The Seven Marks of the New People

The New People is born of New Women
and New Men 
1. Critical Clarity
* Deciphers events and structures, by the light of faith and
with the use of social, political and economic theories.
* Studies, evaluates, and is dialectical.
* Is not deceived by appearances, promises or charity.
* Can interpret the local, continental and world situation
and gets to the foundations of the structures of domination and
alienation.
* Walks with its feed on the ground of the real world, with
ears keyed to the cry of the poor and the sophisms of the rich,
with eyes open to the processes of history and the horizon of
Utopia.
* Is clearsighted and spreads clarity.

2. Contemplation on the March
* Is constantly open to the mystery of God that is life and
love
—in God's Trinity, the perfect community,
—in history, which is also God's Reign,
—and in the universe, which is also God's dwelling place.
* "Bumps into God in the poor," professes God in the
practice of justice and charity and celebrates God in individual,
family and community prayer.
* Goes on its way entranced by nature, its bride, accompanies all who journey in intercultural exchange and with the
tenderness of grace, and loves its people, its land and its time
with a heart ecumenically young.
* Dreams, laughs, sings, dances, lives.
* Dresses in symbols and rituals, old and new, preserves
subversive memory and engages in alternative creativity.
* Cultivates ethnic-cultural identity, social sensitivity and a
political sense of history.
* Instead of a television screen has the eyes of conscience,
the wisdom of life and the revelation of the Bible.
3. The Freedom of the Poor
* Stripped of privileges and accumulated wealth, and throwing
in its lot with the poor of the earth, it promotes the
civilization of humanizing poverty against the civilization of
inhuman wealth.
* Is poor in order to be free, and is free in order to spread
freedom.
* Shares poverty accepted out of solidarity and fights
poverty imposed by injustice.
* Makes freedom its spirit and song, and makes liberation its
battle and its victory.
* Is biased like the God of the poor, radical like the
 Jesus of
the beatitudes, and free like the Spirit of Pentecost.
4. Fraternal Solidarity
* Makes solidarity the new name of peace, the new way of
putting love into practice, and the new force of politics.
* Welcomes, shares and serves.
* Suffers, becomes enraged, campaigns, celebrates in common.
* Does not discriminate by sex or race or creed or age.
* Because it knows itself to be a child of God, tries to be
brother and sister to all.
* Fights to make the different worlds one human world.
* Promotes organization at all levels, but without fanaticism,
dogmatism or proselytism.

5. The Cross of Conflict
* Knows that to exist is to be an activist, and that the Reign
is taken by violence and that the cross contains life.
* Embraces the saving cross of Christ, but destroys all
oppressive crosses.
* Never flees from self-denial for the Reign, or forgets selfcontrol,
or shirks companionship, work or liberation.
* Adopts great causes without fear of conflict, despite
persecution and even to the point of accepting martyrdom.
6. The Gospel Insurrection
* Fired by the Good News of the gospel and tireless in the
building of the Reign, rebels against the mechanisms of profit
and weapons, consumerism and cultural domination, fatalism
and complicity.
* Is decision, activism, prophecy.
* Fights against all social and religious idols in rebellious
fidelity to God and humanity.
* Rises in revolt constantly, out of personal conversion, in
a communal and ecumenical renewal of the church, and for the
sake of a democratic revolution of society.
7. The Stubborn Easter Hope
* Hopes "against all hope," among disappointments, in the
monotony of every day, despite failures and in the face of all
the evidence of the triumph of evil.
* Maintains the consistency of the faithful witnesses, spreads
the "perfect joy" of the Utopians, and organizes the hope of the
poor.
* In pleasure and pain, at work and play, in life and death,
it keeps being Easter within Easter.
* Advances in the conquest of the promised land, along the
roads of the Great Motherland, toward the Greater Motherland

THE SPIRITUALITY
OF
LIBERATION
With a Foreword by
ERNESTO CARDENAL
and an Epilogue by
GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ
Translated from the Spanish by
Paul Burns and Francis McDonagh
Great Britain 1994 by
BURNS & OATES,

Ja gribi mainīt pasauli, paņem savu pildspalvu un raksti.

Šis ir labs:

“If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write.” 
― Martin Luther

 Nez vai Mārtiņam Luteram būtu pat sapņos rādījies, ka ar mūsdienu tehnoloģiju palīdzību var panākt daudz vairāk, nekā ar vienu pildspalvu un tinti. Interneta pasaule ir vienas rokas attālumā, pat kabatā, vai nav apbrīnojami?!

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/29874.Martin_Luther 

dzīves jēga

papildinājums iepriekšējam rakstam par kopienu - draudzi, tikko atradu lielisku rakstu angliski

November 1, 2011

As Christ Submits to the Church

Filed under: Women and Ministry — scotmcknight @ 1:14 am

27Share

Those who know the discussions about women in ministry as well as those about the relations of husbands and wives know the name Alan Padgett, and those who don’t know the name need to do (and should have known it). Alan is one of the few theologians who has actually written on most of the debated passages in the Bible about women. And he has given us all a gift in taking all those writings, condensing and clarifying them into one very readable and important book: As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission. I cannot speak enough to the alertness of this book to the history of interpretation, cultural context of each passage, and how to read such a text in the light of a gospel-centered (and he’s on the side of the angels when it comes to “gospel”) approach to the Bible (historical, canonical, and Jesus-centered).
It is impossible to get into each chapter of this book in a single review, unless this were to become tediously long (just to explain how he gets to his conclusions), so I want to emphasize some of the highlights of this exceptional book.
A gospel-shaped view of marriage and women’s ministries is shaped by the pattern of Jesus’ life, which is voluntary surrender to the other, and not shaped by authority and power.
He traces the roots of the present conflict between egalitarians and complementarians, whom he accurately calls man/male-centered leadership [some will see this as harsh; I see it as an accurate description; keep reading], and shows that this isn’t simply a feminist issue but arose in the Reformation (he mentions Argula von Grumbach), the Radical Reformation (he mentions Margaret Fell Fox), and Phoebe Palmer.
Why are we so attracted to “authority” and so afraid of “mutual submission”? What does the life pattern of Jesus tell us about church “hierarchy” and about the ministry of women?
The current heat has been set by Charles Ryrie, then Letha Scanzoni/Nancy Hardesty, Paul K. Jewett, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, the Evangelical Women’s Caucus that broke into two groups, leading many into the Christians for Biblical Equality, and saw responses in George W. Knight, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, et al.
Alan Padgett argues that “role” is a post-feminist term in this way: the first person to argue that men and women are equal in being but different in roles was George Knight (1977). The whole “role” thing then is very modern.
Furthermore, he examines the turn to the Trinity in theology and in this debate: inherent to this debate is that the male-centered complementarians think the Son though equal is eternally submissive/subordinate to the Father. He points to a Syndey diocese conclusion on this, and Padgett, a theologian, knows this view is not in fact orthodox. Kevin Giles, an Aussie, has examined the Trinitarian theology of the complementarians and finds it wanting.
Another major conclusion of Padgett’s, and here I have to do him the disservice of incompletely sketching his view, is that true Christian leadership, including in the home, is servant leadership and servant leadership is nothing other than Christ-following mutual submission. Too many think that men are “servant leaders” and women are servant followers, but Padgett argues persuasively that biblical servant leadership takes its shape in the pattern of the life of Jesus, who became a slave (temporarily) for the good of the other. And this is exactly what Paul means by mutual submission in Ephesians 5, and in that passage Jesus is the example, not of leadership or lordship, but of servant-like mutual submission. In effect, Jesus deconstructs authoritarian shapes of leadership and offers a brand new way for his followers: mutual submission for the good of the other.
Padgettt thinks that “the real problem with complementarian views is their man-centered notion of authority” (32). They have anchored authority in gender. Role expresses character, if and you connect submissiveness to role one connects it to character. [This is a monstrous reduction of a fine discussion by Padgett.]
Crucial to this book is Padgett’s breakdown of the meanings of “submission.” There are two types: Type I is involuntary obedience to an external authority; Type II is biblical: voluntary submission to another person out of love for the that person for the good of that person.
Christ “submits” to the Church in that he voluntarily, and temporarily, surrendered his status, took on the form of a slave, and worked for the good of humans out of love. That is what it means for a husband to be a “leader” and that is what mutual submission is all about.
Padgett finds examples outside of Ephesians 5, and he points — to take but one example — to 1 Cor 7:3-4: “³ The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband. ⁴ The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” This is mutual submission and surrender to one another for the good of the other. It is not coercion; it is not Type I but Type II.
I rest my case with this, but want you to know that he has sketches of his views of Ephesians 5, Philippians 2, 1 Corinthians 11 (bottom-up reading) and 14 (innovative views here including that the silence passage is both authentic and connected to one kind of silence), 1 Tim 2 (he’s into typology here), the later NT epistles (which he thinks partake at times more, for social reasons, of a Type I view of submission)

ceļā uz kopienu - draudzi

Kādā diskusijā izvirzījās jautājums par Dieva dzimumu. Šeit ir manas pārdomas šajā sakarā:


Vai dzimuma attiecināšana uz Dievu vispār ir adekvāta?


Manuprāt tā līdzinās Bībeles vēsts interpretēšanai vienas grupas interesēs (bieži vien šī grupa, kā negrozi, ir bijusi Eiropas baltie vīrieši) - Bībelē teikts, ka Dievs radīja vīrieti un sievieti pēc sava tēla un līdzības (1.Moz. 1:27), daži vīrieši, apgriežot šo frāzi, burtiskā nozīmē mēģina radīt Dievu pēc sava tēla un līdzības.


Dievs Sevi atklājis dažādos veidos un tam ir lietojis visdažādākās metaforas, ieksaitot tādas, ko stereotipiski piedēvēja sievietēm. Piem., Vecajā Derībā "Dieva Gars" ir Ruah - sieviešu dzimtes lietvārds.
Kas ir Dieva Gudrība Sālamana pamācībās, kas bija ar Viņu pirms radīšanas? -
"22 Es esmu bijusi Tā Kunga rīcībā jau Viņa ceļu pašā sākumā; iekāms Viņš kaut ko radīja, es biju pie Viņa, jau no pirmlaikiem. 23 Es esmu ielikta un pastāvu jau no mūžības, no paša sākuma, iekāms pat vēl zemes nebija”. /Sal.pam. 8/

Jēzus attieksmi diez vai var uzskatīt par stereotipiski "vīrišķīgu".

Jo īpaši Jēzus vārdi – es esmu lēnprātīgs un no sirds pazemīgs; Ielūzušu niedri Viņš nesalauzīs, un kvēlojošu dakti Viņš neizdzēsīs (evaņģ.), Dzīvības maize; "kā vista sapulcina savus cālīšus" diez vai izklausās tādi, kas pasvītro un izceļ vīrieša kareivīgo un spēcīgo stereotipisko būtību.



Tradicionālajā kristiešu ticības apliecībā - Nīkajas ticības apliecībā Svētais Gars ir Dzīvības Devējs.
Nīkajas ticības apliecībā Tēvs ir tas, kas dzemdējis Dēlu (sieviešu loma)


Nīkajas apliecībā par Tēvu, Dēlu un Svēto Garu ir skaidri pateikts, ka Tēvs ir visu redzamo un neredzamo lietu radītājs. Dēls un Svētais Gars ir vienas substances ar Tēvu, kas klasiski veido Trīsvienību. Ja reiz Tēvs ir radījis visas lietas, tas ir radījis arī tādu jēdzienu kā dzimte un dzimums.
Kristietība nekad nav uzskatījusi, ka Dievs ir kā cilvēks, kuram ir kāda noteikta dzimte. Kristīgā Baznīca tik tālu nekad nav gājusi, lai zīmētu Dievu kā cilvēku vīriešu dzimtē. Tēvs, Dēls, Kungs, Karapulku Dievs ir Dieva apzīmējumi. Dievs ir Mūžīgs un Bezgalīgs. Jebkas, ko mēs par Dievu zinām, ir mūsu līmenī.

Visbeidzot, ticīgie, gan sievietes, gan vīrieši, tiek Saukti reizē Kristus miesa un Kristus Līgava.

Kad Mozus jautāja, kā Dievu sauc, Viņš dzirdēja vienu frāzi - ES ESMU.
Dievs vienkārši IR. Un nav piesaistīts ne dzimtei, ne dzimumam, ne jebkam radītam.
Trīsvienība ir kopiena harmonijā, un Dievs kā Trīsvienība, ar sievietes un vīrieša radīšanu, ir radījis kopienu harmonijā. Tas, no kura atkarīgs, cik harmoniska būs vīriešu un sieviešu kopā pastāvēšana kopienā, kurai Jēzus piešķīra nosaukumu un nozīmi - ekklēsija - draudze, ir atkarīgs no cilvēku savstarpējās cieņas, mīlestības un pieņemšanas. Ja gadsimtu gaitā vīrieši uzskata par ārkārtīgi grūtu lietu pieņemt sievietes kā līdz-mantinieces vienā kopienā, vienā Valstībā, kā var Kristus Miesa funkcionēt, nebūdama paralīzēta uz vienu pusi?
Kā var vispār kādas attiecības funkcionēt, ja Pāvila vārdi "pazemībā cits citu uzskatīdami augstāku par sevi" /Filipiešiem 2.nod./ nedarbojas, jo no vienas grupas, sievietēm, tas tiek pieprasīts un norādīts, lai tās uzskata vīriešus par "augstākām būtnēm", un nekad pat neaizdomājoties, ka šī frāze attiecas arī uz vīriešu izturēšanos pret sievietēm?

Šodien atcerējos vienu visiem labi zināmu rakstu vietu - "Ja kas ir Kristū, tas ir jauns radījums; kas bijis, ir pagājis, redzi, viss ir tapis jauns." /1.Kor.5:17/
Šis pants labi parāda, kur kristieši atrodas un cik tālu tikuši, respektīvi, atrodas grēcīgajā mentalitātē, padodas miesīgai domāšanai, pasaulīgai spriešanai un itin nekur nav pavirzījušies, tobiš, nekāda metamorfoze nav notikusi, veci radījumi vien ir.