基督教人文學會  

Go Back   基督教人文學會 > 舊區 > 神學與哲學
聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師 神學與哲學
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:10 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
Daniel_Cheung's Avatar
Daniel_Cheung Daniel_Cheung is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,849
Rep Power: 125
Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持
聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師

忘了在哪一條目談過女性按目,唯有開新的一條。這是聯合衛理公會對為何可以按立女牧師的頗為官方的解釋,各位不妨看看那裡的理由是否有說服力。

Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

By Tom McAnally

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1090
__________________
  

Last edited by Daniel_Cheung : 06-05-2008 at 05:12 PM.
  #2  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:02 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
wonggk wonggk is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,518
Rep Power: 27
wonggk 入會時的聲譽水平
Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

這個標題就已經極差

如果承認 The Bible Specifically Prohibits Ordaination of Women,其他任何的解釋,都只會給人一個「不接受聖經權威」的感覺。

我支持按立女性,因為我根本不同意那段聖經是「普遍性」的教導,而是只對當時的環境(第一世紀的以忽所教會)有約束力。

Last edited by wonggk : 06-05-2008 at 07:24 PM.
  #3  
Old 06-05-2008, 10:05 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
nkcwong nkcwong is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,438
Rep Power: 17
nkcwong 入會時的聲譽水平
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonggk View Post
Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

這個標題就已經極差

如果承認 The Bible Specifically Prohibits Ordaination of Women,其他任何的解釋,都只會給人一個「不接受聖經權威」的感覺。

我支持按立女性,因為我根本不同意那段聖經是「普遍性」的教導,而是只對當時的環境(第一世紀的以忽所教會)有約束力。
問題還是存在,保羅這裡是引用創造秩序。Again,創造秩序這神學理念不可能是環境性的。(先前已經辯論過了。)

我認為只有四個可能:
(1)保羅用「創造秩序」作為justification,他錯了;
(2)保羅是對的;
(3)聖經原文可能沒有後半段,就是沒有關於創造秩序;
(4)我們無法reconcile這段與我們現代人信念有衝突的經文,所以就leave it at that,很可能是一個謎,等到將來天上見保羅或耶穌再問!

(1)及(3)會容易淪為挑戰上帝本身,很可能是我們自己的 human hubris。(2)有很多cognitive dissonance,所以我prefer (4)。要注意,這不是intellectual copout,我只是說應用到這段經文上,不是說所有其他東西都可以隨便說成是mystery。

後補: 實踐上,我不反對女性作牧師,若有教會這樣作,I fully respect that,但我不會跑到一個認為只應該按立男性為牧師的教會去「搞革命」,因為已經說過,是一個mystery,那麼就有詮釋上的寬容,很難說一方一定對,另一方一定錯。

Last edited by nkcwong : 06-05-2008 at 10:19 PM.
  #4  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:39 AM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
wonggk wonggk is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,518
Rep Power: 27
wonggk 入會時的聲譽水平
現在我們不是要討論怎樣解經,而是聯合衛理公會對為何可以按立女牧師的官方解釋是否有說服力。

我是說,如果他們同意聖經 specifically 禁止女牧師,那麼他們以後的 explain away 就變得無力了。但是,聖經是否 specifically 禁止女牧師卻不是完全有共識的,如果不接受這前題,其他的都不成問題了。
  #5  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:24 AM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
chestnut tree chestnut tree is offline
活躍會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 298
Rep Power: 0
chestnut tree 入會時的聲譽水平
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonggk View Post
現在我們不是要討論怎樣解經,而是聯合衛理公會對為何可以按立女牧師的官方解釋是否有說服力。

我是說,如果他們同意聖經 specifically 禁止女牧師,那麼他們以後的 explain away 就變得無力了。但是,聖經是否 specifically 禁止女牧師卻不是完全有共識的,如果不接受這前題,其他的都不成問題了。
Agreed. McAnally was unwise to make the headline so sensational because it can mislead the "careless" reader to believe that the Methodist position blatantly challenges biblical authority as such - even though at the very beginning of the article he assures us that Methodists do uphold it - and to overlook the fact that the biblical witnesses as a whole support their position as he argues. That said, perhaps the headline itself is to tacitly challenge the problematic belief that biblical witnesses cannot contradict each other as to doctrinal matters. That belief is essential to a fundamentalist mentality which assumes that biblical authority is contingent on the absence of any such contradictions.
  #6  
Old 06-06-2008, 12:22 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
Daniel_Cheung's Avatar
Daniel_Cheung Daniel_Cheung is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,849
Rep Power: 125
Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持
Quote:
Originally Posted by chestnut tree View Post
Agreed. McAnally was unwise to make the headline so sensational because it can mislead the "careless" reader to believe that the Methodist position blatantly challenges biblical authority as such - even though at the very beginning of the article he assures us that Methodists do uphold it - and to overlook the fact that the biblical witnesses as a whole support their position as he argues. That said, perhaps the headline itself is to tacitly challenge the problematic belief that biblical witnesses cannot contradict each other as to doctrinal matters. That belief is essential to a fundamentalist mentality which assumes that biblical authority is contingent on the absence of any such contradictions.
因此,我曾見過有人批評那是誤用 Wesleyan quadrilateral --把聖經視作可被抵消的理據來源。
__________________
  
  #7  
Old 06-06-2008, 03:27 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
callmejeanwong callmejeanwong is offline
資深會員
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 11
callmejeanwong 很多人支持callmejeanwong 很多人支持
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkcwong View Post
(4)我們無法reconcile這段與我們現代人信念有衝突的經文[I Timothy 2:8-15],所以就leave it at that,很可能是一個謎
I don't know whether those scriptures are in conflict with today people's belief (Many people don't believe in gender equality anyway), but according to McAnally, those scriptures are definitely in conflict with other scriptures or ideas derived from other scriptures. The conflict is obvious in light of what he lists:

Quote:
* The creation stories of Genesis tell of God making female and male in God's own image. God placed them in the garden to work in harmonious partnership.
* Old Testament prophets call for justice, speak out against inequities, and stand with the oppressed.
* Jesus Christ had women as friends, disciples and witnesses,. He challenged the conventional beliefs of his day that women were inferior and men were superior.
* The Apostle Paul called the people of God to create a world where the gifts of both women and men are celebrated and used, where "there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).
If we assume that both nkcwong's and McAnally's interpretations of the bible are correct (If we don't assume that, we will need another thread to debate the biblical interpretations), and if we don't want to say that the bible contradicts itself, then we can only say that we don't understand the bible, or we can say that the bible "是一個謎" on the issue of female ordination.

If we don't want to decide whether we should ordain females, then we can "leave it at that". But if we want to make a decision but we don't understand what the bible says, then we should use other ways, and McAnally suggests we use "tradition, experience and reason". And based on "tradition, experience and reason", United Methodist church reaches the conclusion that females can be ordained. For those who oppose female ordination, what experience (i.e. I understand that as empirical evidence) and reason do they have? Do they have empirical evidence that female ordination will hurt the churches? It seems they can only use some scriptures to support their argument. (But it would be a circular argument to use the bible because the premise is that we don't understand the bible on that issue.) In contrast, those who support female ordination, or those (Christians and non-Christians) who support gender equality in general, have tons of psychological, sociological, logical evidence besides the bible to support their argument.

Last edited by callmejeanwong : 06-06-2008 at 04:01 PM.
  #8  
Old 06-06-2008, 03:59 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
callmejeanwong callmejeanwong is offline
資深會員
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 11
callmejeanwong 很多人支持callmejeanwong 很多人支持
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkcwong View Post
[I Timothy 2:8-15]是一個mystery,那麼就有詮釋上的寬容,很難說一方一定對,另一方一定錯。
If an illiterate does not understand that the sign on a bottle of cyanide reads "Poisonous", then the sign is a mystery to him. If he does not admit his illiteracy but instead believes the sign "有詮釋上的寬容,很難說一方一定對,另一方一定錯", decides that the signs reads "Coca Cola" and then drink the bottle, then he will understand that "有詮釋上的寬容,很難說一方一定對,另一方一定錯" is a fallacy, if the poison does not kill him fast enough. In the same way, if we admit that we don't understand what the bible says about female ordination, as I have argued above, that does not mean that the bible "有詮釋上的寬容,很難說一方一定對,另一方一定錯". Rather, the bible has one definite stance on female ordination (although I don't know when we will fully understand it). But that does not stop us from taking a stance anyway because we can use other methods such as "tradition, experience and reason". That does not guarantee we will be right, but that guarantees we will have a better chance than those who don't admit they are ignorant about the bible on that issue and instead adopt a practice that they claim coming from the bible.
  #9  
Old 06-06-2008, 05:41 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
Daniel_Cheung's Avatar
Daniel_Cheung Daniel_Cheung is offline
鑽石會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,849
Rep Power: 125
Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持Daniel_Cheung 很多人支持
Quote:
Originally Posted by callmejeanwong View Post
If we don't want to decide whether we should ordain females, then we can "leave it at that". But if we want to make a decision but we don't understand what the bible says, then we should use other ways, and McAnally suggests we use "tradition, experience and reason". And based on "tradition, experience and reason", United Methodist church reaches the conclusion that females can be ordained. For those who oppose female ordination, what experience (i.e. I understand that as empirical evidence) and reason do they have? Do they have empirical evidence that female ordination will hurt the churches? It seems they can only use some scriptures to support their argument. (But it would be a circular argument to use the bible because the premise is that we don't understand the bible on that issue.) In contrast, those who support female ordination, or those (Christians and non-Christians) who support gender equality in general, have tons of psychological, sociological, logical evidence besides the bible to support their argument.
按一些人對四大支持的正解,經驗不是純 empirical fact :
...The appeal to experience is complex and ambiguous but most apparent. Thorsen maintains "He did not set out to be theologically innovative, but he was the first to incorporate explicitly into his theological worldview the experiential dimension of the Christian faith along with the conceptual. Undoubtedly his pastoral nature contributed to such an emphasis. Cell notes that no one more than Wesley utilized and brought to bear experience on the interpretation of scripture.

But experience -- both of a private experiential nature and of a public empirically observable nature -- must never be used in a solitary manner. It must always be treated dialogically with scripture, tradition, and reason...
http://campus.houghton.edu/webs/empl...rmeneutics.htm
我這樣說,只是針對我們對四大支柱的理解,無意說因此按女牧師是錯。
__________________
  
  #10  
Old 06-06-2008, 06:47 PM    聯合衛理公會解釋為何可以按立女牧師
chestnut tree chestnut tree is offline
活躍會員
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 298
Rep Power: 0
chestnut tree 入會時的聲譽水平
Quote:
Originally Posted by callmejeanwong View Post
If we don't want to decide whether we should ordain females, then we can "leave it at that". But if we want to make a decision but we don't understand what the bible says, then we should use other ways, and McAnally suggests we use "tradition, experience and reason".
To suspend exegetical judgments in view of conflicting biblical witnesses is methinks just a way of getting oneself off the hook. It is more so as the voice of the Paul of the Pastoral Letters is so lucid (and unlike 1 Cor. 14:34-36, 1 Tim. 2:8-15 is never thought to be a later interpolation). In fact we are ignorant not so much of what specific biblical texts really mean as of how we should deal with a polyphonic Bible. The other three Guidelines can enable Methodists who affirm the primacy of the Bible to deal with such a Bible, to understand it more deeply by coming to terms with its conspicuous polyphony. But they are not the remaining useful Guidelines that come to Methodists' aid when they confess that they don't understand the Bible and have to put it aside.

Last edited by chestnut tree : 06-07-2008 at 12:01 AM.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.