Dear Herb
In the wider sense, we were on the same page - as your "we need to learn the language of the tradition" (MacIntyre). The languages of your "Subject" are Hebrew & Greek, to which I spoke in response to you.
Yes to Michael Sandel's point & your application of it. (Have you heard him
Fellow-Confessors 1 As I write, a family of purple finches in a hanging flower-basket on our porch is living an order of creation / nature. One parent is sitting the five eggs, & the other's role is family guard. 2 If you open the porch door & step inside, you will be in the presence of another family (I / Loree / Bill) of the same order of creation / nature
Greetings Jim,
Sorry not to respond sooner. I've been sick the last few days. I read your analysis below, and I think it's theologically interesting as an attempt to draw a very specific sexual ethic out of a very particular theological doctrine. But like your reading of Genesis, I find it alien and unconvincing. I think in the end, as I dwell on these issues, I realize that I cannot credibly draw specific inferences from general theological concepts. I can draw general moral principles from theological concepts, and I can draw general moral implications from biblical narratives, but I cannot move from the general to the particular on the basis of those principles or narratives. I have to move through several intermediate stages of moral reflection in order to begin to draw any valid inferences from them. So again, I think from Genesis I can draw broad inferences about human beings being created for relationship, and I can even conclude that foundationally that was rooted in the male/female relationship. I cannot extrapolate from that the idea that only male/female relationships are permitted.
Dear Jim, Sounds like a delightful chat. I would have loved to have listen to the part about the Red Sea, Virgin birth, and resurrection. I too enjoy lawyers and they are precise in relationship to language. It is funny I have this need to judge the pill, marriage, sexuality, Obama, Republicans
-----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:28 AM To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Herb,
I have to admit that I really like and admire lawyers and that what I liked most about the chat between the lawyer and myself was that he didn't put any "better" or "worse" on the revolution but was simply
Dear Willis, You make an interesting point when you say, “The God-given common language to be shared when talking Genesis is Hebrew.” I have to think about that. I wasn’t taking about Genesis when I mentioned the last of a common language or common tradition. I was talking about Jane’s use of “family values” in relationship to the discussion of sexuality. I don’t believe the words “family values” mean the same thing to people from different traditions. I was thinking more of Alasdair MacIntyre in his book, “Whose Justice?” where he talks about different language in different traditions and the need to learn the language of the tradition. I think part of our difficulty is the liberal and conservatives use different language and we often misunderstand each other. Michael Sandel in his essay, “Justice, What’s the Right Thing to Do?” points out the different values or understanding of different systems of justice. We capture of little of that in the Ron Paul/Paul Ryan discussion of budget with Obama. They are speaking from different traditions or places.
Dear Herb and Ted,
Here is how Karl Barth relates Gen 1: 28 (procreation and dominion) to Gen 1:26 and 27 (creation in the image and likeness of God, male and female, for dominion): "This human activity [blessed procreation and dominion] is the sign of the genuinely creaturely confrontation in
I have to admit that I really like and admire lawyers and that what I liked most about the chat between the lawyer and myself was that he didn't put any "better" or "worse" on the revolution but was simply acknowleding it, with awe, he brought the statement out as a sort of beloved possession to show a new friend, and I was glad to be a new
----- Original Message ----- To: confessing-christ@googlegroups .com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:49 PM interpretative text
Herb
I like your skill at bringing people & traditions together in a "chat." In your Genesis chat, the chatters (you say) "don't share a common language." The God-given common language to be shared when talking Genesis
Jim, the Pill has changed everything. I would think for the better, but one never knows. Herb
-----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:24 AM To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
P.S. Just last Friday, at a funeral reception, a delightful lawyer said to me, "You know what I think was the greatest revolution of the
Dear Jane, Do you mean you will have more time to fine all the flaws in my theology? Sometime I wonder about election! You are a blessed gift to us. Should we thank IBM? Herb
-----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:53 PM To: confessing-christ@googlegroups .com
Dear friends and colleagues and lurkers and all,
I like your skill at bringing people & traditions together in a "chat." In your Genesis chat, the chatters (you say) "don't share a common language." The God-given common language to be shared when talking Genesis is Hebrew.
