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.

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?

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

Ask Gene Robinson.

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.

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%

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?

How about most. In fact, ‘most all’.

I’m surprised. Thank you very much for actually trying to hear me.

)

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.

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).

on this one, my conscience is clear…I meant what I said.

If you choose to call me a liar, fine.

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.

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.