Hermenuetics

Comments

Katelyn,

Thank you for posting this up front.

Sadly, I still think you are doing your readers and Evangelicalism a disservice. You have referred, in both stories, to Avert. It sounds like a worthy charity but I am guessing most of your readers are unfamiliar with them and don't know that they are a secular, pro-condom distribution charity.

I'd still like to see you use some Christian sources (the one you have used is self-referrential) and even some more reputable secular sources than UNAIDS and Avert. They may collect valid statistics but their philosophical commitments prevent them from given an honest analysis.

Better yet, dare we mention the real problem? It's nothing more complex than the sin of idolatry of sex in a fallen culture. Once you admit that's the problem and open your eyes to the reality of the situation on the ground, you will see that BXVI was right - condoms are not the solution, they are part of the problem.

Kamilla

Posted By: Kamilla | April 6, 2009 6:31 PM

Katelyn,

Thank you for posting this. I have really enjoyed reading this blog so far. At a time when the Church in the US has become known more and more as judgmental and hypocritical, I appreciate you looking at these difficult issues with humility and grace. I'm guessing most readers of this blog have not lived with the reality of contracting HIV/AIDS, and have not lived in a culture where it is so prevalent. That is not to say we should ignore Biblical teachings about sex and morality - but we should be open to learning - especially when the issue concerns a place and a problem outside the day-to-day realities of most of our lives (I know I at least speak for myself, here). Most of us have not actually been the innocent children affected by HIV/AIDS. Again, this is not to say we shouldn't have opinions - only that we should be open to looking at the issue from different perspectives.

I think halting the spread of HIV/AIDS requires a holistic approach - simply giving out billions of condoms won't stop it, but neither will telling people to stop having sex.

Also, regarding Kamilla's comment, I do agree that we should think about this problem from a Christ-centered perspective, but I'm not sure why you don't think the writers should cite "secular" news sources. It seems that the purpose in using Avert as a source was simply to find facts about the rates of HIV/AIDS - I don't see how information from a Christian news source would've been any more accurate.

Anyway, I truly enjoy reading this blog. Keep up the good work, CT women!

Posted By: Lauren | April 7, 2009 10:42 AM

I'm surprised that one would say that a secular source could be suspect without thinking about the "Christian" sources that don't give the whole story because of their build in biases.

I've been to Uganda and read extensively about Uganda. What we in the west don't consider is that the average Ugandan woman gives birth 6 times and in some areas of the country, the rate is higher than that. That's a lot of sexual activity and, obviously, not a lot of birth control. And that also means a lot of AIDS passed to children, even those born within a marriage, from people infected before the anti-AIDS program came about.

All over Uganda, there are propaganda signs in school yards telling the kids not to get into compromising sexual situations. It made me wonder if that meant that there were lots of cases of girls being taken advantage of by somewhat older men. If that is the case, no abstinence or condom program would make any difference.

Posted By: PS(anafter-thought) | April 7, 2009 3:30 PM

Can Kamilla possibly lay off the high and mighty "idolatry of sex" attitude and realize, as PS noted above, that included among those who suffer from AIDS are parents and young children and upstanding members of society and not what she would probably consider some trampy little schoolgirl? The problem seems to be that AIDS is synonomous to some as "morally loose" when that's not always the case, if ever. Telling people just to stop having sex altogether will not help; as Lauren mentions, a more holistic approach is necessary. And also, like PS referred to, sex is often used a weapon--and no abstinence teaching in the world will stop that.
And the constant der Popenfuhrer (that would be Benedict) citations are irritating in an evangelical blog. We don't read these blogs to have Catholicism pushed on us!

Posted By: Mercy | April 8, 2009 4:18 PM

>Can Kamilla possibly lay off the high and mighty "idolatry of sex" attitude

Pointing out a reality which may make you uncomfortable hardly makes her "high and mighty." That's whinging talk which translates to "make the truth stop" and promotes the tickling of ears.

>And the constant der Popenfuhrer (that would be Benedict) citations are irritating in an evangelical blog.

The Pope indeed has some serious theological errors laid to his account (although none in this particular matter) but that should occasion tears not third string Nazi cheap shots.

Posted By: David Gray | April 10, 2009 8:08 PM

"der Popenfuhrer"

And *POP* goes Mercy's credibility.

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 10, 2009 8:25 PM

"And the constant der Popenfuhrer (that would be Benedict) citations are irritating in an evangelical blog. We don't read these blogs to have Catholicism pushed on us!"

Are there no moderators on this blog? Are such vile comments to be tolerated? On a blogsite (CT) with a national reputation? What will keep this site from descending to the depths of vicious ad hominem? If you have any concern for decency, you need to ban commenters such as the ill-named "Mercy."

Posted By: Bill R | April 10, 2009 8:26 PM

". . . condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship." [Green, quoted by Neff]

Unfortunately, this statement by Green implicitly asserts that "if people won't stop sinning altogether, then Christians should overtly endorse and support resort to sinful means to prevent or mitigate the consequences." (Add preemptive rolling of the eyes for some respondent who will, all too predictably, claim that making this point means that Christians who won't sanction condoms prefer suffering and death.)

And, for that matter, why does Green suppose that there are some persons who "CANNOT remain in a mutually faithful relationship"? There is something sorely lacking here in his understanding of the mutual working of human will and divine grace.

"a more holistic approach is necessary." [Mercy]

An excellent instance of a "high and mighty" attitude, in which "Mercy" smugly supposes his own superior moral sensitivity and intellectual sophistication. "Holistic" here apparently means "support use of condoms despite its proven track record of not significantly preventing or reducing HIV/AIDS propagation." Otherwise, it's just vague bloviating.

"And also, like PS referred to, sex is often used a weapon--and no abstinence teaching in the world will stop that." [Mercy]

Condoms don't enter into that scenario either. And no-one here is finding fault with the victims of rape as being somehow unchaste. So what's the point of dragging in this red herring?

"And the constant der Popenfuhrer (that would be Benedict) citations are irritating in an evangelical blog. We don't read these blogs to have Catholicism pushed on us!" [Mercy]

Ah, nothing like good old fashioned close-minded bigotry and smear tactics exercised through the genetic fallacy. And if Benedict XVI affirms tomorrow that 2+2=4, "Mercy" will doubtless also reject that for the same reason. (And, for the record, I am not an RC.)

This is a rare instance where I will not say, "Lord, have 'Mercy' on us"! :-)

Posted By: Irenaeus2 | April 11, 2009 9:39 AM

Bill R -- Don't you think that by coming here to a women's blog and trying to silence the women you disagree with might just be proving Mercy's point about the Pope (regardless of how harshly she may have made it)?

Irenaeus2 -- "And, for that matter, why does Green suppose that there are some persons who 'CANNOT remain in a mutually faithful relationship'?"

-- Many women (some of whom in the most difficult parts of the poorest countries are still just young girls) have no control over whether their husbands are faithful and in lands where women are not valued they have little ability to negotiate these issues with their husbands. Many of these women lack even the most rudimentary education. Many live in abject poverty. While they may technically have the choice to leave a marriage where the husband is unfaithful, in reality, this means certain death because they have no way to support themselves and their children. You may roll your eyes, but that doesn't make it any less true that lack of access to condoms and safe family planning will cause death and suffering. This is the reality that you and Kamila and Bill R and David Gray willfully turn a blind eye to. Have you no shame? No, I guess not. Your cramped little hearts have only room for judgment.

Thanks to Lavonne Neff for this article and her original post. An excellent attempt to cover the whole issue.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 11:46 AM

>Have you no shame? No, I guess not. Your cramped little hearts have only room for judgment.

I'm used to this sort of talk from pagans...

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 12:07 PM

>Many women (some of whom in the most difficult parts of the poorest countries are still just young girls) have no control over whether their husbands are faithful and in lands where women are not valued they have little ability to negotiate these issues with their husbands.

BTW, if this is true how on earth are they going to make their husband use a condom?

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 12:10 PM

Pope BENEDICT (happy now?) lives in a male-dominated world where men with no families, no wives, no children, make decisions of a reproductive nature for thousands, millions of women worldwide. That sickens me.

I'm sorry you took me to be so hostile. I am angry. I've come out of Catholicism, and I believe it to be wretched. That's my preregative. And I am on an EVANGELICAL blog, need I point out.

I'm in complete agreement with everything that Christian Lawyer says. Stop trying so hard to live to the LETTER of a MANMADE law (Benedict again) and try to live the spirit, so that people who are desperately suffering in Africa (and elsewhere!) have a shot at life!

For the record, Bill R. IS proving my point. Trying to silence the woman he disagrees with. How typical in this world.

Women's lives are a mess in Africa because of a despicable disease, and first-world men think they know exactly how to solve this crisis. It's sad. "You may roll your eyes, but that doesn't make it any less true that lack of access to condoms and safe family planning will cause death and suffering." Amen, brother (or sister). And thank you.

Posted By: Mercy | April 11, 2009 12:59 PM

>Women's lives are a mess in Africa because of a despicable disease

Whereas men's lives are not? Or are men uniquely fallen in that they have destroyed Africa by their masculinity? If only women were free to heal it with their non-fallen femininity? Not serious.

If you are actually a genuine evangelical then you accept the authority of scripture and are at ease with the Bible's patriarchal understanding of the sexes. In that case you should welcome men's involvement.

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 1:13 PM

Uh, yeah. Sorry, my bad, MEN'S LIVES are a mess too. There you go.

And for the comment about women being raped = a red herring....would you deny them the opportunity to one day wed and be with their husband WITHOUT the spector of AIDS at least partly subdued?

I can see it coming now: then she shouldn't marry at all, blah blah blah blah

Posted By: Mercy | April 11, 2009 1:25 PM

As David Gray said, if one is incapable of expecting one's husband to remain faithful, how is one expected to compel one's husband to use condoms? And even if the husband does somehow become convinced that he ought to use them, don't you think that there's a significant likelihood that he will figure that that's sufficient protection, so that he needn't change his behavior in any other way?

It seems to me that the core dynamic here is one of corrupted sexual power dynamics. So long as that culture remains in place, mere condom availability will have no positive effect. If we expect that promoting condom use will solve the problem, then in fact we're just making it worse by ignoring the real issue and giving men an excuse to continue their philandering.

And as to "der Popenfuhrer": That's quite an interesting justification Mercy makes in her recent post. I believe C.S. Lewis had something to say about this sort of argument. In its essential form, it's, "You *would* say X, because you're a Y." Of course, this in no way addresses the credibility of the argument itself. I wonder if she has any actual familiarity with the substance of Catholic sexual theology?

And just because I'm a lifelong Evangelical myself doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion of someone who implies an equality between Pope Benedict and Hitler.

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 11, 2009 1:42 PM

David -- No, not a pagan. Born-again Christian. Baptised at birth and again by my own free will as a young adult. Marvel at the majestic glory of God every time I see the ocean. Sing in my church choir. Serve on the Board of Trustees. Read the Bible cover to cover. You? Your brain is obviously as cramped as your heart.

But in the tiny hope that you were actually asking a serious question about how a woman in the circumstances described could "make" her husband use a condom, the answer is that SHE may not be able to. But public educational campaigns and low cost or free access to condoms might help the husband to make the right choice on his own to protect his wife even if he chooses not to remain faithful. Or, it might make the husband use protection when he cheats, so that even if his wife can't make him use a condom with her the wife will still have some protection against disease. Or, the wife might be able to convince her husband to use condoms solely as a birth control measure (with no implication of infidelity) because their economic status cannot support a (or another) child. This would give the wife more of an opportunity find a way to support herself or get an education. The possibilities are endless. If you don't have enough information to know the reality of these women's lives, then you don't have enough information to judge them.

And, David, dear, you come out of the same tradition that used to believe that the Bible had a "patriarchal understanding" of the races as well. It's like holding up a little mirror, and upon seeing only yourself, believing that the world revolves around you. That may be all you can see (of the Bible), but it's not all there is. Open your eyes, your heart, and your brain (listen to that great hymn that makes that point so well). There's more to God's world than you give Her credit for.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 1:56 PM

"There's more to God's world than you give Her credit for"

Gee, David, I guess you were right about the pagan thing.

Posted By: Watcher | April 11, 2009 2:10 PM

yay! go Christian Lawyer!! I too was disgusted by the patriarchy line! That must be the trump card of a certain group of men- pull it out everytime the wimmins get out of line, huh?

Posted By: Anonymous | April 11, 2009 2:37 PM

Christian Lawyer,
David Gray does have a tiny brain and a cramped heart, together they would fit into a thimble, but in this situation he is absolutely correct, and that doesn't say much for you. If one takes for granted a faithless husband, then the women are doomed either to AIDS or childlessness. Childlessness is unnatural and most women will forgo it.

I find the spirit on this blog that views women as brainless weaklings to be most disturbing.

Posted By: BW | April 11, 2009 4:01 PM

Watcher, if you believe that referring to God as "Her" is somehow evidence of my being a pagan, I would refer you to Genesis, wherein it states that God made us male AND female, in the image of God. Therefore, a reference to God as "Her" is just as valid a reference as to "Him." Sometimes you just need to mix it up so you don't forget! Your version of "half-a-god" is laughably small and not reflective at all of the God of the Bible.

Ethan: "And even if the husband does somehow become convinced that he ought to use them, don't you think that there's a significant likelihood that he will figure that that's sufficient protection, so that he needn't change his behavior in any other way?"

--So you would let the wife die of a preventable disease in order to try to show the husband the error of his ways?? Your generosity in being willing to sacrifice the women and children in order to save the men is not really the principled stand you represent it to be. Go ahead and preach to the husbands, but in the meantime, save the women and children. The program that's worked best is called the A-B-C program. The Pope wants only A and B. Unless you add C also, not instead, women are going to die and children will become orphans. Interesting that you don't really try to deny that women and children will suffer and die. You just try to justify it. And that's what makes you and the Pope culpable in a culture of death. And that's what makes Mercy and me angry.

Thanks, Annonymous, I've heard that patriarchy thing far too many times and I decided at the turn of the Millenium that it had gone on too long and I wasn't going to let it slide anymore.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 4:08 PM

Christian Lawyer,

When someone as committed to the spirit of the age as BW finds you to be in error you should shudder...

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 4:12 PM

BW - "If one takes for granted a faithless husband, then the women are doomed either to AIDS or childlessness. Childlessness is unnatural and most women will forgo it."

--Let the woman make that decision for herself!

BW - "I find the spirit on this blog that views women as brainless weaklings to be most disturbing."

--No one is suggesting that. Describing the reality of women's lives in the most impoverished parts of the world, where men hold all the cards, does not make the women either "brainless" (what they lack is education, not brains) or "weaklings" (in fact it is a sign of strength to perceive correctly the position one finds oneself in). These women are trapped, and it's partly because of patriarchal culture, and the long-term solution is to change that culture, but what is so difficult to understand about IN THE MEANTIME, let's save their lives?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 4:17 PM

When people rail against patriarchy you can nearly smell the smoke...

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 4:24 PM

David - your hard-heartedness makes me shudder.

And, once again, you don't (because you can't) deny that women and children will suffer on account of the policies you support.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 4:27 PM

>And, once again, you don't (because you can't) deny that women and children will suffer on account of the policies you support.

No, they suffer because of the fall. And promoting what all churchmen (including Luther and Calvin) in every age but this understand to be an abomination won't cause them to cease to suffer.

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 4:34 PM

David: "When people rail against patriarchy you can nearly smell the smoke..."

-- Honey, if you're smelling smoke, it's because you're sliding down the banks into the eternal Lake of Fire! Bye -bye . . . !

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 4:36 PM

David: "No, they suffer because of the fall. And promoting what all churchmen (including Luther and Calvin) in every age but this understand to be an abomination won't cause them to cease to suffer."

-- So, you deny that the ABC program worked in Uganda, as described in the CT post, at least until they took the "C" away? They suffer hunger because of the fall as well, does that mean we shouldn't feed them either? "All churchmen" subscribed to the notion that the Bible condoned slavery for centuries as well. That didn't make them right.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 4:51 PM

CL: Let the woman make that decision for herself!

Hell, no one is suggesting otherwise. What people are saying is to quit supporting a culture that treats women as chattel while enabling men to have as many lovers as they want "Because they'll do it anyway, but that's okay, they use condoms." Oh the magic of latex.

What is so hideous is the implicit racism involed in the implication these African men can't control their hot jungle blood. Racism and sexism all in one bundle.

Posted By: BW | April 11, 2009 5:07 PM

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Again, CL, points for the explanation that God made us male and female in His image, ergo DG sees Him as "half-a-god". That explanation always seems to stymie people. By the way, anonymous was me, lol, I thought my username was already saved online!

And NOBODY, but NOBODY, is suggesting women are brainless weaklings, except for perhaps the followers of the pope who wants to make decisions for her. Women there by and large do NOT have the autonomy we possess in the United States. They ARE chattel, property, worthless in the eyes of many. And people like David want to use them and their children, innocent children, as pawns in a massive game of "lets see who we can make choices for next." Let me get this straight-African women aren't allowed the attempt at condoms because it's OFFENSIVE (no, wait, it's RACIST)to say men, whoever they are, wherever in the world they are, might still cheat. Funny, I call that being pragmatic and preventative. But no, by all means, lets ASSUME the male will be faithful so as not to OFFEND him and by all means, if he isn't and she dies, oh well. Just a woman.
Let HER CHOOSE. CL is not claiming they shouldn't be allowed to, and neither am I! If they believe as the Pope does then let them choose THAT too. Just let them choose!
And bringing up the patriarchy, by the way, DG, is one of the most incredibly offensive things you can stoop to in an argument with women you do not agree with. It is demeaning, infantilizing, and, thankfully, only reinforces the point CL and I are trying to make that WOMEN DESERVE BETTER THAN WHAT THEY'RE GETTING.
AND claiming "the world is fallen" as an excuse to not seriously help people is an easy answer to hard situations you have no interest in dealing with. "The world is fallen"...why feed orphans? "The world is fallen"...why stop genocide?

Posted By: Anonymous | April 11, 2009 5:50 PM

Well, Lawyer, there you have it. You're clearly much wiser than I in being able to see something within the words of Holy Scripture which apparently lay hidden to generation upon generation of the wise and the foolish alike.

Oddly, it is the self same thing the pagans find.

Posted By: Watcher | April 11, 2009 5:54 PM

So, Anonymous, you think that LET HER CHOOSE is the right policy. (I can tell you feel strongly about this, in fact about many things, so you must be a REALLY REALLY GOOD PERSON because good people REALLY REALLY CARE and write PASSIONATELY. Unlike the bad patriarchal men.) Tell me, do women get to choose anything they want? Like abortions? After all, women's lives are at stake; we know about the rusty coat hangers if women are denied the right to abortion. (I mean, the RUSTY COAT HANGERS!!) It doesn't matter whether a choice is moral or not, or even effective or not, as long as there is a choice, is that right? What about infanticide? Would that be a possible choice?

And if that's not right, and you can decide that some choices are immoral, then what's wrong with looking at the situation under discussion in the light of morality too?

I am amazed -- no, maybe just amused -- at the discourse from the people I take to be regulars here. This seems like a blog where everyone usually agrees, because there doesn't seem to be much ability to answer an opposing view, but there's certainly a lot of hysteria in response. If you're trying to show you're as skilled at argument as those small-hearted patriarchal men, you're not doing a good job, ladies.

Posted By: Judy | April 11, 2009 6:32 PM

go fish.

Posted By: Anonymous | April 11, 2009 7:27 PM

Seriously? Seriously, Judy? You're mocking me for my writing style? For real? No, really. Are you serious?

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Posted By: Mercy (who sometimes forgets to put her name in this box) | April 11, 2009 7:37 PM

>WOMEN DESERVE BETTER THAN WHAT THEY'RE GETTING

Actually, just like men, they DESERVE death, hell and the grave.

