Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
			     "?-space"		 |          "!-space"
			-------------------------+-----------------------------
				                 
> noise level is...  	        low			       high
 signal level is...		low			       high

> posturing is...	    not constant		   more constant
 accomplishments are...     not constant		   more constant
 
> always feels...	 more co-operative	         less co-operative
 always feels...            less active                      more active

> it is sometimes...       a refreshing change	             no change
 it is sometimes...	     no change			      exciting

> there is...	        a calmness and a spirit	             just words
>	              that is hard to put in words
 there is...	   a dullness and fuzziness of thought	  meaning and action 
                     that is hard to put into words

			    how about it!		    bottom line?

			------------------------------------------------------

>			 take space to grow	  =	leave room for doubt
                     passive, non-accomplishment        active, productive

> do women and men communicate differently?


the table in .1 is the product of several authors. 

the table was developed in womannotes in a topic where the rationality 
of women-only places is discussed.

the table is quite inspiring. it does suggest different modes of
communication between the genders.



andreas.

a generic type of remark (not confined to just one individual):

    [her personal problem is] "her inability to overcome the gyno-
    repression self-flagellation chip on her shoulder."  


what can we as men do to make C-P a comfortable and non-threatening 
place for women?




andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I am being sincere here and don't mean to be crass...but to be honest, 
    I have little idea as to how to make women in C-P feel more
    comfortable.
    
    I would like it to be that way.  At the same time it goes without
    saying that in order to heal, a physician sometimes has to cut deep.
    One of the tools used in America to make people feel comfortable is 
    a philosophy called, "Political Correctness".  I am not going to banter
    on that issue here as I'm sure I've beaten it to death already.  But
    the caveats to such philosophies are simple...the stifling of the
    exchange of ideas and the supression of truth in the name of
    sensitivity.  These are two very dangerous notions and should never be
    encouraged.  We have already seen what it is doing to our secondary
    educational system over here.  Hopefully it will pass.
    
    My advice in this forum would be to display the fruit of the
    Spirit...that being peace, patience, kindless, goodness, etc.  Other
    than that, I truly believe convictions should not be squelched in the
    name of sensitivity.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1144.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I am being sincere here and don't mean to be crass...but to be honest, I have 
| little idea as to how to make women in C-P feel more comfortable.

	If you left it would help.... heh heh..... (couldn't resist, Jack)

	I think CP would be a better place for women if they would start
speaking up. Their voice is what will open doors. There will be resistance, but
I think it is the same for any group, any set of beliefs. I know for myself I
would welcome more women talking about their beliefs. It would really be a
wonderful thing!


Glen

>   I have little idea as to how to make women in C-P feel more
>   comfortable.

maybe we ought to be asking our better halves what would make women 
feel more comfortable? 

maybe it's not an issue of comfort and coziness at all?

who knows, maybe this place is just another boring discussion conference
for self-indulging, self-loving, posing men and C-P holds nothing of 
interest to a majority of women? 

we won't know unless we ask.

i know that C-P is wide open and tolerant. at least it _appears_ this 
way with not one set hidden note that i am aware of. so what are we
doing wrong here? *ARE* we doing something wrong??!




andreas.

re .5


glen, i got the idea of "just ask" from something you wrote to joe
back in the processing topic. thanks pal, the simplest approach is 
sometimes the last one we think of!! :-)

now let me play devil's advocate for a moment:

>	I think CP would be a better place for women if they would start
> speaking up. Their voice is what will open doors. There will be resistance, 
> but I think it is the same for any group, any set of beliefs. 

aren't the first ones to speak up and to brake down the barriers going to 
be the radical types? aren't these readical types going to be easily dismissed
as having a skewed perspective, chip on the shoulder and all that stuff?



andreas.

| <<< Note 1144.7 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

| aren't the first ones to speak up and to brake down the barriers going to
| be the radical types? aren't these readical types going to be easily dismissed
| as having a skewed perspective, chip on the shoulder and all that stuff?

	andreas, at this point I don't think that will always be the case. We
are asking them to speak out if they feel compelled. As someone mentioned a
couple of notes back, maybe they can tell us what we could do to make them feel
more welcomed, more like participating. Maybe the 1st step might be that they
should contact someone off line with suggestions. But it will still come down
to they want to do this. I really hope they do as I would love to see more
womens viewpoints in here. I'd love to hear how they are doing in leadership
rolls, what obsticles they had to overcome (if any), etc. Hopefully we will get
that opportunity for this to happen.


Glen

    Easy rule of thumb....
    
    Allow your doctrine to drive the agenda.  Don't allow your agenda to
    drive the doctrine.  
    
    -Jack

come gain, jack? you are talking in riddles.




andreas.

    I am hesitant as it may start ratholes
    
    Certain individuals of the opposite gender believe certain ways because
    they have an agenda.  Therefore, it seems plausible to discredit
    certain teachings of the word of God....lest it not match the agenda.
    The agenda may be honorable and needed...however, the agenda can cloud
    truth.
    
    This is why I am saying...root yourself in truth and let your agenda be
    based upon truth and not conjecture.  
    
    -Jack

i've been thinking about this thing with the truth and the agenda,
ever since you and steve leech brought it up last week in topic 1048.

everyone with a goal has an agenda. it would be dishonest to state 
otherwise. every person has an agenda. every organisation has an agenda.

you cannot seek a truth without having questions in the first place.

the truth is the truth, unshakeable and absolute.

the questions come from the agenda. 

all questions lead to the truth.

i don't see a problem.

the only problem i see is with wanting to make one person's agenda better
than another person's agenda.



andreas.

     re: .12
    

>the truth is the truth, unshakeable and absolute.

    Some would make truth relative in certain areas of life, due to an
    agenda or <insert personal reason>.  I believe you are right, that
    truth is an absolute.  The problems begin when everyone uses a
    different measure.  When this happens you will have conflict.
    
    How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?  Truth does not
    compromise itself to save one's feelings or agenda.
    
>the questions come from the agenda. 

    But the agenda *can* keep one from seeing the truth.  
    
>all questions lead to the truth.

    I disagree.  All questions may lead to the seeking of truth, but
    personal bias/agenda can confuse truth with belief, fusing them into a
    tangle of half-truths.  How do we untangle them when this happens?
    
>the only problem i see is with wanting to make one person's agenda better
>than another person's agenda.

    It would be silly to call all agendas equal- regardless of how much one
    believes in them.  Some agendas will be more beneficial than others. 
    Some agendas may seem good, but perhaps in the long run will cause
    great harm. 
    
    We can't simplify this as placing one agenda over another.  As I see
    it, the arguments have been going back and forth debating the truth of
    a given idea.  One group says it is the truth, another says the first
    group is wrong.  Then back and forth we go.  
    
