Concluding remarks by Kurt Vetterli
I want in this final article now do not enter and again to the theological arguments of the subject, because I think, first, that I made clear, more or less my position on the discussed Bible passages , secondly, do you actually no longer together your statements, but rather trying to make something right, and included some personal comments. Then I will answer here (it's a shame that you are taking in the published statement of things that I told you the next debate, in order not just public to make - but now it is out and I will reply a few sentences on it).
If I have misunderstood statements from you and I represent your arguments are false, then or would it be my fault because I had not heard correctly. But I am still of the opinion that your position resulting from the fact that bodies such as 1 Timothy 2:12 ff and parallels in favor of the feminist interpretation be reinterpreted. (Feminist I call them for simplicity. It is also not avoid recognizing that there is a certain connection between the secular feminism and the advent of the changed interpretation of that scripture. The historic interpretation of the Bible sections for the first time made after the advent of secular feminism in question)
And sorry if I so direct and blunt repeat. I am convinced that you are a false doctrine on 'the service of women in the community' on the glue 're gone. And that you could describe things as wrong now as it is done in various publications, the arguments I read to you. That you
but a liberal attitude toward church and would have or would advocate homosexuality, I did not want to say and I am afraid not. I just wanted to say that the same hermeneutical approach that you are using is currently bulged to living in Homosexualtität to justify Christians / religious people. The fact is, you just re-read the relevant publications ...
What is important to me: If I criticize your theological position and you say directly what I think about it, or what I think of your hermeneutic approach, then it is not an attack on your person, but it is against your views. These I think are wrong. I also believe to have recognized by your statements to the said bodies, that is father to the thought with you the desire.
You've seen the wrong: I'm not having the willingness to learn from you, entered the debate. I saw it as a debate and not as a Dialog, where I'll see if we can find us. I believe that all those who doubt the historical perspective in the last decades or even fight, not only have a slightly different view of things, but that they teach false and that this movement has caused great damage in the church.
What do you write at the end that my arguments do not convince you is a pity, but I'm really not expecting it. If you say something you've learned from me, it makes me even a little bit. I hope you take it to me not too bad, if I can not say the same thing - that I would have learned from you. How do you judge it right, that was not my intention; it would possibly have been an unexpected turn.
I told you (implicitly - have you noticed it but) assumes that you are fed from certain sources. I admit that this is true in my case - although I have not consulted for the debate itself literature.
I would like to take this opportunity to make a recommendation. Two books you should get sure, if one is enough will deal with the issue 'service for women in the community':
The role of men and women in the Bible
(22 authors) edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem
3L Verlag
women in the Church
Andrew J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and HS Baldwin
well-Verlag
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment