Fw: [asa] Roles of women

I thought this & the following post had gone to the list but apparently I sent them only to David.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

Comments below in red.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

  There aren't a lot of people outside Saudi Arabia or the Taliban arguing against women holding positions of authority in the state but there are unfortunately major churches (especially of course RC & EO, not to mention LCMS & SBC) which limit that.

  Huh? I'm not aware of anything in Roman Catholic or SBC teaching that would limit a woman's ability to hold a position of authority in the state. Wouldn't you say comparing the social teaching of John Paul II -- arguably one of the greatest leaders in terms of social theory and action in the history of the Church -- with the Taliban is more than a little unfair?

  Sorry, that's what I get for posting before 6 a.m. I meant that RCs & others hold that women shouldn't have such authority in the church. & of course just what authority they can't have varies - ordination, presiding at the Eucharist, preaching, teaching adults, serving on a parish council &c.
   
  The reason I brought up the civil realm was to point out that it is inconsistent for someone to argue for the subordination of women in the church on the basis of the supposed order of creation if they don't make the same argument for the state.

  I understand the argument, but I don't think it considers carefully enough the differences between the administration of the church and the administration of the state in the theology of those who hold a complimentarian position and in Catholic theology.

  The rationale for the RC prohibition of the ordination of women is somewhat different from protestant ones. The reason you'll usually hear today is that the celebrant of the Eucharist represents Christ & therefore must be male. But that argument also fails: If Christ assumed whatever of human nature was necessary for women to be saved ("What has not been assumed has not been healed") then conversely women possess whatever of human nature is necessary for them to represent Christ. That can be avoided if one thinks - as Aquinas did, following Aristotle - that women are "defective and misbegotten" men, but not many will try to argue that today, at least in public.

  Let me repeat: My original point was that if one argues against the authoritative roles for women on the basis of creation then one ought to argue against such roles for them in the state. If not, not.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 31 19:09:53 2007