From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:49:57 GMT

Simon@censis.utas.edu.au (Simon G. Greener) writes:

*Folks, this is going to be an emotive flame so press 'D' (or whatever) if
*you don't want to read it. A more calm posting may occur some other day!

Don't be worried, Simon, it wasn't that `flamey' at all.  And
while filled with emotion, that's not a bad thing.  I have 
two comments and two requests. 

*... I want to make a point with
*regards this *utterly* selfish view that women have that it is only their
*choice and only an choice between their desires and their desires! Come 
*on you guys out their stop cowering before women's apron strings - you 
*got them pregnanat and this is an act that results from the self-
*giving action of two people. Feminists have been complaining for a long
*time that man's society made them non-persons, now feminists (and some
*Christians - yes even in the Catholic church - agree with them) do it to
*unborn humans.

Comment 1.  You say that `feminists ... do it to unborn 
humans', where `it' is to treat them as non-persons.  The 
claim is a little ambiguous, as it's not clear whether you're
talking about *some* feminists (in which case your claim is true)
or *all* feminists (in which case it's false).  I take this 
point up because I take myself to be a feminist (as much as
a male can be), and I do not take unborn humans to be 
non-persons.    In fact, I take it that a rich, sensitive
and strong feminism is a consistent with the Christian faith,
and even, a natural consequence of that faith.

*A theologian, philosopher friend of mine once tried to persuade me that the 
*modern world has lost the sense of true fatherhood and that one of the 
*mistakes feminists have made is to accentuate this.... 

Comment 2.  I'm pretty sure that you're using `feminist'
in a narrower sense than I am.  That's understandable.  Just
be aware that there are those of us who call ourselves feminists,
but who probably don't fit the stereotype.  We believe that 
societal structures have oppressed women, that this is a Bad
Thing (a consequence of the fall; see Genesis 3), that the 
coming of the Kingdom of God in Jesus liberates women, who 
are just as important in the Kingdom of God as men are, and
who are called to serve God, and to not mindlessly conform
to societal expectations of what "women's work" really
ought to be (Luke 10:38-42) and that men and women ought to 
live in mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21).  This is not a 
view that erases any differences between men and women 
(individually, or as groups) but merely seeks to take 
seriously the apostle's claim that `there is no longer Jew
or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no 
longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ
Jesus'.  (Galatians 3:28)

Now the first request.  Who is this theologian/philosopher
friend of yours?  As a Christian philosopher (or at 
least, it's a philosophy department that currently
employs me) I'm quite interested to hear of others
that follow that path.

*... Again another book.... D'Sousa (a
*Canadian philosopher, I think) has written a book on this problem especially
*in light of the US experiences with pressure groups... I'll find the title
*for anyone who is interested....

The next request.  I'm interested.  Please find the title.

>In Christ
>Simon

Greg


--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Greg Restall      | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland
gar@cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072  Australia.
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe.
        - Bruce Cockburn, from the album "Nothing but a Burning Light"
Newsgroups: aus.religion