Empathy, feminism, and the church [women’s ordination]

[JM]

Worth a read.

"Anumber of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.

My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism."

Empathy, Feminism, and the Church | Joseph Rigney

Women's Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue

americanreformer.org

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[seeking.IAM]

the sin of empathy

Can support be provided in scripture or Christian tradition that empathy can be "sin?"

 

[JM]

Can support be provided in scripture or Christian tradition that empathy can be "sin?"

You misquoted me, please look at what I wrote and quote me accurately.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Can support be provided in scripture or Christian tradition that empathy can be "sin?"

You misquoted me, please look at what I wrote and quote me accurately.

I didn't think I misquoted you. The full sentence you wrote is:

The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy

I posit that sin is defined by scripture and Christian tradition, so the question remains of how empathy can be construed to be a sin in the light of scripture and/or tradition?

 

[JM]

I didn't think I misquoted you. The full sentence you wrote is:


I posit that sin is defined by scripture and Christian tradition, so the question remains of how empathy can be construed to be a sin in the light of scripture and/or tradition?

The "sin of empathy" was a quote from the article, the author goes on to explain what he means. I offered my 2 cents by summing up his position as, "The emphasis is on the misuse, the sinful use of empathy, it destroys when used to manipulate."

I hope that helps to clarify that empathy is being misused and that's a sin, and the entire article needs to be read to understand the position.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I hope that helps to clarify that empathy is being misused and that's a sin, and the entire article needs to be read to understand the position.

It is more clear that it is not the empathy that is the sin but how one acts in response to the emotion that may be sinful in the author's opinion. (My biggest problem with the article is its rife generalizations and suppositions used to support the author's perspective e.g., gender differences of empathy, voting men coming home from meetings to be influenced by their more empathic wives, etc. .)

 

[JM]

It is more clear that it is not the empathy that is the sin but how one acts in response to the emotion that may be sinful in the author's opinion. (My biggest problem with the article is its rife generalizations and suppositions used to support the author's perspective e.g., gender differences of empathy, voting men coming home from meetings to be influenced by their more empathic wives, etc. .)

Accurate generalizations sure, the main one being; we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Others, people are different and the differences are usually linked to gender.

This is the traditional theology forum, those generalizations have been made by Christians for almost 2,000 years and woman's ordination is an innovation.

If you can't respect the forum why post?

 

[seeking.IAM]

If you can't respect the forum why post?

Agreement of every post is not a requirement for participation in this forum.

 

[PloverWing]

My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality.

I agree that the issues of race, gender, and so forth have a common element. I would say that, for Christians, that common element is the principle of loving one's neighbors (including enemies) as one's self, treating others as one wishes to be treated, and treating the stranger the way we would treat Christ.

I agree that empathy, like any human emotion or impulse, should be balanced by other factors. Sometimes our emotions help us, and sometimes they mislead us.

The proposed contrast between empathy and reality is odd. The human impulse to selfishness and the human impulse to empathy are both part of our human reality.

I disagree with the proposed contrast between empathy and goodness. Empathy is not identical to goodness -- I agree that it is a human emotion -- but it is an emotion that can help motivate us toward goodness, away from selfishness, and (importantly) away from the impulse to work for the good of our group at the expense of people who are not in our group.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I disagree with the proposed contrast between empathy and goodness. Empathy is not identical to goodness -- I agree that it is a human emotion -- but it is an emotion that can help motivate us toward goodness, away from selfishness, and (importantly) away from the impulse to work for the good of our group at the expense of people who are not in our group.

It is not even a human emotion. Empathy is the ability to CONNECT to the emotions related to someone else's experience.
It is a requirement for compassion. What we do if we ever make that connection is another matter. I think that connection, empathy, is becoming more and more rare these days.

 

[public hermit]

"Untethered empathy." Good Lord, don't die for us, that would be untethered.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Worth a read.

View attachment 342442

"Anumber of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.

My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism."

Empathy, Feminism, and the Church | Joseph Rigney

Women's Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue

americanreformer.org

Yours in the Lord,

jm

What a piece of hubris. Whether women preach or teach in the church should be the LEAST of modern "concerns."

Choose your battles with more discernment. Christian women---even those that know how to speak (a surprise for some of you men, I know)---aren't the diabolical problem you make them out to be. Get sober about this issue for once.........................MEN!!! There are real problems out there and you're worried that a Christian woman might say something by the Spirit?

Geez. Get real. Empathy isn't what's really happening in our society and causing problems. Marxism isn't empathy. Feminism isn't empathy either. So let's drop this conflated canard and get sensible. There are other, more important things to deal with.

