Women Catholic Priests

[NathanATX]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/28/making_a_stand_for_women_priests/

wow...

[BruceChris]

Now I know that I'm not a Catholic, and I do not begin to understand the value that tradition has in the Catholic church. I very much appreciate the value of the Protestant reformation, but what I really want to see this time around is the Catholic reformation. It seems clear that the Roman Catholic church has an institutional inertia that is vast. What can we expect to see in the way of an American Catholic church, in the near future? Church heirarchy? "Whenever two or more of us"....... is all of the heirarchy that I need.

Women priests? Wonderful Idea. I think it's the men that I worry about more. And in Genesis 5 it clearly says that we are ALL created in God's image. That's all 6 billion of us, male, female, intersexed, gay and straight.

Peace and Love, Chris

[NathanATX]

These women are amazing... incredibly inspiring...

[Blossom]

I, too, would like to see the RCC ordain women (as well as allow their priests to marry), but I would hate to see them do this as a response to outside pressure to keep up with the modern world. I would like to see them dialogue with other churches that ordain women (as well as with their own membership who support women's ordination) and look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it. The RCC should only change their position if they see Scripture differently. But if they change their ordination practices only as a result of dismissing Scripture, then they will have quite a problem.

In Protestant denominations, women who want to follow God's call can leave their denomination and go to another that ordains women. Catholics, however, will have a tougher time since there is quite a gap between Catholic and Protestant belief in certain areas. For instance, a serious Roman Catholic would have a pretty tough time taking what they would consider to be a very watered-down form of the mass (no transubstantiantion!). It makes sense that the women in this article seem to be separating into their own revised Catholic church rather than moving to a Protestant denomination.

But even for Protestants, it is tough for women to find a denomination supportive of their calling without betraying other doctrines they hold as essential. This is especially so for women coming from the more fundamentalist denominations.

[BruceChris]

But if the change is embarrassing to some, they almost always say either that nothing has really changed, or that they had it planned that way all along, after the fact, of course. It was only 30 years ago that the original 11 women were ordained into the Episcopalian church, in a manner described as irregular by many of the mainstream bishops. By now, there ARE women bishops, in that church. Now and then, I kinda wish that I could be an Episcopalian, as well as UCC. There are all kinds of interesting things going on in THAT church. Check out their new lady bishop.

And those in power never allow change without some form of pressure. (Somebody here has a signature to that effect.) Certainly not Ratzinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori

Peace and Love, BruceChris, a not-so-closet feminist

[Blossom]

And those in power never allow change without some form of pressure.

Peace and Love, BruceChris, a not-so-closet feminist

That's true. Not too many people just wake up one day, have a cup of coffee, and think "Gee, I think I need to totally change the way I view such-and-such issue". It often takes pressure. There is a part of me that would like to be the person who pushes hard for change through almost any means possible. There is a zeolot within me...which isn't all bad! But the Methodist Church has helped to moderate me a bit...you know, valuing the quality of the process of change as well as the end result. And I remember one of the lessons that I learned in a Christian ethics class was that the oppressed can become the oppressors. This, of course, points out the need to be aware of in what way we become that change agent exerting pressure.

But back to the point that those in power rarely change without some form of pressure: in the Church, I would hope that they would not be influenced by the outside pressure of changing culture. Changing culture necessitates new forms of expressing our message, but the message itself does not change. Neither does the foundation change--which is God's will for humanity as revealed in Scripture. If a church changes their foundational beliefs just to keep up what is politically correct or perceived as culturally relevant, then they have failed in their calling. But if a church changes their practice because they believe they have come to undersand the Scriptures (Bible) more fully, then they are on the right track. Hope this is making sense. I am really just repeating my belief that change is needed regarding how many Christians view women in leadership/ministry, but I want the Church to change for the right reasons!

Most importantly, I want to believe that the leadership of all Christian denominations are open to the change agent of God's Spirit in correcting and redirecting. And to some degree, that is what has happened with women in ministry. As those who have stood against women in ministry begin to see God working through these women, change of heart occurs and they become willing to look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it.

[Steven E. Webster]

But even for Protestants, it is tough for women to find a denomination supportive of their calling without betraying other doctrines they hold as essential. This is especially so for women coming from the more fundamentalist denominations.

Are you aware, Blossom, that there are Fundamentalists who agree with all of Fundamentalist doctrine as taught, for instance, at Bob Jones University, but they disagree on one thing: they think their fellow Fundamentalists are wrong to interpret Scripture as opposing committed, same-gender relationships. Yes, indeed, there are some lesbian and gay congregations that are just like the Fundamentalists with the exception of their interpretation of Scriptural teaching on homosexuality.

I've had some brief conversations with a gay man who is a graduate of Bob Jones University. I asked him what he meant by his insistence that he was a Fundamentalist. Well, he believe the Five Fundamentals--he just doesn't believe the anti-gay interpretation of scripture. I didn't get into any arguments with him, but I have no doubt about his sincerity and commitment to the authority of the Scripture.

Steven E. Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

I, too, would like to see the RCC ordain women (as well as allow their priests to marry), but I would hate to see them do this as a response to outside pressure to keep up with the modern world. I would like to see them dialogue with other churches that ordain women (as well as with their own membership who support women's ordination) and look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it. The RCC should only change their position if they see Scripture differently. But if they change their ordination practices only as a result of dismissing Scripture, then they will have quite a problem.


Blossom, I agree with you! One reason I've just transferred my membership from one United Methodist Congregation to another is that I felt that the current preachers at my old congregation just don't preach biblically. They don't take Scripture seriously enough. And don't even get me started on what is called "the Contemporary Service" at my old church. Sometimes there was no scripture at all in those services.

I'm now a member of a "liberal" congregation where they follow the lectionary, read two or three of the scripture lessons from BOTH the Hebrew Testament and the New Testament and consistently use the Psalter. The pastor genuinely struggles with the scripture in every sermon. The scripture certainly is authoritative, it is never dismissed, but it is also examined critically (in the positive sense of that word).

Is that so different from your view of scripture?

I agree with you that there are "liberals" in the United Methodist Church that seem to "dismiss" the scriptures--I don't find them very interesting.

I would also hope that you consider the possibility that there are some lesbian and gay Christians who, like yourself, do not dismiss scripture, but simply interpret it differently.

Steven Webster

[Blossom]

Blossom, I agree with you!

...I agree with you that there are "liberals" in the United Methodist Church that seem to "dismiss" the scriptures--I don't find them very interesting.

I would also hope that you consider the possibility that there are some lesbian and gay Christians who, like yourself, do not dismiss scripture, but simply interpret it differently.

Steven Webster

Hi Steven,

I wanted to quote you saying you agree with me, just in case I don't get that opportunity again! ;)

Yes, I can believe that there are gay Christians who interpret Scripture differently without working to dismiss it. I don't believe that I have had the opportunity on the UMC site of discussing the issue with someone supporting a change of our Discipline who actually views Scripture as the Word of God. I have enjoyed the discussions that I have had with these very liberal individuals, but because we do not operate out of the same foundation, it is difficult to come to any real conclusion.

So, of course, the book you mentioned which is written by an evangelical will obviously have more of a place in the debate than most books that you could quote. By the way, I don't consider myself a great debater in this issue. I haven't studied much about homosexuality and have never made it a life goal to spend time debating it. I believe it is a very important issue, but not exactly one that God has called me to devote my life to. However, there are others who would likely have a lot more study behind them to enable them to enter into a strong dialogue with you. However, I will work a while longer (in the absence of someone with greater skill and knowledge in this area) to discuss this issue from my conservative position.

Blossom

[BruceChris]

High, Guys. When it comes to this matter of finding different interpretations of scripture, you two may see this as the answer, or a necessary part of the answer. However, obviously, it is also the problem. Those who have an interpretation that opposes us, or oppresses us do so from an interpretation that we don't like. All too many people who believe in freedom of religion only believe in it for their religion.

The good news/bad news is that the Bible can be all things to all people. The Fundies are forever criticizing us for finding or creating interpretations that make us feel comfortabe.

There is also the point of view expressed by my church, the United Church if Christ, that God is Still Speaking. As the human race becomes more knowledgable, and in some ways more mature, new facets of the mind of God are revealed to us. Or very old sources, like the dead sea scrolls are found and translated. Of course, there are those like the Muslims or the Mormons who claim that they have been given whole new written works, and most of us accept them as religions that must be respected, but choose not to try to convert.

(edit) Except that some people who call themselves Christians have oppressed enough African-Americans so that many of them have converted.

There is another facet of the revealed word of God that people both accept in some ways, and reject in others. Science. Now I believe that knowledge that is gained from the study of the world around us, once it has been validated through repeated scientific investigation, is valid. In creating a universe based on complex, yet consistent laws and principals, God has given us a source of ongoing revealed truth. And of course, conservative Christians are forever claiming that science is "attacking" religion. I believe that within the findings of science, God is not lying to us. Or in the beliefs of some, "testing our faith"

I believe that it is necessary for all of us to place God's love for us, and our love for each other (and that includes the very uncomfortable task of loving our enemies) ahead of blind faith in scripture, which always ends up as some form of proof texting. The Bible is simply not consistent. Of course, the Bible tells us to do the above, in the Great Commandment. There is also that verse that tells us that if we don't have love, we are but clanging symbols, and a general pain in the fanny. You know the one I mean.

We must interpret scripture through our best understanding of God's love, not God's love from arbitrarily chosen pieces of scripture. Now I know that I am tweaking Blossom's nose just a bit by saying that (and maybe Steven's), but I believe that we can still respect each other.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[suzer1013]

An interesting news item popped up on Salon.com and I thought it seemed relevant to this thread. Read on....


Church Fires Teacher for Being Woman

- - - - - - - - - - - -


August 21,2006 | WATERTOWN, N.Y. -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.


"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."


Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.

In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[Blossom]

Bruce Chris,

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view. You say that the Bible is not consistent, I would say that many people use the Bible inconsitently. The conservative view, which is obviously between the liberal and fundamentalist views can be more difficult to hold because we work from both the belief that Scripture is inspired by God, and that Scripture must be interpreted with a scholarly eye to historical context. Both liberals and fundies prooftext. Conservatives do sometimes as well! But we try not to! The goal for a conservative is to take the Bible as a whole as well as looking at each specific passage. And in truth, I see the Bible as a whole as undergirding those clearer statements regarding homosexuality of the New Testament. If you want to discuss the specific passages with me, I am open to that. But if you dismiss the passages in favor of others, or without at least working carefully with those passages, we really won't have much to say to each other, simply because we have completely different foundations that we work from.

Also, faith in Scripture need not be blind. Take a look at books such as "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel (as well as many more in that genre) to investigate the actual factors supporting the historicity of Scripture.

From what I read concerning your view of love, I believe that it would be good to talk about what we understand love to be. Must love support the actions of those with whom we disagree? That is what I hear you saying.

And by the way, as for your comment "Christianity has oppressed enough African-Americans..." True Christianity values all human life. It is people living a marred version of Christianity who have oppressed African-Americans. These people may have gone to church, may have even had some element of faith, but their actions towards other races were not Christian.

Blossom

[suzer1013]

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view.


Blossom,

This statement confuses me. I am a Christian, but what is it you consider to be "the Scriptural view"? Whose scriptural view would that be? What I think you are saying (and I could be wrong), is that to be a Christian, one must believe Scripture to be "valid, true and consistent." Perhaps I'm reading more into what you've written than you intended.

Susan

[NathanATX]

Bruce Chris,

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view.

In other words, your view of the Scripture is the only valid one, so therefore your view of homosexuality is the only valid one.

Is that a correct summary of your quote?

[Blossom]

Blossom,

This statement confuses me. I am a Christian, but what is it you consider to be "the Scriptural view"? Whose scriptural view would that be? What I think you are saying (and I could be wrong), is that to be a Christian, one must believe Scripture to be "valid, true and consistent." Perhaps I'm reading more into what you've written than you intended.

Susan

Hi Susan,

I believe that how we handle Scripture is extremely important. I believe that many people use Scripture very poorly (picking and choosing what to believe without going through proper interpretation methods)--does this mean that they are not Christian? No, I would not say that. I do struggle at times to find exactly what liberal and conservative Christians have in common. This is a painfully difficult issue. Being a Christian, of course, is not really about whether you have your name on a church role, but refers to following Jesus. Scripture reveals who Jesus is, what he said and did, his sacrificial love, and his resurrection. When liberals and conservatives disagree on some of the very fundamental assertions that Scripture makes concerning the person (and divine nature) of Jesus, I do struggle to find how exactly we are all following the same Jesus. But I will not say that because you disagree with me that you have not accepted the grace that Jesus offers. I will never say that it is O.K. that we all have different views of Jesus and that we find our own way. Of course, there will be some debate, but there comes a point in which views are so divergent that they no longer belong together. Despite the fact that I am very concerned with the way that liberals use Scripture, I will not deny that they love Jesus and have accepted his grace.

I hope this helps and am open to any further concerns on your part,

Blossom

[suzer1013]

I believe that how we handle Scripture is extremely important. I believe that many people use Scripture very poorly (picking and choosing what to believe without going through proper interpretation methods)[/QOUTE]

I agree with this, but perhaps not in the way you mean it. Many people use scripture poorly, and often hurt their brothers and sisters in Christ when doing so. This is what leads me to try to see the bigger picture -- not to dismiss Scripture (which is what liberals are often accused of), but to see it's message in a larger way, to not try to box God or Jesus or Christianity into one way of thinking. I try, but probably fail at doing this at times as much as I believe fundamentalists do.

[QUOTE=Blossom;11421]I do struggle at times to find exactly what liberal and conservative Christians have in common.

Let me be so bold as to suggest a few commonalities:

We love God.
We try our best to follow the teachings of Jesus, though we often come up short.
We help the poor and needy.
We comfort the sick.
We love and nurture children.
We give without asking.
We love our neighbor (alas, often not enough).
We sing praises to God.
We are thankful for the many blessings God has given us.
We try to be faithful stewards.
We feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
We visit and fellowship with those in prison.
We listen with healing love.
We struggle with faith.
We pray for peace.
We rejoice in the beauty of creation.

That's just a few -- I'm sure there are many more. :)


Does it really matter so much what we *believe* (for example, whether we agree with a literal corporeal resurrection), or is it more important that we are in relationship with one another, and can respect that although we have different viewpoints, we can still work together, without bashing one another over the head with one "sin" or another, to accomplish those things listed above that we do have in common?

Or is it more important that we all believe one thing, and if we cannot, then we cannot be at the same table? I would like to be at the same table with those who disagree, but at the same time, I do not wish to suffer spiritual abuse because of who I love. I wish we (in the larger sense, not just you and I) could find a way to disagree that would still allow us to love and respect one another, without hurting each other. Why is it so hard to do that? (and there is probably no answer to that question, at least none that I have discovered)

Blessings,

Susan

[suzer1013]

Whoopsie -- I screwed up the multi-quote feature. All this new-fangled technology stuff confuses me! I guess I'd better go read the directions! :o

Susan :p

[BruceChris]

Thank you for your response. Some of your criticisms are on target. I edited "Christianity has oppressed" - to - "people who call themselves Christians have oppressed". - Marked with an (edit), usually.

