Mr. Virtue, may I recommend to you Anne Kennedy's essay against the WaPo article attacking Bishop Julian Dobbs? Applying her principles of analysis would be of great help to you.
"I’m even thinking about forming Bad Anglican Men (BAM) myself." - YAY! I'm in. As evidenced by the fact that I will NOT be attending the "Imago Dei in the Church: Fostering Healthy Christian Communities Free from Sexism and Abuse” event! I'm a bad, bad, BAM!
The Women's Leadership Network is not interested in leaders who are women unless they have undergone the rite of priestly ordination. This has been true for at least four or five years, if my source and my memory are correct.
We don't have a better term for this doctrine, and we shouldn't desert this one just because some misuse it. Rather, always give or seek clarification on how the doctrine is being applied.
I don’t think we should abandon it, but it’s a useful rubric, true 9 times out of 10, and it means we should be extra careful when we use it, to be wary of assumptions we might be smuggling in by accident, that we received from others, or setting us up for traps they want to spring on us — “oh, so you say that, then that means…”
If you don’t consider yourself wise as a serpent, I’d avoid it.
And you can talk about the image of God all you like, but it’s specifically that construction, “imago dei” where you can be certain you’re dealing with a subversive.
Sure, but context is important. We shouldn’t give up on any word of scripture either, but as soon as Galatians 3:28 comes up in conversation, I know I’m chatting with a subversive, with a heretic, with a snake who wants to twist scripture for their own ends.
It also is another line of scripture that has no particular special significance until 50 years ago:
Nice shot. Well argued. I fear for ACNA's future.
Mr. Virtue, may I recommend to you Anne Kennedy's essay against the WaPo article attacking Bishop Julian Dobbs? Applying her principles of analysis would be of great help to you.
"I’m even thinking about forming Bad Anglican Men (BAM) myself." - YAY! I'm in. As evidenced by the fact that I will NOT be attending the "Imago Dei in the Church: Fostering Healthy Christian Communities Free from Sexism and Abuse” event! I'm a bad, bad, BAM!
The Women's Leadership Network is not interested in leaders who are women unless they have undergone the rite of priestly ordination. This has been true for at least four or five years, if my source and my memory are correct.
What is going on here in the ACNA...I thought we left all this behind.
Imago Dei is one of those terms I hear now, and I know an enemy is speaking
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Imago+Dei&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
Rose in popularity as part of the post WW2 consensus, and absolutely exploded with all the other woke stuff in the late 90s onwards.
We don't have a better term for this doctrine, and we shouldn't desert this one just because some misuse it. Rather, always give or seek clarification on how the doctrine is being applied.
I don’t think we should abandon it, but it’s a useful rubric, true 9 times out of 10, and it means we should be extra careful when we use it, to be wary of assumptions we might be smuggling in by accident, that we received from others, or setting us up for traps they want to spring on us — “oh, so you say that, then that means…”
If you don’t consider yourself wise as a serpent, I’d avoid it.
And you can talk about the image of God all you like, but it’s specifically that construction, “imago dei” where you can be certain you’re dealing with a subversive.
Yes, BUT that we are made in the image of God is basic and important and should not be avoided.
But, like almost all good doctrines, it can be twisted.
Sure, but context is important. We shouldn’t give up on any word of scripture either, but as soon as Galatians 3:28 comes up in conversation, I know I’m chatting with a subversive, with a heretic, with a snake who wants to twist scripture for their own ends.
It also is another line of scripture that has no particular special significance until 50 years ago:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Galatians+3%3A28%2C+John+3%3A16&year_start=1500&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
Agreed! It is an important doctrine.
Yep. Another good term hijacked.
Intellectual dishonesty is not welcome here.