, spiritual, intellectual, emotional?<br /><br />Or will he expect her to surrender her life to his, her career for his? Will he expect her to serve him, day after day, supporting his career or vocation, placing her gifts at the disposable of his, feeding him, taking care of him, supporting him emotionally, taking the lion's share of the work for the children and the domestic chores?<br /><br />In this model - by far the most likely scenario in such marriages - it's the wife who is taking the burden of self-sacrifice, not the husband; she is the one giving her life for his, not the other way round.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-13528691224220089742012-11-25T19:13:24.843+01:002012-11-25T19:13:24.843+01:00Stephen, I do take your reasoning. I do also agree...Stephen, I do take your reasoning. I do also agree that some of the reaction is because it is the "wrong" result. I would also keep the 2/3 to pass major changes such as this to the way the church has done things. I think that would help ensure that it must seem "right to us and the Holy Spirit" feel to it.<br /><br />However, in terms of the Laity I really do think that there is a major gulf in terms of representation. Clergy are able to directly elect people to GS. Laity can't. In my church only two people were on Deanery Synod and none even on Diocesan synod. A directly elected HoL by the laity directly. As you say that doesn't mean that you will have an exact representation but at the least it would mean that they would be able to have a direct say on who votes on their behalf. As I say I think that it is now untenable for the general laity (those on the Electoral Roll and largely paying for the CofE) not to have a more direct voice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-52994094414838234042012-11-25T16:53:04.210+01:002012-11-25T16:53:04.210+01:00Worth saying Will that more accurately, the HoC in...Worth saying Will that more accurately, the HoC in GS voted in a similar way to HoC in DSs, but that does not mean that it is representative of the clergy, if what we mean is that if all clergy were given the vote then you would get the same result. This assumes that the likelihood of being on DS and GS for clergy is equi-probable for those from different perspectives. I suspect that's unlikely (for rather similar reasons as you give for HoL).<br /><br />All this to say that I think people are getting very hung up on how representative our democracy is, when we don't have the stats to prove it either way (and more to the point we haven't even decided what those stats should be - who are the HoL representing exactly for example?). That this concern for how representative thing are and the certainty that the HoL was not, seem more to do with dismay at the result than any carefully researched reality.Stephen Watkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07705271736290224271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-30902449290322892982012-11-25T09:49:55.605+01:002012-11-25T09:49:55.605+01:00Interesting comments. What we seem to come across ...Interesting comments. What we seem to come across here is that the HoC accurately represents the clergy (24% voted against across the country and approx the same in GS) and obviously the HoB is accurately represented. <br /><br />The crux seems to be the HoL. No doubt in 2008-2010 there was a move by those worried to get lay people into the HoL and equally obviously the opposite will happen next time round. <br /><br />The key here though is that of representation for the laity. To be on the electorate you have to be on a Deanery Synod - which for most lay people is a bizarre strange place. Secondly, unlike Bishops and clergy, if you want to be on GS you need to be able to take time off work. So, there is a tendency to people with time on their hands (presumably lots of them retired). <br /><br />The way forward is surely to allow all lay people (members on the Electoral Roll) to have the vote for the HoL and for GS to meet over weekends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17563557732858893842012-11-25T09:26:35.629+01:002012-11-25T09:26:35.629+01:00Ian, thank you for that clarification, though I fe...Ian, thank you for that clarification, though I feel I must now offer a clarification of my own.<br /><br />As I recall - and forgive me if I am wrong - this was in the context of my having presented a paper which was a submission on 'civil same-sex marriage' originally drawn up for Anglican Mainstream. This was on the 14th June and CEEC members had submitted comments in advance.<br /><br />My recollection is that in responding to these comments I advocated that we teach in an 'unashamed' manner the biblical understanding of marriage (which is of a symbiosis of husband and wife reflecting the life of Christ and the Church - I'm not sure how I would have expressed that at the time).<br /><br />I also said, as I recall, that a proper understanding and practice of marriage would address a number of social ills.<br /><br />I would NOT, however, have said that this was "the only solution for the social problems in the UK", simply because I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.<br /><br />What I do recall is that after I had sat down, in the ensuing discussion, you said something on the issue of 'obedience' with which I took issue, and I apologize if I interrupted you. It is probably because this was an interruption that my intention was unclear.<br /><br />It seems to me that in your Grove Booklet you are keen to assert that Ephesians has no word to say on 'obedience', which indeed it does not. But you seem to overlook entirely the fact that 1 Peter (3:4-5) does. Now the manner of interpreting that may be open to question, but I found it frustrating that you hadn't addressed this and that may have spilled over into the context of CEEC. Once again, my apologies.<br /><br />As to what you hear frequently, you may be surprised that I agree there is work to do. Nevertheless, it is in my view unambiguous that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church" and that "ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῳ̂ Χριστῳ̂, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναι̂κες τοι̂ς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί" (Eph 5:24) is the analogous, corresponding, principle for wives.<br /><br />How this works out is an area of debate. 1 Peter suggests to me it includes the 'o' word, but we can [and should!] discuss that.<br /><br />We cannot, however, simply avoid it or simply say "It works both ways." (I'm not saying you say that, btw, only that I equally frequently hear that and get frustrated by the attitude.)<br /><br />Finally, for what it is worth, I think this is actually at the heart of the debate on women's ordination and consecration. I recently described the Church to someone as 'a household of households'. That, it seems to me, is the biblical pattern. Therefore household life is fundamental to congregational life. But that is where I must leave things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-41816742653926410732012-11-25T00:56:17.414+01:002012-11-25T00:56:17.414+01:00Paul, I am not aware of anyone here using the lang...Paul, I am not aware of anyone here using the language of 'false teachers'; it is not a category that I think is helpful in this context.<br /><br />Dan, no 'Fulcrum' has not said that, though 'Fulcrum' is not a homogenous unit with a fixed set of views.Ian Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08440727613424469331noreply@blogger.com