I edit a lot. Often, I don't quite say what I had meant to.

I am not a fan of Lee Strobel. Have you seen him on T.V.? I would describe him as overbearing.

Bishop Spong, and countless others have pointed out the inconsistances in the Bible. I am pretty much following their lead, and I do see many inconsistancies in the Biible, when taken literally. If you have read Spong's writings concerning translation and interpretation of the Bible, you will probably see why he says that it is possible to have so many different understandings of what the Bible says.

Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, in dealing with what she sees as a very patriachial Bible, says that she approaches the Bible with a hermaneutic of suspicion. I would hope to approach the Bible with a hermaneutic of God's love. If, when reading the Bible, I cannot see some aspect of God's love expressed in that part of the Bible I'm reading, I set it aside until I can, or someone can give me an explanation that is consistent with God's love. And this works a great deal better in the New Testament.

You suggest that I support the actions of those who disagree with me. I'm not sure where you got that, or what you mean by it. I support all people in that I try to respect all children of God, but if they do something I see as being disrespectful or oppressive, I will point that out, and take exception. This kind of puts me in the position of saying "Love the sinner, but hate the sin"(rather unpopular, in this forum) That is the sort of thing that a person should do only with the greatest thoughtfulness and humility.

And between fundamentalists and liberals, I do not wish to find conservatives so much as moderates.

I hope that I've helped us to communicate a little better.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Blossom]

Hi BruceChris,

Concerning Lee Strobel, there are others who can make the same points he makes if you do not personally like him. Strobel is confident. And part of his confidence comes from the fact that when he set out to disprove Christianity as an atheist, he actually found Christianity to make sense. I believe that you will find Strobel to deal with many of the red flags that people put up regarding the validity of Scripture.

I perceive that love is the way you determine which portions of Scripture are valid/worthwhile, but since Scripture teaches us who God is--that God is love--it makes sense that Scripture will also teach us what love is. Love is gentle, patient, kind, but love does not support every action and attitude. To love your enemy, must you agree with them? You are not my enemy BruceChris, but still we have significant differences of belief. I cannot support some of your beleifs. But I can love you. Do you believe this is possible?



Hi Susan,

You ask a question regarding sitting at the same table. Maybe we could see that there are several different tables in matters of faith. There is a general table for all those, for instance, who believe there is one God (Judaism, Islam, Christianity). There is a table for all who follow the revelation of God through the Old Testament (Judaism, Christianity). There is a table for all those who seek to feed the hungry and love the poor (now we add many who are not religious to this table). There are many commonalities we find between religious people, and with nonreligious people. There should be a place for fellowship among all these groups.

There are some Christians with whom I have many serious disagreements (Southern Baptists!), but I know that they genuinely love Jesus Christ, so how could I not stand with them in Christian fellowship? Then I look to liberal Christians I have known and see within them a love for Jesus Christ and an earnest desire to love fellow humanity. There are so many elements of fellowship that I can share with them, but there are other areas where there is a very big divide. Some of my Baptist friends (not all!) would deny my call by God to ministry, yet they share a value of God's self-revelation through Scripture. Although Baptists strongly deny the validy of creeds, their doctrine supports the creeds that Methodists recite weekly! So, then I wonder why so many in my own denomination reject aspects of the creeds. I think of the early Christians who gave their lives because they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead...Early Christians who wrote the New Testament with the resurrection of Jesus as absolutely foundational to their whole view of what Christianty is. If thinking out of the box causes me to deny the repeated affirmations made throughout Scripture, then I will stay in the box. (And trust me, I love creativity! I like out of the box thinking!) The orthodox Christian view is that God really has revealed himself through Scripture...and if God is still speaking, that word will be in line with what God has said in the past.

Think back to our tables of fellowship. There are many who respect the teachings of Jesus. There are many who profess love for Jesus. What makes one a Christian? Is it respect for Jesus? Love for Jesus? Or must one actually believe that Jesus is divine yet fully human, buried for three days and resurrected from the dead? Many who respect Jesus respect the human Jesus but have no room for a divine Jesus. Many who love Jesus find in him a love that is incomparable yet they do not accept what Scripture says about him. So, what is necessary for one to be a Christian? May one be a Christian if they are fan of Jesus? May one be a Christian if they believe in a spiritual Jesus/idea, but do not believe in the human Jesus? May one be a Christian if they love Jesus' ways, but not the New Testament?

I feel that I could quote Scripture references to answer some of these questions, but fear that they would have little place here. So, I am left without the ability to answer. Any thoughts on how I can retain Scripture as my foundation for understanding God and still be able to dialogue with you?


Sincerely,
Blossom

[NathanATX]

I feel that I could quote Scripture references to answer some of these questions, but fear that they would have little place here. So, I am left without the ability to answer. Any thoughts on how I can retain Scripture as my foundation for understanding God and still be able to dialogue with you?


Hi Blossom,
I think it is important that you do share what scripture you are using as your foundation for understanding God.

In the dance of sharing your faith and belief.. and then listening... experiencing the faith and belief of others... I believe we truly become connected to one another.

It is more important for us to be in communion, in community... in unity with each other than it is for us to be uniform, believe the same, think the same.

I have been attending MCC Austin for about four years. It's very different than the kind of church I grew up in. The biggest difference would easily seem to be it's unconditional acceptance and welcome to gay & lesbian children of God, but I have found something even more transformational. Something so big that it has become one of the primary reasons I am intending to seek ordination in the MCC denomination.

It's that simple, yet profound, idea that Christians who believe differently can come together in a beautiful, vibrant community... and worship together, minister together, pray together... Unity is celebrated over Uniformity...

This principle has always been a part of MCC and I think it has been essential to accomplish the denomination's mission to reach all glbt Christians, but I believe this is really where the future of our denomination lies. Sexuality will be a non issue in the Church of the future. Love, integrity, family, health, outreach, social justice, etc., will be the focus of the Church. MCC is laying the groundwork for an end to creed wars, church splits, etc. We are showing the Church that we can be very different and still "love God and love our neighbors as we love ourselves"... together.

In "A New Christianity for a New World," Bishop Spong writes of a new kind of church community which he calls "Ecclesia" for lack of a better term.

So please do use scripture when sharing... but do it from a perspective of sharing yourself and not from a "my view is the only right view" perspective.

Peace,
Nate

[NathanATX]

I just came across this story... (not sure where I first read it)... a Baptist church fires an 81 year old female schoolteacher because "women teaching men goes against scripture."

The church website is http://www.nnyinfo.com/firstbaptist/

And a very revealing letter from the pastor http://www.nnyinfo.com/firstbaptist/statement.htm

A news article about the pastor's disagreements with less fundamentalisth members http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article_archivelink.php?article_id=28698

A story http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7C3B6A2F-E111-4988-A09E-3234A24F700B ... and a picture of the 81 year old Sunday School teacher...

http://www.centralmediaserver.com/wwti/news/temporary%20picture%20file/lambert,-mary-large.gif

[suzer1013]

I feel that I could quote Scripture references to answer some of these questions, but fear that they would have little place here. So, I am left without the ability to answer. Any thoughts on how I can retain Scripture as my foundation for understanding God and still be able to dialogue with you?

Hi Blossom. I'd like to respond more fully, but tonight I am spiritually, emotionally and physically exhausted. But this last paragraph I could not let go until a later time, because I want to assure you that scripture is my foundation also. There seems to be a tendency among those who are more conservative theologically (or otherwise) (and this does not necessarily mean you, but I think it may be what you are hinting at), that those of us who are more liberal have little understanding of or belief in scripture. I grew up in the Episcopal church, and have read the Bible many times over throughout the years.

My foundation for everything I understand of God and Jesus is scripture. It is also influenced by reason, tradition and experience. But the basis is scripture. Different understandings of scripture does not mean one person has a scriptural foundation (the "right" one) and one person does not (the "wrong" one).

And I'm not necessarily saying this is what you were getting at -- I'm sort of rambling off on my own thoughts inspired by what you wrote. :)

Anyway, I'm far too tired tonight -- work and life is so busy right now -- to continue further, but I hope my comments will assure you that a scriptural foundation is no problem with me. We will differ on interpretation, and on what weight we place on what passages, and that's o.k.

And, briefly, I don't really believe there are or should be different tables. There is one table -- God's, and it is big enough for all of us. :pray: :love:

Blessings,

Susan

[Blossom]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your responses. I'm short on time tonight, as well. I'll be thinking through Scripture passages. Hopefully, Steven will join back in this conversation as he seems to have somewhat of a conservative/moderate view of Scripture. I think his comments may help us communicate better with one another. But if you could find time, I would appreciate any remarks/interactions with this paragraph from my last post:

Think back to our tables of fellowship. There are many who respect the teachings of Jesus. There are many who profess love for Jesus. What makes one a Christian? Is it respect for Jesus? Love for Jesus? Or must one actually believe that Jesus is divine yet fully human, buried for three days and resurrected from the dead? Many who respect Jesus respect the human Jesus but have no room for a divine Jesus. Many who love Jesus find in him a love that is incomparable yet they do not accept what Scripture says about him. So, what is necessary for one to be a Christian? May one be a Christian if they are fan of Jesus? May one be a Christian if they believe in a spiritual Jesus/idea, but do not believe in the human Jesus? May one be a Christian if they love Jesus' ways, but not the New Testament (through which we meed Jesus)?

And additionally, how are we to follow/worship Jesus (the one who actually preached the sermon on the mount), and not a Jesus of our own making?


Thanks,

Blossom

[Dash]

I just came across this story... (not sure where I first read it)... a Baptist church fires an 81 year old female schoolteacher because "women teaching men goes against scripture."

Thanks for sharing this story, Nate. You know, I would like to see this thread address the following passage from 1 Timothy 2:



"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I think it would be fascinating to see the ways different women of faith address this scripture. Do they dismiss it? Do they ignore it? Do they look at it in the context of modernity v. ancient culture? Do they see God doing something new in the world (not unheard of certainly)? To see a conservative feminist's perspective alongside a liberal woman's would be very helpful to me.

[keltic63]

Yes, Dash, I agree, thank you Nate for bringing this story here. I too would like to know how those scriptures are handled. From reading those links, there appears to be a lot more going on than just a board decision to follow a particular scripture. Is anyone else freaked out by the number of pictures and references to this Pastor on their website?

I've seen this kind of church/pastor before and I think there is a tendency to use the personality of the pastor as a charismatic force for the particular church. That also tends to build up the pastor's ego. I worked for a pastor like this once, and had to resign after 1 year (the end of the contract) I couldn't stand the hypocrisy and scheming that went on behind the scenes.

in the Baptist church story, did you notice that the board of deacons increased to more than twice its size in a very short time? did you read how the moderator of the deacons was a relatively new member and a political colleague of the pastor? I'm not sure what the ethical problem there would be, but it seems to me that there is one somewhere.

[NathanATX]

Thanks for sharing this story, Nate. You know, I would like to see this thread address the following passage from 1 Timothy 2:

I think it would be fascinating to see the ways different women of faith address this scripture. Do they dismiss it? Do they ignore it? Do they look at it in the context of modernity v. ancient culture? Do they see God doing something new in the world (not unheard of certainly)? To see a conservative feminist's perspective alongside a liberal woman's would be very helpful to me.

You are positively brilliant. :)

[Blossom]

You want a conservative feminist's take on 1 Timothy 2...Ask and ye shall receive! :)
I will share a good portion from the book, "25 Tough Questions about Women and the Church" by J. Lee Grady. Interestingly, Grady is the editor of Charisma magazine (the major magazine for charismatic Christians). Grady also wrote, "10 Lies the Church Tells Women".

p. 140

The Apostle Paul and Women

It is clear from Huldahs' example that God can use women to teach and prophesy in an authoritative manner. But what do we do with the apostle Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12-14? This is the passage that is so often used to restrict women's ministry, and because Paul himself made a reference to Eve as being deceived, it has been used to bolster the argument that women will lead the church astray if they are given the opportunity. The passage reads this way in the King James Version:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
1 Timothy 2:12-14

This is a curious passage indeed, and one that has puzzled Bible scholars for centuries. It is confusing for several reasons:

1. It seems to contradict how women have been used to speak for God in the Old Testament (women such as Deborah and Huldah, for example).

2. It does not fit Paul's own practice, since he had women teachers on his ministry teacm such as Priscilla, and he also encouraged women to be teachers (Titus 2:3-4).

3. Paul encourages women to prophesy in the local church meeting in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and invites equal participation in the exercising of spiritual gifts in the assembly (1 Cor. 12:7-11).

So what is Paul saying here?
If we take the passage at literal face value, we would have to say that women can never teach anyone, even small children. Conservative scholars bypass this interpretation by insisting that what Paul is restricting here is any form of "authoritative speech" that comes from women. If that is the case, would this not rule out Huldah's prophecy to King Josiah? Certainly we could describe her word of impending judgment, which was quickly fulfilled, as being authoritative. And what about the words of Deborah, which are included in the canon of Scripture in Judges 4 and 5? Are these not authoritative words, since they now carry the authority of holy Scripture? Would not Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10, or Mary's exaltation in Luke 1:45-55, known as the Magnificat, also be considered authoritative speech?

Traditionalists who believe that Paul never allowed women to teach men in any setting or to hold positions of authority in the church must play games with these other portions of Scripture. That is why you rarely will hear a traditionalist preach on Deborah or Huldah.

But what do we do with Paul's words? There are two possible interpretations.

1. The women in Ephesus needed more instruction.
We should take note that this passage is preceded by another curious admonition from Paul to the women: "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness" (1 Tim. 1:11). That might sound sexist to us today, but we must remember that women in this culture had been denied all educational opportunities. Except for some Roman women in the upper class, women in the Middle East and Asia Minor were sequestered at home and kept away from books and learning. The only thing men wanted them to learn was how to cook, fetch water, tend to the goats, keep house and raise the children.

Jewish rabbis, in fact, believed that it was even blasphemous to teach a woman the Torah. Jesus contradicted this view when he invited women to sit at His feet and learn. Paul, likewise, invited women to learn from God's Word--as long as they did it in a proper way--not like know-it-alls, but with a teachable spirit.

It is possible that the newly converted women in Ephesus were jumping the gun and trying to teach the gospel when they were not yet qualified. If this were the case, their ignorance would have created serious problems in the church. Paul would have had to put his foot down and say, "Enough is enough. Women aren't allowed to teach until they know what they are talking about."

But why would Paul mention a prohibition about teaching men? He could have been referring to the male teachers who were learned enough in theology to earn a platform in the Ephesian church. If women were standing up in the church meeting, asking questions or stating their own misguided views, or contradictiong the elders, this would have created chaos in the church and usurped the authroity of appointed leaders who were trained in doctrine.

And why would Paul have mentioned Adam and Eve? Gilbert Bilezikian suggests that Paul interjects the Garden of Eden story to remind the undeducated women of Ephesus that they have a lot to learn from those who have been instructed. He writes:

"In the fateful story of the fall, it was Eve, the lesser-informed person, who initiated a mistaken course of action and who led herself into error. Eve was not created first or at the same time as Adam. She was the late-comer on the scene. Of the two, she was the one bereft of the firsthand experience of God's giving the prohibition relative to the tree. She should have deferred the matter to Adam, who was better prepared to deal with it since he had received the command directly from God. Regarding God's word, Adam had been teacher to Eve, and Eve the learner. Yet when the crisis arrived, she acted as the teacher and fell into the devil's trap. Her mistake was to exercise an authoritative function for which she was not prepared."

If this is why Paul mentions Eve in his message to the Ephesians, one must ask: Was he laying down a permanent rule for all time that forbids women from teaching and exercising authority? Or was he issuing a correction that applied only to the situation in Ephesus? Knowing that Paul released other women like Priscilla to teach the Bible, and knowing that he set in place both men and women to funtion as leaders of the local church (1 Tim. 3:1-11), we must conlclude that his words here were to correct the situation at hand.

After all, if Paul called the women to learn "in all submissiveness" to the Word of God, then surely he expected them to become mature disciples who would have the ability to teach others after receiving sufficient training.


2. The church in Ephesus was plagued by false teachers, some of them female.
Other scholars propose that Ephesus, a seat of paganism in the ancient world, was overrun by heresy and false doctrine because of various cults and Gnostic sects. Archaeology does indicate that the cult of Diana, a mystic religion dominated by female priests, flourished in Ephesus at the time Timothy was leading the church there.

In the midst of this dilemma, one theory suggests, false teachers were infiltrating the infant church in Ephesus and leading people astray with their myths, false visions and fables. Richard and Catherine Clark-Droeger, in their excellent book I Suffer Not a Woman, propose that false teachers representing the Diana cult had crept into the church and were usurping authority from the teachers Paul had appointed.

One of the Gnostic fables that was commonly told at the time involved Eve. The Gnostics, who loved to turn a Bible story "upside down" in order to twist biblical truth, concocted the notion that Eve was created before Adam and that she actually liberated the world by listening to the serpent. In the pagan temples of the region around Ephesus, images of female deities are often depicted with serpent images.

It is possible that one or more female false teachers had invaded the church at Ephesus and were spreading this detestable doctrine among the new Christians. Loren Cunningham, in his book Why Not Women?, suggests that Paul was actually singling out one female false teacher and that 1 Timothy 2:12 should be translated; "I do not allow the woman to teach or usurp authority."

If this were indeed the scenario, Paul's words about Eve take on a different meaning. He may have been setting the record straight about Eve's creation order because this female false teacher had told the Ephesians two huge lies: (1) that Eve had been created first, and (2) that Eve had not been deceived by the serpent, but enlightened by him.

Paul then cleared up the confusion. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Tim. 2:13-14, NIV).


Whether Paul was fighting a false teacher in this case, or simply requiring women to receive proper instruction, we cannot use 1 Timothy 1:12 as a blanket prohibition against releasing women into ministry. Rather, this passage opens the door for women to be trained for public ministry and challenges them to handle the Word of God with accuracy. Obviously we do not need women ministers today who are undisciplined or untrained, or who are seeking to spread heresy. But we should by all means commission and ordain as many capable and anointed women as possible to advance the spread of the gospel. What we need in this crucial hour are women like Huldah who have studied God's Word and have the anointing to proclaim His counsel.

[Steven E. Webster]

Blossom,
Thank you for your post. I want to take time later to study it. (I'm off to my full time, and then my part time jobs before I can come back this evening to this board.)

Note that I am posting material on this board in this same section under the thread titled "Jack Rogers--Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality".

I have seen elsewhere that you deny that there is any analogy between women's struggles against biblically justified oppression and the LGBT struggle with the same biblically justified oppression. I think you are mistaken, and Jack Rogers does a good job of showing the strength of the analogy.

I am still reading Roger's book (I'm only getting into chapter 3) and am looking forward to his biblical interpretation--which I know is a major concern for Blossom as it is for me.

I believe both Blossom and I would like to uphold the authority of Scripture in the church while still challenging traditional interpretations that have been used to oppress women and gay people. I realize Blossom is not with me yet on seeing how scripture can legitimately be interpreted to support the legitimacy of same-gender marriage, for instance, but I have my hopes.

[Dash]

Grady also wrote, "10 Lies the Church Tells Women".

1. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that the Church sometimes lies to the people it serves.

1. It [the passage from 2 Timothy] seems to contradict how women have been used to speak for God in the Old Testament (women such as Deborah and Huldah, for example).

2. It does not fit Paul's own practice, since he had women teachers on his ministry teacm such as Priscilla, and he also encouraged women to be teachers (Titus 2:3-4).

3. Paul encourages women to prophesy in the local church meeting in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and invites equal participation in the exercising of spiritual gifts in the assembly (1 Cor. 12:7-11).

2. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that there seem to be serious contradictions within the Bible.

If we take the passage at literal face value, we would have to say that women can never teach anyone, even small children.

3. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that sometimes we can't take passages from the bible at "literal face value."

Conservative scholars bypass this interpretation by insisting that what Paul is restricting here is any form of "authoritative speech" that comes from women. If that is the case, would this not rule out Huldah's prophecy to King Josiah?

4. Conservative feminists, like liberals, find examples in scripture to support their position.

Traditionalists who believe that Paul never allowed women to teach men in any setting or to hold positions of authority in the church must play games with these other portions of Scripture. That is why you rarely will hear a traditionalist preach on Deborah or Huldah.

(as a side note...Hahah!!...I'm not sure you'll ever hear anyone preach on Huldah or Deborah. Would you? You have already said that you do not make women's rights a part of your preaching ministry.)

But what do we do with Paul's words? There are two possible interpretations.

5. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look for deeper interpretations that illuminate (and sometimes contradict) what seems to be plainly stated.

We should take note that this passage is preceded by another curious admonition from Paul to the women: "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness" (1 Tim. 1:11). That might sound sexist to us today, but we must remember that women in this culture had been denied all educational opportunities. Except for some Roman women in the upper class, women in the Middle East and Asia Minor were sequestered at home and kept away from books and learning. The only thing men wanted them to learn was how to cook, fetch water, tend to the goats, keep house and raise the children.

6. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that things are quite different in today's world than in ancient culture.

Jesus contradicted this view when he invited women to sit at His feet and learn.

7. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look to the example Jesus provided.

It is possible that the newly converted women in Ephesus were jumping the gun and trying to teach the gospel when they were not yet qualified. If this were the case, their ignorance would have created serious problems in the church. Paul would have had to put his foot down and say, "Enough is enough. Women aren't allowed to teach until they know what they are talking about."

(Another side note...we can imagine all sorts of back-stories, as I've told you before, but they really aren't successful ways of dealing with scripture. Unless you are prepared to let liberals make up their own happy fictions, you should not do it. None of this speculation that you provide is actually in scripture.)

If this is why Paul mentions Eve in his message to the Ephesians, one must ask: Was he laying down a permanent rule for all time that forbids women from teaching and exercising authority? Or was he issuing a correction that applied only to the situation in Ephesus? Knowing that Paul released other women like Priscilla to teach the Bible, and knowing that he set in place both men and women to funtion as leaders of the local church (1 Tim. 3:1-11), we must conlclude that his words here were to correct the situation at hand.

(The funny thing is...Paul was a very intelligent writer. He could have just said what he meant. Funny that he didn't...and that what you think he obviously must have meant matches what you as a woman in ministry need to hear.)

Archaeology does indicate that the cult of Diana, a mystic religion dominated by female priests, flourished in Ephesus at the time Timothy was leading the church there.

(Well...the Temple of Diana at Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Artemis

Whether Paul was fighting a false teacher in this case, or simply requiring women to receive proper instruction, we cannot use 1 Timothy 1:12 as a blanket prohibition against releasing women into ministry. Rather, this passage opens the door for women to be trained for public ministry and challenges them to handle the Word of God with accuracy. Obviously we do not need women ministers today who are undisciplined or untrained, or who are seeking to spread heresy. But we should by all means commission and ordain as many capable and anointed women as possible to advance the spread of the gospel. What we need in this crucial hour are women like Huldah who have studied God's Word and have the anointing to proclaim His counsel.

There's nothing to indicate that Huldah had studied the scriptures at all.

22 So Hilkiah, and they whom the king had commanded, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she lived in Jerusalem in the second quarter) and they spoke to her to that effect.

23 She said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: Tell the man who sent you to me,

24 Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its inhabitants, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah.

25 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore is my wrath poured out on this place, and it shall not be quenched.

26 But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of Yahweh, thus you shall tell him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: As touching the words which you have heard,

27 because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before God, when you heard his words against this place, and against its inhabitants, and have humbled yourself before me, and have torn your clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard you, says Yahweh.

28 Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil that I will bring on this place, and on its inhabitants. They brought back word to the king.

[told similarly in 2 Kings 22]

To recap (but not to supercede Suzer's previous and most excellent answer regarding the many commonalities between liberals and conservatives):

1. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that the Church sometimes lies to the people it serves.

2. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that there seem to be serious contradictions within the Bible.

3. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that sometimes we can't take passages from the bible at "literal face value."

4. Conservative feminists, like liberals, find examples in scripture to support their position rather than the traditional one.

5. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look for deeper interpretations that illuminate (and sometimes contradict) what seems to be plainly stated.

6. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that things are quite different in today's world than in ancient culture.

7. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look to the example Jesus provided.

So Blossom, if you haven't noticed before, now you have a chance to see what has been riding up behind you in your enormous blind spot. You have done exactly what you say liberals do...and you've done it worse in many ways. You ignore Paul's plainly stated words, and you prefer a couple of complex fictions that commentators have made up. You would be better off resting your case on the differences between antiquity and modern times. To base your understanding on speculation about what might have been going on, but is left out of Paul's discussion, is flimsy reasoning--tissue thin compared to Paul's plainly-stated blanket prohibition against women teaching in Church.

I urge you to recognize soon the double-standard that you are applying to liberals and to gay and lesbian folk.

[Blossom]

So Blossom, if you haven't noticed before, now you have a chance to see what has been riding up behind you in your enormous blind spot. You have done exactly what you say liberals do...and you've done it worse in many ways.


Hi Dash,

I quoted a conservative feminist. I did not write the chapter that I presented, but I will go back through your post and see if I wish to defend the charges you make against the writer and against me.

Let me just say thankyou for extending to me the same kindness and gentleness that I worked to extend to you at the UMC site...hopefully you detect a note of sarcasm and disappointment. I expect you to ask the questions on your mind, but there were a number of times in the past in which I had to hold my tongue...pen...fingers on my keyboard...in order to make my points without showing a lack of respect for you and your position.

Blossom

[Blossom]

--but I will add, Dash, that I am glad to find that at least one brave soul actually read through my last post.

[Blossom]

Dash's comments are in italics. My response is in plain text.

1. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that the Church sometimes lies to the people it serves.

Far too many members of Christ's Church have misunderstood the scriptural text regarding women. For some, I believe there was no harm intended. For others, I believe their stance on women only served to feed their own need for power.


2. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that there seem to be serious contradictions within the Bible.

When we see contradictions it causes us to dig in deeper. In some contradictions, like a contradiction of time or place (as we see in the ordering and description of many of the stories in the Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), we can recognize that the authors are taking the basic story and ordering it theologically to make a point. With other contradictions, however, we recognize that it may point out that one of the texts has been misinterpreted. Concerning the issue of women in ministry, we find texts that seem to both support women in ministry and texts that seem to deny their calling. Concerning homosexuality, I have not found any texts that support same-gender sex. I guess I'm still looking for the Scriptural contradiction.


3. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that sometimes we can't take passages from the bible at "literal face value."

Grady was pointing out that those denying God's call on women on the basis of their interpretation of the text are failing to actually follow their own interpretation in every respect. If they believe that Scripture says women cannot speak or teach in the church, then it follows that women cannot teach children, either. However, most people who deny a woman's ability/right/call to speak in church some how allow them to teach Sunday school. That isn't consistent.


4. Conservative feminists, like liberals, find examples in scripture to support their position.

We compare Scripture, yes. If we find Scripture that supports what we understand to be true, then it gives us reason to look more closely at texts that seem to contradict what we understand to be true. On the UMC board, I noticed that love was used to contradict traditional teaching on homosexuality. Love of neighbor is presented as contradicting what is described as sin in the NT. However, I do not see the two as contradictory. The contradictions concerning the role of women in the Church, however, are obvious.


(as a side note...Hahah!!...I'm not sure you'll ever hear anyone preach on Huldah or Deborah. Would you? You have already said that you do not make women's rights a part of your preaching ministry.)

Of course I preach on the women of the Bible. I have held off on dealing with passages such as the one I dealt with a few posts ago, but I preach freely on the women of the Bible.


5. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look for deeper interpretations that illuminate (and sometimes contradict) what seems to be plainly stated.

We want to know the reason the passage was written. Scholarship calls for an understanding of culture and context.



6. Conservative feminists agree with liberals that things are quite different in today's world than in ancient culture.

As far as I understand, the surrounding cultures did not view women highly, whereas the Romans did engage in homosexual practice...although this was partly due to the fact that they did not view their wives as their intellectual equals and therefore were looking to experience sex with equals. The Bible is actually countercultural in that women are treated with much more respect and are shown to be leaders in the Church. There is plenty of evidence in Scripture that women were able to lead in the Church, despite the culture they lived in.



7. Conservative feminists, like liberals, look to the example Jesus provided.

Yes, Jesus turned certain expectations upside down, especially when you consider that Jewish men were known to thank God in their prayers that they weren't born a woman or a worthless slave. However, the N.T. is based on Jesus' teachings and therefore falls into line pretty well with what Jesus said and modeled.


(Another side note...we can imagine all sorts of back-stories, as I've told you before, but they really aren't successful ways of dealing with scripture. Unless you are prepared to let liberals make up their own happy fictions, you should not do it. None of this speculation that you provide is actually in scripture.)

You were prepared to see a "happy fiction" here before you even read my post...I believe I remember you using a similar phrase long before I gave any examples of how Christians interpret Scripture as supportive of women's leadership in the Church.

It is normal for biblical scholars to look at context and culture to see what additional light can be shed and what possible interpretations can be reasonably suggested. With some of these tough texts, they remain somewhat difficult, but when you take into consideration the fact that these texts are contrary to Christian practice in the Bible, it is reasonable to look at these interpretations which call for what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story".


(The funny thing is...Paul was a very intelligent writer. He could have just said what he meant. Funny that he didn't...and that what you think he obviously must have meant matches what you as a woman in ministry need to hear.)

Paul was writing a letter. A letter. Letters assume that the hearers have a clue what is going on in their own lives. If only Paul had realized that down the road, Blossom and Dash would wonder what exactly he was talking about.


There's nothing to indicate that Huldah had studied the scriptures at all.

I don't see anything to indicate this either, I think that Grady took a liberty here. But of course, this is not at all foundational to his point.


You ignore Paul's plainly stated words, and you prefer a couple of complex fictions that commentators have made up.

Wow, you don't value scholarship, do you?

[suzer1013]

--but I will add, Dash, that I am glad to find that at least one brave soul actually read through my last post.

LOL! :lol: I made it through the post, too, but just haven't had time to respond properly. Between work, home, and my journeys elsewhere on the internet, this response had to go on the back burner.

What I get from the gist of this article and your response to it, is that we are urged to view the role of women in the church in historical context, and to allow women's leadership roles today based on that. I fully agree. Women have been denied formal leadership roles in the church for far too long. I was lucky to have been raised in a church that allowed women in leadership since I was very young. In fact, I believe one of the first ordained women Episcopal ministers was from my church (I have forgotten her name, will have to look that up!).

I guess what troubles or confuses me is that I see a sort of disconnect between the ability to accept women in ministry by interpreting scripture using historical context, versus not being able to accept homosexuality by interpreting scripture using historical context. My understanding of what Paul was talking about (and I'm sure you're familiar with this) is that what Paul was referring to was more about prostitution and ritual temple sex practices, not about the kind of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships we know today. Some reject that argument, and continue to use Paul's writings against GLBT persons.

Blossom, you and I obviously place different weight on different passages of scripture. And that's o.k. -- I appreciate knowing where you are coming from. It doesn't make sense to me, perhaps as the more "liberal" argument doesn't make sense to you. I find that, regarding women in ministry or regarding GLBT people, or even regarding the historical issue of slavery, we cannot disregard changes in society, changes in what we have learned over the years (insight which, I believe, is God given). We have a new understanding of race relations, we have a new understanding of the equality of women, and we have a new understanding of GLBT people. I do not think we can dismiss that in order to rigidly conform to scripture, especially when that conformity oppresses women, minorities, or gays.

I probably haven't fully responded, but this is as much as I can do right now. Work calls. :)

I'd like to leave you with this perspective, from Rev. Thomas B. Woodward from his essay "Falsely Accused":

St. Paul, himself, shifts the ground somewhat as he moves from his attack on abusive sexual relationships in the first chapter of Romans, where he argues for restraints, to his very powerful statement about how to value and judge relationships which are marked by the presence of the Holy Spirit:

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. (Galatians
5:22-24)

One thing that has changed is our understanding of how difficult it has become for the church to condemn human relationships that are filled with the marks and the presence of the Holy Spirit. To judge those relationships as sinful – when God’s presence in them is so apparent – is most likely a matter of a lack of faith than anything else.


So, to me, the argument does shift from using scripture to condemn, to using scripture to acknowledge and further loving relationships. Whatever is inconsistent in scripture with love will, for me, be given less weight. Yes, to me it IS all about love, whether some find that theologically weak or not.

Wish I had more time, but I've gotta run. More at a later time...

Susan :)

[NathanATX]

Yes, Jesus turned certain expectations upside down, especially when you consider that Jewish men were known to thank God in their prayers that they weren't born a woman or a worthless slave. However, the N.T. is based on Jesus' teachings and therefore falls into line pretty well with what Jesus said and modeled.


I think the New Testament is often a struggle between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul.

[Blossom]

Hi Susan,

Maybe I can get back to your other points later, but I can address the issue of looking for the evidence of good fruit in the lives of others.

First, we are all aware that some people can do good things without the right intentions. What appears to be fruit is not necessarily born out of love, but sometimes out of a desire to make one's self look good, or out of a desire for some religious people to earn their salvation (this happens too often in Christianity when individuals are not comfortable resting in the grace of God but trust in their own ability). My understanding of good works, for instance, is not that they earn our salvation, but are acts of thanksgiving to God.

Secondly, (and this is my main point), I know personally that even when I bear good fruit in my life (genuine good fruit from love!) it is not proof that everything in my life is as it should be. I love God and love others and work to be a blessing to those around me. However, there are certain areas of my life that are not perfectly pleasing to God. I know I need to offer those areas to God for mercy, healing and forgiveness. (And I think that any honest Christian will admit to having this room to grow!). So, my good fruit is evidence that God is working in my life, but it is not evidence that my every thought, belief, and action is in line with the will of God.

So, I have no doubt that many of you here have a genuine love for Jesus Christ and are working to grow in your relationship with God through Christ. And I have no doubt that your lives bear fruit. But I would not use the fruit in our lives as evidence that every aspect of our lives are pleasing to God.

Hope this helps,
Blossom

[NathanATX]

So, I have no doubt that many of you here have a genuine love for Jesus Christ and are working to grow in your relationship with God through Christ. And I have no doubt that your lives bear fruit. But I would not use the fruit in our lives as evidence that every aspect of our lives are pleasing to God.


On the other hand, many "Christians" have some pretty rotten fruit. We don't really need to go into what the church has done historically to glbt people, do we?

If we know people by their fruit, what do we know of Christians who demonize, attack, belittle, shame, etc... people who are glbt?

How about they have simply received some rotten "seed." They have been fed garbage, so out it comes.

How about they are acting/reacting out of their fear and ignorance, thus demonstrating they need extra love, compassion and guidance.

Or, how about they are intentionally abusing glbt people to advance themselves in religious or political arenas.

[suzer1013]

Hi Susan,

Maybe I can get back to your other points later, but I can address the issue of looking for the evidence of good fruit in the lives of others.

First, we are all aware that some people can do good things without the right intentions. What appears to be fruit is not necessarily born out of love, but sometimes out of a desire to make one's self look good, or out of a desire for some religious people to earn their salvation (this happens too often in Christianity when individuals are not comfortable resting in the grace of God but trust in their own ability). My understanding of good works, for instance, is not that they earn our salvation, but are acts of thanksgiving to God.

Secondly, (and this is my main point), I know personally that even when I bear good fruit in my life (genuine good fruit from love!) it is not proof that everything in my life is as it should be. I love God and love others and work to be a blessing to those around me. However, there are certain areas of my life that are not perfectly pleasing to God. I know I need to offer those areas to God for mercy, healing and forgiveness. (And I think that any honest Christian will admit to having this room to grow!). So, my good fruit is evidence that God is working in my life, but it is not evidence that my every thought, belief, and action is in line with the will of God.

So, I have no doubt that many of you here have a genuine love for Jesus Christ and are working to grow in your relationship with God through Christ. And I have no doubt that your lives bear fruit. But I would not use the fruit in our lives as evidence that every aspect of our lives are pleasing to God.

Hope this helps,
Blossom

Hi Blossom.

All I can relate to you at this moment is the visceral pain the above statement causes me, though I am sure it was not your intention. I am at work, and went into the copy room and as tears came to my eyes, I decided I had to come back and write this to you. I do appreciate that you are sharing sincerely with us, and I do enjoy your presence here. And I know that you did not mean your words to hurt. Being the sensitive person I am, though, they did hurt.

I have heard over and over again from conservative, perhaps well meaning, Christians, that it doesn't matter what I do in my life, that it doesn't matter how many good things, how much love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control I have (to quote Paul) -- that none of that matters because my relationship with who I love is not pleasing to God. I'm sorry, Blossom, but that is your opinion and is based on a narrow interpretation of scripture. I do not accept your or anyone else's judgement that my life is not pleasing to God.

What you have said basically translates, to me, into "It doesn't matter how good you are, God hates you anyway." I know that's not exactly what you said in so many words, but that's what I heard.

God rejoices in my love for my partner, just as God rejoices in the love shared by and between any of his Children. Now, the argument that usually comes at me next is that what I am experiencing is not really "love" and that I am deluded and (according to folks like Pastor Steve) have a "reprobate" mind.

God loves me, just as I am. I am fully pleasing to God, just as I am. Surely, I have shortcomings, but my relationship and love for my partner is not one of them. God is pleased with me and loves me despite where I may fall short. I fall short daily in not doing enough to help the poor and downtrodden, in not feeding the hungry, etc. But I work on that in my life, I have several areas where I strive to give of myself to others (my mission work in Sierra Leone being one). That I fall short in that is only human, but I daresay I don't fall as short in living out Jesus' teachings as do some others.

We are all on a journey with God and with Christ, and we are ALL pleasing to the Almighty. He created us to love one another, and there are no limits on that love.

Susan

[Dash]

Wow, you don't value scholarship, do you?

Of course I value scholarship. I'm presently reading John Boswell's "Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Marriage in Pre-Modern Europe." He can't go a single paragraph without providing at least three notes--extra commentary on the primary source documents...Greek, Latin, Russian...even referencing ancient commentaries on the same documents as well as ancient cultural practices. The breadth of his scholarship is stunning! The speculation that your writer employs seems to be in a vastly different class. He uses words like "might," "it is possible," "if this were the case," "he could have been," "if women were," "this would have,” "if this is why," "other scholars propose," "one theory suggests," and "if this were indeed the scenario" all of which emphatically highlight the subjunctive mood of his speculation.

Now, do I disagree with him? No. Do I disagree with you that women are wise and strong? Absolutely not! It was my own father who spoke repeatedly to me as I was growing up, saying, "Women are in many ways stronger than men, and their innate gifts make them better natural leaders."

Most of your responses were focused on supporting your position on the empowerment of women. I am in complete agreement with you on those grounds, and do not disagree with you. It's just that your conservative feminism looks like fine liberalism to me.

Concerning homosexuality, I have not found any texts that support same-gender sex. I guess I'm still looking for the Scriptural contradiction.

I assert once again that though you have still found no grace for gay and lesbian people in scripture others have. Many have worked hard to share it with you, but you are only prepared to find grace for women and dismiss all scholarship that does not serve your position. This is your double standard which you cannot yet acknowledge.

Grady was pointing out that those denying God's call on women on the basis of their interpretation of the text are failing to actually follow their own interpretation in every respect. If they believe that Scripture says women cannot speak or teach in the church, then it follows that women cannot teach children, either. However, most people who deny a woman's ability/right/call to speak in church some how allow them to teach Sunday school. That isn't consistent.

Neither are you consistent. This is the focus of all my efforts in this thread. You cannot yet acknowledge what is clear to everyone here: that you use all the same methods liberals use; that you use every resource at your disposal to find grace for women; that you deny the use of these same resources and methods to us who have found grace in Christ Jesus. You might be prepared to acknowledge the good fruit that gay people produce, but hypocritically deny Jesus words that a tree will be known by its fruit. I call on you to be consistent.

On the UMC board, I noticed that love was used to contradict traditional teaching on homosexuality. Love of neighbor is presented as contradicting what is described as sin in the NT. However, I do not see the two as contradictory.

Love is love, my dear.

Hear it.

See it.

Learn it.

Love is love, and our love is love. There is no law against love. You can shut your eyes to this as long as you want, but you will only prevent yourself from seeing what is right in front of you and what all of us here already know.

There is an inherent contradiction between the understanding that all law is contained in "Love God and Love your neighbor" and the desire to punish those who love. Scripture supports our love.

I quoted a conservative feminist. I did not write the chapter that I presented, but I will go back through your post and see if I wish to defend the charges you make against the writer and against me.

Finally, I find it intellectually dishonest for you to present a chapter of information from some scholar other than yourself, and then distance yourself from it by saying, "I didn't write it." You were identifying with his methods, and it is not inappropriate for me to infer that his were the methods to which you lend your approval.

I'm very sorry if my posts express my exasperation in a way that offends you. Trust me, I'm holding a lot of fire back as I write. :cool:

At this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't see anything in your response that refutes my argument. It still stands that your conservative feminism shares all of the same methods of finding scriptural and spiritual support as our methods, yet you dismiss our methods, our interpretations and the grace that we find--the same grace that you as a woman in ministry take for yourself.

[BruceChris]

From Suzer:

"We are all on a journey with God and with Christ, and we are ALL pleasing to the Almighty. He created us to love one another, and there are no limits on that love".

"We are all on a journey with God and with Christ, and we are ALL pleasing to the Almighty. He created us to love one another, and there are no limits on that love".

(edit)
I am always pleasing to God, just as I am, but there is no limit as to the ways that I could be more pleasing to God. Perhaps Christianity is telling me that life is good, life will always be good, but that I can always make it better. -- Theology du jour

I'm going to have to come back and read that through more thoroughly, and maybe add something later.

Peace and Love, Chris

[BruceChris]

It would seem that Paul had a more conservative, uptight, old testament way of looking at things than Christ did. Thus the expression " A Pauline Doctrine", sometimes referred to as appalling doctrine. I guess I kinda agree with you here,

Peace and Love, Chris

[Blossom]

Dash, italics. Blossom, plain print.

I'm very sorry if my posts express my exasperation in a way that offends you. Trust me, I'm holding a lot of fire back as I write.

Feel no need to hold back any longer. Let it rip. Express your anger and frustration without holding back. You have my official permission. But as you blast away, I do ask that you refrain from calling me "dear". Thanks. (Only my husband, mother, and little old ladies retain that privilege.)

I continue to answer your questions, but often you ignore the points that I make in order to repeat your earlier statement over and over again. Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. Since we have very different foundational beliefs and theological undestandings, maybe you just don't understand my points. And until you respond to the points that I make, I will have no way to know whether or not you understand.


Finally, I find it intellectually dishonest for you to present a chapter of information from some scholar other than yourself, and then distance yourself from it by saying, "I didn't write it." You were identifying with his methods, and it is not inappropriate for me to infer that his were the methods to which you lend your approval.

Dash, look back over this thread and you will find that someone wanted to see a conservative feminist's take on 1 Timothy 2...oh, I just went back through the thread. That person was you. Dash wrote, "To see a conservative feminist's perspective alongside a liberal woman's would be very helpful to me." As I had a book handy that represents what you were looking for, I typed it in, reading it as I went. I agree with most of it, but was not presenting it as my final word on the issue. I thought you would be able to figure that out. I am not an expert on biblical interpretation on these passages. I have read about them in the past and was very comfortable with what I read from the conservative feminist perspective. Now, however, I focus on doing ministry rather than defending my call to ministry. I recommend you check out authors such as Gilbert Bilezikian, whose book I read when I was attended a university that officially denied my call by God. I would also recommend you check into Ben Witherington's works on the role of women. I would likely prefer his works to Bilezikian's. In fact, you may not be too late to ask him your main question as his blog recently dealt with the issue of the role of women to some degree. Seriously, raise the question nicely, and he might carry on the discussion a while longer...unless you are worried his answers will be better than mine.


I assert once again that though you have still found no grace for gay and lesbian people in scripture others have.

The fact that I need the grace of God means that I have sin that only God can heal and forgive. With no sin, there is really no need for grace. Grace does not make sin good. Grace does not change the nature of the sin, but frees the participant from its power and burden. I need God's grace because I have sinned. I continue to need God's grace in everyday life, because there are still aspects of my life that need change. In the true meaning of the word "sin", there are still areas where I miss the mark of obeying God and perfectly reflecting the image of God.

The Bible is full of grace. But you expect me to understand grace as ignoring sin--if I am gracious then I have to ignore what I believe to be sin. That isn't grace. However, I do love and value those with whom I disagree. I do believe that they are loved by God. But grace does not require that I ignore the majority of Scripture's teaching on sin. I work to be gracious in how I interact with those who disagree with me. But if I truly love you, Dash, and want the best for you--and if I believe that homosexuality is not what God desires for you, I cannot ignore what I believe to be true.