Now let's get down to why Willis "assumes there is a right way." My PhD
Greetings to Scott, Janet! Bless you for your warm post.
Grace and peace-- Willis ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Keyes To: confessing-christ@googlegroups .com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Fw: The fates of "God" & "marriage": word expansions
Dear Willis-
....& just think, you'll have more time to read long posts such as the one I sent you today!
Seriously, Jane: it's a joy in God to see your life opening flower-like, in freedoms few human being ever have.
Grace and peace-- Willis
----- Original Message ----- To: <confessing-christ@googlegroup s.com>
Dear Jane: Oh yes South Dakota is ready for you. Stay at our house. Wonderful depth of call! Love with a hug if allowed+++Roger+++Dakota Association is looking for help, you have all the gifts, check it out. You could work part time at it! Lets talk+++ ----- Original Message ----- To: <confessing-christ@googlegroup s.com>
"God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform ...." The hand of Providence! God has blessed you, Jane, with the fruits of your labors. Shalom! AL
----- Original Message ----- To: <confessing-christ@googlegroup s.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:18 PM
"What may be the result since we have no common language is that the texts no longer have much power." - Herb
"Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text." - Jane
Dearest Brother Herb: Ah yes something good is coming out of the discussion. Your words bring us back to; the need we have for each other, how deep our longing is, how rich the mystery of Christ is, how much peace we know becaus we can talk to each other because of the Incarnation and the faith we bring to it feeble as it is, and how far we have to go. To give up in exhaustion is good some times. My cousin from Wisc., a local Lutheran pastor friend and I caught so many walleye on the beautiful River, I dare not tell. We cept only our limit. Then this morning it was too windy to fish so we shared faith journey stories and had a great big hug at the end. I beg you keep on this line as long as you can! Your are a rock for some of us. +++Roger
Sounds perfect for you Jane....and a plus for us as well!!! Many blessings on a wonderful journey. Seems God is mapping it out nicely for you...and it sure doesn't get any better than that!
Wanda Lester
A huge thumbs up for you, Jane! God's blessings! T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network
I have some personal news for you, which I am very excited to share with you, and which does relate to you in a way.
Some of you may recall that I still work full-time, while I am in a PhD program half-time. On June 4, which is not long from now, I will have worked for IBM for 33 years, since 3 weeks out of undergrad school back in 1979. All my subsequent education (first MA at Duke in the 80s, MA in Theology and Ethics from Hartford Seminary in 2009, and now my PhD) has been done part-time, while working full-time at IBM. I did my seminary internship at a church part-time too, completing it at the same time I graduated from seminary in 2009.
Dear Willis- I am glad to see that you are still relating well to teenagers. Many of the young generation find it difficult to believe that their elders are relevant. The newly called pastor of our church is Scott Haskell, who remembers you and Loree form the Centerville Church on Cape Cod when he was in high
Very well said!
You might want to read CD III,1 pp.181-187, where Barth is most succinct on Gen 1:26-27 (he joins these more closely together than Von Rad and Augustine, who join 27 more closely to 28). If you don't have it, it is available on line, or you can buy the whole CD set (worth
Dear Jane, Jim, Ted, Scott, I still haven’t gotten to the sermon note since you folks have sent me back to look at Gen. I don’t think any of us read Gen literally but we do read Gen out of different traditions and we bring different cultural values to any reading. I agree with Jane that no one comes to a text pure. We all have baggage and it is good to have that baggage up front. The difficulty is that in our time there is no certainty that we share the same values or work out of the same tradition. It is difficult for us to chat because we don’t share a common language and we need to keep trying to learn second languages. I can understand Scott’s difficulty in reading these texts and with the language that some of us use, yet he always pushes me to rethink my position. That is always true of Ted who has some wonderful ways of unpacking text. Jane also added and forces to look again at John 1 in a different way. I love John one. My disagreement with Willis is he assumes there is a right way. Jim and I are closer since we share to some degree a common tradition Barth, Calvin. We both preach or preached weekly and lived in a parish. I think we both enjoy but also distrust the liberal culture. Take for examples the value words, “Family Values” that Jane uses in her note. Family values when used by conservative Christians are viewed by the more elite as a way of putting women back in the kitchen. Family values as viewed by evangelical maybe more about faithful marriage and care of children. Who know what Newt means by family values. Evangelical’s look at what they see as the breakdown of family while liberal look at the way family limits and enslaves and hurts people. We use family values to hit the enemy over the head. What does Eph.5:21 say about family values? I liked what Ted said about Gal. rescinding Gen.3:14ff, great way of seeing the work of Christ. What was wonderful about this chat was there was an attempt to look at a text and make points and not destroy each other. What maybe the result since we have no common language is that the texts no longer have much power.
Dear Jane,
God bless you, always! On Sunday I was going to reply to your Mothers Day note with,"God bless the womb which bore you and the breasts which suckled you, or the hands that bottle fed you!" but I was afraid you would be offended. I do hope you are not offended.
As for "points," I acknowledge some points, and some I don't. You are
P.S. Just last Friday, at a funeral reception, a delightful lawyer said to me, "You know what I think was the greatest revolution of the last century? The pill. That changed everything!"
Jim
So, throw the pill in there too, has that changed the language and "marriage"?
Dear Jim,
I am not sure I can add any more to the discussion of what you call "generalizations," and I stand by what I've written.
As to Augustine, the chapter you cite from Book 14 of City of God is interesting, and it's set in a much broader discussion in Book 14 in general, where Augustine has specific aims in mind. I think I've mentioned this to you before, although I also think I deleted it earlier this week, to reduce my words in my long postings, but I am not studying theological anthropology. I am working on the intersection of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, and specifically where the former influenced the latter on issues related to the unity of the triune God. I have had to intentionally exclude anthropology and other interesting topics, while also reading about some of these ideas in Augustine and the Cappadocians and others who wrote commentaries or sermons on Gen. 1. So I would not have commented to you on their ideas about male and female or other anthropological issues.
Dear Willis,
I agree with your point about "equity." How do you think this works itself out in attitudes and words regarding males who engage in premarital sexual relations, e.g. what did you call the males who engaged in said activity, who also seem to be the enemies of purity? Has the availability of very accurate paternity testing promoted
Fellow-Confessors
Sorry you first got this incomplete! My error occurred early in section 7.
To: <confessing-christ@googlegroup s.com> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:29 PM
5.1 7.1 The moral mind sees language as used morally (correctly) or immorally (abused). Mispronunciation is phoneme abuse; misspelling is morpheme abuse;
I have trouble also with your generalizations when you write "we quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of it, and this is a time honored tradition in the church." You made a similar generalization about the "fathers" and then did not tell us a thing about "male and female" as they interpreted it. I looked up what
Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text.
Brother Jim: Agreed just crude language to keep some balance for those of us who would rather move on. But I respect your deep look at texts and the right to the conversation. Rock on hen keeper: roger ----- Original Message ----- To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessing-christ@googlegroup s.com>
Deep loving Jane: The best person in the world to contact for on sight insight is Pauline Webb, pastor the Eagle Butte United Church of Christ. She is a life long resident and is doing fabulous work inside and outside the Church there. Thanks so much for caring for these wonderful people.+++Roger ----- Original Message -----
Dear Scott,
I am still working on your trinity question, which also relates to what Ted wrote about the flesh, and may even appeal to Jane; but I can say that my answer goes something like this: The differentiation of relationship within God is that of the Eternal Father, the Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father has no father and is
Dear Roger,
I mentioned this organization to you a while back, when I was first learning about it. Simply Smiles is non-profit agency here in Connecticut that works in two locations: Mexico and South Dakota. The projects in SD are undertaken with members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
Many UCC churches in CT are engaged with Simply Smiles, and the Board of Outreach for my church, the First Congregational Church of Bethel, UCC, voted last year to devote most of our outreach efforts to helping Simply Smiles and the people with whom they work. Only a couple of members of my church have been on one of the mission trips to Mexico, and no one has gone to SD, but we've done a lot of projects to help raise money or make blankets or donate tools or other things.
Here is something odd that was posted on Facebook via the HuffPost Religion page. It's a little Web-based tool that gives you different insults that appear in Martin Luther's writings. The insults come with citations to his writings, although I can't vouch for the references. Each time you click this link you get a different insult, and there's an "insult me again" button that you can click on to see more.
Dear Brother Roger,
You could call our conversation many things, but I don't think crotch or navel gazing are two of them. Maybe Newsweek gazing.
May God open His hand and feed the Pine Ridge area, showing us what we can do, with you, to be his servants in this very matter!
And God give you good courage and joy in his house!
Dear Ted,
As for your first point, I understant that you mean "explicit" to refer to God's pronounced blessing, and the result thereof, but there is no indication here that he created them male and female "also for the explicit purpose of procreation." True, the blessing follows the indication of "male and female he created them," but the immediate
All: Jesus IS the Law Giver not Moses, He IS author of the Word, He IS One with the Father and Spirit and he IS our friend.+++ They just closed the only grocery store in Pine Ridge S.D. due to health concerns from the meat dept. The nearest food source is Rapid City---------look at a map, DO THE
By "as it is" I mean that the author(s) has something to say to us. No doubt we bring ourselves to the text, but what does the text bring to us? If it were impossible to hear the text in this sense "as it is," that could only mean that communication is impossible, and each of us is stuck in his or her own little world, which, of course we would be,
Thank you for reading my posting and for the exchange of ideas about reading Genesis and other passages of scripture.
Yes, as you said in your P.S., when we read one text in light of another, used as an interpretative text, the texts are not adversaries, nor does either text supplant the other. Reading texts together can allow us to achieve new insights. And I did already comment, in my posting, about how Moses had brought the law and Jesus brought grace to "go with" the law. My choice of the words "go with" was intentional, and you and I are in agreement on your P.S.
Amen, Jane. 1 A suburban bio-mother delivers children obstetrically once & thereafter, by car, forever. It must be true: Loree just read it to me. 2 After church today, a highschooler came gave us a hug (as he does every morning) & told us of an eight-months-old foster child the family (which has
Jim:
RESPONSES IN CAPS. . . .
I was objecting to your "also for the explicit purpose of creation," altough I am sorry that I did not notice your "also." I here don't see any explicit purpose for their differentiation (or any of the differentiation) in Gen. 1, other that in their particular form of
Jim: I prefer your orientation, notabaly including Genesis 1, in this discussion. In reflecting on the Reformation principle of "sola scriptura." I'm reminded that as much as the Reformers contended with our separated brethern ("papists"), they also tackled the humanist "rationalists" with
I was objecting to your "also for the explicit purpose of creation," altough I am sorry that I did not notice your "also." I here don't see any explicit purpose for their differentiation (or any of the differentiation) in Gen. 1, other that in their particular form of created differentiation they are the likeness of God, according to
Dear Jim:
Thanks for your note. I include the earlier discussion below under the heading "previous exchange."
I guess I don't get your point. Or I thought I was saying the same thing you were. As I parse my sentence, its primary assertion is:
1) "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' … arises in the context of radical segregation."
P.S. I suppose I need not add that we should not read the two texts as adversaries, but I will translate John 1,17, just to make sure, "Indeed, the law was given through Moses: grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ."
I fully agree with reading John 1 in light of Gen 1, and Gen 1 in light of John 1, but however you read Gen 1, you need to read Gen 1 as it is Gen 1. Barth read Gen 1 with 2 as "Creation as the external basis of covenant," and "Covenant as the internal basis of creation," respectively, and I tend to think that we should read these very
In that previous dialogue, you never replied to my last post in my argument that "male and female" in the Gen 1 text does not point to reproduction but to differentiation. It is a human taxonomy, for in the text male and female in the human realm corresond to the diversity in other created realms, particularly the plant and animal.
Well exegeted, Jane.
Since I have to edit for a British Journal, I frequently have to grapple with British editorial tropes. I hope they aren't going to force you to adopt British spelling!
Scott