Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    'male basklash'
    
    --do they also have 'miles to go before they sleep' ?
    
    ;-)
    
    D.

Re: .0

>   'Honey, I've made a terrible mistake.  I've given you my role.  I gave up
>   leading this family, and I forced you to take my place.  Now I must
>   reclaim my role.'

Sounds like Ralph Kramden.  "I'm the King of this castle, Alice.  The
King!  You are nothing but a peasant.  I'm the general. I'm running the whole
show.  You're just a private.  You have nothing to say about it.  What I
say goes."

				-- Bob

>>  'Honey, I've made a terrible mistake.  I've given you my role.  I gave up
>>  leading this family, and I forced you to take my place.  Now I must
>>  reclaim my role.'


oh, sure. men are ruled by women all over this world! 

re .0, another movement for the simple-minded amongst men?



andreas.

    The last two replies here are indicitive that there is a tremendous
    lack of understanding as to what Spiritual leadership is.  The Ralph
    Kramden imitation, although very humerous when Ralph did it, is
    misrepresentative of what Spiritual leadership is supposed to be.  It
    calls for an emotional response.
    
    Spiritual leadership is merely the act of setting the spiritual tone in
    the family.  This doesn't require the husband being biblically smarter
    than the wife...on the contrary, in many cases the wife may be more
    biblically astute.  I believe the husband is responsible for upholding
    the character of the family unit, by leading the family in devotionals
    and prayer times, by acting as the spiritual conscience...by living
    above reproach and by setting the example of Godliness.  Can a woman do
    these things?  Of course, but I believe that God ordained this
    responsibility to the husband.  Now in our world, this is impossible
    alot of the time, since a large amount of families are broken.  Did you
    ever consider the possibility that more families would stick together
    if the father fulfilled his responsibilities as Spiritual leader?
    
    -Jack

.4>                     I believe the husband is responsible for upholding
.4> the character of the family unit, by leading the family in devotionals
.4> and prayer times, by acting as the spiritual conscience...by living
.4> above reproach and by setting the example of Godliness.  Can a woman do
.4> these things?  Of course, but I believe that God ordained this
.4> responsibility to the husband.  


goodness, jack. the above reads like something out of last century.
i know quite a few happy and intact families where the spiritual tone,
as you put it, is set by the mother.

is this spirtual male supremacy which you claim justified somewhere in 
the bible?


andreas.

    See, there that paradigm thing again.  Where did I state it was a male
    supremecy thing?  In fact, I stated that the mother could very well be 
    more spiritually able than the man.
    
    If you want my opinion on the matter, I believe the roles of man and
    woman are opposite to what they should be much of the time.  In my
    mind, I see women overall as being the more compassionate, caring and 
    driven to know God personally than men.  This bias may be from my own 
    environment growing up.  There were seven of us and it was my mother
    that got us going to church every week and CCD every Wednesday night.
    I personally owe her a debt of gratitude for this because it got the
    ball rolling for me as far as God consciousness goes.  There are
    however some in my family who have not taken an interest in eternal
    life nor have the desire to know God intimately.  I find this sad
    because although my dad is a rock of integrity, he never took on his
    role as spiritual leader in the family.  
    
    Sometimes, I would rather Michele take on this role but I believe the
    responsibility is mine.  This doesn't negate Michele from praying with
    the kids or reading to them biblical stories or the like.  But I do
    believe it is my responsibility as the father to set the tone of prayer
    and encourage these activities in the home.  Superiority has nothing to
    do with this.
    
    I believe you will see families who follow this role thing to be less
    likely to break up.
    
    -Jack

    	Jack --
    
    	It is a mistake to discuss anything like Promise Keepers here
    	in this conference.  Whth the prevalent pre-conceived bias 
    	against anything traditional, you will only be fighting a
    	futile uphill battle.
    
    	The bias in the basenote has already set the tone against you.
    
    	I can't believe the attacks I see against a program that 
    	promotes family unity, fatherly spirituality, and a call
    	for the return to honesty, compassion, leadership, and
    	spirituality that is often missing in today's American
    	male.

Re: .7 Joe

>    	I can't believe the attacks I see against a program that 
>    	promotes family unity, fatherly spirituality, and a call
>    	for the return to honesty, compassion, leadership, and
>    	spirituality that is often missing in today's American
>    	male.

To the extent that the Promise Keepers promote family unity, honesty and
compassion the program might be a positive one.  When the Promise Keepers
try to assert their "leadership" in the family it becomes male chauvinism
pure and simple.  True family unity comes from *shared* responsibility.

				-- Bob

    Amen, Bob
    
    Male chauvanism-  Pure and Simple.
    
    But maybe it is just what "Christian" women need to realize that they
    too need the woman's liberation movement.

ZZ    But maybe it is just what "Christian" women need to realize that
ZZ    they too need the woman's liberation movement.
    
    Liberation from what?  
    
    -Jack

    yup,  rearing its ugly head!

    Patricia:
    
    It is becoming apparent you aren't comprehending what spiritual
    leadership is.  Therefore, I will make what is going to come across as
    an arrogant reply.
    
    I'm happily married, divorce isn't a consideration for either of us.  I
    believe the feminist movement is largely responsible for the 50%
    divorce rate...or a good chunk of it anyway.  The feminist movement and
    a sheer lack of maturity on the part of the other segment.  
    
    Tell you what, I don't even know the background of these people...never
    researched it.  I'll make a deal with you.  Check out the list below...
    
    
    Bella Abzug		Betty Friedan	    Molly Yard
    
    Jane Fonda		Gloria Steinham	    Patricia Ireland
    
    The Honorable Judge Hirschner	    
    
    
    
    I have listed above seven fairly prominent feminists in society today. 
    These are the leaders of young women who aspire for freedom.  I'll make
    a deal with you.  If any of these women have been able to stay married
    to one husband, I will send you ten dollars.  I have never checked into 
    this but I am confident...because the attitudes these women bring forth
    call for the inability to maintain a healthy relationship!
    
    -Jack

    Well Jack
    
    It might surprise you to know, that some women have more important
    things to worry about than holding onto their man!
    
    I'm getting very angry and very sad at this outright bigotry.  I'm
    not amused any more.
    
                                        

    ZZ   It might surprise you to know, that some women have more important
    ZZ    things to worry about than holding onto their man!
    
    Yes...and that's fine and good if they aren't interested in family life
    or even experiencing God's perfect plan for their family.  Of course
    nobody thinks of the children do they.
    
    I'm sorry about angering you Patricia..that isn't my intention although
    I suspected it might happen.  My purpose was to make a point and the
    point was that if one aspires to be a proponent of modern feminism,
    then it might make life easier for them and a potential spouse if they
    forego getting married and cleave to the cause as a captain cleaves to
    their ship.  If those seven women were once married, then it means
    fourteen individuals went through a sad ordeal which could have been
    avoided.
    
    One more thing, I took your "rearing its ugly head" as synonymous with
    male spiritual leadership.  I took this as an attack on what God
    ordained for the family.  So my challenge was a response to your
    statement.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

It's possible for a man and a woman to stay happily married without the man
being dominant over the woman.  My parents are still married after 37
years, for example.

It's also possible for a man and a woman to get divorced even when the man
is dominant, or in many cases *because* the man is dominant.  The
difference is that in the past women were forced to remain in unhappy
marriages, whereas today they are free to take control over their own
lives.

				-- Bob

    
    Ok.  Ok.  I have been reading this line.  And I need to state my 
    observations.
    
    To give you all my background.  I am a Christian (by Romans 10: 9-10
    standards).  I am also a card carrying Democrat.  And a former 
    card carrying member of NOW.  And those who know me would consider
    me on the side of having a STRONG personality.
    
    Having seen first hand how marriage relationships have changed for 
    the positive due to the husband trying to follow the goals of 
    Promise Keepers, I am excited for the future of male-female 
    relationships.
    
    The positive results I have observed are with relationships where 
    the word 'submission' is not viewed as 'being beaten into submission'
    but in the way of 'I retain my God-given strength, intelligence, and 
    ability to makes choices, but in this case I chose to go along with your 
    decision'.  (Remember the scriptures say we are also to submit to 
    one another...) 
    
    Most of my female friends are very strong physically, emotionally, 
    and spiritually.  And I have seen many cases where, when a man is 
    in a relationship with such a person, it is easy to let the woman
    'take over' in many areas (or be forced to take over to keep body 
    and soul together).  And I have seen as many cases where there
    is ultimately terrible friction because the woman has taken over 
    certain duties that the man relinquished, then he subsequently became 
    angry, hurt, etc. because he is 'no longer in control'.  (Read:  the 
    classic 'hen-pecked man, over-bearing woman' syndrome.)   
    
    No thanks, I was in a marriage like that.  I didn't like the image
    that was being forced on me.  And it was not fun.
    
    I think it is great that men are being encouraged to be at least 
    equal partners in the marriage relationship and leaders in their 
    family.  Not part-time long-distance silent partners while things
    are going well and snipey, whiny, or abusive partners when things
    are not going well.
    
    Yes, there are going to be those who over-react to the PK statutes. 
    But, these statutes are to be approached prayerfully.  And hopefully
    many of the men involved in PK will have a support group to coach 
    him to use these statutes and react and do as Christ would have done
    in the same situation.  (And that is a reasonable expectation since 
    as Christians we are to be Christlike in all that we do.)
    
    Ciao. 
    
    Mary Jo 

Z    It's possible for a man and a woman to stay happily married without the
Z    man being dominant over the woman. 
    
    This is true....but I never said the above.  Why is there a propensity
    in this conference to misuse the English language to further an agenda?
    
    There is a sincere confusion between leadership and dominance.  I never
    used the word dominance as it is not appropriate in the context of
    spiritual leadership.
    
    -Jack

OK, Jack, if you want to quibble over language, I'll restate it: It's
possible for a man and a woman to stay happily married without the man
having spiritual leadership over the woman.

				-- Bob

    Bob:
    
    How about this.  It's possible for a man and a woman to stay happily
    married without the man setting the spiritual tone over the family.
    
    Big difference.  You mentioned woman I mentioned family.  Furthermore, 
    rhetoric is important in this conference because the wrong use of it
    can misrepresent the views expressed and fall into the biases of those
    who don't understand the VAST difference between dominance and
    leadership.
    
    -Jack

    	re .19
    
    	Anything is possible.
    
    	re .17
    
    	Thanks, Mary Jo!  Good to see you!
    
    	Joe

    
    
    Hi Folks,
    
    I think its very important for all to understand that the context of the
    Promise Keepers agenda is biblical Christianity and truths revealed
    there concerning the male/female relationship.  
    
    It is predictable in our era that non-Christians will criticise biblical 
    truth.  It is predictable that those who call themselves Christians but
    reject orthodoxy will criticise biblical truth.
    
    I would like to see (sorry if I missed it) the Promise Keepers program
    entered here from an official source.
    
    jeff

    
    Oh.  I need to add that the Promise Keepers is not only about
    male/female relationship but many other areas of importance to
    Christians.
    
    jeff

Hi Jeff,

Just curious, but:

>    It is predictable in our era that non-Christians will criticise biblical 
>    truth.  It is predictable that those who call themselves Christians but
>    reject orthodoxy will criticise biblical truth.