Many have worked hard to share it with you, but you are only prepared to find grace for women and dismiss all scholarship that does not serve your position.

Please share with me some examples of scholarship that can deny the role of women in ministry without ignoring the numerous passages that give clear evidence that women were in ministry during biblical times. Women were ministering in the earliest decades of the early church...it is recorded in Scripture...these passages actually quote the names of women in ministry...Paul refers to women in ministry... The job then is to see if it is possible to reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages. And I'm not asking for grace here because there is clear evidence that women were supported in ministry.


Love is love, my dear.

Actually, I do not believe we understand love in the same way. Is love always permission giving?


At this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't see anything in your response that refutes my argument. It still stands that your conservative feminism shares all of the same methods of finding scriptural and spiritual support as our methods

Conservative feminists point to specific examples in Scripture which support leadership roles for women in the church. This gives reason to study the issue of the role of women further. Show me examples in Scripture that contradict those which prohibit homosexual acts.


There is an inherent contradiction between the understanding that all law is contained in "Love God and Love your neighbor" and the desire to punish those who love. Scripture supports our love.

Scripture does not specifically support same-gender sex. Scripture does not specifically support quite a few examples of male-female sex, either. And in fact, there are examples of love that are not supported, such as the love of money. Love is natural. We will all love something or someone. To truly love another person with no desire for personal gain is a great thing. However, not all types of sexual expression are specifically supported by Scripture. So, Scripture does support love, but I need you to be more specific to help me understand how it supports same-gender sex.

And Dash, if you would, please respond to more of my points. I feel that you ignore much of what I say. I try to express my points in different ways, but your response remains pretty much the same. Obviously, you will disagree. But until you interact with my statements, rather than repeating your thoughts, I will have to continue repeating my same responses. And again, feel free to ask an actual conservative feminist scholar your questions.

[Blossom]

Hi Blossom.

All I can relate to you at this moment is the visceral pain the above statement causes me, though I am sure it was not your intention. I am at work, and went into the copy room and as tears came to my eyes, I decided I had to come back and write this to you. I do appreciate that you are sharing sincerely with us, and I do enjoy your presence here. And I know that you did not mean your words to hurt. Being the sensitive person I am, though, they did hurt.


Hi Susan,

There were so many posts on this page that I almost missed yours. I'm glad I didn't. I understand that what I have expressed is hurtful to you. That was not my intention. And in fact, it has been a great struggle for me to accurately represent my views without hurting you and other members of this board. I have no desire to attack anyone or to use harsh statements. As careful and loving as I have tried to be, we are discussing a very painful issue, more so for you than for me. However, it is painful for me.

I believe that Scripture points to a God who is both holy and loving, who has designed the world for a specific purpose. I believe that sin is real and that it hinders our relationship with God. I believe that while God loves us despite our sin, he loves us too much to let us remain in it. I believe that true love can be seen not only in supporting one another, but in sincerely discussing the issues that we believe can be harmful to one another. Love does not shut her eyes in the midst of sin, but falls to her knees in prayer that the world will be freed from the power of sin. I have spent too much time at this keyboard and too little time on my knees.

I wanted to send this message to you privately, but know others may feel as you do. We have very different theological foundations. It is hard to converse when we speak different languages.

Susan, if you want to discuss this more, we can. If not, that's o.k., too. But please know that I extend this blessing to you with an earnest heart:

May God surround you with his love and may the love and presence of Jesus Christ fill you through and through.

Blossom

[Jamie McDaniel]

But back to the point that those in power rarely change without some form of pressure: in the Church, I would hope that they would not be influenced by the outside pressure of changing culture. Changing culture necessitates new forms of expressing our message, but the message itself does not change. Neither does the foundation change--which is God's will for humanity as revealed in Scripture. If a church changes their foundational beliefs just to keep up what is politically correct or perceived as culturally relevant, then they have failed in their calling. But if a church changes their practice because they believe they have come to undersand the Scriptures (Bible) more fully, then they are on the right track.

I've come to see it works like this. First the Spirit moves. Then the church within the church challenges the culture. After much energy, the culture changes and subsequently applies pressure to the traditional church. The very last to change is the traditional church. I think we fool ourselves if we credit the traditional church's progress with a new understanding of scripture.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world.

Dr. King wrote these words in his Letter from Birmingham Jail [pdf] (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf). At the time, he was quite frustrated with moderates. He wrote that he had almost reached the conclusion that white moderates were the greatest stumbling block in black America's stride toward freedom.

I must say, I feel a similiar frustration when reading your arguments for denying gay people equality, Blossom.

And concerning what the Bible says, and doesn't say, about women's role in ministry. I can just hear my Southern Baptist pastor...

When reading hard saying of the Bible, we should err on the side of caution. If God says Thou Shall Not Steal, we shouldn't say what about borrowing indefinitely without permission?

(Laughter from the congregation.)

Now what I want to preach on today, is the role of men and women in God's church.

The Bible does not prohibit women from ministering, I want to say that right up front. Women in this church serve the Lord in mighty ways.

But God's word clearly says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." "I do not permit a woman to teach... or to have authority... over a man."

Now if you will turn with me in your Bibles to Titus chapter 1 verse 6. There you will see that the apostle Paul states that elders in the church should be the "husband of one wife."
Elders in the church should be the "husband... of.... one wife."

God, in his wisdom, has set aside the role of pastor to be filled by men and we ought to obey the Lord.

Now some people today say that's not what God really meant. Well I just thank God this is a church where we spend our time seeking out lost souls rather than loop holes.

(A-men! from the balcony.)

Given such use of the Bible, I'm glad Jesus told us to look at the fruit and judge it as good. Even if scripture didn't record a single instance of a woman in a leadership role, I would hope the church (or rather the church within the church) would recognize the fruit of women ministers and celebrate their calling. Doesn't God want us to grow to that point?

[Dash]

Feel no need to hold back any longer. Let it rip. Express your anger and frustration without holding back. You have my official permission. But as you blast away, I do ask that you refrain from calling me "dear". Thanks. (Only my husband, mother, and little old ladies retain that privilege.)

I apologize for the offense. It really was not my intention to be condescending or anything. I hope that no one on these boards thus offended when I call them "darlin" or "dear." I will not use any such terms of endearment with you again.

I continue to answer your questions, but often you ignore the points that I make in order to repeat your earlier statement over and over again. Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. Since we have very different foundational beliefs and theological understandings, maybe you just don't understand my points. And until you respond to the points that I make, I will have no way to know whether or not you understand.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something important. As you can see, I like to repeat the points that I feel you ignore or miss. Please just show me which ones of yours I'm missing. In the last post, I only responded to the points with which I had some disagreement. Most of your post (as I read it) supported women's equality. I am in complete agreement with you on all points related to women's equality, so I had less to contend with.

Dash, look back over this thread and you will find that someone wanted to see a conservative feminist's take on 1 Timothy 2...oh, I just went back through the thread. That person was you.

Yes! Absolutely it was me! Thank you for providing the conservative perspective. I have been waiting for weeks for you to provide just such insight. I have waited for weeks for you to address this point of mine...since we were yakking at each other over at the UMC Forum. Just don't distance yourself from it as if that is not really your position. Or...alternatively...next time only present information that accurately represents your position. Do you understand what I mean by intellectual dishonesty? Why would you post it, if it did not represent your position?

Dash wrote, "To see a conservative feminist's perspective alongside a liberal woman's would be very helpful to me." As I had a book handy that represents what you were looking for, I typed it in, reading it as I went. I agree with most of it, but was not presenting it as my final word on the issue. I thought you would be able to figure that out.

It's more helpful and honest if you just come clean in the beginning and say when something does not necessarily represent your position. Honestly, Blossom...how would I have ever known that what you posted was not your take on Christian feminism?

I am not an expert on biblical interpretation on these passages. I have read about them in the past and was very comfortable with what I read from the conservative feminist perspective. Now, however, I focus on doing ministry rather than defending my call to ministry. I recommend you check out authors such as Gilbert Bilezikian, whose book I read when I was attended a university that officially denied my call by God. I would also recommend you check into Ben Witherington's works on the role of women. I would likely prefer his works to Bilezikian's. In fact, you may not be too late to ask him your main question as his blog recently dealt with the issue of the role of women to some degree. Seriously, raise the question nicely, and he might carry on the discussion a while longer...unless you are worried his answers will be better than mine.

Blossom, do you not understand that I have no issue with women's equality or women in ministry? My issue is that you use a double standard in your dealings with us. Here I set it before you again:

Women were for millennia considered less than worthy...property even...unable to teach or even learn...in short, inherently flawed and wicked by way of Eve's sin and unwelcome in the full company of society. A woman in ministry goes against plain scripture, and most of the many years of Church tradition. Most Christians in the last millennia would have considered your position as pastor to be sinfully wicked!

-- for women you seek and find grace...a mercy that says women are not inherently unworthy...they are not less than human...they are indeed fully equal to men, and fully approved of by God...God's curse and Paul's prohibitions aside, it is no sin for a woman to be in a position of authority over men and to teach them. (I agree wholeheartedly)

Gay men and women, in recent times, and occasionally throughout history (though not at all times) have been hated and reviled by society and in particular conservative Christians...considered unworthy, disgusting, flawed, and unwelcome in the full company of society. Our love is called sin.

-- For us you are content to continue the oppression and find no reason to change your mind or extend any grace.

Double standard.

Now, don’t try to redirect the conversation by offering me books and commentaries on women's rights in the Church. I don't need such references, because I am already in favor of women's rights.

Once again to be clear...I do not have any questions in regard to the role of women in the Church. I do not need to visit Mr. Witherington's blog to answer questions that I do not have. I am not attacking your call to ministry in terms of your gender, so unless your books or Mr. Witherington can answer my main question of why Blossom cannot yet acknowledge the double standard revealed by her generosity to women and her penurious love for gays, I see no reason to avail myself of those resources.

The fact that I need the grace of God means that I have sin that only God can heal and forgive. With no sin, there is really no need for grace. Grace does not make sin good. Grace does not change the nature of the sin, but frees the participant from its power and burden. I need God's grace because I have sinned. I continue to need God's grace in everyday life, because there are still aspects of my life that need change. In the true meaning of the word "sin", there are still areas where I miss the mark of obeying God and perfectly reflecting the image of God.

The Bible is full of grace. But you expect me to understand grace as ignoring sin--if I am gracious then I have to ignore what I believe to be sin. That isn't grace. However, I do love and value those with whom I disagree. I do believe that they are loved by God. But grace does not require that I ignore the majority of Scripture's teaching on sin. I work to be gracious in how I interact with those who disagree with me. But if I truly love you, Dash, and want the best for you--and if I believe that homosexuality is not what God desires for you, I cannot ignore what I believe to be true.

And our love is not sin. It is not sin any more than a woman teaching from the pulpit is sin. I'm not asking you to ignore a sin. I don't think you are either ignoring a sin by preaching to men, or living in sin by choosing a pastoral vocation in clear contradiction of Paul's prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

Do you hear? I do not call you a sinner for this thing in your life which seems to break the rules. I do not treat you as a sinner or even think that you are a sinner for choosing to go against traditional Church doctrine. I think you are just fine. I do not expect grace to change the nature of your sin of teaching men--BECAUSE IT AIN'T SIN!!!!

The "grace" and the "graciousness" comes in letting go of the desire to condemn...letting go of the need to hold your brothers and sisters accountable for crimes, when you yourself have been shown incredible mercy by being born in an age where you are not condemned as a witch and burned for daring to teach men. God gave grace to you.

Yet you will not extend this grace to us. Double standard.

Yes, we all still sin. But our love is not a sin. There are many sins that I and others here struggle with just like you. Our love is not one of them. Try it out on your own lips... say it just once... "Their love is not sin. Their love really is love."

You can do it.

Please share with me some examples of scholarship that can deny the role of women in ministry without ignoring the numerous passages that give clear evidence that women were in ministry during biblical times. Women were ministering in the earliest decades of the early church...it is recorded in Scripture...these passages actually quote the names of women in ministry...Paul refers to women in ministry... The job then is to see if it is possible to reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages.

I don't want to prove women wrong! I have no wish to see women leave the ministry! Why would I try to provide scholarship that denied the role of women in ministry? I myself see the contradictions and I have resolved that paradox.

Rather, I would like for you to open your heart to the vast and growing wealth of Biblical scholarship that supports the love of gay and lesbian Christians. I would like for you to open your heart to the love of David and Jonathan and the Centurion and his servant. There are literally tomes of scholarship that support these examples of same sex love in the Bible and many others in Church history. Will you not open your ears, your eyes, your heart and your mind to this scholarship? Will not open your soul to the gentle interpretations at which you hack with your iron law?

And I'm not asking for grace here because there is clear evidence that women were supported in ministry.

Yes, but there is also clear evidence as supported by Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 that you live a life of sin by choosing a vocation in Church ministry. I would never use such evidence against women in ministry, but it is clearly there. So...yes, in many respects, you do seek grace; for traditional Christian Church doctrine has held to the 1 Timothy position rather yours. Had you been born not too many years ago, you would have been condemned for your wickedness, and never would have been given a ministry.

You have found grace for yourself, and offer none to us. Perhaps this is because you do not recognize the grace you have been given.

Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'

"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!'

He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.

Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?'

His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. (Matthew 18:23-34)

I know already the many ways in which you will say it does not apply to you or to these circumstances. But make no mistake, many of your fellow servants are also already going to the Master and speaking in sorrow on behalf of those you crush.

Actually, I do not believe we understand love in the same way. Is love always permission giving?

In Jesus day, the Pharisees, disingenuously wondered, "Who is my neighbor." Today's anti-gay teachers of the law, run about asking, "What is love?"

Love is very simple. It needs no new definition from you or me. Paul gave an excellent exposition in 1 Corinthians 13. Our love is all of that...every bit as excellent and perfect. Love is simple. Do not darken it with your questioning.

Conservative feminists point to specific examples in Scripture which support leadership roles for women in the church. This gives reason to study the issue of the role of women further. Show me examples in Scripture that contradict those which prohibit homosexual acts.

David and Jonathan's love was undoubtedly of the gay variety. Their recorded expressions of loving affection far exceed what could be considered non-sexual between two men. And don't throw the "brotherly love" line at me. There is no such thing. John Boswell, in his excellent scholarship finds that in ancient cultures this "brotherly love" was just slang for "male lovers." I can provide more from Boswell's work, but for now, it is enough to let you know that the scholarship exists. David and Jonathan's love is a very clear example of same sex love in the Bible. No condemnation was found for them, unless you regard Saul's dim view of their relationship as valid condemnation; for Saul was obviously aware of the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship.

The Centurian and his servant. The greek word (pais) translated as "servant", was commonly used to indicate a male lover. This understanding of the text illuminates this story. Now, instead of a powerful Centurion coming to request special healing for a simple slave, which could be replaced easily, we see a worried lover coming to Christ asking for healing for his beloved who is sick. This makes a lot of sense! Jesus does not hesitate or condemn him for his love, but offers healing and honors his faith above all in Israel. (Matthew 8:5-13)

Scripture does not specifically support same-gender sex.

Scripture clearly supports love. Any expression of love that is lovingly shared is thereby clearly supported.

Scripture does not specifically support quite a few examples of male-female sex, either.

No...rape is not supported. But then rape is not love, is it?. Adultery is not supported, but then adultery ignores the pain of one person for another's pleasure. That is not really love either, is it? There are some prohibitions against incest and sex with close relatives....well, there are some very plain reasons why, and those reasons do not rely on the lack or presence of love; but when love is factored into the equation, even you should take notice of how it changes the basic algebra.

So...you see, even if same gender "sex" doesn't seem to be supported by scripture, love clearly is. Therefore, intimate expressions of love that are not abusive, exploitive or self-serving cannot be wrong. They are acts of love, and no there is no law against love.

And in fact, there are examples of love that are not supported, such as the love of money.

Stop right there, and go no further. You will not compare our love to the love of money!

Love is natural. We will all love something or someone. To truly love another person with no desire for personal gain is a great thing. However, not all types of sexual expression are specifically supported by Scripture. So, Scripture does support love, but I need you to be more specific to help me understand how it supports same-gender sex.

I have now begun to show you. You must now begin to see. Intimacy that expresses itself in the context of true love can never be condemned.

And Dash, if you would, please respond to more of my points.

I hope that I have begun to do as you ask. Now please do the same for me.

I feel that you ignore much of what I say. I try to express my points in different ways, but your response remains pretty much the same.

I do not feel that I ignore what you say. This responding to every point is difficult. I am willing to do it though...until you prove once again that you will not do the same for me. [actually my first attempt at posting this was denied because I had over 20,000 characters in my post.]

Obviously, you will disagree. But until you interact with my statements, rather than repeating your thoughts, I will have to continue repeating my same responses.

Likewise, I will continue to repeat mine until you respond to them.

And again, feel free to ask an actual conservative feminist scholar your questions.

I have no questions regarding women in ministry. I'm surprised that you have no ready answers of your own, though. It seems as if you once read a couple supportive commentaries, and any questions and concerns you might have had about 1 Timothy 2:9-15 were answered. Why must we work so much harder to plead grace out of your miserly hands?

[Blossom]

I apologize for the offense. It really was not my intention to be condescending or anything. I hope that no one on these boards thus offended when I call them "darlin" or "dear." I will not use any such terms of endearment with you again.

No problem. I was able to deal with it as long as it seemed offered in genuine friendliness, not in a condescending manner. If it is a term for endearment, you use it only when you find that individual as dear to your heart, not when you are perturbed with them. I'm not fond of the term, but had held back since you seemed to be genuinely expressing a kind sentiment.


Yes! Absolutely it was me! Thank you for providing the conservative perspective. I have been waiting for weeks for you to provide just such insight. I have waited for weeks for you to address this point of mine...Do you understand what I mean by intellectual dishonesty? Why would you post it, if it did not represent your position?

I was responding to a call for an example of conservative feminist thought. If I knew you were expecting only my thoughts, I would have picked through his statements more carefully. I agreed with most of his points, but didn't find it as solid as explanations of other difficult passages. The particular passage you brought up may be a little tougher. I haven't researched it a lot, so offered what I had on hand. That wasn't intellectually dishonest. I was trying to give you what you asked for. And since you acted as if I had fallen into your trap, I was even more perturbed that you assumed that I wholeheartedly agreed with every aspect of Grady's logic.



It's more helpful and honest if you just come clean in the beginning and say when something does not necessarily represent your position. Honestly, Blossom...how would I have ever known that what you posted was not your take on Christian feminism?

I can see that you might assume it, but since I really haven't researched this issues in years, I don't have ready made answers for you, and don't have time to do so. You wanted some examples of Christian conservative thought, which I gave you. I agree with most of what he said, but was not offering the thoughts as 100% my own. When we study, read and discuss the works of others, it begins a journey in us, but we do not arrive at the destination immediately. I was offering ideas to start the journey.
In short, I guess you could have asked.


Blossom, do you not understand that I have no issue with women's equality or women in ministry? My issue is that you use a double standard in your dealings with us.

Yes, I understand that.

Now, don’t try to redirect the conversation by offering me books and commentaries on women's rights in the Church. I don't need such references, because I am already in favor of women's rights.

Hmmm, let me say it a different way--I truly believe that you support women's rights.

Once again to be clear...I do not have any questions in regard to the role of women in the Church. I do not need to visit Mr. Witherington's blog to answer questions that I do not have. I am not attacking your call to ministry in terms of your gender, so unless your books or Mr. Witherington can answer my main question of why Blossom cannot yet acknowledge the double standard revealed by her generosity to women and her penurious love for gays, I see no reason to avail myself of those resources.Dash, that is the exact reason I recommended his books and blog! That's it! You got it! I know you support women in ministry! I really, really, really do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew, exhale... I recommended Dr. Witherington's blogs and writings precisely because he can demonstrate for you how a conservative theologian can honestly support women in ministry. I have no pride on this issue--Ben Witherington is smarter than I am, more experienced than I am, and has actually published on this particular issue. He can model for you how a Conservative can support women in ministry with integrity (and without a double standard). Let me put it a different way (he can answer your double standard question better than I can).


...why Blossom cannot yet acknowledge the double standard revealed by her generosity to women and her penurious love for gays...

penurious: stingly, miserly; yielding little; destitute. (Maybe I'm the only one who needed that defined.)

I'm not answering this. It doesn't matter what I say. As long as you believe that I have a double-standard you will believe me to be dishonest.


Gay men and women, in recent times, and occasionally throughout history (though not at all times) have been hated and reviled by society and in particular conservative Christians...considered unworthy, disgusting, flawed, and unwelcome in the full company of society. Our love is called sin.

One can believe that same-gender sex is sin while maintaining that homosexuals are of equal worth with heterosexuals. All humanity is precious. All are loved by God. As a Christian, I can say that Jesus died for the sake of all. The fact that we all stand in need of his grace points out that we all have sinned and have a tendency to sin--we are equal in our sin and need. Jesus' sacrifice also points out that we are all loved equally.


-- For us you are content to continue the oppression and find no reason to change your mind or extend any grace

What do you mean by grace? Must I change my view of Scripture?


Do you hear? I do not call you a sinner for this thing in your life which seems to break the rules. I do not treat you as a sinner or even think that you are a sinner for choosing to go against traditional Church doctrine. I think you are just fine. I do not expect grace to change the nature of your sin of teaching men--BECAUSE IT AIN'T SIN!!!!

Yes, Dash. And there are examples in Scripture which support your assertion. I do not see an example in Scripture in which same-gender sex is supported. And if you site love for neighbor, please explain what exactly you mean by love--must love always be permission giving even in areas that we believe to be dangerous or against God's will? Or can love be expressed even when we disagree with others?


The "grace" and the "graciousness" comes in letting go of the desire to condemn...God gave grace to you.

I do not wish to condemn you. I have no place in judging anyone. That is God's place. However, because I care about all of God's creation, it would be sin for me to pretend I think you are pleasing God when I believe that God has revealed that same-gender sex misses the mark of his will. You don't understand that it takes grace for me to accept that a person can be a Christian if they willfully break God's revelation of his will. Please reread that last comment. You will find plenty of people who will deny that anyone on this board can love Jesus and be in relationship with him. I have not done that. But again, you only see that I don't agree with you. I guess that's all you want from me. I thought it would be enough to genuinely care for you as one of God's beloved. But that isn't enough.



Yes, we all still sin. But our love is not a sin. There are many sins that I and others here struggle with just like you. Our love is not one of them. Try it out on your own lips... say it just once... "Their love is not sin. Their love really is love."
You can do it.

Oh, Dash, you don't understand. My foundation for understanding what is good is Scripture. Until I believe that Scripture says "your love is not a sin", I cannot. If you don't use Scripture as your foundation, I don't expect you to agree with me. But you expect me to deny my foundation in order to agree with you.


I don't want to prove women wrong! I have no wish to see women leave the ministry! Why would I try to provide scholarship that denied the role of women in ministry?

I didn't ask you to prove women wrong. Maybe I should start repeating each statement in two different ways. To put that another way, maybe I should start repeating each statement twice.;) I asked you to give an example of a fundamentalist view of women that takes into account the positive examples in Scripture of women in ministry. My point is that fundies are inconsistent on this issue because they ignore those examples. Because again, there are passages in support of women in ministry throughout Scripture.


Rather, I would like for you to open your heart to the vast and growing wealth of Biblical scholarship that supports the love of gay and lesbian Christians. I would like for you to open your heart to the love of David and Jonathan and the Centurion and his servant. There are literally tomes of scholarship that support these examples of same sex love in the Bible...

Let's start with a paragraph quoted from any book that proves a same-gender sexual relationship in the Bible. By the way, David and Jonathan were close friends, this does not imply sexuality. You may have noticed that David was quite fond of women.


Yes, but there is also clear evidence as supported by Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 that you live a life of sin by choosing a vocation in Church ministry. I would never use such evidence against women in ministry, but it is clearly there.

Have you studied any scholarly works dealing with that passage? It's o.k. to wrestle with it.


So...yes, in many respects, you do seek grace; for traditional Christian Church doctrine has held to the 1 Timothy position rather yours. Had you been born not too many years ago, you would have been condemned for your wickedness, and never would have been given a ministry.

Christian doctrine in the first century after Christ allowed women in ministry. Passages dealing with women were later misused and isolated without reference to the Bible as a whole or with the recognition that letters do not always supply every bit of information. (this happens elsewhere in Paul's writings)


You have found grace for yourself, and offer none to us. Perhaps this is because you do not recognize the grace you have been given.

I recognize with thankfulness that I live in a day in which women are welcome in many denominations. Of course, many women still struggle to answer their call. I find grace in the fact that a number of denominations have taken the Bible as a whole and have begun to look again at difficult passages.


David and Jonathan's love was undoubtedly of the gay variety. Their recorded expressions of loving affection far exceed what could be considered non-sexual between two men. And don't throw the "brotherly love" line at me. There is no such thing. John Boswell, in his excellent scholarship finds that in ancient cultures this "brotherly love" was just slang for "male lovers." I can provide more from Boswell's work, but for now, it is enough to let you know that the scholarship exists.

The Centurian and his servant. The greek word (pais) translated as "servant", was commonly used to indicate a male lover. (Matthew 8:5-13)

Dash, thank you, this is the first time that you have attempted to present me with any biblical reason to support your case. Many conservative scholars, however, also know Hebrew and Greek and do not come to this conclusion. Of course, I can't evaluate this without you providing evidence for this. As I understand, only the Greeks were known for supporting homosexual relationships. Jews did not support homosexual relationships, and would not likely record such a relationship in a positive light. Israelites clearly condemned same-gender sex. Please quote your reference.


Scripture clearly supports love. Any expression of love that is lovingly shared is thereby clearly supported.

Dash, you are wrong here. Jesus talks of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Paul condemns homosexuality. And love outside of marriage is not to be expressed sexually. Sexually expressed love has its place in marriage, not any time it is feels right or is enjoyable.


I know already the many ways in which you will say it does not apply to you or to these circumstances. But make no mistake, many of your fellow servants are also already going to the Master and speaking in sorrow on behalf of those you crush.

I disagree with you. But do I crush you ? I have had friends and professors who disagreed with me. Yet I know they loved me. They never wanted to hurt me but simply could not support me fully. In contrast, I know of a woman who was the first female pastor in her area who came home to find bloodied maxi pads lined up across her driveway. That is crushing. Have I crushed you?



Scripture clearly supports love. Any expression of love that is lovingly shared is thereby clearly supported.
No...rape is not supported. But then rape is not love, is it?. Adultery is not supported, but then adultery ignores the pain of one person for another's pleasure. That is not really love either, is it? There are some prohibitions against incest and sex with close relatives....well, there are some very plain reasons why, and those reasons do not rely on the lack or presence of love; but when love is factored into the equation, even you should take notice of how it changes the basic algebra.

Of course people who commit adultery can experience love. It isn't good, it causes pain, but people do fall in love with people who are not their spouse. As far as there being plain reasons against incest, I believe that Scriputre presents plain reasons concerning same-gender sex (including the creation of woman and man to come together in marriage--they physically go together).


So...you see, even if same gender "sex" doesn't seem to be supported by scripture, love clearly is. Therefore, intimate expressions of love that are not abusive, exploitive or self-serving cannot be wrong. They are acts of love, and no there is no law against love.

You point is based on human perception alone. And that really isn't enough.


I hope that I have begun to do as you ask. Now please do the same for me. I do not feel that I ignore what you say. This responding to every point is difficult. I am willing to do it though...until you prove once again that you will not do the same for me.

I have tried to answer you. I am tired, Dash. If you have a specific question or want to quote your earlier reference, please do. I recognize that you provided more information for me here. Thank you. But there is no quote, only your opinion that your reference is correct. You take out the concept of love from Scripture but divorce it from the holy and perfect love of God which is rooted in his character and expressed through his revelation of himself. I can interact with you for a few more posts. But my views are so foreign to you and you so distrust me that I don't know what we can do. I really do recommend that if you genuinely care about what you perceive to be my inconsitency of interpretation, that you read the works of some good conservatvie scholars.

And if you like, I will give you last word on these issues. This is your forum, not mine. In fact, here's a good last word to express your thoughts.

Why must we work so much harder to plead grace out of your miserly hands?

Sincerely,
B.

[NathanATX]

Dash & Blossom,
I really appreciate you both taking the time to have this conversation. Blossom, I couldn't tell if you are still in school or not?

--I would like to see some input from Liberal Crozier on this topic. :)

Peace,
Nate

[BruceChris]

Hey, folks, I read the Bible. But truth be told, I spend a lot more time reading books by theologians and Biblical scholars, as the knowledge and/or truth that I find there is vastly more accessible to me. Also, they have spent far more of their lives studying their sources that I ever could. I have an English speaking, 20th century mind. Rarely, 21st, but after all, I was born in 1947. Others have already spoken here about the difficulty of trying to apply the rules for living in biblical times to the present. I don't think I need to go there. Burnt offerings always seem to bring about nuisance suits, or violate local zoning ordinances.

The Bible has many translations, for every verse, anecdote, or section of text. And that only includes the ones for which we have knowledge of usage, in Biblical times. There are of course many other possible translations or meanings which have been lost in time. This has been pointed out by countless Biblical scholars, conservative and liberal.

We all fervently hope that the Bible has a consistency of meaning, because taken at face value, it does not have have a literal consistency. Blossom, I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but there is overwhelming agreement on this. Numerous books have been written about this, too. Just who did Cain marry?

When it comes to matters of discernment of beliefs, or in the case of the Bible, hermeneutics or exegesis, most scholars agree that we must resort to several resources. We have to look at scripture. We have to look at doctrine and tradition, but only with some skepticism, and with resort to various other historical sources. We must look to our own reflection and powers of reasoning, and to our own experiences. And finally of course, to the guidance of prayer.

This leads us to innumerable versions of truth. If theres only ONE acceptable version, the one person who has it is going to be awfully lonely, up there in heaven all by him/her self. This does not bespeak a God of love.

