 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
 openess to change |
Posted Nov 23, 2007; 12:21 pm |
|
Todd wrote: | Quote: | | The social trends in the church seem to point towards reduced discrimination, and this is in part where I think the "redemptive" hermeneutic is pointing as well. Having said that, I would say of course we should discriminate on some things. I think we discriminate on too much. We discriminate against infant baptized people from becoming members. Our church used to discriminate against people like my wife who were sprinkled baptized. Eventually, I hope to see these barriers broken down. The mode of baptism in my opinion, is an issue we should be very little concerned about. Perhaps we should also allow married gays to become members if they are married in good conscience (except for the minor detail that it would break our conference in two). |
The matter you seem to be identifying is one of discrimination. That is what I was also raising.
 How do we make decisions to be open to change in some matters, and not others?
You mentioned some matters that have been open for change:
 women in leadership in the church
mode of baptism
You also mentioned some matters that could still potentially change:
acceptance of infant baptism upon confession of faith, without the need for rebaptism
acceptance of married gay and lesbian Christian couples
I would argue that each of these changes carries with it a unique set of challenges that have to be overcome in order to accept change. I would not want to put all four of these on the same plane for discrimination.
That was my point about "progression" and "progressive" thinking. Just because change happens historically (in progression), does not necessarily mean that all change is "good" or "better" than what came before ("progressive" rather than "degressive").
I would not want to equate theological ideas about baptism with theological ideas about sexuality.
Logically, I can not equate (make the same) the "mode" of baptism with the "time" of baptism. These are different discussions. One implies "form" (how much water, immersion or pouring of the water) and the other implies "function" (voluntary confession of faith as necessary for baptism, or baptism prior to confession of faith. with baptism perhaps providing the possibility of future faith).
Logically, I cannot equate (make the same) the matter of a women leading a congregation with the matter of two women or two men be affirmed as a married couple. These seem to be two very different kinds of issues and need to be carefully addressed as unique situtations.
Because the issue of the place or role of a woman, along with the respect shown to a woman is crucial in the matter of women in leadership in the church, I could potentially see more links to other situations where respect for women is crucial. This may clear up the confusion noted.
Todd wrote:
| Quote: | You asked what commonalities there were between WIML and homosexuality, and I suggested progressive thinking. Prostitution doesn't seem all that relevant to my argument. I think by now, I should understand your style of getting outside the trees and looking at the forest, which is a bit different than my style of argumentation.
|
|
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: openess to change |
Posted Nov 23, 2007; 2:38 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: |
The matter you seem to be identifying is one of discrimination. That is what I was also raising.
How do we make decisions to be open to change in some matters, and not others? |
I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.
| Quote: |
I would argue that each of these changes carries with it a unique set of challenges that have to be overcome in order to accept change. I would not want to put all four of these on the same plane for discrimination. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | That was my point about "progression" and "progressive" thinking. Just because change happens historically (in progression), does not necessarily mean that all change is "good" or "better" than what came before ("progressive" rather than "degressive"). |
I'm not seeing the connection between "progressive" thinking, progressive/degressive, or progression. They seem to be very different words with only marginal overlap. The main similarity is the number of common characters in those words. An equivocation shifts from one definition of a word to another with the same spelling, as if they were the same word.
| Quote: | I would not want to equate theological ideas about baptism with theological ideas about sexuality.
Logically, I can not equate (make the same) the "mode" of baptism with the "time" of baptism. These are different discussions. One implies "form" (how much water, immersion or pouring of the water) and the other implies "function" (voluntary confession of faith as necessary for baptism, or baptism prior to confession of faith. with baptism perhaps providing the possibility of future faith). |
No intention here to make these issues the same. You may or may not have noticed that I haven't really made many conclusions in my posts. I've offered points of consideration. The thesis in my prior post had more to do with breaking down barriers of discrimination, that I sense we discriminate too much. There was nothing there to suggest any two issues were the same, though there are similar themes at play.
| Quote: | | Because the issue of the place or role of a woman, along with the respect shown to a woman is crucial in the matter of women in leadership in the church, I could potentially see more links to other situations where respect for women is crucial. This may clear up the confusion noted. |
You seem accepting of making links with other issues pertaining to women. On the other hand you seem resistant to seeing connections with other issues. When you say that two issues aren't the same, you are saying what I think is obvious. There can be connectedness between two issues without them being the same.
We know that a correlation here exists. You seem resistant to the idea that there exists reasons why some people (maybe not all) may accept WIML, that are also applied to the issue of homosexual unions. Acknowledging the connectedness is not a concession that they must both be acceptable, nor is it a concession that the causal reasons behind the correlation are theologically justifiable. From my perspective, I'm merely stating the obvious that there are common reasons applied to both issue. I don't see any reason to be hesitant in accepting these commonalities. I would propose accepting the causes behind the correlations, and being clear what the implications are (and are not) |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| the common and the obvious |
Posted Nov 23, 2007; 6:13 pm |
|
Todd wrote: | Quote: | You seem accepting of making links with other issues pertaining to women. On the other hand you seem resistant to seeing connections with other issues. When you say that two issues aren't the same, you are saying what I think is obvious. There can be connectedness between two issues without them being the same.
|
You are right to note that I accepted some links ... the specific link I was drawing was on the issue of "roles" and "respect for women". For example, what roles should, or can a woman legitimately play in contemporary society, and correspondingly, how much respect should a woman be shown when she is acting 'outside' of socially acceptable norms?
You note that I seem resistant to seeing other connections. I am not resistant but rather need more evidence to see a specific connectedness. I believe this has yet to be demonstrated, even with the common link of non-discrimination. I am merely suggesting that we don't necessarily become non-discriminate for "all" instances just because we become non-discriminate in "some" cases.
Todd wrote: | Quote: | | From my perspective, I'm merely stating the obvious that there are common reasons applied to both issue. I don't see any reason to be hesitant in accepting these commonalities. I would propose accepting the causes behind the correlations, and being clear what the implications are (and are not) |
I realize that from your perspective the links are obvious. For me, they are less obvious. You seem to imply that there are some common causes for accepting women in leadership and accepting homosexual marriage. Since for me this so much less obvious, in that I see them as quite unrelated in our current cultural climate, I do appreciate having the commonalities spelled out.
As I have noted in previous posts (much earlier), there was a common link at the time Paul was writing his scriptural letters between how men involved in homosexual behavior and women were culturally perceived. The common link was that the man who took the "place" of a woman in the sex act was taking a lower social role - i.e. the role of a woman. This was considered to be unacceptable for a man. He was to act as a "man", and not a "woman".
Today, I believe we have a higher regard for women. We do not see women as less than men, therefore the link between a homosexual male (who is playing the role of a woman) and a female is no longer a valid one.
Generally, many believe that men and women are to be given equal respect, both within the church and in general society.
Now the matter of whether heterosexual and homosexual marriage are to be given equal respect is another matter and can be discussed on its own merits.
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Dec 1, 2007; 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| progression and progressive |
Posted Nov 23, 2007; 6:27 pm |
|
Todd wrote: | Quote: | I'm not seeing the connection between "progressive" thinking, progressive/degressive, or progression. They seem to be very different words with only marginal overlap. The main similarity is the number of common characters in those words. An equivocation shifts from one definition of a word to another with the same spelling, as if they were the same word.
|
 I was trying to be clear about the difference between the word progression and the word progressive when I wrote:
| Quote: | That was my point about "progression" and "progressive" thinking. Just because change happens historically (in progression), does not necessarily mean that all change is "good" or "better" than what came before ("progressive" rather than "degressive").
|
When things occur "at the same time" - in other words at a certain point in the progression of history .... They do not have to be co-incidental in a cause and effect kind of way. They can simply be occuring at the same time.
The term progressive often implies "a movement toward something better" - but it can also mean a progressive movement (move forward in time) that is a move down. For example, often people will assume that a move in a certain direction will progress down a slippery slope.
That is my reason for making the distinction. It could be that WIML and homosexual marriage are simply happening at the same time in history - as a 'progression' within time and not necessarily linked to each other in a cause and effect kind of way.
It could also be that both are moving in the same progressive direction toward something better, or that the one move (WIML) will begin the progression down a slippery slope. I believe that this set of considerations need more evidence to demonstrate either the simultaneous move to something better, or the toward the slippery slope.
This 'slippery slope' is after all the topic of discussion here ... and that is why I am so heartily asking for more demonstration of good reasons ...  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2007; 1:27 pm |
|
GL,
I think there may exist some misunderstanding, unless our positions are more far off than I think.
