tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post8249224887481257959..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: One Bad IdeaDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-38921792609161672812018-04-17T19:37:33.993-04:002018-04-17T19:37:33.993-04:00As an aside ... I'm not sure who's respons...As an aside ... I'm not sure who's responsible for the Facebook link, but thanks for the ridiculous number of pageviews. This has really become a tempest in a teapot.<br /><br />I don't think I'm in your area for coffee, but I'm certainly game if we can arrange to cross paths sometime. You can reach me personally at tom@cominguntrue.com.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-65082724771092059702018-04-17T19:33:00.305-04:002018-04-17T19:33:00.305-04:00Certainly. I hope it's clear I don't think...Certainly. I hope it's clear I don't think you are purposefully foisting third-wave feminism on the assemblies. But using those words, I strongly feel, is acceding to their (false) frame of reference.<br /><br />I'm not even sure "patriarchalism" -- this thing we are constantly chastened for -- is even a real thing. Certainly it is not something we find evidence of in the word of God, even in so-called "patriarchal" times. <br /><br />So I prefer not to use their words at all. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-3822173987792242372018-04-17T19:13:26.407-04:002018-04-17T19:13:26.407-04:00Shoot...now I'm going back on my commitment no...Shoot...now I'm going back on my commitment not to respond. Ah well - I'm weak.<br /><br />Believe me, I have given serious consideration to all of your comments in the last 36 hours.<br /><br />I hope you will give consideration to the substantial difference between clarifying the history of terms like "patriarchalism" and "complementarianism" with suggesting that someone is channeling Gloria Steinem, or assuming that they are accusing the church of heavy handed male domination on a conservative Christian blog.<br /><br />Is there space for both of us to "walk it back" if either concern rings true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-33673039227296562322018-04-17T15:58:05.914-04:002018-04-17T15:58:05.914-04:00See my comments on the March 10 post with respect ...See my comments on the March 10 post with respect to context.<br /><br />Honestly, I don't find my take aggressive. You should see some of the responses other Christian bloggers have to deal with. It seems to me I offered a constructive critique of your post in good faith and goodwill, based on nothing more than the words you published.<br /><br />I hope you will give consideration to how what you wrote may have came across to someone who doesn't know you and is familiar with terms like "patriarchalism" and "complementarianism". What you may have intended by them is not necessarily how they are perceived, and that's not the fault of the reader, given the associations that exists around those terms and the way they are constantly evolving.<br /><br />I don't think you're a bad guy with a bad agenda -- quite the opposite, not that my opinion matters. But I don't think it's out of line to have something more substantive to say than "Good post, fellow Christian!"<br /><br />God bless, and thanks for the thoughts.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-49302965232008751822018-04-17T11:14:02.171-04:002018-04-17T11:14:02.171-04:00Dear Coming Untrue guy,
I am sorry for my delay i...Dear Coming Untrue guy,<br /><br />I am sorry for my delay in responding to your article. I am not a frequent visitor. This article was brought to my attention by a dear brother who was troubled about your tone (Gloria Steinem? Really?) and reached out to me to make sure I was doing okay (I was). <br /><br />You are clearly far more intelligent than I am. I confess to pulling out a dictionary more than once and re-reading several sentences repeatedly to discern your meaning. Still I was left with a distinct impression that you did not read my article with the intent to understand what I was saying, but rather to find fodder for your blog. It was you who equated the practices of the church to patriarchalism, not I. Read it again, carefully. It hasn’t been edited.<br /><br />Please allow the following clarifications: My goal in raising the terms patriarchalism and egalitarianism in the article was just to point to two opposing views along the spectrum of practices regarding women roles, between which a complementary position is generally thought to fall. I know very little about the historic uses of those terms but I have a reasonable comfort with their current usage. Look up current dialogue on the issue and that’s the way the terms are being used. I’m just joining that conversation. <br /><br />Accordingly, I was not defining the practices of the assemblies or of the vast majority of churches (present day or historical) as “systems of heavy-handed male domination”, rather I was defining patriarchalism in this way. I was pointing out that the way of the church at large (present day and historical and across many denominational stripes) is a different and far more beautiful way, one where women and men are equal before God but given different and complementary positions (again, according to the current use of the word). That genders are a gift to one another and display the glory of God. The intent of the article was a conciliatory one – to posit that assemblies need not fear the practices from other church traditions with respect to gender roles – that the vast majority hold to complementary roles for men and women (as we do) but simply draw the line in a different place. <br /><br />You don’t know me (I don’t think) and I was saddened to read your words and even more sad to hear from others who were bewildered by your aggressive tone and wondered if we’d had some hostile history. I realize that coming down hard makes for a better blog but we’re Christians and we’re called to better things. We’re on the same team and I have no interest expending energy fighting in this way – there is a real battle to be engaged in. <br /><br />For your information, there are ways of reaching out to any one of the writers on assembly hub and engaging non-anonymously if you have any future concerns. Biblical ways. I would expect that anyone who “calls someone out” publically has reached out to them privately first to have a discussion, or to get clarification if that is what you’re looking for, your recent FAQ notwithstanding.<br /><br />For my part, I’d be glad to chat with you directly – my articles have my real name on them so you could always look me up. To make it easier though, I have shared my full contacts by personal email, in case you’d like to meet for coffee. I hope that we could encourage each other in the Lord. <br /><br />Please know that I will not be responding electronically beyond these two corrections on your articles. Truly, I am praying fervently that your blog would find a whole new gear, and a whole new level of readership as you contend for truth with love – in all of its true expressions.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com