[Vision2020] Can the women leave? Was kirker Shopping Regs

[Paul Rumelhart]

I don't particularly like their system either, at least as I understand 
it.  I've heard it described as a case of men and women being 
"different" and each having their own strengths and weaknesses and their 
own "best" skills in a relationship.  To me, it sounds remarkably 
coincidental that this particular system happens to benefit those who 
are pushing it.  However, people have lots of ideas that I don't agree with.

I don't have the concerns you do about whether or not the practice is 
"biblical".  No more than I do about whether or not it would be 
considered good or bad in relation to, say, the Poetic Eddas.  I do have 
concerns, the same as you do, about whether the women in the church 
realize that they have avenues open to them if they want to escape the 
system.  I also hope that the church elders are wise enough not to abuse 
their own power in a misguided attempt to keep them there if they want 
to leave.  It would be different if they lived in an armed camp, but as 
it is they are mixed freely with society.  I don't have any reason to 
believe that they simply wouldn't just let them go.  Of course, as you 
noted, this may end in a divorce and a custody hearing. 

I would hope that the women of the church would gravitate to some other 
religion more respectful of a woman's qualities as strengths for all men 
and women, not just as strengths that oddly enough seem to be designed 
to help only men.  Yet what do you do if you truly believe that the 
bible is true and that it heaps that fate upon you? 

I believe in the power of choice ahead of most other things.  Even when 
it is detrimental to the chooser.  If they are in this with their eyes 
wide open, then who am I to take them to task for it?

Paul


keely emerinemix wrote:

> Paul,
>
> It is more than a little jarring to read item #8, isn't it?  And I 
> understand your ambivalence -- on the one hand, it certainly has a 
> sexist ring to it and puts the woman under the rule of both her 
> husband and her pastor, and yet, these women probably could renounce 
> their membership in the church if these restrictions and the attitudes 
> that inform them are too distasteful, right?
>
> But it's not that easy.  Most conservative Christian churches are 
> entrenched in patriarchy, having missed the message of reconciliation 
> in Christ by focusing on a few Pauline passages in the New Testament 
> that were written in specific cultural contexts.  This, of course, 
> violates a basic principle of Biblical interpretation, and that is 
> that difficult or unclear  passages must be exegeted in light of the 
> totality of Biblical doctrine and teaching.  I believe that most of 
> these conservative Christian churches and their congregants would be 
> repelled at the idea of a majority group maintaining control over a 
> (sociological) minority group on the basis of three or four 
> questionable passages, and would rightly denounce bigotry and bad 
> scholarship.  But sexism in the church has been assumed to be 
> honorable, or at least benign, and somehow necessary for a full 
> understanding of our Creator God.  It isn't honorable, it isn't 
> benign, and it's an impediment to a proper understanding of the God 
> who is revealed in Scripture as both female and male, without being a 
> man or a woman.
>
> Christ Church practices a relatively "hard" patriarchy that, coupled 
> with what I think is inordinate influence over the flock by its 
> purported shepherds, all male, is potentially -- and actually -- more 
> harmful than the "soft" patriarchy that other evangelicals live out.  
> In addition, the emphasis on being a covenant family formed by the 
> complete sovereignty of God, extending even to infant baptism and 
> toddler participation in communion (which most evangelical churches 
> frown upon, believing that both deny the necessity of informed, of-age 
> willingness to trust Christ), makes it enormously difficult for women 
> to leave a church situation that their "covenant head" insists they 
> stay in.  In fact, Wilson counsels women (and, to be fair, men) to 
> discuss their spouse's disagreement with Kirk polity with the elders.  
> In other words, if Mary's husband develops a core-conscience objection 
> to a teaching, instruction, or practice of the church, or even states 
> his disagreement with the elders, Mary knows that she should talk to 
> the elders about it -- it's not only encouraged but expected.  At this 
> point, "submission" to her husband as head of the household appears to 
> be less than an ironclad requirement.  And if Mary were to get out of 
> line, the expectation is that her covenant head -- her husband -- 
> rehabilitates her by "lovingly" laying out a course of action for her 
> to follow.  If she proves to be intractable, he then ought to go to 
> the elders.  Please note that these are not instructions for those 
> suffering from spousal abuse, or for those who've witnessed a crime 
> committed by their spouses, but for dissent and the always-available 
> Kirk accusations of "bitterness."  Under this structure, how safe can 
> a woman feel, particularly if the threat of losing custody of children 
> is assumed to be part of the risk of divorce?
>
> Very well, some might say. Any woman who chafes under such 
> restrictions but loves the church and adheres to the rest of its 
> teachings can simply choose to stay single, right?  Well, she could . 
> . . but Wilson's enthusiastic endorsement of 
> marriage-as-normative-state, and his and his wife's glowing review of 
> Debra Maken's "Getting Serious About Getting Married:  Rethinking The 
> Gift Of Singleness," which insists that God has commanded people to 
> marry, period; and the cultural of pairing off that pervades the Kirk, 
> all make it exceedingly uncomfortable to be an unmarried adult at 
> Christ Church, particularly if singleness is chosen.  A century or so 
> ago, many devoted Christian women purposed to stay unmarried so they 
> could preach, teach, travel and work for the Gospel as ordained or lay 
> ministers, choosing the unencumbered life of austere, bookish 
> singleness.  The message women get from Christ Church is one that 
> utterly eliminates full-time ministry as a noble choice; instead, the 
> elders  prefer that women marry, bear lots of children, set a pretty 
> table and learn from their mothers-in-law how to cook their husbands' 
> favorite childhood meals.   It's a pretty poor substitute, as far as 
> I'm concerned, but it has horrific effects on the Kingdom of God and 
> on any woman who experiences an epiphany of liberation in Christ while 
> under the rule of her menfolk, spousal and ecclesiastical.
>
> And that's why a lot of us speak out, Paul.  Many of the teachings and 
> practices of Christ Church are not benign; not beneficial to men, 
> women, family, or society; and are not Biblical.  To a disciple of 
> Jesus, it matters.  I follow a Savior whose message of restoration, 
> redemption, and reconciliation is the reason I use the gifts given to 
> me with the boldness and joy that I do.  Any less would be a sin, and 
> God have mercy on the women who can't or don't use their gifts, and on 
> the men who hold them down.
>
> keely
>
>
>
>
> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] kirker Shopping Regs
> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:59:04 -0800
>
> I would also like to point out that they simply suggested some extra
> rules when dealing with people of their own faith while doing business.
> For example, chastising someone who is not of their church for being
> "unbiblical" wouldn't necessarily go far.  They don't say anywhere that
> members of their church have to patronize brothers of the church with
> their business, they  just give some rules they should follow for when
> they do.  They also specifically state that they need no explanation for
> going to some other business for "normal" reasons (such as price or
> distance).
>
> I don't agree with their theological views, but if you have entered into
> their faith you are agreeing to abide by their rules.  I don't see any
> problem with that.
>
> I am still trying to parse rule 8 though: "Wives, do not do an end run
> around your husband.  If he has said that you are not going to spend any
> money on whatever it is, then you should not try to get the service
> without spending any money.  This just turns one sin into two."  Anyway,
> those wives presumably have the freedom to renounce their religions if
> they feel they are too sexist.  I don't understand their reasoning about
> the role of women in their church, and probably wouldn't agree with it
> if I did understand it, but as long as the women in question are there
> by their own choice, then there is no problem.  I hope the church is
> being very careful to make this clear to everyone involved, because the
> opportunity for abuse here is great.
>
> Paul
>
> Pat Kraut wrote:
>
> >I wonder if you are aware that many churches publish an in house 
> business
> >directory? The first one I saw I believe was at St Marys here in 
> town. I do
> >not know of any churches that issist that members only buy from that
> >directory. They are published with the idea that if you are seeking a
> >certain service it could be nice to work with a like minded 
> christian. If CC
> >has one it could be just something that is practiced by many others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on 
> your Live.com page. 
> http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=ValentinesDay&ocid=T001MSN30A0701
>
>