|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
Returning briefly to the discussion about a creation order in the early chapters of Genesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
By insisting that out of these two chapters you're going to take the naming incident as normative, are you not letting chapter two overrule chapter one?
I don't think so. I think that that would be the case if I said that chapter two shows that the woman is like an animal in her relationship to the man, and only the man has authority. That would be dismissing chapter one entirely. Here, I think my position is giving weight to both as the narrative stands.
Your resolution has required you to suggest that the Fall starts as early as the narrative in chapter 2 - which I don't think has good evidence for it.
More fundamentally, I don't think this is an exegetical question. When you say:
quote:
I'm sorry, but my mind still rejects the statement "Both are equals, and there is a sense in which the man has authority over the woman." There is a deep logical inconsistency there; either that or our definitions of words like "equal" and "authority" are so radically different that we may as well be speaking different languages. To me, equality means that neither has authority over the other. It's compatible with mutual submission to each other, but not authority of one over the other.
Then debates about exegesis is a waste of time. Equality is meaningless for you unless it results in a relationship where one person does not submit the other in a non-reciprocal way.
There's no way I can show you that Genesis might be saying something that you think is the equivalent of a 'married bachelor'. Such a possibility is ruled out a priori. So discussions about what the Bible says is relatively pointless.
This seems to me to be one of the biggest problems facing this whole debate. I've felt the frustration Mousethief voiced pages and pages ago - there comes a point where it is pointless trying to explain something that is rejected as wrong at the level of the basic assumptions people are working with.
It reminds me of dipping into Miroslav Volf's After Our Likeness. Volf is an excellent scholar, and spends the first part of the book unpacking Zizzolous' Orthodox Trinitarianism and its link to his version of a hierarchical ecclessiology as well as Ratzinger's Catholic Trinitarianism and its link to his version of hierarchical ecclessiology. After explaining their views, Volf's critique amounts to saying:
"Moreover, within a community of perfect love between persons who share all the divine attributes, a notion of hierarchy and subordination is inconceivable."
Inconceivable. Even though he's just demonstrated by his analysis of Ratzinger and Zizzolous that it is not. But that's his entire rebuttal. The egalitarian position is assumed and any challenge to it based on theology is declared inconceivable on the basis of egalitarianism. Once this point is reached discussion is a waste of time.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As for Gregory's little article, which lays all sorts of horrors at the feet of feminism without beginning to touch on the horrors propagated by patriarchal societies ...
I broadly agree with your sentiments in this post RuthW - not the wanting to go to Hell about the article (I broadly agree with it too). Most of what you raise about the gains of feminism I think are true gains of feminism and I think they are good. Which is why I was focusing more on egalitarianism. (I also don't think the Christian tradition is as universally bad as it sometimes looks - but that's a secondary issue - it doesn't take away from how feminism has helped over the last century).
The issue was raised to respond to the argument "there is a culture of abuse in Western society during the centuries that is due to the idea of headship" and the argument "no-one has been prepared to say that there's any negative consequences of dropping headship".
I raised this issue to point out that while there are problems associated with headship (I don't deny that), it is naive to think that there aren't characteristic problems associated with egalitarianism. I think the link is more than just accidental, and I think the cost is too high. I'm sure others will disagree on both counts.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
We are a society which aims at the rule of law. This shared law binds us all, rich and poor, boss and worker, president and citizen.
My local member of parliament has no authority over me. Nor does the Prime Minister. Nor does the Queen.
A democracy under the rule of law is not just the Roman Empire with new names. Our politicians are not authorities to submit to but functionaries to do our bidding.
There is no heirachy - they are not higher or better than me - and the only authority they have is that delegated to them by me.
Hi Demas, good to hear from you on this thread.
I'm not trying to say that a modern democracy is the Roman Empire under a different name. There are true, substantial differences. Yes you aren't directly under the authority of the Queen or the Prime Minister or your Parlimentarian. But that's because in a Parlimentarian Deomcracy the authority is wielded by a body, not by an individual. You are under the authority of Parliment.
I don't think there's any recognisable sense in which a politician is a functionary of the people to do their bidding. Try it sometime and see if it works. Phone up a politician and tell them to do something, the way you might an employee.
And politicians are higher than you - they are treated with more respect, they have more influence, they are taken more seriously by other leaders (in your country and others), they get honorifics like "honourable" (under the right conditions), particular privileges and the like.
And there's nothing new about being a country being ruled under law. That was Rome's great point of pride in the ancient world. Greeks may have been artistic and philosophical, Romans were the people whose great accomplishment was law. And they considered it to bind everyone as well. Obviously those at the top might be able to break it and get away with it - but that's often true today in our modern democracies as well. It's rare for a President or Prime Minister to go to jail.
A modern democracy is an example of hierarchy.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avalon
Shipmate
# 8094
|
Posted
For me this modern evangelical headship only ever says:
"I'm a Sensitive New Age Guy really and it's not in my nature to say nasty, unequal things about women but God made me do this. So blame God not me. And you know that you can't do that because God is..well..God. Now that we've established that we can get on with having a good male/female relationship wherein you can still see me as sensitive and sexy. I'll leave you and God to sort out for yourselves that rather sensitive and unsexy sado-masochistic one with which I've left you. I'm sure it's good discipline in self-abnegation and will thus help you become more christlike. Do take a career/job; as you can see I'm not the sort of guy to stand in your way...In fact, let me encourage you to do so as I'd love to have a bigger budget in our household and church with which I can make our decisions - and it will keep your mind off doing things around the church. You know you only have to ask me for anything and I will give it to you; I love you so much more than God under this arrangement."
I don't have the manipulative streak to make this work for me. Sooner or later I'd call a spade a spade instead of sulking until I got my own way. So maybe it is self interest which inclines me to an egalitarian approach; and vice versa for others. Nothing has been said here which I haven't heard before over the quarter of a century(or more) during which I've taken an interest in these arguments so I guess this was a dead horse before it started for me. But then, I live in Australia which seems to be world capital for it. So, the next step, after stalemate acknowledged (also observed over a quarter of a century), seems to be to judge individuals and individual marriages as poor examples somehow to bolster one's position. The common opening sally seems to be to be something along the lines of "Well we'll just throw the bible out if that's what you want, is it?" And I think men can be called "labradors" - amiable beasts who can be taught to fetch and carry by their wives but whom you wouldn't really respect. Women, I suspect, are more likely to have their mental health impugned - even if you don't agree with me about women in general, let's look at this woman in particular. It all typifies part of the bundle of reasons why I distance myself from church.You really can't problem solve if you can't admit a problem's there to be worked on and you can't do that if you have to keep a perfect facade or have yourself, marriage, children criticised all the time.
So, bring on the chaos is all I can say. Maybe I just didn't even get married 23 years ago.(Well it was something from a Scottish tradition where promises made on both sides were identical and no-one was given away.) Maybe I just have friendship+ sex and all on a promise that didn't import God in with incantations of orderliness. (I'm not into incantationally moved gods anyway.)So, I get chaos in which we have to negotiate what is and isn't working all the time. I'm still not scared;I am scared of the God who seems to be either sadistic or at least afflicted with altzheimers to have such a remove between what women can but may not do. What else am I losing? Godliness? Is that a subjective or objective thing - was I ever going to be offered that compliment? I think that that "perfect facade" way of life has gone out the window with pleasure. Happiness? Well this is the person who tossed the childraising book claiming the answer on having happy children on the grounds that she'd never asked that question and just ones may have been more to the point that those smug little paragons of their parent's indulgence.I might as well apply the same risk to myself. And threats of a "death culture" sounds like deluded paranoia on a scale to equal something on a recent and lenghthy Hell thread.
Probably time I arranged a little more chaos by breaking it to The-Friend-With-Whom-I-Have-Sex that we're living a lie and should never have tried to lie about it in church. And what do I tell the kids? I could enjoy this.....
Posts: 281 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
This may be the last post I can do until after the end of next week - I'm leading a College mission team from Sunday and the next two days are full.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor re: head coverings:
that's different to the principle of headship, which isn't a symbolic action but a certain structure of relationship.
quote:
Subsequently posted by Levor:
I think the exact form that headship can take within marriage can vary enormously from culture to culture (and with a very multicultural society like the West, from couple to couple). The basic relationship structure remains the same.
What is the application today of this "certain structure of relationship"?
Can you clearly state any non-culturally-negotiable aspects of applied headship?
Again, I think the distinctives are clear - a priority of the husband's love for the wife with the wife receiving and responding to it, and an authority component involved. It's sufficiently clearly in, for example Josephine's post, that no-one opposed to the idea of headship has thought that they'd be happy with what Josephine said either.
My point about difference is to recognise that marriages can look very different from culture to culture, just as governments do from nation to nation, and wanting to keep that freedom. If you're prepared to allow that a valid expression of an egalitarian marriage is that one partner does call the shots (as many participents have said - either for competency or cultural reasons) I don't see why allowing some flexibility with the application of headship principle means it's going to collapse.
I could re-state the application and the non-culturally-conditioned aspects but I think they've been stated in different ways and different times - the discussion we've been having is not a result of people not getting what's been said. Like Mousethief, I'm not prepared to say it again at this stage - I'm of the growing view that it's not being heard because people are assuming that the position is of the level of a married bachelor. I can understand that - I thought that too. But at this stage I'm not sure that my saying "married bachelor" again is going to help.
quote:
What if a relationship based on a traditional model of male headship became unintelligible to today's culture?
Well, I think that's happened. The married bachelor problem we're having is a sign of it.
For me, that goes into the same category as when any piece of Christian teaching is unitelligible to today's culture - existence of God, Trinity, etc. It's the same kind of issue. You're answer on how to deal with this on the theological side will probably be similar as to how to deal with it on the ethical side.
