Alan Rusbridger hits the matter squarely on the button.
That which he challenges so eloquently within the CofE is all not merely silly bigotry, it is plain wicked.
Trigger warning: As I don’t happen to live in the Bronze Age, I do not care what Leviticus has to say on the subject.
It’s eloquent, but heftily freighted with all sorts of assumptions about how the church should relate to the society in which it is set. Assumptions which any theologian worth their salt could swiftly dismantle from a Biblical and theological perspective, if they thought anyone was listening.
You respond firmly to my firm assertion.
However I do not agree with you.
I do realise there is a body of people within the Church of England who may well agree with you.
That is another matter.
We try to be a broad church!
That seems a bit simplistic. “Standards of the society in which he lived” — is that the greco-Roman world, a certain strand of contemporary Judaism, the Sea of Galilee Times?
Was his word to the Canaanite woman “love” as you mean it here?
I don’t believe Jesus lovingly departed from greco-Roman culture.
It’s this kind of broad brush that makes it seem that “all we need is love” without any kind of specificity.
Jesus is portrayed as being rather unpleasant and rude, though this is the prelude to his only defeat in argument. We would not now praise someone who used the terminology of canine status and begging crumbs from the table of a racial superior – we would think it (imagine the scene) a degrading form of self-abasement.
I wonder why Luke omits it?
Mark and Matthew are surely making a point about the fraught relations in their own day between nascent Christianity and nascent Rabbinic Judaism
“this is the prelude to his only defeat in argument” — you are entitled to your view. But that is what it is. An opinion. The idea that Jesus upholds the elective purposes of God is hardly a “degrading form of self-abasement.” “We would think” means “I think.” “Why Luke omits it” is another opinion. The relationships among the evangelists isn’t this simplistic. Bauckham has made a strong argument for the readers of John as knowing Mark, e.g. The Lukan prologue can equally be read as an acknowledgment of prior witnesses — he produces his own orderly account. He does… Read more »
He is defeated in argument in the sense that a point he offers, as if decisive, is not in fact decisive and elicits a reply which he accepts. Jesus initially uses language which is pretty awful by the standards of now and of then. Would you call someone an animal who had done no harm to anyone? Divine beings are in special situations I suppose. I ask what we would think of a character in a story set in our times who got something (s)he wanted by using racist terms about herself and others of her race. We might sympathise… Read more »
“Jesus initially uses language which is pretty awful by the standards of now and of then.” That is simply an opinion that you hold. It was not shared down the ages in the history of interpretation. Opinions are what they are, but they are individual and culturally pressured. Paul states in Romans the logic of Jesus. See 15:8-13. He goes to the covenant people, and only out of that context do the Gentiles then sing with joy. Nothing is gained by saying “Jesus is defeated” so as to gain a sachkritik of universalizing “morality” a la Kant. As for Luke.… Read more »
I’ve seen one interpretation that it shows Jesus changing his mind, and I quite like that idea. He rebukes her, she replies that even the unworthy are allowed have good things, and he sees the faith in her that previously he did not.
The conversation was surely a “double act” with the woman being coached in subverting the role imposed by bad religious leaders. Jesus never criticised good Judaism. His point is that in God’s economy no-one can stop the trickledown.
Fr Dean
20 days ago
Chantal Noppen’s article ought to be considered as part of the CofE’s efforts to tackle its recruitment and retention crisis. Young people looking at this mean spirited maternity policy are likely to look elsewhere if they’re hoping at some stage to become parents. Her analysis of the comparative spending on those opposed to women’s ministry and on women themselves gives the lie to the ‘mutuality’ in mutual flourishing. If I may be allowed to highlight another inequality in the sphere of mutual flourishing in its broadest sense; the Bristol diocese are advertising for a chaplain to the LGBTQI+ community; a… Read more »
Robert Ellis
19 days ago
Second class citizens. Yes…it’s a disgrace isn’t it! I keep thinking I should resign in protest but then who would notice……perhaps better to keep fighting from within…….and like an increasing number of us ignore the rules and just get on with it.
A Wisdom understanding of Jesus (see Cynthia Bourgeault and others) provides a very different insight from received Church tradition. Not so much an ignoring of the rules as a positive orientation to a Creator who is so much more than the small views we embrace of God’s order and purpose. The Church goes nowhere near this way of understanding Jesus’ significance and instead doubles down on its own spurious authority to enforce these ridiculous “rules” which can now, it seems, only be applied to sexual identities. Even those days are long past, apart from for those who continue to consent… Read more »
Sometimes it takes a journalist to describe the CofE’s silliness so succinctly.
Alan Rusbridger hits the matter squarely on the button.
That which he challenges so eloquently within the CofE is all not merely silly bigotry, it is plain wicked.
