Modern philosophies.....or just different than what one believes?

[mkgal1]

This is a continuation of a few comments.....these (origin here = http://www.christianforums.com/threads/advice-needed-i-am-confused.7935704/page-2 ):

A lot of people like to read their new modern philosophies back into these passages.

and I responded with:

Is that supposed to be a bad thing (new modern philosophies)? Wasn't that what Christ was doing in His time (turning old teachings on their head)? Didn't Paul continue in that mission---to turn people's hearts/minds away from their *old* way of thinking? Aren't we encouraged to "put on the new"? Personally.....I don't believe that's an event....but a progression (not just as individuals---but as a culture as well).

I like to look at it this way: the Bible is the living Word. It's not a stagnant text that remains static and unchanging. Culture changes. He is redeeming us---not a one time event, but a progression. That takes an open mind and open hearts to see things in fresh light. If we read the same passages over and over again throughout the years of our lives---and come away with no new revelation---can we sincerely say that we are maturing in Him? That our faith is growing?

The mysteries of God aren't things we cannot grasp---it's revelations that are given to us layers at a time (as we mature and are ready to understand).

....and something that I've noticed is that what's often labeled as "modern philosophies" aren't as new and modern as we think (we can find writings from centuries ago that line up). So....instead of "modern" (which often implies "heretical")----maybe they are just "different" from what we once believed (and maybe even true)?

 

[mkgal1]

Specifically.....when this has been brought up (new modern philosophies) it's often been in reference to psychology.

I just read an interview that brought this up as well. This was asked:

Some criticize psychology (especially it’s “pop” varietals) for being too centered on the self. In your thought and practice, what role does psychology play in understanding and transforming the human self?

and answered:

Psychology is a modern word we use to describe the many and various avenues that humans have discovered toward honest and helpful self knowledge. This was already deeply valued and deemed necessary in the parables of Jesus, the simple stories of the Desert Fathers and Mothers, intellectuals from Socrates to Aquinas, and the mystical teachings of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Without such honesty and discipline much that has passed for Christianity is little more than well disguised and glorified self interest—mostly “delayed gratification” (a future heaven) instead of the true Gospel that transforms people in God and here and now.

Much mainline Christianity in all denominations became the easy comfort of tribal belonging and group-think trying to pass for a deep and true level of seeing. It won’t work anymore! Our individual and cultural failures are too obvious for all to see.

Paul was not kidding when he said that his message delivered a “complete renewal of our minds” (Romans 12:2) and a “putting aside of your old self and its illusory desires” (Ephesians 4:22). Psychology is just another important gift that allows us to critique and clean the lens by which we are trying to see God, others, and ourselves. Without such lens cleaning, we are largely operating with 20/60 eyesight and insight. People do not see things as they really are, they see things as they are! And the resultant Christian community largely reflects the politics and the prejudices of the neighborhood. At this point, there is not much point in denying that.~http://cct.biola.edu/blog/immortal-diamonds-interview-richard-rohr-part-1/

 

[DZoolander]

Generally speaking - people tend to romanticize the past and think that how things were when they were growing up was closer to the "ideal". People throughout time have bemoaned the decadence of "modern" society (whether it be the "modern society" in ancient Greece, the 1500's, the 1700's, the 1960's, or today).

People like to think that past generations (filled with people they never knew, of course) were somehow more virtuous - and that their generation is the last one to have respect for how things "should be" - acting as the last line of righteous defense to stem the tide of debauchery the next generation is determined to inflict on society.

In 1904 - for example - people were writing things like "Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, prematurities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline, the haste to know and do all befitting man's estate before its time, the mad rush for sudden wealth and the reckless fashions set by its gilded youth--all these lack some of the regulatives they still have in older lands with more conservative conditions."

Those "youth" the author was talking about are most likely those virtuous grandparents and great grandparents you look back upon as coming from a generation that was a beacon of "the simpler and more Godly life". Similar types of crap can be found going back to the Greeks lamenting about the same types off nonsense.

Ehh, it's a bunch of garbage, IMHO.

I, for one, think that things have progressively getting better. Society is not getting more decadent or debaucherous - but rather is improving and in many ways becoming more virtuous. Any arguments that could be made to the contrary are misguided and uninformed, IMHO, distorted by the filters of time and selective social amnesia. I have nothing but great hope for the future generations - provided the older folks don't muck everything up.

 

[LinkH]

This is a continuation of a few comments.....these (origin here = http://www.christianforums.com/threads/advice-needed-i-am-confused.7935704/page-2 ):

and I responded with:

....and something that I've noticed is that what's often labeled as "modern philosophies" aren't as new and modern as we think (we can find writings from centuries ago that line up). So....instead of "modern" (which often implies "heretical")----maybe they are just "different" from what we once believed (and maybe even true)?

What i had in mind were basically the responsibilities of wives repeated four times in the New Testament which are deemed 'off topic' in the married couples forum due to the rules. Men's responsibilities in marriage in scripture are on topic. And posters get away with arguing against Biblical responsibilities of wives in marriage. So we can't really discuss some of these modern philosophies (e.g. aspects of modern Feminism, for example, that contradict Biblical instructions on marriage) without violating the rules.

Another modern philosophy you've promoted are perverted ideas about sexuality related to the the LGBT agenda. That whole LGBT take on the Bible is totally new. Homosexual behavior is not, but the sophistry arguments of people like Matthew Vine are relatively new. You wouldn't be able to find any of them more than a few decades old, certainly not more than a couple of centuries. His interpretations are based on presuppositions that people would not have accepted before LGBT philosophies about 'sexual orientation' came into being.

 

[LinkH]

Generally speaking - people tend to romanticize the past and think that how things were when they were growing up was closer to the "ideal". People throughout time have bemoaned the decadence of "modern" society (whether it be the "modern society" in ancient Greece, the 1500's, the 1700's, the 1960's, or today).

It depends. Some people idealize the past. Social liberals don't generally do so as much. I'd say idealizing the past is more of a social conservative thing. Plenty of Feminist types think that in the past that women were horribly oppressed by the patriarchy, pretty much since the dawn of history, and only in modern times have Feminists been able to make a dent in the damage caused by the patriarchy. Plenty of moderns think that people who lived in Biblical times were primitive in their thinking.

People like to think that past generations (filled with people they never knew, of course) were somehow more virtuous - and that their generation is the last one to have respect for how things "should be" - acting as the last line of righteous defense to stem the tide of debauchery the next generation is determined to inflict on society.

In 1904 - for example - people were writing things like "Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, prematurities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline, the haste to know and do all befitting man's estate before its time, the mad rush for sudden wealth and the reckless fashions set by its gilded youth--all these lack some of the regulatives they still have in older lands with more conservative conditions."

During this time period, people were still leaving the farms for the cities. So in terms of issues like greed, urban-related crime, and various other issues, morality may have been on a decline in certain ways.

Those "youth" the author was talking about are most likely those virtuous grandparents and great grandparents you look back upon as coming from a generation that was a beacon of "the simpler and more Godly life". Similar types of crap can be found going back to the Greeks lamenting about the same types off nonsense.
[/quote]

As far as sexual morality is concerned, from a Biblical perspective, things have been going downhill for a long time in the US. There was a drop in sexual morality in the cities in the 1920's. Maybe it improved somewhat. The 1960's saw a big drop with free love. Over time, we've seen shacking up, acceptance of homosexual behavior, an increase in teen pregnancies, oral sex becoming increasingly common among the youth, high divorce rates, and high rates of adultery. I believe the US was more sexually moral pre-1960 than it is now, in general.

But is morality, of any type, sexual or otherwise, constantly on a downward turn? No, I don't believe that. There are cycles, peaks and troughs. Before and during the French Revolution, there was a lot of perversion in terms of sexual morality, and the country become very brutal and bloody for a time. When Wesley arrived on the scene in England, the morals were rather low. The Methodist revival brought with it and improvement of morals in society. Colonial America experienced the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, which brought with them upturns in civic morality. There are also the accounts of the Welsh revival, where men stopped getting drunk and the donkeys in the coal mine had to be retrained because they couldn't understand verbal cues with the lack of profanity.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,

Something else to keep in mind is that Jude says to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. The Christian faith now is the same faith Jude has. These revealed truths do not change. The Gospel was witnessed by the law and the prophets. The Law and the Prophets testified of Christ. Salvation by faith is witnessed to in the Old Testament scriptures.

The Holy Spirit still speaks. But He doesn't contradict the Gospel that has been revealed. Homosexual behavior doesn't suddenly become okay. It doesn't suddenly become okay to steal, or commit adultery. God's design for marriage, for relationships between husbands and wives doesn't change. We may need to understand our own culture and theirs to know how to apply the principles of God's word to our own culture, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But we are not to disregard God's word with a lame excuse that 'their culture was different back then.'

We live in this present evil age. If our culture has some kind of near-consensus on morality, but it contradicts what God has revealed, God is right and the culture is wrong.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I think our own past, and sometimes the worlds, is a good view of seeing whats changed for better for worse. For example I personally think America has gotten worse morally. Some say every generation says that. Maybe thats true. Since in each generation we live long enough to see new changes. But overall if all say things got worse then that would mean technically with each passing generation things actually have gotten worse. Its not just one generations imagination. There are times when I feel bad because I told my wife how great america was, but it feels like I am grasping at straws since so much has changed.

College is more expensive, degrees seem to mean less, jobs seem to be less, costs are more, forced into insurance this, insurance that, tax this, tax that, increases in immorality, increases in dislike towards christian, less sociable people (even christians). There are still lots of great things though, even compared to her country. I know the recent news with LGBT related stuff really makes her shake her head.

I like what Link just said. God never changes. Neither do His rules and views. Now and forever they are the same. Some christians tell me "But 100 years ago we believed interracail marriage was wrong! Long before that we believe in this and that!" Yes, maybe we did. But then again maybe we didn't. I never seen anything in the bible that said slavery was ok or that interracial marriages aren't allowed. So the response is "But you say that now, if you are alive back then you would believe what was preached was right!". How?!? I get I am from a different era but its not like new verses would magically appear if I went back in time that would make me say "Ah, marrying outside my race is a sin!".

I will say christians are changing regardless of Gods Word. They become more accepting of whatever the world pressure them into thinking is ok. Some do it because they don't want the pressure and attention. Others do it because the devil is whispering to them twists and cherry picked things to make them believe new things are ok.

 

[DZoolander]

But is morality, of any type, sexual or otherwise, constantly on a downward turn? No, I don't believe that. There are cycles, peaks and troughs. Before and during the French Revolution, there was a lot of perversion in terms of sexual morality, and the country become very brutal and bloody for a time. When Wesley arrived on the scene in England, the morals were rather low. The Methodist revival brought with it and improvement of morals in society. Colonial America experienced the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, which brought with them upturns in civic morality. There are also the accounts of the Welsh revival, where men stopped getting drunk and the donkeys in the coal mine had to be retrained because they couldn't understand verbal cues with the lack of profanity.

Good quote - and absolutely true. Things are cyclical. There is *another* constant - to the one you mentioned - which is the human condition. People are the same. People in ancient times (and all throughout history) were the same as we are - dealt with the same base human condition/emotions - and reacted to similar situations we face in similar ways. The overarching social shifts may have led to slightly different conditioned responses - but over the span of generations - those cycles repeat. "Conservatism" goes a little too far, so society swings the other way to correct itself. Then "liberalism" tends to go a little too far for people's comfort - then it swings back. Round and round it goes.

So yeah - there really isn't this constant march toward moral decay that people seem to infer there is. There's just wherever you are at that moment relative to the current state of "the social mores pendulum".

 

[DZoolander]

I think our own past, and sometimes the worlds, is a good view of seeing whats changed for better for worse. For example I personally think America has gotten worse morally. Some say every generation says that. Maybe thats true. Since in each generation we live long enough to see new changes. But overall if all say things got worse then that would mean technically with each passing generation things actually have gotten worse. Its not just one generations imagination. There are times when I feel bad because I told my wife how great america was, but it feels like I am grasping at straws since so much has changed.

College is more expensive, degrees seem to mean less, jobs seem to be less, costs are more, forced into insurance this, insurance that, tax this, tax that, increases in immorality, increases in dislike towards christian, less sociable people (even christians). There are still lots of great things though, even compared to her country. I know the recent news with LGBT related stuff really makes her shake her head.

"But overall if all say things got worse then that would mean technically with each passing generation things actually have gotten worse. It's not just one generations imagination" -- ehhh - I don't know if I agree with that.

I believe that people can't generally see beyond the realm of their own experience. For example... The myth of Santa Claus has been around (in some variant or other) for close to 1000 years. Rudolf the red nosed reindeer was invented around 1940. So far as my kids are concerned (and pretty much any kid born after 1940) - Rudolf was just as "real" and part of the story as Santa - even though it's a relatively recent add-on to the story. The fact it's new has no bearing upon how it's perceived - because our collective experience does not include anything prior to the story's addition to the lore.

People think it takes a long time for social mores to shift...that it's some slow-evolving process. I disagree. I think all it takes is about a generation or so...because people only know what they've experienced firsthand. That's all that's real to them - despite what history and facts may say.

...and people generally don't like change. "it's getting worse" usually - IMHO - simply means "It's changing from my comfort zone/what I'm familiar with". Even if that thing they are familiar with is arguably worse, people will defend it, because it's what they know.

Heck - even your post is full of stuff like that.

You do know that taxes are actually at a historical low, if you look at America over the past 120 years or so, right? When you lament over college being significantly more expensive - you do know that there was a time when people's taxes on average supported 85+% of university operating revenue - and that now on average across the nation it sits at around 8%...right? Care to take a guess at which time point college was most affordable? Heck - my sister went to UCLA back in the early 1970's. She was a ho-hum student, with no scholarships, no grants, no loans...and was able to pay for her entire college tuition in full with no help from my folks - teaching swimming at the YMCA.

That's when the state used to support 85+% percent of the operating costs. Over time - that burden has shift to the students pretty much completely...and it's no shock that tuition has skyrocketed.

But - arguments like that don't mean much to people of our age. Why? Because most of us didn't directly experience that other reality. I was at the tail end of the period when college was supported mostly by the state - and heck - I'm pushing 50.

So no, I don't know if I agree that "if everyone thinks it's getting worse - it must be getting worse" is true. I think people are uncomfortable with change - because change means unpredictability to them.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

What i had in mind were basically the responsibilities of wives repeated four times in the New Testament which are deemed 'off topic' in the married couples forum due to the rules. Men's responsibilities in marriage in scripture are on topic. And posters get away with arguing against Biblical responsibilities of wives in marriage. So we can't really discuss some of these modern philosophies (e.g. aspects of modern Feminism, for example, that contradict Biblical instructions on marriage) without violating the rules.

I think we need to have a balanced perspective on the 'modern philosophies' idea. Complementarianism, as an idea, was more widely promoted in the 90's by John Piper and Wayne Grudem in their work "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". In the first chapter of the book, Piper waxes nostalgic about his parents, and how his father was the 'head of the home'. It was interesting to me, because he did not go straight for exegesis, but for a story based on nostalgia. Hardly a basis for sound doctrine.
It was also interesting to me that they did not (as was their intent in the first place, I know) refer to the Egalitarian model - which it was - but referred to the "Christian Feminist" model - which it wasn't. This suggests that Piper and Grudem are not familiar with etiquette of debate, but had a forceful agenda. Why, then, should it be considered, other than to know what the Complementarian position is?

I see the book as really the foundation of the Complementarian discussion, although there may have been hints of it beforehand. But it really took off after Piper and Grudem took their stance. It continues to be as much a 'modern philosophy' as anything else.

*Disclaimer - I enjoy, and listen to, John Piper quite often. However, I strongly disagree with him on these points.

 

[mkgal1]

I, for one, think that things have progressively getting better. Society is not getting more decadent or debaucherous - but rather is improving and in many ways becoming more virtuous. Any arguments that could be made to the contrary are misguided and uninformed, IMHO, distorted by the filters of time and selective social amnesia. I have nothing but great hope for the future generations - provided the older folks don't muck everything up.

Things are cyclical. There is *another* constant - to the one you mentioned - which is the human condition. People are the same. People in ancient times (and all throughout history) were the same as we are - dealt with the same base human condition/emotions - and reacted to similar situations we face in similar ways. The overarching social shifts may have led to slightly different conditioned responses - but over the span of generations - those cycles repeat. "Conservatism" goes a little too far, so society swings the other way to correct itself. Then "liberalism" tends to go a little too far for people's comfort - then it swings back. Round and round it goes.

People think it takes a long time for social mores to shift...that it's some slow-evolving process. I disagree. I think all it takes is about a generation or so...because people only know what they've experienced firsthand. That's all that's real to them - despite what history and facts may say.

...and people generally don't like change. "it's getting worse" usually - IMHO - simply means "It's changing from my comfort zone/what I'm familiar with". Even if that thing they are familiar with is arguably worse, people will defend it, because it's what they know.

I think people are uncomfortable with change - because change means unpredictability to them.

I wholeheartedly agree (and this is what I was getting at in my OP). People are definitely resistant to change. We don't first change our way of thinking---we experience things (and realize what's true/false through that experience) and our living changes our thinking.

Cultural acceptance of things---I believe--- definitely reflects a more improved attitude. World-wide....we seem to be moving more towards being compassionate to all people groups (not just those we see in front of us)....and bringing about justice. I'm no history buff nor do I keep up with all the social and political events around the globe---but I do see quite a bit of progress in just my lifetime (so far).

Undoubtedly there are loads of people that are (and have always been) against the changes.....but, IMO, culture as a whole continues to march forward. To illustrate what I mean by "improving": I imagine that most people cannot even wrap their minds around the idolatry and practices of worshiping false gods that occurred in ancient cultures. Then later, for "entertainment" to be taking the family to the Colosseum to see men fight other men or exotic animals to [someone's] death? I'm sure there are some people that would enjoy that today----but, thankfully, our culture doesn't accept that as "entertainment" any longer.

 

[mkgal1]

I think we need to have a balanced perspective on the 'modern philosophies' idea. Complementarianism, as an idea, was more widely promoted in the early 80's by John Piper and Wayne Grudem in their work "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". In the introduction to the book, Piper waxes nostalgic about his parents, and how his father was the 'head of the home'. It was interesting to me, because he did not go straight for exegesis, but for a story based on nostalgia. Hardly a basis for sound doctrine.
It was also interesting to be that they did not (as was their intent in the first place, I know) refer to the Egalitarian model - which it was - but referred to the 'Christian Feminist' model - which it wasn't, as the other side of the debate. This suggests that Piper and Grudem did not do their homework, or did not bother with it, as they had 'philosophies' of their own to uphold.

I see the book as really the foundation of the Complementarian discussion, although there may have been hints of it beforehand. But it really took off after Piper and Grudem took their stance. It continues to be as much as 'modern philosophy' as anything else.

Thank you for this.

IMO.....much of what Piper and Grudem describe as being "God's will" is more like living under the curse (and ignoring Christ's message of freedom). It's a touchy topic (that part specifically) since there are rules against discussing this topic---and I'm unsure of where I can step (and, IMO, I think it's sort of a an unfair move for Link to get his words in right off the mark....but I digress). Something I found interesting: I did recently read that women were actually ordained clergy members until about the mid 12th century. Culture often gets in the way of spiritual practices/beliefs (and the two get confused).

 

[mkgal1]

The Christian faith now is the same faith Jude has. These revealed truths do not change.

You're right----the truth doesn't change (but our understanding of it may).

A good example of that is in the Southern Baptist Convention statements of faith. In the 1925 message it says (according to this site: http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmcomparison.asp ):

2. That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future Baptist should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

4. That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

5. That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.

....then in 1963, much more was added to that statement:

A living faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation. Throughout their history Baptist bodies, both large and small, have issued statements of faith which comprise a consensus of their beliefs. Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority. Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.

 

[mkgal1]

Someone that I would call an early egalitarian (although marriage, specifically, wasn't his focus) was St. Francis of Assisi. His whole mission was about equality and he seemed to make efforts to remove labels of hierarchy and rank (instead of calling fellow friars "monks", Francis called them "brothers", as an example). From what I've read--he even did away with the word "prior" in his vocabulary, because that was used in other communities to suggest the the monk that held the title previously was the "first" or had a higher place of honor. That was all up against the backdrop of a highly rigid class structure of the European society.

From what I've read of Francis....there's no need for gender roles, his "rules" promoted unity no matter who the group was made up of. For instance.....I read that one thing he'd spoken out against were what he called "biting fleas" (gossipers) and those that sow discord (isn't that also what we're told in the Bible that God hates)? Doesn't that apply to all---no matter their social class or gender?

Isn't that was Jesus did (overturn hierarchy and class structures)? Isn't that part of the impact of Him speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well (even Him suggesting they go through that land---as Jews---was controversial, as I understand it). Not only was their encounter a Jew and a Samaritan---but it was a man speaking alone with a woman.

 

[LinkH]

The basic underlying ideas of complementarianism is very old. It's traditional, Biblical beliefs on marriage wrapped in new packaging with a spiffy new title and emphasis. Egalitarianism is the new philosophy when it comes to marriage.

 

[LinkH]

--and I'm unsure of where I can step (and, IMO, I think it's sort of a an unfair move for Link to get his words in right off the mark....but I digress).

I don't see how that's unfair. It's an efficent use of my time is all. The rules of the forum allow very little freedom for expressing historical truths on scripture on certain matters related to marriage. The way they are enforced, those who are for egalitarianism or feminist views have a lot of lee-way.

Something I found interesting: I did recently read that women were actually ordained clergy members until about the mid 12th century. Culture often gets in the way of spiritual practices/beliefs (and the two get confused).

That's not really what I was discussing, but that doesn't sound likely, certainly not on a wide scale. There may have been pockets here and there. Augustine wrote around 300 AD. There are also many ideologues out there who are willing to interpret the slightest bit of weak evidence to say things like this. That seems to be the case with some Feminists, LGBT apologists, etc. They pick some obscure piece of evidence that they think supports their cause make broad claims based on it.

Someone that I would call an early egalitarian (although marriage, specifically, wasn't his focus) was St. Francis of Assisi. His whole mission was about equality and he seemed to make efforts to remove labels of hierarchy and rank (instead of calling fellow friars "monks", Francis called them "brothers", as an example). From what I've read--he even did away with the word "prior" in his vocabulary, because that was used in other communities to suggest the the monk that held the title previously was the "first" or had a higher place of honor. That was all up against the backdrop of a highly rigid class structure of the European society.

I'm sure you can find other examples of religious figures who introduced egalitarian concepts or practice. But I was referring specifically to egalitarianism as a philosophy about marriage.

From what I've read of Francis....there's no need for gender roles, his "rules" promoted unity no matter who the group was made up of. For instance.....I read that one thing he'd spoken out against were what he called "biting fleas" (gossipers) and those that sow discord (isn't that also what we're told in the Bible that God hates)? Doesn't that apply to all---no matter their social class or gender?

Sure, and you can find things in the New Testament that are more 'egalitarian' in some ways than the then-current social order. One of my concerns with left-wing social justice warriors who refer to the New Testament is that they assume that God is in favor of taking things to the extremes that certain philosphies in modern culture have taken then, instead of taking things as far as the prophets, Christ, and the apostles took them. Jesus talking to the woman at the well doesn't contradict I Peter 3, for example. We shouldn't assume that I Peter 3 was just for back then and that Jesus had a secret agenda of going full fledged radical Feminist. The early Jerusalem Christians having all things in common doesn't mean God supports starting a revolution to redistribute wealth at the point of a bayonet.


Of course, Francis started an order, not 'clergy'. A Franciscan could be ordained in the RCC system, but a brother isn't automatically a priest.

 

[mkgal1]

The basic underlying ideas of complementarianism is very old. It's traditional, Biblical beliefs on marriage wrapped in new packaging with a spiffy new title and emphasis. Egalitarianism is the new philosophy when it comes to marriage.

I don't disagree that hierarchy or a marriage based on a supposed system of rank (or roles) is old and traditional (I think it actually goes right back to the Garden with the curse that was described).

What I'm saying is it's also not necessarily a "new and modern" idea that in Christ that's an oppositional system (or...what you said, that "egalitarianism is the new philosophy when it comes to marriage". On that I disagree). I believe it was *culture* that was driving (and still is driving) the rank and hierarchical system. I think that's our fallen human nature to think in terms of hierarchy and status.

In my perception---what seems to be the reality is that until recently (in the US--around the 1960's and 70's) equality wasn't really an issue in marriage (because the laws kept women from being equal anyway).

 

[mkgal1]

The rules of the forum allow very little freedom for expressing historical truths on scripture on certain matters related to marriage. The way they are enforced, those who are for egalitarianism or feminist views have a lot of lee-way.

I wonder if this is a solution? Why don't we frame the discussion in the general terms of systems (equality in general compared to hierarchy/status)....because what's true of the whole church and humanity (I believe) would cover what's true about marriage.

 

[mkgal1]

One of my concerns with left-wing social justice warriors

I have to say, it makes me laugh when you write things like that. I suppose you mean that as a negative description---but I just can't see "social justice warrior" in a negative light. It's odd to me when others do see it that way (especially when arguing their stance on what they believe is 'biblical').

 

[mkgal1]

A Franciscan could be ordained in the RCC system, but a brother isn't automatically a priest.

It seems you totally missed my point about Francis's philosophy of humanity being worthy of equal dignity.

My point about Francis is much like Jesus' own words referenced in John 15:15 (“No longer do I call you servants, because a servant does not know what his master does, but I have called you my friends, because all that I have heard from my Father, I have taught you.”).