Arlene

I feel better. I actually agree then, with Jack. I think Ortland does indeed say what has not been said in the Bible itself. His view sounds more platonic than Biblical.

One of the classes I had in seminary reviewed the way in which during the 2nd, and 3rd century’s of the early church, our theologians integrated Platonic thought into their theologies. While some of it was helpful, some of it was not. I think the church at large adopted the culture’s (at the time) view of women. And the church has held this view for so long that it has come to be thought of as Biblical. That, then, is the lens through which scripture is vieiwed. Plato and ARistotle considered women to be inferior… of the flesh… easily deceived… temptresses. It compares to Ortland’s view of women. It would be fun to lay out the views of CBMW side by side with Plato and Aristotle and see if they match up.

I think that part of the Spirit’s task is to help us remove those lenses and see better or hear the word better. Ortland’s view is distorted by his lenses.