Here is one premise I think we agree with, let me know if I'm mistaken:
P1)Those who favor WIML are more likely to support blessing homosexual unions than those who are opposed to WIML.
My claim is that P1 is in part causally linked, and not just a random coincidence. My claim is not a normative claim but a positive claim. I'm not saying that because there exists a correlation, one ought to take a position where a postive correlation exists rather than a negative correlation.
Now, I also claimed that the causal links are rather obvious, and I only say that because I think you actually agree with me, and are only disagreeing due to a misunderstanding. (If I didn't think you agreed with me, I wouldn't have said what I said).
Now you do ask for more details as to what these links are, and that is something I hope to do here.
I mentioned that there is a consistent theme of discrimination. We both agree that we need to discriminate in some things and not in others. (Again, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position). Implied in my discussion of discrimination are two things:
F1)Those who tend not to discriminate in one thing, are more likely to not discriminate in another thing. In other words, it's not just a random coincidence that some people tend to discriminate a lot, and some people hardly discriminate at all. There is an underlying ideology that is a causal force in these kinds of matters. One person's ideology will tend to discriminate more than others. (This is what I would consider an "obvious" premise that I think we both accept).
F2)There exists a social trend to discriminate less, and this trend exists in society at large, in the church at large, and in the MB Conference. This is also a relevant force in the topics of both WIML and homosexuality. I think this trend is rather obvious, and I think you would agree.
My conclusion is:
C1)There exists a positive causal correlation between the acceptance of homosexuality and WIML. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2007; 1:51 pm |
|
A few more comments on my prior post.
What I said before is consistent with the premise that the Bible supports WIML and rejects homosexual unions.
I'm wondering if you would agree to an additional premise here (unrelated to my other premises above). I'm going from what I think is an obvious causal correlation, to something a little more controversial.
P2)Historical changes in theological doctrines have more to do with cultural/ideological (non-Biblically based) changes then sound unbiased re-examination of our interpretation of Scripture.
P2 could be applied to various doctrines such as (this is unpolished, off the top of my head)
i)The change from a more pacifist church pre-Constantine to one that was more millitary centered, and several centuries later, to one that is more separate from government.
ii)Views of women turning from one of respect, to one where they are not considered "people" to one where women are of equal status to men. (There are no doubt other historical trends here, I'm just speaking off the top of a layman's head.
iii)Views of homosexuality changing from one where they are complete outcasts, and in danger of being murdered for their practice. To one where they are outcasts in family circles, but tolerated at work. To one where they are not considered to be in ideal relationships, but tolerated. To one where they can appear publicly in gay pride parades without much risk of persecution. To one where they are considered equal members of society (not quite here yet, but the trend is moving in that direction).
Actually, I almost think P2 is obvious, having thought about it a little now.
Does this apply to the slippery slope discussion? Maybe.
When someone supports a change in position that is in line with a cultural trend, it is reasonable to consider whether that person's position is based more on the cultural trend, or on sound Biblical hermeneutics.
(On the flip side, someone who is ideologically counter-cultural. If they resist a cultural change, it may be more likely due to the ideology rather than sound Biblical hermeneutics).
Having said all this, I don't think I've drawn any normative conclusions. But perhaps it illustrates my theological doubts in the matter.
Last edited by Todd on Nov 27, 2007; 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2007; 1:52 pm |
|
| By the way, I'm not likely to respond to any replies in the next week or two, due to a business trip/vacation/move. |
|
|
|
| Radames Member Joined Feb 17, 2006 322 posts Location: Surrey |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2007; 2:05 pm |
|
| Quote: | When someone supports a change in position that is in line with a cultural trend, it is reasonable to consider whether that person's position is based more on the cultural trend, or on sound Biblical hermeneutics.
|
Hi Todd,
I have not studied in a seminary, so perhaps the terminology being used has certain connotations there which I am not aware of. The use of the word "discrimate" seems overly negative to me in biblical discussions. I think there is a difference between discriminating and discerning. You do not need the Bible to discriminate, but you do need it to discern.
We are not called to discriminate:
3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? James 2:3-4
We are called to discern:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
Radames |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2007; 2:52 pm |
|
| Radames wrote: | | Quote: | When someone supports a change in position that is in line with a cultural trend, it is reasonable to consider whether that person's position is based more on the cultural trend, or on sound Biblical hermeneutics.
|
Hi Todd,
I have not studied in a seminary, so perhaps the terminology being used has certain connotations there which I am not aware of. The use of the word "discrimate" seems overly negative to me in biblical discussions. I think there is a difference between discriminating and discerning. You do not need the Bible to discriminate, but you do need it to discern.