Peace and Love, for now, Bruce Chris

[Dash]

Thanks to everyone who is reading, and especially to those who offer their own comments. Blossom and I tend to dominate a thread when we go at it hammer and tongs.

With that...have at you! :lol:

I haven't researched it a lot, so offered what I had on hand. That wasn't intellectually dishonest. I was trying to give you what you asked for. ...

I can see that you might assume it, but since I really haven't researched this issues in years, I don't have ready made answers for you, and don't have time to do so. ...

Ben Witherington is smarter than I am, more experienced than I am, and has actually published on this particular issue.

...he can answer your double standard question better than I can.

I understand, Blossom. You are happy to let other people tell us why you as a Christain feminist feel free to judge us despite the grace you have found, but you yourself cannot explain it. You don't really have an answer, but you are sure others do, and that will just have to be good enough for us.

This is why the unlearned should not seat in the seat of judgment.

...why Blossom cannot yet acknowledge the double standard revealed by her generosity to women and her penurious love for gays...


I'm not answering this. It doesn't matter what I say. As long as you believe that I have a double-standard you will believe me to be dishonest.

You refuse to answer because you have no good answer. There is no good answer. It's a hypocrisy...the same kind of hypocrisy that Jesus countered in his day from the Pharisees.

One can believe that same-gender sex is sin while maintaining that homosexuals are of equal worth with heterosexuals.

No, this is not possible. It is inherent in your supposition that heterosexual sex is better than homosexual sex. The first corollary is that homosexuals are sinners if they engage in sex with their mates. The second corollary is that they should not be allowed to marry the mate of their choice, which denies us the fundamental right afforded by our creator.

No...it is not possible to believe that same-gender sex is sin and maintain that homosexuals are of equal worth with heterosexuals. If we were of equal worth in your eyes, you would happily grant us the same fundamental right that heterosexuals have of marrying the mate of their choice, and you would welcome us into your Church and into vocations of ministry.

All humanity is precious. All are loved by God. As a Christian, I can say that Jesus died for the sake of all. The fact that we all stand in need of his grace points out that we all have sinned and have a tendency to sin--we are equal in our sin and need. Jesus' sacrifice also points out that we are all loved equally.

I believe everything you say, with the caveat that our love is not sin.

What do you mean by grace? Must I change my view of Scripture?

I'll just repeat myself here since you missed this: "grace" and the "graciousness" comes in letting go of the desire to condemn. This also is very simple...like love.


Yes, Dash. And there are examples in Scripture which support your assertion. I do not see an example in Scripture in which same-gender sex is supported. And if you cite love for neighbor, please explain what exactly you mean by love--must love always be permission giving even in areas that we believe to be dangerous or against God's will? Or can love be expressed even when we disagree with others?

Who is my neighbor? What is love?

You continue to question what I mean by love to justify yourself and your hypocrisy even after I referred you 1 Corinthians 13 in my last post. That is the most beautiful exposition of love in the Bible--or perhaps it competes with Ruth's words to Naomi or David and Jonathan's vows. Our love reflects all of those principles.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Our love shares these same common features. It reflects God's love for humanity just as heterosexual love does.

"And what is love?" asks the modern teacher of the law.

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:25-37)

Blossom, which of the men in the parable showed love to the victim?

I urge you to go and do likewise.

Rather than worrying over someone else's "sin" you ought to occupy yourself with binding up the wounds of those you now judge. Suzer gave you an excellent example to follow, which was in keeping with Jesus' words in Matthew 25:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

Blossom, I ask you, what reason did Jesus give for welcoming the righteous into heaven? Was it because they kept the law? Was it not rather all those things that you dismissed in Suzer's earlier post, making her and all of us out to be misguided do-gooders that march blindly off to hell?

But you, seeing us beaten and bleeding on society's road, pass quickly by on the other side...winking at those who say terrible things about us. "I would not use such harsh language," you say to our tormentors, "though I agree with you."

____________
...continuing below...

[Dash]

Continuing from above...
_______________________

I do not wish to condemn you. I have no place in judging anyone. That is God's place. However, because I care about all of God's creation, it would be sin for me to pretend I think you are pleasing God when I believe that God has revealed that same-gender sex misses the mark of his will.

No...it would not be a sin for you to forgive from your heart all the people you think miss God's mark. Instead, you prefer to sin by sitting in the seat of judgment proclaiming the "sin" of homosexuals.

You don't understand that it takes grace for me to accept that a person can be a Christian if they willfully break God's revelation of his will. Please reread that last comment.

I understand that it will take God's grace for you to learn to forgive from your heart those whose relationship with God is none of your business.

You will find plenty of people who will deny that anyone on this board can love Jesus and be in relationship with him. I have not done that. But again, you only see that I don't agree with you. I guess that's all you want from me. I thought it would be enough to genuinely care for you as one of God's beloved. But that isn't enough.

How can you love me if you do not know what hurts me? How can you love us, if you will not hear our cries that you are abusing us? We are the one's suffering here. Not you. And certainly not conservative Christians. We are the ones catching the fist of the Church as your anti-gay bigotry (so innocuous in your affirmations of "love") makes its bastard way into society and grows up to brutalize gay men and women.

You do not love us. Your "love" does not reflect the love of 1 Corinthians 13. It does not trust us. It is proud in its self-righteousness. It selfishly only seeks your own justification. It keeps a long record of our wrongs--not even our wrongs against you personally, but all the wrongs that you think we have done against God. Your love does not rejoice with the truth that we really do know what love is...and we have found it. You do not love us. Your "love" is just a crash of disharmonious cymbals.

We are desperately trying to get you to stop hurting God's gay and lesbian children, but you smile kindly and say, "I'm not hurting you. I love you."

Rather, go and do as the good Samaritan and bind up the wounds of God's gay and lesbian children who have suffered for so long at the hands of society and misguided Christians. That will be enough love for us.

Oh, Dash, you don't understand. My foundation for understanding what is good is Scripture. Until I believe that Scripture says "your love is not a sin", I cannot. If you don't use Scripture as your foundation, I don't expect you to agree with me. But you expect me to deny my foundation in order to agree with you.

You have said this before, Blossom, and that time you humbly acknowledged that yes, I have always used scripture in my dialogues with you. I call on you to acknowledge once more that I have never stopped speaking to you from scripture. Scripture has always been the foundation of my discussions with you. It is, in fact, you who ignore the scripture I provide. On the UMC Forums you often ignored my use of scripture, and you continue to ignore it here.

I referred you last night to 1 Corinthians 13 and you ignored it. I spoke to you with the parable of the unmerciful servant and you ignored it merely questioning my use of one word--"crush". Several of us here have referred you to Christ's words regarding knowing a tree by it's fruit, and you have ignored it. I myself gave a detailed explication of how our fruit proves our good tree on the UMC Forums. I have dissected Greek and Hebrew for the benefit of your understanding. At best, your response to my skillful and correct handling of scripture is to say, "Well, I'm not a scholar...I think I'll continue to believe what I believe." This is arrogance...to say that you recognize your own ignorance, but prefer it to the scholarship of those you wish to judge.

I asked you to give an example of a fundamentalist view of women that takes into account the positive examples in Scripture of women in ministry. My point is that fundies are inconsistent on this issue because they ignore those examples. Because again, there are passages in support of women in ministry throughout Scripture.

I have no interest in that side issue. I'm busy trying to get you to see some very important points related to your judgment of gay people. To wit...you are inconsistent and hypocritical because you ignore all manner of scripture that commands you to not judge, but to love and forgive from your heart.

Let's start with a paragraph quoted from any book that proves a same-gender sexual relationship in the Bible.

Yes. Because it is right in front of everyone's nose.

By the way, David and Jonathan were close friends, this does not imply sexuality. You may have noticed that David was quite fond of women.

Your ignorance of ancient culture is not scholarship, Blossom. Yes, David was bisexual. In point of fact, ancient Greek culture itself was bisexual not homosexual. Men had to marry and have children to participate in society and pass their wealth on. In point of fact, David first resisted marrying when Saul offered him a daughter (1 Samuel 18:18). In point of fact, David's lament over Jonathan closely resembles Achilles lament over his lover Patroclus and Alexander the Great's lament over his long-time lover Hephaestion. In point of fact, many gay men and women (include some of us here) have been in relationships with members of the opposite sex.

And no, Blossom...good friends don't kiss the way David and Jonathan do. But this is just another case of you dismissing and ignoring the scripture to which I refer you. It is another case of the blatant hypocrisy that you refuse to acknowledge.

__________
More to come below...

[Dash]

Forging ahead...
__________________

Have you studied any scholarly works dealing with that passage? [1 Timothy 2:9-15] It's o.k. to wrestle with it.

I don't need to study an issue that is not an issue for me. You however have chosen to judge us, and are not willing to lift a finger to study the issue. You are content to ignore the scholarship that is out there. Rather than read the good work and interpretations of liberal theologians, you ask us to please read more about the conservative position so that we will understand why you continue to judge us.

Christian doctrine in the first century after Christ allowed women in ministry.

Christian doctrine for many centuries included same sex marriage. It was not until the 13th century that "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman was made a sacrament. The first Vatican marriage document is for a same sex union. But you don't know any of this because you are content to live in ignorance and cast unlearned judgment upon good people.

(and for anyone reading this, this is not the first time I have addressed these things in Blossom's earshot. I have previously provided links to heavily referenced scholarly works online for her to read: http://www.godmademegay.com/ and http://www.religioustolerance.org/ )

Passages dealing with women were later misused and isolated without reference to the Bible as a whole or with the recognition that letters do not always supply every bit of information. (this happens elsewhere in Paul's writings)

Likewise passages dealing with same sex issues are misused and isolated without reference to the Bible as a whole or with the recognition that the Law does not supply every bit of information, for righteousness does not come from obedience to the Law. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness long before the Law came into existence. (Genesis 15:6)

I recognize with thankfulness that I live in a day in which women are welcome in many denominations. Of course, many women still struggle to answer their call. I find grace in the fact that a number of denominations have taken the Bible as a whole and have begun to look again at difficult passages.

At last. You begin to see the kindness of God's grace shown to you. Now you are within sight of the goal. If God has seen fit to place you where you may express yourself fully as a woman, then extend that same grace to God's gay and lesbian children that they may live full lives as God made them.


Dash, thank you, this is the first time that you have attempted to present me with any biblical reason to support your case.

Blossom this is untrue. I have long been providing you with examples of biblical scholarship like Bruce Lowe's Letter to Louise (http://www.godmademegay.com/)...like http://www.ReligiousTolerance.org/. I have shown you excerpts from these heavily referenced scholarly, yet very accessible works to give you a taste of what they contain. That you ignore my attempts to share the knowledge I have and the scholarship of others is a sad commentary on what you consider your "love" of gay people.

Many conservative scholars, however, also know Hebrew and Greek and do not come to this conclusion. Of course, I can't evaluate this without you providing evidence for this. As I understand, only the Greeks were known for supporting homosexual relationships. Jews did not support homosexual relationships, and would not likely record such a relationship in a positive light. Israelites clearly condemned same-gender sex. Please quote your reference.

I am presently reading John Boswell's book, "Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe" from which my (admittedly brief) statements come. Of course I have previously referenced the websites that I mentioned above which render the research down quite adequately--even referencing Boswell's authoritative scholarship. When I have more time I will dig in and give you page numbers and quotes as I have so often done before, though I'm sure you understand that all of this belongs in another thread. Right now I have enough on my plate to illuminate the much misspeaking into which you have fallen and the hypocrisy that is revealed by the discussion of women in ministry--the subject of this thread.

Scripture clearly supports love. Any expression of love that is lovingly shared is thereby clearly supported.

Dash, you are wrong here. Jesus talks of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

No...Scripture clearly supports love, Blossom. And as you and I have discussed before (on the UMC Forums), the bible talks of polygamy and mistresses, of raping and lawfully keeping the women for yourself. In fact, taking the Bible as a whole, as you keep telling me you desire to do, there is no marriage ethic revealed as you say. You once acknowledged this on the UMC Forums, and now you have circled around again in your attempt to justify yourself.

Paul condemns homosexuality. And love outside of marriage is not to be expressed sexually. Sexually expressed love has its place in marriage, not any time it is feels right or is enjoyable.

No...actually Paul doesn't condemn homosexuality...and yes, I addressed this over on the UMC Forums, and very plainly directed your questions about Romans 1 to my posts on Page 2 of the "Gay Marriage" thread. You ignore the fact that Paul makes no prohibition against same sex love and gives no Church doctrine regarding same sex love. Rather he describes licentious Roman society and tells Christians not to judge "because you do the very same things." Again, you ignore the hard work I have done to present scripture to you.

However, when Paul makes a very clear prohibition against women in ministry, in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 you are quick to find every way around it.

I disagree with you. But do I crush you ? I have had friends and professors who disagreed with me. Yet I know they loved me. They never wanted to hurt me but simply could not support me fully. In contrast, I know of a woman who was the first female pastor in her area who came home to find bloodied maxi pads lined up across her driveway. That is crushing. Have I crushed you?

You and other anti-gay conservative Christians judge. You desire to keep us from marrying the mate of our choice. You desire to keep us from taking vocations in ministry. You obstruct our pursuit of a full and joyful life. Yes, Blossom...you have the heel of your boot on our throat.

Of course people who commit adultery can experience love. It isn't good, it causes pain, but people do fall in love with people who are not their spouse. As far as there being plain reasons against incest, I believe that Scriputre presents plain reasons concerning same-gender sex (including the creation of woman and man to come together in marriage--they physically go together).

Again, Blossom we were busy over on the UMC Forums addressing the issue of what is natural. I was never able to finish my presentation of the naturalness of same sex intimacy. What you mean by "natural" is made perfectly clear when you speak of "physically going together." Yes, it is natural. The male and female forms are designed for same gender sex as well as opposite gender sex. As I began to show you, throughout all of God's wonderful creation (cf. Psalm 104) homosexual sex and affectionate pair-bonding is revealed as natural and God-designed. Please don't lead us in these circles, Blossom.

I have tried to answer you. I am tired, Dash. If you have a specific question or want to quote your earlier reference, please do. I recognize that you provided more information for me here. Thank you.

You can thank me for all the information I have provided to you in the weeks that preceded this conversation. You can thank me by going back an reading all that I have already written.

But there is no quote, only your opinion that your reference is correct. You take out the concept of love from Scripture but divorce it from the holy and perfect love of God which is rooted in his character and expressed through his revelation of himself. I can interact with you for a few more posts. But my views are so foreign to you and you so distrust me that I don't know what we can do. I really do recommend that if you genuinely care about what you perceive to be my inconsitency of interpretation, that you read the works of some good conservatvie scholars.

I see that you would like us to study the methods and reasons of our oppressors so that we can more fully appreciate and sympathize with their needs. Is this because those who hurt us need our mercy?

Having cast off the dominion of those who lorded it over women, you have now taken up their weapons and tools against those weaker than yourself. You have settled yourself in the courts and fortresses of those you conquered and adopted their aristocracy. You are walking in the path of your own oppressors and treading on the faith of God's gay and lesbian children. Even worse, you supply your own banquet with the fruits of those you oppress, for it is the liberality of grace upon which you yourself dine--the same grace that feeds our faith. It is our golden bowls that hold your wine of Christ, and our silver lampstands that illuminate your reveling.