Do you or would you call them Christians, as well?

TTom

    
    Rather than ignore your question, Andreas, let me request that we try to 
    stay on topic here ;).
    
    jeff

jack, i think the thought of one partner in the marriage taking on 
the spiritual leadership (with the consent of the other partner),
is really interesting and well worth exploring.

i think the idea that the man should always take on this role of
spiritual leadership is unrealistic though. reason suggests that at 
least half of all women are more suitable for this role and that half
of all men are unsuitable for the role.

i am sure the predisposition to spirituality can both be a given
and can also be learned or promoted through tradition or social
conditioning.

my background is very similar to the one you have (.6) and in my
family it is mainly the women (mother, sisters, sisters-in-law) who
take/are given the role of spiritual leaders.

you have used different terms to describe the role. setting the 
spiritual 'tone' was one. i prefer this term to 'leadership' which 
lacks the idea of an equal grounding, something which i consider most 
central to marriage.



andreas.

come again, jeff???!  %-}


andreas.
;-)

   <<< Note 1121.26 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>i think the idea that the man should always take on this role of
>spiritual leadership is unrealistic though. 
    
    	I realize one of the problems we're having here (and in
    	other discussions.)
    
    	P-K is promoting an ideal.  So are other moral/behavioral
    	discussions like divorce, single-parenthood, etc.  We know
    	that there are going to be exceptions.  What we have to
    	avoid is defining ideals based on the exception case.
    	(Perhaps you may disagree with my belief that ideals are
    	good things...)
    
>reason suggests that at 
>least half of all women are more suitable for this role and that half
>of all men are unsuitable for the role.
    
    	I don't follow that reasoning.  At best I see it as a male
    	cop-out as corrently described above.  I would expect that
    	most men *and* most women are CAPABLE of spiritual leadership.
    	From a biblical perspective Christians are called to allow
    	the male to take that responsibility.  But that doesn't mean
    	dominance or being boss, for at the same time Ephesians 5:21
    	compels us to submit to each other in all things.

    
    
    
	"From a biblical perspective Christians are called to allow
    	the male to take that responsibility.  But that doesn't mean
    	dominance or being boss "
    
    
    
    
    

    Okay, how many here have been to a Promise Keepers gathering?
    
    Richard
    

    	Unfortunately I have not yet.  I wanted to go to this last
    	one, but surgery the day before prevented that.
    
    	I know many men of various Christian denominations who have
    	gone, including the Pastor of my church.  All refute the 
    	allegations I've seen leveled against PromiseKeepers -- and 
    	I've seen allegations raised not only by the more liberal 
    	folks as demonstrated in this topic, but by some of the most 
    	fundamentalist people as well.  The men I know refute these 
    	allegations both in their words about PromiseKeepers, and 
    	through the way they live out their lives.

For Promise Keepers on the Web:

http://www.primenet.com/~jsavin/pkhome.htm

http://www.whitedove.com/PK/index.html

    From the back of their conference pamphlet:
    
    Seven Promises of PromiseKeepers:
    
    -A promise keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through
    worship, prayer, and obedience to His Word through the power of the
    Holy Spirit.
    
    -Is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men,
    understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.
    
    -Is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual
    purity.
    
    -Is committed to building strong marriages and families through love,
    protection, and biblical values.
    
    -Is committed to supporting the mission of the church by honoring and
    praying for their pastor and by actively giving his time and resources.
    
    -Is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers
    to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.
    
    - Is committed to influencing the world, being obedient to the great
    commission, and the great commandment (Mark 12: 30-31)
    
    
    Richard, based on this, what would "Cry for Renewal" have to offer that
    the PromiseKeepers couldn't offer?
    
    -Jack

        Promise keepers offers me Nothing positive!

    Promise keepers takes a real need, i.e. the need for men to bond with
    other men and be more relational and more committed to spiritual,
    moral, family values and perverts that need through brainwashing into a
    reactionary movement against women.

    By wrapping up all of its reactionary chauvinism into secular/religious
    religious authority.  i.e. Go back and put your women into there
    places for the survival of your culture!.

    Nazism too appealed to real needs of the masses.  Nazism too appealed
    to "the God given Superiority" of the Aryan race"
    
    It is probably a great idea for men to be active in the religious life
     of the family.   It is an awful idea to not recognize that men and
    women as teams should be inspiring the religious orientation of the
    family.  With both woman and man, playing the role that each is
    comfortable with.  With children having the benefit of seeing mother and
    father as two equal strong individuals incorporating the religous and
    spiritual values into every day life.
    
    

    >  reactionary movement against women.  
    
    ????
    
    That's quite a twist. 

 Amazing...

    Patricia:
    
    You believe that only beacause you want to believe that.  You have
    continually equated the phrase Spiritual leadership with dominance and
    oppression simply because you fail to recognize the benefits of it.
    
    -Jack

    Tom:
    
    Too late....gotcha!! :-)
    
    Spiritual Leadership as I have learned is not a PC thing to say in
    todays society.
    
    Setting a Spiritual tone in the family is the responsibility of the
    father.  
    
    -Jack

    
    Thanks for entering that, Jack.
    
    jeff

    
    In the past, I have had a problem with the term 'leadership'.   
    
    I had to deal with a couple of folks from my former church who would
    discourage individuals from helping on the basis that 'this type 
    of person should not be in a leadership role'.  They were equating
    leadership with dominance. 
    
    Well, this started my research on just what 'leadership' means. 
    
    Christ demonstrated his 'leadership' by being the greatest servant 
    of all.  My current pastor exercises his leadership of our little 
    congregation by being a servant to all of us.  My former pastor 
    exercised his leadership of his family by being a servant to his 
    wife and children.  (In fact, he and his wife kind of had this 
    friendly contest of who could out serve the other--what a relationship
    they have!)
    
    I still haven't resolved the question of when leadership becomes 
    serving or serving becomes leadership. 
    
    Mary Jo 

    Mary Jo,
    
    When a person in an authority position, decides not to use that
    authority in order to inspire better action from those in subordinate
    positions, then that can be seen as real leadership.
    
    When a person who thinks he is in an authority position, tells a person
    that he thinks is in a "helpmate" position that she can exercise her
    leadership by serving, then he is dominating that person.
    
    When three men, Jack, Jeff, and Jim, tell a women that she should
    accept the spiritual leadership of men, and when one or more of them
    imply that there is something lacking in the woman for not seeing
    spiritual leadership for what it is, that is an attempt at oppressive
    behavoir from the men, and an attempt to enlist the woman as an
    accomplice in her own oppression.
    
    It is referred to sociologically as Male dominance and female
    complicity in her own subordination.
    
    If the men who were making the claim that men should go home and assert
    their spiritual leadership in the family really thought that spiritual
    leadership could be accomplished in the form of service, then why would
    the men not be told to go home and serve the family!
    
    Taking a servant role for oneself as Jesus did, can be a real inspiring
    example of leadership.
    
    Insisting that someone else fulfill a servant role, is domination and
    oppression.
    
                              Patricia

re Note 1121.40 by CSC32::HOEPNER:

>     Christ demonstrated his 'leadership' by being the greatest servant 
>     of all.  My current pastor exercises his leadership of our little 
>     congregation by being a servant to all of us.  My former pastor 
>     exercised his leadership of his family by being a servant to his 
>     wife and children.  

        Perhaps part of the problem is with Christians using the
        world's term "leadership" when they mean something quite
        different from the what the world means by "leadership".

        No doubt if Christians proclaimed that the husband is to be
        the servant of the wife, the objections, if any, would come
        from a different quarter. :-}

        Bob

    Patricia:
    
    In your mind, what methods of domination or oppression take place when
    a man is practicing his role as spiritual leader in his family?
    
    I already mentioned the things I do, i.e. do the dishes, bathe the
    children, clean the house, lead devotionals for the family, etc.  In
    what ways do other men propogate their spiritual leadership over their
    spouses that I am apparently missing here?
    
    -Jack

    
    Patricia, 
    
    Thank you for your thoughts on this.  I understand what you are saying. 
    
    And I think I understand a little more about your frame of reference.
    I think where my frame of reference is different than yours is 
    demonstrated by your sentence:  "those in subordinate positions, 
    then that can be seen as real leadership."
    
    I tend to look at leadership in a couple of levels.  One is where I 
    observe leadership among peers, i.e., on my team at work.  We are 
    not subordinate to one another, except to our manager.  Yet we have
    some 'de facto' leaders.  Some are leaders in their areas because 
    of their expertise in that area.  Some are leaders purely by example
    and we choose to follow the example.   Another case of leadership
    is in the orchestra in which I play.  Depending on the week, we have
    a different 'leader'.  We are not really subordinate to that person.
    We just need to have one person coordinating our activities--which 
    pieces to play in which order, when to start, when to finish, etc.
    
    Then there is the leadership due to rank or 'position'.  (I.E., 
    our manager at work, or our district manager). 
    
    My first inclination when I hear the term 'leadership' is to think
    in terms of the first example.  Probably because I work in a team 
    environment where leaders emerge by necessity due to the business. 
    And because I have played in orchestras and sung in choruses all 
    my life.
    
    Thanks. 
    
    Mary Jo   

    Mary Jo,
    
    And I agree with that definition of leadership.  It is what I think of
    as a feminist definition of leadership.  Everybody has a part and does
    there part.  Different people will rise at different times to lead a
    particular effort.  Or leadership will rotate giving many people a
    chance to lead.  Leadership among peers.
    
    The other example, i.e. the manager, is hierarchical leadership.  By
    some means, one person is appointed to lead others.  The others are
    appointed to follow.  I would like to dream of a world where we could
    eliminate most of the need for hierarchical leadership but that may
    never come about.  But if we need hierarchical leadership.  i.e. some
    to lead and the rest to follow, then the leader should be the one most 
    qualified to be leader.   Promise makers indoctrinates that God expects
    the men to be the spiritual leaders and therefore they need to go home
    and tell their wifes that they are taking over as spiritual leader. 
    The wife by definition takes over as spiritual follower.  Thus
    leadership in the family is asigned soley by gender.
    
    And we have already seen, when there is a world in which the leader of
    each family is the man, other institutions mirror that and women are
    excluded from all areas of leadership.  They don't vote, they don't own 
    property, they don't go to college.  
    
    That is what I oppose.
    
    
    Patricia

    
    You've done quite a stretch there, Patricia.  From male spiritual
    leadership in the home what follows is women who don't vote, go to
    college or whatever else.  This is really silly!
    
    jeff

    >.   Promise makers indoctrinates that God expects
    >the men to be the spiritual leaders and therefore they need to go home
    >and tell their wifes that they are taking over as spiritual leader. 


     Yep.  And they are issued official souvenier "Promise Keeper Klubs" to
     symbolize their takeover as spiritual leader, just in case the little
     lady refuses to go along.




    Jim    








    And we have already seen, when there is a world in which the leader of
    each family is the man, other institutions mirror that and women are
    excluded from all areas of leadership.  They don't vote, they don't own 
    property, they don't go to college.  
    
    That is what I oppose.
    
    
    Patricia

    
    Patricia, 
    
    Thank you for your discussion on this.  I appreciate it. 
    
    The first definition, I believe, is not limited to feminism.  I believe
    it is utilized in most circles that believe that all people are of 
    comparable worth (..."there is neither ... slave nor free, male 
    nor female...").
    
    I really can't answer if PK demands a hierarchial type of leadership
    in this case.  I suspect it does not.  I suspect in most cases, 
    the spiritual leadership can and will be a 'leadership by example'.
    (And believe me, I pray that it does.)
    
    Case in point:  Last year I carpooled with a good Christian brother
    (90 miles one way).  We had to be at work at 7:00 a.m.  This required
    meeting a 5:40 a.m. to get there in time.  For both of us, this meant
    getting up by 4:30 or so.  And it also meant getting home anywhere 
    from 6:30 to 8:00 any night.  This cut into both of our time with 
    the Lord.  And for him, it severely cut into his time with his family
    as well. 
    
    In order to not cut into his valuable family time, he started getting
    up at 3:45 to pray and do his Bible study.  He quietly went to his 
    home office to do this because he didn't want to wake up his wife at
    such an early hour.  However, within a couple of days, his wife decided
    to join him during this time.  So, they ended up praying together and 
    studying together.  They both reported that it was a special time for
    each of them.  And it helped equip both of them for what they had to 
    face during the day.  
    
    In this case, one could say Bill exhibited spiritual leadership on a 
    leadership by example method.  
    
    I suspect what PK is trying to avoid is the old syndrome of Mom and 
    the kids going off to church on Sunday morning while Dad goes to the 
    golf course, leaving the 'church stuff' up to Mom (as long as Sunday
    dinner is on the table on time). 
    
    Ciao. 
    
    Mary Jo 

 re .48

    Patricia:
    
    My apologies for my lack of communication.  For some reason Mary Jo is
    echoing my sentiments here and for some reason you appear less
    threatened by her methods than my own.
    
    -Jack

Re: .48 Mary Jo

OK, at least now we have an example of what is meant by "spritual
leadership".

What if the story were turned around: the wife had to leave for work early
each morning, so she got up earlier in order to have time for prayer and
Bible study. The husband decided to get up earlier too so that he could
pray with his wife.

Would this be inappropriate according to the Promise Keepers because the
man is supposed to be the spiritual leader?

In other words, is it OK for *both* the husband and the wife to be
spiritual leaders, or is it only OK for the husband to be the spiritual
leader?

				-- Bob

    
    RE:  .51
    
    That is a scary thought!  If PK would consider that to be wrong, 
    I would be the first to pitch a fit. 
    
    I honestly don't know.  For this, I would use my standard way of 
    resolving something I don't have a clue about--"What would Christ
    do or say in this situation?"  Since he didn't rebuke Mary for 
    sitting at his feet rather than tending to standard "women's work" 
    like Martha, I suspect he would not criticize the women in this case. 
    
    These questions are really good.  It sure does cause me to do some 
    thinking.  If ideas can't stand the light of day, there is a problem...
    
    ;-}
    
    Ciao. 
    
    Mary Jo  

    	What a sad thing I see here.
    
    	We sit here fighting over political terms and deciding who
    	should/must/can't be the "spiritual leaders" of the family
    	as if we have some control over what Ken and Barbie up in
    	North Dakota are going to to raise their families.
    
    	I sat in church last Sunday and saw that fully a third of all
    	the families there had the mom there, but no father.  I know
    	some of those families.  They are either fatherless at church
    	because they are also fatherless at home (divorce), or else dad
    	simply can't be bothered coming to church with them.
    
    	We're debating "spiritual leadership" in this conference as if
    	it involves a whip and a fist, where in reality something like
    	Promise Keepers was created in response to religious/social
    	phenomenon we now have where the fathers are spiritual and
    	moral DEAD WEIGHT in the families.
    
    	Far too many fathers are dead weight, and the trend grows.
    	Trying to form the discussion of Promise Keepers around the 
    	concept of dominance and lording is unfair.  It is an unfair 
    	depiction of the goals of Promise Keepers, and it is unfair 
    	to this society to allow the dead weight to continue to 
    	flourish and multiply as it currently is.

    	BTW, my church, Holy Apostles Catholic Church in Colorado Springs,
    	is in the midst of a 4-week focus on violence.  On Sunday Aug 20
    	our pastor will be looking at Promise Keepers in this light.  If
    	you are local to Colorado Springs and want to attend, the services
    	are at 7:30AM, 9AM and 11:30AM.  Also Saturday 8/19 at 5:30PM.

    Realize something Joe.  Psychologically, it is a human trend to
    automatically shut off anyone to whom you might have a vendetta
    against.  If Dobson started a program that fed poor children in every
    major city in the country...and it was a tremendous success, he would
    still be railed against because of his lack of tolerance in other
    areas.  It's a no win situation.
    
    -Jack

 As long as it's Christian and as long as it involves men, it must be suspect,
 evidence to the contrary be damned!




Jim

    Jim, as I stated in Womanotes.
    
      Real life August 1995 examples of the Bible
    being misused as a tool of oppression against women leads me to be
    suspicious of a huge gathering of "Christian" men being told to go back
    home and take control.
    
"Isaiah 3:12  As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule 
    over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and 
    destroy the way of thy paths."

         <<< Note 1121.57 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>                    -< example of oppressive use of Bible >-
>
>    suspicious of a huge gathering of "Christian" men being told to go back
>    home and take control.

	Where do you see that these men are being told this?  The
	PROMISES listed in .33 are the goals of Promise Keepers.  It
	is the banner.  The statement of purpose.  The charter.  Where
	is your concern supported in that?

	Furthermore, did you not read what I wrote in .53?  Can you
	propose a better idea to address that issue?

    We could let the dead weights die on their own accord!
    
    Or we could insist that the dead weights be made king!
    
    Actually we could even deify them!

         <<< Note 1121.59 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    We could let the dead weights die on their own accord!
    
    	The problem is that as an anchor, they are often the cause of
    	the rest of the ship going nowhere (if not causing it to
    	capsize altogether.)
    
>    Or we could insist that the dead weights be made king!
>    
>    Actually we could even deify them!
    
    	Come on, Patricia.  I'm not attacking you here.  I'm asking
    	serious questions, and I'd appreciate a serious answer --
    	preferrably without the taint of defensive posturing.
    
    	Again, where is your view supported in the Promise Keepers'
    	promises as entered in .33?
    
    	And how do you propose that the dead wood be addressed?  
    	Maybe more simply, do you thing that Promise Keepers is
    	a way to address the dead wood?

    
    re .59

    > We could let the dead weights die on their own accord!

    Maybe it's just that I'm a sensitive '90s kind of guy, but this hurts.
    This sounds a little too close to Scrooge's sentiments that the poor
    should die quickly and cease to be a burden, for my comfort. Or maybe
    it just hits a little too close to home. 

    Let's assume for a moment that men who are spiritual or emotional "dead
    weights" to their families are not by and large drunken brutes. [Not
    that you said this, I'm just supposin'] Let's assume they're merely
    detached and unsupportive. The Promise Keepers notwithstanding, I
    would hope that encouraging such a man to get closer to God, to
    re-examine and take seriously his marriage vows, and to be a full
    participant in his family's spiritual and emotional needs would be
    preferred over letting the man "die of [his] own accord."

    > Or we could insist that the dead weights be made king!
    > 
    > Actually we could even deify them!

    While Promise Keepers may suggest that having male genitalia is a
    divine calling to spiritual leadership over all females, bar none,
    certainly you can come up with a better solution to a husband/father in
    spiritual/emotional need than to jettison him from the family?

    	Eric

    I would venture to say that a man who was dead weight and came back
    home one day...apologizing to his family and commiting himself to the
    precepts of the promisekeepers (Integrity, Purity, Character, and
    devoted to Gods Word), would be an oasis to any spouse who had to deal
    with him over the years.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1121.33 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Seven Promises of PromiseKeepers:
  
        I find nothing objectionable in these promises -- in fact
        they are quite laudable.

        Unfortunately, so much of religion becomes intertwined with
        politics that it may be true that the politics of the PK
        leadership sends a message of its own.  (I have no personal
        knowledge of the PK, however.)
          
        Bob

    Eric,
    
    My reaction was a knee jerk reaction and I am sorry if it hurt.  I do
    understand that the reality of the situation is that it will be men
    from very conservative protestant churches that go to promise keepers,
    and if they are married, their wifes probably also believe that the man
    should be the leader of the family.
    
    I am more concerned about the politics of the organization as one more
    arm of the religious right with a potential to impact how I am able to
    live my life.  We are all connected in an interdependent web.
    
    I do know what it feels like to be emotionally and spiritually dead. 
    My solution has been to work with recovery groups and with Rowe, a
    Unitarian/Universalist Camp and conference center that runs week long
    spiritual retreats.  I am a strong advocate of men's groups and women's
    groups.  I do believe that men and women do experience the world
    differently and do have different issues that we have to work on.  I
    believe that a lot of the power of these groups is in the groups then
    coming together to share in the learnings.
    
    From the mixed retreat groups, the men are actually encouraged to give
    up some of the power and control they automatically get from being men,
    and often bigger, stronger, taller, louder, and more often capable of
    using Male anger as an effective tool to get what they want.  They are
    absolutely encouraged to touch their own vulnerability and to be
    trusting enough to stop hiding the vulnerability.
    
    I also believe that spiritual community is a very important and very
    powerful need of everybody.  Within my concept of community is the idea
    of love and trust.  Where people really are nurtured and cared for. 
    Where each person can be who they are in all there different moments of
    life.  Since religious community is powerful, I do fear that the
    religious right could use that powerful energy of thousands of people
    coming together in religious community, to brainwash those who come
    together, and to enact their social agenda.  If you create a informal
    association of churches where all, most, or a large number of men have
    had this experience, then the family structure identified by the
    leaders of the movement become firmly ingrained in the life of the
    churches and all the members of the churches.  The good and the bad of
    the structure established by the leadership becomes institutionalized.
    
    So I do see lots of alternatives for those who are spiritually and
    emotionally ailing as all of us are at some times in our lifes.
    
    I see, the twelve step programs, the recovery movement, men's groups
    and women's groups, and individual faith communities as part of the
    solution.
    
    I fear Mass organizations pumping up thousands of people and then
    actively endeavor to change the family structure of American life.  A
    vivid biblical image for me is what it must have been like to be one of
    King David's or King Solomon's many wifes or mistresses.  David and
    Solomon are both looked upon as spiritual leaders.  The Epitome of
    spiritual leaders, actually.
    
    

 Promisekeeperphobia?

    I see some still don't understand Biblical masculinism.  
    
    All we need now from PK is for them to adopt stances on Biblical doctrine.

    Some of us understand Biblical masculism all too well!
    
    

    Would you care to share some of your personal experiences so we can
    better relate and perhaps empathize more with your statement?!  I know
    I would personally appreciate anything you had to say.
    
    -Jack

    >    Some of us understand Biblical masculism all too well!
    
    you'll have to introduce us to them the next time they come in here.

    
    
    
    
    
    
    If these quotes are fair quotes about Promise Keepers, then I still
    abhor a group that recruits mostly white men and then tells them to go
    home and establish Male Spiritual Dominance in the household.
    
    The only open question is to what degree, that is the goal of the
    organization.  It is also interesting to note that this is an
    established organization with a well defined set of goals.
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1121.0                      Promise Keepers                      69 replies
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10"                        40 lines   2-AUG-1995 19:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know all there is to know about Promise Keepers, but these things
I do know:

o  Promise Keepers was founded by Bill McCartney, former University of
   College football coach and board member of CFV, [sic] Colorado for
   Family Values.  CFV is the architect of Colorado's suppressive
   Amendment 2 (See Note 91.844).

o  Promise Keepers is a homogamous organization in that it is made up
   entirely of adult members of the same sex = male.  Founder Bill
   McCartney's aim in 1990 was to fill a sports stadium with Christian
   men to indoctrinate and exhort.  The following year McCartney attracted
   4,200 men to gather in a basketball arena.  22,000 men came to Boulder's
   Folsom Stadium in 1992; 50,000 men in 1993.  Promise Keepers filled no
   less than six stadiums in 1994, the largest being the Hoosier Dome in
   Indianapolis, drawing 62,000 men.  The only women present were custodians
   and concession stand workers.

o  The manifesto of the movement is "Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper,"
   which is published for the group by James Dobson's Focus on the Family.
   In one of the contributing essays, evangelist Tony Brown explains how
   a man is to deal with his female mate:  "I can hear you saying, 'I want
   to be a spiritual man.  Where do I start?'  The first thing you do,"
   Brown explains, "is sit down with your wife and say something like this:
   'Honey, I've made a terrible mistake.  I've given you my role.  I gave up
   leading this family, and I forced you to take my place.  Now I must
   reclaim my role.'  Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.  I'm
   not suggesting you ask for your role back.  I'm urging you to take it
   back" (Emphasis in the original).  There is to be no compromise on
   authority and women should submit for "the survival of our culture."

o  It is growing and it is growing rapidly.  Promise Keepers may be the
   strongest, most organized effort to capitalize on male basklash in the
   U.S. today.  The national staff has grown from a handful to 150 with
   an annual budget of $22 million in just a few years.

Shalom,
Richard

 ZZ   then I still
 ZZ   abhor a group that recruits mostly white men and then tells them to
 ZZ   go home and establish Male Spiritual Dominance in the household.
    
    And the million man march???
    
    I look forward to your answer!
    
    -Jack

    In the March on Washington I  have not seen any reference to the men being
     told to go home and establish Male dominance over their wifes.!
    
    I think there is a need for women to get together alone as a group of
    women and for men to get together alone as a group of men.  The goal
    however is to promote equality of all people not to promote the
    dominance of one group over the other.

    I didn't know PK only recruited white men.  I guess I better tell my
    minority friends to stop attending because they're not white too
    (instead of the basic reasons of PK's non-doctrinal stance).

A Tenet of PK:
    
ZZ    -Is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational
ZZ    barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.    
    
    People either didn't see this or she doesn't believe it!
    
    -Jack
    

.73

>    I didn't know PK only recruited white men.

I think if you check .70 you'll see Patricia used the word "mostly," not "only."

As far as I know, Promise Keepers does accept men (in the specific, not the
generic sense) of all races.
    
Richard
    

I have been to the PromiseKeeper conference in Boulder, CO for the last three
years. I have never heard anything like "telling them to go home and establish
Male Spiritual Dominance in the household." Bill McCartney's examples are more
like Jack's description of spiritual leadership. Neither does the organization
"recruit" white males. In fact the opposite is the case. They and the small
groups that meet weekly all year long actively promote relationships between
whites, blacks, hispanics.

Leonard

    Leonard:
    
    There is no question that male dominance does take place in certain
    cultures and even in our own culture throughout history.  I do not want
    to belittle this point.  It is a valid one and needs to be addressed 
    within Christian circles so that married couples can indeed honor God
    in their lives.  We are commanded in scripture to hold our spouses in
    "High regard" or high esteem.
    
    What I grow weary of or annoyed at is a twofold problem.  The first is
    that there is this double standard going on in our society and hence
    critical thinking has once again gone down the perverbial chute.  In
    the context of PK and the march, it would appear that once again...EVEN
    though the purposes are the same, encouraging men to build strong
    families, go back to their responsibilities, builkd their
    communities...all parellel with one another, the Farrakhan meeting was
    a good thing, oppressed men who have been oppressed all their lives 
    and are uniting together in common cause to overcome their strife and 
    displacement in the world.  The Boulder City meeting you went to,
    however, was a meeting of white men...white men only by the way
    according to alot of miserably uninformed individuals, who are uniting
    together in order to devise ways of oppressing their wives, their
    children and other family members.  
    
    I submit to you that these people are the worst kind of racist.  How
    DARE they assume the Harvard law professor at the March is perpetually
    oppressed.  How DARE they assume that PK is White only after the tenets
    of PK have been clearly spelled out.  The whole thing is just nonsensical
    diatribe and isn't even worthy of reply.
    
    The second problem actually ties in to the first.  In my logic class in
    college, we did a two week session on "The Fallacies".  Very
    interesting learning.  One of the fallacies is called an Equivocation,
    something done quite a bit in our society.  A few examples...
    
    	There are stars in space.
    	There is space in my trunk
    	Therefore, there are stars in my trunk
    	---------------------------------
    	Gentiles murdered 6 million Jews in Europe
    	Christians are gentiles
    	Therefore, Christians killed 6 million Jews in Europe
    	-----------------------------------------------------
    
    It's a convenient way of making an argument but as you can see, it is
    based on completely faulty reasoning.  Now consider the following.
    
    	Leaders of history have been oppressive.
    	Christian men are called to spiritual leadership,
    	Therefore men who are called to spiritual leadership are
    	oppressive.
    
    A classic faulty reasoning on the part of those who fault organizations
    like the Promise keepers.  They base their logic on faulty reasoning, 
    live by that faulty reasoning, and nothing on earth will convince them 
    that they are commiting faulty reasoning...NOTHING!
    
    -Jack

    STating that men should be the spiritual leaders in the home is sexist,
    reactionary, wrong, and part of the systemic evil of oppression.
    
    I do not and will not equivocate on that.
    
    An organized effort to bring men together and keep them organized after
    the fact to teach them how to be spiritual leaders is a hell of a lot
    different than a spontaneous gathering no matter how much you insist it
    is the same thing.
    
    I do not support Farraknan or his ideas.  I do support the hopes and
    dreams of the million black men and the smaller number of women who
    attended the March.  
    
    The Civil Rights movement in this country badly needs rekindling!  

    ZZ    The Civil Rights movement in this country badly needs rekindling!  
    
    Men as spiritual leaders in the home needs rekindling badly.  I cannot
    equivocate on that.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Men as spiritual leaders in the home needs rekindling badly.

    But there is ambiguity in this statement. I would say we need to
    rekindle the male role as *a* spiritual leader (something I hope
    Patricia wouldn't have a problem with), but you say the male should be
    *the* spiritual leader. One can read the above statement either way.

    Eric

ZZ     but you say the male should be
ZZ     *the* spiritual leader. One can read the above statement either way.
    
    Actually, I stand by what I said.  I believe scripture supports this
    belief that the male should be THE spiritual leader in the family.
    Feet washing is required.
    
    I can understand Patricia disagreeing with this notion considering she
    believes the Bible is loaded with errors.  That would only make sense.
    
    -Jack

    Or encouraging men to get in touch with their spirituality, I am sure
    would not be a problem.
    
    meg

    Jack,
    
    Your quoting scriptural support for Male only leadership just points
    out to me and others exactly how the scripture is misused to place one
    group of people over another group of people.
    
    No matter how make it sound sweet and nice for the women, it is still
    male oppression.
    
    You are very specifically using scripture as a tool to support all male
    leadership!
    
    I strongly object to using scripture in that way!

    If you choose to look at it that way then I believe your entitled to
    that opinion.
    
    ZZ    to place one
    ZZ    group of people over another group of people.
    
    This paradigm will unfortunately never be broken.  If God came from
    Heaven and proclaimed this to you personally, you would still look at
    it as a "I'm the boss, you're subservient" issue.
    
    If you can't grasp the concept that spiritual leadership is by majority
    an exercise in foot washing, then you will never grasp what spiritual
    leadership is all about!
    
    -Jack

    >    I strongly object to using scripture in that way!
    
    Why?  I thought you didn't value it as truth?!

    Right.  Why not just resolved in your mind that this part of scripture
    is forges, fallacious, uninspired, whatever!

    Jack,
    
    I have resolved in my mind that those sections are scripture are from
    men and not from God.
    
    That is why I object to your using what I consider holy as a tool to
    place women under the spiritual leadership of men.
    
    I don't really care how you define spiritual leadership.  I care that
    you define spiritual leadership as something for men and not for women.
    
    I also accept that God hated Esau as coming from humans and not from
    God.
    
    There are many examples of human frailites finding there way into the
    sacred scriptures.

    Isn't it sort of schizophrenic to consider a tool holy, but then ignore
    most of what it says?

ZZ    I have resolved in my mind that those sections are scripture are
ZZ    from men and not from God.
        
ZZ    That is why I object to your using what I consider holy 
    
    These two statements contradict each other.  
    
    And by the way, I know you don't care how I define spiritual
    leadership.  I do care, however, how you define spiritual leadership.
    For example, the idea of you encouraging somebody who doesn't even
    believe in God to lead a flock is probably the most proposterous thing
    I've seen in my three years of noting with you.  
    
    I am intent on making sure these types of suggestions don't go
    unanswered.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Truth is pretty powerful!
    
    Keep noting.  It helps me make my point!

    	Damnit, Patricia, this is a Christian perspective too!

    I fail to see where Patricia is ignoring the book, she is, however
    looking at portions that were written my men and seeing their cultural
    biases also coming through.  Anything less seems to me as idolizing the
    bible, and it seems to me there was a prohibition against worshipping
    things made by people, rather than the creator.
    
    Accepting the book as god-inspired, rather than god breathed avoids
    falling into the trap of idolizing a book, and the contradicitons
    regarding automatic writing and channeling IMO.
    
    meg

  I feel caught in the middle of all this. On the one hand, I see more
  evidence for mutual submission between husband and wife, and coming
  to agreement than I see for "headship" of the husband, or even "headship
  of all men in the church". I'm not sure why spirituality needs a leader
  in the home, but do think that at times one spouse may be walking closer 
  to God and better able to foster and promote shalom bayit (a peaceful, 
  God centered, whole & healthy home), and at times the other spouse may be 
  in that position.

  On the other hand, I think many men have remained aloof or distanced
  themselves from their personal spiritual needs, from their own spirituality,
  from God and from the spiritual lives and needs of their families. 
  Encouraging them to move closer to God, and closer to their families in 
  these areas, to live out their faith more visibly to their wives and 
  children is a good thing in my opinion. I think it is important for men
  to participate in the nurturing and guiding of their children. Too many
  have been made to feel that this is not part of the father's role, that
  the father is provider and disciplinarian only.

  I don't think of my husband as my spiritual leader, but as my marital
  partner. Together we work for ways to exhibit our faith in our home
  and our lives, and to share our knowledge of God with our children. Many
  times I do let him take the lead in family discussions, but there have
  times when I have suggested we do something, or led the family discussion.
  I do not wait to get his okay or permission to pray with the children,
  talk to them about God, read the Bible with them or anything like that.
  But I also do not try to take his place, out-speak him or anything like 
  that. When we are in a group, I listen to him and allow him to speak. He 
  does the same for me (admittedly, I think I do more listening & he does
  more speaking). We listen to the kids too. I do think he sometimes
  across more forcefully than I do though.  But in the end, neither one of 
  us is worried about being in control because we trust one another. We have 
  the same goals so its easier than in some families. 

  I think many men are unaware of the negative things that are projected
  to women by some of the things they say, even when they think they are 
  being wonderfully thoughtful, objective and fair. I have a book from way 
  back when that is some Reverend or other's treatise on women. Although 
  he says things much more blatantly than many men do today, there is a
  legacy from his day that still comes through much of the rhetoric about 
  women having a second-position in church, home, and community. I'll put 
  in a few quotes so you can see what I mean. His statements are so obvious, 
  that the misogyny is easier to recognize.

  Clay McClean (sp?) is a wonderful Christian speaker who did a great tape
  series on women's and men's relationship. He is much more pro-women than 
  many, many Christian speakers, but I think he gives a balanced view and is 
  careful to avoid over-stepping boundries and swinging too much to the other
  view. He remains fair to his own gender as well being sympathetic to women.

  Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    Do you believe that the Bible says that men should be the Leader of the
    family.
    
    If so, how do you reconcile that belief with what you believe regarding
    the mutuality of the partnership between women and men?
    
                                          Patricia

    .85 & .86
    
    Something may or may not be factual and still be true.  Is this
    difficult to understand?
    
    Richard
    

    Re: .95
    
    no such thing as a false truth.

    .96
    
    I didn't say there was.
    
    Richard
    

    Okay, give me an example of something that's not factual but still
    true.

    re: .92
    
    The Bible disagrees with your interpretation (god-inspired v.
    god-breathed).  I forget the exact passage, but there is a passage that
    states all scriptures are god-breathed, and useful for teaching,
    reproof, etc...
    
    
    -steve

    Snarf-keepers..

    1st or 2nd Timothy 3:16.  Going back to the original greek, the
    reference is God Breathed!
    
    -Jack

    I would not put much stake in a volume of scripture that would not have
    been included in the Canon if the human church fathers had not mistaken
    the author of the book.
    
                                    Patricia

    
    Given for the sake of argument that the Bible is the God-breathed,
    literal word of God, there is still the human element of THE READERS!

    Is the first creation story in Genesis's purpose to explain how many
    days it took God to make the world and that God fatigued (omnipotent?)? 
    Or is the message that God made everything?

    In the second story, is the message that God made Adam and Eve only and
    the rest of us are direct descendants?  Or is it that we were once
    together with God, but are now separate and that apartness from God is
    the source of our struggle?
    
    

ZZ    Is the first creation story in Genesis's purpose to explain how
ZZ    many days it took God to make the world and that God fatigued
ZZ    (omnipotent?)? Or is the message that God made everything?
    
    On the seventh day, God looked upon His finished work and stated that
    it was good.  Rest does not mean he was fatigued.  It meant he was
    finished.
    
    The sabbath for example, means we are to stop from working and focus
    that day on Godly matters.  it doesn't mean we're tired.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Okay, give me an example of something that's not factual but still
    > true.

    The parables of Jesus.

    Aesops fables
    
    True lessons, but mythical stories around them

There are rabbinic midrashes that are like that as well.

Leslie

(This note was re-edited for clarity & typographical corrections)

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1121.105                    Promise Keepers                      105 of 108
CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon"      61 lines  20-OCT-1995 14:34
                       -< Answering Patricia's Question >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    Do you believe that the Bible says that men should be the Leader of the
>    family?
    
     Actually, no, I don't. I do think most men tend to want leadership, and
     aggresively go after it more than most women (please note I said most, 
     not all). In my home, I am content to let my husband take the leadership 
     role in most areas, but not all. When I disagree & think it is about
     an important issue, I speak up. We then come to some sort of compromise
     or mutually satisfying solution. I am just as much against a women being 
     bossy, brash, and dictatorial in a marriage as I am of a man doing the 
     same thing. 

     I think a few things from Paul's letters have been used to "put women
     in their place" erroneously.  The Corinthians passage about women
     wearing a headcovering is where the "head" issue primarily comes 
     up. I think Paul used head as a metaphor for source, not authority in
     this passage. He continues with the statement, "None the less, woman 
     is not independent from the man..."  This contrast would make no sense 
     if "head" were a metaphor for authority. If it were about authority, 
     a more logical construction would have been "therefore" instead of 
     "none the less". Where the passage talks about the veil as a sign of
     of authority, I think it means a sign of the woman's own personal 
     authority to pray and prophesy in public, not someone else's authority 
     over her. 

     In the Timothy passage about women not teaching men, I think Paul was
     referring to a specific teaching. Most likely the commonly prevalent
     teaching amongst goddess cults that the woman is a superior being.
     One reason I think this is because Paul commends the teaching Timothy 
     received about God and Torah from his mother and grandmother. Also in 
     many places he asks congregations and groups to cooperate with women 
     evangelists and women who are "fellow workers in the Lord." Today deacon 
     is used to signify a leader in the church, and deaconess is used of women
     in a different fashion - some sort of auxilliary service group.  But 
     Phoebe, a woman Paul speaks of in at least one letter, is called a deacon
     by him. The masculine noun for deacon is used so there is no mistake in
     understanding that her role was the same as that of the men who were 
     deacons. Lydia, a wealthy clothing dealer (dealer in purple) had a home
     group that met at her house.

     In the gospels we have the example of Yeshua praising Mary for choosing to
     listen to his teaching rather than bustle in the kitchen.  We have the 
     woman at the well who told the whole town about her discovery that Yeshua
     is the Messiah. Yeshua made his resurrection known first to women who 
     brought the news to the others.

     In the O.T. there are examples of women in leardership. Deborah is a
     judge & military leader. Abigail restrained David from doing a illegitimate
     act of violence. Sarah directed Abarham concerning Ismael, and God told
     Abraham to heed Sarah's direction. In Judges or Chronicles or Kings some-
     where there is the story of an unamed "wise woman" who saves an entire 
     town by her bravery and quick thinking.  

     There are plenty of others whom I have not mentioned. All these are
     examples of women in roles that require giving news, teaching, and
     serving God as leaders, whether in an official capacity or in an 
     informal way.

     I think the booklist I mentioned earlier has a lot of valuable teaching
     in it, especially the first couple of books on the list. You might also
     want to hear what Mardi Keyes and her husband Dick Keyes of L'Abri 
     Fellowship in Southborough, MA have to say on the subject. There is a
     lot of support for positive roles for woman, mutual submission of wife
     to husband and husband to wife without having to nullify belief that
     the Bible is the true word of God.

     Finally, I would like to direct attention back to the note earlier 
     where I gave a few passages to look at when considering what place
     men's authority over women really has in the God designed scheme of 
     things.

     Leslie

    Leslie:
    
    What in your opinion is wrong with the Promisekeepers?
    
    -Jack

   I'm not sure I necessarily think anything is wrong with Promise
   Keepers. I think men in general need to be more responsive to their
   family's spiritual needs, not just their physical needs. Promise
   Keepers seems to promote that. I think that Christianity in general, 
   and probably many other cultures and faiths, place too much emphasis 
   on men being dominant in the home, community, and religion. Promise 
   Keepers shares a little bit in that legacy, but I've never seen a 
   impeccable, perfect group and am willing to put up with a bit of not 
   quite right in the greater interest of the good that they accomplish.

   Leslie

   I have to go home now! Maybe I can write more over the weekend.

    Jack, did I send you the stuff on PK?

    the parables of Jesus are not fictional and are factual.  They are
    spiritual truth.

    .113
    
    See new topic 1167, "Facts and Truth."
    
    Richard
    

gee jack, you're really beating this concept you have there on WASHING!

look at these samples you left in here over the last weeks which are all 
to do with washing in a way or another:

33.132:
>              We are ALL whitewashed tombs and need the righteousness
>   betsowed upon us.

1048.82:
>Z   if you break down the paradigms you have prior to reading the bible,
>Z   then aren't you opening yourself to brainwashing this way?
>   
>   Yes, in essence you are having your brain washed.  

1048.89:
>                       Brain-Wash was my cute way of saying that the Word
>   of God helps you have a clean mind.

1121.81
>   Actually, I stand by what I said.  I believe scripture supports this
>   belief that the male should be THE spiritual leader in the family.
>   Feet washing is required.

1121.84
>   If you can't grasp the concept that spiritual leadership is by majority
>   an exercise in foot washing, then you will never grasp what spiritual
>   leadership is all about!

1144.47
>   I am still interested in your reply on humility...washing feet and all
>   that.

1144.62
>   I asked because I BELIEVE what Jesus did in washing their feet was a
>   big part of Spiritual leadership...something you aspire for.  if this
>   be your desire, then you have to take the whole package.  Jesus was
>   washing the feet of the disciples.  The pharisees had nothing to do
>   with it.  The apostles were arguing as to who was the greatest.  Jesus
>   said that he who is the greatest among men must be a servant to all.
>   As an example, he washed their feet.  This IS spiritual
>   leadership...illustrated by the leader himself.  Are you ready to take
>   this yoke upon yourself?

1144.66
>   In fact, just this morning a mentioned to a certain person that
>   spiritual leadership is exemplified by Jesus washing the feet of the
>   disciples...that spiritual leadership requires the utmost
>   responsibility and also HUMILITY.  If there is anybody out there who
>   aspires toward spirtual leadership, are you prepared to wash the feet
>   of those you minister to.  Because as Jesus said "If you do not allow
>   me to wash, you can have no part of me."  

1144.76
>   I wash the dishes EVERY night.  Every night I've been home the last
>   five years, I have washed the dishes.  I wash the dishes during the
>   weekends as well.  

1146.52
>   What did you think of the example Jesus gave when he washed the
>   disciples feet.  Remember when Peter said, OHH No Lord.  Don't do this
>   thing and Jesus replied, Peter, unless you allow me to wash you can
>   have no part of me.

1146.52                
>   Now to me this is an example of humility.  As a spiritual leader, it
>   would be my responsibility to emulate this example.  Do you have a
>   problem with this?  As a spiritual leader, would you humble yourself to
>   washing the feet of your family and your church flock?

1154.112
>   True...Parisees were referred to as White washed tombs.  It is apparent
>   though from Pauls letters that once he was revealed the concept of
>   messiahship, he was able to apply his knowledge appropriately.  As in
>   the letter to the Romans.


do yourself a favour and take a break from washing, will ya. >;-)


guess i prefer just shaking the dust off my feet on this one! :-)


andreas.

going by jack's definition of spiritual leadership, which "is by majority
an exercise in foot washing", this would mean that today your average
spiritual leader would be pretty handy with the shoe polish.

after all, sandals and dusty dirt tracks aren't the norm these days.


more chores for you jack! :-)


andreas.

one more thing jack. compiling your word on washing i realised that most
of your thumping was directed at patricia.

your justification of the thumping with your concern for her future ministry
is not one that i buy into. washing feet or polishing shoes is by no means a 
common practice in carrying out a ministry. what's more, your unhumble 
behaviour in this matter hardly qualifies you to preach, and in the process 
to vulgarise what was in all likelyhood an act of highest nobility.

you're either an eccentric in this regard or have some personal beef which 
you need to vent. in either case there are more polite ways to put things
across than in your most unspiritual tone. also, you ought to be aware that 
your continued (not to say excessive!) insistence on this peculiar practice 
can easily be misunderstood and hurtful.



andreas.

Z    your unhumble 
Z    behaviour in this matter hardly qualifies you to preach, and in the
Z    process to vulgarise what was in all likelyhood an act of highest nobility.
    
    Side Note:
    
    Andreas, what did you do, do one of those Set/Author=Jmartin/word=Wash
    commands?  That was quite humorous to say the least.
    
    Now to address the note above.  Andreas, I have a sneaking suspicion
    that this all has to do with my remarks on your starting a UU
    Fellowship.  I could be wrong but since this was the flare of late last
    week, I'm making the assumption here.  Keep in mind Andreas that this
    was NO disparage on you at all.  It has nothing to do with a lack of
    ability to reach out to people, it has nothing to do with your
    character, it has nothing to do with your personality...nothing at all.
    Speaking for myself, I disqualify myself from considering the position
    of starting a local church...simply because I am Not called to it.  
    The idea that you, although a great guy in your own right, starting a
    church is preposterous...just as me opening up an abortion clinic is
    preposterous, simply because my convictions lie against abortion and
    not for it.  As an atheist, it would seem you would understand this.
    
Z    you're either an eccentric in this regard or have some personal beef which 
Z    you need to vent. in either case there are more polite ways to put
Z    things across than in your most unspiritual tone. 
    
    Now this is in regards to....what note or reply are you speaking to
    here?  Again I have to suspect you are speaking on my dialog with 
    Patricia.  Andreas, this relationship has been going on for over three
    years now.  Patricia happens to be one of my favorite noters here. 
    She may not feel the same but that is neither here nor there...I can't
    do anything about that.  Just as a side note, I began a dialog last
    week regarding "hate" as an attribute of God.  Patricia's first reply
    to me was that I have perverted doctrines and use nonsensical
    irreconcilable verses to promote it.  The thing you need to understand
    Andreas, is that unlike alot of my counterparts, I don't get offended
    by such diatribes.  When I see something like that, I see it as an
    emotionally charged reply with the treasures of further exchange. 
    This is after all, why we're here isn't it??  So by your standards, one
    might call her reply to me an unspiritual tone right?  Well, I don't
    see it that way.  I see it as goodness and hope she comes back soon.  
    
    Now regarding a personal beef...well, I wouldn't call it personal. 
    Andreas, I am offended when wisdom and reason are replaced by blind
    aspiration.  When somebody uses the title "Christian", including
    myself, then it is my firm belief the precepts of one's beliefs need to
    be blanketed by accountability.  I see myself as being in here amongst
    other reasons, to provide balance when Christianity is summarily being
    attacked by liberal theology.  I believe it needs to be isolated and it
    must stand under the test of accountability.  If it stands, then great. 
    If it doesn't, it burns!  Even if I can't burn it myself, it will
    eventually destruct on its own.  
    
    In closing Andreas, let me clear up a few misconceptions made withing
    Christian circles.  There is absolutely no guarantee under the guise of
    Christianity that we are going to be free from pain and suffering.  In
    fact, scriptural evidence points to the contrary.  Christianity is not
    a club, as it seems to be compared to here.  
    
    Got to go.  Want to finish my thought later!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

re .118




jack, i was happy to see your note. and am a little surprised to find
no follow on discussion in here (though i gather the recent 'credibility' 
topic might have served for the purpose).

no i have no relation with UU other than, as i understand at least, UU seems 
to be based on what i'd consider an inoffensive kind of theology.

my anger in .117 grew out of disappointment. i had been trying to encourage 
more female participation in the file and your panel-beating patricia with
her having to wash feet made some unsettling connotations particularly with
the christian's regard for women. that's how i saw it at least, hence my
disappointment.

the question which i am churning over right now is whether christians can
be excused for acting in a manner, which by wordly standards, is uncivil.
does possessing the holy spirit grant a free licence for insult?

but it would be unfair to target the question at you jack, since, as i see it,
the best of jack usually appears when he is pinned down on his words. i gather
most of the time you might not be too aware of what you are saying, and only
when all statements are pooled together the apparent earnest is lost. yes, 
i too thought the 'word on washing' was humorous!





andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I do tend to be a straight shooter from time to time and unfortunately
    say things which are not, how shall we say, politically expedient.
    
    I discontinued the conversation because from what I see, my counterpart
    in Maynard has cut me asunder and therefore anything discussed would be 
    of no consequence.
    
    I will say this though since you brought it up, and I've said it
    already but I believe it bears repeating.  Spiritual leadership is one
    of the highest callings in the Christian faith.  Unlike worldly forms
    of leadership and dictatorship, spiritual leadership is a majority of
    nothing less than servitude.  There are quite a few attributes of
    leadership such as communication, an ability to teach, admonish, rebuke
    if necessary, as well as the attributes of mercy, kindness, counsel. 
    However, servitude is the greatest attribute of spiritual leadership;
    and Jesus Christ himself portrayed this when he washed the feet of the
    disciples, Jesus a man no less!  And he stated to Peter, "If you
    don't allow me to wash then you can have no part of me."   No part of
    me.....no part of me.....no part of me.....no part of me........no part
    of me.....  I hope these words continue to ring in the minds and hearts
    of everybody here.  
    
    So in your defense of women participating, I agree and see value in
    more women participating; but the underlying premise cannot be
    compromised.  Are you prepared to be a servant of all?  If you are,
    then you have the base ingredient for Spiritual leadership.  If you do
    not, then the best thing one can do for themselves and for a church is
    to wait until they reach the maturity to take upon the yoke of
    servitude.
    
    I am not there yet and this is why I have chosen not to take upon
    myself this responsibility.  Perhaps one day I will be there.
    
    -Jack

    Related topic 976, "How does servanthood differ from servitude?"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .120


you raise some interesting points, jack.

>   Are you prepared to be a servant of all?  If you are,
>   then you have the base ingredient for Spiritual leadership.  

being a spirtual leader in a larger sense than now is not what i aspire
for. presently, alone the task of being a father to my children fills me 
fully and i can see little which is more valuable a task than this.

but to pick you up on your reasoning in the context of parenthood:

i am willingly a 'leader', to use the term. this is a task which i have
grown into and that i grow with and one that i have surely been prepared
for by the examples which my parents have left for me.


>                                 There are quite a few attributes of
>   leadership such as communication, an ability to teach, admonish, rebuke
>   if necessary, as well as the attributes of mercy, kindness, counsel. 

i agree with all these points though i have many more to add.

- to lead by example, 
- to not preach,
- to encourage, 
- to share fun,
- to be patient, 
- to listen, 
- to correct,
- to joke,
- to question, 
- to make up,
- to build confidence, 
- to partake even in matters which seem insignificant,
- to foster in those you lead the confidence in their own proper means,
- to not let personal expectations get into the way of leading,
- to hold high, above all, the god given right and need, of those that 
  you lead, to make their own way in life,
- to rejoice in every step which reduces dependance on the leader.


the highest aim of the teacher must surely be for the pupil to outgrow
the teacher.

the highest aim of the leader must surely be to lead with such wisdom and 
foresight that the leader is one day no longer required; when the leader 
is one amongst equals.


how else could you expect to ever enjoy the fruits of these most difficult 
tasks?




andreas.

    Couldn't have said it better myself.  I agree with all those points
    regarding the attributes of leadership and I'm sure there are more to
    add.  I too am called to be a parent which requires all the attributes
    you mentioned.  Some of them I am good at, others I need to work on.
    
    Jesus stated that he who is greatest among men must be a servant to
    all.  I see this as a binding requirement of spiritual leadership and
    is not open to compromise.  Furthermore, it is directed toward ALL who
    aspire for it.
    
    -Jack

don't get me the wrong way jack, but with parenting a father is only
one half of the leadership.

would you require of the mother to have the same attributes which you 
require of the father?





andreas.

    Yes, it would certainly be helpful!!!  
    
    Talk to ya tomorrow!!!
    
    -Jack

	Keeping promises is a substandard goal. One may keep promises and yet
still miss God Himself. Only Christ matters. When a person is experiencing his
or her union with Christ all relationships will be brought into their proper
order. Then there is no need to instruct one another for Christ Himself is the
Leader. In Him there is neither male or female but Christ is all and in all.
The proper relationships between God and us, husbands and wives, parents and
children, brothers to brothers, sisters to sisters, neighbor to neighbor, race
to race, gender to gender, noter to noter ;^) are all brought into perfect
harmony when we are abiding in and living out the Life of this wonderful
Person. 

	In Him we possess all things related to life and godliness. Creeds,
philosophies, doctrines, teachings, instructions, etc. are simply "letter",
whether biblically based or not. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Those who have been joined to the
Lord have everything they need, that is, the Lord Himself. Let those who do
not have this union with the Lord, develop creeds and keep promises. It is all
they have. But let the christian man and woman rise up and take possession of
the Christ who is the sum of all spiritual things. 

ace

    Ace:
    
    How do you reconcile this with the commandment to go into the world and
    teach all nations?  I see Promisekeepers as a discipleship tool.  An
    accountability tool to draw men toward one purpose.  To practice
    spiritual footwashing in their home.
    
    -Jack

Hi Jack,

	When the lovers of the Lord are one with Him they will hear and obey His
speaking. They will go wherever and whenever He tells them. The great commission
is to bring others into this experience and into the union with God Himself.
	The Lord prefers His saved ones who love him to listen to Him that they
may know His desire, rather than do things for Him without knowing His will (ref
1 Sam 15:22, Eccl 5:1). Like Mary, we should choose the better part: Resting in
His presence and listening to His speaking (Luke 10:38-42).

	This is much different than keeping promises.

ace

	

         <<< Note 1121.128 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" >>>

>	When the lovers of the Lord are one with ...
>
>	This is much different than keeping promises.

    		Making and KEEPING the promises is the first step
    		to becoming lovers of the Lord.
    
    		Critics of Promise Keepers make the erroneous assumption
    		that those making the promises are already such lovers.
    		Promise Keepers is the kick in the pants that far too
    		many men need to see what's missing in their lives.  Once
    		they become such lovers, then the details of their faith
    		can be made known to them.

	Man's way is to kick. The Lord's way is to draw.

	"Draw me, we will run after thee..."  Song of Songs

	If we allow ourselves to be drawn by Him there will be many companions
who will run after Him because of our running. Some may choose to kick others to
follow the Lord, but I've never known Him to be that way and I've found no
biblical basis for it. Some are like James and John (sons of thunder) wanting to
call fire down from the sky to consume the stubborn. These do not know of what
spirit they are. Yet others would try to perfect their fellow believers by
teaching them to keep commandments. This is the law in another form. 

	The believer has begun his/her christian life according to the Spirit of
Grace. That Spirit will subdue even the most stubborn heart. All righteousness
will be fulfilled through this Spirit. This is the Spirit of Promise. If there
is a promise to keep it is this one -- the Spirit of Promise. Abide in this
Spirit and your living will be righteous before God, right with yourself, and
right with others. 

regards,	
ace 

         <<< Note 1121.130 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" >>>

>Some may choose to kick others to
>follow the Lord, but I've never known Him to be that way and I've found no
>biblical basis for it. 
    
    	Your experience is limited.  Basing your expectations soley upon
    	your experience will be limiting.
    
    	Saul surely was kicked into action!
    
    	But I don't see PK as kicking anyone.  It is more like your
    	first analogy of others following those who are already 
    	running.
    
>	The believer has begun his/her christian life according to the Spirit of
>Grace. That Spirit will subdue even the most stubborn heart. All righteousness
>will be fulfilled through this Spirit. This is the Spirit of Promise. If there
>is a promise to keep it is this one -- the Spirit of Promise. Abide in this
>Spirit and your living will be righteous before God, right with yourself, and
>right with others. 

    	Great.  So who will tell the multitudes about this?
    
    	Promise Keepers attempts to do it!  Who else has managed
    	to reach so many so quickly in this society that bathes us
    	with messages telling us to reject the Spirit?

    Correct.  Like Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, "How can I understand
    unless somebody teaches me?"  
    
    -Jack

>    	Promise Keepers attempts to do it!  Who else has managed
>    	to reach so many so quickly in this society 
    
    Billy Graham, Greg Laurie come to mind.

    Billy Graham is a great evangelist; howver Billy admits that about 25%
    of the converts actually grow in the faith.
    
    Promisekeepers is similar to a wide form of discipleship.  I believe
    discipleship is better as a one on one however I also believe in what
    PK is doing.
    
    -Jack

    I think the motives of PK are commendable but I question the execution.

    	Doctrine isn't the issue with PK.  Returning men to their
    	respective churches is.  Once there, the churches can handle
    	the details.
    
    	PK's goal is to get the men pointed in the right general
    	direction.  Fine-tuning the mens' aim comes later.

	It would be to any believer's benefit if their christian experience is
at least broad enough to understand the difference between knowing the living
Christ (the experience of Romans 8) and keeping dead promises (the experience of
Romans 7).

	I'm glad you brought up the example of Saul's conversion because it is
one of the best examples of knowing the living Christ. He met Jesus and obeyed
Him immediately. The Lord didn't say to Saul "Now Saul, I want you to make some
promises and then I want you to keep them. I'll be checking up on you."  The
Lord just said to do this and that and he did it. 

	Meeting Christ in this way will have this kind of dramatic effect on
people. The christian commission is to bring people into such a Christ. Making
and keeping promises is substandard, complete obedience to Christ is God's
standard. Who will lower His standard?


regards,
ace

    Ace:
    
    Do you understand the concept of discipleship?  While it is true that
    Paul did obey immediately, it is important to point out that Paul had a
    one on one relationship with Timothy, a younger man in the faith who
    did not have the direct revelation Paul had the privelage of having.
    
    Colossians 2:14 states, "Built up and rooted in Him.  Strengthened in
    the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness."
    Romans 7 speaks of a Paul who was under the bondage of the law.  "When
    the law was revealed, transgression manifested and I died."  Romans 8
    speaks of a regenerated believer who is filled with the Spirit;
    however, growing in the faith is a process which can take a short
    amount of time for some while a long time for others.  
    
    Ace, when you fellowship at your church, I would assume there are times
    when you ask forgiveness.  Scripture tells us also to repent; and when
    you repent, you are in essence making a promise to God.  The big
    question to be asked...Is the power to fulfill that promise of yourself
    or of the Holy Spirit?  
    
    You spoke of promises as dead.  This would preclude a promise lead of
    the Holy Spirit.  Promisekeepers is a group of men who under the
    direction of the Holy Spirit, aspire and take the steps toward
    Spiritual Leadership.  So if the Promisekeepers are directed by the
    Holy Spirit, then how do you discern the promises are dead?!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 1121.137 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" >>>

>at least broad enough to understand the difference between knowing the living
>Christ (the experience of Romans 8) and keeping dead promises (the experience of
>Romans 7).
    
    	What makes you say they are dead promises?
    
    	Understand too, that these promises are only partially religious
    	in nature.  They also address one's behavior in the home, family
    	and community.  Forcing PK to defend itself as a religious movement
    	is unfair.  Do you see Al Anon as a religious movement?

>	I'm glad you brought up the example of Saul's conversion because it is
>one of the best examples of knowing the living Christ. He met Jesus and obeyed
>Him immediately. The Lord didn't say to Saul "Now Saul, I want you to make some
>promises and then I want you to keep them. I'll be checking up on you."  The
>Lord just said to do this and that and he did it. 
>
>	Meeting Christ in this way will have this kind of dramatic effect on
>people. 
    
    	Great.  I'm sure that most people knocked off their horses by
    	God Himself as Saul was will also show a dramatic effect.  For
    	the rest of us, we'll just have to rely on more subtle signs
    	and will exhibit more subtle changes.

	I see that the diehard PK'ers are like "a tree planted by the water".
	8*) 8*)

	The "discipleship" you mentioned is another practice that some groups
(not all) have taken too far and out of context. In the Body of Christ there is
an order according to Life. There is authority associated with the various
members and there is a relationship between the members that places them in a
certain order. However, that arrangement is according to Life. Some who are not
so clear have picked up the practice of assigning mentors, authority figures,
and constructed a hierarchy of "discipleship". Sorta like Amway only in the
Body. Of course there is a biblical order but it is not something that you can
just assign. As in the human body, the authority of the members is spontaneously
present when the relationship with the Head is right. The eyes see, the ears
hear, etc., the hand moves by direction of the wrist. This is biblical
discipleship. Since I know very little about PK, I've no idea what you mean by
discipleship. 

	Perhaps you are saying that the practice of promise keeping leads people
to a direct relationship with Christ. If making and keeping promises leads you
into a loving and personal relationship with Christ, then you should make and
keep more and more promises. Don't stop with the PK creed. If this is what it
takes to bring you into contact with the living God, then you should double and
triple your promises to Him. Commit yourself to a 10-fold promise increase this
year, this month, today even. If that's what it takes to consecrate yourself and
gain Him, then nothing should deter you. For what else really matters? If you
have Him you have everything already. Do whatever it takes to gain Him and do
more of it. 

	By the way, I missed the objective of promise keeping. What is it? I'm
certain no one will change their mind but I would like to understand the merit
that one perceives there to be by the practice of promise keeping. And what is
the biblical basis for it? (wrong conference I know but take a chance)

regards,
ace

    Re: .133
    
    Mike,
    
    Greg Laurie has preached a salvation message at the beginning of every
    PromiseKeeper conference that I have attended.
    
    Leonard

         <<< Note 1121.140 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" >>>

>Since I know very little about PK ...
    
    	Yet you speak strongly against it.  Wouldn't it be better 
    	to look at it first?  (Light a candle, rather than just curse
    	the darkness.)

    Ace:
    
    Good morning Ace.  I brought up discipleship, not so much to extol the
    virtues of the promisekeepers...this was only secondary to my purpose.
    
    It is just as I had brought up regarding the example of Phillip and the
    Ethiopian Eunuch..."How can I understand unless somebody teaches me?"  
    Notice the Ethiopian was unable to act upon his faith because he lacked
    the wisdom of discerning Isaiah 53.  Once it was taught to him, it was 
    then that he acted upon his faith and knowledge and was baptised.  The way 
    you presented Christianity a few days ago, I was left with the impression
    that you believe spiritual growth and wisdom are instilled upon you in
    a very rapid manner; hence your incites on Romans 8.  I brought up
    discipleship to show you this isn't the case by any means.  Timothy,
    John Mark, Onesimus...just three solid examples of young believers who
    needed spiritual guidance from older, mature Christians.  Hence the
    responsibility of discipleship and another need to fulfill the great
    commission.
    
    Promisekeepers is by no means a replacement for the local church; but
    just as those 3,000 individuals who were saved in Jerusalem by the
    preaching of Peter, so too does Promisekeepers fulfill a purpose.  It is
    strictly a tool to build men, both young and old into the
    responsibility of Spiritual footwashing in the home.  A man will never
    be a spiritual leader until they have learned the gift of humility, and 
    a spiritual leader cannot be effective without it.  Never will be.  
    I personaaly believe the responsibility should be upon the local
    church; however, I see PK again as a useful tool to add where the local 
    church may be lacking.
    
    Regarding the keeping of more promises, absolutely correct.  However,
    Promisekeepers is available to provide the basics.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    
    Hi Ace,
    
    In my opinion, Promise Keeping is about getting men to take
    responsibility before God for what traditionally was taught as normal
    behavior for Christians.  In my opinion it speaks directly to the
    weakness of modern evangelicalism.  But it is one way to approach a
    problem.  It would be better if week after week from the pulpit 
    Christians were taught what God requires of His people and that the
    people were formally held accountable through the discipline of the
    local church.
    
    jeff

>    	Doctrine isn't the issue with PK.  Returning men to their
>    	respective churches is.  Once there, the churches can handle
>    	the details.
>    
>    	PK's goal is to get the men pointed in the right general
>    	direction.  Fine-tuning the mens' aim comes later.
    
    This all falls back to the question of "Jesus Who?"  Is PK pointing
    them into the general direction of the Mormon Jesus, the Jehovah
    Witnesses' Jesus, the New Age Jesus, the Catholic Jesus, or the Jesus
    of the Bible?  The Mormon church is currently the largest participant
    in PK rallies and we know their general direction isn't the same as
    Christianity's direction.
    
    Mike

re .145

 Just in case, there is any misunderstanding from Mike's
 reply. Jehovah's Witnesses do not attend rallies such
 PK. 

 Phil.

         <<< Note 1121.145 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    This all falls back to the question of "Jesus Who?"  Is PK pointing
>    them into the general direction of the Mormon Jesus, the Jehovah
>    Witnesses' Jesus, the New Age Jesus, the Catholic Jesus, or the Jesus
>    of the Bible?  The Mormon church is currently the largest participant
>    in PK rallies and we know their general direction isn't the same as
>    Christianity's direction.
    
 	For the social issues Promisr Keepers attempts to address, I
    	think that "Jesus Who" is not important.  For that matter, I
    	think that Promise Keepers limits itself in drawing only those
    	who claim Christian faith.  I don't see why the same principles
    	can't be applied to the Jew, the Muslim, the Shinto, or any
    	other faith.  It seems to me that Promise Keepers goal is to 
    	provide to men a basis for returning to the social responsibilities
    	they have ignored, and that channel is through reigniting their
    	respective faiths.
    
    	Jesus Who?  What does it matter, as long as their return to 
    	their faith roots encourages them to honor their responsibilities?
    
    	Are you suggesting that only Christians should recapture their
    	social responsibilities?  Even more, only the Biblically-
    	precise Christians should do this?

      ZZ      Jesus Who?  What does it matter, as long as their return to 
      ZZ      their faith roots encourages them to honor their
      ZZ      responsibilities?
    
    As far as the intent of the group, it is true that the tenets of
    Promisekeepers are what is important.  If however, believers are
    looking at this as a discipleship tool, then the question is asked,
    how can we be unequally yoked and still be gathered in Jesus' name?
    In other words, ecumenical prayer in my opinion is not necessarily
    honoring to God if one is holding hands in prayer with one who worships
    idols.
    
Z    them into the general direction of the Mormon Jesus, the Jehovah
Z    Witnesses' Jesus, the New Age Jesus, the Catholic Jesus, or the
Z    Jesus of the Bible? 
    
    I think it is important to make a distinction here.  I believe there
    are in fact "other" Jesus' that people worship.  For example, a Jesus
    whose only begotten Father is from a planet in another solar
    system...that would be another Jesus.  A Jesus who is synonomous with
    nature, that would be another Jesus.  At the same time, people can
    worship the Jesus who walked with the apostles and rose from the dead
    and yet misunderstand his nature.  
    
    - ack

re.147

>    	Jesus Who?  What does it matter, as long as their return to 
>    	their faith roots encourages them to honor their responsibilities?

	Exactly what I thought was the case. This is substandard to the purpose
and meaning of the christian life that is, Jesus as the center and reality of
the believer.

ace

>          <<< Note 1121.147 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
>
> 	For the social issues Promisr Keepers attempts to address, I
>    	think that "Jesus Who" is not important.  For that matter, I
    
    The Jesus of the Bible is not only important, but He's everything.
    
>    	who claim Christian faith.  I don't see why the same principles
>    	can't be applied to the Jew, the Muslim, the Shinto, or any
    
    Some of these groups already have moral codes that are much higher than
    Americans'.
    
>    	Jesus Who?  What does it matter, as long as their return to 
>    	their faith roots encourages them to honor their responsibilities?
>    
>    	Are you suggesting that only Christians should recapture their
>    	social responsibilities?  Even more, only the Biblically-
>    	precise Christians should do this?

    I'm suggesting that PK combine moral integrity, family responsibility
    and a personal relationship with the living Savior: Jesus Christ of the
    Bible.  There's no way they can't do this.  It also makes them more
    credible because there is no way you can maintain integrity and
    morality without being saved and filled with the Holy Spirit.
    
    Mike

    Let me say it this way, if PK becomes an ecumenical tool and not a
    discipleship tool, it should be disbanded!
    
    -Jack

    If the newly emerging men's movement becomes a tool of the Christian
    Right, it    too should be stopped!

    	re .152
    
    	And I thought that Christian Perspectives were supposed to be
    	supported here...

         <<< Note 1121.150 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    I'm suggesting that PK combine moral integrity, family responsibility
>    and a personal relationship with the living Savior: Jesus Christ of the
>    Bible.  
    
    	Then you are calling on it to be something it does not purport
    	to be, nor could ever accomplish.  Even your church obviously
    	fails to convert the world, Mike.
    
>    credible because there is no way you can maintain integrity and
>    morality without being saved and filled with the Holy Spirit.
    
    	There is a difference between pure Christian morality and the
    	social morality that Promise Keepers promotes.  The latter
    	certainly CAN exist in the absence of the former.  Even you
    	admit as much when you note that other religions have much
    	higher moral codes than Americans'.  They *DO* have integrity
    	and morality without being saved!
    
    	You insist on all-or-nothing.  In that case you are destined
    	for more "nothing" than "all."

    Joe,
    
    There is no censureship in this file!
    
    All perspectives have an equal voice.
    
    In the end, truth, goodness, equality, and love will prevail!.
    
    I don't know whether I believe that because I am a liberal, or I
    believe that because I know that there is a spirit which does guide
    humankind and human history!.

    	Rejecting certain Christian Perspectives is not the same as
    	censorship.

    Joe,
    
    I actually agree with much of your line of reasoning in your recent
    replies in this string! 
    
    Now that is scary!
    
    My objection to Promise Keepers is only two in number.
    
    1.  They promote the inequality of women and men.
    2.  The movement is controlled by a well greased progpanda machine, and
    therefore has the potential for much harm.
    
    I would actually love to see all the local faith communtities with
    active, socially responsible, emotionally tight men's groups and
    women's groups working to accomplish many of the things identifies in
    the objectives of promise keepers.

    re .156
    
    I agree with that too!.
    
    There are Christian Perspectives that I reject, and yet I believe that
    those who accept those Perspectives have the right to discuss them
    openly.
    
    The spirit does test the Christian Perspectives in the open discussion.
     
    Every person who honestly seeks truth will find truth!.  Even if truth
    is something that each of us can only "see in a mirror dimly"

    	.158
    
    	Actually, Patricia, if you want to talk about the mirror, I have
    	to admit that as I wrote the last few to you I thought about my
    	rejection of perspectives that others claim are Christian.

        <<< Note 1121.157 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    My objection to Promise Keepers is only two in number.
>    
>    1.  They promote the inequality of women and men.
>    2.  The movement is controlled by a well greased progpanda machine, and
>    therefore has the potential for much harm.
    
    	I think this is only a matter of your perspective, and one with
    	which I do not agree.

    Joe,
    
    Then what is the basis for your wishing that the local church would
    inspire the people rather than an organization such as PK?

    	Did I say that Patricia?  I don't recall doing so...  Still, I
    	somewhat agree with what you attribute to me.
    
    	The only reason we need movements like Promise Keepers is because
    	our society has dropped the ball in instilling a sense of
    	responsibility in people, and men in particular.  And I believe
    	that at least for the churched segment of the population, the
    	churches should shoulder most of that blame.
    
    	What I disagree with in your statement is the phrase "rather than".
    	I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

Re: .153 Joe

>    	And I thought that Christian Perspectives were supposed to be
>    	supported here...

You were mistaken.  Please read the conference rules.

				-- Bob

>    	Then you are calling on it to be something it does not purport
>    	to be, nor could ever accomplish.  Even your church obviously
>    	fails to convert the world, Mike.
    
    ...or I'm calling it to re-tool and re-focus to something worthwhile. 
    Greg Laurie, who belongs to the same church I do, has given the
    invitation to receive Christ as your personal Savior at several PK
    meetings.  This requires doctrine to do - a doctrine that PK has no
    official stance on.  If they are willing to do this at their meetings,
    what I am suggesting is a natural progression.
    
>    	There is a difference between pure Christian morality and the
>    	social morality that Promise Keepers promotes.  The latter
>    	certainly CAN exist in the absence of the former.  Even you
>    	admit as much when you note that other religions have much
>    	higher moral codes than Americans'.  They *DO* have integrity
>    	and morality without being saved!
    
    That's not exactly what I said.  I said they have a higher moral code,
    but that doesn't mean they follow it.  Those regions that worship in
    those religions are also some of the worst when it comes to basic human
    rights.  Much lower than the Americans do, which PK is trying to
    minister to.  It takes God's Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian to
    maintain and sustain moral integrity.
    
>    	You insist on all-or-nothing.  In that case you are destined
>    	for more "nothing" than "all."

    Nope, I think God is bigger than that.
    
    And I believe there is lots of other info I sent you on PK that should
    cause alarm.  We're just scratching the surface.
    
    Mike

>    1.  They promote the inequality of women and men.
>    2.  The movement is controlled by a well greased progpanda machine, and
>    therefore has the potential for much harm.
    
    Patricia, how many PK meetings have you been to?  I haven't see this in
    any of the materials I have that criticize them.
    
    Mike

    Mike, it is of no consequence.  There are people out there who have
    tunnel vision and always will.

         <<< Note 1121.164 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    And I believe there is lots of other info I sent you on PK that should
>    cause alarm.  We're just scratching the surface.
    
    	Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the "alarm" I felt 
    	in reading that material was due to the the soapbox-style approach 
    	it employed to make its points (twisted meanings, half-statements,
    	exaggerations.)  I've already addressed some of this in mail to
    	you.  I'm surprised that you'd try to fall back on it here as
    	ammunition to convince me otherwise.
    
    	Any publications that can wholly throw out Billy Graham, Alcoholics
    	Anonymous, Promise Keepers, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, ecumenism,
    	James Dobson, and so many other people, institutions and programs
    	because they don't fit the letter of their interpretations, must be 
    	taken with a grain of salt.  Yet I found it curious that the material 
    	also chided another church for its too-literal interpretations by 
    	quoting 2 Cor 3:6 -- the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

    If invited, I just might attend one.
    
    Which of the two statements do you think is in error?

    both of them.

    	I think both statements are in error.  Surely you didn't have
    	to ask!  We've already been through the discussion about why
    	I see it the way I do and why you see it the way you do.  I
    	don't see much fruit in rehashing it.

    I'd like to see you go to a Promise Keepers gathering, Patricia.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    RE:  Women attending PK
    
    I gave very strong feedback to a colleague of mine who is a 
    PK 'Ambassador' about women not being able to attend.  He suggested 
    that I volunteer to do registration or take tickets or some other
    admin type of activity so I could be there and hear first hand 
    what was being done. 
    
    So, if you are really interested, contact the PK offices to see if 
    there isn't some way you can 'help' so you can hear first hand.
    
    IMHO
    
    Mary Jo 
    

    I think I will wait for a full invitation

Is this quote from .0 accurate or not?

>o  The manifesto of the movement is "Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper,"
>   which is published for the group by James Dobson's Focus on the Family.
>   In one of the contributing essays, evangelist Tony Brown explains how
>   a man is to deal with his female mate:  "I can hear you saying, 'I want
>   to be a spiritual man.  Where do I start?'  The first thing you do,"
>   Brown explains, "is sit down with your wife and say something like this:
>   'Honey, I've made a terrible mistake.  I've given you my role.  I gave up
>   leading this family, and I forced you to take my place.  Now I must
>   reclaim my role.'  Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.  I'm
>   not suggesting you ask for your role back.  I'm urging you to take it
>   back" (Emphasis in the original).  There is to be no compromise on
>   authority and women should submit for "the survival of our culture."

				-- Bob

    
    Re.174
    
    I was wondering that myself, Bob.
    
    Cindy

  
    Re.167 and .164
    
    Joe and Mike,
 
    >"Wanna see my scar?"
    
    No.  (;^)
    
    >	Any publications that can wholly throw out Billy Graham, Alcoholics
    >	Anonymous, Promise Keepers, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, ecumenism,
    >	James Dobson, and so many other people, institutions and programs
    >	because they don't fit the letter of their interpretations, ...
    
    What publications do this?  If it's PK pubs., then there's a logically 
    faulty statement in here.
    
    Cindy
                 

    	No, Cindy, they are not Promise Keeper publications.  They are
    	Christian publications that point out what they see in other
    	supposed Christian people/institutions/programs that is not
    	purely biblical or even counter-biblical.