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
What struck me when reading your list ("euthanasia, divorce, low rates of marriage, and the focus on quality of life over the sanctity of life that leads to a variety of problems - including a society where rates of childbirth are very low, and the dominance of materialism") is how the underlying attitude hasn't changed over the millennia. Eve still remains Eve, doesn't she? She ruined paradise and brought death into the human condition in Genesis and she's accused of doing exactly the same today. Just as in the creation myth, women today can only try to make things right again by carrying out their breeding function.
Except that I don't think a lot of my list has much to do with feminism: the abortion - certainly. But "euthanasia, divorce, low rates of marriage, and the focus on quality of life over the sanctity of life that leads to a variety of problems - including a society where rates of childbirth are very low, and the dominance of materialism"? They've got little directly to do with feminism in my view. They're problems I think are associated with egalitarianism.
And I don't think Eve ruined paradise. I think Adam did. But I'm sure that that is going to look just as patriachal because now I'm not even giving the Eve the 'honour' of being able to destroy paradise.
And I don't think women make things right by carrying out their breeding function. I think they're justified by faith in Christ, just as men are. Marriage is a context for salvation, not the cause of it.
quote:
After long reflection I have come to the conclusion that you are taking outrageous liberties with your interpretation here. Your argument appears to be: hierarchies have leaders; this model that Christ talks about has a leader; therefore it must be a hierarchy; furthermore because Christ uses this image of (what I have decided is a) hierarchy to talk about the Kingdom in one passage, God must intend all human being to live in a ranked hierarchy on earth.
I'm not sure what the outrageous liberties in my interpretation are. Christ is the model of the what it means to have greatness in the redeemed community. The apostles are given thrones to sit on by God. This is the kind of leadership that Alan seemed to be identifying as hierarchical - his argument, which others haven't seemed to want to contradict, is that submission = inferiority:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is a deep logical inconsistency there; either that or our definitions of words like "equal" and "authority" are so radically different that we may as well be speaking different languages. To me, equality means that neither has authority over the other. It's compatible with mutual submission to each other, but not authority of one over the other.
Alan seems to defining equality as "no-one has inherent, permanent authority over another". Hierarchy is saying those sorts of relationships do exist. I don't think that I'm being outrageous in equating the existence of leaders with hierarchy in this passage.
And yes, where Jesus lays out a characteristic of living in the Kingdom of God, then I think that is God's ideal for humanity living on earth.
quote:
There is so much in the gospels that shows Jesus defying authority, having no regard for earthly systems of power and turning all our ideas of the ordering of human society upside down that I don't think you make the slightest indentation in his anti-authoritarian stance by the passage you cite. And Romans doesn't trump the second person of the Trinity.
Which I've already addressed. Jesus both affirms and overthrows the existing structures. Examples of the former include: rejecting divorce, upholding children's need to support their parents, upholding that we should "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's", recognising that Pilate's authority over Jesus' life and death was given to him by God, having those cleansed by him fulfil Moses' commands for ritual purification.
There's two strands of evidence, I've indicated how I think they are complementary and not opposed. If you think the overthrowing strand also overturns the strand where Jesus affirms the existing structures, then I'd be interested to see how it does.
quote:
Originally posted by Avalon:
So, bring on the chaos is all I can say. Maybe I just didn't even get married 23 years ago.(Well it was something from a Scottish tradition where promises made on both sides were identical and no-one was given away.) Maybe I just have friendship+ sex and all on a promise that didn't import God in with incantations of orderliness.<Snip>
Probably time I arranged a little more chaos by breaking it to The-Friend-With-Whom-I-Have-Sex that we're living a lie and should never have tried to lie about it in church. And what do I tell the kids? I could enjoy this.....
I find it hard to recognise much of what any headship proponent has said on this thread in your post, Avalon,so I'll pass over it except for one point.
No-one (I think) said that a person couldn't be married without headship. I explicitly denied it. Both sides have said that their position better reflects the nature of marriage. So at this point you are attacking a point that no-one is defending, and at least one headship proponent has argued against.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Forgive the interruption, but what is "the married bachelor problem"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Second Mouse - thanks for sharing that. I do understand where you are coming from and there are some very important issues raised.
Even within a framework of male headship in the church, there is still certainly a role for women in Bible teaching ministries (albeit some read Paul as saying the best relationships for women teaching the Bible are with other women and children). If God has given you those gifts, he wants you to use them.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
Equality is meaningless for you unless it results in a relationship where one person does not submit the other in a non-reciprocal way.
Submission, it seems to me, is by its very nature non-reciprocal. At least when applied to a single situation. If it were then when deciding, say, whether to buy a new car the conversation would go something like "You choose", "no, I'm submitting to you, it's your choice", "No, I'm the submissive one. You choose" etc. I admit that the decision could be made "you choose the car, I'll choose the holiday" which could be termed reciprocal, but seems to me more about equitable division of decision making. Of course, there has to be some basis for making that decision to divide division making, which could require someone to submit to the other.
Equality for me is where people make the decision together. Even if that means that the decision is for one person to have the authority to do a particular task (such as decide on a new car). That authority to do that task doesn't derive from their own position (as, say the husband) but from the group as a whole. This applies not just in marriage, but also in church and democratic government.
quote:
And politicians are higher than you - they are treated with more respect, they have more influence, they are taken more seriously by other leaders (in your country and others), they get honorifics like "honourable" (under the right conditions), particular privileges and the like.
<snip>
A modern democracy is an example of hierarchy.
And, here I have to disagree, again. A modern democracy (at least one that is functioning properly, we'd best leave aside the numerous examples where it doesn't) is not inherently hierarchical. Yes, elected politicians get certain privilages and titles appropriate to their position. That doesn't make them any "higher" than us. The authority of the Prime Minister isn't derived from who he is, it is given to him by the people of the country (albeit in most cases through an intermediary body such as Parliament). Yes, they have more influence than the average person in the street - because we have delegated that influence to them. If they didn't represent us then politicians would be ordinary people with no more influence or authority than anyone else. Admittedly, in many cases, political leaders also have ability and talents that mean they have that position in part due to merit. But I'd put that in a similar situation to deciding who buys the car on a decision to divide authority - the person who decides what car to buy is the one with better knowledge of cars, the one most likely to drive it. Any sensible person would give authority those most capable of exercising that.
In a hierarchy people have authority on their own. In a monarchy the king has authority because he was first born son of the previous monarch (or because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at him), and his lords have authority because he gave it to them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Forgive the interruption, but what is "the married bachelor problem"?
I think this means that the opposing view has been defined as an absurdity or an oxymoron — pregnant virginity, military intelligence, etc — therefore anyone arguing for it is automatically absurd or moronic.
Levor is suggesting that he has been defined (in the minds of some) as arguing a nonsense, with all that this implies about his character and intelligence.
It used to be called Catch-22.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway
Ship's scavenger
# 139
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway:
You are never free from an abuser until you are doing what you feel is right whatever he does.
Are you saying that any relationship which means that you end up doing something you wouldn't have done otherwise is abusive?
Maybe it's me being stupid, but it seems like a non-sequitur otherwise.
Sorry, I missed answering this one. I forgot about dead horses and thought the thread was closed.
From my point of view "the powers that be" are fallen and tend to abuse what they should have served. The gospel is a call to freedom from all dominating forces including the powers.
As with all gospel truths the question arises "Now that we are free from this, how do we behave?". If we are free from the law, do we continue in sin? If we belong to the kingdom of God, do we pay taxes?
I used the analogy of abuse. The victim of abuse may have been controlled all of their lives until they get free from the abuser. If they are truly free, they will not use their freedom to do what the abuser does not want. They will simply make decisions based on what is right. As long as the are reacting to what once controlled them, they are not truly free.
In context, it is not surprising that Christians should submit to earthly powers, especially in their role of punishing evil doers. Why would we want to do evil? When the powers do their God-ordained role, we co-operate. When they step over into dominance, we demand that they fulfil their God-ordained role, just as Jesus and Paul did. We neither rebel nor aquiesce.
--------------------
Warning: Mid-life crisis in progress
Posts: 610 | From: Back down North | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
From the women in authority thread:
Sienna said quote:
So far, I haven't heard anyone other than Grits address the question of why subordination of women is a principle we should uphold in marriage and church, but not in the wider world.
I have actually addressed this several times - I may have not sone so very well, but I have tried to address it, so please give me credit for that!
I'll have another go. ISTM that the church as a gathered community has a particular responsibility to model the Gospel, in a way that individual Christians cannot do so. That I think is what 1 Timothy is all about. Thus creation order is modelled inside the church to witness to those outside. Creation order cannot be modelled outside the church because the male/female relationship post fall cannot be mimicked where men and women are not reconciled to God. Creation order just can't be demonstrated where either male or female is not a Christian.It's interesting that the other controversial passgae to do with headship 1 Cor 11, it is based on the Trinity - another immutable principle - but bringing the non-Christian world to model the trinity is, IMHO, a lost cause without them coming to Christ first.
You say the issue wouldn't have arisen for the first 1800 years of the church - but isn't a key plank in the feminist interpretation of 1 Timothy that women in Ephesus were incredibly domineering and emancipated and Paul is having to rein them in?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Creation order cannot be modelled outside the church because the male/female relationship post fall cannot be mimicked where men and women are not reconciled to God. Creation order just can't be demonstrated where either male or female is not a Christian.
Now that makes sense.
But - and this is a serious but - if you are telling me that that modelling of creation order implies subordination or submission of the wife to the husband, it just isn;t going to happen. Even if I beleived that it did (& I don't of course) where are these submissive Christian wives, willing or eager to model creation by subordinating themselves to some bloke? Pretty thin on the ground round here.
It's like some ethnographical report from a remote village on a Pacific island cut off from the rest of the world for centuries. All this stuff just doesn't happen.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Lep, I think I understand what you're saying but I still think there are problems. If "creation order is modelled inside the church to witness to those outside" then what should a Christian woman do in the work place? Should she reject promotion, if offered, if this would place her in authority over men? How can the world have any understanding of creation order/God's plan/ call it what you will if what is sees are different values at work when Christians are inside and outside church?
You would never advocate that finacial probity should only apply to the church accounts, and not to the firm's books, I'm sure. So why is this area different?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
what should a Christian woman do in the work place? Should she reject promotion, if offered, if this would place her in authority over men?
Actually that puts it better than I did.
The real question is, if all this headship stuff is true, if it really is God's will, if it is a way of foreshadowing the Kingdom and upholding God's work in creation. how should we behave differently from how we are behaving now?
What should a woman actually do to model this headship?
More pointedly for me, how do I, a man, embody it? Do I start walking around giving women orders and expecting them to be obeyed? Do I refuse to accept leadership or guidance for women?
I can hardly embody it at home privately all on my own can I? What corporate public outworking is there that you would expect to see from a Christian man?
We need advice here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I tried to excercise authority over Ruth on the Star Wars thread and she just laughed at me. And I thought this was a Christian website.......
(Ken, do you realise we're agreeing rather a lot at the moment? Scary, isn't it?)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Lep, I'll repeat what I said on the "women in authority" thread: those who have a higher view of the Bible than I do must limit its application rather severely in order to preserve their interpretation of it.
Wanderer: ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I tried to excercise authority over Ruth on the Star Wars thread and she just laughed at me.
See? I told you it only worked for church and marriage. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
What I find fascinatingly funny (in a this has got to be a joke ... right? kind of way) is that anyone who has had a relationship must surely know how often spectacularly wrong some men can be! (and I guess that men would say the same about us ... and they would be wrong again ![[Biased]](wink.gif) (kidding)
And so should be anyone group or class be left in sole trust to make or lead all the decision making?
I don't think so! Not in my (admittedly limited) experience anyway, this path leads to pain and failure.
Of course I'm sure that many men would say the exact opposite!
I am not saying that women are never wrong! before I get accused of that) Of course sometimes anyone can be seriously wrong! If this happens, admit it, move on!
key term here - we are human - everyone gets it wrong sometimes, so why have strict rules about headship? It doesn't work! because people make mistakes, and if you put too much faith in the ability of other people to lead, you forget the checks and balances and it can seriously go wrong.
Proper checks and balances, it's the modern way!
No one is right all the time, people have different skills and attributes, and there is no such thing as a stereotype, or the "men can do this better, women can do this better, girls are better than boys, banana's are better than pineapples" ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
thats what I think! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
What Ruth said: quote:
Originally posted by RuthW: those who have a higher view of the Bible than I do must limit its application rather severely in order to preserve their interpretation of it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
it would appear so.
[ 22. June 2005, 22:14: Message edited by: Lady Alicia of Scouseland ]
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
I broadly agree with your sentiments in this post RuthW - ... Most of what you raise about the gains of feminism I think are true gains of feminism and I think they are good. Which is why I was focusing more on egalitarianism. (I also don't think the Christian tradition is as universally bad as it sometimes looks - but that's a secondary issue - it doesn't take away from how feminism has helped over the last century).
Me too. I certainly don't think that feminism should be ascribed as a bad word, but I do also feel that Egalitarianism is a natural evolution of feminism and all civil rights for that matter are really about the same thing, the right to be heard, the right to be visible and respected as a relevant part of the whole.
[ 23. June 2005, 13:25: Message edited by: Lady Alicia of Scouseland ]
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Lep, I think I understand what you're saying but I still think there are problems. If "creation order is modelled inside the church to witness to those outside" then what should a Christian woman do in the work place? Should she reject promotion, if offered, if this would place her in authority over men? How can the world have any understanding of creation order/God's plan/ call it what you will if what is sees are different values at work when Christians are inside and outside church?
I think what I am saying is that it is not possible for creation order to be modelled between a non-Christian man and a Christian woman. There are some aspects of the Gospel we can only model in community.
There's two issues here:
1) That the passages in question are addressing the order of the gathered church. Both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy seem to be talking about church meetings.
2) HOW is creation order restored and modelled? I don't see how it can be modelled (or the Trinity relationship as per 1 Corinthians 11) can be modelled by people who haven't trusted Christ or don't believe in the Trinity.
In terms of your witness argument - I think it is actually a more powerful witness if a capable strong woman follows creation order in her church surroundings in a way she wouldn't in her workplace. It shows, as I think1 Tim is saying that there is something different going on in this community.
In saying this, there are women I know who feel that taking leadership in a secular context would make it difficult for them to be godly in their marriage or in church. That is up to them, and I don't think that we need to "legislate" for that - for the further we get away from the middle of the circle (marriage and church) the less important it becomes.
