http://www.christianegalitarians.org/archives/41 Christians for Gender Equality Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:02:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 http://www.christianegalitarians.org/archives/41#comment-24 Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:56:00 +0000 http://www.christianegalitarians.org/archives/41#comment-24 Sorry Nate, going to disagree with you here. Human beings are not wrenches and hammers. There are no such thing as predetermined gender "roles" in the Bible. They all seem to change with whatever era we are living in. Secondly, the word "role" is describing someone's BEING not what they are doing. Women, by virtue of their femalenss could NEVER be a pastor. not because they lack the ability or even the calling, but bc their gender prohibits them from doing so. that is ontological subordination when you describe someone that way. that means that women could also NEVER be what they aren't designed to be. in this theory, women also shouldn't be capable of being leaders, as its not in thier essence, bc they always need a man to lead them. but obviously Condi Rice, however you may feel about her politics, throws this one out the window. now, obviously men can't have babies or nurse them. but I am not talking about biological differences when we grapple with the question of whether or not women should be "allowed" to say pastor or a church or be treated as an equal in a marital relationship.<BR/>Its still patriarchy which is the second sin of the Bible and I think disgusting to God. Sorry Nate, going to disagree with you here. Human beings are not wrenches and hammers. There are no such thing as predetermined gender “roles” in the Bible. They all seem to change with whatever era we are living in. Secondly, the word “role” is describing someone’s BEING not what they are doing. Women, by virtue of their femalenss could NEVER be a pastor. not because they lack the ability or even the calling, but bc their gender prohibits them from doing so. that is ontological subordination when you describe someone that way. that means that women could also NEVER be what they aren’t designed to be. in this theory, women also shouldn’t be capable of being leaders, as its not in thier essence, bc they always need a man to lead them. but obviously Condi Rice, however you may feel about her politics, throws this one out the window. now, obviously men can’t have babies or nurse them. but I am not talking about biological differences when we grapple with the question of whether or not women should be “allowed” to say pastor or a church or be treated as an equal in a marital relationship.
Its still patriarchy which is the second sin of the Bible and I think disgusting to God.

]]> http://www.christianegalitarians.org/archives/41#comment-23 Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:59:00 +0000 http://www.christianegalitarians.org/archives/41#comment-23 Of course, having just read <I>A Grief Observed</I>, I would point out that Lewis' beliefs there were not grounded in Scripture either. Plus he never came out and embranced egalitarianism.<BR/><BR/>I find it curious that gender equality continues to be the crux of egaliterian viewpoints. Because, the complementarian argument is not that men are more valued than woman, but that as a builder may have different uses for a $5 hammer and a $5 wrench (which are equal in value), so God may have different purposes for men and for women. That in no way means that one is to be valued more than the other. Value is the same - they are both in the image of God, which is where all of humanity derives value.<BR/><BR/>Just my 2 cents. I found your blog curious. Thanks! Of course, having just read A Grief Observed, I would point out that Lewis’ beliefs there were not grounded in Scripture either. Plus he never came out and embranced egalitarianism.

I find it curious that gender equality continues to be the crux of egaliterian viewpoints. Because, the complementarian argument is not that men are more valued than woman, but that as a builder may have different uses for a $5 hammer and a $5 wrench (which are equal in value), so God may have different purposes for men and for women. That in no way means that one is to be valued more than the other. Value is the same - they are both in the image of God, which is where all of humanity derives value.

Just my 2 cents. I found your blog curious. Thanks!

]]>