FYI, here's the original Touchstone article.
Lee's response to my email:
Both in the OT and NT the bridegroom analogy is applied to Yahweh/Christ and Israel/the Church, emphasizing: that there is only one God, and that he has only one Church. It was not consistently applied to individuals until after Bernard, who popularized it.
Receptivity does not equal femininity. Obedience is a military virtue.
John was a Son of Thunder. His femininity (and homosexuality) is a modern invention.
Gibbons and others project the state of modern Christianity back into patristic times.
Critics of my book have not pointed out any factual errors in my data. I am looking for the truth of the matter. The only modifications I would consider my thesis are:
1 the rise of courtly love may be more important than Bernard's mystical theology, but they quickly got mixed up.
2 The Eastern churches have to be studied to see if they show any signs of feminization when they are not under Western influence.
I cannot believe that God created half the human race to less fit for salvation - I am not a double predestination Calvinist. Thanks for the comments however.
The ugly point, however, is that it appears (on the surface at least) that some are less fit for salvation by their very nature, and so his quibble seems to be with numbers, given that 50% is too high a threshold (or else it is because he is a member of that 50%).
We have a very learned, highly orthodox Dominican priest at our parish who told us that receptivity is a feminine aspect, which is the reason priests are male - i.e. they are an icon of Christ and Christ is the initiator, pollinator...He said it is hard for lay men to deal with this imagery.
No comments:
Post a Comment