The CBE Scroll

Comment by Lin

October 26, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

We were just having this conversation over at equality central. Think of Lot and the men (both young and old!) surrounding his home demanding he send out the visiting “men” to have sex with them. In that Patriarchal culture! How can that be?

Lot offers his virgin daughters up but they wanted the men. There was certainly no problem with women teaching men in that culture!

We see homosexuality as a big part of patriarchal cultures throughout history and it was found to be rampant even in Afghanistan under the Taliban!

Comment by Sonnet

October 26, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

I’ve heard that A leads to D.
D-ivisiveness.

This pastor felt pressure from both sides. “Hard” complementarians who were pushing for even greater restrictions on women within the church and what he considered to be the other extreme(!) of egalitarians pushing for gender equality. In his estimation, the middle ground between these two was the most balanced and least divisive position. I don’t understand how equality can be seen as the other extreme. If women took over control and restricted men in the church and home, then THAT would be the opposite extreme. However, I don’t know of any egalitarians who are seeking for domination by women.

I’ve read that before slavery was abolished, abolitionists were considered divisive, too!

Comment by Amanda

October 26, 2009 @ 9:10 pm

I don’t have much more to add than yes, this slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy!) is all too common in evangelical circles. I put it in the same category as things like affixing “biblical” to “manhood/womanhood.” As evangelicals who have a high view of Scripture, this, whether deliberate or not, has the result of positioning complementarianism / patriarchy as the “correct,” biblical position (after all, we want to be biblical – a good thing!) and positioning egalitarianism as unbiblical.

I am someone who, even as a little girl growing up in a very conservative, hard complementarian/patriarchal home and churches, NEVER fit into the stereotypical mold of what “a woman should be.” I have NEVER liked makeup, shopping, wearing skirts (I was never allowed to wear pants until I was about 9 or 10, decades after it had become accepted for women to wear pants in public), flowers, romance novels, etc., and have always preferred playing sports, reading adventure and deep theological books, watching action and war films, etc. It was never out of a desire to be rebellious; it simply is the way God made me, and that is not a bad thing. I remember as a little kid hearing sermon after sermon about women submitting (nothing about men) and thinking that if that was what marriage was, then I never wanted a part of it. It was extremely frustrating for me growing up in that kind of environment and never fitting in. All that to say that yes, putting a strong emphasis on conforming to strict gender roles has the very opposite effect on those of us who, because of our God-given gifts and personalities, do not fit into those stereotypes. While I, by the grace of God, have never struggled with homosexual feelings, I can very easily see how someone who naturally does not fit the socially preferred gender stereotypes would be inclined that way.

Comment by Amanda B

October 27, 2009 @ 12:42 am

As an egalitarian myself, I recently began to understand where the complementarians were coming from on this. I stumbled across a secular feminist website, and did a little research on “feminism 101″. Personally, I have yet to find a secular feminist who has not been very adamantly for the LGBT agenda. For them, homosexuality, along with abortion, is a very logical extension of complete freedom (including sexual freedom) offered to women in a supposedly just society.

On the surface, feminism has some arguments that sound similar to Christian egalitarianism. However, it’s missing the very important anchor of the Word of God to keep it within the bounds of godliness and morality. Secular feminism is based in arguments about what is “fair” or “unfair”, rather than “what does the Bible actually say?” and “what does the Bible not actually say?”

That said, while I can see where the concern comes from, I still agree wholeheartedly that it is misguided to place women in the pulpit on the same level as homosexuals in the pulpit. No matter what your opinion on whether or not women should be there, it is absolutely a different magnitude of issue. And as a woman, it’s painful to hear that my belief in preaching to a mixed audience is on par with someone blatantly embracing sexual sin. Homosexuality is never cast in a positive light in the Bible, and is even called an outright abomination. Women ministering to mixed groups is never condemned as sin, and we even see instances of it happening (i.e. Priscilla). It is not at all the same issue biblically, and it is not scripturally painted as A leads to B.

I also agree with Amanda (comment 90101) that it’s disheartening to hear the debate framed in, “If you disagree with complementarianism, you disagree with the Bible”. When that card is pulled, real discussion becomes impossible, because the interpretation is being held up to have the same authority as the Word itself. Thus, although women in ministry is never called a sin in the Bible, it is treated as one by its opponents, and the people who hold to egalitarianism are by extension viewed as willing sinners themselves.

I have thought for a long time that the OVER-distinction of gender roles leads more people to homosexuality than the UNDER-distinction of them. I was so glad to see that mentioned in this article.

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

October 27, 2009 @ 10:12 am

Even allowing for the (fallacious) argument that one could use the same interpretive rubric that allows for women ministers to allow for homosexual activity, the sheer number of congregations that approve of women as ministers but NOT homosexual activity would seem to be a pretty strong argument against this “next thing you know” reasoning.

Comment by PSanafter-thought

October 27, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

Even though I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, I don’t believe that interpretation is “inspired.” (Though there certainly could be instances of reading the bible that are inspiring, leading to new insights.) Through the ages, there have been sincere believers who come to new interpretations when reading the Bible, which sometimes even lead to new doctrines that are contrary to other Christian doctrines formulated by other sincere believers.

We can see why certain Biblical scholars, usually male, usually with male teachers in their background, would key in on the male leaders in the Bible and key in on the admonitions regarding women, while ignoring the other verses about Biblical women of faith who were missionaries and preachers and teachers. Somehow we humans tend to key in on what we want to. There are also, obviously, males scoundrels in the Bible.

Jesus seems to have given respect to those members of society ignored or considered “lower” by society, including women. He doesn’t seem to have commented on homosexuality. But he certainly showed full respect for the women he encountered, so if we follow Him, that also should be our goal. Full respect would not include telling someone that they automatically can’t do something.

The homosexual references, direct and indirect, seem to be about forced sexuality, the “using” of other humans. We don’t know more than that, but the arguments about allowing homosexual pastors seems to be about a different kind of homosexual inclination and behavior. We would not want heterosexual pastors who demand and force sex on other people.

Comment by Wesley

October 27, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

1 Timothy 2:12-14
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in
…

So how do you argue with the previous bible verses? I go to a church that has female pastors but I do wrestle with these verses.

On homosexuality…… The bible is the word of God and it is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and if we can’t see that then we can question basically everything in the bible; the atonement and the exclusivity of the gospel. Homosexuality is obviously a sin not only in the bible but also how God created us.

Comment by molly

October 27, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

Here is where I am not so sure I agree that women and homosexuals are different….

A person doesn’t choose to be a woman. You are born that way.

Likewise, most homosexuals and lesbians are quite clear that they didn’t “choose” same-sex attraction, but it hit when puberty hit…and they hated it, and felt like they were all messed up and didn’t want it, and yet…there it was. Not a choice. A way they were wired, for lack of a better term.

Because of this, I think we need to do a better job of distinguishing homosexual orientation and homosexual sex. A person doesn’t choose to be oriented towards same-sex attraction. There is no sin in being oriented towards same-sex attraction. No one can help such a thing. For whatever reason, it happens. Whereas a person *does* choose to engage in sexual activity, godly or ungodly. That is where the sin is—when we engage in activities that are not appropriate for followers of Christ.

In this way, the bias against woman and the bias against homosexuals *is* similar: you are ‘lesser-than’s’ because of what you are.

The bias is not at all similar when approval of women is compared to approval of sexual *sin.*

Comment by TL

October 27, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

The verses used in 1 Tim. 2 and Ephe. 5 are most often taken out of context by the hierarchical thinking person. It’s easy to take a sentence here, a couple sentences there, thinking they show the whole thought and paste them together into a brand new thought. Scripture is not meant to be read the way so many do today.

The context of Ephesians 5 actually starts at least in verse one, using vs. 1&2 with 21 to form a sandwich of attitudes. Then verse 21 is a bridge carrying that sandwich over into interpersonal relationships starting with marriage. In the marriage relationship one must put together the wife viewing her husband (not the husband viewing himself) as her head and the husband viewing his wife as his body (and life) in order to get the picture Paul is painting. Yes, Paul very cleverly uses the local Roman household codes formulae as the shape in which he puts this effectively changing them into something else.

The submission all are to give one another in the body of Christ is one of arranging oneself under in order to honor, respect, and benefit the other. It is not one of responding to other’s authority as we so often view it today. Once you get that you can see the beauty of two becoming as one, not one losing their selves and wills in another’s self and will.

The context of 1 Tim. 2 is found in chapter one where there are men and women arguing and trying to be teachers of the law of which they do not themselves know. Some of the men are thrown over to Satan, the rest of the men are told to fold their hands in prayer (alluding to tightening one’s fist in anger). The women in general are told to do likewise and dress modestly. Some women or a woman is told to LEARN in the manner of a student, quietly with all submission, and not to try to teach or usurp authority from “a man” (perhaps a teacher???).

” On homosexuality…… The bible is the word of God and it is very clear that homosexuality is a sin”

I think that is what everyone has been saying. Homosexuality is obviously a sin. Being a woman is not. Being a woman teaching Scripture is not. Being a woman teacher, instructing men in the Scriptures is not a sin. There is no comparison between homosexuality and women teaching Scripture.

Comment by Naomi

October 28, 2009 @ 10:29 am

In response to comment 90126:

I would suggest looking at CBE’s free articles pages, particularly the section on “Short Answers to Challenging Texts”: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/short-answers-challenging-texts

There is an article about the 1 Timothy passage you have questions about.

Comment by PSanafter-thought

October 28, 2009 @ 11:23 am

Did Wesley mean to suggest, in 90126, that God created Homosexuals, thereby creating sin or a sin? Or that God sinned when he created homosexuals? I doubt that is what he meant, but the language suggests these interpretations. I guess this is the same dilemma we face when reading the Bible, especially the Bible in translation, and even more so when out of context: We don’t always understand the full meaning and intent of the writer.

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

October 28, 2009 @ 11:45 am

Re: 90132.

I don’t know if you read the post immediately preceding yours, but the point of that post (and with which I agree) is that we should probably do a better job of separating inclination from behavior. When I read your words “Homosexuality is obviously a sin. Being a woman is not,” I perceive a failure to separate this out. Homosexual behavior is what you’re trying to say is sinful, but homosexual orientation is something else.

Am I being fair to you?

Comment by TL

October 28, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

Mark, I do agree that we should do a better job with inclination and behavior. However, at the same time I am not sold with the idea that people are born wired that way. Not absolutely sure how to approach it. But I do think there is an element of spiritual temptation.

This may not be the place for a discussion on it though.

Comment by Trevor

October 29, 2009 @ 1:56 am

You are right TL this is not the place for where the discussion seems to be heading with the direction of the last few comments. The aim is not discussing how, or why a person gets to be a homosexual but why it is that those who oppose women in ministry oppose it on the basis that if we allow a woman into the pulpit the next thing we will be doing is allowing homosexuals in also.

We are trying to tease out that surely there should not be a logical connection and that the argument is both fallacious and inflammatory.

Mimi Hadad, the President of CBE, has suggested that the following link may be helpful in this discussion(click on the word link)

Comment by Liz

October 29, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Some people suggest that endorsing a woman preaching or leading is comparable with endorsing a person who engages in homosexual practice. To compare these two situations, one would have to have a fixed idea of what ‘feminine practice’ would look like and of course, there is no such thing.

Comment by Jeanine S. Moss

October 30, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

I had virtually the same experience a few years ago when I suggested to one of the elders in our church that eventually there would be women in leadership in our congregation and the gifted women would be preaching in our pulpits.

His response: “Yes, Jeanine. And there will probably be homosexuals, too.” This was a man that I had tremendous respect for, had been a close friend ever since we moved to the community and the church. It was like being kicked in the stomach!! But the sort of tactic men resort to when they feel threatened!!

JMoss

Comment by Morna

October 30, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

If the Bible’s restrictions on women in ministry were intended for specific cultural settings, isn’t it remotely possible that the Bible’s restrictions on same-gender sexual contact might be also?

Comment by TL

October 30, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

“If the Bible’s restrictions on women in ministry were intended for specific cultural settings, isn’t it remotely possible that the Bible’s restrictions on same-gender sexual contact might be also?”

No! this is not good logic you are using. Think about it. You are assuming that because we have often said no about A. (women in ministry), and have always said no about B. (practicing homosexuality),; and because we have changed our minds about A then we should be able to change our minds about B. But the problem is that A and B in these pictures are not in the same category.

Women preaching, teaching, leading, and in all the different ways of speaking forth the Words of Scripture has never been viewed as sinful. Homosexuality is a problem of sexual sins, things that the first man and woman were not created for.

The only true restrictions on women teaching were about women teaching truth. Teaching truth, no matter what anyone says, cannot be a sinful thing to be doing. Let’s focus on that aspect of it.

Where have you been thinking that women teaching truths of Scripture was a sinful thing. Where did that idea come from?

Comment by Lin

October 31, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

“His response: “Yes, Jeanine. And there will probably be homosexuals, too.” This was a man that I had tremendous respect for, had been a close friend ever since we moved to the community and the church. It was like being kicked in the stomach!! But the sort of tactic men resort to when they feel threatened!!”

This slippery slope position is illogical. For one thing, homosexuality was quite prevelant in patriarchal cultures. Think ancient Rome and Greece. It was a shock to many to find it was even prevelant under the Taliban in Afghanistan!

They are making a claim that does not exist. It is simple fearmongering.

In effect, they are linking the sin of homosexuality to women teaching men. How can that be? What exactly is the link?

Comment by Lin

October 31, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

“If the Bible’s restrictions on women in ministry were intended for specific cultural settings, isn’t it remotely possible that the Bible’s restrictions on same-gender sexual contact might be also?”

There is no restriction on women in ministry. You would have to explain away Joel’s prophecy in Acts and those who have studied know that both Gen 3 and
1 Tim 2 have been badly translated to protect male authority over women. You would also have to include as sinful such women as Lydia, Phoebe, Anna, etc., etc.

Comment by Jamie

October 31, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

From my understanding, I see a couple issues at work here from those who believe that women in the pulpit inevitably leads to homosexuals there too:

I’ve noticed a tendency among some complementarians/traditionalists to hold out an extreme as justification for their position.

What I mean is, the extreme position that believes it’s correct to have a strict hierarchy between men and women/husband and wife is the same mentality that believes women in the pulpit leads to homosexuals there too.

I suppose the term “straw man argument” is what I’m referring to here. You can suppose a whole lot of things . . . but if there is NO realistic, rational evidence that would lead to such a conclusion, then to me you can imagine anything will happen next if you do “A” first . . .

I can’t help but feel too there is a good deal of irrational fear going on here, including fear about homosexuality.

True, a Christian doesn’t have to be “homophobic” while simultaneously believing homosexuality is wrong — but then again there isn’t anything stopping a Christian from being homophobic as well . . . It isn’t what they are supposed to be, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, perhaps without them realizing it.

Related to this, yet another factor behind the thinking that women in the pulpit leads to homosexuals there too is how one regards a woman in the pulpit in the first place.

As a women fills a “role” by preaching that was previously, traditionally, held in the past only by men, is she then seen by the churchgoers as somehow now “masculine”?

If so, is the next obvious conclusion that homosexuals (particularly homosexual men) who are perceived as “feminized” men, are drawn closer into the Church’s orbit and this is threatening?

In some twisted way then, women preachers = male homosexual ones.

But a heterosexual woman is certainly not the same as a male homosexual.

My point basically is that the thinking that believes women in the pulpit leads to homosexuals there too extends outside the boundaries of Scripture . . . It says far, far more about the particular Christian that believes this than anything found in the text.

Amanda said:

As evangelicals who have a high view of Scripture, this, whether deliberate or not, has the result of positioning complementarianism / patriarchy as the “correct,” biblical position (after all, we want to be biblical – a good thing!) and positioning egalitarianism as unbiblical.

The problem with “biblical” womanhood/manhood, etc. is that it CAN’T be authentic — not in the way these people are thinking.

No one truly lives this way. Not now especially. We have no choice but to live in our time, culture, country, etc.

I’ve run into the problem before: it’s the resistance to understand that yes, Scripture is very important, but it’s also the understanding that the Bible is likewise a product of its own place in time, even as it simultaneously contains some timeless truths.

That in no way means it isn’t valid, just that we should let the Bible be itself rather that forcing to make it fit into some kind of “role” that was never its intention.

And then you unfortunately have people who disagree with you thinking you are somehow compromising Scripture when you’re not. Anyone who doesn’t see Scripture the way they do instantly becomes suspect when in fact it’s two people who disagree about the the text.

No two people who have the Holy Spirit indwelling simultaneously are allowed to read the same Scripture and disagree? How do you know that your position in the absolutest sense is correct?

Comment by Kamilla

October 31, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

One need only look at the history of the EWC/EEWC, the PC(USA), TEC and the UMC, among other denominations and organizations, to recognize that there, just maybe, is a connection.

The eminent, and in so many things prophetic, Francis Schaeffer noted this over 40 years ago. See “The God who is There”, p. 39, published by IVP in 1968.

As the preacher said, several millennia ago — There is nothing new under the sun.

Kamilla

Comment by Liz

November 1, 2009 @ 5:07 am

I just checked our library and that particular book by Francis Schaeffer is missing.
Could you please quote some of what was written ?

Comment by Kamilla

November 1, 2009 @ 10:42 am

“But much modern homosexuality is an expression of the current denial of antithesis. It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and female as complementary partners are finished. This is a form of homosexuality which is part of the movement below the line of despair. In much of modern thinking, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creation is to be fought against-including male-female distinctions.”

In addition, in an interview with the UK’s Guardian newspaper, the homosexual Bp Vickie Gene Robinson has clearly linked both the ordination of women and homosexuals with civil rights. In other interviews he has been quoting as saying ordaining women to the priesthood paved the way for the ordination of open homosexuals.

So, here you have a widely respected philosopher/theologian who cannot simply dismissed as a partisan in the argument because he is deeply respected by Egalitarians such as Doug Groothuis as well as Compelementarians. IOW, the late Schaeffer was no partisan hack. You also have a homosexual activist himself making the same link.

The slippery slope argument *can* be a fallacy, but it can also be a legitimate concern. When you have two such divergent people as Francis Schaeffer and Vickie Gene Robinson making the same point – whatever else you make of it, to simply dismiss it as a tactic borne of fear (as some do) or an obvious fallacy becomes less tenable.

Kamilla

P.S. That will be all for me on this thread.

Comment by Kamilla

November 1, 2009 @ 10:43 am

OOPS! The first quote is the Francis Schaeffer quote you asked for, Liz.

K

Comment by Liz

November 1, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

Thanks Kamilla – even though you have said you won’t be writing anything, I hope you will read this reply.

Some time back I wrote a few statements about what biblical egalitarians Do Not believe and I think it bears repeating here.

1. We do not want to see women usurp authority over men.
2. We do not seek equality so that women can eventually rule and dominate the men in their lives
3. We do not believe that equality means ’sameness’ or ‘androgyny’.
4. We do not deny male and female biology as created by God as ‘good.’
5. We do not believe that to be equal is to be identical.
6. We do not believe that people have to choose between feminism and the Bible.

In writing this, I would urge all of us who believe in true biblical equality to be careful that we do not assume to speak for other people who believe differently from us in these matters. Let us be reminded to treat others in the same way we would like to be treated.

Comment by Liz

November 1, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

Just another thought… it has been said that ‘equal’ means ’same’.

A can of coke and a can of water are equal in many ways, but they are not the same.

Why would anyone even make that suggestion ?

Comment by sue

November 1, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

I am a new contributor. If forces wishing to ligitimize homosexual practice attach themselves to ‘race’/civil rights and women’s issues/historical second class valuation, this might possibly be a tactic to gain support and momentum. While this might be a tactic by those forces, that does not make either of the issues of racial discrimination or women’s valuation unworthy of consideration in terms of what the Bible really says on these issues. That tactic does not ‘prescribe’ a ‘Christian’ response/reaction of forcing constructs(dominance) that are not Biblical. The quote by Frances Schaeffer includes the terms ‘complementary partners’. I wonder what he meant by the word partners? I wonder if dominance is just as much, maybe more, of a threat to heterosexual practice? I wonder if the issues can be separated out and clearly approached in teaching? I wonder if indifference to the two issues that are attached to it is part of the problem? I wonder if those issues were spoken to in teaching and practice and support that that would eliminate the attachment? I’m just wondering.

Comment by Kathryn

November 2, 2009 @ 1:46 pm

Great posting. Fear seems to be the underlying factor in that argument. Scripture says that fear doesn’t come from God. The patriarchs should stop to think that women would be valuable allies in their battle against homosexual behavior. Please don’t cut women out of leadership roles because of fear. You may be short-circuiting your own agenda by doing so.

Comment by Frank

November 2, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

Trevor, I think you and Liz, and one or two others, have more than adequately countered Kamilla’s charge that believing in non-hierarchical complementarity between men and women must inevitably lead to the acceptance and practice of sexually deviant behavior. And don’t think I could have replied to her any better than the rest of you have.

However, it is her underlying assumptions, which I believe in some form or other, is always behind this “slippery slope” argument. And these assumptions, as I perceive them, are as follows: 1) Non-hierarchical complementarity among men and women violates “the natural order” of things, or, if you prefer, “the order of creation”; and 2)therefore, any concept of both men and women being equal and complementary in nature, as well as function, is not only illogical but abnormal,and so must inevitably lead to abnormalities among men and women.

Of course, if you don’t agree with her assumptions about the “natural order,” nor that non-hierarchical complementarity among men and women is illogical nor unbiblical, then her argument rings as pretty hollow. And her “historical” proofs, such as they are, in and of themselves prove very little. There are factors that have to be considered before one can cite these people and organizations as proof of the “follies” of egalitarianism. So that is my view of underlying basis of the “slippery slope” argument.

Comment by Lin

November 2, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

“The slippery slope argument *can* be a fallacy, but it can also be a legitimate concern.”

But it makes no sense because historically homosexuality was and is rampent in patriarchal cultures.

This would be like arguing that freedom for slaves would eventually mean integrated marriages. DUH. We forget that Moses married a woman of color.

You are right, there is nothing new under the sun.

Including rampant homosexuality in patriarchal cultures. I could argue that historically, you should fear patriarchy for that reason alone.

Comment by Liz

November 2, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

Many Christians don’t look at church history, or even secular history and have no idea that homosexuality has been around for such a long time. People are shocked to hear that it was an issue so long ago as it is thought of as something new.
Those who make the slippery slope assumptions do so with the best of intentions to try to stem the tide of ungodly behaviour and to warn young people of the dangers of immoral living but unfortunately sometimes use extra-biblical arguments to make their point.

Comment by Amanda B

November 3, 2009 @ 2:35 am

If one is approaching the issue of women’s roles from a humanistic, philosophical argument, then it is, in fact, an almost immediate slippery slope into toleration of homosexuality.

But approaching it from the Bible, seeking the Lord’s heart on the matter and coming to an egalitarian viewpoint, is nowhere near the slippery slope. The principles transcend our ideas of political correctness and cultural sensitivity. It gives no open door to sexual sin, because the Bible itself condemns such behavior.

Allowing women in the pulpit because it’s fair is slippery. Allowing women in the pulpit because it’s biblical is safe and good.

Comment by Trevor

November 3, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Wow! Amanda B, that’s about as clear an argument on this issue as you can get.

Comment by spotted crow

November 5, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

I could never figure out why the evangelical right in America is so focused in on sexual preference as the most egregious sin in the Christian religion.

There are what, maybe 10 verses tops in both Testaments that deal with sexual preference? — as opposed to 100’s of verses admonishing believers to look out for the poor and needy?

Comment by Tim T

November 6, 2009 @ 9:43 am

I can see the validity in the slippery slope argument. Clearly the traditional interpretation of the Bible has an emphasis on some of the troubling passages from the Apostle Paul in 1 Tim and 1 Cor. These passages, as most readers know, talk about women not having authority over men, and women keeping silent in churches. It wasn’t until a wave of theologians came through to point out all of the ministerial roles that women seemed to have throughout the NT, and to question the traditional understanding of the troubling passages, that those who have a high view of Scripture felt more comfortable with women in leadership roles. Also, those who don’t hold to a high view of Scripture just do what seems right to them, which is to allow equality in ministry among genders.

The parallel in the homosexual issue is that those with a low view of Scripture think that equality in ministry ought to exist for people regardless of sexual preference. And the challenge, then, to those with a high view of Scripture was to argue against the passages that prohibited homosexual behavior among believers (and particularly from those in ministry). There are, of course, a number of theologians who have attempted to do just that.

So, the parallel is there. Once the issue of women in ministry was settled for a lot of Christians, the same two-pronged approached used for women in ministry was then applied to homosexuals in ministry.

