I’m not going to say one way or another, at the present time because this is something that has been contentious forever. I will say that other writers (who share XH’s view) do a fine job of stating their case.

I’m place-holding and will have my nerd card revoked for not bothering to learn html:

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=NHPxcYNV0BwC&printsec=frontcover#PPR7,M1

Starting on p. 179, this specific text is researched and dealt with in a pretty logical and scholarly manner.

And a seemingly opposing view, also well written and researched:

2. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=506

This thread is now CLOSED.

Feel free to pursue any of these assorted thoughts on your respective blogs or other venues of your choice. I’m simply not as generous as FTN and refuse to hand my space over to other people for months at a time!

The Stepmania/DDR posts remain open.

D.

With all due respect, XH, this is the exact kind of thing I’m talking about: quoting scripture and then making a series of statements about how anyone who doesn’t accept your interpretation thinks they know better than God, or “chooses to ignore” revealed truth.

It’s quite true that I don’t believe I have to keep to a narrow interpretation of statements written two thousand years ago by a man (albeit a very remarkable man) who lived in a completely different cultural and historical context, but neither do I believe that I can make things up for myself. That’s a false dichotomy.

Even fundamentalists, in fact, get most of their views from a *combination* of scripture, tradition, historical interpretation, personal experience and their own intuitive sense of God and his purposes for them. Being open about that fact in my own (non-fundamentalist) case doesn’t mean that I think I know better than God.

But (sigh) I believe that you and I have had this discussion before… also the discussion about homosexuality…

It’s interesting that you mention that certain sets of doctrines are in the minority of all possible teachings. Your own view of scripture is certainly in the minority in the Christian world, and especially among scholars – in fact, I would consider your view of Scripture to be closer to the Muslim tradition of scripture as virtually dictated by God, than to mainstream Christian traditions of “inspiration”.

You are, of course, entitled to hold that minority view, but it would be nice to hear you admit some time that it’s only one view and a long way from the full story.

I Tim 2:11-14 for instance:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This is about the Pastoral ministry. The Presbytery. The Episcopate. The teaching-leadership, public ministry role. The person in the pulpit and in the confessional (if your church is into that sort of thing). The person whose name is on the sign outside, whose name is on the church’s letterhead. The one who is in charge, most importantly in the doctrinal sense, but also in the shepherding, counseling, and financial senses. That this role (or roles) was reserved for men only is absolutely clear in the scripture.

This isn’t a question of “interpretation” as there is no question from anyone as to what information and ideas the writers were trying to communicate. The question is one of application: do you believe that what the Apostles wrote was from God or from man? Do you believe you have to submit to their teachings, or do you believe that you can make things up for yourself? Big questions, with practical manifestation: if you have a woman pastor, you’ve shown which side of the question you come down on. And it is, ultimately, the side that says “I know better than God.”

The whole point of giving that example is it is not some arrogant assumption that oneself is right and perfect and infallible to point out when another’s doctrine is in stark contradiction to that which is taught in scripture. It isn’t a first-person vs second-person sort of thing. It is first-person pointing out that second-person is in opposition to third-person. Not in a subtle and hard to interpret area, but one where interpretation is clear and simple.

Nobody argues that “gune en hesuskia manthaneto en pase hupotage. Gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepo, oude authentein andros, all einai en hesuskia,” means anything except what the English translation (from the NIV) I gave above clearly states. (Except that the “I do not allow” part is far less emphatic in the Greek, and could probably be translated better as “It is not allowed…”, but English is a crude language to be translating the very precise Koine Greek into, so any translation is going to have rough spots). So, pointing out that someone’s teaching and practice go directly against this is something that even the imperfect and human can do, without being guilty of being a spiritually arrogant, condescending prick of a know-it-all smart ass. It’s just being bold enough to stand up for the revealed Truth that all can see, but many choose to ignore.

Yeah, I thought I knew but I wanted to be sure this is what you were saying.

Could she get paid as long as she wasn’t in charge of anyone?

Could a woman be in leadership if she did it in her spare time, perhaps?

I see “ministry” as any act that ministers to others, not just pontificating from a pulpit somewhere. Egad, XH, isn’t your own wife teaching a class of some sort at church? Is she aware that you equate this with being an abomination to God?

Wow. Emily’s 3rd point really hit home there, not that the rest of them don’t.

D.

But saying that is not saying, “Because we can never know perfect Truth we know nothing, so all perspectives should be considered equal.” We may not know that what we say is perfectly correct, but that is not saying we can’t see clearly when other things are in error.

For instance, if scripture is God’s revealed Word, then doctrines that are in obvious contradiction to scripture can be condemned with prejudice. We might have questions about the correct interpretation in obscure and subtle issues, but that doesn’t stop us from seeing glaring contradiction in plain issues.

Saying this doesn’t rule us down to any particular set of doctrines, either. There are multiple (possibly many) sets of doctrines that are mutually exclusive, yet equally consistent with scripture. But we can certainly say that such things are in the minority of all possible teachings. Judging between those that ARE consistent with scripture may be more difficult, but judging between those that are consistent versus those that are not is not.

Example: those that teach homosexuality is not a sin run up against plain and obvious scripture whose interpretation is not in doubt, so they have to justify themselves by trying to argue why it’s OK to ignore those passages. Same thing with those who want to justify having women in ministry. The Bible is clear, you can choose to listen to it or not, but choosing not to means you yourself have already given reason for your teaching to be condemned. When someone does so it is not arrogance — you aren’t condemned because you are disagreeing with them but because you disagree with the Word. A person can do that without implying that their theology is perfect — being in agreement with scripture is but one necessary aspect of Truth — and judging another as in error is not saying that you yourself are incapable of error.

But still, it does give me a chance to say something about XH’s theological posts and why there isn’t much comment.

I generally read those posts. I am quite interested in them, at times. But I rarely comment because:

*We seem to disagree on everything, EVERYTHING. We disagree at such a fundamental level, pretty much from the very basis on which we speak, that to fully engage with the arguments would require starting from very first principles and a very lengthy exchange.

Now, I’m not intellectually intimidated by that prospect at all. I did my PhD in a related field. I’d probably enjoy it. But frankly, with a two year old and a sick partner and a demanding job, I just don’t have the time. Also, we disagree on so many topics that all our exchanges would just become a succession of arguments, which isn’t good for any kind of relationship, even one as amorphous as ours.

*The general tone of XH’s theological posts doesn’t really invite comment. He knows exactly what he thinks and feels motivated to outline it, but there is no tone there of real interest in what others think. That’s okay. We all rant away in our blogs in a way that most of us would find intolerable in other people in real life. But still, it doesn’t invite comment. A lot of his posts kind of remind me of those preachers who stand on street corners, preaching away at the tops of their voices and getting some burning issue off their chests. A few people might listen and get something out of it. But that’s not really the point.

*There is a third aspect which I think he should really think about it if he wants others to learn anything from him. He really does come across as if anyone who thinks differently to him is (a) stupid and (b) immoral. There doesn’t seem to be any recognition that people of integrity, scholarship and deep reflection might come to differing conclusions and that these differences might be interesting rather than threatening. Once the exchange is at that level, it ceases to be an enjoyable and enlightening discussion and becomes offensive and annoying.

*And one last thing, I think that third aspect of his style is particularly alienating to women. Women tend (big statement here) to view conversation as, not just about the topic itself, but as a potential opportunity to share themselves and who they are with the other person. They are looking for connection rather than an argument. When they are met with a list of 15 reasons of exactly why they are wrong, acccompanied by extensive scripture quoting (ie its not just XH who thinks they’re wrong but, apparently, God himself) and reflections on their personal character, it feels like they are wasting their time talking to someone who has a low opinion of them.

Women, in particular, tend to get very irritated and offended by that stuff and can’t be bothered to engage with someone so lacking in basic respect towards them. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the issues with XH’s sexual relationship with his wife actually arise from this one thing. But he might like to think about whether the women turning off from his blog and his wife turning off from sex are actually arising from the way he relates to them.

Anyway, I mean no disrespect to you, XH. Truly, I am actually fond of you in a perverse kind of way. But I feel a little sad that it’s so hard to have a conversation with you on topics that mean a lot to us both.

You have to synthesize. Understand the problem, understand the information that we have, and put it all together into a consistent whole.

Thank you. This is what I needed to hear from you for ever so long. Whenever I read something you have written it comes across to me as the final authority, as if you have it all figured out. All I have ever wanted is to see you acknowledge that it isn’t all clear cut and obvious and that intelligent people could only interpret the scripture one way. It is a learning process for each and every one of us, but it is ever so much easier to learn if the teaching is presented as “have you tried looking at it this way?” rather than “I have the one true way to look at it. I’m right. You’re wrong.” Approach me the first way, and I will openly engage and delight in debate and discourse on the topic. Approach me the second way, and I will turn my back on you. It is, dear XH, all in the presentation. If you came across less in your blog and your comments on others’ blogs as, what was it Digger called them, a spiritually arrogant, condescending prick of a know-it-all smart ass, and more as a spiritually caring, empathetic example of a loving Christian I would think you would have much greater success in passing on your message.

Or I’m a just wacked out crazed overly intelligent slut who should be ignored.

You make the call.