Ennis...I'm like Sandy Grant... I've never been surprised at the hate and malice that has been directed at us over the years...You know all them years we've been jailed, bashed, mocked, persecuted, discriminated against, called perverts and pedophiles ...and not to mention the years we've been excluded from the church....And Peter Jensen has always behaved in the same calm passive aggressive way, of being as condescendingly polite, as a wet fish...(except when he joined GAFCON and his silence then was absolutely deafening)...and forever explaining his Sydney Anglican views with such faithfulness, firmness and clarity.Say Jake...you know how David Ould reckons that if you express concerns about the welfare of a young women vowing to 'submit' in marriage to men who don't mind women submitting...then you don't like the Bible...well does that rationale work in reverse...you know...if you like the Bible then you don't like people?
What a shame Mr Pell hasn't got a wife who can submit to him. Nor have around the estimated 50% of RC clergy who are reputed to be gay.
ReplyDeleteWhere does David Ould say that "if you express concerns about the welfare of a young women vowing to 'submit' in marriage to men who don't mind women submitting...then you don't like the Bible"
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can see in David Ould's blog...David Ould doesn't express concerns for the welfare of young women vowing to submit to men who don't mind women submitting...It's Muriel Porter! David says Muriel Porter and Kevin Giles don't like the Bible because they don't like the word 'submit'. From David's blog...it seems that Muriel was the heretic because she thought 'submit' was a derogatory word...she expressed concerns that 'submit' had connotations of slavery and was a dangerous concept, in terms of today's society...the one she lives in, and where many Christians inhabit...because of the propensity for domestic violence. Now because David Ould is not from this world where domestic violence exists but another that Phillip Jensen inhabits...David Ould is happy to acknowledge that the idea of female submission is a very dangerous concept and totally absurd in the eyes of the world that David Ould doesn't inhabit... but says when a woman submits to her husband it shows that world what Jesus was like, and demonstrates a profound trust in God...Now Because Muriel Porter and Kevin Giles don't think most husbands are God...and they and don't like the word submit as part of the marriage vows... then David concludes that they really don’t like the Bible....but seriously what would I know...I'm only flesh and blood and of this world.
ReplyDeleteDavid Ould doesn't express concerns for the welfare of young women vowing to submit to men who don't mind women submitting
ReplyDeleteSo, just to be clear, when he writes,
"Peter is unequivocal on how a husband ought to care for his wife""
and
"There is implicit and explicit condemnation of all abusive behaviour"
and
"the husband is, in turn, called to love His wife sacrificially"
and
"Further, we are acutely aware of much abuse in marriage relationships (not least if, like me, you’re a minister and have the (often sad) privilege of involvement in people’s marriages. We ought always to be aware of this particular danger"
and
"not only is abuse wrong..."
and
"I abhor abuse of any kind in marriage or any other relationship and I also pointed out that the texts we are talking about also make it plain that abuse is wrong"
you take all of that as not expressing concern?
David Ould is not from this world where domestic violence exists
ReplyDeletebut he writes,
"we are acutely aware of much abuse in marriage relationships (not least if, like me, you’re a minister and have the (often sad) privilege of involvement in people’s marriages. We ought always to be aware of this particular danger"
Yes but when it occurs they will be the first to say "aha but that man is not acting like Jesus" instead of offering help and compassion and considering perhaps it was an outcome of spending his whole life being told he is like Jesus to women and that women must submit to him! Honestly they have either have their heads in the sand, or worse they are aware of the abuse but don't admit it because they want to propagate the patriarchal status quo.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1:05. How do you know David Ould would not offer help and compassion? Have you seen him deal with domestic violence?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1:12 I said "they" not "him". My condolences for your lack of understanding of common English grammar.
ReplyDeleteBut you quite obviously include David Ould amongst "they". Let's not play games here.
ReplyDeleteI'm not playing games. I'm talking about "complementarians" as a group. How arrogant of you to assume that I mean something else.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from personal experience. Every time I raised it in my church, with other "complementarian" Christian friends, and strangers such as yourself on the internet - this has been the response. 100% strike rate for complementatians. More interested in defending their doctrine than protecting others.
so then you emphatically don't think that David Ould is like that?
ReplyDeleteAnon I can't be bothered discussing with you any longer. You're boring, your arguments go nowhere, you keep trying to put words in my mouth but most importantly,
ReplyDeleteLike all complementarians I have met; you have completely ignored the content and meaning of my comment and are arguing about something else entirely.
yeah right. Someone calls you on your unfounded claims about someone and you scamper away. Calamity Jane is also now nowhere to be found.
ReplyDeleteWhat a surprise
The person 'anonymously' challenging Calamity Jane is nowhere to be found. Anyone guess who he is?
ReplyDeleteUmmm... George Athos?
DeleteAnonymous like I said - you seem to have some general English comprehension issues. Re-read everything I said. My claims are 100% correct and true. At no point did I mention your beloved ould.
ReplyDeleteGeeze...I've been out! So I fear there comes a point where we are beyond you simply misunderstanding me and into the area where you seek to deliberately construe what I write in the worst possible light (the way I feel David Ould does to Muriel Porter's comments) despite my attempts to clarify. I have no intention of allowing another comment of yours to pass moderation if you continue in this manner. That would be a shame since I am sure you have many positive things to contribute to these debates but I find myself with little other option.
ReplyDeleteI'm just asking for simple clarification. It seems to me that David Ould does not say the things you accuse him of saying, in fact some of what he says flatly contradicts your accusations.
DeleteSo by all means do clarify. You say he doesn't care, I quote where he expresses care. etc etc. I realise it's difficult to have this sort of thing challenged, though.
David Ould knew Muriel Porter was talking about concerns for the welfare of young women when she spoke about submission vows ...but David overlooked the welfare issues and chose to focus on the idea that Muriel did not like the Bible because she questioned the word submit in relation to marriage...at this point David placed his interpretation of the word submit over the concerns Muriel was expressing. Now this may have been a way to criticise Muriel Porter, and only David Ould would know that... but it read like women who are in threat of being violated should submit because if they don't then they don't like the Bible, and are lesser Christians. In my mind that is the greatest abuse, when faith is used to denigrate and/or coerce ...and that was what Sue was trying to explain to David in the comments section of his blog...but David preferred to score points by engaging in a pedantic exercise involving semantics, rather than as clergyman who may have realised that his article had offended her, and made her feel that he was uncaring. Possibly a matter of perception...who knows? Now anon...I have given it my best shot...and if David doesn't want to be misunderstood, then perhaps he could write with more understanding and do the Jesus thing by projecting himself into anothers's shoes... so he doesn't need to debate every issue because he understands where people are coming from when they say something ...be it right or wrong from his perpective. Now God Bless. The End.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like Dobby is speaking of himself in the third person again - I've always said that's an important predilection to look for when interviewing potential curates.
ReplyDelete