You should have destroyed their high places. You should have sent their nobles away from you. You should have taken up the standard that God gave you as a woman of faith and one born of the Spirit. You should have flown it proudly over the nation you conquered. Instead, while other strong Methodist women like Bishop Sharon Rader have marched out to deliver God's testimony on behalf of both women and God's gay and lesbian children, you give your approval to those who would condemn.

Even now you are being weighed. I urge you to open your eyes and see the judgment that is bearing down upon you. Your blind spot hides from your sight the same conquering Spirit with which you won your own victory as a woman of faith.

You have been given much. Much is asked of you, and you will be given the strength to conquer again if indeed you commit yourself to proclaiming justice for the oppressed.

[keltic63]

Dash, you've done an absolutely amazing job in this thread. It hurts and saddens me that Blossom does not see the pain she is causing and does not understand how she uses scripture to justify women's roles in the church and withholds that grace from lgbt persons.

I want to contribute a small piece of evidence about the David and Jonathan story. I'm not able to get to my sources (because of the move) right now, but here is what I'd like to point out:

1 Samuel 20:30-31. 30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"

The insult that is hurled at Jonathan by Saul is sexual and demeaning. The implication that as long as David (son of Jesse) is alive that Jonathan would never have a kingdom indicates that there would be no heirs to take over the throne. Saul had to know what kind of relationship this was! If David and Jonathan were merely consumed with "brotherly love" there would have been no reason for Saul to make the accusation as sexual and vulgar as he did.

My vote for this situation is: David and Jonathan=homosexual relationship; David's orientation=bisexual. Since that culture had no sense of orientation, I'd have to go along with the idea that love is love, and David felt comfortable showing love, regardless of gender.

[Blossom]

Dash & Blossom,
I really appreciate you both taking the time to have this conversation. Blossom, I couldn't tell if you are still in school or not?
--I would like to see some input from Liberal Crozier on this topic. :)
Peace,
Nate


Hi Nate,

No, I am not in school. If I were, I would have much better written resources at my disposal :reading: ! As it is, I just have to build my library as I go, and often the books I choose either help me with the bilbical texts for sermons, or they are leadership oriented. I spent four years in college (I know that seems obvious...but many of my classmates, esp. those in music spent longer!) Then after 4 years in seminary, I began full-time ministry. After 3 years of what is a probationary time in the UMC (during which they decide if they really want to ordain you!), I was ordained. That was June '05. A little over a year later, I moved half way across the country and now pastor a church part-time and have been a 24/7 mom. I have the luxury coming up of putting the kids in daycare 2 days a week so I can read, plan, sing, and pray!!!

Probably more info. than you needed. :flower:

Blossom

[Blossom]

Dash,

You write well and with flair. In fact, I am surprised that you did not choose "flair" as your screen name. However, you really do not understand my view of Scripture. When I do not respond to your use of Scripture it is because I view your use as "prooftexting". To deal with your prooftext (which doesn't take the whole of Scripture into account) would lead us into another 10 lengthy posts, which I didn't have time for. I know you are not an orthodox Christian and did not expect you to use Scripture as I do, but I didn't have the time or energy to explain otherwise knowing that it would make no difference.

You have blasted me numerous times for recommending you check into the work of conservative scholars. However, you have referred me to websites supporting your view and chided me for not going to them. Oh, but I forgot, you are always right and I am always wrong, so obviously it was wrong for me to refer you elsewhere but right for you to do so.

By the way, I presented Witherington as a good example of conservative scholarship because he also more liberal than I am, so I thought you might find it easier to understand and interact with his thoughts.

Your last post has a least 15 points I would like to respond to. But I will not. Last night, I went to bed very late (knowing I wouldn't have the energy to be a decent mom today) because I had worked to respond to your accusations yet again. At that point I decided that it is time to finally do what I have planned on doing for at least a month--before I ventured over to soulforce--and say goodbye to the virtual world and step back into my own reality.

I have given so much to deal with this issue as kindly as I can, but even then you attack my character. I thought about pasting all the examples in which you have attacked my character, but don't have the energy to do so. It is clear, however, that you distrust everything about me. I cannot change that. You don't understand me, don't trust me, you view me as greedy, selfish, judgmental, lazy (for not putting more into this) and probably stupid. Good thing, though, you are brilliant and will be able to call this a win. Your friends here who understand the language you speak will hail you king. That's fine. This is your home. Not mine. But I am not even a welcome guest. Instead, I am an oppressor.


To all who have been kind: Thank you. There are a few here that I wish I could be friends with in real life. But I fear that this would never be welcomed. So, I guess more than the miles separate us.

I especially thank James (dew_drop) who is so gifted in interacting with those with whom he disagrees (on the UMC forum). He is a gentle soul and a blessing to this world.

I may check back in to follow a few threads, but will try to stay out of any new topics.


Dash, it is your decision whether you count this as a win and move forward without ever looking back or whether you continue to study the conservative understanding of sin, love, grace, and Scriptural revelation (trust me, we don't share common understandings of any of these concepts). Remember, you did chide me for studying the issue of the role of women and moving on. So, hopefully, you will find some folks who are experts in the issue of conservative scholarship. Otherwise, if you continue to debate as you have with me, you will never, never bear any fruit. And you will never convince a conservative that you are right until you actually understand where they are coming from.


Blessings to you all,

:dove: Blossom

[NathanATX]

Dash,

You write well and with flair. In fact, I am surprised that you did not choose "flair" as your screen name. However, you really do not understand my view of Scripture. When I do not respond to your use of Scripture it is because I view your use as "prooftexting". To deal with your prooftext (which doesn't take the whole of Scripture into account) would lead us into another 10 lengthy posts, which I didn't have time for. I know you are not an orthodox Christian and did not expect you to use Scripture as I do, but I didn't have the time or energy to explain otherwise knowing that it would make no difference.

You have blasted me numerous times for recommending you check into the work of conservative scholars. However, you have referred me to websites supporting your view and chided me for not going to them. Oh, but I forgot, you are always right and I am always wrong, so obviously it was wrong for me to refer you elsewhere but right for you to do so.

By the way, I presented Witherington as a good example of conservative scholarship because he also more liberal than I am, so I thought you might find it easier to understand and interact with his thoughts.

Your last post has a least 15 points I would like to respond to. But I will not. Last night, I went to bed very late (knowing I wouldn't have the energy to be a decent mom today) because I had worked to respond to your accusations yet again. At that point I decided that it is time to finally do what I have planned on doing for at least a month--before I ventured over to soulforce--and say goodbye to the virtual world and step back into my own reality.

I have given so much to deal with this issue as kindly as I can, but even then you attack my character. I thought about pasting all the examples in which you have attacked my character, but don't have the energy to do so. It is clear, however, that you distrust everything about me. I cannot change that. You don't understand me, don't trust me, you view me as greedy, selfish, judgmental, lazy (for not putting more into this) and probably stupid. Good thing, though, you are brilliant and will be able to call this a win. Your friends here who understand the language you speak will hail you king. That's fine. This is your home. Not mine. But I am not even a welcome guest. Instead, I am an oppressor.


To all who have been kind: Thank you. There are a few here that I wish I could be friends with in real life. But I fear that this would never be welcomed. So, I guess more than the miles separate us.

I especially thank James (dew_drop) who is so gifted in interacting with those with whom he disagrees (on the UMC forum). He is a gentle soul and a blessing to this world.

I may check back in to follow a few threads, but will try to stay out of any new topics.


Dash, it is your decision whether you count this as a win and move forward without ever looking back or whether you continue to study the conservative understanding of sin, love, grace, and Scriptural revelation (trust me, we don't share common understandings of any of these concepts). Remember, you did chide me for studying the issue of the role of women and moving on. So, hopefully, you will find some folks who are experts in the issue of conservative scholarship. Otherwise, if you continue to debate as you have with me, you will never, never bear any fruit. And you will never convince a conservative that you are right until you actually understand where they are coming from.


Blessings to you all,

:dove: Blossom

Blossom,
I can tell Dash really thinks very highly of you. I can tell you think very highly of him.

While I wouldn't consider myself a scholar, I have spent 15 years with conservative theology. I feel like I do know where they and you are coming from. I no longer agree with it on many fronts, but I feel like I know it pretty well.

I can also tell that you are feeling judged and attacked. I hope that feeling will lessen or even dissappear.

I think the frustration on Dash's part... and maybe even mine... is that you seem to truly believe in truth, justice and compassion and it seems like it would be an easy "connect" from where you are to realizing what we believe to be true about God's heart & will for glbt people. It is rare that we are given what you have given us. Please forgive us if we are too zealous in trying to get you to give more.

Please stick around. Please continue to journey with us.

I would be honored to count you as a friend because I trust your heart.

Peace,
Nate

[Dash]

Blossom,

I think that dismissing my use of scripture as "prooftexting" is too easy and too convenient on your part. It allows you to not think about whether what I said might actually be relevant to the weighty matters at hand. It reminds me of PastorSteve's "leanness of soul"--a deficiency invisible to the one afflicted. Likewise, I must rely on you to know whether or not I've been doing this thing that you depise. For myself, I do not think I mishandle the Bible, and many people seem to appreciate my intellect and my reasoning. You, as my challenger in this discussion are probably not the appropriate person to make such a statement, for it only becomes one more tool of rhetoric in our mutual attempt to defeat each other's argument. It remains that we disagree strenously with each other, but not everyone who disagrees with you about your interpretation of scripture is prooftexting.

On the other hand, I am cognizant of the demands on your life. I have often wondered how you had the time to post as much as you do. When I see your posts time stamped in the early AM's, I wonder how your husband and children and job are fairing. I do not, however, doubt that you carry your load well.

I support your decision to retire this conversation--not because I don't want to talk with you anymore, but because I think we both know it is futile. The chasm between us is too wide, and neither one of us will cross over. Hearts change hearts, not words. If you were to find yourself working side by side with me on a daily basis, you might be changed. Not because I would attempt to convert you or proselytize you for some "gay agenda," but because, when you get to know someone personally, all reasoning and proofs...all calculations...fail against the wisdom of a true heart.

Love is so very simple, and yet the power it wields will overcome all the mighty Jerichos of Christendom. With a great cry of praise to God, the high walls that resist love's gentle siege will crumble into dust. When the God of Love comes riding through the billowing dust clouds of your fortunate defeat, you will forget all your reasons for opposing your sisters and brothers.

This is no debate where points are tallied and winners take home a trophy. This is no mere contest of wills where the one who falters last claims the prize. We who are so opposed by conservative Christianity must overcome or be driven back into bloody closets of misery. Future generations of gay people depend on our travails now lest they suffer worse terrors and more exquisite abuses in their future. Behind us lie the faggot and the fire! Behind us lie the fencepost, the pickup truck, the baseball bat, the gun, the blade and the grave--all stained with the blood of our kin and the tears of their parents and friends! The flowers we lay upon those memories are binding oaths of indenture that will not set us free until we have spread their lovely seeds to bloom in every land where our heroes have fallen.

Go home to your loved ones. This need not be your fight, and I do not willingly stand as your adversary. I am confident that we shall not always be thus to each other. When the sun rises on that bright morning table at which we shall all break our weary fast, no doubt Blossom, I shall greet you over its many courses with a smile of love. I shall marvel at the beauty of your crown and queenly raiment, and I shall feed you from my own hand rich morsels of heaven's delight.

It is, perhaps, not so far off as we think. For I have seen the great angels striding across the earth with their shoulders in the clouds, carrying the vast trays of that banquet into the east. The feast is being prepared for the lords and ladies of eternity, and we eagerly await the call to return home.

Until then, I wish peace upon you and those you love

[Daniel]

Your friends here who understand the language you speak will hail you king. That's fine. This is your home. Not mine. But I am not even a welcome guest. Instead, I am an oppressor.

To all who have been kind: Thank you. There are a few here that I wish I could be friends with in real life. But I fear that this would never be welcomed. So, I guess more than the miles separate us.


This has been an amazing thread. Hats off to both you- Blossom and Dash - for having this conversation here.

Blossom- you have more friends here than you might imagine. And yes, those who frequent this forum may speak a common language. But I would simply ask you to relect on the time and energy it takes to become a singer- that is- after all- a language all it's own- one which you have confessed some difficulty learning, no? Bridging the gap (the scale must be equalized or there is no music) between your views and those expressed here will mean using the tool of compassion.

[Blossom]

I think that dismissing my use of scripture as "prooftexting" is too easy and too convenient on your part. It allows you to not think about whether what I said might actually be relevant to the weighty matters at hand. It reminds me of PastorSteve's "leanness of soul"--a deficiency invisible to the one afflicted. Likewise, I must rely on you to know whether or not I've been doing this thing that you depise. For myself, I do not think I mishandle the Bible, and many people seem to appreciate my intellect and my reasoning. You, as my challenger in this discussion are probably not the appropriate person to make such a statement, for it only becomes one more tool of rhetoric in our mutual attempt to defeat each other's argument. It remains that we disagree strenously with each other, but not everyone who disagrees with you about your interpretation of scripture is prooftexting.


When the God of Love comes riding through the billowing dust clouds of your fortunate defeat, you will forget all your reasons for opposing your sisters and brothers.





Nate,

Thanks for your last post. I really appreciate your kindness.

Bless you!
Blossom




I have edited out what I posted to Dash and sent it to him privately.

Thanks again to all.
Blossom

[suzer1013]

Hi there, Blossom! I, for one (and I think there's many others), would hope that we could be friends in real life, or continue to be friends online in whatever form that may take. I hope you will continue to read the boards here and post. I think your insight has been valuable here, whether we agree on some issues or not.

I also understand the time constraints you are under (as we all are) with work and family, and hope you can find a balance that suits you.

I would miss your voice here if you left. We may not agree on everything, and that's really o.k. What I hope for, someday, is for conservatives and liberals (just using those terms as a huge generality) to be able to put their disagreements aside and work together to spread the teachings of Jesus, the teachings of love and compassion -- you know, those things I listed a few days ago that we all have in common.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, one thing impressed me (and it certainly wasn't the government response!). Churches of every ilk came together and worked to help the survivors. My little liberal church set up a shelter for 50 people. Within 48 hours, this small church set up beds, had donations of clothes for every age, toiletries, medicines, toys, books, blankets -- everything these folks would need to reclaim their lives. And the "conservative" churches in the area were doing the same thing. For a couple of blissful weeks, no one seemed to be arguing about the issues that divide us. Rather, we were all working so hard, creating a bit of heaven on earth, that we were united in purpose. Amazing, don't you think?

I did hear stories of GLBT families having a harder time finding assistance, but those stories were thankfully few. (And as a side note, Rosie O'Donnell and her partner Kelli (who is from Baton Rouge) have done some amazing work to help the displaced families, especially children, and they continue to do so.)

We are all trying to do God's work, and I pray that someday we will all be able to do it together. And I hope you will remain here, as time allows, as I can see that you have a good heart and loving spirit and I think you have much to share with us. :)

Susan :love: :pray: