A while back, I posted in challenging_god, and I think here in my journal, that "theology is not algebra." I was fumbling towards finding a way to demonstrate that the cultural or psychological or economic implications of a doctrinal point are inherently part of the meaning of that point -- that theology cannot be interpreted in a cultural, psychological, or economic vacuum.
This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.
It is not only from the perspective of modern culture or modern super-individualism that one might conclude that the male-stand-ins-only implies denigration of women. The early Christian literature demonstrates that the role of women in the church was a matter of dire contention.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant. Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
That the liturgy calls for only male stand-ins for the disciples may very well reflect this early controversy -- rather than modern notions of "female liberation."
This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue. As I argued in my post, if gender were not an issue, there should be no theological dilemma with having female stand-ins, since the disciples themselves are no longer among us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 05:20 pm (UTC)This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.
It is not only from the perspective of modern culture or modern super-individualism that one might conclude that the male-stand-ins-only implies denigration of women. The early Christian literature demonstrates that the role of women in the church was a matter of dire contention.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant. Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
That the liturgy calls for only male stand-ins for the disciples may very well reflect this early controversy -- rather than modern notions of "female liberation."
This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue. As I argued in my post, if gender were not an issue, there should be no theological dilemma with having female stand-ins, since the disciples themselves are no longer among us.