|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Headship argument - is it gaining support?
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
After the infamous women bishops' debate, Susie Leafe, a member of the house of laity said she voted against because she didn't believe women should have authority over men in the church, because the church is like a family, and Paul said the man is the head of a family. In an interview on BBC4 that evening, she asserted that in her church, headship was preached and subscribed to, and her church was growing. She also complained that while the FinFs have flying bishops, or even diocesans who agree with them, there are no anti-women bishops who hold the line on headship grounds.
Leaving aside the honkingly-large non sequitur of the church really not being the same as a family, I am wondering about her assertion that more people are coming round to the headship argument, believing that a woman can't be in charge in family or church.
Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?
I find it interesting because I spent two years singing in the choir of a certain well-known FinF church in Brighton, and indeed was married there. Anyone who saw me in the choir - a woman in her early 20's, cheerfully involved in the church's life - may well have assumed I agreed with the church's position. But I didn't. In fact, I'm now ordained.
So what are shipmates' experience? Are there more headship-devotees every time you look? Or are there still the same ones, just getting noisier?
[ 22. November 2012, 13:37: Message edited by: Panda ]
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Only anecdotally I'm afraid. Not in my own church, no, but then I wouldn't expect to hear it there as we are not an evangelical church, and I think this particular view remains the province of a certain strain of evangelicalism, doesn't it?
Though I do think there is plenty of reason to say that church is a form of family, so the analogy is not wrong - simply that the headship discussion means something else. However, this one's not about what I think.
I've heard it crop up a couple of times from people who go to a couple of the neighbouring evangelical parishes, which did surprise me as they are definitely at the open end of things. I assume they were speaking from personal conviction rather than anything taught there, as I know the clergy.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Susie Leafe, a member of the house of laity said she voted against because she didn't believe women should have authority over men in the church, because the church is like a family, and Paul said the man is the head of a family.
The church is like a family? Let me see ... always arguing, frequently abusive, and some members won't sit down to eat with others.
Yep. Good analogy.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I understand this issue is a factor in the Sydney misogyny.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
I would say that in certain circles "male headship" has become a shibboleth, and attitudes in its favour have hardened over the last 20 years, perhaps. Some of the products of one or two theological colleges are coming out thoroughly indoctrinated in its favour. Some of the churches which ascribe to this are growing.
On the other hand, the Bishop of Liverpool, an evangelical, in the Synod debate specifically described his change of understanding about "headship".
In addition, a friend who was at the New Wine summer conference at Newark heard John Cole, the head of the New Wine organization, coming out strongly in favour of female Bishops. For those who don't know, New Wine is a largely Anglican, charismatic-evangelical network. It appears to be much more extensive than the churches related to 'Reform', who are one of the main conservative evangelical Anglican organizations.
So, growth does not mean that even the proportion of evangelical Anglicans who hold to "headship" is growing.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
Assuming for a moment that it is true, my guess is that individual parishes which teach this may be growing because people with this point of view on an individual basis are feeling less and less comfortable elsewhere, and so they perhaps flock to the few places where their point of view is not merely tolerated but encouraged.
At least I hope that is the case.
I wonder if, the NUMBER of such parishes is growing, shrinking, or not changing more than the average.
Even in my Orthodox Parish, where clearly roles for men and women are very different, amd women are not permitted to be clergy, the stated reason is never, in my experience, one of "headship". It may be the issue under the surface, but it is certainly not what is talked about when the issue comes up.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
IME, con-evo congregations are pretty transient - people are attracted to them in quite large numbers but don't stay there. Part of this is probably due to the fact that many evangelicals who attend Anglican churches are happy attending other evangelical churches. Also, liberal congregations aren't any more appealing to the general public, they just meet secular society's standards for basic decency. Those who don't believe in male headship don't have to go to church to be around others who believe the same way, but those who do believe in male headship do.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Erm... Not quite.
In my Evo shack there is a lot of talk about "the church family" honkingly-large non sequitur though it may be. But we don't so so far as the headship thing.
We're talking Con Evos here, so as they put the authority of the Bible above all, excuse me while I proof text.
Anyway, I blame Calvin.
quote:
John Calvin's commentary on Colossians:
He commands wives to be subject. This is clear, but what follows is of doubtful signification -- as it is fit in the Lord. For some connect it thus -- "Be subject in the Lord, as it is fit." I, however, view it rather differently, -- As it is fit in the Lord, that is, according to the appointment of the Lord, so that he confirms the subjection of wives by the authority of God.
Calvin's take on Col 3:18* is that a wife is subject to her husband - though the does admit that the meaning of the verse is not clear, of doubtful significance, and that there is another way of understanding the verse.
Wives should be subject because God says so.
or
Wives should be subject in things that are fitting, other things don't apply.
Both meaning are possible.
In short, the headship idea is imposing one meaning only to a Bible verse whose meaning is uncertain, then imposing that meaning, about personal relationships, onto church structures. It's wrong in at least two ways.
* Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
But is it on the increase?
Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
But is it on the increase?
Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?
I wouldn't want to cast nasturtiums.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?
I find it interesting because I spent two years singing in the choir of a certain well-known FinF church in Brighton, and indeed was married there. Anyone who saw me in the choir - a woman in her early 20's, cheerfully involved in the church's life - may well have assumed I agreed with the church's position. But I didn't. In fact, I'm now ordained.
I don't want to derail the thread, but the interesting question to me is why a 'headship' church should attract people with its 'preaching and music' whereas those churches with a more respectable theology don't manage to attract people with the same means.
In other words, why should it be necessary to attend a 'headship' church if you just want a good choir and a cheerful environment?
What you say suggests that even if the wider church disapproves of the 'headship' stuff, it can't really kick up too much of a fuss because those are the churches that nurture or generate future generations of (mainstream) ordained clergy....
It must be a double-edged sword.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I've never heard of this in any church except the Mormons, certainly never in Anglican or Episcopal ones (including those who have been anti-women's ordination).
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I may be way off-mark here, but I can't see how a 'headship' argument could be adduced in arguments about bishops / priests / ministers anyway. It's Christ who's the head of the Church. The bishop most emphatically isn't. S/he's not even a servant. S/he's the servants' servant.
Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I may be way off-mark here, but I can't see how a 'headship' argument could be adduced in arguments about bishops / priests / ministers anyway. It's Christ who's the head of the Church. The bishop most emphatically isn't. S/he's not even a servant. S/he's the servants' servant.
Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?
I think the argument goes (after Paul) man head of woman --> woman shouldn't have authority --> woman can't teach men --> woman can't be pastor/priest --> woman cant be bishop.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
But is it on the increase?
Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?
I wouldn't want to cast nasturtiums.
Come on, you already have! I think there's an interesting hypothesis in there, but maybe it's more blog fodder.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Alright, don't want to cast even more obvious ones ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This is one of the lesser known Dead Horse subjects and has been started on the wrong board. I'm leaving this note here for the Purg hosts as this one is sometimes forgotten.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Aha !
Saddle-up...
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I think there's a fair amount of support for "headship" in both families and conservative churches in the U.S. I doubt that it's growing, though; there's at least equal -- well, not "opposition to" so much as "ignoring of" this issue outside conservative churches.
An acquaintance of mine attends a church which preaches "headship." This same church, a couple of years ago, found itself in local headlines when a woman charged one of the church members with rape.
At the time of the crime she was 16 and babysitter to the man's family. He assaulted her while taking her home after sitting. She became pregnant.
Once the pregnancy became apparent, the pastor of the church made the victim stand up before the entire congregation, confess her "sin," and apologize to the congregation for her fall from grace. The man was never named or brought to any sort of account at this time.
The pastor then moved the victim out of state, where she gave birth and relinquished the baby for adoption.
It was nearly 7 years later that she charged her assailant with rape. By that time, the pastor had moved on. The assailant was tried and convicted.
If that victim's treatment -- forced confession, birth, and relinquishment -- is typical of headship, it's hard to see it growing.
And what about all the mothers who are "heads of households?"
[ 22. November 2012, 17:58: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
If that victim's treatment -- forced confession, birth, and relinquishment -- is typical of headship, it's hard to see it growing.
It isn't, at least not in the UK, and I say that as someone who intensely dislikes the whole concept. IME the reality of headship amongst UK conservative evangelicals is much milder than the rhetoric. For example both my mother-in-law and sister-in-law would subscribe fairly vocally to wifely submission, but in practice their marriages don't look all that different to mine on a day to day basis. The main difference seems to be that women are somewhat more likely to stay at home fulltime and couples seem somewhat more bound to traditional gender roles.
Anyway, having said that I intensely dislike the whole idea of submissive women, I'm going to try playing devil's advocate and suggesting why it might appeal. I think a certain percentage of women genuinely aren't that fussed about work and feel strongly drawn to motherhood. Secular society accords those women and their interests little or no status, but evangelicalism does. It allows them to define themselves primarily as wives and mothers and defines that as a high status, divinely-sanctioned role. Even I can to some degree see the appeal of that when the alternative is a heavy emphasis on what you work at and how much you earn.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Porridge
This sounds more like a cult than a church! Where were this girl's parents? How did the pastor have the right to move the girl out of the state? Who paid for this?
In the UK I can't see how a pastor could wield such power, headship or not. On the other hand, I'm sure that some churches would be tempted to cover up a rape. It's a horrible thought, but recent revelations show that nothing is impossible.
I always assumed that 'headship' was meant to be a (radically patriarchal) pro-family teaching, which is why some woman find it appealing. But if it condones rape, then it surely undermines family life!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Panda:
quote:
Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?
Everybody in the Church of England thinks that their particular liturgical and theological cup of tea is the way to go. I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers! Given that Con-Evo preaching boxes seem to do reasonably well it obviously attracts some people and is tolerated by others. But unless someone comes up with some hard stats, I'd say this was a classic case of data not being the plural of anecdote.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?
You've hit the nail on the head there, Adeodatus. Someone posting on Facebook recently made the point about Constantine (in the context of establishment) and it occurred to me that without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority.
There was something on the radio this morning about men who wear purple shirts being more likely to drive fast cars...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers!
Teenagers are no more a homogenous mass than any other age group. Don't assume they all like praise bands and jumping about shouting 'Alleluia!'
At our last church (MOTR with choir and organ) we had some students attending during term-times, as we were quite close to the university. The vicar once asked them if they'd like any special services besides what was already on offer. They asked for full choral BCP Evensong.
Students who were keen on guitars and choruses went to the Evo church down the road.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Given that Con-Evo preaching boxes seem to do reasonably well it obviously attracts some people and is tolerated by others. But unless someone comes up with some hard stats, I'd say this was a classic case of data not being the plural of anecdote.
There are lots of stats about churchgoing habits in England and the UK.
Peter Brierley is a well-respected researcher on the subject of CofE growth and decline. He (and others I've come across) seem to be saying that churchgoing is declining overall, but evangelicalism is taking up a larger proportion of churchgoers in the CofE and elsewhere.
http://www.economist.com/node/21549943
I can't find the source just now, but in terms of youth, it seems that evangelical congregations do better than others at holding on to their young people.
Here are some more figures from Brierley:
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1109?pg=all
If larger churches are evangelical, and young people are more attracted to large churches, then inevitably, they're more likely to be in evangelical churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:Originally posted by Gildas:
I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers!
So??? What is your problem? Just because you don't like BCP Matins (have you ever been to one) doesn't mean everyone else has to share your opinion.
I have teenage children who, from the age of 7, chose BCP Matins over the dreaded "family" service, which they regarded even at that young age as being patronising "religion lite" (obviously not then expressed in those terms but that was the gist of their comments). Now they are in late teens but still choose either a BCP Matins or Evensong over most of the eucharistic liturgies on offer near their university.
In a nutshell what they say they like is a properly organised liturgy, prayer that doesn't sound like either a shopping list or disaster news headlines, decent hymns rather than "crappy choruses by sad middle-aged tone deaf saddoes", and no 5 minute hiatus in the middle so the vicar can go about glad-handing like a political candidate.
Or, to quote a friend when the ASB first appeared "I'm a teenager, I keep being told this is for people like me, but I want the BCP - and you're denying me my heritage without asking".
As for the headship argument:
If they go for the permanent "flying" see option, how about we have the Bishop of Stepford?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
My kids don't like hymns and liturgy, don't like charismatic chorus singing (Mrs KLB took them out of desperation once; wild horses couldn't drag me) and don't like family services either.
Fully paid up members of the awkward squad at an average age of 6.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Porridge
This sounds more like a cult than a church! Where were this girl's parents? How did the pastor have the right to move the girl out of the state? Who paid for this?
Her mother consented to her being moved out-of-state (which also put her out-of-reach of the police when/if they initially investigated the rape report [the pastor reported the allegation, he didn't apparently report he had moved the victim out-of-state]). The rapist also had to confess publicly, to being unfaithful to his wife (though not to who the other party was).
I'm not sure from the news reports whether she had a father around at the time. It is also clear that neither the pastor nor the mother believed or believe her; the former has a web page up defending his actions.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Seriously fucked up. Reinforces my earlier hypothesis.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would suggest reading Rachel Held Evans' new book "A Year of Biblical Womanhood"
The Chapter for June, on "Submission" deals with this topic in depth, and ands up reinforcing "submission to each other" because of the love each has for the other
Try Ephesians 5:21 and Matthew 20:25-28
As usual, other bits of the Bible may lead in other directions, but this one involves the operative principle of Love.
As you might expect, the evangelical hierarchy is aghast that a mere woman has written a book like this, but, hey, a bit of subversion is always a Good Thing for hierarchies, especially self-anointed ones.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.
Have you discovered a magic what-if-o-scope? Or talking out of the whatsit? We do not know what would have happened without Constantine. We CANNOT know what would have happened without Constantine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Since when is a Christian Union "meeting" a worship occasion where a woman shouldn't speak?
And do you think if a woman defined what she was saying as prophecy and covered her head while saying it that she would get a bye?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
From the article -
"Bristol University's student union officers for activities and welfare and equality met with the society on Monday. Alessandra Berti, vice president of welfare and equality, released a statement saying the university's students' union (UBU) is investigating the issue alongside the Christian Union.
"In particular we will be making certain that our Equality Policy is properly adhered to in all cases.
"The University of Bristol Students’ Union takes allegations of discrimination very seriously. UBU has an equality policy which explains that we prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex and sexual orientation in line with The Equality Act 2010 and as one of our key values of equality and diversity."
If anything is done about this I prophesy cries of 'persecution' from the headship nutters.
(It's OK folks I had my head covered while I said that)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Boogie
But was your husband with you? I think we can be liberal about this in the modern age - was he at least within email contact? And did he have a firm grip on your female scattiness?
Also, if you don't have a husband, I'm very much afraid that you need to get one by tomorrow if you want to carry on this conversation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My kids don't like hymns and liturgy, don't like charismatic chorus singing (Mrs KLB took them out of desperation once; wild horses couldn't drag me) and don't like family services either.
Fully paid up members of the awkward squad at an average age of 6.
There's only one option - tell them they're not allowed to go!
Meanwhile, this short video illustrates perfectly how Boogie should behave in future.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.
Have you discovered a magic what-if-o-scope? Or talking out of the whatsit? We do not know what would have happened without Constantine. We CANNOT know what would have happened without Constantine.
Fair point. But it still doesn't mean that Constantine or prince bishops are good things.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:
Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings
And women still turn up?
They have to, otherwise where would they find a Nice Christian Husband?
This being an organisation of which I was once a member (twenty-mumble years ago). ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Commetary from Slacktivist on the Patriarchal Christian Boys' Club ruling mentioned above.
Discussing Acts 18, the story of Priscilla and Aquila: quote:
Paul must have been furious. Priscilla broke his rule requiring her to sit “in silence with full submission.” She violated his rule by teaching a man, wielding authority over and correcting a male preacher.
But if Paul found any of that upsetting, he never said a word about it. He lived at Priscilla’s house for quite a while in Corinth, then took her with him as a teaching comrade on his trip to Ephesus. He greets her in his epistle to the Romans as a “co-worker in Christ Jesus,” not as a submissive silent partner. And because she really was his co-worker, Paul passes along greetings from Priscilla at the end of 1 Corinthians, where we also learn there’s a church that meets in her house. Paul also cheerfully sends greetings to her again in … wait for it … 2 Timothy.
The illustration from "Priscilla: Queen of the Desert" is apposite and amusing in this context.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:
Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings
And women still turn up?
They have to, otherwise where would they find a Nice Christian Husband?
This being an organisation of which I was once a member (twenty-mumble years ago).
Do you mean the only way a woman can find a Christian husband today is by going to headship meetings?
I'm happy with women clergy myself, but if this situation is anywhere close to reality then it's an indictment of the 20th century drift towards liberal theologies. Virtuous they may be, but why are they so off-putting to young men?
Maybe it's time to move from feminist theology to masculinist theology, because we're now in the weird situation where churches, which are already patriarchal institutions, have to double up on the machismo in order to appeal to young males. Surely that's the opposite of what was supposed to happen!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This is almost certainly thread-creep and needs a new thread, probably elsewhere, but what on earth would a "masculinist theology" look like?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.
I wonder though if some churches actually construct the category of such young males, so that they can say that they are appealing to a target audience?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.
My post was a response to the claim that young women have to attend these headship meetings or else they won't find Christian men to marry. The implication was that young male Christians go to 'macho' headship churches, but won't attend the reasonable churches led by friendly lady vicars.... A tongue in cheek comment, but was it meant to highlight a hidden reality?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.
My post was a response to the claim that young women have to attend these headship meetings or else they won't find Christian men to marry. The implication was that young male Christians go to 'macho' headship churches, but won't attend the reasonable churches led by friendly lady vicars.... A tongue in cheek comment, but was it meant to highlight a hidden reality?
In my experience the blokes don't go to any particular types of churches in any numbers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Karl
Very true. But perhaps this makes it all the more intriguing when those who do congregate in one theological corner. I mean, why should Bristol CU (or any other CU) be dominated by this sort of young male Christian? Is this what you get when you extract the old ladies, the friendly female vicars, the happy-clappy girls, the middle aged liberal theologians, etc.?
(I don't mean to stereotype, but clearly, it would be hard not to stereotype the kind of young man who belongs to Bristol CU so one might as well stereotype everyone else to balance things up!)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
