Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 460475729.mp4
  • mux_media_audio_extraction_7f83dd21-e827-41fb-a7e2-640a001d1983.m4a

Missing 1 video, 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Beth Allison Barr explains why history is so important when understanding theology. Does scripture or church history just reinforce patriarchy or are we only focusing on the evidence we want to see?

Comments

Kenneth S

Great bonus content. I guess I’ll keep subscribing! It’s what I’m here for

David B.

Apart from the matter of women in ministry (my own Episcopal (Anglican) church has female priests and bishops, and has for almost 50 years), and the fact that you guys and Beth Allison Barr are not on the Catholic end of the spectrum (Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic), I think the claim that the Church developed its theology of the Sacraments, and ecclesiology of the priesthood and episcopacy, was for power purposes to "keep incompetent men employed," rather than that people believed it was true and wise (even if you don't agree) is false and cynical. You do know you can disagree with someone without thinking they hold their beliefs for sinful reasons, right? C.S. Lewis talked about this in "Bulverism," the notion that one's intellectual opponent says what they say because they are "X." "You say that because you are a man/woman/capitalist/communist/etc." It's dismissive. And it can be equally turned on its head for the opposing position--so both sides can just accuse each other of intellectual dishonesty all the day long without actually building any kind of bridges of understanding, even if they still end up in total disagreement.