"Finding the current discussions on Anglican Bishops v. sad. I guess the stakes are high for both involving a potent mix of sexual identity and belief in who men are, in what love is and in what God's word says.
For me, I think I know what is in the bible about it all but I know too that we re-interpret other parts with no qualm of conscience and call it context or whatever, so it seems a bit hypocritical to say that we can't do others. So maybe that makes me more of an anglican than an anglican't - but most of my friends would prob be the other way round."
read the other related bits here
there's also some really good words on the trinity too, being a part of God's dynamic relationship, joining in it all.
but where was i... ah yes something to bitch about...
i know i've said it before, but all too often you hear parts of the bible read out and taken word for word, and anyone doing otherwise is treated with the suspicion reserved for "those wooly liberals". creation for example. sex before marriage. homosexuality. tithing is another good one. all things that have their verses about them, rarely overly expicit, but all accepted as truth.
but wait there.... women in leadership? women speaking in churches? men with long hair? women with their heads uncovered?! all things warned against (and pretty explicitly as well), but (fortunately
for the irrelevant church trying to keep up (cf homosexuality)) these things are things we can "understand" in the context of the times, and when God's word says "i do not permit a woman to speak in church" God wasn't really saying that was he?! surely he wasn't... how un-PC of him... so maybe when God says he doesnt agree with sex before marriage, he didnt really mean that either... i mean what parts of the bible are we s'posed to believe as truth?!
personally i'm all up for women in leadership, but it does leave the church in a difficult position when it comes to other things that's for sure...
...or maybe the church isn't s'posed to have everything figured out. maybe God isnt as easy to understand as reading a book. maybe we (the evangelical church) should stop trying to figure every damn thing out and presenting them as absolute, God's own truths (until we change it a few years later as the culture changes around us) and leave it a bit more open ended. God is so much much more than we'll ever know.
maybe we're not s'posed to have all the answers - maybe then we'll stop treating the world with such pity, contempt and arrogance thinking we're there to fix its problems from our superior position of "Godly" morals and truths. i mean how patronising!!
hows about looking at the world and seeing what it can offer us, what it can show us about God's character. how about actually relating to the world in an equal level of respect, not seeing it as a provider-client situation, us needing to feed the morally impoverished and lost world beneath us? oh wait - that would be because the church has fostered a provider-client attitude within itself where we're force fed stuff from our leaders above us, with no place to disagree or discuss, instead of us being taught to take responsibility for our lives and our friends around us, and being shown the trust to listen to God for ourselves.
as one person in austin said, "the church should deal with it's own shit before trying to sort out everyone elses"
what'll happen when the revolution comes? who will stay at st toms? who will stay in the church? who will be forced out? who will be silenced? who will become the forgotten casualities of war?
what will God make of it all? what will he think of His Bride abusing and self-harming herself?
perhaps i'm being a bit too antagonistic... maybe i just agree with something ben said and got a bit carried away... keep it coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment