"A Modest Proposal" at Christianity Today.
A couple of thoughts from the article...
egalitarians and complementarians can work together to oppose abortion on demand, an issue on which egalitarians stand together with complementarians against mainstream feminism
I don't know what rock he's been under...It took me about a minute to find the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice".
- United Methodist Church (UMC website officially lists RCRC as an abortion resource.)
- The Episcopal Church ("General Convention resolutions have expressed unequivocal opposition to any legislation abridging a woman’s right to make an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy)
- Presbyterian Church (USA) (also lists RCRC as a ministry resource)
- United Church of Christ (A founding member of RCRC)
What do these churches also have in common? They are also egalitarian.
There are no complementarian denominations that show up on the members list of the RCRC.
So the author of the article should have said "complementarians and some some/many egalitarians..."
And
...egalitarians and complementarians can agree that homosexual activity is not a God-ordained lifestyle that should be approved within the Christian community...
Again, the word "some" (some/many) should appear before "egalitarian"...
which brings me to the next link:
~~~
~~~
"O god of our many understandings..."
Opening inaugural prayer by (gay)(egalitarian)(bishop of the Episcopal Church) Gene Robinson.
Somehow I doubt that Robinson would like to unite with complementarians in defense of life and traditional marriage
~~~
~~~
Underwater: possible "stonehenge" in Michigan?
~~~
~~~
From Huffington Post: Was "Jack the Ripper a Woman?"
~~~
~~~
The desecration of the American Flag
(HT: Michele Malkin)
~~~
~~~
tiro
So, is the point of this to try to claim that Christians who believe in equality and mutuality are abortionists, homosexuals, and against the government, and any deviation from your premise is an exception?
MzEllen
Post authorummm...no. The point is that the reporter could have been a little more accurate...
tiro
That is not what I am sensing. I am hearing that you enjoy hurting and offending people wrongly with your words. Your implications are loud and clear, and yes, quite offensive.
MzEllen
Post authorSo you're saying that when I said that he should have added the word "some" (and even bolded "some", what I actually meant was "all", even though that was not the word that I used.
Given the fact that my sister-in-law is an elder and my brother-in-law is a pastor in different, yet egalitarian churches (and have said so on this blog), if I had meant "all", I would have said "all", not "some".
I believe that the author of the article did not fully research the spectrum of egalitarian denominations, as I have also indicated that I also do not believe that egalitarian denominations are any more monolithic than complementarian denominations.
That is why I listed the denominations that support abortion rights.
MzEllen
Post authorLet me ask...where do you think Gene Robinson stands on abortion rights and do you think you could support his stand on the issue? How about "traditional marriage"?
MzEllen
Post authorAlso...for whatever it's worth...I am attending an egalitarian church with a husband and wife "co-pastor" team.
Don Johnson
The question is WHY do some denoms support abortion or gay marriage/clergy and why are they egal? It is possible to be egal for non-Biblical reasons.
MzEllen
Post authorLiberalism. (for those denominations that support abortion, gay marriage/clergy AND egalitarianism.)
The denominations that my relatives are in, it's either that they believe egalitarianism is correct (and the other two are not) or it's just easier to be egalitarian than not.
MzEllen
Post author(I specifically used "liberalism" in the context of politicaldictionary.com: In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.
tiro
"So you’re saying that when I said that he should have added the word “some” (and even bolded “some”, what I actually meant was “all”, even though that was not the word that I used."
No, what it sounded like to me was that your "some" meant "a few".
Calling Christian egals, pro abortion, pro-gay, and now adding possibly pro-gay marriage, liberal, and so on, is just mean spirited and hateful in my understanding.
MzEllen
Post authorTiro, I meant "some". Words mean things. I meant what I said.
If you choose to call me a liar, fine.
MzEllen
Post authorSeriously. In the past (although not recently) I've posted stuff just to be dramatic or to stir up crap.
on this one, my conscience is clear...I meant what I said.
tiro
Think about it, MzEllen. Your answer to Don was, 'liberalism'. You just indirectly called all Christian egals, liberal. And you say your conscience is clear. Maybe your conscience cannot feel for others. I imagine you’re a pretty tough woman. Anyone called you the names you have implied, inferred and appointed to egals in this post alone, you’d have them for breakfast AND lunch. But when you say it to others, it doesn’t bother you.
MzEllen
Post authorTiro, you may have missed that I directly defined (in the next comment) the context of the definition of "liberalism" and in the comment directly stated that "liberalism" was the reason in the denominations that embrace abortion rights, gay marriage/clergy AND egalitarianism.
And further explained that the denominations that my relatives are in simply believe that egalitarianism is right, and the other two things are not right (and in fact, the denomination that I currently attend falls into this category - as well as the denomination I left).
MzEllen
Post authorI will change the post to "some/many". Will that solve the problem?
tiro
"“liberalism” was the reason in the denominations that embrace abortion rights, gay marriage/clergy AND egalitarianism."
Liberalism is not why Christians who believe in Biblical equality and mutuality do so.
Liberalism may be why some believe abortion on demand acceptable, or homosexuality acceptable, or practicing gay clergy acceptable, but that has next to NOTHING to do with those who believe in Biblical equality and mutuality. And your insistence on equating those things with Christian egals is HUGELY offensive and hurtful.
tiro
"I will change the post to “some/many”. Will that solve the problem?"
How about most. In fact, 'most all'.
I'm surprised. Thank you very much for actually trying to hear me.
:o)
MzEllen
Post authorTiro, to be honest, the consistent insistence that complementarians do not see women as "equal" is offensive to me. I simply accept it as "one of those things".
Liberalism is not why Christians who believe in Biblical equality and mutuality do so.
Liberalism is the reason that the denominations that embrace all three (which was my wording) embrace all three.
How about most. In fact, ‘most all’.
Even my denomination is getting "squishy" on homosexuality. In Canada, they took 5 years to decide that a gay pastor should either be removed, or the congregation should be asked to leave the denomination.
"most all? I'd need the statistics.
I do know that the majority of the first churches to ordain woman also now struggle with (or just accept) the homosexual issue.
That does not mean that all egalitarians are pro-gay marriage/clergy and I never said that they were.
It does mean that I cannot accept or add "most all". "Many" is fully accurate.
Question: If I need to be so precise with the words that I use, why does the author of the article get a pass?
MzEllen
Post authorBTW - you're welcome. I truly didn't mean to offends, only offer up the possibility that egalitarian denominations are not monolithic. To imply that they are and that all egalitarians are also anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage makes as much sense as it does to imply that all complementarians believe that women should not be educated.
tiro
” I do know that the majority of the first churches to ordain woman also now struggle with (or just accept) the homosexual issue.”
Ordaining isn’t the whole picture. Odination didn’t start until maybe the sixth century or so, when Catholicism was organized. Before that there were women serving in all the ministries. The “first” women in the last few hundred years to be ‘ordained’ in America was in the Amish, Quaker, Nazerene and similar churches. And none of those denominations are liberal.
” Question: If I need to be so precise with the words that I use, why does the author of the article get a pass?”
Your words were offensive and divisive. The author was seeking to bring unity. And really, “most all” is most accurate. How many pastors are there in the whole of Christian Churches? How many of those several hundred thousand support gay clergy, or homosexuality, abortion, or gay marriage? I’d be surprised if it were 1%
MzEllen
Post authorI agree, ordination is not the full picture of women in ministry - in fact, it is egalitarians that most often insist that if women are not in church leadership over men, then they are "silenced".
Most complementarians accept women in ministry (except for leadership positions over men).
"divisive"...that is in the eyes of the beholder. I would make the point that when egalitarians claim that complementarians are making a "new Talmud" - that would be divisive. Can I assume that you will speak out against that sort of divisiveness?
I'm sure that I can. Thank you.
MzEllen
Post authorHow many of those several hundred thousand support gay clergy, or homosexuality, abortion, or gay marriage?
Ask Gene Robinson.
tiro
"it is egalitarians that most often insist that if women are not in church leadership over men, then they are “silenced”."
Another fallacy. What Christians who believe in Biblical equality say is that if a woman believes she is called to any ministry she should be encouraged to pursue what she believes God is calling her to. It's not about being in leadership or over men. It's about allowing God to use whomsoever He wills. Femininity is not so defective that even God cannot use women. God is stronger than our weaknesses.
I'm not familiar with Gene Robinson
MzEllen
Post authorThere's a major egalitarian resource "Silenced or Set Free".
I’m not familiar with Gene Robinson
Then you should have checked the next link.
Robinson is the gay, egalitarian, Episcopal bishop who will be giving the "non-Christian" prayer to the "god of our many understandings" at the inauguration tomorrow (see the link directly below the one you jumped on.)
How many pastors are there in the whole of Christian Churches? How many of those several hundred thousand support gay clergy, or homosexuality, abortion, or gay marriage? I’d be surprised if it were 1%
Ah...a logical fallacy? I was not writing of "the whole" of Christian churches. I was writing of egalitarian churches. What is the percentage of church that ordain women that also have the gay and/or abortion question on the table?
MzEllen
Post authorFemininity is not so defective that even God cannot use women.
Speaking of logical fallacies...it is not about defects...it is about what complementarians believe is the Scriptural model of who is to be in leadership.
It "feels" to me that the claim that complementarians believe that femininity is "defective" is quite divisive.
Pingback:
Michelle Malkin » The official Flag of the Obama States of America