As one who has a high view of Scripture, I find the strength of the argument for women in ministry to be much stronger than the strength of the argument for homosexuals in ministry, and so I personally go different ways on the two issues. But those with a low view of Scripture, and those with a high view who buy the theological arguments take the other point of view — that both women and homosexuals have the same right to be in ministry.

Comment by TL

November 6, 2009 @ 10:53 am

Sue wrote: in 90293
“I wonder if dominance is just as much, maybe more, of a threat to heterosexual practice?”

I believe patriarchal dominance is a large threat to individuals’ healthy view of themselves, which often does lead to homosexual practices. In my 40 years as a Christian I have observed that often it is overly dominant fathers who push a son into homosexual behavior. It has happened enough in ways that I have observed that I suspect it is a much bigger problem than society has been aware of.

Comment by TL

November 6, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Kamilla’s quote:
““But much modern homosexuality is an expression of the current denial of antithesis. It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and female as complementary partners are finished. This is a form of homosexuality which is part of the movement below the line of despair. In much of modern thinking, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creation is to be fought against-including male-female distinctions.””

While it is likely true that that may be part of how homosexuals think, that is their sickness. It is not how healthy people think including Christian egalitarians who believe in Biblical equality. Biblical equality does not think there is no distinction between male and female. It is an old strawman argument that has no basis in reality.

However, the dogma of “order of creation” setting up a hierarchy of lifelong subordination of women to men, and reserving most public leadership ministries to men, is a fallacy of the highest order. It is not found in Scripture. It is a system of thinking that has been cleverly inserted into Scripture misusing the Word of Truth. This is the problem that must be addressed.

Comment by Ciera

November 7, 2009 @ 8:03 pm

I don’t mean to change the topic but I want to know specifically where in the Bible is it derived that homosexuality is bad? I am just very confused.

Comment by TL

November 7, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

Romans 1:18 – 32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Sexuality was created by God for a man and a woman, not for two people of the same sex.

I’m not certain if this topic is considered acceptable for this blog. If not perhaps we can find somewhere else for a discussion.

Comment by molly

November 8, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

If you do some studying about what was “normative” for the Romans during these times, it was pretty crazy stuff… Older men sought out younger up-and-coming boys to be lovers, regularly used male and female slaves for intercourse (males being the more prefered for pleasure), etc… It was an incredibly lewd society, really.

There was no such thing as a homosexual *orientation*. That wasn’t even on the radar. If you were an upper class man, you had sex with men. Period. And sometimes women.

So I think it’s not necessarily accurate to take Paul’s words in Romans 1 and translate them to be speaking of the 14 year old boy going through puberty who is freaking out as he realizes that instead of being attracted to girls, like all his friends are, he’s got this thing for the other guys and he can’t make it stop and he’s MORTIFIED about it and so very very ashamed.

The 14 year old boy is dealing with something that is a very common scenario for most people who later come out and say they’re gay. What is it? It seems to hit at puberty, for the most part, and the fact that the stories are so similar leads most to believe that there’s something very likely genetic at work.

What we can ascertain from Scripture is that there are certain sexual activities that are outside of God’s will. But we cannot ascertain from Scripture that people who are wired for same-sex attraction are in sin. You can’t help wiring. You can help what you *do* about it, but you can’t help the fact that when puberty hit, your brain found the same sex attractive, even though that was NOT what you wanted or planned for.

After being discriminated for genetics (being born female), I have grown somewhat sensitive about how we treat our gay brothers and sisters for something that is very likely also a genetic thing. It is highly likely that one can’t help being a homosexual anymore than one can help being a woman (or a man). What we do about it is where the sin is. If men use their testosterone drive to dominate over women, that’s sin, for example. The sin isn’t in being a man. The sin is in what you do with how you are born. Likewise, I think it’s really important that we don’t do the same thing to homosexuals that many of us have had done to us as women in complementarian/patriarchal settings. We’re not “lesser than” because of how we were born. And we need to be careful not to apply Scripture outside of the specific cultural context it was written in.

My (strong) opinions…

Comment by molly

November 8, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

Btw, interestingly enough given Kamilla’s comment about patriarchy saving us from homosexuality, the Roman culture was incredibly patriarchical. And male-to-male sex was incredibly popular.

So if we’re going to argue about which system brings in more same-sex sexual sin, there’s simply no way an egalitarian society can compete with what the Romans considered normal behavior for healthy manly men.

(Recommended Reading: “Sailing the Wine Dark Sea” by Thomas Cahill, I believe. The pictures in the middle of the book, Roman pottery and the like, are pretty much…jaw dropping…and X-rated…and really really informative for understanding the world in which Paul was writing).

Comment by Trevor

November 9, 2009 @ 3:11 am

Thank you Molly for your observations regarding the possible onset of homosexual feelings in young men as related to puberty. In our own culture young women are also often faced with same sex attraction, even to older women. While most clinicians believe that to be a normal aspect of pubescence, for both boys and girls, they also attest that it can be a phase that rights itself in time. This is an issue where the church should be better equipped to both understand and assist the young in navigating their way through without overt condemnation and unqualified guilt. Many young people may well be inadvertently pushed into a homosexual preference and lifestyle because, at that point in time, they feel so estranged from the christian community and the unspoken expectations of the group to which they were then attached.

As in Old and New Testament times the present epidemic of homosexual choice and practice can hardly be fully attributed to faulty genetic wiring. Surely the same God who made them male and female in the beginning and declared it good for the specific purpose of heterosexual attraction, sexual pleasure and the propagation of the human race, didn’t intend that same sex attraction would proliferate to the degree that it has down through the centuries. That is why it (homosexuality) is so roundly condemned in Scripture. Those of us who take the high view of Scripture believe that God, throughout Scripture, solemnly declares it to be an aberration and forbids its practice.

As another commenter has noted in this thread (90361), Paul’s assertion in Romans 1, where same sex attraction is declared to be a judgment from God because of falsely directed worship, to the creature more than the creator, is more likely to be the reason for our present dilemma. But we are getting a long way from the original intention of this post.

Women, gifted to serve alongside men in the church, are not engaged, by virtue of their gender, in any sexual activity that is expressly forbidden as in the case of homosexuals. So why should it be said that the acceptance of one automatically leads to the other?

Comment by Liz

November 9, 2009 @ 3:13 am

One is a question of a person’s gender while the other is about a person’s sexual habit, orientation or desire – two quite different issues so should not be connected when looking at the issue of who is qualified to preach.

Comment by molly

November 9, 2009 @ 11:10 am

I’ll try to clarify, and I do think this very much has to do with the subject brought up in this post, but someone let me know if it’s not. :) This post just said it was rude for conservatives to compare women to homosexuals. But I wouldn’t mind having a woman or a homosexual preaching. I *would* mind, however, having a person engaging in sexual sin preaching (gender or orientation notwithstanding).

I think that there is a huge difference between a person’s sexual habits/choices and a person’s orientation. I wouldn’t bat an eyelash at having someone preach who was same-sex oriented. Where I draw the line is open unrepentant sexual sin.

Being oriented one way or the other is not a choice. Being sexually active outside of the bounds of God’s revealed will is.

I wouldn’t want a single man in the pulpit who was having regular sex with his girlfriend. I wouldn’t want a married woman in the pulpit who was having an affair on her husband. And I wouldn’t want a gay man in the pulpit who was actively and regularly viewing porn on the internet. I wasn’t aware of it until later, but I sat under the teaching of a man who was having affairs on his wife (with young dumb college girls)! That was entirely NOT cool.

In my opinion, Scripture declares open unrepentant sexual sin to be a serious problem.

Sexual sin is sexual sin. Not okay. God forgives, and aren’t we all glad that His mercies are new every morning, and yet in order to recieve that new beginning from Him, we must come in repentance (to turn, to change), seeking the strength of the Spirit to empower us to do the right thing.

Sexual sin is not okay. I’m not saying it is, nor have I ever. But I’m pretty certain sexual sin is different from sexual orientation. Give me the celebate gay minister over the philandering heterosexual man, puh-leez. And when it comes to a man or woman, gay or straight, that loves the Lord, walks in His ways, and is gifted to preach and teach? Well, I want to hear what they have to say, because I love that same Lord.

Comment by molly

November 9, 2009 @ 11:20 am

Trevor,
That could be true, or partly true. Good points. I realize that as of yet, we simply don’t know. I think it’s worth listening to the many many stories of gay and lesbian people who’ve all experienced this same strange phenomenon at puberty, though. Nothing in there smacks of purposeful choice.

It’s also worthy to note that we have a whole huge slew of toxins in our environment now, many of which are directly linked to our sex hormones, etc. Could it be that certain plastic leachings, etc, are messing with our babies in utero, and causing changes in the “wiring?” (Btw, I use the term “wiring” for visual purposes—I’m aware that it’s much more complicated than that).

It’s also certain that some cases of homosexual feelings are likely the product of abuse, etc. Some. But not all.

I made some real mistakes viewing Scripture though a fundamentalist lens when it came to women. I didn’t take into account the culture. I didn’t take into account the setting or the particular instances going on. I realize that it’s fashionable in conservative Christendom to bash on homosexuals, and I just wanted to caution us to be careful here and not do the very same thing to them that was being done to us. I don’t think anyone is, and yet…

I just think it’s so important to do the work of checking up on the assumed facts. Isn’t that what we wish the comps would do when it comes to women? They are so certain of their Biblical argument, and yet we’ve all experienced what happens to that argument when you carefully look at the cultural backdrop of the texts, when you carefully look at each word instead of assuming you know what it means. I just think that we owe that same amount of care to the person with the homosexual orientation.

I am not advocating sexual sin here. I am advocating differentiating between orientation (not a choice) and sexual sin (choice), and not condemning someone from the pulpit for something that they have no choice over.

Thanks for listening to me ramble. :)

Comment by TL

November 9, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

“I wouldn’t want a single man in the pulpit who was having regular sex with his girlfriend. I wouldn’t want a married woman in the pulpit who was having an affair on her husband. And I wouldn’t want a gay man in the pulpit who was actively and regularly viewing porn on the internet. I wasn’t aware of it until later, but I sat under the teaching of a man who was having affairs on his wife (with young dumb college girls)! That was entirely NOT cool.

In my opinion, Scripture declares open unrepentant sexual sin to be a serious problem.”

These are good points, Molly.

It may be that there are so many things that contribute to a person thinking they are oriented toward their own sex, that we really have no fully conclusive understanding of it. However, as Christians we do understand that same gender sex is not an acceptable practice.

Comment by Liz

November 9, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

Molly, we appreciate your gentle way of differentiating between orientation and practice. The Christian church has much to answer for in the way homosexual people have been treated (practising or not) Only God knows how many have been accepted by the homosexual community because they were rejected by the church community or didn’t feel comfortable revealing or discussing their orientation.

As regards preaching/leading though…..women have been discriminated against just because of their gender not because of their desires or practices. I guess the original statement could have been….”let a woman in the pulpit and the next thing you’ll have a thief” and my answer would still have been that I failed to see the connection.

Comment by molly

November 9, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

Yes, Liz, I hear you. Thanks for your kindness.

My answer would be, “I’ll happily take a woman, or a homosexual, or a black man, or an elderly person…” I’ll happily listen to anyone who loves God and is walking in the Spirit and has a gifting/calling for teaching and preaching, or shepherding God’s people.

I’m not so keen on listening to people preach who are in unrepentant/open sin. So I wouldn’t be interested in listening to a thief, or an adulterer, or a child molester, or a liar…

What bothers me, when the comps make this claim, is the fact that they mean “homosexual” as a dirty word, and the association is supposed to imply that a woman in the pulpit is also a dirty word.

I don’t think we need to play their game, though. Just because they think homosexual is a dirty word doesn’t mean I have to. The point of their statement is to shock—to make people’s minds instantly connect the two. And part of the problem is that when we rally to the defense and say that, no, we, too, are against those yucky homosexuals, we are playing their game…and in so doing, we are doing the same thing to the homosexuals that was being done to women. We are telling them that because of *what they are*, they cannot operate in their spiritual giftings.

Thanks for your patience with my ramblings. I’m in bed with a case of the stomach flu and only so-so on coherancy… :)

Comment by Trevor

November 10, 2009 @ 12:13 am

I don’t think that you are rambling at all Molly. The point that you are making is very clear and I commend you for it. All that you have said makes perfect sense and I find myself in agreement with you. We, as egalitarians who are very aware of discrimination practiced for wrong reasons, should also be alerted to the issue that you have raised in respect to spiritually gifted persons who may well have a homosexual orientation, but are not engaging in same sex activity.

Comment by Morna

November 11, 2009 @ 11:21 am

“ikewise, most homosexuals and lesbians are quite clear that they didn’t “choose” same-sex attraction, but it hit when puberty hit…and they hated it, and felt like they were all messed up and didn’t want it, and yet…there it was. Not a choice. A way they were wired, for lack of a better term.

Because of this, I think we need to do a better job of distinguishing homosexual orientation and homosexual sex. A person doesn’t choose to be oriented towards same-sex attraction. There is no sin in being oriented towards same-sex attraction. No one can help such a thing. For whatever reason, it happens. Whereas a person *does* choose to engage in sexual activity, godly or ungodly. That is where the sin is—when we engage in activities that are not appropriate for followers of Christ. ”

A very good point. However, there is an appropriate outlet for female sexuality: monogamous marriage. Women are allowed to express their sexuality as part of a lifetime commitment to love and care for another human being (her male husband). I fail to see how two people who happen to be the same gender making that same lifetime commitment to each other is somehow sinful.

“Because the Bible says so” isn’t enough. That’s the same argument used by complimentarians to denigrate women. We know well that the Bible can be mistranslated and misinterpreted. We need to have enough courage to go back to the Hebrew and Greek texts, consider the historical and literary context of the “anti-homosexual” verses, and be ready to change our beliefs and behavior if we find out we’ve been wrong. If we don’t, we run the risk of doing the same damage to our gay brothers and sisters that complimentarians do to egalitarians.

If anyone wants some more info on this, consider checking out http://www.whosoever.com/bible

Comment by TL

November 11, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

” Women are allowed to express their sexuality as part of a lifetime commitment to love and care for another human being (her male husband). I fail to see how two people who happen to be the same gender making that same lifetime commitment to each other is somehow sinful.”

Being friends for life is not a sin. But regardless if one makes or does not make a covenant commitment to care for one another, if they are practicing same sex copulation, women with women and men with men, then that would be sin. IMO

Comment by Liz

November 11, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

Admin. note:
Whatever we think of homosexuals or homosexual practice, the point of the post was not to discuss those issues but to point out that the comparison of women and homosexuals (of either gender I assume) as suitable preachers is not a fair/equal comparison. One is about who the person is – the other is about what the person practises (that was who the original statement referred to – a practising homosexual person)

Christians for Biblical Equality does not support same-sex relationships and so for this reason we would discourage conversation on this topic on this blog. The site exists so people can discuss the issues re gender equality in the home and promote the use of everyone’s God-given spiritual gifts in church life.

As already has been written, we would not condemn a person because of their lifestyle choices – we separate the actions from the person and genuinely love each person equally.

Comment by em

November 19, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

I am really enjoying a lively discussion. I have read Sister Prudence Allen’s two volume work recently on the Concept of Women. She explains how complementarity can fall in to a polarity theory. Actually from what I am reading I am not sure that CBMW are understanding what true complementarity is. After reading Prudence Allen I am actually finding I do not like the term Egalitarian for I am really beginning to belive that CBE are really the true complementarians in that they believe in equal dignity and significant differences whereas CBMW seem to have fallen into a “fractional complementarity” understanding- not viewing the man and women as wholes in themsleves but that each can only provide half a person, that the man provides rationality, and woman passivity etc. I really think both sides need to read Sister Allen’s work- I think we need to clear the air and come to a clear understanding of terms. Additionally all need to read Rebecca Groothius “Women Caught Inbetween Traditionalism and Feminism”.

Comment by Dave

November 25, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

“ikewise, most homosexuals and lesbians are quite clear that they didn’t “choose” same-sex attraction, but it hit when puberty hit…and they hated it, and felt like they were all messed up and didn’t want it, and yet…there it was. Not a choice. A way they were wired, for lack of a better term.”

There has never been a “gay gene” found. Homosexuality is not a natural part of God’s creation before the fall. However, I appreciate that for homosexual people same sex attraction was not something that ALL of them chose and was/is something that SOME hate. However, the way they are ‘wired’ is no different to me, who when I hit puberty had all sorts of hetrosexual thoughts and fantasies that I felt guilty about and had little choice over! The alcoholic does not usually choose alcoholism. Lets not confuse “no choice” with “good”. None of us can simply choose not to sin, but that does not make it good. I have heard similar arguments that suggested that because some men cannot stop masturbating it must be ok/natural. Seriously, if we could stop sinning why did Jesus have to die?

So, I see myself in the same position as a homosexual person and therefore, I do not judge them and try to love them.

There is an article on the CBMW blog on the slippery slope issue. I put a response at our blog, http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog for those who are interested!

Comment by Liz

November 26, 2009 @ 3:09 am

Wonderful comments Dave. I hope many will read your blog as it is an excellent article (one of many there) When reading such clear arguments, one wonders why the hierarchy position gets so much attention. Maybe it is because people don’t look into things for themselves and just trust others to do the research…’we all choose our own experts’

Comment by Jane

December 4, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

“Christians for Biblical Equality does not support same-sex relationships and so for this reason we would discourage conversation on this topic on this blog. The site exists so people can discuss the issues re gender equality in the home and promote the use of everyone’s God-given spiritual gifts in church life.”

Going to introduce something here [hear me out, its not what you think] about why this issue, particularly in regards to the relationship with Misogyny, is more relevant, and something mentioned in Revelations about the ‘effeminate’ confirmed what I was seeing.

I first saw the relationship between homosexuality and patriarchy when I was working in the secular ‘radical feminist-far leftist’ circles [and I was part of that community for years, and did even work on GLBT rights/human rights, so I did a lot of research there too, on that whole lifestyle.] This was when I was revolting against a lot of the Christian culture, and questioning a lot.

When it came to the issue of transgenders, and violence, particularly women to women, that is when I started seeing the underlying things that are so much like the misogyny you see in patriarchy. And I am convinced, homosexuality, is really, the end fruit, of Misogyny. [yes it may sound like an oxymoron, particularly where lesbians are concerned but its true--because all in all, it is the psychological hatred of any thing 'remotely female', meaning, feminine]. They will say its ‘constructs’ and they are, partly right, when its in its foundations, the shift from patriarchal constructs, particularly roles—but here is where its more related, like a coin, two faces, but one coin. And the first hint of this is in fact, the repulsion of motherhood Because of the ‘devalue’ that motherhood and child bearing has, which is started by the mentality of the patriarchs.