Ruth - I don't think I am limiting the application of the principle any more than is textually warranted. But then I would say that.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you for explaining Lep. It seems to me that there is still an inconsistency there, but we will just have to agree to disagree over this.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But - and this is a serious but - if you are telling me that that modelling of creation order implies subordination or submission of the wife to the husband, it just isn;t going to happen. Even if I beleived that it did (& I don't of course) where are these submissive Christian wives, willing or eager to model creation by subordinating themselves to some bloke? Pretty thin on the ground round here.
It's like some ethnographical report from a remote village on a Pacific island cut off from the rest of the world for centuries. All this stuff just doesn't happen.
I know quite a few (some married, some not). Try looking in a church that teaches this kind of headship in marriage.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I know a couple that gives good lip-service to the principle. She only disciples and leads Bible study for other women and publicly accedes to her husband as head of their marriage. But the wife can and does make the marriage a living hell -days of pouting, screaming, etc.- if she really disagrees with a stand her husband takes on child-rearing or household organizing.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I only know one couple who say they do this. IMCompletelyPrejudicedO, the wife tends to get her own way by manipulative means. I don't think this is deliberate, she probably doesn't even know she's doing it.
I've always told Hugal that if he's right and I'm wrong, I will graciously and humbly submit. And I will, just as soon as I find an occasion when he is. Ten years now, and still waiting ...
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
In a church where headship of the male is preached, I was rather amused to discover lots of couples which had very outgoing, strong females and partners who hardly ever said anything! Perhaps the females just ignored the preacher and the males were too timid to object.....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Manipulative behaviour at church and at work has been upsetting me for years. Once the principle is established that responsibility should be based on anything other than gifts, talent and character, look out. Manipulation skills are so tempting when a person who has these skills is denied any real authority. (I've seen this happen to men held back, for no good reason, in subordinate positions at work.)
In fact I think this is the real reason why lots of key relationships (including male/female) get bent out of shape. Mutual respect and mutual opportunity provide a good basis for mutual honesty - but a lack of opportunity is breeding ground for manipulation, regardless of gender.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Speak it, brother!
--------------------
"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
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
But - and this is a serious but - if you are telling me that that modelling of creation order implies subordination or submission of the wife to the husband, it just isn;t going to happen. Even if I beleived that it did (& I don't of course) where are these submissive Christian wives, willing or eager to model creation by subordinating themselves to some bloke? Pretty thin on the ground round here.
Absolutely. The marriages I know where the spouses claim to conduct themselves according to patriarchal beliefs are not in fact conducted that way; it's often the wives who run the show from behind the scenes, often by manipulating. (I do wonder if after a while they get tired of doing this...) Admittedly these are not women who are thinking in terms of 'modelling creation'; they're much more down to earth than that! I don't think it's an accident that a lot of men don't want to belong to patriarchal institutions.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Originally posted by BWSmith in Kerygmania:
quote:
The liberals are right in asserting that Deborah and Jael were examples of women leaders who were the deliverers of God's people. However, in their zeal for "egalitarian progress" in the area of church leadership, they often trivialize or overlook the negative effects that sexuality itself can have on a woman's ability to lead men over the long term.
I would like to know what you mean by this. I would also like to know whether you've ever considered this in reverse: the effects sexuality itself can have on a man's ability to lead women over the long term.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Mmm-hmm.
I am remembering a thread from years back in which a bunch of clergymen were making some pretty uncharitable comments about "bunny-boilers"-- i.e., lonely women who'd developed crushes on them. So obviously sexuality is something male clergy has to deal with, in regards to parishioner dynamics.
I suppose a female priest/pastor night have the same problem-- so what?
(By the same token, I am sure a single minister of either sex would have all kinds of issues to think about when they dated. One would hope married ministers of either sex would be held to the same standards of fidelilty as is commonly expected between husbands and wives.)
[ 29. April 2007, 20:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ohmigod! You have remembered, and found, a thread dormant for a year and a half! Ruth, either you rock or you need to get out more. (Actually the first is self evidently true. I'll get my coat.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Well, it wasn't that hard -- the Dead Horses board has only the one page. (But thanks! If only the fact that I rock were a truth universally acknowledged. )
quote:
I am remembering a thread from years back in which a bunch of clergymen were making some pretty uncharitable comments about "bunny-boilers"-- i.e., lonely women who'd developed crushes on them.
Yes, there was quite a bit of misogyny floating around on that thread, as I recall.
quote:
So obviously sexuality is something male clergy has to deal with, in regards to parishioner dynamics.
Any member of the clergy with a pulse has to deal with this, I would think. But BWSmith seems to assume that it's only a factor in relationships between female clergy and male laypeople.
[ 30. April 2007, 02:07: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Well, it wasn't that hard -- the Dead Horses board has only the one page. (But thanks! If only the fact that I rock were a truth universally acknowledged. )
quote:
I am remembering a thread from years back in which a bunch of clergymen were making some pretty uncharitable comments about "bunny-boilers"-- i.e., lonely women who'd developed crushes on them.
Yes, there was quite a bit of misogyny floating around on that thread, as I recall.
Thanks. I thought there was, but was too green to fight with the big boys at the time. I was also sporting a pretty big crushon somebody at the time, and it was depressing to think that my blushing and fumbling around him might instantly be taken as a sign that I was capable of parboioing small animals.
quote:
quote:
So obviously sexuality is something male clergy has to deal with, in regards to parishioner dynamics.
Any member of the clergy with a pulse has to deal with this, I would think. But BWSmith seems to assume that it's only a factor in relationships between female clergy and male laypeople.
If there is any "factor", my guess it is the unspoken-- or sometimes loudly spoken-- assumption that still comes up, that if a woman gets unwanted attention, she must have been doing something to attract it.
And my response to that would be "whatever"-- if the woman in question has the skills to weather that kind of nonsense, then more power to her.
[ 30. April 2007, 02:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Originally posted by BWSmith in Kerygmania:
quote:
The liberals are right in asserting that Deborah and Jael were examples of women leaders who were the deliverers of God's people. However, in their zeal for "egalitarian progress" in the area of church leadership, they often trivialize or overlook the negative effects that sexuality itself can have on a woman's ability to lead men over the long term.
I would like to know what you mean by this. I would also like to know whether you've ever considered this in reverse: the effects sexuality itself can have on a man's ability to lead women over the long term.
Here's a quote from the movie, "When Harry Met Sally":
quote:
Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.
That's what I mean, except substitute "pastoral relationship" in for "friends". That's what gets in the way.
It's not a matter of who is and is not "disciplined", so to speak. It's just a "property of the flesh".
And as Sally demonstrates, it's mostly a one-way street. Men don't have the power to bring a woman to her knees at the drop of a hat the way a woman can a man. Apart from the occasional lonely-types, women just don't have the same kind of "primal" barriers to following men.
To elaborate one step further - it's not an issue of whether women are capable of doing the job, as some chauvinists might argue. Rather, a woman can do everything right but still have some large percentage of her congregation that can't get past the distraction of their own flesh-driven instincts...
[ 30. April 2007, 02:30: Message edited by: BWSmith ]
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
And as Sally demonstrates, it's mostly a one-way street. Men don't have the power to bring a woman to her knees at the drop of a hat the way a woman can a man. Apart from the occasional lonely-types, women just don't have the same kind of "primal" barriers to following men.
To elaborate one step further - it's not an issue of whether women are capable of doing the job, as some chauvinists might argue. Rather, a woman can do everything right but still have some large percentage of her congregation that can't get past the distraction of their own flesh-driven instincts...
Welll apparently women do have such primal attractions-- the guys were certainly bitching about them enough-- it's just not considered ladylike to express them.
As for whether or not members of the congregation being unable to "get past" their "flesh-driven" instincts, I'd say that is between those individuals and their shrink. Whenever I have participated in a congregation headed by a woman, I have seen her either treated with great respect and comradery by the men, or just ignored like any other pastor.
Gauntelet: There are certain folk who appear as if by magic whenever a blanket statement is made about the character of men as a whole. I expect that y'all will promptly show up to respond to B.W.'s reperesentation of men as flesh-hounds incapable of curtailing their behaviour when appropriate.
[ 30. April 2007, 02:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
As somebody who agrees with Headship and also Male Clergy only view, I still can not agree I have some strange voodoo power on men and them not on me. I think both sexes have plenty of prepotency when it comes to some weird hyponetic spell-binding charm.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Precisely, Duch.
BW, do you really think Sally wasn't attracted to Harry from the first car ride? IMHO she was protesting waaaay too much.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
And as Sally demonstrates, it's mostly a one-way street. Men don't have the power to bring a woman to her knees at the drop of a hat the way a woman can a man. Apart from the occasional lonely-types, women just don't have the same kind of "primal" barriers to following men.
Sally doesn't "demonstrate" anything. She makes a claim. She's wrong. And so are you. There are plenty of men who don't take Harry's view of relationships between men and women, plenty of men who don't want to "nail" every woman they know.
quote:
Rather, a woman can do everything right but still have some large percentage of her congregation that can't get past the distraction of their own flesh-driven instincts...
They can, and they should. Just as the many women in my parish who took one look at our rector when he came in the door and went weak in the knees have, for the most part, gotten past it.
You write as if women have all the sexual power in the world and men have none, as if men have all the sexual drive in the world and women have none. This is simply not the case.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Wouldn't his argument also lead to the conclusion that men shouldn't have women in their congregations....? Too distracting and all that/ not ok to get to know the women in your congregation ??
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Oh, not at all, there's never been a problem with male ministers becoming involved with parishioners. Nope.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Here's a quote from the movie, "When Harry Met Sally":
quote:
[...] men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way. [...]
Two important points:
1) Harry is flirting. This is not a disinterested and sincere assessment of gender relations even on its own terms or in the context of the movie's storyline.
2) It's bollocks.
And if there was any truth to it as an argument about female ministry, it's also an argument against allowing women to do any job whatever which requires them to do more than look pretty.
Fortunately, I, (in common with most other men I know) am somehow able to restrain the primal lusts of the flesh to the extent that sex doesn't have to dominate all personal or professional dealings with women - so much so that on the surface many of us men appear almost as civilised as the ladies who are blissfully untroubled by all that sort of thing.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Here's a quote from the movie, "When Harry Met Sally":
That's a new sort of source criticism for you!
quote:
It's not a matter of who is and is not "disciplined", so to speak. It's just a "property of the flesh".
Er, whose flesh, and whose property?
quote:
Men don't have the power to bring a woman to her knees at the drop of a hat the way a woman can a man. Apart from the occasional lonely-types, women just don't have the same kind of "primal" barriers to following men.
Horseshit. Patently untrue lies that are false. Cobblers. Have you not noticed the prevalance of male celebrities who are celebrated for their appeal to women?
And what about gay and bisexual people? Why assume that attraction is even just male/female?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Who dredged this up from the depths of slime?
Oh, RuthW. Hi!
So, BW Smith, we take the works of the (admittedly great) Norah Ephron as normative for Christian sexual relationships nowadays do we?
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Men don't have the power to bring a woman to her knees at the drop of a hat the way a woman can a man.
Horseshit. Patently untrue lies that are false. Cobblers. Have you not noticed the prevalance of male celebrities who are celebrated for their appeal to women?
And what about gay and bisexual people? Why assume that attraction is even just male/female?
Well, yes, but, such people are rare. Only a very small proportion of men seem to have that effect on women, but a very large proportion of women, maybe the majority, have that effect on men. If you wanted to rephrase that to sound rude to men you could say that men's eyes wander more than women's, and that women have higher standards. Both old cliches with some truth behind them. So, if such distractions were to be avoided in preachers, it would be a lot safer having female preachers than male ones.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I can only assume that you don't know many women!
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I can only assume that you don't know many women!
Really?
Take a step back - are you honestly saying that you think women are more likely to be distracted by the sight of a man they find sexy (or to be distracted more often) in a church (or in the street or in work or anywhere else) than a man is to be similarly attracted to a woman?
Just look at people in public, whose eyes follow who around? Or look at which pictures
This, I think, is one of those odd occasions where the traditional sexist view of things (that men spend more time thinking about sex than women do and have a larger visual aspect to their sexual fantasies, and excercise less self-control than women do) and the feminist view (there is a large literature about men's gaze controlling public space) and the currerently fashionable genetic determinism/pseudobiology (men assumed to be inherently more promiscuous and less choosey than women for theoretical genetic reasons) all more or less agree on how people behave (which is not the same as agreeing on why they behave that way)
To put it bluntly, a man looking at a hundred women might find fifty or sixty of them attractive. A woman looking at a hundred men might only fancy one or two.
So we'd expect men preaching or lecturing to women to be more likely to have hassle keeping their mind on topic than the other way round.
(of course that doesn't apply to gay men, or to all women, or in all circumstances, but it look smore or less likely to be true much of the time. Its a statistical statement)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I can only assume that you don't know many women!
Really?
Take a step back - are you honestly saying that you think women are more likely to be distracted by the sight of a man they find sexy (or to be distracted more often) in a church (or in the street or in work or anywhere else) than a man is to be similarly attracted to a woman?
Certainly the women I know. I am meeting up with two girlfriends of mine later in the pub and they'll be saying 'He has got a cute arse.' As it's warm, we will probably sit outside and they will comment on the hairy or smooth legs of the guys walking past in shorts. They check out packages too.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Take a step back - are you honestly saying that you think women are more likely to be distracted by the sight of a man they find sexy (or to be distracted more often) in a church (or in the street or in work or anywhere else) than a man is to be similarly attracted to a woman?
Not (as leo is claiming) more likely, but certainly in my experience no less likely.
Women check out men just as much as men check out women.
What this has to do with headship, I'm waiting for BWSmith to explain.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Who dredged this up from the depths of slime?
Oh, RuthW. Hi!
Waves.
Seriously, ken, you clearly have no idea how much women look at men. Or how many men we find attractive.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
You mean that sexual desire isn't something that men exclusively have and that women exploit to find a good husband?
IIRC, Graham Leonard made an analogous argument against the ordination of women. If women were ordained one might find oneself gazing lustfully at the celebrant as she consecrated the Precious Things. Which kind of works as an argument if you assume that there are no women or gay men in the congregation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Gay men? In churches? In the Diocese of London?
Surely not.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You mean that sexual desire isn't something that men exclusively have and that women exploit to find a good husband?
It's rather odd, in fact, that virtually uncontrollable sexual desire is now attributed to men, when in Chaucer's day (and earlier -- I'm looking at you, St. Jerome) women were the lusty sex.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
