tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8106836674030840211..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Hair-raising theology Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61367327685438725112015-09-03T11:33:27.830-04:002015-09-03T11:33:27.830-04:00Because baptism and the eucharist exploit natural ...Because baptism and the eucharist exploit natural metaphors, they are transcultural metaphors. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20113834828923180332015-09-03T01:05:08.220-04:002015-09-03T01:05:08.220-04:00Baptism trades on a natural metaphor. If, say, you...Baptism trades on a natural metaphor. If, say, you think baptism represents the forgiveness of sins, then that plays on the figurative analogy of washing dirt from the body.<br /><br />If, say, you think baptism represents death and renewal, then that plays on the figurative analogy of drowning and resuscitation. <br /><br />Likewise, the eucharist trades on a natural metaphor. Food and drink represent life. They are life-giving substances. Without them, humans will die.<br /><br />In that respect, they symbolize the life and death aspects of the atonement. The atonement is spiritually life-giving. Without it, you will suffer spiritual death. (Or remain in spiritual death.) And, paradoxically, the death of the Redeemer is necessary for the redeemed to receive spiritual life. <br /><br />Although the stones have no inherent significance, there's a direct analogy between 12 stones and 12 tribes of Israel. <br /><br />To be sure, a natural metaphor can be invested with greater specification. <br /><br />But by contest, a wedding ring is an opaque symbol. Same thing with a head-covering.<br /><br />Rather than symbolizing submission, a head-covering can just as well symbolize authority. Take the cap or hat of a general. <br /><br />In those cases, it isn't trading on a natural metaphor. There's no intuitive analogy. It's essentially meaningless. It acquires meaning when the relevant community ascribes to it a particular import.<br /><br />In addition, as I mentioned before, there's the question of the target audience for the sign. To whom is it to be meaningful? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66988957671635009622015-09-02T18:48:02.032-04:002015-09-02T18:48:02.032-04:00Hey, Steve. Good thoughts, as usual. I’m not neces...Hey, Steve. Good thoughts, as usual. I’m not necessarily a head covering proponent. I’m just evaluating something you’ve said here.<br /><br />You said, “A symbol that’s lost its significance ceases to be a symbol at all. It doesn’t convey any message. Or it now conveys the wrong message, due to transvaluation. The point of a symbol is to signal a target audience. But if the symbol no longer sends that message, it is mindless traditionalism to retain the symbol. Indeed, that subverts the purpose of the symbol.”<br /><br />But don’t we often have to <i>explain</i> the meanings of symbols? <br /><br />People don’t naturally understand what the waters of baptism represent. That’s why ministers typically explain the significance of the ordinance before performing it. And no one naturally understands the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper either. These things have to be explained too.<br /><br />Israelite children did not intuitively recognize the meaning of the twelve memorial stones (Josh. 4:6–7). That’s why their parents had to explain it whenever the children grew old enough to ask. Also wedding rings. The symbolism of the ring is typically explained in the ceremony. We don’t naturally know what a wedding ring represents.<br /><br />My point is that surely a symbol is not rendered useless simply by virtue of the fact that people don’t naturally understand its meaning via their own cultural intuition.Joel Griffishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15785666994377354173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2847253112568218412015-09-02T11:51:36.965-04:002015-09-02T11:51:36.965-04:00Let me add that I have known or had indirect conta...Let me add that I have known or had indirect contact with really nice evangelical young men who wear earrings. When there is friendship there, I tease them about it a little, but in fact I do not understand why they do it. I assume it is either a) as mindless as girls dressing immodestly by just buying clothes off the rack at the store because it's "what everyone else does" or b) a deliberate attempt to cultivate a hipster appearance, without much concern for whether it undermines their self-presentation as masculine.<br /><br />Either way, I wish there were some way to get them to stop, but apparently there are no social forces that are both powerful enough to induce them to stop and friendly enough not to simply annoy.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18143527454538893132015-09-02T11:10:27.895-04:002015-09-02T11:10:27.895-04:00While I'm quite unsure precisely what Paul wou...While I'm quite unsure precisely what Paul would say about head coverings today, I have some suspicions about what he would say, were he acculterated into American and Western cultural symbolism, about various clothing and self-presentation styles today. This is just my own opinion, but consider the following as they relate to femininity and masculinity, modesty, and respect for the services of the church:<br /><br />1) Male earrings<br />2) body piercings<br />3) Female clothing that shows large quantities of skin<br />4) Male saggy pants nearly falling off<br />5) Male or female skin-tight pants<br />6) Torn jeans<br />7) Man-buns<br />8) Any deliberate aspect of transgender self-presentation<br />9) Female immodesty<br />10) Pajamas in public<br /><br />Some of these are "hipster," some are overly casual, some are open to interpretation (famously, what constitutes immodesty?). But IMO one thing we can be sure of is that St. Paul would have been appalled at any sort of seeker-sensitive, anything goes approach to dress and self-presentation in church. I have my own ideas about the limits of this, but we have a couple of generations now who apparently believe that you are a dreadful legalist fundie if you think there is a problem with women showing up literally half-naked in church or if you think that men should avoid deliberately emasculating forms of fashion and self-presentation.<br /><br />Whatever else this passage speaks to, it seems to me that it has an application in those areas.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45017177205023081342015-09-01T22:25:23.643-04:002015-09-01T22:25:23.643-04:00Two interpretive options:
i) Paul isn't using...Two interpretive options:<br /><br />i) Paul isn't using "angel" as a technical term for a heavenly emissary. Rather, he's using it in the ordinary secular sense of human envoys.<br /><br />On that construction, visitors from other churches would be scandalized by the indecorous worship at Corinth. That identification dovetails with v16. <br /><br />That's Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's interpretation, in his popular commentary on 1 Corinthians (p115).<br /><br />ii) And I've offered my own interpretation here:<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-little-lower-than-angels.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47753646300093514532015-09-01T20:40:05.759-04:002015-09-01T20:40:05.759-04:00I appreciate T'blogue addressing these types o...I appreciate T'blogue addressing these types of topics, it's a yeoman's work.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84253485457019324882015-09-01T17:19:59.307-04:002015-09-01T17:19:59.307-04:00Steve, your argument makes a lot of sense. How wou...Steve, your argument makes a lot of sense. How would you respond to the objection that since angels are somehow involved it cannot merely be about human cultures?<br /><br />That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, <b>because of the angels</b>.- 1 Cor. 11:10<br /><br />The way I'd deal with it is that angels and demons are aware of the meaning of certain symbols in various cultures and usually can already tell whether a particular person is regenerate or not. That they factor in those things when considering whether a woman is or isn't in submission to her husband and God, and therefore whether such a woman is especially susceptible to demonic attack because of her voluntary use or non-use of the symbol of a physical headcovering.<br /><br />An analogous example would be the use of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_horns" rel="nofollow">"sign of the horns" hand gesture</a>. In some cultures and settings it has an occultic meaning and therefore can open one up to demonic influence. Yet, some people use the gesture without any intention of endorsing the occult (in fact ignorant of such backgrounds) and so (IMO) don't automatically open themselves up to above average demonic influence. Though, I suppose that someone who has already opened himself up to other occultic practices would be opening the door by that little bit more since demons look for every opportunity for a "legal right" to victimize and oppress humans. Like the saying goes "Given them an inch and they'll take a mile (or yard)."<br /><br />What do you think?ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58845423693971327652015-09-01T15:30:52.321-04:002015-09-01T15:30:52.321-04:00"Talk about a hobby horse. Anti-Trump obsessi..."Talk about a hobby horse. Anti-Trump obsession."<br /><br />Does your criticism therefore imply pro-Trump obsession on your part? Is supporting Trump your hobby horse?<br /><br />"now ranting against head coverings."<br /><br />i) In 11 years of nonstop blogging, I have, if memory serves, written two posts on head coverings. Hardly an "obsession" or hobby horse. <br /><br />ii) If you can't tell the difference between a "rant" and a sustained argument, you lack elementary intellectual discrimination.<br /><br />iii) If anyone is obsessed with head coverings, that would be an entire movement centered on head coverings. Now *that's* a hobbyhorse. <br /><br />iv) Trump is topical. He may soon become irrelevant, at which point I won't post about him. <br /><br />"Paul's instruction to Corinth wasn't culture. It was *counter* to Corinthian culture."<br /><br />Paul appeals to culture to defend his injunction.<br /><br />"And he said ALL churches did what he was saying. Not just some."<br /><br />And do all (or even most) churches in the contemporary head-covering movement have women who pray and prophesy in church? That's what the injunction was indexed to.<br /><br />Modesty is a Christian value. That doesn't mean a particular dress code is transcultural. Do you dress like Paul when you attend church? <br /><br />"And he ties coverings to the Godhead. I guess since we're going to say it's just cultural because you don't like it (you're new to the world -- up until recently, it's been a universal practice), we might as well get rid of the whole homosexual issue as well. After all, it was just cultural."<br /><br />You nicely illustrate the simple-mindedness of the head-covering movement. You blow right past the distinction between principle and symbol.<br /><br />"Men just do what they're already doing."<br /><br />Like men with ponytails? <br /><br />"You don't understand the culture. In Roman culture, men and women both covered. In Greek, neither covered. In Jewish, men covered when they prayed."<br /><br />Actually, the yarmulke is a later development. You just don't understand the culture.<br /><br />"Your entire argument is to say 'It's cultural' when it isn't, and to decide that it doesn't actually matter, and to leave Paul's own writing behind as you decide what Paul REALLY meant, what he was REALLY interested, when symbols REALLY matter."<br /><br />Thanks, once more, for demonstrating your unintelligent response to what I wrote. To the contrary, my argument was carefully qualified. Since you are unable to engage the actual argument, you caricature it. <br /><br />"Hobby horse indeed. I suggest you do some further reading before you write again, so you can at least have a factual basis -- and be forced to engage Scripture -- when you get back on your hobby horse."<br /><br />Well, for starters, I've read commentators like Fee, Fitzmyer, Garland, Thiselton, Blomberg, and Ciampa/Rosner. You're the one who needs to dismount from your high horse. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1488702328335655582015-09-01T14:14:39.882-04:002015-09-01T14:14:39.882-04:00Talk about a hobby horse. Anti-Trump obsession, no...Talk about a hobby horse. Anti-Trump obsession, now ranting against head coverings.<br /><br />Paul's instruction to Corinth wasn't culture. It was *counter* to Corinthian culture.<br /><br />And he said ALL churches did what he was saying. Not just some. There were at least three different head covering practices in the cultures Paul dealt with, but all of the churches did what he said.<br /><br />And he ties coverings to the Godhead. I guess since we're going to say it's just cultural because you don't like it (you're new to the world -- up until recently, it's been a universal practice), we might as well get rid of the whole homosexual issue as well. After all, it was just cultural.<br /><br />>>The contemporary headcovering debate is typically focused on how women should present themselves in church rather than how men should present themselves in church. The one-sidedness is striking.<br /><br />No, not really. Men aren't to cover their heads, and most men already remove their baseball caps when they enter the building. Most women don't wear head coverings, which is why it's an issue. Men just do what they're already doing.<br /><br />>>From my reading, proponents of the headcovering movement doesn't care about whether head coverings convey the same message in our culture as they did in Paul's culture. They don't think that matters.<br /><br />You don't understand the culture. In Roman culture, men and women both covered. In Greek, neither covered. In Jewish, men covered when they prayed.<br /><br />Your entire argument is to say "It's cultural" when it isn't, and to decide that it doesn't actually matter, and to leave Paul's own writing behind as you decide what Paul REALLY meant, what he was REALLY interested, when symbols REALLY matter.<br /><br />Hobby horse indeed. I suggest you do some further reading before you write again, so you can at least have a factual basis -- and be forced to engage Scripture -- when you get back on your hobby horse.moriartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033930054197469011noreply@blogger.com