tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post904331748212326618..comments2024-03-27T15:47:46.091-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: Gender and the Liturgical DistinctionPastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-34732555856957060292015-04-11T07:34:13.804-05:002015-04-11T07:34:13.804-05:00I also like what Leithart says.
Part of the curse...I also like what Leithart says.<br /><br />Part of the curse on Eve was that, "her desire would be for her husband." (from my memory of the KJV). Many scholars take this to mean her desire would be for his place/headship. I think all we have to do is look around us to see it in full flower. In addition, who among us as fallen is content with his/her place? <br /><br />Biology cannot be ignored in the realm of the sexual. Plumbing is different, and parts don't fit. Also, our own Lord was circumcised on the eighth day, and is even now in human flesh (male) glorified.<br /><br />C.S. Lewis' assessment of differences in his science fiction That Hideous Strength hints at the liturgical/heavenly sense of this. There is a difference between male and female vs. masculine and feminine. This "liturgical" difference can be seen from the "top down" so to speak. Compared to the masculinity (not maleness) of God, we are all feminine, whether man or woman. Our propensity to label things masculine or feminine (even inanimate objects) remains even though English lost what the Romance Languages retain.<br /><br />So we can't ignore male and female differences, but neither should we ignore masculine vs. feminine. I know there are those (who believe we are born, not made - see previous post from Fr. Peters) who could take this argument and run with it against distinctions. This is why we cannot ignore either the physical or spiritual/liturgical sides of the issueJanis Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02947508427040251166noreply@blogger.com