Thursday, February 21, 2013

Maggi Dawn: "Sometimes we are called upon to express prophetic anger"


Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Is she now part of the episcopal church?

Also, I agree with her unvocalised alternative- we should look back, realise we were wrong to ordain women, and phase out women ministers.

21 February 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Agreed, Mr. Kenningly.

She'll be getting on well with the Sisterhood in US Academia, though. Best stay out of range; they are more deadly than any Black Widow spider!

21 February 2013 at 22:45  
Blogger gentlemind said...

"prophetic anger"? There is no such thing.
Anger is a reaction to something. Prophesy is the foretelling of something. We can be angry at a prophesy (and at a prophet haha :)), but neither the prophesy nor the prophet are angry or anger.

21 February 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger gentlemind said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Maggi Dawn

You might not have noticed ... but TEC is dying. In 20 years time you won't be able to find an Episcopal Church between the Western Appalachians and the Eastern Rockies. So enjoy now that energy all you like. Bask now in not having to justify your ministry. Because there is an end coming to it. A church with a median age of 62 for the laity isn't long for this world.


21 February 2013 at 23:42  
Blogger Galant said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2013 at 00:10  
Blogger Galant said...

She's spot on. That is the choice, and yet, it also isn't.

The priesthood isn't the be all and end all; nor eldership, nor the pastorate, nor whatever system to which you subscribe.

There is something very important to learn here. Two terms struck me in this clip, "negativity", and "affirmation".

Those who would graciously contend for a male calling to headship must also learn to consider and understand the calling and ministry of women (and everyone else) too.

The women who bear Christ's name are equal to the men, just called differently, it is said. Thus the men in headship must strive harder to recognise and defeat negativity and provide affirmation, in a way that is real, for all those women who wish to give their all for Christ and evidently feel they are not doing so, or that they have more to give.

This cannot be ignored or it will result in precisely the sort of push that we do see now.

Perhaps this is an argument against 'Priesthood' entirely; as being an artificial and overly individualised method of ministry. Perhaps it creates/promotes too much sentiment that it is only the priests and the services over which they preside that are by far the most important ministry?

Maybe that is one reason why pursuing 'priesthood' is tied to affirmation in ministry?

Either way, if one is to argue for, defend and delineate the calling of men in headship, the same must be done for all other roles and, perhaps of necessity, even more fiercely so. After all, if it is only men who have the headship, and the headship is all anyone talks about, it is understandable that those outside that role might feel 'negativity' and a lack of affirmation.

The leaders must speak up for all, and about all. And more men too must be encouraged to step up and to recognise and begin to fulfill their calling, lest there be no choice but for Deborah and Jael to lead the people into victory.

As Ms. Dawn said, whatever side one takes on this, the church must now step up and affirm the truth and teach it - who's job is it? Let them do it.

In my opinion there have been too many fatherless generations already. Let the men cast off the world's business and their own and begin to take up God's. It is just as necessary now as it ever was, maybe even more so.

22 February 2013 at 00:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everything about this video is plain wrong.

Maggi Dawn is not well.

Many come to the church because they carry their own problems and want to bury them.

"freedom from negativity"

A better world if we just loved one another rather than pointing out the truth to set us free.

Voices, controlled, muted and soothing,like Michael Jackson's was, to forget the rage within to create a Neverland without.

Testicular earings. If you can't be happy being a woman by being intimidated by OiGs, just grow a pair to be more equal.

Eyes flicking up to the right to grasp the imagined, whenever God is referred to.

'The words of diverging opinions all coming together'. Darkness shall lie down with the light.

I agree women of consciousness should be teachers. Just not this one.

The Christian: come let Jesus carry your burdens.

Your problems will never go away, for like Saint Paul, the only path remaining to you is of more and more faith. Climbing the serpent to be the exaulted head of a Pope will still not save you.

Give up your church, children already have the kingdom of god. Protect them.

22 February 2013 at 08:39  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

This is a genuine open request for information.

Brother Ivo understands that Headship places the role of the male as the "Head." That seems to be an agreed terminology within Complementarianism.

