🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <61dror$2f2$6@gail.ripco.com>,
John Paulus <shadowm@ripco.com> wrote:
>Last Friday night on Nightline, Patricia Ireland (President of the National
>Organization of Women) challenged Steve Chavis (is he related to Benjamin
>Chavis?), spokesperson for Promise Keepers, to sign a document essentially
>promising not to dominate/hurt women & gays.
>
>I'd like to see Promise Keepers take up that challenge.  They shouldn't bow
>down to a NOW agenda, but PK should biblically address those issues &
>concerned expressed.
>
>The document should include how, although PK believes that homosexuality is
>wrong and against God's plan for sexuality, it is no worse than the sins
>which each PK struggles with himself.  

Uh, you're asking a person to make a judgement as to the severity of a
particular sin (when the sins in question aren't even delineated in the 
case of the PK people)?

That's a bit of a stretch.  Even Jesus did not take such extraordinary
measure into his own hands, say much less delegate it to mortal man.  Indeed, 
not even the Pope himself judges the severity of sin, although he (and those 
in the Church hierarchy under him) are empowered through Christ to forgive it.

>In regards to women, they should express their belief in Ephesians 5:21-30,
>and how men must be like Jesus in terms of holiness, and that no authority
>can be expected without it.

This is true in regards to everyone's relationship with each other.  I don't
see why the Promise Keepers should make a *specific* promise to any group
over any other.  

The basis for the Gospel message you cite is in fact that women should be 
subservient to their husbands.  The problem is that the feminists, including
Patricia Ireland, close their Bibles and stop reading after that first
sentence.

If they kept reading, they would find that the message is *ALSO* that 
husbands should be subservient to their wives!  And, in fact, if you keep
reading past the first sentence of the passage involved, you will find that 
the message is that we should all be subservient both to each other and to 
God.  I don't need to provide a specific chapter and verse here -- Patricia
Ireland and the other NOW activists, if they are truly interested, can open
their Bibles and read for themselves.

You're asking the Promise Keepers here, as Patricia Ireland did, to make a
specific promise to one group which establishes women as "special" and
"protected", and further, you're basing it on an incomplete and inaccurate
characterization of the message which Jesus was teaching.

Nonsense.

IMHO the Promise Keepers should, under their claim as worshipping and living
the Gospel, do no such thing.  Their duty is to *ALL PEOPLE* in that regard
as the Gospel actually states, not as Patricia Ireland would like to
redefine it.  

Further, their duty and obligation as Christians is to *LIVE THE MESSAGE*, 
not write it down on a piece of paper and sign it.

I find it interesting that not a month ago I heard a sermon on this very
subject in the local church here in Chicago -- the pastor giving the homily
specifically referred to that passage as "the feminists nightmare", and in
fact that passage was the Gospel reading of the day.

He read past the first sentence, of course, when he delivered the Gospel.

NOW should do the same.

The message of Jesus, if that is the path you choose to follow, isn't about
sexism or racism.  It is not about creating protected classes of citizens
with more rights than others (as NOW has repeatedly done through the last 
20 years).  It is not about special rights for ANY group of people.

It is about being subservient to *each other* and to God; that is, humility
before and caring about one another, and, as you noted, aga'pe, a concept
which went out of practice and understanding when it failed to be carried
into the English language.

>In the same way, PK'ers need to address issues presented by feminists, but
>ultimately point to the need of Jesus by all of us. 

On the contrary.  The PKers need to address no issue put forth as a special
interest or that which points to a protected class, any more than Jesus did.

If there is one central point which runs through the entire New Testament,
it is that there *are no protected classes*.  Not based upon wealth (or lack
of it), not based upon gender, not based upon race, nor any other category.
Indeed, not even based upon the particulars of whether you follow your faith
well or not -- Jesus was known, above all else, for mingling with and
spending time around people who were *known* sinners under his own message.

NOW is precisely the kind of group which needs to make these amends and
address these concerns, particularly as it relates to the very real damage
they have done to family in this country, to father's rights, and towards
the institution of marriage -- in no small part by demonizing and taking 
out of context the scriptures. 

Yet I have never seen Patricia Ireland apologize for, remove from their web
site, or otherwise stop their relentless campaign to do all of the above
things, including those which are blatently discriminatory, harmful to
families and children, and discriminatory towards men.

>Working on aga'pe love

Would be it that NOW might take the same posture some day.

>--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!!!!! ************************

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal