|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Jan 7, 2015 4:24:27 GMT
It is oxymoronic how denominations that claim to support a woman's right to a leadership ministry in the church, still manage to regulate her to a submissive "role" at home? Just two denominations where this is happening are The Assemblies of God and The Church of the Nazarene The Assemblies of God Women's Ministry site--note the word, "role" in reference to marriage: women.ag.org/Informing_displaySubCatList.aspx?id=92&langtype=1033 Despite their official stance of absolute equality, The Church of the Nazarene is well on its way down the slippery slope of male headship stressing a special "leadership" calling for all men at this New York church: www.bronxbethany.org/men
|
|
|
Post by Relentless on Jan 7, 2015 16:07:38 GMT
As I put it here several years ago, it is a double standard for people to proclaim liberty for themselves in the world, yet practice dictatorship at home. The root of this whole problem is the apparent belief that women are not quite as human as men. There is no other way to consign an entire gender to a "role" that restricts them in ways never endured by those doing the consigning. To deny women basic rights as adult human beings is to classify them as subhuman. This is the logical conclusion to which male supremacy inexorably leads, whether such a fact offends them or not, and whether they ever thought about it or not. Yet it is clear that the primary teachers of this double standard know exactly what they're doing. This is why they go to such lengths to dissect the Trinity as a chain of command, while also insisting that this somehow doesn't make Jesus and the Holy Spirit lesser Gods. No matter what scriptures must be violated, no matter what heresy must be embraced, the privilege of the male must be retained at all costs. This indicates an abject fear and loathing of women, such that to allow them to be fully adult human beings is poison to their masculinity.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Hahn on Jan 9, 2015 19:22:50 GMT
I don't have a problem with the word "role"- but I do take issue with the selective use of Scripture to make the "roles" come out in a patriarchal way such as they did on that page. The Assemblies of God aren't always consistent even when it comes to women in ministry, so the idea of egalitarianism at home just likely hasn't caught on yet. Too many people can read that statement and not see the faults in it. It's a matter of God raising up teachers who can address it with the body so that we get the truth in our hearts about it.
As for the Bronx Church of the Nazarene page- I'm OK with that, personally. The only thing I take issue with a little bit is the opening line, "We believe that building strong families starts with the men of our church."
Well, not necessarily. More than likely the building of the strong family started without him. It's definitely time for the men of the church to get on board with that! But look- that page is about raising up men to be leaders. I'm all for that, 100%. We need more leaders in the church. That's why I'm an egalitarian- so I can more than double my potential leader pool.
To me that page isn't saying "women can't be leaders". It's saying, "we need men to be leaders". They probably do need that. And for the Men's Ministry to be focused on that might be a good thing, depending on what else they teach along side of that.
|
|
|
Post by Janice Robinson on Jan 24, 2015 16:18:45 GMT
I just looked at the Bronx Bethany page and I noticed that it is primarily a black church. Perhaps that is why black men are being encouraged to be leaders, because quite honestly there are not that many.
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Jan 26, 2015 14:30:17 GMT
Hi Janice, thank you for visiting our board and for taking the time to comment. i'd like to invite you to become a registered member as well. We welcome your input.
Concerning leadership. It is my conviction that if a pastor feels that either the women or men of his or her congregation are not serving Christ with enough dedication, then discipleship is what is called for. Calling marginal Christians leaders--just because they happen to be males--amounts to no more than pandering to fleshly ego and does not, in my opinion, promote the cause of Christ in the lives of those who are being pandered to.
Leadership training should only be offered to those who feel the call of God on their lives and whose lives and testimony already reflect that call--regardless of whether or not they are male or female.
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Jan 26, 2015 14:46:11 GMT
Hi Greg, can we talk about this some more, where you state that you don't have a problem with the word "roles?"
The word "roles" has become anathema to many as it conjures visions of eons of female restriction and oppression. Other words, such as "feminist" also suffer from the same type of stigma, even though it only means equality with men. So my question is this, can egalitarians safely acknowledge that there are actually "roles" involved in the everyday lives of those who espouse the doctrine of functional equality between men and women without compromising the autonomy of either and what would these roles be?
I'm not sure I phrased that right, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Hahn on Jan 29, 2015 15:17:25 GMT
Thanks for asking me to clarify, Jocelyn.
Our disconnect here probably results from my viewing the word through the lenses of male privilege. Since I've never been bludgeoned by the word "role" I don't see anything inherently negative or sexist about it and so can use it in what I feel is a perfectly benign sense- in regard to a person's function regardless of their gender.
For instance- I'm perfectly content with the wife having the role of primary breadwinner in a family while the husband has the role of homemaker. If the wife had the better career options and the family felt they could live better on her salary while he took primary care of the kids and the domestic duties then that's the choice they should make. She has her role and he has his, and their roles in that case are based on gifts, not gender.
If the wife is a prophet or pastor or teacher, she will likely have the role of spiritual leader in the family, particularly if the husband is backslidden or a new convert. If he is more her equal I would expect neither of them would have a leadership role, or that the Lord might use one or the other of them in a leadership role for a particular function or season.
As I said, however, where I have a problem is when they make selective use of the scripture in order to make the roles come out in a patriarchal way- for instance quoting Ephesians 5:22 without reference to 5:21, or quoting 1 Cor 7:2 without reference to 7:4, etc. as they did on that page.
So does that clear it up and make it better? Or does the word still have such heavy baggage for you that it causes you issues? Because if the word is such a charged word for some folks I need to be aware of that so I can avoid using it!
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Feb 2, 2015 19:29:02 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Greg.
Let's see if I got this right. When you use the word roles, it is not in the restrictive sense, but in reference to a couple's choice of how to divvie up certain important aspects of their lives, such as one being the breadwinner and the other home-maker, without making gender a part of the equation.
I have no problem with one of the parents choosing to be a keeper at home, whether stay at home mom or stay at home dad. It was certainly important to me. I was a stay at home mom myself--entirely by choice, not by a restrictive role dictated by my spiritual leadership.
As to whether the term "roles" should be abandoned altogether by egalitarian couples, I don't know. It does have a negative connotation to it because of the council on biblical manhood and womanhood, as does the word feminist because it was originally defined by males who thought the very idea of gender equality was evil. But I like the word feminists, as its dictionary meaning accurately describes simple equality between the sexes. I've been advised to stop using the word but I haven't yet.
|
|
tl
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tl on Feb 2, 2015 20:46:12 GMT
The word "roles" carries too much baggage for me in my Christian circles. Even if I understand it as responsibility not based on gender, too many others do not. So, in my case it is best not to use it if possible.
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Feb 3, 2015 0:37:36 GMT
Hi tl, welcome to the forum. Thanks for your feedback on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Hahn on Feb 3, 2015 13:57:34 GMT
The word "roles" carries too much baggage for me in my Christian circles. Even if I understand it as responsibility not based on gender, too many others do not. So, in my case it is best not to use it if possible. That's something I have had a completely deaf ear to so it's very good to know. Thank you both for telling me. I will avoid using that word in the future.
|
|
tl
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tl on Feb 3, 2015 17:47:58 GMT
Aloha, Greg. Nice to see you out and about.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Hahn on Feb 5, 2015 2:22:39 GMT
Hi! It's good to get around. Nice to see you here too TL!
|
|
|
Post by sharon letchford on Feb 8, 2015 20:41:08 GMT
The word 'role' has always meant a specific function or acting part which was always intended to be seasonal or temporary. The broader use of the word was derived from the more narrow use as that of an acting part, which everyone accepts as being short-lived. CBMW and their ilk have taken the word and made it to mean something else and essentially changed its meaning. Rather than reject the word altogether I'd like to see it taken back and used according to its original meaning.
|
|
tl
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tl on Feb 26, 2015 16:00:58 GMT
sometimes when words have been stolen in this way, it is impossible to reclaim them. Better perhaps to find a word that reflects what meaning is intended and use it in its place. Also, comps and patriarchalists claim a role in marriage that doesn't really apply to all men and women. Responsibilities in marriage vary according to ability, desire, and need. Perhaps, it is more important to preach/teach that instead of fussing over the comp ideas of male dominance. IOW keep pointing toward the right and better way and leave them in the dust.
|
|