We are not called to discriminate:
3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? James 2:3-4
We are called to discern:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
Radames |
No negative connotations intended with my use of "discriminate". We are not to discriminate based on social status is what James is getting at. To discriminate is to categorize and to separate. Discernment is used in part to determine who we discriminate for or against. We discern that WIML is Biblically justified (or not). We discriminate against women if we don't allow them into positions of leadership. So, I don't think "discern" is the right word I'm looking for, though I can understand that "discriminate" may be confusing as the connotations (or lack thereof) are context based. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 28, 2007; 9:49 am |
|
| Quote: | | When someone supports a change in position that is in line with a cultural trend, it is reasonable to consider whether that person's position is based more on the cultural trend, or on sound Biblical hermeneutics. |
So, is same sex relationships a cultural trend or a manifestation of the human degeneracy as described in Romans 1:24-32 ? I believe it is very likely that God, once again, is giving people over to their shameful lusts as they stray from the knowledge of God and worship other gods such as mammon.
Regarding WIML, Jesus explained how one should live within the culture that supported slavery and I believe likewise Paul was giving guidance on how men should be the leaders in that culture at that time as it would likely not be acceptable for women to be in leading roles in that culture. Spreading the gospel was more important than being sidetracked with who was leading.
To me, there is a big difference in these issues. I don't see this as a slippery slope. We certainly need discernment using any hermenutic. Discernment is a supernatural, spiritual gift and goes beyond the ability of rational human thinking. Psalm 119:125 - 'I am your servant; give me discernment that I may understand your statutes.' |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| still thinking about it |
Posted Nov 30, 2007; 5:41 pm |
|
Todd wrote:
| Quote: | I'm wondering if you would agree to an additional premise here (unrelated to my other premises above). I'm going from what I think is an obvious causal correlation, to something a little more controversial.
P2)Historical changes in theological doctrines have more to do with cultural/ideological (non-Biblically based) changes then sound unbiased re-examination of our interpretation of Scripture.
P2 could be applied to various doctrines such as (this is unpolished, off the top of my head)
i)The change from a more pacifist church pre-Constantine to one that was more millitary centered, and several centuries later, to one that is more separate from government.
ii)Views of women turning from one of respect, to one where they are not considered "people" to one where women are of equal status to men. (There are no doubt other historical trends here, I'm just speaking off the top of a layman's head.
iii)Views of homosexuality changing from one where they are complete outcasts, and in danger of being murdered for their practice. To one where they are outcasts in family circles, but tolerated at work. To one where they are not considered to be in ideal relationships, but tolerated. To one where they can appear publicly in gay pride parades without much risk of persecution. To one where they are considered equal members of society (not quite here yet, but the trend is moving in that direction).
|
The direct premise Todd put forward:
Theology is generally culturally and historically conditioned rather than based on "sound, unbiased reexamination of biblical texts".
While I am still thinking about it, it seems to be that there may be no place from which we can get an "unbiased reexamination" of the biblical texts.
I do think that cultural and historical premises continually shape our understanding of scripture.
It would seem that even scripture includes within it concepts and language that are culturally and historically conditioned.
Premise Two:
We would probably find a lot of change that has taken place through the centuries in terms of both biblical interpretation and application.
Much of that change would indeed be cultural and historically influenced.
The challenge is looking for the "cause and effect" in these changes.
To think about the three examples Todd provided:
1. Appreciation for the equality of all humanity should, it would seem, lead to less violence (i.e. pacifism) rather than more. If we value the life of the other as much as we value our own, then more than likely, we will try to preserve the life of each and every "other" .... "love the other as we love ourself." It seems, however, that historically, as humans, we have chosen to "protect" some lives by "taking the life" of others who we value less.
2. Women make up about half of the world's population at any point in time. The "concept" of "a woman" is cross-cultural and spans historical time from the creation of Eve. The content that "fills this concept" varies from culture to culture, and within historical time.
Sadly, for many timeframes and cultures, it has not been the case that women have been conceptualized to have as much value as men have.