He hears the explanation that the female role is not to be regarded much less denigrated as "subservient" .

The two roles in the marital relationship are "mutual/ complementary" so such terms must apply to both.

Is there, however, a distict agreed term for the female role - one that does not have a potentially pejorative/ secondary derogative implication.?

He hears that such there is an equality of complimentary roles so what is the feminine counterpart of " Head" ?

Brother Ivo likes to address a tradition/point of view with a respectful regard for its internal use of terms

22 February 2013 at 08:45  
Blogger David Hussell said...

"By their fruits ye shall know them". If churches are declining is it not a good indication that they are not following God's path ? Similarly can we say, that those that flourish, and perhaps in these tough times merely manage to hold their own ready for better times, must be on the right track ?

22 February 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger Galant said...

Brother Ivo, I've not heard of a comparative term. Perhaps the issue here is that while the Bible uses the term 'head' for the man it does not offer a term for the woman.

Wait...maybe it does - ezer kenegdo - awkwardly translated 'matching help', or traditionally, but less helpful, 'help meet'.

Found in Genesis 2:18.

That's all that comes to mind right now.

A more modern term might be NCO? :)

22 February 2013 at 08:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Br Ivo

By 'equality' do you mean sameness?

22 February 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Dear Brother Singh ,

Brother Ivo don't mean anything- he is just trying to get his words right!!

Brother Gallant's " help meet" certainly is " in the zone" but any other suggestions would be gratefully received. Not being picky, but the helper element is slightly secondary/ supportive rather than complementary is it not? It may however be the best we can do.

Salt and pepper aren't " equal/ the same, they complement each other but " helping" each other is not quite accurate and sometimes one needs to adjust the balance or have just the one!

We enjoy a rich nuanced language, there must be a satisfactory answer!

22 February 2013 at 10:59  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace/Ivo
The saying goes that the Man is the head and the Woman is the neck and the neck turns the head. The neck is not the head though and the head is not the neck. Complimentary roles.

22 February 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger Sam B said...

Brother Ivo, I think I understand some of the confusion here. Complementarians hold that to be under any human authority does not denote that peron has less worth than the head. A minister is of no more woth than a lay person, they exist in complementary roles. The fundamental pdufference as I see it is that for a complementarian worth is by no means derived from station or office but is rather derived by act of creation or being. I humbly suggest your assertion that a help is not equal to a head is because you have unwittingly taken the prevailing view that worth is devived from station or office, as a result a helper is obviously not complementary to a head.

Quick question, Is a minister with no congregation able to function as a minister? I believe he needs his foot soldiers as much as the foot soldiers need a leader.

22 February 2013 at 11:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Brother Ivo:
My suggestion, fwiw: do your best to fight the post-modernist infection. One symptom of the affliction is a passion for "terms" -- these bozos are driven to stick labels on everything and everybody. Their labels, though are of the "Alice" variety: the words mean what any postmodernist says, neither more nor less.

That is, the people they label become objects who have no say about their own identities or meanings. The process serves to limit the world within the limited understandings of sick, small-minded people--who then rule with impunity. All other "authors," and their "texts," are dead.

If you sincerely want to understand English words, the OED -- physical in-library earlier editions thereof -- is a good place to start. Thence it will soon become clear that study of Latin, Greek, Old English, and History of the English Language (touching also upon Indo-European) can only deepen perception.

Mind you, all that takes time and effort. Meanwhile, His Grace's use of language - and the KJV - provide excellent models.

Oh --- and very few words, in Modern English, carry grammatical gender. Even the Old English word, heafod is 'neuter'; as is the Latin caput. *Ironically enough, the froggies and one or two other romancers seem to have 'feminised' it.* Perhaps that's why the franco-german feministas are confused?

I'm playing here, of course. grammatical gender isn't necessarily the same concept as genetic gender.

22 February 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well in my Bible it says that Christ is the head & We collectively are the body.
Some of the Preaching & teaching these days, to put it very kindly, leaves a lot to be desired.
Ordination is not a guarantee of being right, irrespective of gender.
Many ministers seem to think that entertainment of the masses is the answer to falling numbers.
Don't rock the boat or offend them by the 'sin' word they whisper. If one mentions 'Repentance' you are immediately classified as a Rabid fundamentalist.
Strange though that many of their congregations tell you afterwards how much they got out of the word.

IMO the whole ordination question is a shambles. Certainly, Women may not be suited for some roles, & Men are not suited for others.
But Christ has used both as a blessing throughout history long may it be the case.

22 February 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Brother Ivo,
I don't know if it will help, but I like to think that there is a relationship between thoughts on headship in the roles of men and women and the roles of husband and wife. The BCP reminds us that marriage is meant to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
We don't argue about headship there because we understand that it is not a matter of comparative values. Who can doubt the value of the bride, for whom the bridegroom died on the cross? Who can doubt the headship of the One who redeemed us all.
All else is semantics or special pleading.

John Wrake

22 February 2013 at 15:36  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Brother Ivo,
I don't know if it will help, but I like to think that there is a relationship between thoughts on headship in the roles of men and women and the roles of husband and wife. The BCP reminds us that marriage is meant to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
We don't argue about headship there because we understand that it is not a matter of comparative values. Who can doubt the value of the bride, for whom the bridegroom died on the cross? Who can doubt the headship of the One who redeemed us all.
All else is semantics or special pleading.

John Wrake

22 February 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger Galant said...

Brother Ivo,

As Sam C said, the position is that the people are equal in worth/value but the roles are different and complementary.

'Equality' as a term can only be applied to the nature or worth of the person. It cannot be applied to the role because how does one assess the 'worth' of a role?

So it is that the question of individual worth is addressed (equal), and the question of roles is addressed (distinctive).

The point is that role and individual worth are not related, although many of us do struggle with this issue all throughout life - basing our sense of self-worth upon what we 'do' or 'achieve'.

Again, perhaps this is exacerbated by current models of ministry since the all eyes are on the 'leader' and the services as constructed/directed by them. The ministry of the vicar/pastor/priest is often thought of as more important than the ministry of others. Yet isn't ministry just service? Although different roles are necessary, shouldn't all our eyes be on Christ, inspiring us to serve one another as greater than ourselves?

As I look at this issue I am beginning to see and think in terms of massive connection between the family and church. The church is itself a family, but it is also composed of families. Those familial roles do not vanish when walking through the church doors.

Thus marriage is important not only outside the church doors, in our homes, but also inside those doors in the pews. Male and female are mostly distinctive in comparison. Thus even among single individuals, the comparison remains evident.

Congregations are collections of families, or individuals with in families, or at least part of the church family. Within those families roles are also and already established and important. So as a church, we relate not to isolated individuals, but to individuals in relationships, and to families as a whole. So then out of those families, come the ministry of the church.

A minister may be single or married, but they serve as part of the church family, which in its ministry must honour the natural (for want of a much better term) family in its relationships and through love - spiritually formed relationships.

So then, I wonder, when the NT speaks of elders and speaks of their family arrangement and management, do we not see that it is from the heads of families that the heads of churches are chosen?

Should not then, the ministry of the church today echo that encouragement and development of headship, first in the family, and then upwards, with those heads leading their families, and members of the church family, into further ministry together? All supporting, and uniting with, one another, being built up into one body to serve and glorify Christ who is the one true Head of each and all of them?

22 February 2013 at 17:11  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Brother Ivo - responding to your genuine request about terms, Preacher has hit on the term I'd be familiar with in the headship context - the body. Heads and bodies look a bit comical without each other. The term is used a lot in the New Testament, the church being a body not an organisation, linked to the head. While it’s easy to pit metaphors against each other, the Bible doesn’t do that – it asks us to take the moral force from what it presents.