 

[zippy2006]

In doing so, Fr. Robinson was simply following in the footsteps of another Anglican intellectual, C.S. Lewis, who in his famous essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, notes that ordaining priestesses seems to entail a number of other modifications to Christian theology, including addressing “Our Mother in Heaven,” and the notion that Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form.1 As Lewis notes, “Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.”

Empathy, Feminism, and the Church | Joseph Rigney

Women's Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue

americanreformer.org

A good article; certainly worth considering.

 

[jas3]

Whether women preach or teach in the church should be the LEAST of modern "concerns."

Women are not able to be a priest, bishop, or deacon, according to Scripture and Holy Tradition. Those offices are critical to the Church - if a woman can't be a priest, but a denomination has "priestesses," and if they can't be bishops, but a denomination has women elected to its episcopate, then you have no priests at all, and no bishops at all (at least not where women hold those offices). And where there is no bishop or priest, there is no Eucharist, no ordination or consecration, etc.
So this concern is actually a very important one from a sacramental standpoint.

@JM This was a good article, I'll have to read the C. S. Lewis essay that was mentioned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Women are not able to be a priest, bishop, or deacon, according to Scripture and Holy Tradition. Those offices are critical to the Church - if a woman can't be a priest, but a denomination has "priestesses," and if they can't be bishops, but a denomination has women elected to its episcopate, then you have no priests at all, and no bishops at all (at least not where women hold those offices). And where there is no bishop or priest, there is no Eucharist, no ordination or consecration, etc.
So this concern is actually a very important one from a sacramental standpoint.

@JM This was a good article, I'll have to read the C. S. Lewis essay that was mentioned.

And where, precisely, are women prohibited in the Bible from ever being leaders in the Church?

 

[jas3]

And where, precisely, are women prohibited in the Bible from ever being leaders in the Church?

Bishops: 1 Tim. 3:1-7
Deacons: 1 Tim. 3:8-12
Elders: Titus 1:5-9
Teaching in general: 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35

 

[Paidiske]

His whole argument falls flat when one realises that the ordination of women is not argued for, or practiced, based on "empathy" for women struggling with exclusion, but on the call of God and the clear precedents in Scripture (and, to a lesser extent, in tradition). He's attacking a strawman.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bishops: 1 Tim. 3:1-7
Deacons: 1 Tim. 3:8-12
Elders: Titus 1:5-9
Teaching in general: 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35

I don't actually SEE anything that prohibits women from being leaders in the Church. Additionally, I'm going to go with Kroeger and Kroeger's arguments and hermeneutical study on this topic OVER and ABOVE yours.

I have yet to see any Christian on this forum engage their argument and thoroughly dismantle it. (What I have seen is a very small, one page critique of it given some time back by John Stott.................................. I suppose I'll have to look for more.)

 

[Matt5]

"My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism."

Women rule the West* , and any attack (or even joke) on women or their ideas (feminism, equality) is going to cause big problems.

Nobel scientist Tim Hunt: female scientists cause trouble for men in labs | UK news | The Guardian

Tim made a joke about women. He had to move out of the UK as his entire life was imploding. All thanks to that joke.

Men need to know their place. Look at how Fr. Robinson got into trouble.

"Rather than simply focusing on Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory, Fr. Robinson went to the root of the matter and identified Marxism, Liberalism, and Feminism as the origin of the rest."

Now we get to see who is really in charge.

"Reading the various accounts of the reaction and the removal of Robinson from the subsequent speaker panel, it is not difficult to see what happened. Fr. Robinson’s talk was offensive to some of the priestesses in attendance; according to some accounts, a number of women (and men) walked out. No doubt some concerned and angry emails and texts were sent to the conference organizers, urging them “to do something about it.” And so they did, disinviting Robinson from the remainder of the conference."

Here we see that women want to believe in lies which flow out of "equality." But there is no such thing as equality.

Take a look at how God feels about equality. Bricks (everybody equal) and stones (everybody unequal) are symbols for people.

Does God hate bricks or something?

Exodus 20:25 and Isaiah 65:3

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone [bricks]: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Isaiah 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

The Tower of Babel was also about equality.

Genesis 11:1 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.
Genesis 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
Genesis 11:3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt [materialism] for mortar.

Equality slowly wrecks societies.

* Why women rule.

1. More women equals more votes or more influence.
2. More men at the top and bottom of society equals split votes or split influence.

At the end of the day, the ideas of women will rise to the top.

 

[jas3]

I don't actually SEE anything that prohibits women from being leaders in the Church.

"I'm just not convinced" is not an argument.

Additionally, I'm going to go with Kroeger and Kroeger's arguments and hermeneutical study on this topic OVER and ABOVE yours.

And I'm going to go with the two thousand years of Tradition interpreting Scripture over and above Kroeger and Kroeger.