3. "Queer theory", as the study of homosexuality is referred to in academia, is a new theoretical consideration for this time in history. It is unique in that while violence and the concept of "the woman" has been discussed quite systematically since Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve, the concept of homosexuality, per se has not.
That is my point of differentiation:
Since creation, women have made up 50% of the world's population. Women have been a topic of conversation for thousands of years. Women have been conceptualized in various ways throughout cultures and history. Talking about women is talking about 1/2 of humanity ..... not a minority group. It is rather that women have been treated a certain way based on the fact that they are " a woman".
While homosexual practice is not new, the concept of "homosexuality" is relatively so. Homosexual practice was not historically linked to the "concept" of "the homosexual" possessing a unique sexual identity. Historical discussions were limited to a discussion of the sexual acts that "a man" or "a woman" engaged in .... It was not about a differentiated, minority human identity with a unique sexual orientation.
I guess I really come back to the one point I am trying to be clearer about:
Women are half of the world's population = not a minority group. WIML is a specific case of what is considered "normative" for a woman/female, and what is considered "normative" for a man/male. This is a particular discussion that has varying responses throughout time, not just in the last century. The idea under discussion is "What can a woman do?" and "What can a man do?"
 Homosexuality generally falls into discussions of a "minority" group. I believe there are unique aspects of discrimination that cannot be correlated to discrimination of women who are not a minority. I think it is better to discuss our treatment of homosexuality as a matter of BOTH male and female "normativity". The homosexual/lesbian has a sexuality that falls into a "minority status" when compared to BOTH male and female heterosexuality.
To link it with the "woman's issue" makes it a odd and awkward dichotomy:
heterosexaul MEN on one side with heterosexual WOMEN & Homosexual/lesbians on the other.
Some links within feminist studies have also worked with this kind of dichotomy - with the heterosexual male seen to be the defining cultural "norm" that is in opposition to both women ( not necessarily distinquishing between the heterosexual and lesbian woman) and homosexual men.
In this scenerio, the heterosexual male gets to set the normative standard for all on the other side of the dichotomoy.
I think it is better to think of this as: Human= male and female (50/50)
Sexuality = heterosexual and homosexual (approximately 90/10)
I do not favor the feminist interpretation with the emphasis on a heterosexual male dominant role because I believe that God created BOTH male and female with value and as equal, mutual co-creators and sustainers of biological life. Neither male or female should be pitted against each other because in Christ, there is no longer this distinction, as scripture indicates.
I think it remains an active topic of discussion whether "in Christ" there is no longer a distinction drawn between "heterosexual" and "homosexual". There is no clear indication that these boundaries were being broken down in scripture. This is a unique matter of interpretation and needs to be treated as such. This particular problem may be more of an issue of how we treat "the other". The issue definitely requires more thought than simply linking it "non-discriminately" to the issue of WIML. Otherwise we have once again placed the heterosexual woman in the role of "the other", with the hetersexual male as the norm. Why would we want to do that?
The text in Galations lists three categories of distinction that are broken down in Christ: 1) between Jew and Gentile; 2) between slave and free persons; and 3) between male and female. Scripture is clear on this matter, from this perspective and therefore WIML can be scripturally supported.  This text specifically addresses racism/nationalism, slavery, and sexism, not sexuality (sexual identity as such). |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| edit and revisions |
Posted Dec 1, 2007; 3:08 pm |
|
| I made some editorial revisions to my last post and added some ideas. See above if you read it earlier and may not have noticed the "reworking" ... |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Dec 3, 2007; 2:15 pm |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | Quote: | | When someone supports a change in position that is in line with a cultural trend, it is reasonable to consider whether that person's position is based more on the cultural trend, or on sound Biblical hermeneutics. |
So, is same sex relationships a cultural trend or a manifestation of the human degeneracy as described in Romans 1:24-32 ? I believe it is very likely that God, once again, is giving people over to their shameful lusts as they stray from the knowledge of God and worship other gods such as mammon. |
I find the Romans passage difficult to understand (or I have difficulty accepting my layman's interpretation). The implication here, I think, is that people who have a homosexual orientation have one because of God judging them for ungodly attributes. I've had a few friends who were gay, at least one of them was celibate and Christian. To accept your interpretation would mean that I would have to accept that God is judging my Christian friend. And though he is sinful like everyone else, his sins aren't ones that stand out in my mind as I think he is a man deserving of a lot of respect. The temptation hits the righteous and unrighteous alike, it seems to me. It's not easy to minister to gays and lesbians while telling them that God is judging them for their sins. Perhaps there are parallels here with the man who was born blind and the Pharisees telling the man he was blind because of sin (perhaps his parents).
| Quote: | | Regarding WIML, Jesus explained how one should live within the culture that supported slavery and I believe likewise Paul was giving guidance on how men should be the leaders in that culture at that time as it would likely not be acceptable for women to be in leading roles in that culture. Spreading the gospel was more important than being sidetracked with who was leading. |
That is an opinion worthy of consideration. A redemptive hermeneutic would seem to give that opinion some credibility, but the same hermeneutic could be applied (perhaps more difficultly) to homosexuality.
| Quote: | | To me, there is a big difference in these issues. I don't see this as a slippery slope. We certainly need discernment using any hermenutic. Discernment is a supernatural, spiritual gift and goes beyond the ability of rational human thinking. Psalm 119:125 - 'I am your servant; give me discernment that I may understand your statutes.' |
I think a slippery slope exists here, but that's not to say that the ideal balance lies somewhere on the slope. I think I've been saying that the slippery slope exists because of common reasons why people support gay unions and WIML. I'm not at this time saying that those reasons are valid, just that they exist. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: still thinking about it |
Posted Dec 3, 2007; 2:40 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | Todd wrote:
| Quote: | I'm wondering if you would agree to an additional premise here (unrelated to my other premises above). I'm going from what I think is an obvious causal correlation, to something a little more controversial.
P2)Historical changes in theological doctrines have more to do with cultural/ideological (non-Biblically based) changes then sound unbiased re-examination of our interpretation of Scripture.
P2 could be applied to various doctrines such as (this is unpolished, off the top of my head)
i)The change from a more pacifist church pre-Constantine to one that was more millitary centered, and several centuries later, to one that is more separate from government.
ii)Views of women turning from one of respect, to one where they are not considered "people" to one where women are of equal status to men. (There are no doubt other historical trends here, I'm just speaking off the top of a layman's head.
iii)Views of homosexuality changing from one where they are complete outcasts, and in danger of being murdered for their practice. To one where they are outcasts in family circles, but tolerated at work. To one where they are not considered to be in ideal relationships, but tolerated. To one where they can appear publicly in gay pride parades without much risk of persecution. To one where they are considered equal members of society (not quite here yet, but the trend is moving in that direction).
|
The direct premise Todd put forward:
Theology is generally culturally and historically conditioned rather than based on "sound, unbiased reexamination of biblical texts". |
To be more precise, I would say that a retrospective analysis of history would support a theory that places more causal weight on cultural trends than a sound reexamination of the texts. There are times when cultural trends and sound doctrine are coinciding. I think there is more correlation with cultural trends and doctrine than sound theology and doctrine.
| Quote: | While I am still thinking about it, it seems to be that there may be no place from which we can get an "unbiased reexamination" of the biblical texts.
I do think that cultural and historical premises continually shape our understanding of scripture.
It would seem that even scripture includes within it concepts and language that are culturally and historically conditioned. |
Those points are valid, imo, especially within a redemptive hermeneutic model. But, maybe the model is culturally conditioned???
| Quote: |
Premise Two:
We would probably find a lot of change that has taken place through the centuries in terms of both biblical interpretation and application.
Much of that change would indeed be cultural and historically influenced.
The challenge is looking for the "cause and effect" in these changes.
To think about the three examples Todd provided:
1. Appreciation for the equality of all humanity should, it would seem, lead to less violence (i.e. pacifism) rather than more. If we value the life of the other as much as we value our own, then more than likely, we will try to preserve the life of each and every "other" .... "love the other as we love ourself." It seems, however, that historically, as humans, we have chosen to "protect" some lives by "taking the life" of others who we value less.
2. Women make up about half of the world's population at any point in time. The "concept" of "a woman" is cross-cultural and spans historical time from the creation of Eve. The content that "fills this concept" varies from culture to culture, and within historical time.
Sadly, for many timeframes and cultures, it has not been the case that women have been conceptualized to have as much value as men have.
3. "Queer theory", as the study of homosexuality is referred to in academia, is a new theoretical consideration for this time in history. It is unique in that while violence and the concept of "the woman" has been discussed quite systematically since Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve, the concept of homosexuality, per se has not.
That is my point of differentiation:
Since creation, women have made up 50% of the world's population. Women have been a topic of conversation for thousands of years. Women have been conceptualized in various ways throughout cultures and history. Talking about women is talking about 1/2 of humanity ..... not a minority group. It is rather that women have been treated a certain way based on the fact that they are " a woman".
While homosexual practice is not new, the concept of "homosexuality" is relatively so. Homosexual practice was not historically linked to the "concept" of "the homosexual" possessing a unique sexual identity. Historical discussions were limited to a discussion of the sexual acts that "a man" or "a woman" engaged in .... It was not about a differentiated, minority human identity with a unique sexual orientation.
|
In context of my model of understanding changing Biblical theology based on cultural trends, it would make sense to see changes in our theology regarding women before homosexual practice. A very small percentage of our church membership have a homosexual orientation, and a much smaller percentage would be practicing homosexuals. For this reason, the issue may not be as pressing or important to the church membership. Women, on the other hand form the majority of church membership, and in an MB democracy, equality of women is going to be a higher priority. I would say (and I think you would agree) that the minority status (of homosexuality for example) should not be an important factor in discussing whether the practice of minorities is moral or not.
On the other hand, homosexuality has a lot of media exposure these days, and a significant minority would identify themselves as gay. This change in culture (albeit a fast change) may eventually catch up with the church (rightly or wrongly). Some of this change is already occurring (in some positive respects, imo). We even changed our pamphlet on homosexuality to remove a lot of stats that were not properly interpreted (I'm in part saying this with my statistician hat). If we got to the real meaning of those (dated) stats, one could use them to make a very different case. Anyway, I think our communal attitude towards gays is changing, even if we haven't gotten down to the bottom of the slippery slope.
| Quote: | I guess I really come back to the one point I am trying to be clearer about:
Women are half of the world's population = not a minority group. WIML is a specific case of what is considered "normative" for a woman/female, and what is considered "normative" for a man/male. This is a particular discussion that has varying responses throughout time, not just in the last century. The idea under discussion is "What can a woman do?" and "What can a man do?"
Homosexuality generally falls into discussions of a "minority" group. I believe there are unique aspects of discrimination that cannot be correlated to discrimination of women who are not a minority. I think it is better to discuss our treatment of homosexuality as a matter of BOTH male and female "normativity". The homosexual/lesbian has a sexuality that falls into a "minority status" when compared to BOTH male and female heterosexuality. |
I don't see a relevant distinction between majority and minority other than the number of people it affects.
| Quote: | To link it with the "woman's issue" makes it a odd and awkward dichotomy:
heterosexaul MEN on one side with heterosexual WOMEN & Homosexual/lesbians on the other.
Some links within feminist studies have also worked with this kind of dichotomy - with the heterosexual male seen to be the defining cultural "norm" that is in opposition to both women ( not necessarily distinquishing between the heterosexual and lesbian woman) and homosexual men.
In this scenerio, the heterosexual male gets to set the normative standard for all on the other side of the dichotomoy.
I think it is better to think of this as: Human= male and female (50/50)
Sexuality = heterosexual and homosexual (approximately 90/10)
|
I think you are setting up a bit of strawman here. I'm not making the case that there are no relevant differences between gender and sexuality. There are common social forces that are relevant to both sexuality and gender. And I don't think percentages have much relevance.
Anyway, that's all I have time to comment on for now. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 3, 2007; 9:03 pm |
|
Interesting discussion.
A comment on the Rom 1 text that Todd found troubling, though. I suggest that “orientation” language is both confusing and not Biblical. We are not judged by “orientations” but by our actions or by letting these “orientations” take over our minds.
My “orientation” is probably materialist, sexist, racist, polygamist, dictatorial [as long as I am on the top of the heap] and who knows what else [ie anger, greed, lust, gluttony and the rest of the 7 deadly sins]. We don’t struggle with our “orientations” in equal proportion but we are judged by how we deal with them. I think the appropriate “orientation” response is Gen. 4:7 “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”
In this scenario the person that lets homosexual fantasies or actions run amuck in no different a position than the person who lets heterosexual behavior or fantasies run amuck. Frankly, I think that making “homosexuality” an issue at all misses the point of Biblical morality.
This is an old argument but I think it bears repeating.
It doesn’t solve the slippery slope debate though :) |
|
|
|
|
|
