The following is a video of N.T. Wright addressing the Humanum Colliquium. I found it posted on my friend, Fr. James Gibson's blog, Locust and Wild Honey. If it were not for his post, I couldn't have copied it, here!
I found +Wright's video to be well worth watching. I hope you do, as well.
7 comments:
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/commentary-united-methodism-and-the-ordination-of-women
Methodists would object to Dr. Wright's understanding of complementarianism.
Thank you for your comment. Please specify why you think that Methodists (I assume United Methodists) would object to Dr. Wright's understanding.
Thank you.
On that article I linked, it says ""We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage." (Social Principles, 34)"
and it seems that Wright's complementarianism seems to be reinforcing these social norms.
Not that I disagree with Wright.
Sorry, that was me that made that last comment. I forgot completely that I had a blog back in the day attempting to refute the existence of the Statue of Liberty.
I think that there is a nuance that you are missing in your hearing of N.T. Wright and how your reading of the UM link.
N.T. Wright can be hear in the face of the issue of homosexuality. Over against those who see homosexual expressions (e.g., gay marriage) as being consistent with Scripture, Wright is arguing for heterosexual marriage as being the biblical position; a complimentarian position.
In your reading of Wright, then, one would have to equate egalitarianism with the homosexual side.
However, Wright is quite egalitarian when it comes to women in holy orders.
I think you are confusing the two different contexts between Wright's presentation and the UM link.
How can one be egalitarian when it comes to women in holy orders but not allow them to invent doctrine enabling homosexual practice?
Invent doctrine with regards to anything, really? How can one be fully egalitarian and not permit a women to come up with her own doctrine for the church? It's not like she decided the canon--MEN DID!
I do not understand your comments, at all. Sorry.
What I have said is that you seem to assume that Wright's video about complimenatarianism concerning creation and heaven & earth & marriage implies a less than equal status within the Body of Christ. - Wright is arguing, in the video for heterosexual relationships as a part of creation and reflecting heaven & earth. He is not arguing that only men can serve in certain roles within the Church. He clearly argues (elsewhere) for women in clerical roles in the Church and sees no problem with them "doing theology," etc. He clearly sees no conflict between this particular video and his other work.
Thus, I think you have misunderstood either his point in this video or the UM statement, because Wright, himself, clearly does not see the conflict that you have expressed.
Post a Comment