It's not easy with the C of E's clergy [Nicolaitan?] structure to fit the Bible to practice, and one could argue about the effects of a partial reformation for years, the function of Bishops and the effects of a ‘priesthood’ re-introducing the distance that Christ died to remove. One thing is clear though, that sisters have a critical and biblical input, and that in the same passages where Paul outlines male roles, he exhorts the elder sisters to teach the younger. That couldn’t happen without those ladies being well taught. If only clergy can carry out that function the C of E finds itself at odds with the practice of the early church, which is why people left the C of E in the 1800’s.

Growing up in a brethren church where only men spoke in main gatherings, headship was well explored (almost to the exclusion of practical application), and I can honestly say that even the stumbling way in which it was worked out has been a massively positive encouragement in my Christian life. An old Glaswegian spinster would ask me after most communion services “I didnae hear yer voice this morning – when are we going to hear ye?” asking why I hadn’t prayed, spoken on scripture or given out an appropriate hymn as I was free to do. The sense of responsibility as a bloke was acute then and is no less now, though she is long with the Lord. I never think of rights. The power of her obedience to the word has been a major influence and challenge, as has the holiness of many other sisters, some still alive, but becoming rarer. I am naturally a lazy humdinger, but that’s something I have to overcome – I was born a bloke and will have to answer for the position I occupy at the judgment-seat of Christ – face to face.

It’s surely important to recognise a direction of travel - I’m not trying to legalistically pin people to a wall or call down a strike on someone’s fixed position. However, if chunks of the Bible set out clear principles, it’s not clever to try to paint myself out of their application by inventing circumstances in which they can’t apply – rather I should be trying to see how I can apply them to the glory of God and the building up of the church of God (which may include parts of the Church of England). Tradition is no defence, and I’ve heard the semantic and translation squirming for 25 years without being at all impressed. Half of them came out on Twitter during the Synod vote on women bishops, but I was stunned how little was understood then.

Your poverty post fits you in the same generation as my Dad, but with very different histories. This blog is a great forum for all sorts of necessary issues to be kicked around by people with different backgrounds. Of course I don’t agree with everything, but you’re meeting a real need.

22 February 2013 at 18:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Can you imagine the response of feminists if men went around calling them "Bodies"?

Is there something wrong with the terms male/masculinity and female/femininity? All this obsessing over Headship is really unnecessary.

The most important reasons are the Church's determination to remain faithful to its constant tradition; its fidelity to Christ's will; and most significantly, the idea of male representation due to the "sacramental nature" of the priesthood.

22 February 2013 at 20:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no "sacramental nature"

A woman can have headship because she has that ability, not because she is female. Capitalism opposed to Cultural Marxism.

I've only argued my observation, that this traumatized mess does not cut it.

If I heard Ms Jesus speaking I'd jump, because commons sense is in any language from anyone.

But then, she'd be imprisoned for Hate Crimes of unflattery.

23 February 2013 at 00:20  
Blogger Galant said...

Then of genuine interest, on just two points - what do you take to be the meanings of the Scriptures that say that the man is the head of the woman (1 Cor. 11) and why does Paul, in speaking in 1 Tim. 2 of why he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man, refer back to Adam and Eve and Eve's sin?

23 February 2013 at 01:04  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Dodo - I think you've missed the point there - maybe you relish the scrap that would ensue. I'm not that worried about what feminists think, but nobody isolates women to call them bodies because that would be missing the point - the force of the metaphor is unity in a context where separation is fatal. It would be just as absurd to go around calling men 'heads' as if they rolled around until the female headless horsewoman picked them up. Come on - this is getting close to my point where we cite difficulties as an excuse to duck straight words out of the Bible.

Is this an obsession with something that doesn't matter? No - it's a truth revealed by God, and as such is precious. It's the way he thinks rather than the way we come to it. Male and female are used, and in Ephesians and Corinthians something else is shown about them. We could always drop those bits from the Bible. If you're dropping that bit, there are a few other bits I find challenging which I could scrap. The resurrection? Some people find that ridiculous. The other tactic is to leave a point unresolved and wander off muttering about 'too much focus on things which aren't central / don't feed the poor / preach the gospel".

I did blur things a bit by going from the head/body link straight into how brethren assemblies worked in practice - headship is a clear concept in the relationship between married men and women. Paul says that the relationship between Christ and the church is the same, that it's a profound thing. In wider application, all the people in the church are subject to Christ as head - in that context I am part of the body, not the head of that dear Glaswegian spinster. In that context she was expecting me to act my part in the body - shall the tongue stay silent out of choice? I was banging on about responsibility, that's my way in which I respond to the direction of my head - He tells me how to act in the assembly and I am subject to Him. That position of subjection is no different from that of anyone else, which is the point Paul is trying so hard to get across. That subjection is counter-cultural, so don't expect the feminist to be delighted.

Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

There we go - the distinction between head and body isn't stretched - it's one shared body - one flesh. This is a profundity that 400 MPs have recently missed, and doesn't seem to be explored much by Christians for fear of the consequences.

I feel I've gone on too much on Cranmer's blog already - I hope I shall be forgiven. Maggi Dawn's logic is flawless, but the answer lies not just in the original decision on women vicars, but the whole concept of priesthood in the C of E, lazily inherited from the Roman Catholic system.

23 February 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 February 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

Forgive me, then, if I quote, once more: words from the hymn Dr. Dawn references.

There is no place where earth's sorrows
Are more felt than in heaven;
There is no place where earth's failings
Have such kind judgment given.
There is plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the Head.

"Let Us Pray," indeed.

Oh -- and wouldn't it be edifying if our educators could guide our children to poets like Milton, and to his Paradise Lost.

**Full text available at

23 February 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Galant said...

Somehow I doubt rap the cup of tea for most readers of this blog, but if one can stomach poorly produced parodies then something original and well produced, especially being theologically sound, shouldn't an issue. You'll find the lyrics written beneath the video.

I strongly believe that female supported, godly male leadership is necessary to meet a great number of needs in church and society.

God bless.

23 February 2013 at 18:48  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks for some good points on this thread about the inter-dependency of heads and bodies. It reminds me of the time when we recognised some people as "dead from the neck up" - and that such individuals could be masculine, feminine -- or whatever else, I presume.

I'm also glad mr/mrs/ms/dr bacon mentions: Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing [my emphasis]. In this context, emphasis on the saviour can recall the military and hunting aspects of a man's duty to the body: both family and society.

At least, that used to be a man's duty. For men, being the physically stronger gender, traditionally had the onus of defending and saving the home/land. They earned our love and respect because they laid down their lives to preserve ours. To the same end, mr. rasher b, they also brought home the bacon. Literally. [As, indeed, Christ saves, redeems, and feeds us. He is the Word].

And if the men failed? Then a society lost its lands and the people were slaughtered or enslaved, and the culture died. [If ministers and teachers failed, Judaeo-Christians risked being in thrall to the Enemy (Satan). Heels over Head, as it were].

That's all changed though. Homo sapiens has now enlightened itself by blindingly brilliant 'progress.' Modern technology and governments so endow us presently: that we need not fight to retain the homelands our fathers saved for us. [What passes for bacon may have been sacrificed to some golden idol - but so what?]

No individual body needs a head, nowadays. A few industrial, and religio-political heads suffice to unite us as one glorious corpus.

As incorporated members of that body, we dance to the tune called* by the heads -- on whose altar we glady sacrifice our resources, our earnings, and our children. If the pound sterling is falling, and the dollar will follow ..... So what?

Who needs a homeland, a culture, or even salvation/Salvation?

* In this case, genderist.
Sorry; had to re-post this.

23 February 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Rasher said ...

"Maggi Dawn's logic is flawless, but the answer lies not just in the original decision on women vicars, but the whole concept of priesthood in the C of E, lazily inherited from the Roman Catholic system."

Ummm ... her logic might be but its her premises that are flawed.

Inherited from Roman Catholicism?! You mean 2000 years of consistent Christian practice, I take it? A male priesthood has been the Church's constant tradition. Its based on fidelity to Christ's will. He chose male Apostles and His women followers played different, though no less important, parts. Most significantly, is male representation due to the "sacramental nature" of the priesthood. Christ was a male and His vicars should be too.

24 February 2013 at 16:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older