Jump to content

Recommended Posts

BTW, jon_trott, just so you know, we have a more explicitly theological thread here on the question of whether God can be addressed as "Mother", spurred by a comment made in this CBE document.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

: The question was originally about CBE / Gender Equality as a movement, and its legitimacy or

: lack thereof.

Ah, but it seems to me that the REAL original question here was whether a broadly evangelical organization like Cornerstone should be giving the CBE movement an exclusive endorsement. Why have an entire tent devoted to CBE -- with a bold endorsement of its "Revolution" -- and not one for CBMW? (Try to imagine that Cornerstone is taking place in the 1770s, and the festival is devoting an entire tent to "the American Revolution" and completely excluding the Loyalists. You may not be tarring and feathering them, but...)

jon:

I'm not much interested, as I've said before, in playing parsing games. This is a matter of existential proportions for me, not some sort of high school debating topic. For more on just how intensely I feel about it all, see my http://aremenreallyhuman.blogspot.com

I grew up in a family where (pseudo?) intellectual parlay was the order of the day--and hated it heartily. I'd have liked to hold us all down, grab a big needle, and inject us all w/ S. Kierkegaard's entire oeuvre. Life's simply too short.

On that visceral level, Peter, the above response indicates the disconnect between us vividly. "The American Revolution"? Try slavery for a more adequate example. No, we would not include the Southern Slaveholders as sincere fellow Christians with a different reading on the Scriptures. Not at all. Our position would be solidly abolitionist. Anyone who has followed what is going on in the Southern Baptist denomination, for instance, can't help but consider that institution's historical genesis and its current draconian approach to women -- in the classroom, pulpit, and (most astonishing to me) on the mission field. No, Cornerstone is not going to "equally represent" that sort of unchristian nonsense.

(By the way, most of my ancestors were New Englanders, and also loyalists... that probably sez a lot, huh? Hahaha.)

: My point above was that those within a movement can (and in both the Jesus movement and

: CBE usually did/do) percieve themselves as being inclusive and positively focused rather

: than exclusive and negatively focused.

FWIW, I am less interested in how people perceive themselves than in what they actually DO.

jon:

Couldn't agree more, which is why we have CBE at the festival.

: First, I know of *no* CBE staff member or even rank and file member past or present who hold

: to homosexuality being either biblical or acceptable.

Staff member, I can buy. But rank and file member? Maybe Vancouver is different from Chicago, but what can I say -- I first met some CBE types at a booth they sponsored at the local MissionsFest, and then I interviewed several of them for a story on CBE in the local Christian newspaper (which doesn't seem to be online, but if memory serves, this was before the big kerfuffle over the gender-inclusive NIV in 1997), and then I moved downtown and bumped into a couple of them at a local supermarket, and since we were now neighbours, we decided to stay in touch, go to movies, attend meetings on post-evangelicalism, etc.

jon:

I think I've likely had a wider connection with CBE (I've spoken at conferences and met dozens and dozens of members across the country) than have you. Heck, I've known *JPUSA members* who (it turned out) were homosexual; they didn't go around preaching it at JPUSA, though, or they'd have gently been confronted and quite possibly shown the front door. Likewise with CBE; the group's very existence is rooted in a "hostile takeover" of the first evangelical women's group by some radical feminists with a lesbian agenda. It was heartbreaking to the founders of that group, who promptly left the original group and started either CBE or its immediate predecessor (this history isn't as crystal clear in my mind as it used to be--plus I'm 'name impaired' and forget titles / names easily). In short, if CBE's folks get wind that a chapter or person within a chapter were touting "Christian homosexuality" there would be trouble. That would be different, I'm sure, than if a CBE member were homosexual but not touting it as biblical. "Embrace but don't affirm" is how someone (N. T. Wright?) put it.

: Second, I don't think CBE misses the point of Galatians 3:28 -- the core of their mission statement

: -- at all. To dive into that swimming pool would probably drown us both . . .

Yup, and we already have other threads on feminism, or the role of history and tradition in forming and interpreting scripture, etc., etc. :)

jon:

Fer sure. Blub, blub, blub (sound of drowning).

And on a completely unrelated note, I really enjoyed this bit from you on "the proper order" to read the Narnia books. You got it, the whole muddled wonderful experience between reader and author and specifics re when, where, how, and with what foreknowledge... I'm a "LWW" first guy myself.

Not to butter you up, though! Back to our row! (And where's my confounded rocket launcher!?....)

Edited by jon_trott
Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: On that visceral level, Peter, the above response indicates the disconnect between us vividly.

: "The American Revolution"? Try slavery for a more adequate example.

Wow, that's bold! And of course, slavery literally divided your nation, resulting in a Civil War, etc. So it would seem you think gender is a my-way-or-the-highway issue for evangelicals, whereas many evangelicals here would regard it as a matter of legitimate debate, discussion, dialogue, etc.

FWIW, I cited the American Revolution because, first, it illustrates the fact that self-proclaimed revolutions ARE "divisive", no matter how much you may object to that term, and second, because I cannot imagine that anyone here would say that God was on one side of that war and not the other, and thus it would seem to be something that we can dialogue about without necessarily taking the moral or religious high ground.

And like I said before, if you don't like "parsing" words, then you shouldn't make such a big deal of them in the first place, as you did with Alan's use of the word "divisive". I may love swinging the bat, but I'm not going to take the blame for pitching the ball in the first place.

: Anyone who has followed what is going on in the Southern Baptist denomination, for instance . . .

Haven't followed it closely, but yeah, ten years ago, I interviewed a documentarian who made a film about the gender wars among the Southern Baptists, and that film was rather popular with my CBE friends at the time.

: I think I've likely had a wider connection with CBE (I've spoken at conferences and met dozens

: and dozens of members across the country) than have you.

Oh, absolutely. Wouldn't be hard at all.

: "Embrace but don't affirm" is how someone (N. T. Wright?) put it.

Maybe you're thinking of Stan Grenz's book Welcoming But Not Affirming? I got a copy of it back when I was very interested in the evangelical arguments for and against homosexuality, but never got around to reading it, and nowadays I can't say the issue matters as much to me as it once did. I did interview Grenz about it briefly, though, and he seemed like a great guy, a smart guy, etc.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: On that visceral level, Peter, the above response indicates the disconnect between us vividly.

: "The American Revolution"? Try slavery for a more adequate example.

Wow, that's bold! And of course, slavery literally divided your nation, resulting in a Civil War, etc. So it would seem you think gender is a my-way-or-the-highway issue for evangelicals, whereas many evangelicals here would regard it as a matter of legitimate debate, discussion, dialogue, etc.

So I guess that means the abolitionists were wrong? That America would have been better off to remain unified w/ a slave-holding south? Hmmm. Fer us white boys, anyway...

Anything is potentially a matter for legitimate "debate." Problem is where praxis comes in.

FWIW, I cited the American Revolution because, first, it illustrates the fact that self-proclaimed revolutions ARE "divisive", no matter how much you may object to that term, and second, because I cannot imagine that anyone here would say that God was on one side of that war and not the other, and thus it would seem to be something that we can dialogue about without necessarily taking the moral or religious high ground.

Revolutions are divisive no matter what, eh? Like the computer revolution? Or, say, the industrial revolution? Read your Webster's.

And like I said before, if you don't like "parsing" words, then you shouldn't make such a big deal of them in the first place, as you did with Alan's use of the word "divisive". I may love swinging the bat, but I'm not going to take the blame for pitching the ball in the first place.

I think you're whiffing right now. And again, it is because you continue with the need to parse terms so you can 'win.' Pretty pointless, Peter.

: Anyone who has followed what is going on in the Southern Baptist denomination, for instance . . .

Haven't followed it closely, but yeah, ten years ago, I interviewed a documentarian who made a film about the gender wars among the Southern Baptists, and that film was rather popular with my CBE friends at the time.

It is worth following. Things are worse today than then, including exclusion of women from many traditionally-accepted missionary roles now seen by the SBC as intrusive on the male perogative.

: I think I've likely had a wider connection with CBE (I've spoken at conferences and met dozens

: and dozens of members across the country) than have you.

Oh, absolutely. Wouldn't be hard at all.

You mean as in 'hard to believe at all'? If so, I follow.

: "Embrace but don't affirm" is how someone (N. T. Wright?) put it.

Maybe you're thinking of Stan Grenz's book Welcoming But Not Affirming? I got a copy of it back when I was very interested in the evangelical arguments for and against homosexuality, but never got around to reading it, and nowadays I can't say the issue matters as much to me as it once did. I did interview Grenz about it briefly, though, and he seemed like a great guy, a smart guy, etc.

Doh! That's right. I should know, as Stan Grenz used the phrase at Cstone Fest in my hearing, which is the real place I picked it up the first time. See, something useful from this!

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Revolutions are divisive no matter what, eh? Like the computer revolution? Or, say, the industrial revolution? Read your Webster's.

You think the industrial revolution wasn't divisive? Read your Dickens. Read your Upton Sinclair. You think the computer revolution isn't divisive? Then where are all the high-paying jobs for people with no computer skills?

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Revolutions are divisive no matter what, eh? Like the computer revolution? Or, say, the industrial revolution? Read your Webster's.

You think the industrial revolution wasn't divisive? Read your Dickens. Read your Upton Sinclair. You think the computer revolution isn't divisive? Then where are all the high-paying jobs for people with no computer skills?

So all change is divisive. Therefore, don't breathe. Parse.. parse.. parse..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parsing is what one does when they just "don't get it" especially when that "it" be the plight of the oppressed. ;)

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: So I guess that means the abolitionists were wrong?

No, but your attempt to miss the point is duly noted.

Remember, it was you, not I, who objected to the term "divisive". I, by merely pointing out that the abolitionists were divisive, am not condemning them by any standard of MINE, any more than I am condemning Jesus when I cite his statement that he came not to bring peace but a sword. I am, however, trying to see how the abolitionists might look when measured against YOUR standard, which seems to say that BEING divisive is just fine and dandy, but nobody should actually CALL you that.

: Revolutions are divisive no matter what, eh? Like the computer revolution? Or, say, the industrial

: revolution? Read your Webster's.

For a man who says he doesn't like to "parse", you sure do like to pick at words. FWIW, the pertinent Merriam-Webster definition states:

2 a :
a sudden, radical, or complete change
b :
a fundamental change in political organization;
especially
: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c :
activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d :
a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican
revolution
>
e :
a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer
revolution
> <the foreign car
revolution
>

Now are we to believe that everyone has always been just ducky with all these "sudden, radical, or complete changes"? Are we to believe that no one has ever been displaced by these changes, and that social or cultural divisions have not occurred? I mean, hey, there are no doubt Flat Earthers somewhere who still don't accept the Copernican revolution. You may say that those people are nothing more than a quack minority, but then again, just look at how Cornerstone resists the Darwinian revolution by backing anti-evolutionism, despite all the scientific evidence which points that way. Are anti-Darwinians more numerous than anti-Copernicans? No doubt. But these are questions of degree, only. Divisions are still divisions.

: I think you're whiffing right now. And again, it is because you continue with the need to parse

: terms so you can 'win.' Pretty pointless, Peter.

The only point I'm addressing here is your reaction to Alan's choice of words, and the related parsing in which you engaged. Parse not, lest ye be parsed, and all that.

: Doh! That's right. I should know, as Stan Grenz used the phrase at Cstone Fest in my hearing,

: which is the real place I picked it up the first time. See, something useful from this!

:)

Alan Thomas wrote:

: And the industrial "revolution" wasn't a revolt. This CBE "gender revolution" thing--however well

: intentioned--is, or seems to want to be.

Yes, exactly.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...I somehow suspect that the prospect of my daughter viewing a 'Gender Revolution' banner at a Christian gathering will score pretty low on the Richter Scale of developmental milestones/crises. Sorry, Alan, but this whole debate seems to have started as a tempest in a teapot.

Regarding my daughter's ultimate well-being, I'm much more concerned about the crushing press of the church's materialism, religious imperialism, and aesthetic/intellectual mediocrity, not to mention the world's crass sexism. Just as I don't expose her solely to Christian films and music (what a bland diet that would be!), I think helping her to realize that Christendom is not a monolithic entity in its beliefs and dogma will be a helpful part of her intellectual and spiritual development. But maybe that's just me...

To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Link to post
Share on other sites

::Andrew, it's not the banner, but what it represents.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. But...

::I certainly expose her to different ideas and such within the church. But--until she's old enough to critique it herself--I wouldn't immerse her in a place where people in positions of power only allow one point of view on an important issue and present it in a divise and harmful manner.

...I would contend that what you're describing happens most every Sunday in most every church, albeit in a more subtle fashion than a banner, perhaps. Church leaders, being human, tend to have a hard time separating good theology from personal agendas and ideology. Church members, being human, tend to have idiosyncratic and individualized viewpoints, that will inevitably differ somewhat from those of their leaders. Knowing what I do of your personal politics and knowing what I do of your church (I attended services and meetings there a handful of times in the '80's and '90's, and continue to support a missionary who's a member), I strongly suspect this is the case for you, too. Frankly, I can't imagine it's otherwise. Ergo, I find it rather curious that this banner has pushed such a big button for you.

To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I think we're done. Any more back and forth will be repetitive, and I won't argue further over the word "revolution" with you -- your point is certainly repeated, if not made. Mine, I trust, is repeated also (and also apparently less than convincing, to you at least). At any rate, we're (or I anyway) am done w/ parsing "revolution."

The issue over "divisive" will also have to remain w/o my further commentary.

Finally, as far as the "Gender Revolution" banner itself, Alan... you and I simply disagree over what it symbolizes. And as Andrew says, it puzzles me deeply how visceral your reaction seems to be. Is there some one thing about CBE that gets your goat, metaphorically speaking, or what? CBE is actually quite conservative (holding a high view of Scripture) compared to most of what else is out there for women.

A personal riff here, which may illuminate but will probably only get me in further trouble... and then I must finish the sermon I'm supposed to give to our Senior Citizens' Church (elderly housed by JPUSA who have their own service) tomorrow...

If Grudem's crew alone represented the "Christian view" on human relationships, I would be unable to be a Christian. I have a hard enough time as it is, frankly. I did not grow up within the evangelical camp, and was converted in a place (the plains of Montana) where at that point few people lived, and very few were meaningfully believers of any stripe. All my encounters with evangelical institutions since then have left me figuratively feeling "outside" rather than inside, unable to either comprehend or even speak in evangelical terms. Evangelicals often thrive on figuring out who is excluded from their ranks (no, they are not alone in that practice--but they are quite good at it, as the "counter-cult" ministries among them illustrate). I, on the other hand, for whatever reasons grew up hyper-aware of the "other," the exluded, the marginalized. I don't consider that a big feather in my cap, by the way; white liberalism can be as noxious to truly oppressed people as white conservativism.

Simultaneously, I find no alternatives to evangelicalism. I find great comfort in Catholic writings, fiction and non-fiction, and in the Catholic idea of Christ as Suffering One (more and more important to me in my own existential sadness leaning toward a depression which I suspect may border on medical at times). Yet Catholic views (please, I'm not writing this for more flaming, merely as one finite man's honest expression) on Mary, sex, communion, the saints, Church authority, and so on alienate me. Walker Percy, a Catholic himself of course, once said that writing is a protestant form of art; that is, unlike a painter or film-maker, there are no real or iconic images I can lean on for guidance. The faith thing for me (like writing for Percy) takes place in an unfurnished room with only a blank piece of paper before me. Kierkegaard's leap (Percy would approve!). Eastern Orthodoxy has little attraction for me, Calvinism even less, and no, I won't say why here! So there I am, stuck with my evangelical / Jesus Movement / charismatic roots, watching many of my Christian contemporaries happily buy into the political / social right's intepretation of reality. Sigh.

I find my own heroes, as do we all, and hang onto them for dear life. Thank God for examples, living and dead. I have the Word, again, thanks be to God. I also increasingly believe that all Christians -- me of course included -- have a deadly way of interpreting Scripture and tradition in ways that suit them. All I can really do with my faith, my angst, and my sinful arrogant self, is keep repenting, keep following, and keep doing what I believe is God's will, all the time asking God "IS this your will, or just me again!?"

CBE is powerfully part of what I believe God's will is for his people. And it isn't about CBE, of course. It is about what agape love really looks like. What Christian community (the horizontal - vertical relationships between each of us and each other and God) looks like, or is supposed to look like. I would hope, Alan, that you might reconsider CBE in that light, or at least be open to reconsidering them.

I would hope more of the women on this board would have something to say about all this. I'm just another white male wagging his gums, as are most of the others in the thread so far.

Ken, I'm sorry but I couldn't comprehend what your post on "The God Who Wasn't There" had to do with this thread. Did you mis-post or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your personal story jon. :)

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, I'm sorry but I couldn't comprehend what your post on "The God Who Wasn't There" had to do with this thread. Did you mis-post or something?

Hi Jon:

I meant it as an example of how Christians are bombarded with banners and ads of all sorts in all kinds of venues and how boycotting a particularly venue (C-Stone) because of a particular banner (CBE) struck me as an oddly singular response to a systemic or environmental trend. The amount of time and energy it takes to meticulously separate ourselve (and/or shield those under our care) from things we disagree with strikes me as disproportionate to the benefits of engagement with different ideas.

Simply put, I would be about as likely to draw conclusions about Cornerstone and the people who run it from seeing a CBE banner as I would be to draw conclusions about A&F based on the banner trumpeting the film above.

Peace.

Ken

Ah! Gotcha. My bad, and thanks. I wasn't really connecting re the whole banner thing as icon until my last post, and still hadn't fully connected obviously. You had. Nice.

Jon

Edited by jon_trott
Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: Peter, I think we're done. Any more back and forth will be repetitive, and I won't argue further over

: the word "revolution" with you -- your point is certainly repeated, if not made.

It is, at least, not rebutted. That's close enough to "made" in my books.

: The issue over "divisive" will also have to remain w/o my further commentary.

As you wish. But keep it in mind next time you pick at someone else's words.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren H wrote:

: : It is, at least, not rebutted. That's close enough to "made" in my books.

:

: After assuming, for the last four or five years, that this was Peter's modus operandi, I find it strangely

: comforting to hear him finally admit it.

Heh. But have I ever said otherwise? Scientific hypotheses make falsifiable predictions, and, the longer that those predictions go without ever being proved false, the more secure the hypothesis seems. Likewise with many of the debates we have had on these boards. If no one can rebut an argument convincingly, then why should I abandon it? (And when an opponent appeals to the dictionary and it doesn't prove his point...)

I have talked here before about how my conversion to Orthodoxy, for example, was directly influenced by discussions we have had in this forum and its predecessors. Some of the positions I took and the arguments I made four or five years ago as a (post-)evangelical didn't stand up to scrutiny, in the long run. So if someone here can falsify any of my hypotheses, then I say bring it on. I have changed my mind before.

Incidentally, it is because I am Orthodox that I don't have a whole lot invested in a debate between two competing strands of evangelicalism, and thus I have not commented directly on the egalitarianism vs complementarianism debate itself in this thread. (Besides, we have other threads for that.)

I do, however, think it is ridiculous for a self-proclaimed "revolutionary" movement, which encourages the abandoning of hundreds if not thousands of years of church tradition on any given issue, to complain about a person's choice of words when that person calls the movement "divisive". And I think it is even MORE ridiculous to then go and accuse OTHER people of being hung up on words.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Broken record...skip, skip, skip...

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do, however, think it is ridiculous for a self-proclaimed "revolutionary" movement, which encourages the abandoning of hundreds if not thousands of years of church tradition on any given issue, to complain about a person's choice of words when that person calls the movement "divisive". And I think it is even MORE ridiculous to then go and accuse OTHER people of being hung up on words.

Any given issue or many given issues?

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stef wrote:

: Any given issue or many given issues?

This seems to me like a difference that makes no difference. Though I guess if you encourage the church to abandon multiple traditions (by encouraging, say, feminist egalitarianism AND gay rights) instead of just one tradition (by encouraging only, say, feminist egalitarianism), then the multiple approach would be even more divisive than the single approach (as jon_trott indicates above in his account of the divisions WITHIN the Christian feminist movement).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... Peter... please don't misquote me.

Really not trying to be snarky here.... kindest possible voice... please don't say "Jon Trott said" or "suggested" or another other such thing when involved in one of your (to my subjective judgement, anyway) rather pointless debates re Christian feminism.

Your own opinions are yours. Enjoy them. I'll try to enjoy mine, as long as others don't misrepresent them. And no, Peter, I won't respond to your further postings on this topic. That includes if you choose to disregard my request.

Sincerely,

Jon Trott

Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: Uh... Peter... please don't misquote me.

I didn't quote you at all, let alone misquote you. You, however, sort of misquoted me when you implied that I said "Jon Trott said" or "Jon Trott suggested". I did not say that; I said "indicated", which is a word that I would apply to inanimate objects as readily as I would apply it to anything else, so my use of that word indicates nothing about the intentions behind your statements.

The simple fact of the matter is that you wrote about a split within the Christian feminist movement that took place because one side took its challenge of church tradition further than the other side wanted to take it. Thus, in a very objective sense, you "indicated" that multiple challenges to church tradition are more divisive than single challenges to church tradition.

I'm not being snarky either, here, just being clear. But if you're going to pick at words, please get your words right! (And then don't take offense when others respond on your verbal level; "for in the same way you judge others", etc.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stef wrote:

: Any given issue or many given issues?

This seems to me like a difference that makes no difference. Though I guess if you encourage the church to abandon multiple traditions (by encouraging, say, feminist egalitarianism AND gay rights)

The word "any" dosen't mean TWO, or "multiple." It means... well, "Any."

Which is "All."

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I logged back in to amend my last post, but I see there's been another post here since then, so I'm making my extra point in this post, rather than editing my previous one.

My extra point is this: The main objective fact that I was pointing to in my earlier-earlier post was the fact that there had been a split in the Christian feminist movement over just how far its revolutionary approach to gender issues should go; I was aware of this split before jon_trott mentioned it here, but the fact that he mentioned it here was convenient, because it meant I did not have to refer to any outside sources to back up my point, and because it might have provided a point of common ground between our two perspectives. (I tend to think that facts are more important than opinions, and I like to think that agreed-upon facts can provide helpful reference points for dialogue between people of differing opinions.)

What jon_trott thinks ABOUT the split in the Christian feminist camp is irrelevant for our present purposes, so I made absolutely zero comment about that; I simply used this mutually agreed-upon fact to illustrate a point in my reply to stef.

Speaking of whom...

stef wrote:

: The word "any" dosen't mean TWO, or "multiple." It means... well, "Any."

: Which is "All."

Sounds multiple to me! :)

So, when you asked "Any given issue or many given issues?" and I took "many" to mean MORE than "any", you actually meant it to mean LESS than "any", because "any" equals "all"?

I don't mean to be cute, but I am not sure what your question is getting at.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am parsing words in an attempt to be like you.

2 X 2 = 4, which is "multiple," but certainly not "all," or "any."

-s.

Edited by stef

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A few more pics. This pic has a "note."

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...