tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post3158230008334990030..comments2023-12-24T00:52:24.736+00:00Comments on Jody Stowell: An Ordinary Radical EventJody Stowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-20831390471092619892013-03-20T19:39:51.110+00:002013-03-20T19:39:51.110+00:00thanks Jody,
I like the symmetry - that's real...thanks Jody,<br />I like the symmetry - that's really interesting. I guess I still don't feel like I fully understand what conclusions you draw from that, but I'm happy to leave the discussion there if that's what you'd prefer. I'm certainly very grateful that you've helped me get a bit clearer on what you're saying. I hope we cross paths at some point in real life!<br />Love<br />BenBen Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382509682428991420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-47445626277499084392013-03-20T17:47:22.052+00:002013-03-20T17:47:22.052+00:00Hi Ben
I think we're probably not going to ge...Hi Ben<br /><br />I think we're probably not going to get too much further with this - I think that the rhetorical device of the 'adam' from the 'adamah', the creature is in relation to the earth, and then the 'adam' discovering he is 'iysh' to the 'ishah' is compelling, but I understand that you don't.<br /><br />I also think that Paul uses the birth metaphor 'man from woman, woman from man', in order to say, 'for goodness sake, stop trying to be in charge of each other!'<br /><br />Let's pray for God to work with us all on this.<br /><br />JJody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-20170879506830388062013-03-20T17:28:34.831+00:002013-03-20T17:28:34.831+00:00I'd suggest that the author (and Adam!) uses &...I'd suggest that the author (and Adam!) uses 'ish' because of the lexical similarity with 'ishah'. It's a beautiful and simple way of expressing the fact that they are equal in nature - here finally is a helper fit for the man - and their equality in nature and dignity is precisely because isshah was formed from ish. That seems to be the point that the author is making. <br />Is your position based upon the fact that 'ish' isn't introduced until after the creation of ishah? I'm really not persuaded that this is enough for the weight you are trying to put on it - especially when it cuts against the way that Paul seems to understand the incident.<br /><br /><br />You ask about my story - i guess I've moved from a strong egalitarian position to a complementarian one - mainly through an exposure to the arguments in Scripture. Much of me would love to be persuaded again of the egalitarian position - complementarianism doesn't tend to get a particularly good press, and added to which I find the call of servant leadership (e.g. Eph 5v25) humbling, hard and convicting - though I suspect that becoming an egalitarian wouldn't allow me to duck that!<br />love, bBen Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382509682428991420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-73555120762623406152013-03-20T16:50:47.416+00:002013-03-20T16:50:47.416+00:00Hi Ben
I guess I would ask why introduce 'iys...Hi Ben<br /><br />I guess I would ask why introduce 'iysh' at all? What is the purpose of 'iysh' in your reading of the text?<br /><br />The other thing I would say is that I am aware that others will not agree with this interpretation of the text. I personally think that the emphasis on the understanding of identity, male and female, being found in the 'other', is truer to the text and to the outworking that is then seen. But I understand that others will not agree.However, I doubt regurgitating this again and again will be helpful.<br /><br />I'm interested though in your own story, have you always thought of women and men as having quite different roles and responsibilities?Jody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-15599162685538197622013-03-20T16:31:05.257+00:002013-03-20T16:31:05.257+00:00thanks Jody,
I wouldn't want to claim to be an...thanks Jody,<br />I wouldn't want to claim to be an expert in Hebrew poetry but I'm struggling to follow what you are suggesting.<br />It seems to me as though 2v22 speaks of 'ishah' being brought by Yahweh 'el ha-adam'. Surely if the author was trying to make the point that the adam had been changed by the creation of ishah then that would have been precisely the moment that he (or she I suppose!) would have introduced the lexeme 'ish' rather than continuing to use 'adam'. Further, in the poem (2v23) the very first time that the lexeme 'ish' is used is when the author says that 'ishah' was taken from 'ish'. I don't want to press the language too hard, but again, the suggestion here is that 'ish' was the creature who preceded ishah, since he was there for ishah to be brought from.<br /><br />So, I guess it's not clear to me at all that the intention of the author is to stress the discontinuity between adam and ish. In fact I can't see anything in the text to suggest he/she would recognise the distinction.<br /><br />Do you see why I'm struggling to follow your argument? Can you help me?<br />I hope I'm not imposing my (?patriarchal!!?) system onto the text, I'm trying to let the text speak for itself so that it can 'do' in me precisely what God means it to 'do' - as you rightly say!<br /> <br />love,<br />benBen Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382509682428991420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-82088919625632719442013-03-20T15:54:34.161+00:002013-03-20T15:54:34.161+00:00Hi Ben
I'm not sure that the language and gen...Hi Ben<br /><br />I'm not sure that the language and genre lends itself to the way that you want to use it. It is not a literal timeline of human development.<br /><br />it's not about the physicality of 'adam' ('when did the penis appear?'), it is about what the text is trying to *do* in us, and I suggest it is trying to tell us that there is no 'iysh' without 'ishshah'Jody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-72416927232986423352013-03-20T15:43:57.623+00:002013-03-20T15:43:57.623+00:00Thanks Jody,
it seems that you are still seeing th...Thanks Jody,<br />it seems that you are still seeing the 'adam' as referring to the creature who existed before Eve was formed and the 'ish' as the creature who existed once the 'ishah' had been brought into existence. Is that what you think? (whilst recognising that there is clear continuity between the two).<br />bBen Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382509682428991420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-20348502468710601012013-03-20T15:30:26.702+00:002013-03-20T15:30:26.702+00:00Hi Ben
Yes, there is continuity between the '...Hi Ben<br /><br />Yes, there is continuity between the 'adam' and the 'iysh', but there is also a specific discontinuity in the poem that spills out from the iysh. There is a point in the poetry which draws out the idea, I would argue deliberately, that the creature 'adam' is not quite the same as the creature who wakes up - things have fundamentally changed.<br /><br />The continuity is obvious, but the world shattering impact is found in this discontinuity and this is what is being emphasised in the text.<br /><br />I would also argue that this is then drawn out in the story of God which then continues through scripture and indicates that God is trying to restore the relationship between men and women - a relationship which scripture charts as ever more broken and distorted. From Abraham's relationship with Sarah and Hagar, through to Solomon's wives and concubines. It is a fast decline where women have become interchangeable objects, and God does not seem to care too much for that idea! :)Jody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-5987432671740680722013-01-25T10:41:39.085+00:002013-01-25T10:41:39.085+00:00Hi Jody,
I found your article stimulating and enga...Hi Jody,<br />I found your article stimulating and engaging - I had never come across the distinction between adam and ish before in the way that you propose it. Isn't there a problem however in the fact that the author of Genesis appears to see the lexeme 'adam' in Gen 2v22 as referring to both 'pre-Eve' and 'post-Eve' Adam...(the woman was taken from 'ha-adam' (pre-Eve) and then brought to 'ha-adam' (post-Eve).... ie adam wasn't essentially changed by the process?<br />Or am I missing something?Ben Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382509682428991420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-90688006312853383572013-01-21T14:58:18.420+00:002013-01-21T14:58:18.420+00:00Hi Bob
I found the other artist! Bruno Pasqualini...Hi Bob<br /><br />I found the other artist! Bruno Pasqualini :)<br /><br />JodyJody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-71289641614764553412013-01-21T14:36:54.081+00:002013-01-21T14:36:54.081+00:00Sorry, above comment from me!
Felix RomanusSorry, above comment from me! <br /><br />Felix RomanusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-67619599112178463462013-01-21T14:36:21.314+00:002013-01-21T14:36:21.314+00:00Thank you. An interesting perspective. What you sa...Thank you. An interesting perspective. What you say does certainly seem to flow naturally from the founding principles of the CofE. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-44243691948489328232013-01-21T12:59:45.679+00:002013-01-21T12:59:45.679+00:00Hi Felix
I guess that my heart lies in the Script...Hi Felix<br /><br />I guess that my heart lies in the Scriptural arguments because I have grown up an evangelical in my Christian journey. So this is more from that perspective.<br /><br />However, I am, of course aware of this concern. I guess I would argue in this way that women and men are equally able to represent humanity at the communion table. I do not think that men and women are essentially different and in this I do see Christ's maleness as appropriate but not necessary.<br /><br />As far as the tradition goes, I think that it is not a tradition found in Scripture to simply have male leaders/priests etc and so our 'traditions' are not really fixed in quite the way that you say. Whilst I respect our journey through history, under God, to this point and beyond is important, I don't think that we have carried on the tradition infallibly.<br /><br />As Stephen Cottrell said in his part of the Church Times spread on this, it is a growing into what has always been there, not a departure from tradition.<br /><br />blessings, JodyJody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-20535988255371621512013-01-21T12:50:51.156+00:002013-01-21T12:50:51.156+00:00Hi Bob
quite right - I've added the artists a...Hi Bob<br /><br />quite right - I've added the artists apart from the first as I haven't been able to find the name of this artist. If you happen to see it, please do send it to me! I absolutely love it, so would like to know who painted it.<br /><br />blessings, JodyJody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-82493809123683874992013-01-21T12:18:02.815+00:002013-01-21T12:18:02.815+00:00A very interesting article, and very well argued. ...A very interesting article, and very well argued. <br /><br />I am still, however, unconvinced about women's ordination. You show that God did not create man and woman unequal, but this does not mean that both should be ordained. <br /><br />Herein lies the difficulty. Priesthood is not a role like being a governor or an administrator. It is primarily a cultic function. When a priest acts as a priest, in persona Christi, he is acting as Christ the bridegroom. His bride is the Church. It is not accidental that Christ is a man, nor that those through whom he acts sacramentally are men. <br /><br />Hence the fact that the holiest person to ever live (other than Christ himself), the Virgin Mary, was not ordained. If it is a matter of who is "worthy" or "best" there can be no doubt that she would have been ordained. <br /><br />Furthermore, this does not get round the central problem for the Catholic section of synod. The universal opinion of the Fathers was that the first bishops were all men and only ordained men. It is just not possible to change the basic elements of a sacrament. One cannot have communion with beer and steak (both of which, I, for one, think superior to bread and wine), just as one cannot baptise someone with sand rather than water. It is not a matter of the value of the materials, it is just that that is how God decided to order things when he instituted the sacraments. <br /><br />All this said, I do certainly think that it is preposterous to ordain women as priests and not as bishops. If they can be priests, of course they can be bishops! The sacrament of orders is one sacrament. No radical distinction between the priesthood of they presbyterate and the priesthood of the episcopate has ever been known to any part of apostolic Christianity. <br /><br />In Christ, Felix RomanusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-41816356815297685542013-01-21T12:00:54.898+00:002013-01-21T12:00:54.898+00:00How about crediting the artists of the paintings?How about crediting the artists of the paintings?Bob Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084157975973863871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-29682152777895061472013-01-19T14:30:35.508+00:002013-01-19T14:30:35.508+00:00Thanks all
the person to read on this is Phyllis ...Thanks all<br /><br />the person to read on this is Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. She really looks at what the language is saying and challenges us to see it afresh.<br /><br />We are taught to read things in a particular way and so 'new' things (although this isn't new really), can be shocking or even scary, because it changes our worldview.<br /><br />I think that often women struggle with a reevaluation of who they are in their relationships - sexual, work whatever. Having to see themselves as equally responsible and decision makers can be difficult.<br /><br />For all the 'equal but different' talk that goes around, I think that when women and men are confronted with the reality of being equal it's much more life changing that they could have imagined.<br /><br />This text confronts people.Jody Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534042687275254272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-73284291399596795472013-01-19T10:51:09.569+00:002013-01-19T10:51:09.569+00:00You know how you think you know a topic inside and...You know how you think you know a topic inside and out and have read everything there is on the subject, and then someone observes something about scripture that makes you go, 'oh yeah!! Of course! How cool!'<br /><br />That was this line for me:<br />"It is clear from the narrative that the adam who fell asleep, is not the quite the same as the iysh who wakes up"<br /><br />Great stuff! Tanya Marlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987731615948337720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-15725542885438484042013-01-18T13:25:04.452+00:002013-01-18T13:25:04.452+00:00Hi there Jody
A great piece of writing on this
I...Hi there Jody <br />A great piece of writing on this <br />I particularly am struck by this:- <br />"I believe that working for the inclusion of women in the Episcopate is the continuing story of God, found in Scripture, working to restore men and women to their right relationship." <br />Shine one, <br />JohnnyJohnny Douglashttp://www.johnnydouglas.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356363460965043698.post-83403862537239556602013-01-18T11:35:56.338+00:002013-01-18T11:35:56.338+00:00Jody, many thanks for this beautifully written and...Jody, many thanks for this beautifully written and totally convincing piece! It does my heart good!Roger Hurdingnoreply@blogger.com