tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post3082364983046579536..comments2024-01-20T16:28:46.327-08:00Comments on Wordgazer's Words: A Close Look at a Complementarian ArgumentKristenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-63792305292964943512022-02-11T18:49:32.731-08:002022-02-11T18:49:32.731-08:00My oldest child is non-binary and gay, and is gett...My oldest child is non-binary and gay, and is getting married this summer. I posted your comment, but please remember that this is a very old blog and that the discussion here has been over for years. All I will say is that I feel that a Christian who chooses to remain single to honor Jesus of course does a good thing. A Christian who chooses to marry the one they love to honor Jesus, also does a good thing. I feel more strongly than ever about my affirmation of LGBTQA+ people as a Christian, and am not inclined to argue further about it. I wish you well. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-15387847432458445372022-02-11T14:11:26.736-08:002022-02-11T14:11:26.736-08:00Quoting Anonymous:
But for those who do feel it is...Quoting Anonymous:<br />But for those who do feel it is a discredit, why do you insist in tarring us with it as well? Can't you proudly hold your position without hanging it around the neck of those who find it offensive?<br /><br />There are men and women on the fence right now on the issue of egalitarianism, trying to make sense of Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2, who will never ever in their lifetime capitulate on gay sex. There are people within the egalitarian community such as myself assuring them, "you don't have to."<br /><br />Then when a guy like Leeman states that egalitarian theology necessarily leads to that capitulation, you can't, for the sake of others within your own community, raise any objection?<br /><br />As fine a writer as you are, I can't believe that. I don't believe that you can't find some way to stand proudly for what you believe on that issue without bringing the rest of us along with it.<br /><br />Please remember the community and those on the fence.<br /><br />THANK YOU! I'm not on the fence, I'm egalitarian, and I also hold to the belief that true marriage can only be between one man and one woman for life. You can believe in true gender equality in the home, in the marriage, and in the church, WITHOUT endorsing homosexuality. There actually have been some people who have successfully left the gay lifestyle, and as for those who do struggle with same-sex attraction, just because they have that struggle, it doesn't mean they have to or should give in and live that lifestyle. Children need both a mother and a father, which is why (imo) God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, not between two men or two women. Both mothers and fathers bring something vital to the table that children need, and if a child is without one of them, it can scar him/her for life. (I speak from personal experience.) Furthermore, it is sad and wrong to see the constant deriding of singlehood in Christian circles, as if being married is the only acceptable way to live. The Apostle Paul actually said it was better for people to remain single and have their lives wholly devoted to God if possible. A born-again Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction but chooses to remain single in order to honor Jesus does a good, right, and beautiful thing.<br /><br />expreacherman.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-71720076394505026412015-05-18T12:01:05.297-07:002015-05-18T12:01:05.297-07:00When he says that egalitarians err in using indivi...When he says that egalitarians err in using individualism as our measuring stick, he's assuming that the opposite of individualism (which would be...collectivism?) has to include hierarchy.<br /><br />What if collectivism is not about hierarchy within a group, but about just BEING PART of a group, with all members inter-dependent on each other? Why couldn't one have a collective mindset within a community of equals? In fact, that sure is what the church looks like to me in the New Testament.<br /><br />"They know that redeemed authority creates, enlivens, and empowers, and it’s a shade short of silly to argue over who gets to empower and who gets to be empowered in God’s kingdom." That sounds nice. But when one class or group of people continually has authority over the other, history has shown again and again and again that they don't kindly empower; they become selfish, lose self-awareness, and the group that is supposedly being empowered feels misunderstood and limited. This is why virtually every conversation about being an "ally" to any community--be it racial, gender, sexual orientation, whatever--absolutely insists that the disadvantaged group be allowed to speak for themselves, determine their own destiny, and solve their own problems, rather than having the more advantaged group speak for them or take care of them. This is basic logic 101. Hell, it's HISTORY 101!<br /><br />And this is why the scripture calls those WITH power in the Greco-Roman culture to switch to a mindset of laying down power, and why it uses Christ as an example.rach.h.davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431057906811494573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-49707969473327876792015-04-27T11:13:55.619-07:002015-04-27T11:13:55.619-07:00Thank you. Well done.Thank you. Well done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-11287160952202614622015-04-27T10:28:58.901-07:002015-04-27T10:28:58.901-07:00I wish Greg would not have used the word capitulat...I wish Greg would not have used the word capitulate. Does he not see he is using the same tactics as the non-egals?<br /><br />There are differences in interpretation of Scripture. How best to interpret the whole message of Scripture is a large question and people come to different conclusions.<br /><br />I am reminded of the claim that those in one move of God declare the next move of God as ungodly and so forth and so on. When will it stop? When we stop it, that's when.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-66602629786643574872015-04-27T09:18:09.789-07:002015-04-27T09:18:09.789-07:00Greg, I really don't see how my stating my pos...Greg, I really don't see how my stating my position on this means there are no other egalitarian positions on this. However, out of respect for those of you who feel that way, I will add a sentence about your position to my post. <br /><br />Don, as for the moral line, I see no problem in drawing it where Christ and Paul both drew it: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "love one another, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Obviously the sacrifice of children violates that commandment.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-41504610084713739042015-04-27T08:58:15.760-07:002015-04-27T08:58:15.760-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-30392488944048238822015-04-27T08:12:26.818-07:002015-04-27T08:12:26.818-07:00But for those who do feel it is a discredit, why d...But for those who do feel it is a discredit, why do you insist in tarring us with it as well? Can't you proudly hold your position without hanging it around the neck of those who find it offensive?<br /><br />There are men and women on the fence right now on the issue of egalitarianism, trying to make sense of Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2, who will never ever in their lifetime capitulate on gay sex. There are people within the egalitarian community such as myself assuring them, "you don't have to."<br /><br />Then when a guy like Leeman states that egalitarian theology necessarily leads to that capitulation, you can't, for the sake of others within your own community, raise any objection?<br /><br />As fine a writer as you are, I can't believe that. I don't believe that you can't find some way to stand proudly for what you believe on that issue without bringing the rest of us along with it.<br /><br />Please remember the community and those on the fence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-22606046704957066162015-04-27T07:36:20.351-07:002015-04-27T07:36:20.351-07:00Kristen, Yes, I agree, I now think that claiming A...Kristen, Yes, I agree, I now think that claiming ANY type of plain reading is a con job in the sense of trying to claim a magisterial status on the way one is reading some specific text and shut down other possible ways. As you say, it is a form of being a bully, my way or the highway type of thinking.<br /><br />I think Leeman is using the "not declaring all homosexual acts as sin" reading of Scripture as a bogeyman, the supposedly scary thing that will result if you do not agree with him. <br /><br />I do think there is a legitimate fear involved, as in, if that is not the line, where IS the line, do we end up disregarding all of Lev. 18 and permit child sacrifice to Moloch in the guise of Christianity? So I think it is not enough to show how one can faithfully read Scripture to not declare all homosexual acts as sin, there is also the question of what remains sin of the items discussed in Lev. 18 and more importantly, why is your criteria not arbitrary.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-51870024311252934442015-04-26T18:08:01.402-07:002015-04-26T18:08:01.402-07:00Thank you, everyone!
Don, I agree with what you&...Thank you, everyone! <br /><br />Don, I agree with what you're saying, but also think insisting on a plain-reading "magisterium" is still a kind of bullying-- intentionally or not, you're telling those who disagree with you that God Himself is on your side, not theirs.<br /><br />Greg, I appreciate your input and I do know how many egalitarian evangelicals feel about the issue of homosexuality. But as we've discussed in other places, you know that I have come to disagree with that position. I know I could point to egalitarians who feel as you do, as evidence that his slippery-slope accusations are false-- but to do that, I feel I'd be agreeing with him that my position on this is somehow a "discredit" or a disgrace. That I cannot do. I feel strongly that it is no discredit to me or others like me to be willing to reconsider those verses that are hurting my gay Christian (YES, I feel there really can be such a thing) brothers and sisters.<br /><br />If Leeman wants to use that as evidence that egalitarianism is wrong, I can't help it. As Luther once said, "Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me."Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-34640703654201912452015-04-26T17:45:33.394-07:002015-04-26T17:45:33.394-07:00I initially read the Leeman article when it was fi...I initially read the Leeman article when it was first published and quickly lost patience with it. You've done an excellent job of addressing many of the fallacies in his article.<br /><br />One fallacy that I don't think you addressed well is this comment from the article:<br /><br /><b>It should not be surprising, therefore, to hear conservative voices characterize egalitarianism as the hermeneutical gateway drug to affirming same-sex marriage, or, ironically, to hear homosexuality-affirming liberal voices agree.</b><br /><br />Leeman does a fine job of avoiding an outright accusation here, but the implication is the same so I will treat it as such. <br /><br />That accusation is categorically untrue, as you know from your many friends (such as myself) who are both (a) staunchly egalitarian and (b) firmly committed to the historically conservative understanding of the Bible and homosexual <i>practice</i>.<br /><br />The Biblical trajectory and overall message on these two matters is completely different and it is common to hold to one and reject the other.<br /><br />Patriarchal apologists routinely make this accusation as a means to discredit egalitarian teachers in the eyes of the large number of folks who cannot imagine the Bible condoning a same-sex message.<br /><br />So my thought is that rather than reply to this kind of shenanigans with a, "Well we have to revisit that one too" - kind of argument- which tends to confirm his accusation, why not point him to some of the many egalitarians that prove him wrong? (CBE, for instance, which was formed for that purpose?)<br /><br />I'm sorry to find fault with an otherwise great blog post, but this is something that I feel is too important to be left unsaid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-67499413705199779052015-04-26T12:30:59.701-07:002015-04-26T12:30:59.701-07:00Well said, Kristen!Well said, Kristen!Yvettehttp://nococbe.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-19503590232931038682015-04-25T17:25:51.222-07:002015-04-25T17:25:51.222-07:00Great analysis.
My take is the claim of a "p...Great analysis.<br /><br />My take is the claim of a "plain reading" of an ancient text is a way to claim the plain reading speaks in an infallible way, like a magisterium. But this simply cannot be the case, because so many differ on so many doctrines. It is simply more correct to claim that we are all doing our best to read an ancient text and there is no magisterium, not even a supposed plain reading.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.com