| 
Articles
Contacts
Forum
Home
Join Us
Links
F.R.O.
Readings
|
The purpose of this forum is to facilitate communication and mutual
support and edification among those who strive toward gender justice in
Churches of Christ. If you would like to join the forum, send an e-mail
(including your first and last name) from your primary address to forum@gal328.org.
Joe’s suggestion has prompted me to say something in this forum for the first time. One of the things that caused me to advocate gender justice is that I have known so many talented, gifted Christian women whose gifts are being buried, to the detriment of God’s kingdom. I am related to some of them. Some of them have left Churches of Christ. More may do so. I have no doubt that Churches of Christ are losing some of our most gifted women, and I hate to see it happening. Instead, I want to see the day come when women are attracted to Churches of Christ as a body in which they will be free to exercise all of their God-given talents. And I’m convinced that I need to be more vocal and thoughtful and assertive, albeit gently and lovingly, in causing that day to come. This forum is helping me to do so, and I’m grateful for it.
Mark
:::posted by Mark on 10/31/2002 10:18:39 PM
Jason,
I've read your posts with interest mainly because your approach appears similiar to mine. I've read almost anything I can get my hands on. My spouse and I are also Harding grads. We both took the Principles of Biblical interpretation class under Paul Pollard (James Walters was doing PhD work in Boston at the time). It was excellent. Jon and I are in the final few weeks of teaching a class at church about this very topic. We have utilized Fee and Stuart's book How to Read the Bible for all it's worth and God's Holy Fire recently published by ACU. The class has been very well received. We consistenly have 4 elders in the class - sometimes 6. They are very open. I have been fully accepted as co-teacher for this class. It has been a challenge to cover the amount of material in 13 Weeks! Best of luck.
Lisa
:::posted by Lisa on 10/31/2002 10:00:01 PM
I originally came from a fairly traditional CoC background with the prevelent undertone that the Bible should always be taken at literal face value. Around Jr High I picked up on the incongruity between how the literal texts dealing with women in the church read (i.e. be silent) and how things actually went. Still operating under that mindset, I had concerns that we were violating God's will and that women should be even less involved to uphold the passage in what I saw as consistancy.
Luckily, I went to Harding Dr. James Walters last year there and after having to take him for Hnrs. New Testament (an amazing class that is sadly off topic), I eagerly signed up to take him for Principles of Biblical Interpretation my 2nd semester (luckily or by the will of God I'd CLEPed enough to get into sophomore classes then). That class changed how I looked at the Bible.
Then just over two years ago I met Patty. I was impressed by her mind, so when she challenged me on the women's issue, I went home and started studying to see if my preconceptions might be assualtable. After some background reading, I spent the better part of a weekend praying, fasting and studying, and came out the other side convinced that, at least on a verse by verse redunctionist level, the egalitarians had at least as good of an argument as the traditionalists. Morever, having come to an intellectual impasse, I was able to step back and look at the nature of God and how I saw that fitting into the situation. I'd never felt like arbitrary generalizations made a lot of sense, and that one definately didn't. The only excuse that I'd used for years to make it make sense was that women were an afterthought in the Genesis account, but after my study, I had discarded that. Since the nature of God did not seem capricious enough to arbitrary keep women out of the public church and since Jesus had always improved the respect for women as both people but also as spritual beings, I was then able to come 180 and adopt the egalitarian viewpoint myself in good conscience.
I'd like to add on an extention to this survey: How do we think we can help others broaden their perspectives as we've been helped by those that came before us? I'm personally in talks with a like-minded elder to co-teach a class on Biblical Interpretation methods. While I know this won't fit the way everyone approaches scripture, it may equip a few people the way Dr. Walters equipped me.
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
:::posted by Jason on 10/31/2002 09:22:50 PM
The generation we come from is not insignificant. I see that the younger the woman, the more comfortably assertive she is in her claim to Christ-given freedom (not that anyone listens to her); and the older the woman, the deeper the struggle to even claim that Christ-given liberty as her own. But the older woman's voice is extremely powerful.
This, then, would be my plea: If you are a woman over the age of 50 (and the older you are, the better), and you believe in this "cause", please, please, speak up and be heard - in your ladies' groups, in classes, in meetings, at every opportunity. The wisdom you have and the respect you have is invaluable to us all.
For all of His daughters.
:::posted by Vicki on 10/31/2002 03:51:37 PM
For me it wasn't encouragement that brought me here but struggle. The congregation I attended growing up was very small and therefore every member did something, male or female, but only men did official leadership stuff. Well I was leading a co-ed bible study with fellow college students (after asking literally every man from the church to lead it and all of them telling me no they were too busy). I though it was important plus few of the members were baptized and none of the men were baptized. After a year of doing this a local minister from another church announced to many people that he was going to start a bible study on campus. I immediately got with him and said "let's join forces" and I was thrilled to have someone else coming up with lessons. He thought he would quietly take over and put in the past the fact that I had been leading it for a year. When it came time to elect officers so that we could be an official campus club I was voted president. After all I had done most of the work for a year. He went through the roof. It was impossible for a woman to be president of a Christian club. It was like saying women could lead men and that was wrong. We had several arguments, which included him chastising the other men from my church for "letting me" do this for so long. I got studying. I read "I permit not a woman" and my eyes were opened for the first time. It was a pretty quick trip from opposed to women's participation to completely in support of it. I needed a couple of years to work out the details. I did a lot of reading since no one that I knew agreed with me. Eventually I read the stuff being put out by Stamford. This was the early 1990's. The rest, as they say, is history.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 10/31/2002 03:05:07 PM
Joe - Thanks for bringing us back around. You read my mind.
Your statement, "I'm assuming that at one time or another, we all stood on the other side of this issue," provoked this thought from me: I stood, silently, where I was told.
In my mind, I questioned and doubted many things taught. I could never buy into the "silence of Scripture" equalling prohibition. It wasn't until my minister spoke on music (singing congregationally, solo, choir; instrumental not being a heaven/hell issue, etc.) that I felt safe in voicing my own thoughts and questions in all areas. Then, one day not long after that, my mother told me that she saw no reason a woman could not serve the Lord's Supper. I could hardly believe my ears! My mother was a closet radical!
From that moment, God's Word became mine - mine to read, mine to study, mine to interpret. I no longer was dependent on the interpretations of others. (I consult everyone, but the conclusions are mine, alone.) At that point, windows opened, then doors, and I saw my God through a different pair of glasses. He was so beautiful to me. I fell so in love with Him. I had a desperate need to have all of Him in all of my life. There is something to the concept of a radical conversion. For me, it was a radical reconversion. He brought me back from a place far away from Him. I have a passion for Him I would not have had otherwise.
That brought me to where I am today. I trust God to bring me ever closer to Him, not farther away. I feel He has called to me to speak to these people, in this place, at this time, on these things. Yet, I have been silenced by leadership, and I struggle continuously in understanding how I am to carry His message. That is why I come to this place.
Loving Him Who loves me so,
Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/31/2002 12:30:19 PM
Joe,
I don't think I have a "stand on this issue" that can be identified among the few acceptable options. Since "God created them male and female" is the greatest mystery in Bible to me, I have'nt found an ideal landing spot -- but I continue to search in the middle ground.
I remember accidentally causing a stink when I was about 13 years-old at a youth meeting about "Christian Marriage." The lecture was heavily biased against women but by that time I was used to that ... I was not conscious about being upset about the heavy-handed misogyny, it was more the idea of Christian Marriage. At 13, I had no plans to marry EVER! and I felt my time was being wasted. Anyway, when it came my turn to express my personal ideas about Christian Marriage I told the teacher that I do not believe in Christian Marriage. This did not go over well, and I was asked to explain. But I was well-trained in Church of Christ debate tactics and told him to show me a place in the NT where Christian Marriage is identified as such. After a lot of discussion we came to the conclusion that marriage has always been an insitution, and there is nothing exclusively Christian about it. There are Christian ways to approach marriage -- like employment, slavery, child-rearing ... -- but nothing that redefines marriage as Christian. Though I'm not proud about the way this opened me up to the study of men and women and their relationship to God and one another, it was my rocky portal of entry.
I do believe that Jesus, the son of Man borne of Woman, reestablished the lost relationship between Man and Woman and I believe it is difficult to understand because this revived relationship bridges the gap between gender differences (which we can see) and our likeness to God (which we don't see). To reach understanding we have to cross the bridge between flesh and spirit constantly. This is why I read everything from the traditional and conservative to the radical feminist and the out-of-bounds stuff by Jews, new-agers, Quaker, Swedenborgian, Catholic ...
I do see a bit of solid ground. I think that because of the chasm developed between Woman and Man at the Fall, each required a different redemption. Their sins were different, their motivations were different, and their trials and promises were different. God's redemption of Woman is different than the redemption of Man and Christ was the perfect bridge to accomplish both tasks. I believe that pain in childbirth for Woman and cirucumcision for Man were designed to bind Man and Woman to the Perfect blood sacrifice. As Thomas Merton says, "He was our pain, our blood and our son too." God bound us together in Christ, the second Adam born of Mary who is the archetype of Womankind.
Gotta go!
:::posted by Carmen on 10/31/2002 11:22:59 AM
Joe,
First, my wife and I have always had an egalitarian marriage, but until my daughters became teenagers we hadn't given much thought to the church position. My dive into the waters of gender justice in the church started with a 15 year old daughter who became the town teen Christian activities organizer for our church (very narrow minded church!) and some of the baptist church teen girls. We were at a retreat when a local minister from a neighboring town with one small ultra conservative congregation cornered me and told me that he had had a talk with my daughter about how, because she was a female, wasn't supposed to be taking the role of an organizer because it put her in a leadership position over males. He said basically that she almost jumped in his face with an "let's argue about that!" answer. He dropped the discussion with her real quick and came runnung to me. My answer surprised him also! After that I started looking for literature that discussed the non-traditional view of female involvement and leadership since I had a daughter that seemed to have a real interest in ministry. It took several years of study to get the Biblical support to support my "fatherly" view that my daughter can do anything she feels competent to do and no one should be able to tell her different! Believe me, there wasn't that much info out there for the Churches of Christ in the early 90's and if it didn't say CoC on the cover, most people wouldn't listen! It took my wife considerably longer to come around to the idea of women sharing equally in the church. That happened after my daughter decided to go into Childrens Ministry (after receiving her BS in Agronomy from ACU) and started working on her Masters in Christian Education from ACU. As some of you already know, she is now 26 and a Childrens Minister with a Masters in CE at a church in Grand Prairie, TX. I think, if allowed to do what she tells me occassionally, she would concentrate her work with the underpriviledged, low income, mostly Hispanic kids in that area (along with the Outreach Minister at that church). All the above has turned me into a not so silent dad (sometimes quite noisy:>) ) who has three daughters who should have NO limitations put on them just because they are female and members of the Churches of Christ! I even have a web site that includes gender justice articles and links. ( http://www.clarksons.org ). I don't bite my tongue much anymore-- a little now and then but not like I used to!!!
:::posted by Wiley on 10/31/2002 10:50:30 AM
The recent discussions are quite interesting but as y'all know, this forum is for those interested in gender justice. These other discussions, while helpful and needed, are not quite in that realm any longer. So, let's try and bring this back.
Were there people in your lives that helped you get to where you are concerning your stance on gender justice? What kind of people (i.e., family members, friends, professor, etc) helped you get to where you are? How did they go about helping you and talking to you and discussing this issue with you?
I'm assuming that at one time or another, we all stood on the other side of this issue. So, I'm wanting to know more about how each of you were shaped. The question, "how did each of you get to this place?" was asked several weeks ago from a blogger member. Not many of us, myself included, answered her question. The above question is an attempt to shed a little more light as to how we came to stand on this side of the issue. ("Issue" is not an appropriate word but for lack of a better way of describing it....) Could it be that we should look at those who influenced us and strive to do for others what they did for us concerning gender justice?
Joe Hays
Ft. Worth, TX
:::posted by jch on 10/31/2002 08:52:03 AM
Indie,
From another INTJ (does that make three?), maybe you're on to something. Seems intuitive to me, anyway :-)
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/31/2002 08:47:05 AM
Mary Lou: you are correct that a case can as easily be made that the elders passage may refer to "in a lifetime", but I didn't want to bring that issue in since either interpretation covered my point. Although frankly, I hope not as Dad remarried after mom died, and forcing him to choose between companionship and eldership is a bit rough. However, you are quite correct that that is a strong option. Of course, even if true, that restriction may be aimed at divorce, not widower status. But then, as has recently been mentioned divorce is a whole other can of worms that defies simple resolution.
In him,
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO
:::posted by Jason on 10/30/2002 11:45:20 PM
Wow, this place moves too fast for me. I'm thinking about ten things at once. As for the personality type, I'm a INTJ. It's interesting that all of us that have indicated our personality types are intuitives even though we are from a conservative denomination (which usually have sensers, not intuitives). Maybe after I get a good night's sleep I can comment on some of the other interesting comments that have been going on.
Indie
:::posted by Indie on 10/30/2002 10:17:47 PM
Chad and Lance,
You both make good points and I freely admit that I certainly don't have it all figured out either. Some of these questions may very well be on my list of things that I am going to ask about again in heaven, because I'm not sure we will ever get them worked out here. As I get older, I find that I am less certain about many things than I was previously. (Maybe it's because I've been proven wrong all too often?)
Chad, you make an especially good point that it is our tendency to try to prove things out as if the Bible were a law book. It is many things but the law sections in Deuteronomy do not make up the whole book (and many parts of the OT make us distinctly uncomfortable).
Jason made an interesting point a few posts back about the New Testament not mandating monogamy. This struck me as wrong but try as I might I cannot come up with an NT text that expressly says, "not more than one at a time." (BTW I think the "husband of one wife" for elders doesn't mean, not more than one at a time but not more than one ever.) Is monogamy really not in there or have I just been reading this all along with my own cultural bias, "knowing" that certainly by NT times polygamy was over?
--Mary Lou Hutson, Charlotte, NC
:::posted by Christopher on 10/30/2002 08:49:48 PM
Chad, you put that very well. A teacher of mine once noted: "When you're carrying a hammer, all problems start to look like nails." At the risk of getting you all started on the hammer thing again, I think it gets at the issue nicely.
Mary Lou, I'm not so sure about the arguments tying homosexual tendencies to genetics. There is good evidence suggesting alcoholism may be tied to genetically controlled structures in the brain. Evolutionary biology makes a very compelling case that by natural disposition the male of our species is wired for anything but monogamy. The world imagined in the New Testament is not one in which we embrace our nature, it is one in which we, by grace, become a New Creation. Not to suggest that I've got this one all figured out, though. (God help us.)
:::posted by Lance on 10/30/2002 09:33:29 AM
To all the I/E, S/N, T/F, P/Js out there,
Carmen writes, "Reconcilliation between Woman and Man will come when we redeem one another from reductionism." Well put! Humans cannot be reduced to a point on some 16-section grid of personality tendencies. We are much more than that: we are children of the Creator. And so are the people that live around us, whatever they think about themselves or about us.
Last year I had some students that were really frustrated because they couldn't see what "the point" was in some historical documents we had assigned (this is a constant problem, btw!). What did this have to do with their lives, they wanted to know? I think that reaction--the "what does this have to do with me"--is endemic to our American culture and thus to the people in our churches (for an example of this, see Christopher Lasch's _The Culture of Narcissism_). In other words, many people in the pews (including some in mine) approach scripture like they approach much else--wanting to know the answers to *their* questions. The medieval historian Carolyn Walker Bynum puts the situation this way, that the past we encounter in history (and in scripture, I would add), is one that is "unexpected and strange, a past whose lineaments are not what we first assume, whose traces in our sources answer questions we haven't asked and deliver only silence to our initial, self-referential queries." What I told my students is that they needed to figure out if they should ask different questions in order to understand the material. If a die-hard capitalist student insists that Marx was "wrong" about everything and that history has proved that to be the case, you're already lost before you start. What I tell my congregation is that scripture challenges our "self-referential queries" on every level, in order to reframe our questions so that we might be able to ask good questions and *see* what "abundant life" is really all about. The refusal to lay aside our selves, thus, is a particularly serious spiritual disease that the biblical writers call "hardness of heart".
So here's my point: if you approach scripture searching for the answers to your questions, for the "right" answer to an "issue", be careful. Both our American culture and Campbellite heritage condition us to see scripture as a legal document and to splice and dice it (i.e., do violence to it), even when we think we're being appropriately sophisticated with "historical background" and "cultural/transcultural" oppositions and such. I know that this is how a lot of people insist upon reading the text, but what I want to suggest is that that approach more often than not leads you to find whatever you want there, whatever justifies what you think or feel. It rarely reframes questions, which is what Jesus *always* does, with his disciples, with his opponents, with us.
I say all this because I think we often determine what end we want to reach and then find a method that gets us there safely, which is what I'm concerned that Webb's text does. I'm convinced that the struggle for justice (in this case gender justice) is ultimately about the words and stories that shape our lives, and it matters how we use and interpret them.
Ok, I need to go do something else for awhile.
Peace,
Chad
Brookline, MA
:::posted by Chad on 10/30/2002 08:47:16 AM
Chad and Jason,
It's sad that valuable words like "culture" and "patriarchy" ... even "woman" and "man" have lost their power of reference in the "issues" dialogue about justice and gender. After a while words become nothing at all because we exploit them like gang members brandish colors. I wish we all could step away from our tight circles of classifications and have a look at the wider meaning of "humankind, both male and female." It isn't something that can be understood or explained through the specialization and expertise of reductionist thought. Jesus says that when all else falls to ruin, love will remain. That's because everything ... everything but love is an abstraction. That God made humankind both male and female, I think, is the beginning of the story of love in the Bible. Reconcilliation between Woman and Man will come when we redeem one another from reductionism.. By the way, I just ordered my Webb book ... and, for what it's worth ... my husband told me that my test results were INFP.
:::posted by Carmen on 10/30/2002 02:13:51 AM
oh and by the way....ENFP...grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/29/2002 11:41:01 PM
Lance, thank you for giving me permission to drink deeply of that joy that I am experiencing right now. Most everyone tells me to be cautious. We met tonight and are putting out on Saturday a list for women to sign up on if they are interested in participating in our public assemblies...praying, reading scripture, serving communion, communion meditation or speaking. Song leading wasn't one of them because we use a praise team to lead worship. I am encouraged and surprised at how peacefully God is living within our small body of believers at this moment. I know that it is not over but if you knew where I had been to get where we are, you would know who much easier this period of time is from the last several years. Thank you for your prayers. We start Sunday, November 17th with women serving communion. We will move from there. Lance, thanks again for the encouraging words. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/29/2002 11:18:16 PM
When I and 2 roomates first read "Please Understand Me" (a book the covers they myers briggs types). We were so excited by it that we tested all our friends and for a while indetified ourselves by our types rather than our names. Silly and all but ultimately fun in an I'm just out of college and need entertianment way. If you are wondering what in the world we are talking about you can take the test online. http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm This isn't quite the same thing but it is pretty close. Apparently you can't take the real think on line for free anymore.
Patty
ENFP
:::posted by Patty on 10/29/2002 11:05:53 PM
Chad,
Hmm, I'll try and explain why Webb is useful to me and hope it will extrapolate out to why others like it. I'm not them, so I can only speak for myself. I do understand your concerns about fuzzy terminology, its unavoidable in the exegetical/hermeneutical/antropological/etc realms. The most annoying thing is that each author seems to come up with their own semantic framework that you have to master before you can get into their actual ideas. Unfortunately, merely based on the amount of meaning he crams into various terms and the assumed background in exegetical/hermeneutical/interpretive works, his book won't be for everyone (no, it shouldn't be given to the kindly old elder who only reads the sports page and funnies).
Basically, I subjegate my feelings about an issue to my analytical perspective on it. If I feel that A is true but think that B is true, then I have to operate under B. Or to put it more concretely, since the passages on women seemed clear on the surface before I was challenged on them, I had to go with the simple, traditional view even though it disagreed with the way I'd have designed things if I was God. Luckily for all of us, I'm not God, and was wise enough to recognize that fact. Upon being challenged on it, I got interested enough to spend some time studying the alternate perspective and discovered that while I wasn't able to buy into all of the egalitarian arguments on things 100%, I also was no longer able to do so for the traditional viewpoint. With my mind thus stalemated, I could then follow my heart. However, I'd still been no more than 90% sure that I was following the right path. Arguing a bunch of disjointed passages with a bunch of disjointed arguments opens the door, but it doesn't fit smoothly. I'm abstract, not concrete and hence need predictable methodologies, not a series of patchwork arguments.
However, Webb is offering a conceptually simple framework that fits within my current view of scripture. This framework allows everything to fit together in a predictable, analytical framework. Yeah, I know I'm too much a product of western platonic thought patterns, but I can only be what I am. By forming this framework, I can put my mind and heart back into sync and my soul will rest better in this belief. And for what its worth, it doesn't seem elaborate to me.
Finally, I don't feel that Webb is primarily writing an issue book. He's writing an academic book on a hermeneutical method. He explores three issues to show how the method works out in various situations. It looks like he chose one emotionally neutral where we've left the literal text behind and shows that we followed the proper course. Additionally, he works with two modernly relevant issues to have one show how his method can allow us to move forward while driven by the gospel, and another to show that his method does not allow us to willy-nilly impose our cultural values upon the scripture. And when it comes down to it, you've got to call a spade a spade, or in our case, these are issues that must be addressed.
He starts off by mentioned that these are all people, and stresses even in upholding the biblical mandate against practicing homosexuality that that does not mean we cannot improve on our treatment of homosexuals or those with homosexual tendancies. He merely comes to the conclusion (again, I'm reading a bit ahead of myself here, so I may be wrong) that the practice isn't okay with God. He does deal with covenant relationships, but I haven't read those sections yet, so I can't speak to that. He may even hedge a bit as he does with women (his conclusions on women come down to either egalitarian or what he refers to as an ultra-soft patriarchy, depending on how you fall on a couple of interpretations with a slight edge towards egalitarian).
Hmm. I don't know how much sense this will make to an "F". I understand your concerns about the terminology issues, but I can't think of any alternative.
Nothing is ever easy,
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO
:::posted by Jason on 10/29/2002 10:50:48 PM
I was thinking we could have the new post-signing format include Meyers-Briggs types.
Lance
West Islip, NY
INTJ
(No, I'm not serious.)
:::posted by Lance on 10/29/2002 10:26:48 PM
As long as we're giving out our Meyers-Briggs designations, mine is INFP, which, so I'm told, is both the most rare type on their grid and the "Sir Galahad" personality. I like to think that means I'm supposed to "choose wisely", but I'll leave it to the rest of you to figure out what that may actually mean. (Carmen, the "p" in MB typology is for "perceptive", but I wouldn't balk at the "philosophical", which means you could read INFP as "I'm nerdy, fun, and philosophical." Maybe I should use that for a personal ad.) :)
Jason, I did notice what Webb does with his terms, which is partly why I raised the question I did. One thing I'm curious about is why some folks find his approach (or others like it) to be helpful. I didn't find it helpful or illuminating. I raised the question because I don't think the issue is so neat as to be a choice of simply going with or against "culture" (another slippery term).
Mary Lou, thanks for raising the points and questions you did. One thing that bothered me about what I read from Webb is his construction of his topics as the "women's issue" and the "homosexual issue", as if these are "problems" to be solved by applying some sort of elaborate methodology to extract the "right" answers from the text. I have many friends, both women and gays, both Christian and non-christian, who would be horribly and legitimately offended at being abstracted into "issues". It needs to be stated categorically that women and homosexuals are PEOPLE, not issues.
Chad
Brookline, MA
:::posted by Chad on 10/29/2002 08:50:26 PM
Ok Indie and Jason, If that is the personality profile test based on the Jungian archetypes, I've taken it. I don't remember what I "was." I do remember that when the meeting of 60 individuals divided up into smaller groups with their like-minded fellows, I was sitting in the smallest group (three individuals) and I really didn't like the other two! I remember that I was a philosopher/something ... is that what the "p" is for?
:::posted by Carmen on 10/29/2002 07:23:34 PM
Indie:
That sounds like a fascinating study. I know its kinda of off topic here, but I hope you post a link to it when you get done. My personality type was definately my biggest barrier to becoming an egalitarian as my "T" component demanded that I satisfy my mind even though my heart had always balked at what seemed an illogical restiction (probably because I tend to want to through out all gross generalities and generalizing on intellectual/social/spiritual capabilites based purely on sex had always seemed like a poor criterion. Besides, my mom had a great faith).
It would be interesting to see if "T"s tend to fall more into churches based on strong scholarship (or maybe to be more percise based on a high value of lay scholarship) than Fs... Something else that would be interesting would be to cross correlate that with the thoughts behind "Sacred Pathways", a book that posits that different poeple have different worship styles that "work" for them. I.e., I'm mostly Intellectual and Naturalist with a touch of Escetic. Other styles include: Traditionalist, Sensate, something about expressive or emotional or somesuch, and various others that I can't remember.
For whatever its worth, a pairing of an INTP and an ENFP is a wonderful thing. Now, if we just had someone to clean up after us...
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO
:::posted by Jason on 10/29/2002 06:44:36 PM
Hey again,
I'm thinking that it may be good to clarify the whole "transculteral" term a bit. The more common Church of Christ phrase for "transculteral vs. culturally confined" in my experience is "core gospel vs. cultural". For instance, in my Missionary Anthropology class at Harding after dwelling for a long time on worldview, we went into the cultural issue. Any missionary that is even slightly successful finds that they not only have to drop some of the U.S. baggage that's been added to the Bible (i.e. avoiding drinking instead of just avoiding drukenness), but you also have to really stuggle to drop cultural biblical commands (as we have in the US with "head coverings") and stick to the core gospel. We cannot drop teaching Christ cruicified, or the two greatest commands, but a lot of other things can and do go right out the window. When it comes down to it, the core of the gospel can probably be articulated in a fairly short list (salvation by grace through faith in Christ crucified, the greatest commands, the fruits of the spirit, etc). What I believe Webb is trying to do is aid us in determining what can logically and honestly go out the window, and what would be a transgression against God's will to drop. However, he is adamant that the Bible drives that decision, not where we want the Bible to go based on our cultural lens.
Another mainstream term that is also somewhat in use among the CoC and is generally palatable is something along the lines of "progressive revelation". This is the theory that God revealed more of his plan, nature, character and will as the Bible progressed. Hence, you can see the development from the revelation of God from the OT perspective into the nature revealed by Christ by his time on earth. This can also be found in the most excellent "NT Theology" by Guthrie whose introductory section should be required reading for all Christians in my opinion.
I like the term trajectory to descibe this. However, I think that vector might be a better word as it donotes both direction and speed. Hence you could see that the Bible plots a course towards monogomy by restricting elders to one wife while not out and out calling for monogomy. Likewise, you can plot a course through the Bible, especially when held as a foil against culture of an increasing value on women. The difference is that the speed component of the vector is greater for monogomy, hence leading it towards earlier adoption. (The reason I consider the speed greater is that there are no passages holding it back as there are with full equality in practice for women). But the commonality is that both do show up as vectors. (Or redemptive movement, or ethical trajectories as you prefer). However, it may be worth nothing that both relied upon external societal change to come to fruition, hence, the fact that there can be little progress seen within the scope of the new testament. In particular, I suspect that the primary driver for slowing down women's acceptance was getting them to an equal education level so that they wouldn't be easily swayed as the 1 Tim 2 passage mentions. That in turn required a bunch of even earlier societal changes (i.e. men reaching the point where they weren't so easily threatened (yeah, yeah, I know you can argue how far that's really progressed ;-) )).
Oh, and Chad, Webb does start out by acknowledging that the Bible is of neccessity, cultural, but he limits his use of the term cultural to that which is strictly applicable to only that cultural.
Another interesting tidbit is he closes with a section titled "What if I am wrong" that appears to deal primarily with the primogeniture issues raised in 1 Tim 2:13. If nothing else, this book is doing great things for my vocabulary. :-)
Now I've got to go read more so that I can actually get a more perfect view of this and stop my incessant speculation. Hmm, now if I could just stop skipping ahead...
Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St, Louis, MO
:::posted by Jason on 10/29/2002 06:34:41 PM
I haven't read Webb's book, all I have heard about it is what has been contributed here in the last few days and Mike Cope's description of it on the tape from the Zoe conference a few weeks back. In Mike's mention of it, he said that one of the goals of the book is to refute the idea that if we allow women to participate in worship, we are on a slippery slope to allowing full acceptance of homosexuals (I'm paraphrasing and Mike, if I am overstating what you said or what the book is about, please correct me).
A few points on the question of homosexuality would seem to be in order. First, what if homosexuals really are born that way? What then? Have we accepted the idea that one's access to salvation is not based on an accident of birth (such as race or gender), or not? I'm not sure that I know enough about the new science on the brain structure of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, to opine about this, but if it is true that there are genetic/biological differences that lead to this tendency, then I have a hard time accepting that God has condemned these people for all times in all places.
Second, I don't think we should assume that the same-sex sexual conduct condemned in scripture automatically equal "homosexual" in our culture. Yes, I'm sure that the sexual acts being discussed are the same. But I think I've heard that those who practiced homosexual acts in Biblical times probably did not define themselves as homosexuals. Many of them, maybe most of them, were married and had families (or the younger men expected to marry and have families later). The homosexual acts prohibited in scripture were part of a licentious way of life that did not regard marriage bonds as sacred, and that elevated same-sex relationships partly to adapt to their culture's hostility towards women. I don't think that in antiquity there was much evidence of committed, homosexual couples such as we sometimes see today, and I am not sure that we can extend the Biblical condemnation of these acts to that particular class of folks.
This is my opinion and only that. I do not claim to have all the answers on this, and I probably haven't thought of every angle. But when we start making statements such as, "but we're not that liberal, because we would still condemn X," that sounds a lot to me like the Pharisee's prayer ("I thank God that I am not a Gentile or a woman . . ."). I'm not saying that everything is cultural or that anything could be okay under the right circumstances; I think we have some clear guidelines about certain activities that are always wrong. Pedophilia is always wrong; adultery is always wrong; fornication is always wrong (although a lot of our congregations seem to tolerate that one pretty well). But in my view, if homosexuals are born that way, then the God I know would not condemn them for all times in all places. I see two principled ways of dealing with the issue of homosexuality if indeed it is a trait from birth: we could either say that homosexuals cannot engage in sex and remain faithful Christians, or we can allow them to marry and apply the same rules for sex within and without marriage that we do for heterosexuals. Neither approach would please everyone. To adopt the former raises the same problem we have seen with divorce and remarriage; if we apply the rules strictly and do not allow remarriage except for cause, then we have made divorce/homosexuality into an unforgivable sin. To adopt the latter would cause a huge outcry among heterosexuals who are threatened by the idea of homosexual marriage.
It troubles me that our congregations as a whole have decided not to read scripture literally on the divorce and remarriage question, not so much because we have studied it carefully and resolved the textual issues with it but because divorce is socially acceptable and the alternative view seems draconian, yet we are so willing to accept a very literal reading as to homosexual relationships, even those where the couple is committed to one another, consider themselves married, practice fidelity and have done so for many years. This seems inconsistent to me. Maybe I need to read Webb's book to see how he addresses these questions.
--Mary Lou Hutson
Charlotte, NC
:::posted by Christopher on 10/29/2002 06:30:06 PM
Hi Jason,
It is interesting how you bring up your personality type and how it relates to how you interpret the Bible. I am writing a paper for my religious education class about how we can better educate people in the church in relation to their personality types. Conservative churches tend to have a higher percentage of SJs than are found in the general public. Liberal churches have more Ns. SPs, however, are not found in churches often at all! So part of the focus of my paper focuses on what we can do, from an educational standpoint, to get more SPs in our churches.
Indie
:::posted by Indie on 10/29/2002 06:04:20 PM
Hello, all
Chad, Thanks for the preview. Now I have to have the book!
This is the link to buy Webb's book from Walmart for $15.74. I am not sure if it is in the stores, but I plan to check WalMart on the way home.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/search-ng.gsp?search_constraint=0&search_query=slaves%2C+women+%26+homosexuals+&Continue.x=0&Continue.y=0
Shelly
:::posted by Shelly on 10/29/2002 01:30:26 PM
Over the years I have read a few things about this theology of an ethical trajectory. Most of these thinkers call it the "evolution" of God and are Jewish. "Ethical trajectory" or "transcultural" would be a bit easier for Christians to approach. I find this idea compelling. It helps the one who is committed to a high-view of scripture. Other, mostly reformist, Jewish theologians explain the apparent evolution of God in scripture to the post-tannaitic rabbis tampering with the original text. Martin Buber appeals to me because his view is both philosophical and historical. That appeals to me since I'm not a theologian! "I cannot," he wrote, "forget that man lives face to face with God, but I also cannot at any point draw God himself into my explanation, any more than I can detach what is to me the undoubted effect of God in history and make it the object of my consideration." Buber was into paths, not destinations. This works for me in the biblical/historical study of Woman and God. Woman is a path. Institutionalised religion can't accept that. I think that Paul is addressing questions along that path in 1 Tim. 2. I believe that Paul was reconstructing or clearing the Woman Path of spiritual debris which has been discarded there over the centuries by non-Jewish theologians who could see the path, but not it's place of origin.
:::posted by Carmen on 10/29/2002 12:18:35 PM
I haven't read Webb, but the summary Jason provides sounds very much like what has been referred to elsewhere as ethical "trajectories" in Scripture.
For example, if one reads between the lines even a little in Philemon it quickly becomes clear where the gospel Paul preaches wants to go with the whole matter of slavery. I believe there is a world of significance for Philemon--but also for us--in the 21st verse: "Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say."
Chad, good food for thought. The Christian claim is (as you say) that God entered history in Christ and so committed the scandal of particularity that bothered Lessing so much. But the Christian claim is also that something universal (or to use your word, "timeless") was accomplished in Christ. So I am convinced that we can speak of the "transcultural" so long as we do so with great humility--realizing that everything we say about it is shaped by our own particular context. I might go with, "there is transcultural truth, but the best we can hope for is to find its intersection with our particular context." This may be what you are saying. My point is that the the category of universal truth is helpful, so long as we don't convince ourselves that we have a monopoly on it.
Julie, congratulations. We both know there are more trials ahead, but don't let that stop you from drinking deeply of this joy.
:::posted by Lance on 10/29/2002 08:55:16 AM
Friends,
If anyone's interested in a little more on the Webb book, here's a link at IVP that gives some info on the book as well as excerpts from the book: http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1561
Just to continue the discussion...from the excerpts I read, and from what Jason has said, Webb structures an opposition between the "cultural" and something he calls "transcultural". Out of curiousity, do you all think this is a distinction worth making? What makes us--as finite, fallen, situated human beings--think that even if there was something we might name as "transcultural" or trans-whatever, that we would be capable of knowing it apart from contingent, cultural forms? In other words, isn't the gospel--that the Creator took on human flesh in one particular human being--scandalously particular, completely "cultural" (in a sense)? If that's the case, perhaps we need to retire the very slippery category of "timelessness"...Thoughts?
Chad
Brookline, MA
:::posted by Chad on 10/29/2002 07:42:36 AM
Thanks for all the greetings,
I've gotten another 10 pages into Webb's book and have figured out a large reason why I like it so much. If you guys have taken the Meyers-Briggs personality tests, I'm an INTP, which basically means that I'm a really abstract analytical type. As such, it was real hard for me to just deal with isolated arguments to isolated scriptural references in regards to this issue. I finally came to the conclusion that both sides had some good points that neither side of the issue was completely capable of disputing. I had finally intuitively (the "N" of INTP) decided that since God generally moved towards better and better treatment of people in general, and women in the Bible specifically, I'd take that tendancy and side with the egalitarian perspective. But Webb's book is finally providing the abstract conceptual framework that I need to be truely at peace with what I wanted to believe.
Jeff, I agree, James Walters (I didn't really know Marla) was one of the top influences in Christian development. Without him, I wouldn't have half the intellectual faith I do and probably wouldn't be posting here or married to Patty. I only wish he'd been at Harding longer so that I could have taken more from him than PBI and Honors New Testament.
Carmen, thanks for your thoughts. I'd too progressed down lines of trying to historically argue such lines as "There was a significant disparity of education between men and women at the time, hence the leadership role going generally towards men" historical type arguments. However, I'd encourage you to read Webb as I think his method provides a lot of opportunity to avoid the more speculative lines of reasoning, hence broadening our acceptability to those who don't yet agree with us. We've got our own web and message board servers in our basement, so maybe I'll have to take you up on adding a chat server.
Vicki, I'll try to keep future posts (except maybe my final book report on Webb) under my first post size. :-)
Shelly, good luck with your elders. Patty and I just ordered the Zoe tapes and are eagerly looking forward to them. Maybe you'll get lucky like me. My dad is an elder and while I don't yet have him completely intellectually convinced, he's more pragmatic than intellectual and figures that being able to double the number of involved people in the congregation is enough of an argument to him that he at least didn't oppose my relationship with Patty.
Take care all. In him,
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO
:::posted by Jason on 10/28/2002 08:53:04 PM
Jason...
I appreciate your contribution and look forward to reading Webb's book...
James and Marla Walters are good people and the approach James advocates to the text is the most helpful thing
I have ever learned.
Jeff
:::posted by Jeff on 10/28/2002 03:06:36 PM
Julie - Thank you for the update, it is gives us all HOPE to hear of your progress!
Jason - Welcome!! I recently heard about Webb's book from Mike Cope (via tape - from the Zoe Conference). He mentioned it several times and I am looking forward to your review and to getting my hands on a copy of it.
Yesterday I gave two of our Elders (and my mother) a copy of Dale Paul's "Sons and Duahgters." I am anxiously awaiting their comments.
In Him,
Shelly
:::posted by Shelly on 10/28/2002 01:06:55 PM
Jason,
Yes, I'd like to hear more about Webb's book. I fully agree that all of the problem scriptures concerning women and silence -- and many other problem areas too -- could be overcome with more knowledge about ancient people and culture. For a long time I have been trying to understand more about ancient communties of women. I am exploring the idea (I know, I know, against the flow of current academic thought) that the "silence" Paul spoke of in 1Cor 14 was an aceticism of the ancient church practiced by a specific group of women. Ascetic communties of silence and poverty among Jews and Greeks predated Christianity. Some of these groups practiced silence at meals. I think there is enough evidence that this is what Paul was addressing --- allowing these women to practice silence rather than forbidding them to speak. It's just a matter of puncutating those verses with the idea of giving the women the benefit of the doubt rather than punctuating with the western idea that silence must be a penalty for something. I think it is possible that Paul is not telling the women to be silent,that he is telling those who value the verbal gifts to leave these silent women alone, that what they are doing has value and that God is revealed through their silence as well as the gifted and talented tongues of the community ... just changing the perspective in the same way with chapter 11...That women wearing veils was not the issue Paul was dealing with, but that his concern was more with men who were cross-dressing for some psycho/spiritual reason. Also, the earliest Christian monastics practised silence and the historians are finding that these communties were usually made up women.
I'd love to see a place for geeks to meet on the board and discuss this stuff!
Julie,
How wonderful!
:::posted by Carmen on 10/28/2002 12:55:47 PM
First, to Julie:
From someone stuck in going-nowhere-fast, you show us all that there is hope. Thank you!!
Second, to Jason:
Welcome, and thank you for sharing yourself, your journey and your studies. Patty's heart is known and loved here. I recently heard about this book you describe. Your review (of only the first 42 pages!) makes me want to know more. Please keep us informed as you travel those pages. BTW, Lance will let you know if you exceed the allowed word count! : )
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/28/2002 12:43:47 AM
Hi all,
I guess I'll subject you to a first post from an occasional lurker. As a bit of introduction, I'm Patty Lacoss-Arnold's husband, a second generation Church of Christer originally from what I'd term a pragmatic conservative congregation in central Nebraska. I'm 29 and graduated from Harding with degrees in Computer Science and Vocational Ministry (I was originally a Bible major, but I came to the realization that I would have made a decent academic but a poor preacher). Before I started dating Patty, I spent some time in study, fasting and prayer to come to grips with her views of egalitarianism. Luckily, I had been greatly prepared for such a significant change in perspective by taking an amazing "Principles of Biblical Interpretation" class from Dr. Walters, then at Harding.
The Principles of Biblical Interpretation class covered how people have historically tried to apply Biblical passages and then transitioned into studying a method based in the theory that you cannot apply any section of scripture to modern society until you first understand how it was to be applied to the original audience. This requires understanding the situation of both the original author and audience (along with other factors). This information is largely gleaned from within the texts themselves, but it is appropriate to also include historical studies. Commentaries should be avoided until you have ascertained you own initial impressions, to prevent the commentator's perspective from clouding your analysis. Only after you've established a clear exegisis [understanding of what the author was saying to the original audience] can you try and make a hermeneutical application [this method artificially breaks the hermeneutical phase (hermeneutics being "application") from the exegetical phase] to today's comparable situation (if one even exists).
Now that I've probably lost everyone, I'm getting to what I want to ask people about. I've just started a book titled "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William J. Webb. Has anyone else read this? I'm only 42 pages into it, but so far, I'm really jazzed by the approach the author takes to scripture. While on the surface it appears to be an "issue book", its really an intellectual look at a refinement of the hermeneutical approach I learned in college that I think has some amazing capacities to help develop logically consistent and Godly solutions to some modern problems.
First I want to briefly present what I've gleaned of the authors hermeneutical approach and then briefly summarize his views on the three issues that form the title. Basically, he hold the view that they are two main ways of viewing the Holy Spirit's messages in the Bible (or more specifically, two ways to view them for those who hold the Bible to be the inspired work of God). The first way he terms static. This view implies that all messages in the Bible, if properly followed would result in a utopian society. The second view (which he terms redemptive movement) and the one that he puts forth is that God was merely working to advance human behavior towards the perfect society, but due to a variety of limitations, doesn't stipulate the most perfect form of each human interaction. Instead, the Word is just moving the current society in the proper direction. As an example of this, he takes the familiar slave texts and stipulates that most would agree that the gospel was trying to improve the conditions of slaves but was not putting forward the ultimate slave reality (i.e. slavery allowed as long as abuses were contained). He also resists rigid hermeneutical application as he says that directly transferring the slave/owner relationships to employee/employer relationship is logically inconsistent. Instead, he argues for applying the text according the original spirit. Hence, he says that employees should strive to best fulfill their contracts while employers should treat their employees with dignity, giving an honest wage, etc.
Conversely, he says that Biblical passages do NOT show that kind of movement for homosexuality. The Bible, written into a society that allowed homosexuality, did not push it forward but instead forbid its practice. He basically posits that the most improvement that could be made is that we should protect the rights of the homosexuals as we live in a pluralistic society and should not impose our ethics on them, but should instead form friendships and try to work with them, not against them. Moreover, for those with homosexual impulses or backgrounds in the church should be treated with love and support and we should recognize and give latitude towards those with genetic predispositions in trying to help them with their fight. In taking these tacks, he's trying to maintain the Bible as a steering guide for the church, not modern society.
As you may guess, he holds the opinion that the situation with women is akin to that of slaves. The Bible move women's rights in extremely positive directions, and we should continue that push towards the ultimate ethic. He does distinguish between "Evangelical Egalitarianism" and "Secular Egalitarianism" by stressing that the Godly route has mutual submission as the core instead of personal autonomy and individual rights.
The rest of the book appears to deal with how to rationally and consistently distinguish the cultural from the transcultural and determine whether a particular issue as presented in the biblical texts is presenting the ultimate ethic (as with homosexuals) or is pushing the society towards a greater, unspecified but predictable ultimate ethic in the future.
So far, as you may have gleaned by now, I'm really impressed. Has anyone else read this? What do you think? Anyone interested in an update when I finish it?
Good to meet you all and thanks for making this forum possible. By the way, if any geek work ever needs done, let me know as I am one by both profession and nature. One suggestion may be to move to more of a threaded discussion basis away from the disorganization of a blog, but that's just my $0.02 worth.
In him,
--Jason Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO, USA
:::posted by Jason on 10/27/2002 04:31:04 PM
YEA! Julie, I'm so thrilled for you and your congregation. I hope that all of it goes as smoothly as today.
Carmen- You've given me some things to think about. Thanks.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 10/27/2002 03:42:28 PM
I just had to come here and post as soon as I got home from Sunday lunch. I told all of you that this morning was going to be significant and wow! wish you could've been there. Let me start this with saying that this has been a 15 year journey and we have struggled through some difficult moments but now we are on the other side. Our minister's sermon this morning was titled...Your sons and your daughters will prophecy...he was straight to the point and spoke about many women in the Bible who prophecied and led the people of God. He very eloquently used scripture to point out that women were valuable to God. He stated to the congregation that we are going to begin to include women in our assemblies and that we will have a congregational meeting on Saturday to explain how we are going to begin. There were no objections this morning and it all felt so positive and right. After our minister spoke another member led us in prayer...what a powerful prayer!!! He talked about the curtain in the temple and Galatians 3:28 and about righting the wrongs that have been done...reconciliation! I was shaking all morning and so aware that this was it. We ended with the song...Let Your Glory Fall In This Room...I was overcome with emotion. I know I was told so many times to be patient and that usually only made me angry...I thought I was being patient. I say all this to say...Don't give up!!!! It is worth the wait. only by grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/27/2002 02:22:13 PM
Patty -- from my experience it appears that the elders have a system. They assign an elder to communicate with or "handle" the individual. Of course, in my case, the elder most sympathetic to gender-justice gets the job. Each time they came with the message that the elders appreciate my letter, discussed it together and have come to the conclusion that nothing will be done ... but thank you very much for your concern. I would expect that the elder then goes back to the others and reports that the individual has been informed, sympathised with and effectively neutralised by the invisible brick wall. Mission accomplished. Honestly, I think letter writing is a waste of time and intellectual energy. We are giving serious thought to starting a church in our little Southern California beach villiage. There are no restoration churches here. I think, if we could get the word out about a Church of Christ that is working toward social justice ... a safe place where you can bring your daughters and your sons ... where women are free to pray as well as sing, and to preach and baptise as well as teach the children, to serve communion as well as prepare it, make their own annoucements and serve as church leaders, not just as leaderettes (what in the world....?) then we might be, finally, doing some good. But where? This is the most expensive real estate in the United States right now. Our home, at 1,000 sq ft. is way too tiny and is not handicap accessible. So, I need to go hunting for free or very, very cheap space.
:::posted by Carmen on 10/27/2002 01:42:22 AM
Carmen-Have you gotten any positive responces to your letters? What kinds of things do they say? I am currently crafting one of my own and am wondering if it will be helpful or not. It does sound like the leadership at my congregation is more open to this stuff than yours but still I'm concerned about this having a positive impact. About the selection of deacons thing. I was at a church that did it that way once. It just made me upset but the elders "assured" me this is how many congregations do it and they weren't about to consider another way. If the change is in responce to your letter consider that a victory, at least they were listening to you and considered it worth dealing with if not in the manner that you would choose.
Katie- I was thinking about you today and that letter to the editor. I got to thinking that although The Christian Chronicle tried to cover up the fact that you are a pulpit minister, it came to light. I wonder how many men and women will read his letter and be filled with hope, knowing that there is a woman preaching at a church of Christ? As they say advertising is always good.
Mike spoke here in St Louis this weekend. It was really good. One thing I appreciated was that he mentioned Junia and called her an apostle and then just moved on. It wasn't very important to his point so he didn't explain or appologise just mentioned it and moved on. I did wonder how many people in the audience even noticed it. Perhaps it is his attempt at subliminal advertising :-) He wasn't here to talk about gender stuff.
Patty
St Louis, MO
:::posted by Patty on 10/26/2002 05:13:27 PM
Carmen, I don't know what help this is to you, but sometimes soldiers need to reconnoiter. My heart goes out to you, as I hear your frustration.
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/25/2002 04:15:13 PM
I don't know if my letters and lunches with elders are doing harm or good because I get little or no response. I certainly intend to do good ... but don't we all? Last week the elders annouced that the selection of deacons will no longer follow the usual sermon series about qualifications and so forth and deacons will be selected by the elders and the congregation will be given two weeks to confirm the elders selection. The reason for this change, we were told, is to expedite the process. My last letter to the elders about gender-justice was a response to a sermon designed to promote the doctrine that only men can serve as deacons. I wonder if this new deacon selection protocol is related...? I wonder if my letter had a bit of company ...!?! Hopeful thinking is all I have. The new deacon "this man of God, this brother in Christ" was invited to stand up at the podium to be recognised by the church, and his wife, a daughter of God and a sister in Christ was asked to stand in her place far away from the center of recognition and honor. Same ol', same ol' ...
:::posted by Carmen on 10/24/2002 02:43:41 PM
Tattle tail!
I love you!
:::posted by Shelly on 10/24/2002 12:08:16 PM
Shelly - Thanks for your post.
I just want you to know that if this is the journey you believe God wants to take, you will, by the very nature of your quest, "offend" people. That's just part of the deal. Offending, by Webster's definition, is merely causing discomfort. Don't let anyone try to confuse you with the stumbling block thing. Ask yourself, is this person going to walk away from God because of my words/actions? If so, THEN you will be a stumbling block, not because you make them uncomfortable. A faith unchallenged is a faith unchanged. Faith unchanged is at best cold, at worst dead.
I have found in my own experience that the vocal offendees simply do not want change and like things the way they are. It's the quiet ones that question themselves, whether they have done something wrong. Sometimes the quenching comes from without, sometimes from within. Have they quenched their own fire? If God calls a woman to a ministry and she says no, I can't, I'm only a woman, or "they" won't let me, who is responsible? Is it sin to ignore the call of God?
Still looking for my own place,
Vicki
p.s. I'm tellin' Mom what you said about me!! : )
:::posted by Vicki on 10/24/2002 11:36:16 AM
Good Morning,
On my way to work, I listened to Mike Cope's third message from the Zoe Conference, for the second time, crying off and on most of the way here. I want to thank Mike for reminding me to be patient. I am feeling VERY impatient. I was almost upset with Mike for announcing to the conference the existence of this web site - I didn't even realize that I thought of this site as my Secret Garden. I'm over it and am glad that there will be more voices heard here.
Our Elders will start a study on women's roles January 1. I know that I am overly optimistic about the outcome. Some of you may remember from early in this forum that I had a "disagreement" with an Elder after he told my teenage daughter that she was not allowed to count for attendance, "that was a MAN's JOB." I am aware that over the last year women have been allowed in front of our congregation (facing them) for a brief testimony or an update on children's ministry, etc. I know some of our Elders are open-minded and I pray that he will soften the hearts of the others. I am more anxious about some of the women in the congregation. I appreciate the reminder that we need to be patient and loving with them, knowing that they perceive "our view" as saying that they have been less than they should have been, affirming them and what they have done or will choose to do in God's service.
I agree that Chapter 2 of Rowland’s book is thought provoking, but Vicki is right (once it a while it's bound to happen) Chapter 2, in fact this book, is written with an almost angry tone, with which I totally identified. We have to be extra careful not to offend anyone - once “they” are on the defense, they will not listen. At one time, I was so angry I made 9 copies of Chapter 2 and took them to church to give to each Elder. I'm sure [now] it would have done more harm than good.
I'm done rambling and I'm glad all of you are there to "listen."
In Him,
Shelly
:::posted by Shelly on 10/24/2002 09:37:07 AM
The following was written by Lois, a sister in Christ.
"One of the things God stresses about Jesus is Jesus' empathy. Having compassion on the suffering was a huge part of His ministry. He not only put Himself in our shoes, He walked an extra mile in them! I ask you to be Christ-like and try to walk in our shoes for a moment:
Imagine what it might feel like to be a Christian man if preachers were always women.
Imagine how it might feel to hear sermon after sermon, year after year, where all the pronouns are "she" and "her." Where the woman preacher always goes on and on about "womankind" this and "sisterhood" that.
How do you think it would feel to hear her mainly preach and teach about the matriarchs of the Bible, and the prophetesses and queens, and Jesus' female disciples?
To hear her mainly use sermon illustrations about pregnancy and fashion and makeup, and other things generally associated only with women?
To see that the only people allowed to do anything in front of the congregation are other women? Even girls, barely into their teens, are listened to in ways that you, an adult Christian man who's walked with the Lord for many years, are not?
Imagine how it would feel to have women always telling you to just be quiet and submissive and enjoy your "role."
Do you think, after being in that situation year after year after year, you might begin to feel a tad . . .
Left out?
Like you somehow don't matter as much?
Would you search the scriptures to see if God thinks as little of you as the women church leaders seem to?
Let's say your study of scripture convinces you that God *does* want you to serve Him in many of the ways the women don't allow. Yet whenever you try to discuss the topic with women, they accuse you of pride and ignorance.
And try to embarass you into silence.
Or yell at you.
Or try to change the subject.
Or ignore you.
After a while, do you think you would begin to feel angry?
Would the behavior of these women make you stumble?
Would it bother your conscience?"
:::posted by Carmen on 10/23/2002 11:52:26 PM
The Brooks Ave. church has a 15 week study designed for group format. I think it asks most of the right questions and is methodical in a way that is acceptable to the broader group.
My experience with the questions as posed in Rowland's book (which I spent most of time shouting YES! YES! to), is worded in a way that is somewhat offensive to those we want most to at least listen to a new perspective. When that happens, hearts and minds close quickly.
The Manhatten church's study, "A Community Without Barriers" is excellent. Just studying the section of the way Jesus was with all women is eye-opening to some. Some of the same questions as Rowland's, but at a slightly slower pace.
It does no good for this kind of study to be done gender separated. What benefit is it to teach a group of women they are truly free in Christ if they walk into a room filled with men who say, "Nu-uh, baby. Not in my lifetime. Over my dead body," and other lovely things.
Wish I could be in such a study ANYWHERE! (My mouth is still silent.)
I love you all for having the courage to put your whole name right out there for the whole world to read!
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/23/2002 06:30:17 PM
I have found that the questionaire that forms Chapter 2 of Robert Rowland's book is an excellent discussion starter. It certainly points up the just how broad are our logical inconsistencies. -Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/23/2002 05:20:27 PM
Okay, it's time for some forum CPR. How 'bout a little joke to break the silence:
Q: "How many gender justice advocates does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
A: "Oh, it's just so discouraging, we wouldn't even know where to start!"
But seriously folks, let me reintroduce a topic: "How do you get started with this issue in a church that is ready to at least discuss change?" One idea: a Sunday night book discussion. Any of the books from Part 1, "Where do I Start?" on the Readings page would make a great discussion partner for a small group on Sunday night. Any other ideas?
:::posted by Lance on 10/23/2002 04:41:32 PM
Shelley, this won't happen until next weekend. This past weekend was our annual church retreat. It was great! We all feel renewed and closer to each other and some connections were made that wouldn't have been made if we had just been at home. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/21/2002 08:03:40 PM
Forum Participants,
Dale Pauls (minister at the Stamford, CT Church of Christ) follows this forum and has offered free print copies of "Sons and Daughters" to all participants. This booklet would make an interesting "conversation partner" for churches contemplating or implementing change. Send me e-mail at lance@gal328.org if you are interested.
:::posted by Lance on 10/21/2002 10:58:32 AM
Test.
:::posted by Mark on 10/20/2002 09:13:02 PM
Well, Julie. . . how did it go?
:::posted by Shelly on 10/20/2002 06:25:17 PM
Julie,
My prayers and God are with you! I wish I could be there.
(I'm jealous!!!)
Shelly
:::posted by Shelly on 10/18/2002 04:21:16 PM
Julie,
We will keep you in prayer; please keep us updated. If you think it would help, perhaps I can recruit a group of like-minded folks from the opposite side of the DC beltway to come down to visit and support you on that day. On the other hand, we might be seen as meddling outsiders. Let me know. But know that there are prayers going before the Father on your behalf.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/18/2002 02:46:22 PM
While I have not posted in a while - I read the posts everyday.
Julie, I will be praying for you and your church.
I can say that I have been touched by the struggles and triumphs of so many here
and appreciate all of you. I will do whatever I can to help.
Jeff
:::posted by Jeff on 10/18/2002 01:01:31 PM
We have all been quiet lately. I know for myself that life has been full and my time at the computer is limited. Many times I read the posts but don't respond. Our congregation is getting ready to take some big steps and I am asking that you cover us in prayer. The last Sunday in October our minister is going to take a stand from the pulpit and the Public Assemblies Ministry, of which I am a part, are giving out a statement that mid-November women will be serving communion, reading scripture and leading the congregation in prayer. This letter will be signed by our minister and myself and another woman and a former elder. We don't have elders anymore. Pray for a spirit of faith and gentleness. We are stepping out and I have been squashed many times by others for taking a stand. I know that the Lord calls us to be bold but it is also unnerving sometimes. Just pray. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/17/2002 04:39:22 PM
Carmen,
An excellent book. It was 3 women who wrote chapters in that book that sent me on this journey of activism: Katie, Ann (our own) and D'Esta Love. Buckets of tears of complete understanding will fall as these women share their journeys.
It's a book every man should read, too.
:::posted by Vicki on 10/17/2002 02:26:20 PM
I had to read the letter too. It seems the gentleman could present his point of view without the mean-spirited accusations. It does not help his position at all. It is this sort of ugliness that tends to make those who are on the fence to get off on the other side. And you are right Vicki, returning fire would only make things worse. In defense of the good folks at the Chronicle, I feel I should say that they are committed to presenting a full-faceted view of the church. If I know them, they received enough letters of that kind to print a representative letter to illustrate a particular resolve in the collective mind of the church. But no, Katie does not deserve that ... no one does.
I am looking forward to reading Billie Silvey's book, Trusting Women! I love Billie! She has been a real trooper in the church for years, paving the way for women like Katie in the only ways acceptable for her generation.
Katie, I admire your vision. Continue in the Lord, and don't look back.
:::posted by Carmen on 10/17/2002 01:05:28 PM
Dear Katie,
Thank you for wearing the target, taking the bullet, being wounded, and not returning fire. We've all come to know and love your heart. What an example to follow for generations to come! You are God's chosen vessel.
Praying for you constantly,
Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/17/2002 11:23:44 AM
Katie,
I have read the article published by the Chronicle, and read every posting and article on this site, we are all blessed to "know" you.
S.
:::posted by Shelly on 10/16/2002 02:55:50 PM
Katie, Julie, Ann,
"Atta-girl!" times 100.
Grace and peace,
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/15/2002 04:37:16 PM
Katie,
Can I add your name to my list of famous people who I know and can "name drop" in conversations? :>)
I hope this type of attack is not going to be a trend at the Chronicle. I personally stay far away from any publication that likes to do personal attacks or publish letters from readers that are personal attacks (won't go into naming all of the publications I don't read anymore!). I'm running out of printed monthly reading!!! I expressed my views to the editor several days back about that letter (for what they are worth) but have not received an answer back. Of course, I don't really expect an answer.
Anyway, sure proud to know you!
:::posted by Wiley on 10/15/2002 02:43:58 PM
God has been good to me -- he has lifted me out of situations of "constant criticism" into places of occasional, run-of-the-mill criticism, an awful lot of which has less to do with my gender than with how I do my job (which I'm assuming is normal for ministers). I don't subscribe to or read the journals and newsletters that would criticize me *ad hominem*, and I haven't usually found the Chronicle to be interested in publishing such letters.
The autobiographical essay I wrote for Dr. Allen's book *Trusting Women* talks more about how it feels when criticism does come. That essay is published elsewhere on this website so I won't rehash it here. Suffice it to say, it hurts. However, positive feedback from a few makes up for an awful lot of those "false teacher" letters.
(Dr. Phil -- yes, I used to watch him on Oprah when I got the chance -- says it takes a hundred "atta-boys" to make up for one "you're stupid" from a parent to a child. But I find the opposite is true for me as an adult. One blessing of my ministry, even from a total stranger, makes up for a whole bunch of nastiness over the years. Hope Julie and Ann and others can eventually say the same.)
peace -- Katie
:::posted by Katie on 10/15/2002 01:35:30 PM
Katie, Ann and I were talking today about how it must feel to be in your shoes. Do you constantly have to deal with criticism? Ann and I discussed how we deal with that on a smaller scale. Our church is almost to other side of this issue and Ann and I have been the scapegoats for many years. We hear from people all over the country about how awful we are and these are people who no longer attend our congregation. They hear things second and third hand and from those who are also not part of our congregation anymore and sometimes don't even know us. It hurts to always have the finger pointed at you when you are only trying to do God's will to the best of your ability. How has it been for you? grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/14/2002 09:42:24 PM
Thanks for the encouragement, sisters and brothers. You can't know how important your words are to me. peace -- Katie
:::posted by Katie on 10/14/2002 07:30:31 AM
I just wanted to share something that I think is positive change for our congregation although baby steps. We have begun having women read scripture from their seats during service. This morning for the first time it was just one scripture and so it was just a woman's voice heard. In the past it has been a balance of men and women reading during the same period of time. So much of it bothers me. The steps are so small and the idea that women need to be seated irks me to say the least, but women's voices are being heard during the assembly and for many I'm sure this is a giant leap into the unknown so I'll keep praying and hoping that this is a trend and not a new plateau.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 10/13/2002 11:29:41 PM
Katie,
I want to echo Julie's thoughts. You are in very good company as a letters to the editor target. You have my prayers. I have been giving your website to a number of people in our congregation, with the hopes of sowing seeds of positive change. Keep the faith, sister.
Grace and peace,
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/13/2002 10:39:57 PM
Katie, I was just reading the letters to the editor at the Christian Chronicle and came across a letter written about you. Don't be discouraged. I know that you know where you stand in Jesus' eyes but sometimes I think we need to hear it from others. You are doing God's work and the Holy Spirit lives in you and lights the lives of those around you. That is what God asks of us. Thank you for answering the call. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/13/2002 09:15:02 PM
First, Julie we are praying for you and everyone in your area.
Second, I wanted to share about last weekend's camping trip. It was great. Several families, camping together and sunday morning we had worship together and I led singing. The best thing was no one batted an eye at it. There was no uncomfortable silence. No announcing my qualifications by a male leader. Nothing like that. I just led the songs and we sang. We were in a tent, in the rain and it was a little piece of heaven. Now I know that if I had been preaching instead of my husband that would have been a different issue but I thank God for little moments that make this slow progress bearable. I love to sing and to praise God in song. I love to lead others in worship. I long for the day when I won't be worried if anyone is uncomfortable with my doing it and I freely speak my mind to encourage worship as well as leading the songs. I currently worry too much if my directing others in worship in this manner will make them uncomfortable and unable to worship so I just lead the song and don't say anything between, when I get the opportunity in mixed company.
My husband and I will be leading a small group at one of the elders houses starting this coming wed night. This past year as members of another small group I was in charge of the worship portion of the evenings. We will be with all different families and have no idea if that will be possible in this group or not. Pray for wisdom for us and the rest of those in the group in deciding about this issue and even if it will be brough up. The elder whose house we will be at is receptive to at least some inculsion of women in worship and leadership, but I'm not sure how far he goes with that. The group will be focusing on bringing in non-christians and I don't think this should be discussed with them present, but I'm not sure which side of the fence is the safer one to go to in this case. So again wisdom is needed.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 10/12/2002 12:12:22 AM
Julie,
We'll all be praying for you and those in your area.
Glad to hear Mike did such a great job. I have a tapes of the conference I plan to listen to this weekend! Any others you suggest?
S.
:::posted by Shelly on 10/11/2002 01:23:36 PM
Lance, thank you for praying. I know that God is listening to our fear and that he is holding our children in his hands. The shooting happened 4 blocks from my house and right next door to the Bowie church of Christ. We feel vulnerable and tense. Our children are afraid and our schools are in lock down mode. Our children have not been able to go outside for recess all week and the weather has been beautiful. I am afraid to go for my regular walk. I feel exposed even in my own home. Pray for peace of mind and that they find out who is doing this and catch them. It is comforting to know that others are praying. I feel covered with prayer. That is a good feeling.
Mike, awesome job at the Zoe conference! You are my hero! I will share more about all that later. So many moments when I felt God's presence. And no, Mike, you are not a weanie.
In the midst of all of this...my father-in-law passed away on Monday afternoon. We are sad but know that he is singing with the angels. Can't wait to join him! His funeral is Friday. We will celebrate his life.
I thank God for this family of believers who are being honest with each other and delving into the deep together. Thanks for being there all of you out there. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 10/09/2002 09:21:28 PM
Ann and Julie,
Our church prayed for you and your community (Bowie, Maryland) tonight. Just wanted you to know.
:::posted by Lance on 10/09/2002 08:35:34 PM
I've been reading Douglas John Hall's brilliant call to "contextual theology" for postmodern North American Christians ("Thinking the Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Hall forces me to think outside the Church of Christ box for "scriptural" vs. "worldly" ways of coming to a theologically sound position on any number of life's persistent questions.
The Bible, he says, is "God's story of the world." (Scripture gives us a "God's-eye view" of the created/fallen order, a C of C professor used to say to me.) My context is my specific place and time, a snapshot of human history, a chapter in "humanity's ever-changing account of itself and all things." "Theology," says Hall, "lives BETWEEN the stories...Theology is what happens when the two stories meet." Theology, in other words, is "scriptural" AND "worldly," both.
So, David, I love your account of this part of your faith journey because, that afternoon in the car, you engaged in some serious theology. You dared to let the world of the Bible intersect with your world and came to a faithful decision that could only be reached from that place. No apologies required for that, my friend and brother.
peace -- Katie
:::posted by Katie on 10/09/2002 01:54:37 PM
Indie, your invitation was a good one. I haven't ignored it. Since your post, I have only been writing and re-writing in response.
Mine is not a story of one taking initiative to promote gender justice. Mine is more a story of one being in the right place at the right time and finally deciding to fall in step. This is not an inspiring story, but it is mine nonetheless. Some readers may find this story to be disappointing, perhaps even unfair, but I have no apologies to make.
In January 1984, Maureen, my then bride-to-be, introduced me to the West Islip Church of Christ where, for the first time, I witnessed egalitarian participation in worship. It was strangely new, but beautiful. It has been my privilege to work and worship with the church at West Islip for the last 9.5 years. It has also been my privilege to hear the preaching of both Lance Pape and Katie Hays on alternate Sundays for the last 3.5 years. So I realize that I write this from a decided advantage.
I don't recall gender justice being discussed openly in other churches in which I've worshiped. Like most on this forum, Maueen and I know many good folks in those churches who are in favor of gender justice, and we too have good friends who have left the church over the issue. Since 1979, when I first worshiped with a Church of Christ while a student at Pepperdine, I confess that I have preferred to straddle the fence. I have been content with merely becoming familiar with the various questions and positions.
That all changed one day in late August 1999, the day I finally "got it." Five months after Katie and Lance had been hired to serve as co-ministers at West Islip, Katie and I took a road trip. As the day approached, I was alternately excited and nervous. Excited because we had some common interests to explore. Nervous because surely at some point we would have our first in-depth discussion about gender justice in the church. Nervous because we would be on the road together for at least six hours. We drove from Long Island to upstate Pawling, NY where we met the staff of Camp Viva, a camp serving families with children infected by HIV/AIDS, and we helped them pack up after their long summer's work.
On the way there Katie and I talked about my chosen profession--social work--about vulnerable and marginalized populations. On the way home, sweaty and sipping on Coca-Cola, we talked about church and ministry--and about women in ministry. I took my leap off the fence. I told Katie that when she and Lance first came to West Islip, "I was not ready for you." Katie simply said, "I know," graciously catching my fall. On one hand, I felt trapped, because the time had come to commit. On the other hand, I felt relieved, because it finally made sense.
I could no longer talk about the cherished, historic ideals of my profession--of working to empower the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed--while at the same time tolerating the subordination of women in the church. A worldly argument, one might say. As for a scriptural argument, I could no longer overlook the example of Jesus in favor of the supposed restrictions of Paul. Subordination of one population by another in the church finally seemed to be inconsistent with the mutual submssion exemplified in the ministry of Jesus.
So, worshiping at West Islip, hearing Katie's preaching, and taking a road trip with a friend--unfair advantages to be sure. That is my story nonetheless. I trust that readers take no offense, for none is intended.
David Fritz
Amityville, NY
:::posted by Fritz on 10/09/2002 06:57:06 AM
Indie,
Since you asked, and since no one else has jumped in, I'll go first and try to summarize my journey. For some reason the edit window for the forum is only showing me part of one line at a time today, so this is tricky...
I grew up a Church of Christ preacher's kid. My Dad certainly didn't accept the concept of gender equality, but taught me to search the scriptures myself, instead of relying only on received tradition in the church. He also could read Greek, and because of that rejected some of the teachings that were based more on the KJV than on Paul. For instance, he believed that women could and should be appointed as deacons, at a time when that was not a popular view. I believe he was partly constrained in expressing those views by the financial leash.
I also spent two of my teenage years on the mission field, in Africa. Nothing like a dramatically different culture to open one's eyes to how much of what we accept as "normal" and "proper" is simply social convention.
I remember the first time I heard a female lead a public prayer. It was before a High School basketball game, I believe. I was surprised, and wasn't sure if I should listen or not. Of course, now, I'd be surprised to hear anyone, male or female, lead a prayer before a high school event.
Four years at Harding sowed seeds of thought on a wide variety of "issues," as I was exposed to people with much more widely varying viewpoints on issues such as instrumental music, church organization, and scriptural interpretation than I ever had before. Then moving from the South to the Northeast exposed me to a lot more. But it was in California that I really was struck by the seeming dichotomy between doxis and praxis in churches of Christ. We taught that women were to be silent, per literal extraction of 1 Cor. 14, but then made all sorts of exceptions to the absolute rule to suit our convenience. It struck me that what was/is going on is nothing other than the scholasticism that we are so fond of condemning other denominations for. We do what feels comfortable, and find the scriptures to back it up.
It was this that lead me to Rowland's "I Permit not a Woman to Remain Shackled." While the book is not the most scholarly treatment, I think that chapter two, which is simply a set of questions that expose how deep-seated is our hypocrisy in this matter, is the best part of the book. I have subsequently devoured the books I could find, including Osborne's, and scoured the Net looking for more. That's how I found this site. And always going back to scripture, per my heritage, I constantly find my eyes opened by the Spirit.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 10/07/2002 02:26:08 PM
Hi Wiley. We're just trying to be good listeners. :-)
:::posted by Vicki on 10/07/2002 11:07:53 AM
Sure has been quiet for the last several days! Guess everyone went somewhere over the last several days.
Julie,
how was the ZOE Conference? My wife and I visited at the Highland early service yesterday (we were out in Abilene helping our twin daughters find a new apartment) and Mike was still wired up from the conference! I would just hazzard a guess that it really turned out great!
Mike,
I encourage you! (thump on the shoulder)! (sorry gals-- it's a guy thing :>) )
You would have had to be at the early service to appreciate the above! A really great lesson from a very wired up preacher!!!!!
:::posted by Wiley on 10/07/2002 09:50:28 AM
I like Patty's take on the Bruegemann quotation. But I want to encourage her when she says, "Lately I have been feeling like my pushing for gender justice will hinder the process and have backed off. I realize that my being silent gives permission for those who oppose it to continue to do so."
Patty, I understand how discouraging it is when folks don't want to hear the message. This semester I have been focusing on Matthew 10 as a test passage to teach my students exegetical method, and I think Jesus' instructions to the missionaries might be applicable here: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town...When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:14, 23, NRSV). Maybe what Jesus said to the twelve disciples can be useful for us, too. You should not torment yourself saying the same things over and over to people who can't or won't hear you. But keep talking and talking until you find receptive ears. Maybe someone else will be able to reach those people that you can't reach, but there is someone out there who will respond to you in particular. Find that person. Then find another. You won't finish before the Son of Man comes.
As for Indie's professor friends who are afraid to speak up because of their jobs, I used to be sorry that I didn't have a job in a Church of Christ school, where I could have a more direct impact on future preachers and teachers. But maybe I too would have been muffled. As it is, my Methodist and Baptist and Lutheran and other students are receptive to gender issues and eager to help me work through the questions. So I speak to those who will listen, and I enjoy the greater freedom (and responsibility) I have to talk about such matters with them and with all of you.
Brotherly,
Christopher Hutson
Salisbury, NC
:::posted by Christopher on 10/04/2002 05:47:09 PM
I just re-read my post and realize that it may be confusing. I don't think that those who speak well are always speaking with empty words. I just worry about the criteria that we use to judge who should be allowed to speak in our assembly. I have heard the argument that women aren't trained to speak and therfore shouldn't be allowed to since they will make our worship service look less polished and may turn people off. I don't agree with that sentement. I do think that those who serve publicly should strive to communicate in such a way that people can understand what they mean as well as what they say. I just don't think the criteria often used for choosing those who serve publicly is appropriate.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 10/04/2002 01:57:47 PM
Patty - Some of the most touching prayers I have ever heard came from those (OK, they were men) less educated, and were just opening their hearts up to God. One man, having given his life to Christ in his 70's, would start with, "Mornin' Lord. It's just me, Bob…" I heard one of the elders make the statement that he wanted to "teach these men how to pray properly." Before we left, I told Bob not to let anyone mess with his prayers, that God loves them just the way they are. He is now home with His Lord.
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/04/2002 12:29:32 PM
While I think Christopher is right about what should happen, this is often not what does happen. I know several college professors and ministers who don't speak up. At least one of them admited that the silence was to keep from losing a job. It is less likely that the folks who are not being hurt by the oppresion of women will speak up if it means taking a risk. I appreciate the men who are speaking up. I'm interested in knowing how the men who comment in this forum came to the conclusion that women should be equal in the church and what makes them care enough about it to do something.
:::posted by Indie on 10/03/2002 05:55:42 PM
Christopher I think you are so right. I am glad that Indie did put that quote though. Lately I have been feeling like my pushing for gender justice will hinder the process and have backed off. I realize that my being silent gives permission for those who oppose it to continue to do so. It also reminded me of how much we do not listen to the cries of the oppressed. We hear them crying and help them but do we listen to them for new truths? Or do we assume we are the ones with the truth that we will share with the poor and the weak and the powerless.
It frustrates me to see worship services that are too perfect. That means that we are only hearing from those who speak well. In my experience not everyone who speaks well has something to say and not everyone who has something to say speaks well. We honor those who speak well and have empty words and dishonor those whose speach is rough and unpolished but have seen a truth the rest of us missed. I want to worship in a church where the person preaching uses bad english. Where the scripture reader stutters and where the song leader sings off key. Not that I enjoy listening to these things but because that means that everyones voice is welcome to be heard and opportunities are given to all for public service, not just to the polished few.
Patty Lacoss-Arnold
St. Louis, MO
:::posted by Patty on 10/03/2002 05:19:52 PM
Just wanted to "Amen" Christopher's post. Reminds me of the story of Balaam's donkey and Rich Mullins' old song "Who God is Gonna Use": "You never know who God is gonna use, a princess or a baby, maybe even you and me". Just maybe.
Chad
Brookline, MA
:::posted by Chad on 10/03/2002 05:17:09 PM
In response to Indie's quotation of Bruegemann to the effect that "New truth from God is likely to come as a cry and a protest of the weak, the powerless, the disinherited ones....," I would like to say that I appreciated this call to hear new truth in the cries of the oppressed.
But I would not say that any issue can or should or must only be raised primarily or only by the oppressed, nor primarily or only by the powerful. I think I would prefer to say that change is more likely to come when everyone who sees the need for change calls out for change. Some people out there will not hear this voice or that voice, but yours may be the voice they are able to hear, whether you happen to be male or female, a butcher a baker or a candlestick maker.
If we say that change can or should be initiated by this or that segment, then we run two risks. One risk is that some folks who see a need for change might be silent because they are waiting for the designated pressure group to take the lead. So, for example, I as a white, male seminary professor should encourage women to speak up but I should not sit on my hands and wait for them to speak first. Nor should a woman bite her tongue off waiting for her preacher to get it. If I see a thing to be true, I should say so, whoever I am. The second risk is that those who oppose change may identify the call for change with a small segment of the population and dismiss it as the whines of a cranky few. But a call that comes from many directions will be more difficult to dismiss.
So, yes, Bruegemann is right that God may speak through the mouths of the oppressed. God has many mouths, and some of them have large megaphones.
Let's all speak up, so that in twenty years Indie's baby will wonder what all the fuss was about back at the turn of the century.
Grace be with you all,
Christopher Hutson
Salisbury, NC
:::posted by Christopher on 10/03/2002 03:20:40 PM
Ah, Indie! You'll wear a different pair of lenses through which to view the world from now on. Your heart will break with a love you never imagined!! How sweet is this new love!
The quote is powerful. Thank you. (I copied it in long-hand. My 'puter is about to undergo major surgery. Naturally, while trying back up and print out VIS - very important stuff - the printer is out of ink.)
God's best for all 3 of you!!
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 10/02/2002 10:22:26 PM
Indie,
Congratulations! You've now lost some of your identity to your child - you will be mom forever. But you will always be Indie too. It will take a few years for everyone to remember that though. Motherhood is a wonderful adventure. Your child will be blessed by your strong spirit.
The quote you posted came at the perfect time for me to hear. Thank you! We walk such a line as we cry out for justice. If I complain to loudly, I'm pegged as irrational, in a rage, or exasperating. If I don't complain, then I am relegated to the other room, to silence. Why does my desire to raise my voice to God worry people so?
Thanks for reminding me that I have a purpose.
Love,
Ann
:::posted by Ann on 10/02/2002 06:59:31 PM
While I'm here, I might as well announce the big news. My husband and I are expecting our first child in early April. And a question for those who are older and presumably wiser. Why do men (grown men, men old enough to be my father) call me mom now?
:::posted by Indie on 10/02/2002 03:34:44 PM
I'm just taking a short break from writing a paper for my Educational Ministry of the Church class and I thought I would share a quote from one of my textbooks for the course. It relates to conversations we've had earlier about whether the men in the church have to initiate change since they are in the power posistions or if women have to push for change because they are the ones who care enough to do it. The following quote is from Walter Brueggemann's The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. "New truth from God is likely to come as a cry and a protest of the weak, the powerless, the disinherited ones. In the Old Testament, the new truth comes from among and on behalf of the widows and orphans, the ones trampled by conventional 'justice.' In our own time, it is the economically disinherited, the politically powerless, the ecclesiologically excluded who cry a new truth from God. To take a case in point, from where is to come the claim for the ordination of women in the church? It is a cry which has to come from those who most feel the pain of exclusion. It is less likely, much less likely, to come from a male bishop (or seminary teacher) already safely ensconced as interpreter of the old revelation, the old truth. That is, new revelation must break through out of pain, exasperation, rage, incredulity, and irrationality because the cry or the surprise means to break the rationality and shatter the universe of discourse that legitimizes the present order."
:::posted by Indie on 10/02/2002 03:31:22 PM
Julie - Thanks for all the info. I checked out the web site, too. You're right - I would love it! Maybe next year…
:::posted by Vicki on 10/01/2002 02:46:03 PM
Vicki, you need to know about the Zoe conference. They are wonderful. I think this year will be my 5th year to attend. It is a conference that focuses solely on worship. There are breakout sessions but the best parts are the incredible worship sessions. You are able to use all your senses and experience worship in a ways that we had never thought. There are two parts to the conference. There is the leaders' conference where Mike Cope will be speaking about the role of women this year. Can't wait! Then there is the worship portion of the conference and everything is geared to worship. It is always held the first weekend of October and held at the Woodmont Hills church building. It is sponsored by the Zoe group who is a group committed to renewal in worship. You would love it. We leave Thursday morning and come home Sunday night. If you can't come, I know that we will tell you all about it. If you want to check it out more...go to the wineskins site and then to the Look to the Hills conference or Zoe group. grace, Julie
Hope I answered your questions!
:::posted by julie on 10/01/2002 11:14:31 AM
OK. Now I'm really feeling like I |
