 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
 WIML and the slipperly slope to acceptance of homosexuality |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 10:02 am |
|
Honestly, the subject line may appear kind of crazy, but I need to resolve something in my crazy mind.
First of all, I don't think slippery slopes makes good logic, or at least not normally. There are usually some natural stops in slipperly slopes. (For example, some people say that gay marriage leads us on a slippery slope to polygamy and bestiality. Of course this is nonesense, as there are some very clear distinctions between the polygamy debate that don't relate to the gay marriage debate.) In this case, there appears to be a lot of commanalities between the debate of WIML and the homosexuality debate. It seems to me that in my more progressive mind, I desire to accept both as acceptable to God. In my more traditional mindset, I reject both. I can't seem to accept one, and reject the other, if I'm being intellectually honest. (Okay, I can, but the underlying issues seem very similar).
My concern regarding WIML has to do with blurring the line between gender distinctiveness, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm on the fence on the issue. The egalitarian position seems to accept that men and women are physically different, but are spiritually indifferent. The complimentarian position would suggest certain characteristics of godly men and godly women are at times different, while upholding that men and women are equal before God.
Supposing that men and women are the same, and the gender lines are blurred, would this not also make homosexuality verses heterosexuality also blurred? One argument against homosexuality, is that a child needs both a mother and a father. But, if the gender lines are blurred, then this argument falls apart, because two mothers or two fathers can do the job of a mother and a father to the same satisfaction (generally speaking).
Homosexuality is considered abominable in the OT. So is cross dressing. But why is cross-dressing wrong? Is it because it is "gay"? Is it because it blurs gender distinctions? For whatever reason, it seems to be going against the natural order of things; the way God intended things to be. God considers both an abomination. (I'm not saying that women shouldn't wear pants, but in that culture, it indicates a man showing off his femininity).
Also, there are many prohbitions in the NT and OT regarding both homosexuality, and women in senior leadership. Both topics give exegetical explanations as to why the Scriptures don't actually say what they appear to say (in regards to the NT), or why the OT laws don't apply anymore.
Anyway, in my mind the tied-nature of these two discussions is more clear than what I could verbalize, but I hope my thoughts are interpreted with more clarity than they appear.
To put it quick, acceptance of either homosexuality, or women in leadership, both tend to blur gender distinctiveness, so, in my mind, it seems more reasonable to accept both or reject both than to accept one and reject the other.
Also, my feeling is that the MB conference will accept homosexuality in the next 10-20 years. In my mind, it seems to logically follow the WIML debate. I may be wrong. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| cross-dressing |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 11:56 am |
|
Todd asked:
| Quote: | But why is cross-dressing wrong? Is it because it is "gay"? Is it because it blurs gender distinctions? For whatever reason, it seems to be going against the natural order of things; the way God intended things to be. God considers both an abomination. (I'm not saying that women shouldn't wear pants, but in that culture, it indicates a man showing off his femininity).
|
Did men wear 'pants' back then? It would be odd to see a man in a skirt today ...
Unless you are wearing a kilt ... (a skirt according to what I see, but quite different I am told) ...
In class when we have the discussion about 'gender and dress', we usually look around to see if the opposite sex is wearing something we would feel comfortable wearing - or is in fact wearing something we ARE wearing at that time ...
It happens frequently that both sexes are wearing tennis shoes, jeans and t-shirts ... but that kind of 'cross-dressing' won't give a man the ability to conceive or birth a child, nor give a woman the public acceptance of 'being a man' ... 
A "man will be a man" and a "woman will be a woman" in at least some general sense, though not for all particular cases ... infertility is an issue for both men and women ... And this provides a complicated and sensitive twist to this 'universal' identity we ascribe to the role of sex.
Some things don't change no matter how hard we will try ... Women will continue to be the ones who give birth (and this is a privilege even though it is a painful reality) ... and most men I know are happy to observe sympathically while their wives carry and deliver their children ... 
Gender is defined by socially changable roles ... i.e. a man can choose to stay home to care for his children, as can a woman, or both can work and have a surrogate caretaker come in ... A woman can choose to marry or remain single in today's culture ... A man likewise ... without shame or discomfort other than lots of questions about why they aren't married ...
Now, it seems that men can enjoy men sexually, and women are able to enjoy women in that way ... but that does not make it morally right ... it is possible, however ... and therefore it becomes linked with 'gender' and 'sexuality' rather than 'sex' ...
Changing our 'sex' identity is much more complex and difficult ... than changing our gender identity ... and I doubt that sex changes can help the 'man' who becomes a 'woman' to conceive a child, or help a 'woman' who becomes a 'man' produce sperm ... This may be one thing for which the MB conference cannot pass a resolution for change ... 
Sorry if this is uncomfortable talk, but since I teach a course related to gender and sexuality it is important to note the distinctions as we converse ...  |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| two different matters |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 12:15 pm |
|
Todd, I question whether you have inflated two very different questions about gender roles in your prediction ...
| Quote: | | my feeling is that the MB conference will accept homosexuality in the next 10-20 years. In my mind, it seems to logically follow the WIML debate. I may be wrong. |
Admittedly both are gender related ... but there are key differences as well:
Homosexual practice must be separated from 'homosexuality' - Most people who know someone who has a self-defined homosexual identity acknowledge that homsexuality exists as a unique identity ... But this identity is expressed sexually by some, but not all ... Some will choose celibacy ...
Do you think the MBs will accept "celibate" homosexuality, or active, practicing homosexuality?
Do you think that the act of passing a resolution that a woman may be asked by a congregation to lead them is similar to passing a resolution that a woman may have sex with another woman?
I am not so sure that is what I interpret the resolution on Women in Leadership to mean?
You will have to make that clearer to me ...  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: two different matters |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 12:28 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | Todd, I question whether you have inflated two very different questions about gender roles in your prediction ...
| Quote: | | my feeling is that the MB conference will accept homosexuality in the next 10-20 years. In my mind, it seems to logically follow the WIML debate. I may be wrong. |
Admittedly both are gender related ... but there are key differences as well:
Homosexual practice must be separated from 'homosexuality' - Most people who know someone who has a self-defined homosexual identity acknowledge that homsexuality exists as a unique identity ... But this identity is expressed sexually by some, but not all ... Some will choose celibacy ...
Do you think the MBs will accept "celibate" homosexuality, or active, practicing homosexuality?
Do you think that the act of passing a resolution that a woman may be asked by a congregation to lead them is similar to passing a resolution that a woman may have sex with another woman?
I am not so sure that is what I interpret the resolution on Women in Leadership to mean?
You will have to make that clearer to me ... |
I did intend to be clear that I was talking about homosexual practice when I used the term "homosexuality." MBs already accept celibate homosexuals, as do I, as does everyone I know, hence why I didn't see the need to distinguish the two.
Anyway, I'm really not talking specifically about the WIML issue. I'm in favor of the resolution for ecumenical reasons. I'm comparing the more general issue of gender roles (which relates to WIML) with homosexual relationships. In retrospect, the thread title may be misleading. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: cross-dressing |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 12:34 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | Todd asked:
| Quote: | But why is cross-dressing wrong? Is it because it is "gay"? Is it because it blurs gender distinctions? For whatever reason, it seems to be going against the natural order of things; the way God intended things to be. God considers both an abomination. (I'm not saying that women shouldn't wear pants, but in that culture, it indicates a man showing off his femininity).
|
Did men wear 'pants' back then? It would be odd to see a man in a skirt today ...
Unless you are wearing a kilt ... (a skirt according to what I see, but quite different I am told) ... |
You're probably right, but it doesn't affect my argument.
| Quote: | In class when we have the discussion about 'gender and dress', we usually look around to see if the opposite sex is wearing something we would feel comfortable wearing - or is in fact wearing something we ARE wearing at that time ...
It happens frequently that both sexes are wearing tennis shoes, jeans and t-shirts ... but that kind of 'cross-dressing' won't give a man the ability to conceive or birth a child, nor give a woman the public acceptance of 'being a man' ...
A "man will be a man" and a "woman will be a woman" in at least some general sense, though not for all particular cases ... infertility is an issue for both men and women ... And this provides a complicated and sensitive twist to this 'universal' identity we ascribe to the role of sex.
Some things don't change no matter how hard we will try ... Women will continue to be the ones who give birth (and this is a privilege even though it is a painful reality) ... and most men I know are happy to observe sympathically while their wives carry and deliver their children ...
Gender is defined by socially changable roles ... i.e. a man can choose to stay home to care for his children, as can a woman, or both can work and have a surrogate caretaker come in ... A woman can choose to marry or remain single in today's culture ... A man likewise ... without shame or discomfort other than lots of questions about why they aren't married ...
Now, it seems that men can enjoy men sexually, and women are able to enjoy women in that way ... but that does not make it morally right ... it is possible, however ... and therefore it becomes linked with 'gender' and 'sexuality' rather than 'sex' ...
Changing our 'sex' identity is much more complex and difficult ... than changing our gender identity ... and I doubt that sex changes can help the 'man' who becomes a 'woman' to conceive a child, or help a 'woman' who becomes a 'man' produce sperm ... This may be one thing for which the MB conference cannot pass a resolution for change ...
Sorry if this is uncomfortable talk, but since I teach a course related to gender and sexuality it is important to note the distinctions as we converse ... |
Quite alright. I don't think I have any obejctions to what you have written here. To clarify, I think cross-dressing would fit in your particular category, and the specifics of what men and women can or cannot where is not universal. But, I think there is something universal underlying in the issue, and it has to do with gender roles and identity. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| not so sure |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 12:36 pm |
|
| Quote: | I did intend to be clear that I was talking about homosexual practice when I used the term "homosexuality." MBs already accept celibate homosexuals, as do I, as does everyone I know, hence why I didn't see the need to distinguish the two.
|
I am not sure that all MB churches are comfortable with an open declaration of homosexual identity - even when celibacy is practiced ... I base this on some of the contact with students during the past years ... Many believe in sexual 'conversion' from homosexuality to heterosexuality as the viable Christian option ... This is naive but nevertheless something a number of MBs hold to at a lay level ...
Again I ask the question - though they both involve gender - how is same-sex activity similar to 'women leading a congregation'? I still think I'm missing something ... |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: not so sure |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 1:14 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | | Quote: | I did intend to be clear that I was talking about homosexual practice when I used the term "homosexuality." MBs already accept celibate homosexuals, as do I, as does everyone I know, hence why I didn't see the need to distinguish the two.
|
I am not sure that all MB churches are comfortable with an open declaration of homosexual identity - even when celibacy is practiced ... I base this on some of the contact with students during the past years ... Many believe in sexual 'conversion' from homosexuality to heterosexuality as the viable Christian option ... This is naive but nevertheless something a number of MBs hold to at a lay level ... |
I'm speaking from my own experience. I honestly don't know anyone who would not be satisified with celibacy of homosexuals. It is likely true that I haven't talked about the issue with as many people as you have. Even if it isn't yet the ideal, do some MBers really believe that they should convert their sexual identity before becoming a member of the church, being baptized, or even attending church? I'm just surprised, but I'm sure you are right.
| Quote: | | Again I ask the question - though they both involve gender - how is same-sex activity similar to 'women leading a congregation'? I still think I'm missing something ... |
When I'm talking about homosexuality, I don't just mean the sex part, but everything that would normally be involved in a homosexual relationship. Homosexual relationships are quite egalitarian (what other option is there?). Both issues involve gender identity. What makes a man a man, and a woman a woman? Are these lines blurred with homosexuality? I think they are. Gays tend to often be feminine, along with the physical attraction to guys, and lesbians tend to be more masculine, along with physical attraction to women.
Also, amongst non-homosexuals, some men are more feminine, and some women are more masculine than normal, and sometimes these tendencies may tempt them to go against Biblical norms for men and women gender roles.
Anyway, that's my attempt to clarify. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| some more thoughts |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 2:23 pm |
|
| Quote: | Even if it isn't yet the ideal, do some MBers really believe that they should convert their sexual identity before becoming a member of the church, being baptized, or even attending church? I'm just surprised, but I'm sure you are right.
|
I'm not sure I'm right or wrong in a general sense ... but I have talked to many students (not all MB) about this issue and they are so divided on the issue it is hard to tell where the majority of MBs would be on this issue ... I do know that it would be very difficult for one of our students to openly declare their homosexuality (even though celibate) without getting enormous backlash from other students ... So I am assuming that might also be a backlash against disclosure of homosexual identity in some churches. I really don't know.
Glad to hear you have experienced a different situation ...
You also noted:
| Quote: | What makes a man a man, and a woman a woman? Are these lines blurred with homosexuality? I think they are. Gays tend to often be feminine, along with the physical attraction to guys, and lesbians tend to be more masculine, along with physical attraction to women.
