praxis

A hypothetical or 3, here:

What if there were a country with a government similar to the government in the U.S.? Say that in that country (Country A), women are not permitted to serve in the House, the Senate, or as President. And the citizens claim that women and men in their country are equal. Would you believe them? Why or why not?

Suppose a neighboring country has the same form of government, and fewer restrictions on ways that women are permitted to serve their country in the federal government. This country (Country B) allows women to run for office and to serve in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. They also are not permitted to run for the office of President. The citizens of this country claim that women and men in their country are equal. Would you believe them? Why or why not?

Country C allows women to run for office and to serve in seats in the House and Senate, but will not permit them to run for the office of President. They make the same claims of equality that Country A & B do. Do you believe Country C? Why or why not?

Privilege is a word that encompasses a lot of things–and, well, a lot of intangibles. Privilege is something that gives me a benefit that is not common to all. It may be sex, race, nationality, religion. It may refer to education, or a specific level thereof, such as college or graduate school. “Privilege” is often used to mean “money”, or, a word we’re less comfortable with here in the US, “class”. And something that is a privilege in one setting may be neutral in another context, or even become a liability.

I have come to recognize that one privilege with which I grew up is that questions were not only tolerated, they were encouraged. I was encouraged to ask questions and to draw my own conclusions. I was encouraged to think for myself.

Of course, there was a danger that I might come up with different answers to some questions than my parents did, but this was a risk that they (apparently) were willing to take. I’ve mentioned this aspect of the way I was raised before, and voiced my appreciation of it, but it’s only recently that I’ve come to view it as a privilege: Being willing to question the status quo is something that can be infinitely useful and likely to land one in hot water as an adult, and I’ve had a lot of practice at it, since I’ve been at it since I was a kid.

The tough questions are better than the easy answers.

Reminder: No names of individuals or of churches in the comments. Anonymity is tricky to maintain, yet there are a number of good reasons for doing so.

Thanks!

The first time I heard the term, “mature masculinity” was in church. During a sermon. I think the entire phrase used was, “a mature masculinity in Christ”, and the context was something about the fruits thereof.

Let me be clear.

There is no such thing as “mature masculinity”. Or, for that matter, “mature femininity”. There are mature women, mature men: mature people. We, as Christians, hope to become the people who God created us to be. Who God intended/intends us to be.

If you disagree with me, please cite scriptures–in context–to make your argument.

“I don’t know where it’s coming from, but I think studios are finally realizing that people want to see girls who can kick butt as well as guys can.”–Rebecca Romijn (Mystique in the X-Men films), according to IMDB.com

The sticker is red, white, and blue, and states, “GOD is NOT a Republican…or a Democrat”. It’s this one.

Let me know if you’d like it and I can drop it in the mail to you. I’m cleaning out some folders and have an extra one. I’d like to share the message, so please request it only if you are going to put it on your auto. Thanks!

I recently visited a church that belongs to a denomination that practices somewhat open communion*, ie, if you are Christian, you are free to take communion there.

I was surprised when the invitation to communion came, and it was, “If you are a member of an evangelical, Bible-believing church, you are welcome at this table.” To be fair, that may not be a precise quotation, but the important parts are.

Would you feel you were welcome at that communion table?

*The denomination considers it to be “open communion”, since all Christians are welcome to take communion, but I consider “open communion” to be where everyone who wishes to do so is welcome to take communion.

Hey, does anyone here–through college/seminary/university study, self-directed study, or other means (please specify in your response )–have knowledge of a theology of the body in Christianity?

What I’m looking for, specifically, is information on whether, as Christians, we are supposed to view the body/mind/soul/spirit as separate or as one. And maybe my terminology is even wrong.

Thank you much!

I’ve been thinking, lately, about the importance of defining one’s terms. In a conversation, much less a discussion or a debate, if the parties involved don’t agree on what particular terms mean, it’s impossible to communicate. I’d like to encourage conversation here…and at the same time, it’s my blog, and I’m writing it. So I think a glossary might be in order.

I’m also recalling a friend letting me know she couldn’t make heads or tails of what I write about here, and I’d like to think that I can communicate decently in writing, so…I’m hoping that a glossary will help her and others make more sense of what I ramble about, here.

The first term I’d like to define–or talk about, really, if you wouldn’t mind–is “Christian”. As in , a Christian, a person.

[a] Christian can mean:

• someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior
• someone who tries to follow the example and teachings of Jesus as put forth in the Bible: this person may or may not accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior
• someone who tries to follow the example and teachings of Jesus as put forth in the Bible, and does not recognize the divinity of Christ
• someone who tells you they are a Christian, and you don’t really know anything about that person beyond their self-identification as a Christian

What do you think “a Christian” is?

Hello. We’re still not looking for a church. I’d heard some good things recently about a particular church from a friend (and I do need to listen to the sermons that the friend recommends), though, and I wanted to check it out. I had my guesses, but it’s always better to just ask directly about this sort of thing.

Here’s the relevant part of the e-mail I sent to someone at the church, using the church’s online contact form:

I’ve checked your FAQ, and I’m unable to find answers to a couple of questions that I have. 1) Do you believe that husbands have a leadership role in marriage? 2) What is your view on women in ministry, i.e., Is it permissible, scripturally, for a woman to pastor a church?

Unfortunately, though the church does believe that women can serve the church as pastors, and in other leadership positions (which is a good thing!), such positions held by women are not as visible as the ones held by men, which is why I had to ask the second question in the first place.

And the answer to the first question was a qualified “yes”. As in, we don’t think women are less intelligent or strong, etc., than men, and women are appreciated, respected, supported, honored–not unequal, just different (I’m paraphrasing, as I don’t quote without permission), in that husbands have a leadership role in marriage.

I responded that I was disappointed in the response but not surprised, and it was great that the staff member of the church continued to engage with me. That willingness to engage with someone with whom you don’t agree is…it can be a difficult thing to do, and I wish we had more of it in the church. In any case, at some point, the staff member did say something to the effect of, “You won’t be able to find everything you’re looking for in a church,” and listed off some things I’m looking for* that I might find, contrasting that with potential weaknesses, e.g., the church might not very active in the community.

Why is it that, almost without exception, that is the response I receive when I mention that I’m looking for a church that doesn’t limit the ways in which people may serve the church based on sex, and that doesn’t believe that a husband has some particular “leadership” authority over his wife? It frustrates me and makes me sad that the people who say this sort of thing to me believe that wanting (expecting) a church to accept the gifts of women, in the church, home, and in society, is not a reasonable thing.

*I am not seeking specifically a church pastored by a woman. I am seeking a church that would not exclude someone who is gifted and called to pastor from serving the church in that way because the person is female. So if we happen to end up in a church pastored by a woman, fine. If we end up in a church pastored by a man, fine. Or maybe we’ll end up in a church with no regular pastor at all. There are some traditions that work that way, ya know…

None, if you’re playing a game.

But if you’re in a marriage? Designating the husband as “the tiebreaker”, the person who will make a decision if the husband and wife cannot come to an agreement on an issue,* is damaging to the relationship as well as to both individuals involved.

The husband and wife are considered to be equal. It’s only when they are unable to reach an agreement on an important decision that the “tiebreaking” ability is used. It will always be a sacrificial decision, and it will always be the more logical decision, since certainly the man is the more logical member of the partnership.

Who decides that the point at which the couple cannot reach a decision has been reached?

That person is the one who decides that the conversation is at an end, that the discussion is over, that “time” needs to be called, and a decision reached. I believe that decision is more likely to be made by the “tiebreaker” than by the wife. I believe that the ability, the power, to make the decision to end a discussion because it is time for a decision to be made, is more powerful than the use of the term “tiebreaker”–a term usually reserved for use in sports, when an equal number of points has been earned by each team, a situation that is relatively obvious to onlookers–indicates.

I posit that in and of itself, the knowledge of the tiebreaker’s conversation-/discussion-ending power changes the shape of said conversation/discussion. If I know that my husband has been vested with the power to end our conversation (or perhaps argument) for the purpose (essentially, in practice) of choosing his point of view over mine, I cannot imagine that this would not change the shape of the way we relate. That’s a lot of power to give one person over another, particularly in a marriage relationship.

And what does this say to the rest of the world about Christians, that we can’t figure out how to solve problems between two Christians, even two Christians who are supposed to be “one flesh,” without designating one as “in charge” beforehand?

*If you’re not a Christian, or if you are a liberal Christian, this probably sounds like a crazypants idea. What it is, actually, is a softening of ideas you probably are somewhat familiar with. You’ve heard of sexism in Christianity: of the dreadful opinions various early church men had of women. You’ve heard how Christians have used Eve’s sin to punish women for all time–nevermind Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. This started becoming an entirely different post, so I’ll leave it at this: The feminist movement wave that occurred in the 1970’s made it less acceptable for the church to simply say that women were created as inferior beings. This “tiebreaker” scenario is a compromise that permits some in the church to avoid saying that women are lesser beings than men while still claiming power over women for men.