Trigger warning: As I don’t happen to live in the Bronze Age, I do not care what Leviticus has to say on the subject.
It’s eloquent, but heftily freighted with all sorts of assumptions about how the church should relate to the society in which it is set. Assumptions which any theologian worth their salt could swiftly dismantle from a Biblical and theological perspective, if they thought anyone was listening.
You respond firmly to my firm assertion.
However I do not agree with you.
I do realise there is a body of people within the Church of England who may well agree with you.
That is another matter.
We try to be a broad church!
AIUI whenever Jesus departed from the standards of the society in which he found himself it was always in the direction of love.
That seems a bit simplistic. “Standards of the society in which he lived” — is that the greco-Roman world, a certain strand of contemporary Judaism, the Sea of Galilee Times?
Was his word to the Canaanite woman “love” as you mean it here?
I don’t believe Jesus lovingly departed from greco-Roman culture.
It’s this kind of broad brush that makes it seem that “all we need is love” without any kind of specificity.
Jesus was tired, had a bad moment? And then he relented and the healing happened. He didn’t have synodical discussions for 9 years.
Had a bad moment?
I think this is what happens when we lose sight of the genre of the Gospels, which aren’t soap operas.
Jesus stated the truth. She said there were crumbs that fell from the table, that were edible.
He praised her for her faith.
That is the kind of love that the Gospels speak of in relation to Jesus Christ.
Jesus is portrayed as being rather unpleasant and rude, though this is the prelude to his only defeat in argument. We would not now praise someone who used the terminology of canine status and begging crumbs from the table of a racial superior – we would think it (imagine the scene) a degrading form of self-abasement.
I wonder why Luke omits it?
Mark and Matthew are surely making a point about the fraught relations in their own day between nascent Christianity and nascent Rabbinic Judaism
“this is the prelude to his only defeat in argument” — you are entitled to your view. But that is what it is. An opinion. The idea that Jesus upholds the elective purposes of God is hardly a “degrading form of self-abasement.” “We would think” means “I think.” “Why Luke omits it” is another opinion. The relationships among the evangelists isn’t this simplistic. Bauckham has made a strong argument for the readers of John as knowing Mark, e.g. The Lukan prologue can equally be read as an acknowledgment of prior witnesses — he produces his own orderly account. He does… Read more »
He is defeated in argument in the sense that a point he offers, as if decisive, is not in fact decisive and elicits a reply which he accepts. Jesus initially uses language which is pretty awful by the standards of now and of then. Would you call someone an animal who had done no harm to anyone? Divine beings are in special situations I suppose. I ask what we would think of a character in a story set in our times who got something (s)he wanted by using racist terms about herself and others of her race. We might sympathise… Read more »
“Jesus initially uses language which is pretty awful by the standards of now and of then.” That is simply an opinion that you hold. It was not shared down the ages in the history of interpretation. Opinions are what they are, but they are individual and culturally pressured. Paul states in Romans the logic of Jesus. See 15:8-13. He goes to the covenant people, and only out of that context do the Gentiles then sing with joy. Nothing is gained by saying “Jesus is defeated” so as to gain a sachkritik of universalizing “morality” a la Kant. As for Luke.… Read more »
I’ve seen one interpretation that it shows Jesus changing his mind, and I quite like that idea. He rebukes her, she replies that even the unworthy are allowed have good things, and he sees the faith in her that previously he did not.
The conversation was surely a “double act” with the woman being coached in subverting the role imposed by bad religious leaders. Jesus never criticised good Judaism. His point is that in God’s economy no-one can stop the trickledown.
Chantal Noppen’s article ought to be considered as part of the CofE’s efforts to tackle its recruitment and retention crisis. Young people looking at this mean spirited maternity policy are likely to look elsewhere if they’re hoping at some stage to become parents. Her analysis of the comparative spending on those opposed to women’s ministry and on women themselves gives the lie to the ‘mutuality’ in mutual flourishing. If I may be allowed to highlight another inequality in the sphere of mutual flourishing in its broadest sense; the Bristol diocese are advertising for a chaplain to the LGBTQI+ community; a… Read more »
Second class citizens. Yes…it’s a disgrace isn’t it! I keep thinking I should resign in protest but then who would notice……perhaps better to keep fighting from within…….and like an increasing number of us ignore the rules and just get on with it.
A Wisdom understanding of Jesus (see Cynthia Bourgeault and others) provides a very different insight from received Church tradition. Not so much an ignoring of the rules as a positive orientation to a Creator who is so much more than the small views we embrace of God’s order and purpose. The Church goes nowhere near this way of understanding Jesus’ significance and instead doubles down on its own spurious authority to enforce these ridiculous “rules” which can now, it seems, only be applied to sexual identities. Even those days are long past, apart from for those who continue to consent… Read more »