Also, amongst non-homosexuals, some men are more feminine, and some women are more masculine than normal, and sometimes these tendencies may tempt them to go against Biblical norms for men and women gender roles.
|
This is an interesting parallel you make - tendencies in 'more feminine males' and 'more masculine females' that tempt them to go against biblical norms ... Would these include 'women preaching' or 'men being under the leadership of a woman' in the WIML debate?
As I noted in other posts ... I teach men in my classes and I preach on occasion in various churches, upon invitation ... and yet I am preceived as quite a 'feminine' woman upon appearances, and many of my other roles ...
Like me give you an example ... During the last few months, I had my hair done professionally, I wore makeup, I tanned, I shopped and bought new clothes, I read 'ladies' magazines and books written 'just for women', I cooked, I cleaned, I played with my grandchildren, I listened to my daughters' and was concerned about their well-being, I have cried in public, had lunch and prayer groups with women friends, watched 'sentimental' movies and cried in private, was intimate with my husband, and generally worried about my weight and how I looked ...
It is not necessary to go into the direction of 'breaking biblical norms' based on maintaining 'gender roles' ... unless you make the assumption that most women leaders are more masculine than feminine and all homosexual males are more feminine than their heterosexual male counterparts and most heterosexual females are more feminine than homosexual females. I suspect you would have a hard time supporting that hypothesis empirically ...
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jun 28, 2006; 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: some more thoughts |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 2:49 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: |
| Quote: | What makes a man a man, and a woman a woman? Are these lines blurred with homosexuality? I think they are. Gays tend to often be feminine, along with the physical attraction to guys, and lesbians tend to be more masculine, along with physical attraction to women.
Also, amongst non-homosexuals, some men are more feminine, and some women are more masculine than normal, and sometimes these tendencies may tempt them to go against Biblical norms for men and women gender roles.
|
This is an interesting parallel you make - tendencies in 'more feminine males' and 'more masculine females' that tempt them to go against biblical norms ... Would these include 'women preaching' or 'men being under the leadership of a woman' in the WIML debate?
As I noted in other posts ... I teach men in my classes and I preach on occasion in various churches, upon invitation ... and yet I am preceived as quite a 'feminine' woman upon appearances, and many of my other roles ...
Like me give you an example ... During the last few months, I had my hair done professionally, I wore makeup, I tanned, I shopped and bought new clothes, I read 'ladies' magazines and books written 'just for women', I cooked, I cleaned, I played with my grandchildren, I listened to my daughters' and was concerned about their well-being, I have cried in public, had lunch and prayer groups with women friends, watched 'sentimental' movies and cried in private, was intimate with my husband, and generally worried about my weight and how I looked ...
Sounds pretty feminine to me ... and my husband is definitely 'masculine' ... and yet he could encourage me when I preached and cheer me on as no one else could ... because I know he loves me dearly, and lives with the 'real me' ... He knows my heart, body, and mind better than anyone else alive ... My husband supports me but he fulfills some pretty masculine roles ... He drives a truck and a tractor, he wears boots, jeans, t-shirts and baseball hats, goes bareback, is a building contractor and therefore tells other men what to do, when, all day long, plays with his grandchildren, gving them piggyback rides and taking them to the barn to see the latest in grandpa's stuff ... He's pretty much a 'guy's guy' who has gone golfing with his son-in-laws, and enjoyed the hockey finals ... |
I guess I didn't intend to question your femininity, but perhaps I may have indirectly because you are a Bible school teacher. I don't intend to personalize this discussion, and I would prefer to avoid that because this is a sensitive topic.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure we fit the 'stereotype' of a homosexual couple unless you understand homosexual relationships to be arranged similarly to heterosexual relationships. |
I wouldn't suggest that .
| Quote: | | While every homosexual couple is unique, there can be some commonalities as well .. There can be an arrangement where there is a 'feminine' and 'masculine' complementarity between partners, with one partner taking a specific role in the relationship ... |
That is true, but egalitarianism and complimentarianism are about idealogical gender roles. If you stretch the definition beyond ideal gender roles, then I agree with you.
| Quote: | | This issue can as easily be seen as a comparison between the morality of heterosexual and homosexual couples ... It is not necessary to go into the direction of 'breaking biblical norms' based on maintaining 'gender roles' ... unless you make the assumption that most women leaders are more masculine than feminine and all homosexual males are more feminine than their heterosexual male counterparts and most heterosexual females are more feminine than homosexual females. I suspect you would have a hard time supporting that hypothesis empirically ... |
That a person may have a Biblically feminine or masuculine characteristic, shouldn't be over-generalized as suggesting that a person is in general feminine or masculine. I sense you are characterizing my position with an over-generalization.
In addition, I'm measuring masculinity and feminity by Biblical criteria. I don't understand the relevance of empirical testing (however that would be carried out) as it pertains to these subjective criteria. I don't have to show that women who are in high ranking positions of authority tend to be masculine. If the Bible suggests that women aren't to be in those positions, then women who take such positions are taking on a gender role that is not their own. I'm not saying that women who preach don't like shopping.
(BTW, I sent you a PM on a different matter, that you may want to check out). |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| taking it personally |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 3:10 pm |
|
Hi Todd, No fear, I don't take it personally in any negative sense - True it is a sensitive subject, but I still 'hear' what is said ... even when I am not part of the conversation, so I prefer to enter in.
In a very real way, I am a 'personal' subjective example of the kind of woman who leads in ministry ... so I don't mind when this becomes 'personal'... I am well aware of the risks, and I am still willing to take them 
I did not think you were critiquing my feminity - Since you don't know me personally - I thought I would give you some idea about who a "woman ministry leader" can be ... outside of that role ... I was trying to highlight the problem with your homosexuality/WIML gender link ... 
I believe it when you say ...
| Quote: | | I guess I didn't intend to question your femininity, but perhaps I may have indirectly because you are a Bible school teacher. |
However, which WIML are you talking about then? I don't think that as a Bible School teacher I am much different from the woman pastors I know ...:) other than the natural kinds of difference that occur between individuals ... and they have a church to lead, and I help to teach the future leaders of the church
You said that
| Quote: | | I'm measuring masculinity and feminity by Biblical criteria. |
| Quote: | | If the Bible suggests that women aren't to be in those positions, then women who take such positions are taking on a gender role that is not their own. |
I am wondering - what is "biblical" masculinity and femininity?
Remembering that gender is 'assigned social roles' and sex is 'biological'/male/female ... is Paul talking about 'gender' or 'sex' in his letters?
Is he saying that no woman, because of her SEX, can do certain things ... Or is he setting moral prohibitions on women not doing certain things for GENDER reasons ... In other words, it is not feminine to perform that social role ...? Since gender roles change in cultures and history, if Paul is talking about gender, it should be no problem for us to make the shift to WIML ...
Do you think that God has prescribed some SOCIAL roles just for men and some just for women? What would these be? I remember when the discussion was about whether a woman could be a doctor, or whether that was the 'male' role and the 'female' role was being a nurse ...
Do you see the difference I am trying to get at here? 
I don't think you can collapse the WIML with the homosexuality issue based on 'biblical gender roles' ... but I am open to seeing any texts that indicate you can do so ... thanks ...  I am particularly interested in biblical texts that identify specific gender roles that are universal ... thanks ...
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jun 26, 2006; 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: taking it personally |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 3:23 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | Hi Todd, No fear, I don't take it personally in any negative sense - True it is a sensitive subject, but I still 'hear' what is said ... even when I am not part of the conversation, so I prefer to enter in.
In a very real way, I am a 'personal' subjective example of the kind of woman who leads in ministry ... so I don't mind when this becomes 'personal'... I am well aware of the risks otherwise I won't take them
I did not think you were critiquing my feminity - you don't know me personally - so I thought I would give you some idea about who a "woman ministry leader" can be ... outside of that role ...
| Quote: | | I guess I didn't intend to question your femininity, but perhaps I may have indirectly because you are a Bible school teacher. |
I don't think that as a Bible School teacher I am much different than the woman pastors I know ...:) other than the natural kinds of difference that occur between individuals ... |
In my mind there is a difference between a Bible School president and a Bible school teacher. The same with senior pastor vs associate pastor. I don't mind women teaching, but I'm not sure I can honestly understand Scripture to say that it is okay for women to be the highest ranking officials in our churches. Of course, I'm not trying to offend people becuase of how I interpret what the Scriptures say. It's not like I wrote them. And sometimes, I reluctantly agree with it, and I question hard what I think it is saying, kind of like what I'm doing here.
| Quote: | I am wondering - what is masculinity and femininity by biblical criteria? Remembering that gender is 'assigned social roles' and sex is 'biological'/male/female ... is Paul talking about 'gender' or 'sex' in his letters?
Is he saying no woman, because of her sex, can do certain things ... Or is he setting moral prohibitions on women not doing certain things for gender reasons ... In other words, it is not feminine to perform that social role ...? |
In my tentative view, it is assigned gender roles. What do you think?
| Quote: | | I don't think you can collapse the WIML with the homosexuality issue based on 'biblical gender roles' ... but I am open to seeing any texts that indicate you can do so ... thanks ... |
Is the WIML discussion about gender roles? Is the homosexuality discussion about gender roles? In my opinion, both issues, from a moral standpoint, relate to gender. If we were to base either based on sex, we wouldn't have a legitimate objection. I think you may be saying that WIML is about gender, and homosexuality is about sex (please clarify), but that doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| 'headship' |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 3:36 pm |
|
I think I now understand why you have no problem with my role as a woman Bible school professor ... thanks for clarifying ...
I am not offended by your ideas ... you are entitled to your opinion ...
Now what I am wondering ... What if the Board chairperson of our college was a woman - technically, she would be over the president in some way ... It is not unlikely for a woman to chair a board in today's culture ... so I could see that happening ...
For the idea of 'highest ranking officials in our churches' ... who is the senior pastor of the church accountable to? Does the "conference board" rank above individual pastors? I am not sure, that is why I am asking ... no non-cordiality intended
Perhaps the Board of Faith and Life is responsible for that accountability - If so, then if they put forward the recommendation for change, shouldn't we be responsive to or supportive of their leadership over us? Just wondering about this 'ranking' thing? I know there is a 'rank and file' ... and some find this support in scripture - though we don't have bishops anymore ... We used to though, in the Mennonite church ...
Don't worry ... I agree that scripture was written by others - all we are doing is interpreting it to the best of our abilities ...
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jun 26, 2006; 3:40 pm; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| Todd, |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 3:39 pm |
|
I will not be one to say you are being alarmist. The hermenutic used by those supporting the motion can be used to endorse homosexuality. Certainly the specific author (Webb) does not, but then his application of the method need not be taken as normative. The method can be used to support homosexuality by simply altering the filters that Webb suggests.
I do hope no one here is so naive to say "never, no way, not a chance." |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| egalitarian |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 3:52 pm |
|
Todd noted something interesting above ... | Quote: | | Homosexual relationships are quite egalitarian (what other option is there?). |
How so? The practices of egalitarianism values both sexes ... male and female - but does not see them as the 'same' without any differences? I would argue that some lesbian couples might not value men as much as women - at least that is often the accusation brought against them - that they are 'men-haters' ... ... (unless they define themselves as bisexual) ...
Complementarity can be practiced in a homosexual relationship as I mentioned - where one partner takes on the 'role' of the feminine and the other the 'role' of the masculine ...
I just want to separate the issues of WIML from the issue of homosexual marriage for clarity sake - I don't say support for the latter won't happen ... but it will not be because women are in leadership over men ... as least not as far as I can tell ... but I am not doing what Brent warned us about
| Quote: | | do hope no one here is so naive to say "never, no way, not a chance." |
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jun 28, 2006; 6:21 pm; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: 'headship' |
Posted Jun 26, 2006; 4:06 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | I think I now understand why you have no problem with my role as a woman Bible school professor ... thanks for clarifying ...
I am not offended by your ideas ... you are entitled to your opinion ...
Now what I am wondering ... What if the Board chairperson of our college was a woman - technically, she would be over the president in some way ... It is not unlikely for a woman to chair a board in today's culture ... so I could see that happening ...
For the idea of 'highest ranking officials in our churches' ... who is the senior pastor of the church accountable to? Does the "conference board" rank above individual pastors? I am not sure, that is why I am asking ... no non-cordiality intended
Perhaps the Board of Faith and Life is responsible for that accountability - If so, then if they put forward the recommendation for change, shouldn't we be responsive to or supportive of their leadership over us? Just wondering about this 'ranking' thing? I know there is a 'rank and file' ... and some find this support in scripture - though we don't have bishops anymore ... We used to though, in the Mennonite church ...
Don't worry ... I agree that scripture was written by others - all we are doing is interpreting it to the best of our abilities ... |
I think you have pointed out that the issue here is quite subjective. There are different levels of authority, and it's not easy to pick and choose a place where to draw the line. It's almost like drawing the line with how much is too much to drink, or how much social status is too much, or how much is too much to spend on a house, or a car, or on your golf clubs, or even if you should golf at all. Apprently the women referenced by Timothy had crossed the line, wherever that line is. |
|
|
|
|
|