Posted By: David Gray | April 11, 2009 8:40 PM

BW - The CT post included the statistics about Ugandan men. Reporting the statistics is not racist. The disparity between the percentage of women who have multiple partners and the number of men who do are probably similar the world over. We're only talking about Africa because that is what the Pope was talking about.

And about letting the women choose, you ARE preventing the women from making a choice if you don't permit them the tools necessary to make the choice. If safe family planning is not accessible, then they don't have the tools they need to take control of their lives.

To Watcher -- it took generation upon generation to come to an understanding that slavery was wrong as well. But, then, I'm sure you thought the abolitionists were pagans too.

Judy, we ARE talking about morality -- about the morality of letting women and children die because you think using a piece of latex is going to condemn someone's soul to hell. The Bible says nothing about birth control, but it says alot about protecting and having compassion for women and children. I believe it's immoral to allow women and children to suffer and die rather than include the "C" in the A-B-C programs for HIV prevention (whether in Africa or anywhere else for that matter). No one's talking about abortion or infanticide. Get a grip. You're entitled to believe using condoms is more immoral than letting the women and children die, but I think you're tragically wrong and hopelessly hard-hearted.

David: "Actually, just like men, they DESERVE death, hell and the grave."

--I bestow on you today's Popenfuhrer award, which I think should be given to the poster for the best example of domatic and judgmental scripture-hurling.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 10:44 PM

Should have been "dogmatic and judgmental scripture-hurling."

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 11, 2009 10:50 PM

I've seen precious little substance on this thread after the first three posts. There is one simple question which no amount of invective from either side can affect: Was the Pope correct in his statement that:

"If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer".

Let us lay aside entirely the office and person of the speaker. Is this -- the statement itself -- a true statement? Please note the two clauses beginning with "if" in the first sentence. Do any of the posters on this thread dispute this statement, and if so, on what rational grounds?

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 12, 2009 12:34 AM

There you go, Lawyer, proving me wrong. I hate when that happens.

The slavery analogy fails on several accounts:

First, the chattel slavery of the New World and Britain cannot be compared to slavery in the Ancient world. Ancient slavery was not connected to race, nor did it imply any national, ethnic or racial inferiority.

Second, unlike chattel slavery, a slave in the ancient world earned a stipend which he could use to purchase his freedom, though manumission was common without such a purchase.

Third, you are quite wrong. The Church opposed slavery from very early on in its history and, in fact, did so as soon as Christianity became free of persecution itself. Of course, this is the Catholic church and we all know how well that goes over around these parts.

In contrast to this, the church has NEVER interpreted Genesis as you are wont to. To which, I can only respond with two more words:

Anathema sit!

Posted By: Watcher | April 12, 2009 11:51 AM

"And about letting the women choose, you ARE preventing the women from making a choice if you don't permit them the tools necessary to make the choice. If safe family planning is not accessible, then they don't have the tools they need to take control of their lives."

Yep, and the upshot is you have fewer of "those people" around and you've helped them to do it to themselves.

As for statistics and racism, look at the abortion statistics on blacks in New York. Some years more black babies are killed in the womb than allowed to be born, but "it's their choice."

This type of thinking is enambling a norm of promiscuous men with multiple partners. It is promoting and prolonging death rather than life. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Ours is to offer the Way of Life. God told Noah to make an ark. Noah did it. No one was made to get on that Ark. Christ offers the way. It is our ark. Those who follows that way will, like Noah's family after the flood, go forth, multiply and fill the earth. Those who've followed the way of death will reach their destination.

Posted By: BW | April 12, 2009 12:57 PM

Watcher -- You have not done your homework, so you're wrong again.

First, I don't think the slaves cared about which form of slavery they were enslaved by. Once again, your compassion for the reality of people's lives is sorely lacking.

Second, even if the slave could eventually free him/herself, he/she still spent the greater part of their lives as a slave! That they could buy their freedom does not alleviate the immorality of the enslavement in the first place.

Third, it is you who is quite wrong. See this article in CT by a Catholic apologist. Even there the history of the Catholic church in matters regarding slavery is shameful. "Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537." In 1488 the ill-named Pope Innocent accepted a gift of Moorish slaves. "[D]uring the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Jesuits in Maryland were slave-owners."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

Here's another look (from a Catholic source) at the history of the Catholic church and slavery: "Through much of its history the Catholic Church condoned, promoted, supported and engaged in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Jesuit John Perry’s account of this in Catholics and Slavery is comprehensive and unflinching. He believes the church was part of the problem in its complicity in slavery, but has remade itself as part of the solution."
http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1832/854/

Even if you take the earliest of the anti-slavery positions of various Catholics back in the 700's, that's still "generation upon generation" of church leaders who persisted in grave moral error. My point is not to bash the Catholic church, because the Protestant denominations are no better.

The point is that it took many centuries for any of the Christian churches to get their positions on slavery correct. So, too, has it taken centuries for the Church to even begin to treat women with the dignity that reflects that female-ness is one half of the image of God. It's not a new idea, but it's an under-appreciated one. Positive change has to start somewhere, so just because an idea is not grounded in centuries of tradition, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Even Isaiah used female imagery to refer to God:

"12 For thus says the LORD: ...

13 As one whom his mother comforts,
So I will comfort you;
And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

As for your efforts to silence me or call me a heretic ("Anathema sit!"), after I laughed out loud, I thought of 3 words for you: Veritas vos liberabit! But, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 12, 2009 2:42 PM

Ethan, yes, I dispute that statement. See the results of the ABC program in Uganda. As I said above, the Pope's statement allows for only A and B. And, he is right to preach the imporance of those two components. But, that is not the whole answer. When the Ugandan program dopped the "C" from the program it stopped working. As the CT article stated, yes to preaching A and B, and in the meantime, yes to C, to save the women and children while we wait for A and B to work. Yes, I believe it is more immoral to allow the women and children to suffer and die than it is for the adults to use condoms.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 12, 2009 2:59 PM

"Veritas vos liberabit"

I daresay it's the only true thing you've posted here. As for silencing you? I wouldn't dare attempt it as it is quite evident no human power, no merely human words, would ever cause you to think twice about the heresy you spout.

I don't engage you to convince the invincibly heretical. The ONLY reason I engage you is for the sake of the lurkers you seek to lead to damnation.

Only for these will the pronouncement of anathema have any meaning.

Posted By: Watcher | April 12, 2009 4:21 PM

>Once again, your compassion for the reality of people's lives is sorely lacking.

This seems a bit ironic for someone who is speaking for the Father of Lies when she says "There's more to God's world than you give Her credit for".

Carl Henry would shudder to think that his creation now makes a comfortable home for this sort of hellish talk and thought.

Posted By: David Gray | April 12, 2009 4:55 PM

Watcher, pronounce away. On Christ the solid rock I stand. You stand on the sinking sands of arrogance, ignorance, and intolerance. I don't fear you. I pity you.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 12, 2009 4:59 PM

David, judge away. You suppress the feminine half of God in order to oppress the feminine half of humanity. The only "hellish talk" I've seen in these comments is the talk of condemning women and children to suffer and die for fear of the "moral" consequences of a piece of latex. The culture of death that you perpetuate is not of God.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 12, 2009 5:50 PM

Need we more proof of the Lawyer's heretical teachings? She who preaches of a "feminine half of god"?

You god is no god and your christ is a false savior. God is no hermaphrodite. God IS Father.

Posted By: Watcher | April 12, 2009 6:09 PM

Watcher/David -- Here's Pope John Paul I referring to God as having both masculine and feminine characteristics as quoted in an article from Catholic News Service:

"In one of his most quoted remarks, he said God "is a father, but even more, a mother" in the way he loves humanity. He backed up his statement by quoting the Old Testament prophet Isaiah: "Could a mother forget her child? But even if that were to happen, God will never forget his people."

8/22/08 CNS article titled "John Paul I: The smiling pope who connected with everyday Catholics" http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804299.htm

There's nothing radical or heretical here, except for your fear. The use of a feminine pronoun once in a while to emphasize the often overlooked "mother" aspects of God is hardly a threat to God, although it might be a threat to you. But, that's your problem, not mine.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 12, 2009 9:33 PM

I see that the word "Christian" on this blog (as in "Christian Lawyer") is used analogously to "Christ" in "Church of Christ, Scientist" -- that it means, variously, libertine, Gnostic, hermaphrodite and feminist, as though its ideal of Christianity were to galvanize the corpses of long-dead heresies and to pull them, incompletely animated and stinking, from their longaeval tombs, and obtrude them upon the world. Well, good luck with that -- but I wish you would offer your readers free internet pomanders to ready themselves for the encounter with decay and dissolution tyhat one finds here.

Posted By: Invicta Veritas | April 12, 2009 9:37 PM

Two words:

Metaphor, Context.

Lawyer, the only fear I have is that you will harvest unsuspecting souls in your heretical ravings.

Now, if I could just find that two pound coin which should be in my purse, I'd like to see if Mr. Veritas might have a pomander of his own I could purchase, I'm sick of the stench of this place.

Posted By: Watcher | April 12, 2009 9:57 PM

Not to dismiss the issue of hermaphroditic heresy, but I'd like to return to an earlier statement.

ChristianLawyer, you say you dispute the Pope's statement, but you misrepresent what his statement actually was. In the quote I provided, the Pope makes no mention of opposing the distribution of condoms per se. Lay aside your presumptions about what the Pope is saying based on his office, and please read what he actually said:

"IF the soul is lacking, IF Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem.

Am I to understand that you believe that condoms can resolve the scourge of AIDS in the absence of the transformation of culture that the Pope is calling for? If so, that seems obviously false to me.

Or do you believe that even in a culture of sexual tyranny and rampant abuse, condom distribution can never do any harm? If this, then what leads you to assume that condom availability will not simply be employed as a tool for further male oppression, and taken as an excuse for continued and worsening male promiscuity?

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 12, 2009 11:39 PM

"Pope BENEDICT (happy now?) lives in a male-dominated world where men with no families, no wives, no children, make decisions of a reproductive nature for thousands, millions of women worldwide. That sickens me."

Look, I'm not Catholic, but this sort of rubish deserves a good thrashing. I find it funny that you're accusing some of us of being judgemental and then you assume that Pope Benedict was cloned in a vat of goo and never saw a family in his life. Worse, all of the men (and women BTW...there's lots of nuns running around) somehow were spawned ex nihilo.

I'd also like to know where his army of storm troopers are that can bust down doors in Africa and demand that women have sex with random men without condoms. I await the evidence.

Oh wait...there is none...

The army of storm troopers is just the sound of all those faithful that are willing to obey rather than rant about injustice.

Posted By: Nick | April 13, 2009 12:01 AM

Ethan, I've answered your question several times. Let me try again. (And, it's not misrepresentation to look at the statement in context.)

I understand that statement, standing alone, to mean that the Pope believes that as long as our world is messed up and we don't fix the relationships properly, the distribution of condoms has the potential to make things worse.

I disagree. I think in this messed up world, we need to (in shorthand) preach about relationships, while at the same time addressing present human need by making condoms and other forms of safe family planning readily available and accessible. I believe that the distribution of condoms, AS PART OF the ABC plan for impoverished areas where HIV/AIDS rates are high, where women are particularly at risk and especially lacking in realistic possibilities for limiting that risk, is even more crucial to saving the lives of women and children and absolutely does more good than harm. I think that's the conclusion that the CT author came to as well.

(I also think that family planning should be safe and accessible and readily available everywhere, but that's a different point.)

You ask - "what leads you to assume that condom availability will not simply be employed as a tool for further male oppression, and taken as an excuse for continued and worsening male promiscuity?"

My answer is a comprehensive education program as part of the ABC or similar program, comprehensive sex education in the schools to teach young people both that it's best to abstain (or postpone) and how to negotiate relationships with dignity and respect all around, micro-enterprise development loans that have been hugely successful at giving women a chance to support themselves, and finally changing of the laws to empower women to lead independent lives.

The ABC programs have proven successful, and they include the distribution of condoms. They appear to help men to reduce the number of partners and to practice safe sex. Doesn't that refute your question about the consequences of condom distribution?

Your questions seem to assume that we can only do one thing at a time or that the choice is either one thing or the other, which seems to me to be a limited vision. Multi-tasking is, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing!

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 13, 2009 1:14 AM

Christian Lawyer, I don't think they care anymore about your well-thought out replies re: AIDS in Africa and Catholic interference in politics. You make perfect sense but sometimes people are so irrational there can be absolutely no reasoning with them. In fact, I learned in college you absolutely cannot reason with someone who thinks birth control is a sin. I think these "Christians" are more concerned with making sure God is a male, through and through, and accusing you of being a pagan and me of not knowing what I'm talking about re: Catholicism. Which, btw,the evangelical support is rather amusing, as it would not go both ways; Catholics are more likely to claim "we're" wrong, and they've got the one "true" church behind them. But whatevs. I've enjoyed reading *your posts*, and encouraged by it. Thank you. Continue to fight for openmindedness, love, and respect for women. We learn it from our Savior.

Posted By: Mercy | April 13, 2009 1:26 AM

Uh, Watcher, "God IS Father" is also a metaphor. Given in the context of an ancient patriarchal culture. And, it's a valid metaphor, but NOT the ONLY valid one, at least according to Pope JP I and Isaiah. So, get used to it.

What? Is that your hair on fire at the thought that God has feminine attributes? Let me suggest a jump in the lake. That should put it out, and wash clean your reeking Pharisee robes, too.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 13, 2009 2:27 AM

"Uh, Watcher, "God IS Father" is also a metaphor."

Oh, I see. Does that mean that Christ being Son is also a metaphor, and that Christ is equally male and female? For the Holy Spirit, are both "Holy" and "Spirit" metaphors?

But returning to the issue of condoms. The "AB" of "ABC" stand for "Abstain/Be faithful" -- that is, precisely the sort of cultural transformation for which the Pope is calling. As we've seen, in the absence of these transformational elements, condoms alone cannot solve the problem, and do in fact make it worse.

You seem to be fond of metaphors and parables, so here's one:

Let's imagine a financial industry that has begun making very risky loans. Regulators and watchdogs start to get worried. But the banks tell them, "It's all right. We've developed these measures, called asset-backed securities and credit default swaps, to ensure ourselves against the risk." Well, that sounds all right to the regulators, so they get out of the way.

Then, as we all know, things turn south, and everything collapses. It turns out that, without regulation and enforcement, all the fancy swaps and securities can't save anybody. They just make things worse. But in the mean time, they fooled everyone into thinking that there wasn't any problem that needed to be corrected.

And the application:

Men in certain African countries have a long history of promiscuity and other sexual abuses. With the arrival of AIDS, these behaviors have become extremely risky and damaging, especially to women. It becomes clear that if such behavior doesn't change, the whole culture will destroy itself.

But then, here comes an NGO distributing condoms. Here's a simple, effective way to stop the spread of HIV and protect women from the dangers of men's promiscuity -- or so it seems. Now it doesn't look as though there's much need to transform the culture of promiscuity and abuse. Condoms will save the day, while avoiding all of the inconvenient burdens of teaching men to regulate their sexual behavior.

Except, of course, that men don't want to use them, that women still have no power to insist that men use them, and that condoms don't work very well even when they are used.

Do you see, then, how condom distribution in the absence of cultural change -- the only thing which the Pope was opposing -- can make things worse?

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 13, 2009 2:17 PM

Indeed Ethan. Which of course makes the Pope's words completely non-controversial. Or at least it should.

If the culture is not transformed there is no hope that condoms will do anything but make effective water balloons. Oddly, the hyper-feminists here are indirectly arguing for female oppression by supporting a "safety" to a system of degraded patriarchy. My irony meter is off the charts.

Posted By: Nick | April 13, 2009 4:41 PM

Mercy, thanks, you're so right.

Ethan,

You say that "the only thing which the Pope is opposing" is "condom distribution in the absence of cultural change."

You seem to be absurdly implying that there would be some circumstances under which the Pope WOULD support condoms. In what parallel universe are you living?

The Pope opposes the use of condoms in ALL situations, as his statement, if you were to quote it correctly, demonstrates. Here's what the phrase actually was: "the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms." The Pope never said "distributing condoms ALONE," as your post asserts.

His position, and apparently yours, since you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the success of the ABC program, is that condoms are NEVER part of the solution even though the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. You perpetuate the myth that men's actions cannot be changed. The success of the ABC program shows differently. You never explain why a multi-pronged approach is unacceptable to you.

You're entitled to your view, but I think that leads to the completely unnecessary deaths of women and children. And that those who support the Catholic church's absolutist position on condoms are supporting a culture of death.

As to your complete inability to understand what a metaphor is, let me explain. Since God is "immortal, invisible God only wise, in light in accessible hid from our eyes," any attempt to ascribe human characteristics to God necessarily is but an incomplete and insufficient metaphor. Jesus, on the other hand, was a living human being (who was also divine, but that's a separate issue). Since he was an actual human being, he can have (and did have) gender. So, no, Jesus is not both male and female.

"Holy" is an adjective, not a metaphor. "Spirit" is the thing itself and not a metaphor, just like "Christian" is the adjective describing "Lawyer," which IS what I am, not a metaphor for what I am. You're just being willfully obtuse.

Interestingly, and not to set your hair fire along with Watcher's, but the Hebrew and Aramaic words for "spirit" are feminine, not masculine, a point that we miss in the English translation since our nouns don't have gender.

Nick, you and your "stormtroopers" merely prove the intractability of the "degraded patriarchy" by denying women the means to save their own lives.

Posted By: Christian Laywer | April 13, 2009 9:02 PM

Christian Lawyer to Ethan:

"You seem to be absurdly implying..."

"... you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the success of the ABC program..."

"You perpetuate the myth that men's actions cannot be changed."

"You never explain why a multi-pronged approach is unacceptable to you."

"As to your complete inability to understand what a metaphor is..."

"You're just being willfully obtuse."

-------

Ethan Cordray, what have you got to say for yourself?

Posted By: Truth Unites... and Divides | April 14, 2009 10:03 AM

"Ethan C., what have you got to say for yourself?"

Well, what can one say for oneself, when one has already had one's opinions so expertly deduced by another?

ChristianLawyer, thank you for enlightening me. I don't think I ever would have discovered that I believed all those things if you hadn't been so kind as to tell me.

Since it's more than a bit difficult to have a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to believe I mean what I say, I think I'm going to have to call this one quits.

And TUAD, you know me from elsewhere. There's a reason I avoid using my full name, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain as well.

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 14, 2009 2:24 PM

>>>Carl Henry would shudder to think that his creation now makes a comfortable home for this sort of hellish talk and thought.

Indeed. And so it is with all institutions, even our Lord's Church. How He must weep when He observes how His children treat one another.

Christian Lawyer,

Why do you insist on "[t]he use of a feminine pronoun once in a while to emphasize the often overlooked 'mother' aspects of God"? It is true that doing so "is hardly a threat to God". It does, however, deviate from the manner in which our Lord referred to His Father. Indeed, He instructed us to call Him Father, not Mother.

Why deviate from the example our Lord gave us? Whether He approves or not, I do not know. I don't presume to speak for God. But the example we are given repeatedly in Scripture is that we can, through the grace of our Lord, call His Father our Father. His mother is the Blessed Virgin Mary and our mother is the Church. Indeed, in some sense, since we are His brothers and sisters by adoption, His mother is ours as well. Thus, the example offered to us by Scripture and by the Church is to call God our Father and the Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary our mother.

(As a Protestant, I am referring to the Church catholic, not the Catholic Church alone, though I certainly believe she is part of the Church catholic. And while I do not accept all the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, I do recognize our Lord's mother's unique role in salvation history, for which I give her my undying gratitude. Her fiat opened the way for my salvation. May she ever be blessed by all generations as she prophesied through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.)

I generally believe artificial methods of birth control should not be used and believe that this has been the position of the Church catholic from its earliest years until approximately the middle third of the last century. However, in hard cases and when not motivated by a lack of desire for children, I believe that the mercy our Lord showed when healing on the Sabbath provides a basis for permitting their use. I certainly understand the reasons why many fear that making condoms widely available will cause more harm than good, but when a man or woman has AIDS or HIV and is married, mercy may require an exception. If the motive is to prevent the spread of disease while not giving occasion for adultery, perhaps mercy should overrule the general teaching that birth control is forbidden. Frankly, I believe I lack the wisdom to make that judgment. I certainly understand both sides of the argument. However, Christians should recognize the peril which the widespread use of condoms creates and not be too quick to endorse it as part of the solution and should certainly not condone its use absent hard cases. If it is permitted in mercy, it certainly should not be promoted as the ideal solution, which is for both spouses to remain disease free by remaining faithful to their vows of matrimony and by entering the marriage as virgins.

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 14, 2009 3:27 PM

>>>I learned in college you absolutely cannot reason with someone who thinks birth control is a sin.

That would be the entire Church (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) until the 1930 Lambeth Conference, at which time the Anglican Communion approved its use in limited circumstances. It is irrefutable that Christians of all traditions recognized artificial birth control as a sin prior to the 20th century. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

That is, for almost 1900 years, not a single orthodox Christian denomination or communion condoned its use. The contrary view is a novelty introduced just prior to our own time, less than a century ago. It is hubris to believe that all generations of Christians prior to the twentieth century were in serious error on this matter and that only in the last 80 years have we discovered the truth. If such a serious error could have existed in His Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, for 1900 years, then it calls into question the basis for our faith entirely. And make no mistake about it, if declaring birth control a sin was indeed an error, it was serious indeed.

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 14, 2009 4:10 PM

If it helps to clarify what my personal views actually are on the permissibility of birth control, they are essentially the same as those described by Another Viewpoint. My argument was always against the simplistic misrepresentation of those views.

The efficacy of condom distribution as a primary mode of AIDS reduction, absent any cultural transformation, is an entirely separate issue.

Posted By: Ethan C. | April 14, 2009 5:18 PM

"The Pope opposes the use of condoms in ALL situations, as his statement, if you were to quote it correctly, demonstrates. Here's what the phrase actually was: "the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms." The Pope never said "distributing condoms ALONE," as your post asserts."

But, Christian Lawyer, you apparently have quoted it and it says nothing of the sort that you claim. The scourge of AIDS, Benedict is quite correct in saying, will not be resolved by distributing condoms.

If that were the case, those places were condoms have been freely available would have a negligible rate of HIV infection. Can you name one place, just one, where HIV/AIDS has essentially been erradicated by the distribution of condoms?

No, of course you can't.

Posted By: Anonymous | April 14, 2009 6:27 PM

I have a question just out of curiousity's sake, Another Viewpoint, because I *truly* do appreciate your reasoned, thoughtful explanation of your beliefs --that same conference also decided to forbid racial segregation in churches. Could you not argue that *that* was a belief that had been intact for thousands of years, that only very recently changed? I am not convinced that using the argument of "this never changed; ergo it must be true" is a very valid argument.

For the record, my view on sex/birth control, since everyone seems to be clarifying, is abstinence until marriage, and then afterward b.c. is legit and well within a married couple's conscience; it is up to them. But for those "will not be abstinent or faithful" in Uganda, I do believe condoms are a way for women to at least try to protect themselves.

Posted By: Mercy | April 14, 2009 7:07 PM

"And that those who support the Catholic church's absolutist position on condoms are supporting a culture of death."

I think this quite accurately sums up the issue at hand. The Catholic church believes that any and all birth control (with the exception of NFP, but that's a different subject), is an absolute sin. Always and everywhere. Of course, the pope is not going to prance around Africa promoting that alongside the A and the B. However, has there been mention at all of what the Ugandans believe? If they're Catholic and wish to follow his claims, then rock on. But if they're not, and he's mandating this without any other options for those who DON'T believe it's a sin, it really is a shame, and a rather uncomfortable interference of a religious body into a civic issue (also a huge problem with the US, also another topic).

The belief in condom=sin though, as CL stated above, does indeed elevate pieces of plastic above women's lives, men's lives, children who will have to live without parents, teenagers who know and understand what abstinence is and refuse to follow it...it *is* a culture of death. Like I mentioned before, of valuing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Someone may have mentioned this before, and it was probably CL, but it's interesting to note that Jesus never had one word to say about birth control but plenty about watching out for the poor and oppressed among us. Indeed, one person's "liberation" (the ability to use birth control freely) may well be another's "oppression" (the viewpoint of those who've posted who don't believe condoms against AIDS are effective re: women) but I still absolutely, heartily, completely believe that the people whom are affected by these policy deciisons should have that choice available to them.

Posted By: Mercy | April 14, 2009 7:20 PM

>Could you not argue that *that* was a belief that had been intact for thousands of years, that only very recently changed?

No, that had been a historical aberration rather than a traditional practice of the church.

Posted By: David Gray | April 14, 2009 7:22 PM

Mercy,

Yes, racially segregated worship was an innovation. Certainly, there were problems related to prejudice in the early Church, which were addressed rather explicitly in Scripture. My understanding is that there was little attention paid by Christians to one's ethnicity for many centuries thereafter. Many of the great Fathers of the early Church, including Cyril of Alexander and Augustine of Hippo, were from Africa. Tradition holds that St. Thomas established a mission in India. The Church of the East moved well into Asia, including what are now Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, eventually reaching China.

In the New World, segregation obviously existed, but it certainly was against both Scripture and the history of the early Church. Even in North America, segregation was not as widespread initially as it came to be. For example, while I am primarily of European descent, I also have Native America and possibly African ancestry as well. Early bishops of Rome and patriarchs of Constantinople were from all three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) then known to Christians. So, segregation was an innovation in direct contravention of Scripture and the practice of the Early Fathers.

As to birth control being up to each married couple's own conscience, what is the basis for your rejection of 19 centuries of Church teaching on this other than your belief that it is legit? Do you believe that you have a duty to inform yourself of what the Church taught through the centuries and why?

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 14, 2009 7:34 PM

That should have been Cyril of Alexandria (Egypt, of course). 

We certainly have a sad history of segregation of worship in the U.S., but, of course, the Church predates the settlement of what is now the United States by European immigrants by nearly 1600 years.  The vast majority of Church history predates any Christian worship practices in what is now the U.S.  The worship practices in North America should not in any way be considered normative of the practices of the first millennium-and-a-half of the faith.

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 14, 2009 10:06 PM

"Why deviate from the example our Lord gave us?'

--Precisely because the Lord's Prayer was an EXAMPLE of how to pray appropriately. In the instructions, Jesus warns in different respects about elevating form over substance. That prayer is a beautiful, complete prayer, but nowhere did Jesus say that was the ONLY way to pray.

"If the motive is to prevent the spread of disease while not giving occasion for adultery, perhaps mercy should overrule the general teaching that birth control is forbidden...."

-- Beautifully put and a moving display of your heart for looking honestly at the people who are on the receiving end of the policies we are discussing. While I don't agree with your general views on birth control (although they were so graciously stated), I appreciate that what you've said is a basis for dialogue.

"That is, for almost 1900 years, not a single orthodox Christian denomination or communion condoned its use.... It is hubris to believe that all generations of Christians prior to the twentieth century were in serious error on this matter and that only in the last 80 years have we discovered the truth."

-- Two reasons this does not trouble me. First, for that same almost 1900 years, the church fathers had what we now know was a completely un-scientific view of conception and procreation and how women's bodies worked. Some of the early church fathers believed sex was inherently evil or that there was only one acceptable "way" or that sex was how original sin was transmitted. And, it's no surprise to me that views based on bad science became calcified over centuries in a church (both Catholic and Protestant) and a culture than relegated women to mere chattel status. So, it's no surprise that as we came to understand the science better, views changed. Second, for the same 1900 years women were denied basic rights and just because this only began to change in my grandmother's lifetime, it was not "hubris" to believe the denial of those rights by both society and the church over many centuries was indeed grave moral error. The church, while also bringing the good news to the world for centuries, has also perpetuated many grave, long-standing errors over that time, so no, I don't see it as "hubris" to note that another one became apparent in the last 100 years.

"The worship practices in North America should not in any way be considered normative of the practices of the first millennium-and-a-half of the faith."

-- Regardless of whether it started out that way, after half a millenium of colonization, imperialism, slavery, degradation of the indigenous population, Jim Crow, etc., I think you have to say that this had become institutionalized in the church by the time in the 20th century when it was finally rejected and that advocates for equality and justice were subjected to the same claims of "hubris" for trying to overturn centuries of practice. Plus, even if Europe in the first millenium and a half did not practice racial segregation (which I don't think is quite correct) there was still the whole feudal system of oppression and economic injustice that was institutionalized by the church and which had to be thrown off. It wasn't "hubris" to think that this system had to come to an end either. Smoothing over or explaining away past error to avoid having to acknowledge the real changes that have taken place merely serves to perpetuate the error.

"Even in North America, segregation was not as widespread initially as it came to be. For example, while I am primarily of European descent, I also have Native America and possibly African ancestry as well."

--Very respectfully, I believe African American and Native American historians would take an entirely different view of the nature of the interactions that caused so many of us to have a couple or a few ancestors from backgrounds other than our "predominant" ethnic affiliation.

"The scourge of AIDS, Benedict is quite correct in saying, will not be resolved by distributing condoms. If that were the case, those places were condoms have been freely available would have a negligible rate of HIV infection."

-- Just because a thing is not perfect, does not mean it's not good. You ignore the success of the ABC program in Uganda. And, while you wait for the perfect program, women and children are needlessly condemned to death by the policies you support.

"The efficacy of condom distribution as a primary mode of AIDS reduction, absent any cultural transformation..."

--OK, first you were arguing "condoms ALONE cannot solve the problem, and do in fact make it worse." And I said no one's arguing (at least not here) for a "condoms alone" program. Now, you're condemning "condom distribution as a PRIMARY mode of AIDS reduction." No one's arguing that either. The ABC program has 3 equal parts. It's hard to have a dialogue if you're arguing against something no one is arguing for.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 15, 2009 1:18 AM

Very well stated, Christian Lawyer.

There is much there to address, but I'll limit myself to two points. On segregation, don't you think it is a little disingenuous to say, "Well look, the Europeans had segregated worship when the continent had few Africans and Asian in it. That is, the continents themselves were largely segregated and most people did not visit far off lands. However, where there was intermingling of the various ethnic groups, what evidence do you have that they segregated their worship in the first millennium and a half. To point to what happened for a few sad centuries in what is now the U.S. is very American-centric. It reflects the myopic view many Americans (Christian or not) appear to have of the world, that we are the exemplar. We are not. If we represent a break with the past, which we most assuredly do, what difference does it make whether that break started in the 17th century or the 20th, it still represents a deviation from Scripture and ancient Church practices. Segregation, like the acceptance of birth control, is a relatively modern deviation from the teaching of Scripture and the early Church. The Epistles are quite clear that segregation was a sin in the early church for which St. Paul (on ethnic distinctions) and St. James (on economic distinction) chastised the churches to which they wrote.

On birth control, it is true that many of the early Church Fathers appear to have views on sex and reproduction which we would now reject. On the other hand, the restriction on birth control appears very early on and at least some of the Fathers (e.g. St. John Chrysostom) appear to base their objections of grounds that are still applicable today. The Scriptures repeatedly declare children a blessing from God. St. John Chrysostom called the use of contraception contemning the gifts of God. So it really is not accurate to imply that they only basis for the early Churches objection to contraception was a misunderstanding of reproduction.

The bigger issue I have with your approach, however, is the belief that we moderns can break with the understanding of the faith of our ancestors in the faith and still claim to be exercising the same faith. At some point, when enough of the ancient faith is rejected, we cease to be true to the faith which we inherited; we are, in fact, creating a new faith. Again, it is hubris to believe that we who live nearly 2000 years after the Incarnation of our Lord better understand His teachings than those who walked and learned from Him and those who they taught and continued the faith after their death.

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 15, 2009 6:29 AM

One other question, Christian Lawyer, and then I am leaving this thread. I am a Christian lawyer as well. I recognize your fine skills at rhetoric and debate. However, the question I have is where your priorities lie.

Are you more interested in crafting arguments to support your deviation from the historic understanding of Scripture and the practices and teachings of the Church through the ages or are you more interested in discerning His will and, by His grace, submitting to it? May God bless you (and others) who are willing to seriously ponder that question.

Posted By: Another Viewpoint | April 15, 2009 7:17 AM

Thank you for all of your comments, Mercy, Christian Lawyer, "Another Viewpoint," Ethan C., and David Gray. At this point the conversation has traveled so afield of LaVonne's post that it might be worth wrapping things up and moving to e-mail correspondence, if you are all so inclined. But stay tuned to the women's blog for more inevitably debate-inducing topics.
In Christ,
Katelyn

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | April 15, 2009 9:05 AM

Post a comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Stanton Jones, CedarvilleOUT Come to Campus

Top 10 Posts of the Last 30 Days

Carrie Prejean's Book Urges Women to Stand Up for Beliefs

Are We Obsessed with 'Cute'?

A Quest to Question Mainstream Media

Planned Parenthood Puts Restraining Order on Former Director

The Day We Let Our Son Live

Wheaton Students Advocate for Woman President

Reforming a Girls' Reformatory

In the Loop: Down syndrome abortions on the rise