tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post4117465694082514186..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Deeper on Subservice and AskingPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-10976921895714470322012-07-26T23:01:42.497+02:002012-07-26T23:01:42.497+02:00There is, I'm sure, but not a new problem.There is, I'm sure, but not a new problem.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-44197403173537340432012-07-25T20:53:21.152+02:002012-07-25T20:53:21.152+02:00As for the picture, in the case of a young, attrac...As for the picture, in the case of a young, attractive male vicar, isn't there also a contrast between the bleeding obvious sexual signals for females ( or straight females and gay males) and the clerical collar?Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-62729182034096368632012-07-24T20:53:02.924+02:002012-07-24T20:53:02.924+02:00It's a tricky area to write about, and often a...It's a tricky area to write about, and often avoided, but grateful that comments add to the points I was making. As for the drawing (commented on elsewhere) the whole point is to set up the contrast between the bleeding obvious sexual signals for males and the clerical collar, and this is hardly an image likely to be made in public, except at fancy dress parties.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-30956404926091886872012-07-24T18:29:01.128+02:002012-07-24T18:29:01.128+02:00The most persistent and influential human illusion...The most persistent and influential human illusion is that of being an awareness, a consciousness, steering the organism from a cockpit behind the eyes. We imagine that consciousness animates the body, as in the Adam and Pymalion myths, or the horror movies about malevolent dolls. We project this understanding onto the universe, supposing that it too is animated by a consciousness. But our awareness is an effect of our organism, produced by neuro-chemical processes; the universe has no apparent organs. Further, this one planet has produced "life;" the universe that we can observe is inimical to life. God is a story created, elaborated, and told by human beings. Subservience to a deity is a projection of tribal society. (Yes, some tribes had their wise women who ruled along with the warriors and chiefs, but those aren't the models the West has followed.)<br /><br />Sex in the church. The former bishop of New York left his wife and started dating the female priest in charge of vocational discernment. His staff pretended not to notice, even when he created a scandal in trying to create a preferment for his girl friend. He retired with full honors and visits parishes with his now-wife. It is to barf.<br /><br />C. A. Tripp in <i>The Homosexual Matrix</i> speculates that human love requires some sort of barrier to overcome. The male-female difference provides plenty of difficulty for heterosexual pairings, but gay men often chose partners from other ethnic or age groups. Many male couples we see in our neighborhood are Asian-Latino, Anglo-African, etc., etc. My husband is 27 years my junior. Gay couples aren't much into subservience -- each partner does what they are best at or what needs doing at the time; it's the straights who try to project gender roles on us.<br /><br />I think you're onto something, Adrian. The whole language of religion is messed up.Murdoch Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10584498192562407670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-56795345929580777022012-07-24T14:24:58.974+02:002012-07-24T14:24:58.974+02:00"I'm saying (so far) that Anglican women ..."I'm saying (so far) that Anglican women rise to be bishops and then use the language of subservience, either regarding father God or Jesus Christ. These are above, these are followed, and the language is male. In the myth, God becomes human and a sex is chosen."<br /><br />Hmmmmmm. Well, I take your point, feminist theologians have long grappled with the problem that God is the ultimate Patriarch. However, (as you point out and are aware) we make God in our own image and ascribing gender and humanity to a deity is is a reflection of our limited understandings as much as anything else. As long as this is understood - and it often isn't- then the gender barrier is not a problem.<br />Subservience is another issue. Subservience to a deity is a wholly different matter to subservience to a human being. Men and women are/ should be equals but we cannot claim to be equal to God, whether we are male or female.<br /><br /> You write of women's relationship with the figure of Jesus:<br />"The relationship is presumably quite cool and, because of subservience, might even be at a critical distance. He really is unavailable."<br />Not sure I agree - I don't know if there is a sense of subservience to Christ (the most human form of God) but more a combination of closeness, adoration and worship. Worship is not quite subservience; we can worship and adore a lover. That's not a cool or distant relationship but rather one of sweetness and intimacy - and doesn't voluntary subservience have a strong sexual and passionate element for some people? I think the relationship with a Christ figure does have a quasi-sexual element for many people and I think it can have this for men, irrespective of sexuality, as well as women. I can't quite say why I think this though and I suspect women may have an advantage - also helped along by the closeness of relationship between Jesus and women in the gospels.<br />Anyhow, those are my thoughts:)Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.com