|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The "Nashville Statement"
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gender roles =\= gender
Ah well, I have been screaming about the misuse of 'gender' for about 30 years, since it began to assume the meaning of sex identity. In fact, I don't really know what anybody means by it now, and I tend to use sex/gender, so as to make the confusion explicit. But I think it's also happened because sex/gender and sexuality are so complicated and fuzzy, and kind of bleed into each other.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gender roles =\= gender
Ah well, I have been screaming about the misuse of 'gender' for about 30 years, since it began to assume the meaning of sex identity. In fact, I don't really know what anybody means by it now, and I tend to use sex/gender, so as to make the confusion explicit. But I think it's also happened because sex/gender and sexuality are so complicated and fuzzy, and kind of bleed into each other.
Well, yes. For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
There is also the interchangeable and inconsistent use within the professional communities as well as general ignorance.
[ 04. September 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
Clearly they are not a natural outgrowth, or one would expect less variation between cultures. Although some of them certainly don't seem too arbitrary, such as women taking care of infants, since they birth and nurse them. From this, males doing hunting (while the women stay home with the infants), or other things difficult to do when slung about with an infant, is at least not too disobvious. So I think there's an interplay.
Trouble comes when these are cast in stone as the way God intended it to always be. Clearly a woman who is not currently nursing could be out hunting with the boys while others take care of the weaned ones, and so on, and so on.
Transferring this whole (in part imaginary) scenario to modern times (women can't be firefighters, soldiers, etc.) is clearly a mistake (especially in these latter days when babies can be nursed, even with their mothers' own milk, when their biological mothers are not present) (yes I know there have always been wet-nurses).
TL/DR: there is great misuse of imagined traditional gender roles, but they are not completely arbitrary in origin.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
So you call all that rubbish social science gender "studies" SCIENCE??? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) What can you expect at this day and age when "science" says its perfectly normal to remove a personīs completely healthy and functional organ just because that person feels she was "born in the wrong body"? How can you be so blind to confuse this stupid ideology with "science", specially when there isnīt even a consensus in the scientific community.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
Clearly they are not a natural outgrowth, or one would expect less variation between cultures. Although some of them certainly don't seem too arbitrary, such as women taking care of infants, since they birth and nurse them. From this, males doing hunting (while the women stay home with the infants), or other things difficult to do when slung about with an infant, is at least not too disobvious. So I think there's an interplay.
Trouble comes when these are cast in stone as the way God intended it to always be. Clearly a woman who is not currently nursing could be out hunting with the boys while others take care of the weaned ones, and so on, and so on.
Transferring this whole (in part imaginary) scenario to modern times (women can't be firefighters, soldiers, etc.) is clearly a mistake (especially in these latter days when babies can be nursed, even with their mothers' own milk, when their biological mothers are not present) (yes I know there have always been wet-nurses).
TL/DR: there is great misuse of imagined traditional gender roles, but they are not completely arbitrary in origin.
I donīt think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I donīt think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
This is believed by whom, exactly?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
I no longer know who believes what, nor -- except when it gets in my own personal way -- do I much care. It's been decades since I was myself profoundly convinced that there was a "female nature" and a "male nature." What dissuaded me? A little life experience and a wide acquaintance.
I had keenly hoped to outlive several tiresome (to me) phenomena:
1. memorials and tributes to Michael Jackson; 2. (apologies to British fans, but . . . ) memorials and tributes to Princess Diana;
3. declamations and controversies about who does what to whom with consent in the privacy of bedrooms;
4. declamations and controversies over the "authentic" roles and "true" natures of women and men as groups.
It appears that I may have succeeded in outliving # 1.
As I stare into a final event horizon which edges slowly closer, it also appears I shall have to take much better care of myself to have any hope whatever of outliving #s 2, 3, and 4.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I know it may be hard to discern from my earlier posts what my position might actually be on the - Heaven help me - Nashville Statement. In case you missed the point; my town has enough BSC types without inviting in outside loonies to add to the drivel. Naming it after a wonderful community is just the kind of arrogant zeitgeist I have come to expect from people who not only Know Everything, they know how everyone else should act as well.
Where does that come from is a question that I would love to see answered. My guess is based upon the conservative services I have attended. Don't know if they were evangelical. I am certain they thought they were charismatic. After all, if you are going to wear all black in the same town where Johnny Cash worked, you must think you are something.
I think they view God as this giant judgment machine who thinks exactly the way they do. God judges them good and makes them powerful and well to do. God hates "those people" and should be making them suffer.
How do they know this? Why, they are good and they can answer trivia quizzes about the Bible, so they must have enough knowledge of God to be able to carry on for him when he obviously is dropping the ball. I mean really now, letting society look different than they want it to look.
So, somebody has to keep up standards if God is just going to go on letting those people have weddings, elect "one of them" to high political office and leave good church goers floundering financially while transsexy people swarm out of New Orleans to invade wrong sex bathrooms.
OK, maybe a little less judgemental later.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
@gorpo:
When there is a mismatch between the brain and the rest of the body which do you try to change to match the other? There is, while not complete consensus (is there ever?), considerable agreement that denying trans people the right to transition does considerable psychological harm, particularly forcing them to live as their assigned gender. For many trans folk hormone treatment is sufficient, and they don't consider the benefits worth the risks of surgery (I have a trans-male friend in that position) but for others surgery is what it takes for them to feel truly themselves. Who are you to deny them that?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Gorpo - do you have anything to add to this conversation beyond your sneering superiority?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I donīt think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
I perceive you would have been one of those people who looked down on me for being a stay-at-home dad and raising my kids from 6 months to adulthood.
And as a result of people like you, the number of fathers taking the primary caring role will barely reach 1%, let alone 50%.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.
I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.
I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
I think it's "I've got my tiny worldview all sorted out so don't go and upset it you bastard!" with a side order of "I'm so much cleverer than you because you must be really stupid or perhaps just evil not to accept that I'm right".
It stinks.
[ 05. September 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
Just to re-iterate my last point, this indeed seems to be the conclusion if you read article V.
If you take this from one of the signers of the statement, it appears the exterior genitalia trumps chromosomes (which is all sorts of problematic medically/historically).
So yes, genital essentialism.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
Just to re-iterate my last point, this indeed seems to be the conclusion if you read article V.
If you take this from one of the signers of the statement, it appears the exterior genitalia trumps chromosomes (which is all sorts of problematic medically/historically).
So yes, genital essentialism.
I immediately noticed in your link the weasel word 'natural' and 'naturally'. This can be taken either as a kind of gross out feeling (penises up bums is so unnatural), or some tortured appeal to 'final cause' and all the Aristotelian baggage that accompanies it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ships penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crsos:
What's missing is the idea that you can 'pray the gay away' and strong enough religious belief can 'straighten out' any homosexual. Given how fairly recently there was a whole thriving industry based on turning gay people straight
This was mainly a thing on the more conservative end of US Christianity and the more conservative + charismatic end of UK Christianity. In this context it's probably reasonably significant that at least two of the signatories have spoken of their particular experience of same sex attraction.
also satirised in Genesis's track Jesus He Knows Me.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm waiting to hear more about that troublesome psychodemographic militating for 50/ 50 female/ male participafion in all human activities. Who are these elusive persons? Why don't I lnow any of them? Why have I never even encountered one on the Internet, where yiu can find just about anyone?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.
I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
This.
The Nashville statement is so full of wishful theology-- imposing a ideology on reality-- as if we could strong-arm the material world to match one's fundamentalist, literalist worldview. In particular the section on transgenderism-- which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
I've mentioned my 7 month old granddaughter who was born with 6 severe heart defects, including a single ventricle. She had open-heart surgery on her 2nd day of life-- without it she would have died within days if not hours. I don't hear the Nashville folks objecting to her surgery, but logically, to be consistent with their 5 point theology they should-- God created her with that defective heart, just the same as he created transgender folks with a gender identity different from their anatomical identity.
IMHO the root problem with the Nashville Declaration isn't so much a faulty theology of sexuality (though of course there is that) as a faulty theology of sovereignty and an inadequate theology of suffering.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
an inadequate theology of suffering.
An inadequate methodology of thinking, more like.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One reason that I am interested in trans gender is because it has defined gender in terms of feelings, not in terms of physical attributes. Thus, I assume that a trans woman feels like a woman, and maybe as a kid, felt like a girl. I know these are rather vague statements, but they are good enough for now.
Historically, this goes against the physicalist definitions of sex identity and gender which have been common, thus that you are defined by your genitals, or your chromosomes, and so on. The Olympics seems to have got into a muddle over testosterone, as well, or rather, women with naturally high levels.
I suppose the Nashville people are saying that it's the body that is the crucial criterion. If you have a penis, you are male, and you should be masculine. In other words, as chris stiles has shown, in these terms, your appearance defines who you are! Gulp.
But then who says? For this to work, you have to have some kind of executive decision. It might be your parents, or your school, or your pastor, and then if you are told that your feelings are invalid, (or even ungodly), the trans person is up against it, and feeling terrible, and possibly suicidal.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.
quote:
IMHO the root problem with the Nashville Declaration isn't so much a faulty theology of sexuality (though of course there is that) as a faulty theology of sovereignty and an inadequate theology of suffering.
No, it's a faulty theology of gender and sexuality - 'sovereignty' can make it go both ways, there are very few fatalists after all.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
I'm not a theologian and won't speak to that, but I am a human being. This reveals a faulty understanding of human beings.
Not being a god, I can't readily speak to that either. But if the general Christian understanding of the divine is one of love, self-sacrifice and salvation, this statement is also a faulty understanding of that god. Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
This particular group of people, and those they represent and lead, appear to have left that path years ago.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
They thought they deserved a promotion?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.
.
Conservative American evangelicals are my peeps-- this doesn't represent us. Yes, the vast majority of conservative evangelicals and evangelical denoms/institutions believe gay sex is a sin. But they would not say that same-sex attraction is a sin, or that gay or trans "self-conception" is a sin. I've lost count of how many evangelical leaders and organizations (including a couple I'm affiliated with) have come out against the statement. While American evangelicalism has a very, very, very loooong way to go on this issue, they are not as far gone as the Nashville declaration would make one think. It's a regressive move from a group of silly men who are seeing their power and influence slipping away and are throwing a massive tantrum and nailing a big "No Girlz (or Gayz or Tranz) allowed" sign on their clubhouse that no one wanted to be in anyway.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I'm not a theologian and won't speak to that, but I am a human being. This reveals a faulty understanding of human beings.
Not being a god, I can't readily speak to that either. But if the general Christian understanding of the divine is one of love, self-sacrifice and salvation, this statement is also a faulty understanding of that god. Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
This group is all about rigid lines of authority-- an almost militaristic view of life. Kids obey mom, mom obeys dad, dad obeys (male) pastor, pastor obeys God-- and so gets to speak for Him apparently. If you're gay or trans, then for God's sake just shut up about it and whatever you do don't tell anyone about your "self-conception".
[ 06. September 2017, 04:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.
.
Conservative American evangelicals are my peeps-- this doesn't represent us. Yes, the vast majority of conservative evangelicals and evangelical denoms/institutions believe gay sex is a sin. But they would not say that same-sex attraction is a sin, or that gay or trans "self-conception" is a sin. I've lost count of how many evangelical leaders and organizations (including a couple I'm affiliated with) have come out against the statement. While American evangelicalism has a very, very, very loooong way to go on this issue, they are not as far gone as the Nashville declaration would make one think. It's a regressive move from a group of silly men who are seeing their power and influence slipping away and are throwing a massive tantrum and nailing a big "No Girlz (or Gayz or Tranz) allowed" sign on their clubhouse that no one wanted to be in anyway.
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the fellow traveller argument is hard to argue against. cliffdweller is hanging in, with difficulty I guess. So am I. Sometimes it really pisses me off to be inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in.
Sometimes it also feels like a calling. A strange 'heretical' imperative, this willingness to challenge traditional status quos which you believe to be misconceived, wrong. It really isn't easy to hang in for the sake of the good you feel you might do that way. But crying Ichabod doesn't seem to be a part of my nature either.
YMMV
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's the only hope for the tent as the bus bears down upon it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Martin60, I appreciated that. Not that I'm saying I'm right all the time, you understand, just "this is how I see things." Sometimes it feels like the "bus" of unthinking majority will "run all over me"! But I'm still standing.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
I would agree that both of the evangelical options are wrong and harmful-- my problem with the Nashville statement is that it is taking us in the wrong direction-- going from the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" to the even more egregious (altho perhaps more honest) "no, we really just hate the sinner/gay". Which itself is significant-- the evangelical tribe is moving on this issue, albeit far too slowly, more and more evangelical leaders are having the courage to break with the pack, and that's freakin' the natives. Hence the doubling down by taking us 30 years backwards.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose somebody has to be punished. The gays have become a more difficult target, so the trans gets it. Why the urge to punish though? Err, that will cost you a lot of money, for an answer, say $3000?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
I would agree that both of the evangelical options are wrong and harmful-- my problem with the Nashville statement is that it is taking us in the wrong direction-- going from the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" to the even more egregious (altho perhaps more honest) "no, we really just hate the sinner/gay". Which itself is significant-- the evangelical tribe is moving on this issue, albeit far too slowly, more and more evangelical leaders are having the courage to break with the pack, and that's freakin' the natives. Hence the doubling down by taking us 30 years backwards.
There is a HECK of a lot of shunning in US evangelical circles of anybody or any organization that even comes close to affirming.
Eugene Peterson comes to mind as does Jen Hatmaker.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Absolutely. But there are more and more Jen Hatmakers and David Gushees, to say nothing of the more tentative Peterson. And more and more (mostly young) evangelicals are listening. It is far far too late but the movement is slowly changing. Which obviously pisses the old guard off. Hence this hateful statement-- the impotent thrashing about of a dying snake
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
For almost everyone under 30 - including Christians, including evangelicals - this is a non-issue. No one gives a monkeys which tab you stick near which slot, or whether you have a tab, a slot, both, or neither.
When these guys die, it'll be over.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes, exactly. Which is why they're acting out in this way, making a lotta noise, threatening those who don't listen to them-- they're irrelevant old men and incompetent sons trying desperate to feel important. They're not
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
True, but the damage is done. The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture, trying to act like what our spiritual leaders say matters, knowing in our hearts that it doesn't.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When these guys die, it'll be over.
It's not all old guys who are the problem. Desmond gets it. He's only 85.
[ 10. September 2017, 13:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For almost everyone under 30 - including Christians, including evangelicals - this is a non-issue. No one gives a monkeys which tab you stick near which slot, or whether you have a tab, a slot, both, or neither.
When these guys die, it'll be over.
I wish you were correct, I really do - but I'm not seeing it, myself. The reactions against may have toned down, but they're still there. I'm still hearing young guys use 'fag' as one of their more withering insults, and express their general dissatisfaction with shit by labelling it 'gay'. I know it's not at the level of tarring and feathering, but it both shows the issue isn't entirely shrug-worthy to them, and also suggest that this is something they view as a perfectly acceptable target for mockery. Some way from the whole thing being a non-issue. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. I suspect we thought the flat-earth thing had pretty much died out, as well, but no...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
True, but the damage is done. The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture, trying to act like what our spiritual leaders say matters, knowing in our hearts that it doesn't.
Yes.
And as several progressive evangelicals like Eddie Gibbs and Greg Boyd have noted, that may be a good thing. We have had far too long a run at exploiting power in the "way of the world"-- being part of "the powers that be"-- exerting "power over" as Boyd says it. It will take some time to beat that instinct to exploit power over one's "enemies", to see the world as a battlefield with winners and losers. Sadly, we didn't retire from the boxing ring voluntarily-- few do-- but we are being forced to the sidelines. May the Spirit use this time in the wilderness to humble us, to "speak from the margins" as Gibbs puts it, speaking truth to power (rather than being the power) on behalf, not of our own self-preservation, but on behalf of the voiceless-- "power under" as Boyd puts it. That just might save the Church.
[ 10. September 2017, 14:57: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture.
But that will at least put you on more or less the same footing.
Moreover, churches get on better with each other when it becomes obviously that they're facing similar problems.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
