- The Washington Times - Sunday, July 15, 2001

'Adam's rib' approach tarnishes 'Pulpits in peril' series

I read with great interest your five-part special series on "Pulpits in peril." As a seminarian who will be entering her second year at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif., I found the series to be interesting, informative and occasionally provocative.

In particular, I found it interesting that the July 4 article, "Feminization of clergy rebuffed," led off with a quote from Genesis 2:22 "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Such an opening only solidifies the common misconception that women were created in the image of men, and men in the image of God. But Genesis 1:27 makes clear that humankind, males and females, were created in God's image: "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

It is disheartening to read such an article in such a fine paper; it only serves to perpetuate the oppression of women in an article purporting to raise the issue of female clergy.

Where was the biblical and theological rationale for those who support women in the clergy? There are many biblically based arguments for this, and many theologically sound ones. Why was there no extended discourse on those denominations that do support female clergy? (Offhand, I can think of at least three.)

Had you chosen a more balanced approach to this topic, perhaps those on both sides of the issue would have had more to think and pray about.


ELIZABETH DILLEY

Berkeley, Calif.

More thrilling than extreme sports …

Perhaps columnist Charles Rousseaux and other adventure seekers should get their thrills by spending 20 years in the Navy's submarine force ("Why I go to extremes," Op-Ed, June 29).

Rock climbing pales next to going out to sea in a poorly maintained submarine with an inadequately trained crew. Mr. Rousseaux should save some of the money he has spent on inane rock climbing, enlist in the Navy and risk his life there. Much more inner reward, but not as much editorial glory.


RMC(SS) WILLIAM R. FIELDS

Navy (retired)

Cottegeville, S.C.

Reconnaissance, not 'spy' plane

I have had it with all the media, and especially The Washington Times which should know better referring to the Navy EP-3 as a "spy plane." It is not. It is a "reconnaissance plane."

The whole notion of "spy" requires some credibility of stealth. The EP-3 had none, and before the accident with the Chinese fighter, it had no intentions of entering Chinese air space, as a "spy plane" would have done.

The EP-3 was clearly marked as a U.S. Navy plane with uniformed military at all posts within. Clearly, there was no stealth or spying involved.


MARK E. WARNER

Pottstown, Pa.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide