Recent content by Paidiske

It's not that simple. Hierarchies and rigid roles in themselves are providing the foundations for abuse. Not really. Any power differential used to control others (with some necessary caveats for the immaturity of small children) is abusive. It's not having power that's abusive. Power - at...

I don't agree. Hierarchies - relationships of control - are, by definition, controlling. If they are rigid but voluntary, and someone can leave at any time, that kind of thing, maybe not. But in reality that is seldom the case; there are degrees of coercion in place (even if only the coercion...

But by hierarchy we are not talking about some arbitrary ranking on an abstract measure. We are talking about relationships with a power differential. If the roles are so rigid that they are not open to renegotiation as desired, then yes, they are controlling in an abusive way. So what? Sure...

Loving someone else in a sustained way, through the ups and downs of your moods (and theirs) is a discipline. I'd recommend training yourself in it. For example, decide that each day you'll go out of your way to do one loving thing for someone. Whether it's doing something for them, or giving...

Scripture doesn't discriminate between "ordained" ministry and lay ministry. The roles we commonly consider "ordained" - deacons, elders (priests), and overseers (bishops) - in the NT sit alongside prophets and teachers and evangelists etc. as all contributing to the leadership and ministries...

But this is not what we are talking about, when we talk about hierarchy as a driver of abuse. These, too, can be problematic. But we are speaking of rigid roles in a household setting. Sure. That's been my argument all through this thread. These beliefs and attitudes drive abuse, which is...

I don't agree that we have a solid basis for understanding all of that to any degree of specificity. However, I think if you want to claim that someone is "primed to want to abuse," you must have some very specific idea in mind, and that is a hypothesis that can then be examined. No, it is...

What she's saying is simple historical fact. Junia (in Romans 16:7) was turned into Junias (to seem male) in some manuscripts so that the "problem" of a woman apostle would be less apparent. Phoebe was turned into a "deaconess" when the text clearly says deacon. What weight we put on those...

I think it dates back to the time when land equalled crops, and owning land meant you had an income (as opposed, say, to the serfs who did the sharecropping but didn't own the land they worked). Probably not so practical these days! Oh, I've just realised; I think I posted in this thread about...

We simply don't know whether Bathsheba consented or not. At best, it is hard not to read this as some level of coercion from David, given his power as king.

Unfortunately my kid's taste is "sauce is evil." Pasta is eaten plain. :(

For Christians, "priestess" is a slur (and is generally considered a flame on CF). Women who are priests, are priests. The word "priestess" implies that our ministry is different from (and lesser than) that of the men, and yes, it does imply Paganism.

Unfortunately, social media has given every nutcase an easy way to spread their nuttery. And many people start with something only slightly off-kilter and quickly get sucked in. I think we, as a church, ought to be paying a lot of attention to what's involved in de-radicalisation, because...

That seemed to be very much your claim. But if it's not, why on earth have we spent so much time talking about distress? At the end of the day, an abuser chooses to abuse. They make this choice based on their beliefs, attitudes and values. That is the cause. Change those beliefs, attitudes...

No; hierarchy is about control. The enforcement of rigid roles is a form of abuse. These are not "neutral" structures. Perhaps, although in my experience it's not particularly about distress at all. But the central point remains; the focus is on challenging beliefs and attitudes. Well...