Today's Answer to Roger Steer

["Barbara B. Wolf" <lupa@gwi.net>]

(Dear Listmates:  I have hesitated to send this to the List, because Roger's
and my little debate is probably using up far more bandwidth than is either
interesting or seemly.  This is my final "public" contribution to the
debate, but I did feel that since Roger's "Question for Wolfmama" was posted
generally, I should at least let you all know that I am answering.   You may
now hit the delete key and go back to the regularly scheduled programme.
Wolfmama)

Dear Roger,

In answer to your question: Am I happy to accept the words of Article VII ?

Happy?  You ask for a "yes" or "no", allowing me to "forgive" the "political
incorrectness in referring simply to men and not including women."  "To
accept"--yes, but see below.  Happy?

To be honest, the adjective really doesn't apply here one way or the other,
IMO.  The Article is a theological assertion, and while I enjoy nothing more
than a nice, clean theological discussion (such as our little exchange <G>),
this and the other Articles--*or* their acceptance--do not elicit emotion;
they attract my critical interest.  God's redemptive acts, on the other
hand, evoke in me a good deal more than just happiness, which is why there
are times when saying the Creed fills me with awe and joy.  (Although there
are other times when I am half asleep and forget what I'm saying.)  But the
Articles?

A simple "yes" or "no" as to acceptance:  In all seriousness, Roger, if
forgiveness is to called for ("Christian *men*"),  how could I say "yes"
without there having been some adjusted thinking in my acceptance of the
Article?  In actuality, you realize, this reservation is scarcely just a
matter of "political correctness."   We may hold to the idea that "man" may
be a substitute for "human being"; but "Christian men" has been a little too
specific since women got the right to vote and own property, wouldn't you
agree?  And not just among feminists! There's a similar problem in the Ten
Commandments themselves.  I remember that as a Sunday School attendee a good
many aeons ago, lo-o-ong before Betty Freidan, I wondered why the 4th didn't
mention wives in the prohibition from working on the Sabbath.  It seemed
curious to me that women servants weren't supposed to work, but my mother
was supposed to cook Sunday dinner(I was ignorant of actual Orthodox Jewish
application of the Commandment).  I also noticed, some years later, that the
10th said nothing about me coveting another woman's husband.  But those were
youthful observations, and I can answer without hesitation--and without
emotion--"Yes" to the abbreviated form of the Commandments (e.g., the simple
"Keep holy the Sabbath", "You shall not covet", and so forth. )

BTW, no matter whether I accept any Article or not, the Articles of Religion
*are* in part political, surely?  And the product of their time?  And must
be given context in order that they may still be useful for Anglicans in the
1990s, especially in terms of ecumenicity (Art. XIX)?  Adjustments.

As to the place of the Commandments in my own moral convictions, I try
always to look at them in terms of the Great Commandment, because that
provides the "life" of moral behavior and meaning to all the Commandments.
As has been said, if we loved God with all our hearts and souls and minds,
and our neighbors as ourselves, the Commandments would pose no  problems for
us.  In terms of personal reference, I rely more upon that familiar list of
7: it doesn't take much imagination to fit them within the structure of the
Commandments, but they're handier.  (In other words, the idolatry that
underlies so many of our sins is certainly handled in the First Comm., but
specific instances are easier to label as pride, covetousness, jealousy, and
so forth.)

You wanted to know my "starting point"?  Well that's it--in more words than
you probably wanted to read!  But I don't think I have made here any
assumptions about your views.  My inital post in this thread had to do with
Mr. Packer, not you--and if that wasn't clear in the writing of it, I do
apologize.  It won't be the first time one of us on the List has got the
messenger and the message confused!

Cheers!




Barbara Wolf
lupa@GWI.NET

        "But we've got to be careful not to reduce people by cramming
        them in the limits of our understanding, haven't we?"

                                                Reginald Hill