The Word confirmed this for me, in Deut or Exodus I believe, where God lays out the levels of the curses, that come upon society that over time, generational, rebels against God’s laws of love. The end, He says, the men will turn on the wives-women, and after that, the last one, the women will eat their young.

What I found too, about Sodom and Gommarah [or is it Gommorah], and notice the root word in Gomer, Gomer in the book of Hosea I believe [don't have my Bible right here with me], and the VIOLENCE, that and the VIOLENCE in the days of Noah. In all cases, violence includes sexual violence [rape] and a good example, today would be the Congo, 80% Christian btw, where women and girls [toddlers even] have been raped with impunity in the most horrid ways that its actually a form of Genocide against women [and we can thank patriarchy for that as well as capitalism--for minerals and geo-political racism] but anyway, now they are raping ‘men’, in high numbers, violence and sexual violence at its full fruit. [same thing with Afghanistan, an extreme patriarchal society where its custom for young boys to be taken and forced into being sex slaves for men]. And in segregated societies, there tends to be a high level of lesbianism [though its secret due to the laws of theocracy] as well as woman to woman Violence.

I found in my years of research that the more patriarchal [and religious esp] and misogynist a culture or society is, the more violent and the more homosexuality is increased…not the opposite. Because when women are hated, when women are devalued and deemed as nothing but ‘chattel’ then the evolution of this hatred becomes more violent.

And that violence is Internalized. This is where the ’self-hate’ comes from, and its a type of double sword self hate…hard to explain but then I haven’t written on this much, because it IS so controversial [in both views on homosexuality]. And a lot of it is also, the hate of ‘life’ meaning, the hatred of nurturing life, or giving life–and the obsession to control women’s sexuality is also a huge part of that hatred,

though its said to be ‘pro-life’ often its really about the hate of life, wanting the ‘control over the womb’, male control that is, which is fed from misogyny as well. [you see this when you look into the misogyny in the controls men have done through the centuries in their attempts to control childbirth and rob that space and power from women].

Well, anyway, there is a whole lot more to this [it would take a book and a lot of studies to go with it] and I don’t have time to put it all here right now but this is what I saw, during those years, and when I came to reading in the Word, I saw it on that spiritual level,

so I believe firmly that homosexuality is actually a fruit-result of the end fruits of extreme patriarchy and misogyny, as well as ‘class’ and division of labor and the worth that is contributed to humans in society, particularly that of gender. So, rather than the link being women as pastors to homosexuality,

I would say, its the opposite, the more women are forcefully secluded and controlled including their wombs, the more homosexuality will not only surface but will thrive, and become more prevalent and violent. To the point where men will become effeminate to revolt against the extreme patriarchal roles [that then have become divisive to men who don't fit into the machismo role as well as other men] yet at the same time, maintaining their hatred of the weaker, or what they deem as the weaker, meaning women, by ‘remolding the image of female’ and also with women revolting against the extreme patriarchal and also remolding the image of female…

Both, are attempts at remolding the ‘image’ of female into MALE, or male attributes [with the effeminate its the female 'sexual' with the male characteristics]–all due to the devalue of the female made in God’s image.

[probably could have said that better--but its the best I can do for now, its not my area of expertise]

Jane

Comment by Hailey

March 2, 2010 @ 2:51 am

Homosexuality destroys patriarchy just as much as having a more equalized view of women. Both serve to undermine the purpose of a woman and to be against it in either way is unfathomable. Patriarchy, as we know it, is a man-made image of the world- and a result of the fall..which was idolatry. Romans 1 even reflects that. Because of that passage’s current emphasis, we read it with the idea that if we destroy how men and women have sexual relations with each other that God will abandon us. But in reality, that is just giving Romans 1 a psychological reading- We didn’t have a proper relationship with our father (God), abandoned, so we became homosexuals, and now we are going to go commit all these other lawless acts. Psychology revolves around sex for a reason- it has to do with a narcissistic image of ourselves and relationship to other people. We become the center for all relationships and sex is the ultimate illustration of that. This is just another form of idolatry- looking to ourselves to fix things (our sexual orientation, or gender relationships, our parental relationships, etc. etc.) so that we can love God (so that He does not abandon us to all of those misdeeds), rather than looking to God and seeing who we are in light of the gospel. When that is done, all else falls to place. Because that takes a realization that everything is under a curse- that means, everything we live amongst is perverse, lustfully against, groaning, against nature. Because this is not how God originally created nature. Not our relationships to creation, our offspring, our gender relationships, or the work we do. God’s original creation was so incredibly wholesome, unified, beautiful, and perfect that we cannot possibly understand how vile it all became after the fall in comparison. But we have hope, for we have the gospel, which redeems and allows us to live in unity with Christ by the means of the law of love. It’s not about the current creation that we created by our fall, the consequences seen in our curses, nor the patriarchy in man’s name. It’s about the Creator. It’s not about the current relationships, rules, governments, sicknesses, sorrows, etc. It’s about how we live amongst them.

The gospel is for all people and cultures. The gospel is able to transform, and it does. It changes our love, which is an inward condition of the heart that is poured outward. So if the gospel is taken to a matriarchal culture, how does that look in their culture? You allow the Gospel to take root in their hearts. With a proper understanding of God and them in light of that, their culture will undoubtedly be affected, but will it look like westernized christianity? No! and why should it? They shouldn’t be required to have their male and female relationships function like they do here… we’re not happy with it like this anyways (i am speaking of the strict complementarian views). Doesn’t God judge the intentions of our hearts, after all? Why do we proselytize our faith so much and claim it to be the biblical way- God created an order with the Jews that was only for the Jews. We learn from it. We don’t completely throw it out…it is still helpful for us to examine. But God gave us a new order of faith that is very simple and can easily adapt to any culture. Why do we make this so hard? I go back and read Jesus’ words in the gospels and I see this idea time and time again. It makes me sad for Christians that they are missing out on so much of the richness of the gospel.

(sorry for typos… i’m not proofreading. i’m a busy college student!)