we compliment one another

11 Comments

1. smerdykov — January 28, 2008 #

   Was this post in response to my comment on “Theology of the Body”? I was not meaning to imply anything in my statement I just happened upon your site. I hope I did not offend or come across as an instigator.

2. Mak — January 28, 2008 #

   your comment inspired the thought but no, you didn’t offend or come off as any such thing I was going to post that in the comment response but I wanted it to stand on its own

   I’m interested to hear your thoughts on what you were talking about, please put them in the comments down on that post if you’re so inclined

3. myste — January 28, 2008 #

   here here! {raises glass}

4. sonja — January 29, 2008 #

   Er … I must politely disagree with you.

   It’s not more palatable at all. It merely has a crystal coating … but the taste is all salt.

5. Mak — January 29, 2008 #

   I see what you’re saying sonja but it’s very palatable to many women I know - many YOUNG women in fact which is shocking to me.

6. Carlos the macho man — January 29, 2008 #

   I say three times cheers and raise a glass to God. The comment is simply “Brilliant” and is deserves many Guinesses.

   From a 58 yr male citizen of the Universe.

7. Molly — January 30, 2008 #

   Good stuff, Mak.

   It’s palatable for young women only because they read the Bible to give the “rule” that women submit to men.

   Because we are not taught to think of the Bible beyond that of a “rule book,” we cannot see the incarnational aspects of what Paul and Peter taught: the Gospel WITHIN a culture that WAS patriarchal (highly so).

   The concept that women then literally did not have a choice to live in a non-patriarchal world (just as the slaves then did not have the choice to live in a slave-free world) does not occur to us, and so we translate Paul’s words (wise words!) to those women as if they mean the very same thing to us: as if those women had any other choice BUT to submit.

   We don’t see the beautiful and radical message of gentle subversion: we see law, we see heirarchy, and we see eternal decrees.

   I think that’s why young women accepting and promoting complementarianism: they don’t realize they have any other alternative (if they are going to follow Christ), and, well, at least complementarianism is a wee bit better than full on hyper-patriarchy.

   *sad shrug*

8. Mak — January 30, 2008 #

   very well said molly

   thanks carlos

9. Carlos the macho man — February 1, 2008 #

   Mak,

   I recently finished William Webb’s book titled “Slave, Women, and Homesexuals” and I would highly recomend it as it will give anyone a solid biblical structure to a tenable egalitarian position. I like his coined “Redemptive Movement Hermeneutics” as opposed to a “static Hermeneutics”

   Check it out.

   Saludos,

10. Mak — February 1, 2008 #

    cool carlos thank you. I have often used the phrase “maintaining a progressive and open posture to constantly move toward a redemptive position” so I’m not sure how the author uses that phrase but it’s funny that he says that because I have never heard it said by anyone else…although I knew I couldn’t be the only one hehe

11. Carlos — February 1, 2008 #

    Mak, In a way Webb uses it in a similar manner of thought as yours; he write/shows how the the H.S. works in Hummanity’s history moving it towards an ultimate biblical ethic.

    He helps, with several criteria, us to see as to what is a “time locked cultural” statement/teaching in scripture vs. a culturally transcended thruth.

    Not too long ago, in this country, Christians were justifying slavery primarily because of a “static hermeneutics” and if slavery came back, God forbid, they would still try to biblicaly justify it.

    It always amazes me how the Spirit lead us to others along the same spiritual journey to affirm us and affirm others. Thanks for your blog.

    By the way, Cricket is not it - it is Futebol