🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel B. Holzman (holzman@xochi.tezcat.com) wrote:
: In article <61j5qb$lia$3@gail.ripco.com>,
: John Paulus <shadowm@ripco.com> wrote:
: >
: >: It should do nothing of the sort.
: >
: >: If the PKs want to impress their critics, they'll promise not to
: >: dominate/hurt women and gays unconditionally, rather than taking it as
: >: yet another opportunity to remind everyone that they're
: >: anti-homosexuality.  We already know they are.
: >
: >So PK'ers should practice deception in order to assure homosexuals & women?

: Not at all.  No one asked PKers to issue a statement that they /like/
: homosexuals or homsexuality, just that they won't "dominate/hurt" them,
: to quote the original post.  If they can't even say that they won't
: without feeling compelled to tell everyone that they think homosexuality
: is suspect yet again, people are going to find that suspect.
If you have a tape of Patricia Ireland on Nightline the Friday before
Promise Keepers, you might say otherwise.  
Also, it's about perception.  When some people hear that a group is against
homosexuality, they immediately take it personal and they they the whole
person is rejected.  If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way
to God, does that make them "anti-Christian"?

: >PK tries to be as open as possible about what they stand for and why. The
: >statement i suggested is something for the whole world to hold PK
: >accountable for.  Homosexuals can hold PK'ers to the statement especially in
: >regards to homosexual-targeted violence, while fundementalists (some of whom
: >are actually suspicious of PK, too) can hold them to their belief in the
: >Bible.

: Homosexuals can hold PKers to a simple pledge not to "dominate/hurt"
: without a digression into the morality of homosexuality.
One line of non-agression with one line describing PK's exact stance. Seems 
fair. It might take mutual *submission*, though. ;)


: Fundamentalists who are suspicious of PK can ask for their own pledge.

: >: they can endorse Ephesians 5:22-30.  (Ephesians 5:21 is a part of a
: >: different sentence.)  Ephesians 5:22-24 is quite explicit that this is
: >: not a partnership of equals, but a hierarchical relationship wherein the
: >: husband is the head of the wife.  Exhorting the husband not to abuse this
: >: power does not change the nature of the relationship.
: >What does this "domination" look like. Let's set aside the extremely bad
: >examples, because we both know those are bad. i gather that you think such a
: >relationship, even at its "best" is bad. How would that look?

: McCartney describes this relationship, at "best," as one where the man
: makes the decisions, taking his wife's feelings and desires into account,
: but not being bound by them.  The wife abides by the husband's decision,
: even if she disagrees with it.  

And how does God fit into the picture. The problems of submission happen
when they stop at man rather than God.  Women have the right to DEMAND that
their husbands submit to God.  If they are truly right about something (and
their husbands wrong), then they can provide the Scruipture to make him
submit to God. The big question is: will the man honestly submit to God
(which is really what PK is about: honest submission to God), or will he try
to use Scripture to his own advantage, in effect, trying to make God submit
to the man.

: Of course, the question I'd like McCartney to answer is what this
: marriage looks like when the PKer comes home and announces he's taking
: back his leadership and his wife tells him she's not willing to follow.

That is a very valid question...maybe you should send it on to Promise
Keepers....i'd like to read the response....

--jp--

--
j.p. paulus                               4625 N. Kenmore Avenue  #2
shadowm@ripco.com                              Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html         773/784-5640
    ********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************