However, I noticed that the blog of CBE, The Scroll, was discussing this very matter recently. I chose not to resist the impulse to participate briefly and posted a couple of examples that indicate it might not be so obvious a fallacy after all.
Drat, I forgot the best one of all. It comes from one of the current darlings of the movement, Professor John Stackhouse of Regent in Vancouver. In his book, Finally Feminist, Stackhouse lets the slope slip a little too much for anyone to legitimately deny it. See page 89 where you will find this admission:
I acknowledge that in this deeply troubled world some people will find the first serious and genuine love of their lives in a homosexual relationship. I believe therefore that such relationships can be condoned, cautiously, for pastoral, therapeutic reasons as temporary accommodations to some people's particular injuries and needs. The church nonetheless does not "bless" such unions, let alone "normalize" them, but upholds scriptural sexual and relational ethics as the ideal toward which we strive. In the meanwhile, however, we can appreciate the sad truth that some people will have to take the long way home, and a caring homosexual relationship may be a necessary part of that journey. This is clearly a difficult area of pastoral ethics and requires deep theological, psychological and spiritual wisdom.
This is passing strange, coming from one who claims he wants to make the case for religious feminism. Why include this note? I don't believe the professor to be naive on this score - he had to know it was inflammatory.
So why include it, unless it truly is on the inevitable trajectory of religious feminism.
Looks to me like the slippery slope does, indeed, exist.
24 comments:
Kamilla, you have a very pink blogsite. I hope that my commenting here does not cause you to question my sexuality!
I do not see how the quote provided gives any evidence of the slippery slope. I am not sure as to whether or not I understand why the bloke said what he said, but as an 'Egal' I do not think it was wise to say it, nor that it is wise pastoral advice!
The thing is that there have been hierarchalists that have been homosexual. Patriarchal societies such as within the Roman Empire were openly homosexual. Even homosexuality, by its very meaning relies upon gender distinctions. I know this is not what homosexuals argue, but I believe their arguments to be false (as I assume you would)! To be either heterosexual or homosexual you need to recognise that there is male and female.
It is interesting that you have an issue with egals minimising the differences between male and female to simply biological, and yet this is one of the most important differences in differentiating between homosexuality and heterosexuality. I am yet to have a hierachalist who can tell me the "difference" between males and females are anything other than the husband being able to tell the wife what to do, and men running the church.
Can I suggest Kamilla, that there has been a link between the secular feminist movement and homosexuality. This has spilled over into the 'liberal' egalitarian church movement, but NOT into Biblical Egals.
I would suggest that you find a quote that really does prove a slippery slope before you bother writing a post about it next time! ;-)
Dave,
Because of limitations imposed by Blogger, I will need to engage your comment in more than one post. This is the first one; others to follow ad seriatim as needed.
I do not see how the quote provided gives any evidence of the slippery slope. I am not sure as to whether or not I understand why the bloke said what he said, but as an 'Egal' I do not think it was wise to say it, nor that it is wise pastoral advice!
Dave, you give evidence by your own words of having descended that very slope! Stackhouse's words are "unwise" to say?? It wasn't "wise pastoral advice??" That's akin to saying it's unwise to say it's okay bugger little boys, or that it's "unwise pastoral advice" to counsef the acceptance of such behavior.
No. It is neither unwise to say it or to counself tolerance of it. Both are wicked, evil, damnable. And your hesitancy to use such words with respect to Stackhouse's statements regarding homosexuality invites anyone with Biblically-shaped ethics to wonder -- why does Dave softpedal words like Stackhouse offers us?
The thing is that there have been hierarchalists that have been homosexual. Patriarchal societies such as within the Roman Empire were openly homosexual.
So? This never has been at issue, and is not at issue in this discussion. Kamilla has not said that patriarchy "protects" or "forestalls" homosexuality. I can't think of any patriarchalist -- Christian or otherwise -- who ever said such a thing. This red herring is so far past its shelf-life, no one is going to follow it. But, we will, again, wonder why Dave drags it through the discussion.
Even homosexuality, by its very meaning relies upon gender distinctions.
Ummm ... doh.
It is interesting that you have an issue with egals minimising the differences between male and female to simply biological, and yet this is one of the most important differences in differentiating between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Flummery.
Egals, by reducing the differences between male and female to the "simply biological" additionally assert that such biological differences are irrelevant to ostensibly "non-biological" matters such as church office. But, this is exactly what the Apostle Paul does -- he prohibits some in the church (women) from teaching or ruling over men, a prohibition tied purely to sex. If you're a female, you are prohibited from doing either. If you are a man, you might be permitted to do either or both things, because for men there are additional qualifications laid upon men only, which governs whether or not any individual man should hold church office.
By insisting that biological differences are irrelevant to qualification for church office, egals invite the advocates for homosexuality to insist that gender orientation is, likewise, irrelevant to qualification for church office. Homosexual activist within the church are simply riding on the skirts of religious feminists.
[continued from previous post]
I am yet to have a hierachalist who can tell me the "difference" between males and females are anything other than the husband being able to tell the wife what to do, and men running the church.
Dave, I take it that you meant to write "I have yet to have a hierarchilast tell me that the
'differences' between males and females are anything other than the husband being able to tell the wife what to do, and men running the church."
Where to begin??
First, the literature of clinical psychology is now overflowing with research establishing vast numbers of ways in which males and females differ from one another -- differences which have no bearing on social relationships. We're talking about differences between the intrinsic nature of males and females here. Most of this research was sparked by the original feminists' insistence that the differences between males and females is "simply biological" (e.g. Millet, Greer, and a host of lesser feminist lights).
Second, this same literature is replete with attempts to account for these differences (hormonal components, nature vs. nurture discussions, evolutionary factors, and the like). In this area, the literature is notable for its lack of unanimity.
As a side-note, I commend to you Steven Goldberg's Why Men Rule (1993), an updating of his earlier work The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1973). Goldberg was president of the sociology department at City College of New York (CCNY) from 1988 until his retirement. He has no "patriarchal axe" to grind, but he does lay out the pervasiveness of patriarchy in all human societies at all times, and refutes the claims of feminist anthropologists of matriarchal societies. Looking at the anthropological data, uncomfortable for doctgrinaire feminists (whether religious or not), he attempts to account for it.
Third, against the sturm und drang of secular attempts to account for the anthropological record (not to mention the wealth of results from modern psycholocial research), the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is not only patriarchal, it gives us a clear account of why patriarchy is there and why -- even in the face of sin and corruption of patriarchy -- the God of the Bible explains, promotes, and redeems patriarchy, both in this life and in eternity.
If you've never met a patriarchalist who did other than what you say, you haven't gotten out much. Nor, have you read very deeply in the Scriptures.
... there has been a link between the secular feminist movement and homosexuality. This has spilled over into the 'liberal' egalitarian church movement, but NOT into Biblical Egals.
But, Dave, that is exactly the issue here -- whether "Biblical egalitarianism" is actually any more "Biblical" than Arianism. Appealing to the Bible is hardly dispositive if the one appealing to it is blind to the most obvious contours, themes, and express statements of Holy Writ.
Reading over the extended discussion at CBE's blog "Something Beautiful" gave me an insight into "pew-sitting egalitarians" that I had not appreciated so much previously. Throughout there are statements excoriating patriarchalists (similar to your statement about men telling women what to do and men ruling the church). It's all a grand exercise in straw-man construction and destruction, followed by a reconstruction of Christian doctrine to comport with the fundamental feminist premise: simple biological differences are socially irrelevant, and in the name of justice women and men should function interchangeably in marriage, family, and the body politic. Applied to the Church this premise advocates that men and women should function interchangeably within the ministry and governance of the Church.
[continued, once more, from previous post]
As to slippery slopes, I cannot comment on Christianity in Australia, as I'm ignorant of it. But, in Europe and North America, the line from "Christian" feminism and "Christian" homosexuality is very short and straight. This is not a theoretical supposition; it is an historical fact, which may be verified by examining the recent history of mainline Protestant denominations (the Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, all Bapists excepting the most conservative of Southern Baptists and minor fundamentalist Baptist bodies).
In every case, the first battle (cast as a battle for "Biblical justice") was for admitting women into the governance of the Church, a battle which religious feminists won. Now the battle is to admit sexually active homosexuals into the ministry and governance of the Church. That battle has been won in several main-line Protestant denominations, and will be won in the current hold-outs within my lifetime.
If this isn't a slippery slope, how about falling dominos as a metaphor? Or, abandon all metaphors, if you please. The historical facts remain the same: Christian bodies which embrace egalitarianism move inexorably to pansexualism as far as Church ministry and Church office is concerned.
[no further installments follow]
Bill, great to interact with you! Thanks for your thoughts. If I could respond, hopefully briefly, by saying...
You appear to be reading into words! My words did not “counsef the acceptance of such behavior.” I chose my words carefully because it would appear Mr Stackhouse is well intentioned, but I believe fundamentally wrong. I fully agree with your assessment of homosexuality in regard to it being a sin. Bill, you have judged me wrongly and without good cause.
Bill, once again you have read into my words what was not there. I never suggested that “Kamilla had “said that patriarchy "protects" or "forestalls" homosexuality” nor was I suggesting that “patriarchalist -- Christian or otherwise” do. I was simply using logic that if Egalitarianism was the cause of homosexuality it would stand to reason that patriachalist societies would NOT be homosexual. But history proves otherwise.
Just three more things...
1 – You said, “First, the literature of clinical psychology is now overflowing with research establishing vast numbers of ways in which males and females differ from one another -- differences which have no bearing on social relationships. We're talking about differences between the intrinsic nature of males and females here. Most of this research was sparked by the original feminists' insistence that the differences between males and females is "simply biological" (e.g. Millet, Greer, and a host of lesser feminist lights).
Second, this same literature is replete with attempts to account for these differences (hormonal components, nature vs. nurture discussions, evolutionary factors, and the like). In this area, the literature is notable for its lack of unanimity. “
I have no prob with much of this, like most egals I know (though I do not believe evolution is a factor). But this is not the differences that are at the heart of the matter, are they Bill? That comes next!
2 - You said, “Appealing to the Bible is hardly dispositive if the one appealing to it is blind to the most obvious contours, themes, and express statements of Holy Writ.”
I agree! I am glad that you also hold the Bible as important in the discussion! That does, however, lead me to a point of confusion!
3 – You also said, “Egals, by reducing the differences between male and female to the "simply biological" additionally assert that such biological differences are irrelevant to ostensibly "non-biological" matters such as church office. But, this is exactly what the Apostle Paul does -- he prohibits some in the church (women) from teaching or ruling over men, a prohibition tied purely to sex. If you're a female, you are prohibited from doing either. If you are a man, you might be permitted to do either or both things, because for men there are additional qualifications laid upon men only, which governs whether or not any individual man should hold church office.”
Please show me clearly from scripture where Paul prohibits women from teaching, where he says that men should rule women. I assume you will appeal to 1 Tim 2, but please tell me how you understand the verse, because it DOES NOT say men have authority over women, and it also does not say that women in general may not teach men.
Dave
Dave,
You said, "I do not see how the quote provided gives any evidence of the slippery slope."
Your problem is that there is quite a lot you don't see, quite a lot that is there that you don't see even when it is placed in front of your eyes.
There is no such thing as what you call, "Biblical Egals." Egalitarianism, as espoused by CBE and you (evident from your participation there) is born of heresy and grown in heresy and thrives in further heresy. It's ecclesiology is gnostic (reference Trevor's "spiritual" church comments). It's soteriology is gnostic (only those who have the knowledge of Equality truly understand the re-re-re-discovered "gospel")and its anthropology is modalistic (the sexual "uniform" one wears has no bearing on one's eligibility for church office).
Dave, I tremble in fear for the congregation you lead astray with this nonsense. If Fr. Bill has the time to continue, I have told him he is welcome to do so. As for me, I'm done.
Kamilla
Hi again Kamilla!
You said, “Your problem is that there is quite a lot you don't see, quite a lot that is there that you don't see even when it is placed in front of your eyes.”
I am at a loss as to how you know what has been placed in front of my eyes and what I do and do not see. You must have incredible perception! ;-)
You said, “There is no such thing as what you call, "Biblical Egals.”
But I am one! So there must be such a thing. I love scripture and I allow scripture to correct me and rebuke me. As of yet I have not seen you use or interact with a biblical argument. Are you liberal?
You said, “Egalitarianism, as espoused by CBE and you (evident from your participation there) is born of heresy and grown in heresy and thrives in further heresy.”
Wow, I think you just said I am a heretic because I made comments on two posts at the CBE blog. You must be very perceptive to be able to make that sort of a judgement call from that little info. Are you a heretic too? After all, you were participating there too! ;-) I appreciate your concerns regarding Gnostic and modalistic teaching and will be wary of them. I have not read enough on the blog to know much about their teaching. I have read more of your blog than theirs!
You said, “Dave, I tremble in fear for the congregation you lead astray with this nonsense.”
I can only assume you visited our website or blog for you to know that I have a congregation. Please be assured that I guard my flock from Gnosticism, modalism, heretics and liberals. We love the truth!
You also said, “If Fr. Bill has the time to continue, I have told him he is welcome to do so. As for me, I'm done.”
It seems to me that you are making a habit of this Kamilla. When you are challenged in any way about what you say you make no attempt to back up what you say, but simply run away. I thought you might be braver than that! ;-)
I hope if Mr Bill continues he is happy to look at the Bible. I know liberals often don’t, but perhaps he is not a liberal?
Wishing you every blessing
Dave
I find the whole topic trying to equate the egal position with homosexuality a fallacious argument to say the least. It's like curtailing marriage to stem the tide of adultery or polygamy. One is an honorable, reasonable endeavor and the other a sinful one.
The lengths heirarchalists will go to in an effort to deny the priesthood of all believers is a shame to them.
Anonymous,
I suggest a good, basic primer on the different fallacies. Start with the straw man fallacy.
Kamilla
"I suggest a good, basic primer on the different fallacies. Start with the straw man fallacy."
Kamilla, I just don't get why you have a blog. Blogs are for opinions and discussions, but if anyone is going to benefit from them there needs to be engagement with ideas...debate even! I am yet to see you provide any evidence for anything you ever say. It is almost like, "I'm right you're wrong so shut up"!
I would love to discuss where you get your views from biblically. I am a polite, friendly person who I am sure is non-threatening. I would actually first and foremost like to be your friend. Would you humour me and have a real discussion?
Dave
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17346242/Knight-on-a-White-Horse
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18003008/Full-Rights-of-Sons-Chapter-XV-The-Middle-of-the-Road-How-Safe-is-It
Kathy,
Thank you for the links to your articles. You've certainly put a lot of thought and work into them. Unfortunately, you tip your hand early in the "Knight" article when you attribute to Chuck Colson a view he is actually refuting.
In addition, rather than correcting a double standard, you are perpetuating it when you say in one portion of your paper that woman is the more vulnerable sex but then later insist on absolute equality in which "Neiter partner has nay status, right, worth or privilege that does not equally belong to the other."
What religious feminists try to do, and are utterly unable to, is to lay the two sexes out as equal with equal rights, privileges and responsibilities, and then carry this into the sphere of the marital bed when the marital bed is the great "unequalizer".
You see, those of us who recognize the depth and breadth and utter beauty of our differences also recognize our inequality in the sexual sphere. In this sphere it is no privilege to be an equal, but it is a great privilege to be a woman.
Kamilla
Kamilla,
Could you expand on your staement, "You see, those of us who recognize the depth and breadth and utter beauty of our differences also recognize our inequality in the sexual sphere. In this sphere it is no privilege to be an equal, but it is a great privilege to be a woman."
I am trying to understand what it is exactly you are speaking of. I understand differences in the sexual sphere, but what inequality is there?
Kamilla, what you would do with a passage like 1 Corinthians 7:2-5? It sounds very equal in the sex department. The man has 'authority' (the only place in scripture a man is ever said to have authority over his wife) over his wife's body, but she also has authority over his.
How can one flesh not be equal?
Dave,
There's an error in your last question - I'll turn it around and ask, "How can equals become one flesh?" The two becoming one in marriage are two different beings. In some sense, yes, they are equal. They are equal in dignity and worth - but differ in responsibilities and their response to the marital relationship.
Let me quote Dr. Alice von Hildebrand in, "The Privilege of Being a Woman":
"Another great gift that God has granted the female nature is the gift of receptivity. This is not to be confuse with passivity, as Aristotle does . . .[receptivity] involves an alert, awakened, joyful readiness to be fecundated by another person or by a beautiful object . . . .a wife giving herself to her husband accepts joyfully to be fecundated, to receive. Her receptivity is a self-giving. . . . God therefore 'touches'the female body in placing this new soul into the temple of her womb. This is another incredible privilege that the Creator grants to women. During pregnancy, she has the extraordinary privilege to carry two souls in her body."
Kamilla
Kamilla,
Sorry, but I am struggling to follow you and I do wonder if we are on different wavelengths with a couple of things.
I did not feel you turned my last question around, but rather completely changed it. I asked, “How can one flesh not be equal?”. The question you asked was, “How can equals become one flesh?” Perhaps we are viewing one flesh from different perspectives.
Are you seeing ‘one flesh’ as being the new life that is conceived through sexual union, i.e. a baby? Also are you viewing ‘equal’ as meaning the same? If so, I think I understand the point of your question, you are asking how can two people exactly the same (like two males) produce a baby. Is that correct?
My question came from my understanding that in marriage/sex two (a man and a wife) become as one person, physically, emotionally and spiritually to some degree – I was not thinking of the one flesh being another life. I was also not looking at equality as being sameness (which is why I believe that male and female combinations are the only natural and God designed relationships involving sexual union).
So, in answer to your question, in the way that I understand you asking it, no, equals cannot become one flesh. Two men cannot have a baby and two women cannot have a baby.
This, however, does not respond to my question. How can two people, with fundamental differences, such as sexuality, become one person, if there is inequality between them?
I agree with Dr Alice (even though I had to look up the meaning of “fecundated”). It is an extra ordinary privilege to carry two souls. But how does what she says back up the idea that there is inequality in the marriage bed, or was that not your point in quoting her?
Dave,
If you don't understand how the quote illustrates inequality, there is nothing more I can say to help you understand. I am very much afraid that you are presenting us with just one more example of Romans 1:21 working itself out in the Egalitarian mind. You don't understand Scripture, you don't understand helpful quotes and you most certainly do not understand common decency with regard to commenting on blogs and what is and it not permissible (and here I refer primarily to your behaviour elsewhere). I could ask you not to comment further, but I suspect that would prove as fruitless as endeavour as anything else I've written to you.
And now, I'll leave you with something else you'll probably have to look up: Anathema sit!
Kamilla
Dave,
I'm coming in a bit tardy. Surgery has laid me low both physically and mentally.
But, reading the recent exchanges between you and Kamilla, I think I would agree with you when you said "I do wonder if we are on different wavelengths with a couple of things." Really, it's far more than a couple of things -- it's almost everything.
Egalitarianism is very much like Arianism in this respect: both rest on one or two premises which are contrary to Biblical teaching. From those premises, the person led astay by them is subject to (or, the instigator of) a cascade of deconstructions and reconstructions of orthodoxy, so that he is increasingly heretical (yes, heresy comes in shades and degrees).
Eventually, what is professed and defended by Arians or Egalitarians is something which is not Christianity at all, though it may still wear the exterior trappings of the faith.
So, yes, egalitarianism's premises are false, and its evolution over the past 30 years (yes, I've watched it that long) has put it so far over the cliff that it is becoming near to impossible for one side to persuade the other. This is why, for example, both Kamilla and I fear for you and the flock committed to your charge.
If we are right, things will go far worse for you at the Doom than for your pitiful sheep. God have mercy on you all.
Don't worry Kamilla, unlike on the Baylyblog there appears to be no one here who wants me to hang around, no one who wants to discuss from scripture, and there appears to be no one here who can hold a conversation. I will not hang around.
Bill, I wish you a speedy recovery.
Dave
Does being more vulerable mean one is less equal?
Kathy,
The short answer is, "yes". The long answer depends upon our understanding the short answer, for the long answer develops from the short.
Kamilla
OK. I'm game. What's the long answer?
Hi Kathy,
I've got a big fat deadline staring me in the face -- so you'll have to wait a bit for the long answer. In the meantime, I can highly recommend anything by Alice von Hildebrand or Anthony Esolen over at:
www.insidecatholic.com
Kamilla
Post a Comment