    To be honest, though, we need to find a common ground for comparison. 
    Yelling at one another over truth is meaningless when those arguing use
    a different measure.  
    
    I hold the Bible to be God's word.  I see that it is filled with truth. 
    It is my guide and my "tester of the spirits".  Others do not see it
    this way, they find their truth elsewhere.  Is my way the only way to
    find the truth?  No.  However, it is the shortcut IMO. 
    
    I believe that simple logic can be our most effective way to meet on common
    ground in many issues, amoung those who use different measures of truth.
    In some areas, this will not work, but it is a place to start.  Perhaps
    if we all were less dogmatic and more logical, we may learn something
    from one another.
    
    Then again, maybe not.  8^)
    
    
    -steve
                                                

    Paul spoke of a more excellent way.
    
    Richard
    

    I think maybe rereading the test of 1.1 might make things a little more
    clear on why there is little participation.  Instead of supporting
    women who are struggling to remain with a Christian faith, while
    finding their place with their god, I see some people attacking the
    philosophies that these women are bringing into the faith.  
    
    Now I am by no means Christian, nor do I purport to be, but being the
    celebrant of a living religion, I know that challenges to the cultural,
    written, and doctrinal stuff people have thrown into the walk with a
    diety are a necessary part of the life of a given religion.  Refusing
    the dialog or attempting to squelch it when doctrial messages are
    challenged is a sure way to kill off a discussion.
    
    Now for me and I am sure others, Christianity and its preceding faith
    have not been particularly woman-friendly, particularly among some of
    the multitude of doctines that have grown out of this particular
    one-god religion.  I took one path away from it and towards an older,
    living mother, others are struggling to follow the only two
    commandments Jeshua set forth, to love one's god with all one's heart,
    and to treat others as they would be treated.  Is there anything else
    in this inspirational text that is any more important?  As far as I can
    see the rest is so much historical and cultural stuff people can learn
    from but is not breathed necessarily by your diety.  
    
    Some have been less than supportive to those who believe as the bible
    as a guide, rather than as some graven image of a god.  Some seem to
    lack the faith that their god does speak directly to the hearts of many
    of its followers.  Some even seem to say that the voice some hear and
    believe to be god couldn't be and are accusitive of wizardry, delusion,
    or channeling.  
    
    Why am I here, being what I am and who I believe in?  To add another
    perspective.  As one of a few women willing to speak in here I will
    probably try to stay around a bit longer.  
    
    It isn't threatening to note in here, but it truly is interesting to
    see what some people consider good, christian witnessing to be.
    
    meg

    	I wonder why there isn't this gender problem in YUKON::

    
    Because there, women know their place and the limits of their gender.

    	Eric

    	Yeah, that must be it...

	Re: .6 Andreas.

	> maybe we ought to be asking our better halves what would make women 
	> feel more comfortable?

	Maybe if we stopped referring to women in this kind of way, they
	would begin to feel more comfortable. Most women would squirm at
	this reference. I do, too. Why not say -- and mean! -- "partner".

	Re: .5 Glen.

	I know you were kidding Glen (proposing that Jack leave as an
	aid to female comfort) but, if Jack did leave, it would probably
	have the opposite effect. One of his most important contributions
	here is that he raises the average intellectual level to a level
	closer to that which most of the women feel comfortable, even if
	they do not agree -- or strongly oppose -- much of what he says.

	Re: (about) .15 Meg.

	Food for a lot of thought. Thanks,

	Greetings, Derek.


andreas.

| <<< Note 1144.18 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Yeah, that must be it...

	Joe, why do you think there is not a problem with gender issues in that
file?


Glen

	Andreas, I was only kidding about Jack leaving. :-)  



Glen

    re: 15
    		nice note!

    I dunno, are things that far "out of balance"?  Is women's activity in the
    notes conference consistent with DEC's "on-line" population stats for
    men/women?  Also, what about the percentage of women which are
    Christian vs percentage of males which are Christian?  Let's face it,
    there are some christian practices/doctrines which supress women and
    many women might refrain from the conference for reason of disinterest.
    
    My female friends/co-workers wouldn't be intimidated to voice their
    opinions in a notes conference or face-to-face for that matter. The
    discussions in this conference seem civil and well managed.  I don't
    see a problem with regard to intimidation.  In fact, I know some women
    who would reply very aggressively to some topics to the point of
    transgressing some guideline in 0.0.  
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

    
    Re.16
    
    >I wonder why there isn't this gender problem in YUKON::
    
    Surely you forgot the smiley face?
                                           
    But if not, let me say that I don't bother to note there because of the
    attitudes in general, and yes I do find it a male-dominated conference. 
    The majority of the women who are welcomed there, generally have views
    that are basically in line with the men, and so there is no problem.  
    At least on the surface.  (Let me add, however, that I am kind of a
    strange case in that a lot of the moderators of that conference - both 
    past and present - are some very dear people in my life, and we get on 
    very well.)  
    
    Below the surface though, is an eerie silence, and that silence is from
    all the women - Christian and non-Christian - who don't agree with what
    is said there, but do not wish to be viewed or pronounced as basically 
    heretics, witches, and 'deluded'.  As writer Marianne Williamson wrote,
    "Be very clear.  The silence is a sick one."  
    
    In general, women prefer to discuss rather than debate.  At least I do. 
    It's a no-win situation when the other person (a man, usually) isn't 
    *really* listening...rather they're only selectively listening so they 
    can pick up on points to shoot down in the next round.  More debating 
    goes on in notes files than does real discussions where both parties 
    work together to find common ground and work from there.  (One exception 
    was between you and me in the abortion/adoption topic.)
    
    Having said this, I leave it to (all of) your consideration.
    
    Cindy

      Man, I've just read a couple of the replies here and I feel like
      a BIG thing is missing although I think Richard cryptically hit
      on it.
    
      I don't think its so much what we're saying, its how we're saying
      it.
    
      I mean, how many of us really labor to write something in a very
      tactful way so that if it is something contradictory to someone
      else's beliefs, at least it can come accross softly?
    
      Talking about agendas and speaking the truth totally misses the
      point.
    
      Its a challenge for me as well.  Think about how we're conveying 
      our message and really try to come off as hearing the other side
      as well.
    
      It kind of reminds me of something someone mentioned in a seminar
      on couples.  He said that something critical that might be received
      by a guy as the sound of a marble hitting the ground could be
      received by a woman as the crash of a boulder.  And I know this is
      a generalization.
    
      Isn't something being missed when we speak of agendas and needing
      to give the straight truth, but no significance is being paid to
      delivering it in such a way that it doesn't sound like a boulder
      being dropped?
    
    						Tony
                                          

    Worst case, is that maybe there is no place in Christianity for a
    feminist women.  Maybe it's an oxymoron to be Christian and to be a
    feminist.
    
    There certainly are a lot of Feminists who have taken that position.

    
    Re.25
    
    I think you're on to something there, Tony.
    
    Cindy

    Here are some old notes I'm crossposting from another conference that
    may be useful here, for your consideration.
    
    Two more to follow.
    
    Cindy
    
             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 457.1                  Religions and World Peace                    1 of 29
FDCV13::PAINTER                                     154 lines  19-AUG-1987 21:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    {From "Christianity and the World Religions - Paths To Dialogue with
           Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism", by Hans Kung with Josef van Ess, 
           Heinrich von Stietencron and Heinz Bechert, pp.440-443}

Hans Kung: NO WORLD PEACE WITHOUT RELIGIOUS PEACE
           --------------------------------------

Concluding word:

This dialogue was not supposed to be anything more than an interim
report.  It was, as explained, an attempt, a risky experiment, and it 
is not for me to say whether it succeeded.

In its course, certain convergences and divergences between religions 
have become clear.  And if we have managed to clarify the one 
question of what religious dialogue no longer has to argue over and 
what it does, we will have achieved a great deal.

The Christian Responses in particular will be criticized - presumably 
from both sides.  For some they will be too "Christian"; for others, 
not "Christian" enough; for some, too open, too yielding, too 
pluralistic; for others, too narrow, too limiting, too self-conscious.

......

Why must this dialogue go on?  First of all, in order to get an 
increasingly better understanding of our contemporaries, the men and 
women with whom our lives are becoming ever more closely linked.  But 
also to understand ourselves better, which we can do only through 
comparison and encounter. ...  And thirdly, because interreligious 
dialogue is anything but a private, personal, local or regional 
matter.  Its global dimensions are obvious, and so are its 
repercussions on the communal life of the nation and the world.  These 
days, nobody would seriously dispute the fact that peace in the world 
very much depends on the peace among the various religions.  And in an 
age when the technology for an atomic holocaust is already in place, 
this aspect of religious dialogue is more important than all the 
meticulous academic precision, theological subtlety, and intellectual 
sophistry.

There is, then, a significant connection between ecumenism and world 
peace.  Anyone who feels a sense of obligation toward world community 
and who takes seriously the fragility of all human arrangements, who 
has glimpsed all the possibilities of technical and human error, must 
know what is at stake here.  He must know that threats to peace and 
the need to regulate it have long sense burst through the dimension of 
specific, regional conflict, and have become global political 
problems, on which the survival of us all depends.  The ALTERNATIVE 
TODAY IS PEACE IN THE ECUMENE (INHABITED WORLD) OR THE DESTRUCTION OF 
THE ECUMENE ITSELF.

What can an edumenical theology contribute to the pacification of our 
warlike world?  Surely no direct solutions for all the complex 
questions of strategy, military-industrial technology, and 
disarmament.  That is not its original and primary responsibility, 
anyway.

Its very own domain of reflection and action - and even scientists and 
politicians are beginning once again to pay more attention to this 
ethical-religious dimension - is behavior, morality, religion.  And 
here ecumenical theology can help to discover and work the conflicts 
caused by the religions, confessions and denominations themselves.  
And there are a great many structures of conflict that will have to be 
dismantled.

Everyone knows how much disaster has been occasioned in politics by 
RELIGIOUS STRIFE AMONG CHRISTIANS.  One need only recall Northern 
Ireland to realize what I mean.  And Catholic-Protestant antagonism 
was likely a contributing factor, at least subliminally, to the insane 
war over the Falkland Islands; just as the feelings of superiority and 
the efforts to win hegemony by Protestant Yankees in Catholic Central 
and South America - and the reactions to them - have always borne the 
stamp of culture and religion.

What have churches done to oppose this?  True, they have SPOKEN for 
peace and not war, at least in recent days, and that is a good deal.

Generally they have done this speaking, to be sure, only where they 
could do so without any risk.  But have they DONE enough for peace: in 
Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Argentina, in Great Britain, in Germany, in 
Europe and America, Africa and Asia?  Let me say once more, 
unmistakably: Religions, Christianity, the Church, cannot solve or 
prevent the world's conflicts, but they can lessen the amount of 
hostility, hatred, and intransigence.  They can, first, intervene 
concretely for the sake of understanding and reconciliation between 
estranged peoples.  And second, they can begin to do away with at 
least the conflicts of which they themselves are the cause and for 
whose explosiveness they are partly to blame: They can settle the 
doctrinal (and ensuing practical) differences that have divided the 
Church.

This is not demanding the impossible of religions and the churches, it 
is merely asking them to live up to their own programs and basic 
intentions, asking them to direct their appeals for peace not only 
toward the outside (important as that is), but to the inside as well, 
and thus to do deeds of reconciliation and set up signs of peace in 
their own backyards.  We can be sure that these deeds of 
reconciliation, that these sighs of peace, will not fail to radiate 
powerful signals onto the fields of conflict "out there".

Furthermore, there is no denying that the great world RELIGIONS 
THEMSELVES (and not just Christian denominations or ideologies that 
have swollen into quasi religions) share the responsibility for some 
of the most NOTORIOUS POWDER KEGS IN THE WORLD.  Looking from the Far 
East to the Near East, no one could fail to see that in the Vietnam 
War there were religious factors at war (antagonism between Buddhist 
monks and the Catholic regime); that the conflict between India and 
Pakistan, the territorial split that occurred against the will of 
Mahatma Gandhi, has to this day fed on the irreconcilable hostility 
between Hindus and Muslims, continually leading to new massacres (not 
to mention the blood shed by Indians and Sikhs); that the war between 
Iraq and Iran has roots in centuries-old inner-Muslim rivalry and 
enmity between Sunnites and Shiites?

This is to pass over the Middle Eastern conflict, where, as everyone 
knows, Muslims, Jews, and Christians confront each other, armed to the 
teeth, and where they have already lacerated on another in the fifth 
war within the past few decades.

The most fanatical, cruelest political struggles are those that have 
been colored, inspired, and legitimized by religion.  To say this is 
not to reduce all the political conflicts to religious ones, but to 
take seriously the fact that religions SHARE the responsibility for 
bringing peace to our torn and warring world.  Christians, Jews, and 
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, are facing the same challenge.  The 
peoples in question and the rest of the world would have been spared 
tremendous grief if the world religions had recognized sooner their 
responsibility for peace, love of neighbor, and nonviolence, for 
reconciliation and forgiveness - as exemplified by the Hindu Mahatma 
Ghandhi, the Christian Dag Hammarskjold, the Muslim Anwar el-Sadat, 
and the Buddhist U Thant, all of whom promoted the politics of peace 
out of religious conviction.

To sum up, ecumenical dialogue is today anything but the speciality of 
a few starry-eyed religious peacenicks.  For the first time in 
history, it has now taken on the character of an urgent desideratum 
for world politics.  It can help to make our earth more livable, by 
making it more peaceful and more reconciled.

There will be no peace among the peoples of this world without peace 
among the world religions.

There will be no peace among the world religions without peace among 
the Christian churches.

The community of the Church is an integral part of the world 
community.

Ecumenism 'ad intra', concentrated on the Christian world, and 
ecumenism 'ad extra', oriented toward the whole inhabited earth, are 
INTERDEPENDENT.

PEACE IS INDIVISIBLE: IT BEGINS WITH US.

    
             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 457.2                  Religions and World Peace                    2 of 29
FDCV13::PAINTER                                     343 lines  19-AUG-1987 21:56
                      -< Stages of Spiritual Development >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpts from "The Different Drum", by M.Scott Peck, M.D.
=========================================================

From the beginning of the book:

	"To the people of all nations, in the hopes that within a
	 century there will no longer be a Veterans Day Parade
	 but that there will be lots of living people left to march
	 to a different drum, because all the world loves a parade."


From Chapter IX - Patterns of Transformation, pp.186-200
--------------------------------------------------------

The key to community is the acceptance - in fact, the celebration - of 
our individual and cultural differences.  Such acceptance and 
celebration - which resolves the problem of pluralism and which can 
occur only after we learn to become empty (of intolerances) - is also 
the key to world peace.  

This does not mean, however that as we struggle toward world community
we need to consider all individuals or all cultures and societies
equally good or mature.  To do so would be to fall prey once again to
a complex variation of the "illusion of human nature" a variation that
says "We are all different but all the same or equal in our
differences. This is simply not true.  The reality is that just as 
some individuals have become more mature than others, some cultures 
are more or less flawed than others.

Thus we need labor under no compulsion to feel the same degree of 
attraction to each and everyone - or the same degree of taste for 
every culture.  So Gale Webbe wrote in his classic work on the deeper 
aspects of spiritual growth that the further one grows spiritually, 
the more and more people one loves and the fewer and fewer people one 
likes.  (* Gale Webbe, 'The Night and Nothing, p.60)  This is because 
when we have become sufficiently adept at recognizing our own flaws so 
as to cure them, we naturally become adept at recognizing the flaws in 
others.  We may not like people because of these flaws or 
immaturities, but the further we ourselves grow, the more we become 
able to accept - to love - them, flaws and all.  Christ's commandment 
is not to like one another; it is to 'love' one another.

Like community itself, that love is not easy to muster.  It is a part 
of the journey of the spirit.  If that journey is not understood it 
can be a major factor in driving us human beings even further apart.  
The knowledge of its principles, however, can do much to bring us 
together in peace.

THE STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH

...Over the course of a decade of practicing psychotherapy a strange 
pattern began to emerge.  If people who were religious came to me in 
pain and trouble, and if they became engaged in the therapeutic 
process so as to go the whole route, they frequently left therapy as 
atheists, agnostics, or at least skeptics.  On the other hand, if 
atheists, agnostics, or skeptics came to me in pain or difficulty and 
became fully engaged, they frequently left therapy as deeply religious 
people.  

"Same therapy, same therapist, successful but utterly different
outcomes from a religious point of view.  ...It didn't compute until I
realized that 'we are not all in the same place spiritually'. 
           
With that realization came another: there is a pattern of progression 
through identifiable stages in human spiritual life. .....But here I will 
talk about those stages only in general, for individuals are unique and do 
not always fit neatly into any psychological or spiritual pigeonhole.

With that caveat, let me list my own understanding of these stages and the 
names I have chosen to give them:

		STAGE I   - Chaotic, antisocial
		STAGE II  - Formal, institutional 
		STAGE III - Skeptic, individual
		STAGE IV  - Mystic, communal"

Most all young children and perhaps one in five adults fall into Stage 
I.  It is essentially a stage of undeveloped spirituality.  I call it 
antisocial because those adults who are in it (People Of The Lie - 
book by same name) seem generally incapable of loving others.  
Although they may pretend to be loving (and think of themselves that 
way), their relationships with their fellow human beings are all 
essentially manipulative and self-serving.  ...Being unprincipled, 
there is nothing that governs them except their own will.  And since 
that will from moment to moment can go this way or that, there is a 
lack of integrity in their being.  

From time to time people in Stage I get in touch with the chaos of 
their own being, and when they do, I think it is the most painful 
experience a human can have.  A few, I suspect, may kill themselves, 
unable to envision change.  And some, occasionally, convert to Stage 
II.  Such conversions are usually sudden and dramatic and, I believe, 
God-given.  It is as if God had reached down and grabbed their soul 
and yanked it up a quantum leap.  The process also seems to be an 
unconscious one  It just seems to happen.

There are several things that characterize the behavior of men and 
women in Stage II of their spiritual development, which is the stage 
of the majority of churchgoers and believers (as well as that of most 
emotionally healthy "latency"-period children).  One is their 
attachment to the forms (as opposed to the essence) of their religion, 
which is why I call this stage "formal" as well as "institutional". 
They are in fact sometimes so attached to the canons and the liturgy 
that they become very upset if changes are made in the words or the 
music or in the traditional order of things.  ...Since it is precisely 
these forms that are responsible for their liberation from chaos, it 
is no wonder that people at this stage become so threatened when 
someone seems to be playing footloose and fancy-free with the rules.

Another thing characterizing the religious behavior of Stage II people 
is that their vision of God is almost entirely that of an external., 
transcendent Being.  They have very little understanding of the 
immanent, indwelling God - the God of the Holy Spirit, or what Quakers 
call the Inner Light.  and although they often consider Him loving, 
they also generally feel He possesses - and will use - punitive power. 
 But once again, it is no accident that their vision of God is that of 
a giant benevolent Cop in the Sky, because that is precisely the kind 
of God they need - just as they need a legalistic religion for their 
governance.

What happens to children when they are raised in a Stage II home 
environment?  They are treated with importance and dignity (and taken 
to Sunday school as well) and that they absorb the principles of 
Christianity as if with their mother's milk - or the principles of 
Buddhism if raised in a Buddhist home, or of Islam if raised in a 
Muslim home, and so on.  The principles of their parents' religion are 
literally engraved on their hearts, or come to be what 
psychotherapists call "internalized".

But once these principles become internalized, such children, now 
usually late-adolescents, have become self-governing human beings.  As 
such they are no longer dependent on an institution for their 
governance.  Consequently they begin to say to themselves, "Who needs 
this fuddy-duddy old Church with its silly superstitions?"  At this 
point they begin to convert to Stage III - skeptic, individual.  And 
to their parents' great but unnecessary chagrin, they often become 
atheists or agnostics.

Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally 
more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II.  
Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial.  To 
the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to 
social causes.  They make up their own minds and are no more likely to 
believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it 
necessary to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to 
Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved.  They make loving, 
intensely dedicated parents.  As skeptics they are often scientists, 
and as such they are again highly submitted to principle.  Indeed, 
what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and 
procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary 
capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to 
something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual 
comfort - namely, truth.  Advanced Stage III men and women are active 
truth seekers.

"Seek and you shall find," it has been said.  If people in Stage III 
seek the truth deeply and widely enough, they find what they are 
looking for - enough pieces to begin to fit them together but never 
enough to complete the whole puzzle.  In fact, the more pieces they 
find, the larger and more magnificent the puzzle becomes.  Yet they 
are able to get glimpses of the "big picture" and to see that it is 
very beautiful indeed - and that it strangely resembles those 
"primitive myths and superstitions" their Stage II parents and 
grandparents believe in .  At this point they begin conversion to 
Stage IV, which is the mystic communal stage of spiritual development.

...Mysticism also obviously has to do with mystery.  Mystics 
acknowledge the enormity of the unknown, but rather than being 
frightened by it, they seek to penetrate even deeper into it that they 
may understand more - even with the realization that the more they 
understand, the greater the mystery will become.  They love mystery, 
in dramatic contrast to those in Stage II, who need simple, clear-cut 
dogmatic structures and have little taste for the unknown and the 
unknowable.  While Stage IV men and women will enter religion in order 
to approach mystery, people in Stage II, to a considerable extent, 
enter religion in order to escape from it.

"Finally, mystics throughout the ages have not only spoken of emptiness 
but extolled its virtues.  I have labeled STAGE IV communal as well as 
mystical not because all mystic or even a majority of them live in communes 
but because among human beings they are the ones most aware that the whole 
world is a community and realize what divides us into warring camps is 
precisely the 'lack' of this awareness.   Having become practiced at 
emptying themselves of preconceived notions and prejudices and able to 
perceive the invisible underlying fabric that connects everything, they do 
not think in terms of factions or blocs or even national boundaries; they 
'know' this to be one world.

...Perhaps, predictably, there exists a sense of threat among people 
in the different stages of religious development.  Mostly we are 
threatened by people in the stages above us.

...STAGE I people are threatened by just about everything and everybody.  
STAGE II people are not threatened by STAGE I people, the "sinners".  They 
are commanded to love sinners.  But they are very threatened by the 
individuals and skeptics of STAGE III and even more by the mystics of STAGE 
IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in 
them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying.  STAGE III people, on 
the other hand, are neither threatened by STAGE I people nor by STAGE II 
people (whom they simply regard as superstitious) but are cowed by STAGE IV 
people, who seem to be scientific-minded like themselves and know how to 
write good footnotes, yet somehow believe in this crazy God business."

...Much of the art of being a good teacher, healer, or minister 
consists largely in staying just one step ahead of your patients, 
clients, or pupils.  If you are not ahead, it is unlikely that you 
will be able to lead them anywhere.  But if you are two steps ahead, it 
is likely that you will lose them.  If people are one step ahead, we 
usually admire them.  If they are two steps ahead of us, we usually 
think they are evil.  That's why Socrates and Jesus were killed; they 
were thought to be evil.

...An understanding of the stages of spiritual development is 
important for community building.  A group of only Stage IV people or 
only Stage II people is, of course, not so much a community as a 
clique.  A true community will likely include people of all stages.  
With this understanding, it is possible for people in different stages 
to transcend the sense of threat that divides them and to become a 
true community.

In my experience the most dramatic example of this possibility 
occurred in a relatively small community-building group I led several 
years ago.  To this two-day group of twenty-five, there came ten 
fundamentalist Stage II Christians, five Stage III atheists with their 
own guru - a brilliant, highly rationalized trial lawyer - and ten 
Stage IV mystical Christians.  There were moments I despaired that we 
would ever make it into community.  The fundamentalists were furious 
that I, their supposed leader, smoked and drank and vigorously 
attempted to heal me of my hypocrisy and addiction.  The mystics 
equally vigorously challenged the fundamentalists' sexism, 
intolerance, and other forms of rigidity.  Both of course were utterly 
dedicated to converting the atheists.  The atheists in turn sneered at 
the arrogance of us Christians in even daring to think that we had 
gotten hold of some kind of truth.  Nonetheless, after approximately 
twelve hours of the most intense struggle together to empty ourselves 
of our intolerances, we became able to let one another be, each in his 
or her own stage.  And we became a community.  But we could not have 
done so without the cognitive awareness of the different stages of 
spiritual development and the realization that we were not all "in the 
same place,", and that that was literally all right.

My experience suggests that this progression of spiritual development 
holds true in all cultures and for all religions.  Indeed, one of the 
things that seems to characterize all the great religions - 
Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - is their 
capacity to speak to people in both Stage II and Stage IV.  In fact, I 
suspect this is why they are great religions.  It is as if the words 
of each had two different translations.  Let us take a Christian 
example: "Jesus is my savior."  At Stage II this is often translated 
into a Jesus who is a kind of fairy godmother who will rescue me 
whenever I get in trouble as long as I remember to call upon his name. 
And that's true.  He will do just that.  At Stage IV "Jesus is my 
savior" is translated as "Jesus, through his life and death, taught me 
the way I must follow for my salvation."  Which is also true.  Two 
totally different translations, two totally different meanings, but 
both of them true.

"It is also important to remember that no matter how far we develop 
spiritually, we retain in ourselves vestiges of the previous stages 
through which we have come...   I don't suppose I could be writing 
this were I not basically a kind of STAGE IV person.

But I can assure you that there exists a STAGE I Scott Peck, who at 
the first sign of any significant stress is quite tempted to lie and 
cheat and steal.  I keep him well encaged, I hope, in a rather 
comfortable cell, so that he won't be let loose upon the world.  (And 
I am able to do this only because I acknowledge his existence, which 
is what Jungian psychologists mean by the 'integration of the Shadow'. 
Indeed, I do not attempt to kill him if for no other reason than that 
I need to go down into the dungeon from time to time to consult him, 
safely ensconced behind the bars, when I am in need of a particular 
kind of 'street smarts').

Similarly, there is a STAGE II Scott Peck, who in moments of stress 
and fatigue would very much like to have a Big Brother or Big Daddy 
around who would give him some clear-cut, black-and-white answers to 
life's difficult, ambiguous dilemmas and some formulas to tell him how 
to behave, relieving him of the responsibility of figuring it all out 
for himself.

And there is STAGE III Scott Peck, who if invited to address a 
prestigious scientific assembly, under stress of such an occasion 
would want to regress into thinking, Well, I better just talk to them 
about carefully controlled, measurable studies and not mention any of 
this God business."

"...Conversions from STAGE I and STAGE II are usually sudden and 
dramatic.  Conversions from STAGE III to STAGE IV are generally 
gradual."

....It is during the process of conversion from STAGE III to STAGE IV 
that people generally first become conscious that there is such a 
thing as spiritual growth.  There is a potential pitfall in this 
consciousness, however, and that is the notion some have at this point 
that they can they themselves 'direct' the process.  ...I believe that 
we cannot get to God under our own steam.  We must allow God to do the 
directing.

In any case, whether sudden or gradual, no matter how different in 
other respects, Stages I to II and Stages III to IV conversions do 
have one thing in common: a sense on the part of the persons converted 
that their own conversions were not something they themselves achieved 
but rather gifts from God.

As a part of the process of spiritual growth, the transition from 
Stage II to Stage III is also conversion.  We can be converted to 
atheism or agnosticism or, at least, skepticism!  Indeed I have every 
reason to believe that God has a hand in this part of the conversion 
process as well.  One of the greatest challenges, in fact, facing the 
Church is how to facility the conversion of its members from Stage II 
to Stage IV without them having to spend a whole adult lifetime in 
Stage III.  It is a challenge that the Church has historically avoided 
rather than begun to face.  As far as I'm concerned, one of the 
greatest sins of our sinful Christian Church has been its 
discouragement, through the ages, of doubt.  In so doing, it has 
consistently driven growing people out of its potential community, 
often fixating them thereby in a perpetual resistance to spiritual 
insights.  Conversely, the Church is not going to meet this challenge 
until doubt is properly considered a Christian virtue - indeed, a 
Christian responsibility.  We neither can nor should skip over 
questioning in our development.

In fact, it is only through the process of questioning that we begin 
to become even dimly aware that the whole point of life is the 
development of souls.  As I said, the notion that we can totally 
direct this development is a pitfall of such awareness.  But the 
beauty of the consciousness that we are all on an ongoing spiritual 
journey and that there is no end to our conversion far outshines that 
one pitfall.  For once we become aware that we are on a journey - that 
we are all pilgrims - for the first time we can actually begin to 
cooperate consciously with God in the process.

That is why Paul Vitz, at a symposium with me, correctly told the audience: 
"I think Scott's stages have a good deal of validity, and I suspect 
that I shall be using them in my practice, but I want you to remember 
that what Scotty calls STAGE IV is the beginning."

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 457.3                  Religions and World Peace                    3 of 29
FDCV13::PAINTER                                     130 lines  19-AUG-1987 21:59
                            -< Stages of Community >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpts from "The Different Drum", by M.Scott Peck, M.D.
=========================================================

From Chapter IX - Patterns of Transformation, pp.200-206
--------------------------------------------

TRANSCENDING CULTURE

The process of spiritual development I have described is highly 
analogous to the development of community.  Stage I people are 
frequently pretenders; they pretend they are loving and pious, 
covering up their lack of principles.  The first, primitive stage of 
group formation - pseudocommunity - is similarly characterized by 
pretense.  The group tries to look like a community without doing any 
of the work involved.

Stage II people have begin the work of submitting themselves to the 
principle - the law.  But they do not yet understand the spirit of the 
law.  Consequently they are legalistic, parochial, and dogmatic.  
They are threatened by anyone who thinks differently from them, and so 
regard it as their responsibility to convert or save the other 90 or 
99 percent of humanity who are not "true believers."  it is this same 
style of functioning that characterizes the second stage of the 
community process in which the group members try vehemently to fix one 
another.  The chaos that results is not unlike that existing among the 
various feuding denominations or sects within or between the world's 
different religions.

Stage III, a phase of questioning, is analogous to the crucial stage 
of emptiness in community formation.  In reaching for community the 
members of a group must question themselves.  "Is my particular 
theology so certain - so true and complete - as to justify my 
conclusion that these other people are not saved?" they may ask.  Or 
"I wonder to what extent my feelings about homosexuals (or any other 
'group') represent a prejudice bearing little relation to reality?". 
Or "Could I have swallowed the party line in thinking that all 
religious people are fanatics?".  Indeed, such questioning is the 
required beginning of the emptying process.  We cannot succeed in 
emptying ourselves of preconceptions, prejudices, needs to control or 
convert, and so forth, without first becoming skeptical of them and 
without doubting their necessity.  Conversely, individuals remain 
stuck in Stage III precisely because they do not doubt deeply enough.  
To enter Stage IV they must begin to empty themselves of some of the 
dogmas of skepticism such as Anything that can't be measured 
scientifically can't be known and isn't worth studying.  They must 
begin to doubt even their own doubt.

Does this mean, then, that a true community is a group of all Stage IV 
people?  Paradoxically the answer is yes and no.  It is no because the 
individual members are hardly capable of growing so rapidly as to 
totally discard their customary styles of thinking when they return 
from the group to their usual worlds.  But it is yes because in 
community the members have learned how to behave in a Stage IV manner 
in relation to one another.  Among themselves they all practice 
the kind of emptiness, acceptance, and inclusiveness that have 
characterized the behavior of mystics throughout the ages.  They 
retain their basic identity as Stage I, II, III, or IV individuals.  
Indeed, knowledge of these stages is in part so important because it 
facilitates the acceptance of one another as being in different stages 
- different places spiritually.  Such acceptance is a prerequisite for 
community.  But, wonderfully, once such acceptance is achieved - and 
it can be achieved only through emptiness - Stage I, II and III men 
and women routinely possess the capacity to act toward one another as 
if they were Stage IV people.  In other words, out of love and 
commitment to the whole, virtually all of us are capable of 
transcending our backgrounds and limitations.  So it is that genuine 
community is so much more than the sum of its parts.  It is, in truth, 
a mystical body.

...The conversion from Stage I to Stage II is essentially a leap of 
socialization or enculturation.  It is at that point at which we first 
adopt the values of our tribal, cultural religion and begin to make 
them our own.  Just as Stage II people tend to be threatened, however, 
by any questioning of their religious dogma, so they are also 
"culture-bound" - utterly convinced that the way things are done in 
their culture is the right and only way.  And just as people entering 
Stage III begin to question the religious doctrines with which they 
were raised, so they also begin to question all cultural values of the 
society into which they were born.  Finally as they (the STAGE III
skeptics) begin to reach for STAGE IV, they also begin to reach toward
the notion of world community and the possibility of either
transcending culture or - depending on which way you want to use the
words - belonging to a planetary culture." 

Aldous Huxley (from 'The Perennial Philosophy) labeled mysticism "the 
perennial philosophy" because the mystical way of thinking and being 
has existed in all cultures and all times since the dawn of recorded 
history.  Although a small minority, mystics of all religions the 
world over have demonstrated an amazing commonalty, unity.  Unique 
though they might be in their individual personhood, they have largely 
escaped free from - transcended - those human differences that are 
cultural.

...I continue today no longer to belong anywhere in terms of what is 
usually thought of as a culture.  But I am far from being alone.  
Slowly I have found a person here and a person there in the same 
predicament.  And ours was not a miserable affair, like the poor "man 
without a country" who was doomed forever to roam the seas in a narrow 
sailing vessel.  To the contrary, we were far more free than most to 
move through the nations of the world, no longer bound by cultural 
conventions.  There were times when it was lonely, but in recent years 
men and women without a culture have been joining me by the tens of 
thousands.  None of us would go back, even if we could, but we do from 
time to time experience a certain poignant sadness that, as perpetual 
pilgrims, we "can't go home again."

....Nowhere in all of literature is there a better description of 
someone who had transcended culture than in the Gospels.  Before and 
since Jesus, from time to time there have been saints who have 
transcended their culture and also had "no place to lay their heads."  
But they were one in ten thousand, if that.  Today it is different.  
Because of the multiplicity of factors - most particularly instant, 
mass communication that brings foreign cultures to our door, and the 
availability of psychotherapy that leads us to question the programs,
cultural and otherwise, within which we were raised - the number of
people entering the mystical stage of development and transcending
ordinary culture seems to have increased a thousandfold in the course
of a mere generation or two.  They remain a minority - currently no
more than one in twenty.  Still one wonders if the explosion in their
numbers might represent a giant leap forward in the evolution of the
human race, a leap toward not only mystical but global consciousness
and world community.* " 

* Perhaps the greatest prophet of this leap was Teilhard de Chardin.

| <<< Note 1144.26 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>


| Worst case, is that maybe there is no place in Christianity for a feminist 
| women.  

	I know a lot of people who would love you to believe that, Patricia.
Don't you ever let them convince you. God will accept anyone who asks. Even
Jack Martin! :-)  So yes, a feminist is welcomed by God.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    I have absolute Faith that a feminist is welcome by God.
    
    My faith that there is a place in Christianity for a feminist is not so
    absolute.
    
    I guess I may be in a similiar place as Richard if I am interpreting
    Richard correctly.
    
    Jesus may be the Way, the Truth and the Life, but is Christianity the
    way, the truth,  and the life?  And if it isn't, then what am I suppose
    to do about it!
    
    
                                          Patricia

    Cindy,
    
    It would be a lot easier if you didn't bring Scott Peck up.
    
    Then I could retreat to the UU saftey net and never worry about world
    community of liberals, conservatives, and fundementalists!
    
                                               Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    There is an old hymn that I have to remind myself of quite
    frequently...
    
    "Have thine own way Lord...have thine own way.
     You are the potter...I am the clay....
     Mold me and make me....after thy will.....
     While I am waiting...yielded and still..."
    
    I really don't know what to say about your dilemna.  It would appear I
    am what a feminist would consider "the enemy", considering I am of the
    belief that men and women coexist, equally important in the eyes of God
    and yet there is a variance in the roles of men and women.  I believe
    this, I've seen it work and I've seen for the most part solid family
    units because of it.  I have a hard time shunning that which works.
    
    The only thing I would like to say is what I have said in the past. 
    A cause or a crusade in life must be molded by our outlook on God and
    His Word.  God and his Word must not be molded by a cause.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I am willing to let God mold me as God will.
    
    I am not willing to let institutional Christianity mold me as Christianity
    might want too.
    
    I am not willing to let fundementalist Christianity use the Bible on me
    as they might want too!
    
    It's that simple.
    
    If it really works for you Jack, then I am glad.
    
                                         Patricia

<---Patricia, that has to be one of the shortest, best notes I have ever seen!!!

    Glen....
    
    
    
    Excellent note!

ZZ    I am not willing to let institutional Christianity mold me as
ZZ    Christianity might want too.
      
      You mean as institutional Christianity might want to...and that is
    fine.
        
ZZ    I am not willing to let fundementalist Christianity use the Bible
ZZ    on me as they might want too!
        
    That may be as well...but truth is truth regardless of how
    uncomfortable it may make us feel.  
    
    I am reminded of the times when Jesus was being tempted by Satan. 
    Every time Satan would try to tempt Jesus, Jesus would always refute by
    saying, "Thus saith the Lord..."  I believe this is why the Bible is
    referred to in scripture as the Sword of Truth.  You may recall even
    Satan attempted to use the Word of God out of context...the caveat to
    picking and choosing which scripture is inspired and which is not.
    
    -Jack
ZZ    It's that simple.
    

    
    Re.33
    
    Oops!  Sorry Patricia.  
    
    Cindy

      "I am willing to let God mold me as God will."
    
      Patricia, isn't that a tad bit presumptuous?  I am of the persuasion
      that I don't know my heart.  God could be WILLING for me to make
      a zillion different choices in my life and my understandings, but
      it is possible that my heart is so hard that I don't discern the
      communication of His will toward me all that well.
    
      It is in a personal conviction of weakness that God can really work
      through us.  We all need to better know our own soul-poverty.  The
      better we have a sense of how much we *do not allow* God to mold us
      as He will, the more we will cry out for that heart that really does
      allow Him to mold us, and the more we really will enable Him to do so.
    
      I believe there are a myriad of paradoxes in truth.
    
      The following is one...
    
      The more we think we are willing, the less willing we really are.
    
      The more, in a sense of deep soul poverty, we think we are unwilling,
      the more willing we really are!
    
    							Tony

re Note 1144.38 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I am reminded of the times when Jesus was being tempted by Satan. 
>     Every time Satan would try to tempt Jesus, Jesus would always refute by
>     saying, "Thus saith the Lord..."  I believe this is why the Bible is
>     referred to in scripture as the Sword of Truth.  You may recall even
>     Satan attempted to use the Word of God out of context...the caveat to
>     picking and choosing which scripture is inspired and which is not.
  
        I think that you just made quite the opposite point --
        Scripture isn't infallible except when the interpretation
        (the picking and choosing, if you will) is infallible.  Satan
        used Scripture, yet he was dead wrong, just as
        fundamentalists are (sometimes) dead wrong in their use of
        Scripture.  Finding something in Scripture is no guarantee --
        what made Jesus' quote of Scripture correct was not
        Scripture, but Jesus!

        (Remember, Jesus often told stories that were non-scriptural
        in origin -- no conservative doubts their truth simply
        because Jesus didn't find them in Scripture!  You don't
        believe that Scripture alone is infallible yourself, yet you
        use it as a club to attack others!)

        Now perhaps if you are Catholic you might believe that you
        have a source of infallible interpretation upon which to
        rely, but if you aren't, then you must rely on the Holy
        Spirit, which is the same as Patricia's "still small voice".

        Bob

    It is not presumptious.
    
    I'm not saying I have absolute faith in my power to comprehend God's
    will for me.
    
    I'm saying I have absolute faith in the Master Craftsperson's power to
    mold me as the Master wills.
    

     
    From Note 1146.14

    > Man:   It is mankind's idea.
    > 
    > Woman:  I don't feel included when you use mankind.
    > 
    > Man:  I don't care.  How many times have I told you womankind are
    >       included within mankind.

    While I do care that you don't feel included in the term mankind, I
    don't fully understand why. As a man, I've never felt included in
    mankind just because the first three letters are m-a-n. 

    Eric

    
    Eric,
    
    I'm not sure how to answer except to say, try putting yourself in a
    woman's place, and reread what you wrote in the 'Man'/'Woman' dialogue,
    and then see you you feel.  
    
    I have heard men actually say that they don't care how women feel - 
    that 'mankind' includes women, and it's 'always been done that way', 
    and is 'proper English', and so they have no intention of changing just 
    to cater to those feminist women who do not feeling included.  And so
    on.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    In my case, I do care how women feel but at the same time I didn't
    believe feelings took the primary role over proper English protocol.
    
    Since Webster is an authority on the Enlish language, and since
    Womankind and humankind are now in the dictionary, I now believe the
    use of those words as proper and will start using them.  See, I am not
    as stubborn as you think!
    
    Now what would you think of me if I stated the dictionary is a
    wonderful book of truths; however, there are certain words like
    humankind that I simply refuse to follow since they interfere with my
    male dominance agenda.  What would you think of me then???
    
    -Jack

    our first call for the Innerrancy principle as applied to  Webster!

    Patricia:
    
    I am still interested in your reply on humility...washing feet and all
    that.
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    Let me ascertain one thing first - do you indeed, in truth, have a male
    dominance agenda?
    
    Cindy

    
    re.45
    
    Jack,
    
    >proper English protocol.
    
    Is a fallacy.  This language has been evolving since its inception, and
    will continue to.  You may object to changing it due to 'feelings',
    however since this culture teaches men to repress their feelings, I'm
    not all that surprised at your response.
    
    I sincerely doubt, furthermore, that it was a man who insisted that the
    title 'Ms.' be included in the language, and yet finally after many
    years it is an accepted title used quite commonly.  And so on.
    
    Cindy
                                            

re Note 1144.45 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     In my case, I do care how women feel but at the same time I didn't
>     believe feelings took the primary role over proper English protocol.
  
        What was it that Jesus said about the relationship between
        the Sabbath and people? 

        I think the same thing could be said about the English (or
        any other) language -- it is made for humanity, and not the
        other way around.

        Bob

    
    > I'm not sure how to answer except to say, try putting yourself in a
    > woman's place, and reread what you wrote in the 'Man'/'Woman' dialogue,
    > and then see you you feel.

    I can't honestly put myself in the place of a woman... or an black, or
    a Jew. I can sympathize, but I can't empathize. 
    
    From my perspective -- admittedly the socially secure perspective of
    maleness -- I see the word 'man' as a homonym. In some uses gender is
    implied and in others it is not. When 'm-a-n' (or 'm-e-n') is used as a
    prefix or suffix, it has conveyed gender neutrality to me. For example,
    mankind, and chairman. The word 'woman' has always been gender
    specific.

    I guess women, or more correctly some women and some men, don't share
    this perspective of the word 'man,' that is it's context conditional
    gender neutrality. For these people m-a-n *always* means maleness. This
    leaves me wondering, is it that some people are insensitive, or is it
    that some people are over sensitive? Maybe it's a little of both. I'll
    say one thing, if you share your sensitivities with me I will try to
    accommodate them.

    
    	Eric

    
    Thank you for that, Eric.  I really appreciate your writing what you
    just did.
    
    Please feel free to share your sensitivities too.  
    
    If indeed, the word had been 'womankind', and you, as a man, came to 
    me and said that you didn't feel included in that, I would be one of 
    the first in line to insist upon it being changed to something that 
    was more inclusive.
    
    Cindy

    > You may object to changing it due to 'feelings',

    A case could be made that those advancing the "proper English"
    argument are driven much more by 'feelings' than are feminists
    who want more inclusive language.  Indeed, it is more than
    just a 'feeling' of exclusion that drives the desire for more
    inclusive language.  Language is powerful and helps shape the
    way we think and act.  Exclusive language has helped shape an
    exclusive, oppressive, sexist society.

    If the only argument against using inclusive language is that 
    it isn't "proper English" - that is to say the ultimate goal of 
    male/female equality is really SHARED with the "proper English" 
    crowd - then I am left with the impression that those who object 
    to inclusive language do so purely for emotional reasons.  

    Surely these mere feelings ought not stand in the way of the
    universally desired goal?

    /Greg

    Jack,
    
    I don't think Jesus' intent was to have his suggestion of humility be
    used as a tool against women.  I don't think he intended that men
    should use his words to suggest that women should display humility.
    
    I think he was suggesting that people look inward at themselves and
    demonstrate that humility.  I think he was particularly concerned with
    those pharasees who felt they belonged in a place of honor because of
    there societal status.  
    
    

    
    Thanks, too, Bob and Greg.  Indeed, indeed.
    
    Cindy

    I do appreciate the voice of supportive men in this discussion too!.  I
    appreciate the fact that it is in fact a relatively small number of men
    who insist that women should accept things as they have always been.

      Hi Patricia,
    
        OK, I see I misinterpreted.  Thanks for straightening me out
        on what you meant!
    
        Just an important note for all of us.  The power is indeed
        in the word, but that power can be totally suppressed (so
        far as its power to change the heart is concerned) if it is
        not received by faith.
    
        Parable of the seed and the sower is relevant.
    
        **************************************************************
    
        I've got one thought here...
    
        If any person is passionate about the improvement of any group
        of which that person is a part...if that is a continuous common
        denominator, would such be evident that the underlying motivation
        is the exaltation of self rather than the crucifixion of self?
    
        An example might be a black man who is passionate about black's
        rights.  Why black's rights?  Why not women's rights?  Could it
        be because he is black and not a woman?  And if so, isn't 'self'
        in some subtle way still the ultimate underlying motivation?
        And I'm not condemning a black man perhaps being passionate 
        about black's rights.  I am only suggesting that the overriding
        underlying motivation is the big thing.
    
        God looks on the heart.  He does not look on the outward act!
        He looks down deep, deep and sees what motivates our behaviors!
    
        I guess something that appeals to me (especially) is when a person
        is passionate about things and those things he/she is passionate
        about really are not self serving.  The person esteems all others
        above herself and thus is blind as to whether or not she just
        happens to be a part of that group she is trying to help.
    
        Like a total blindness to that age-old problem of serving self.
    
        Does this make any sense at all????
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                                                                       

re Note 1144.57 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI:

>         An example might be a black man who is passionate about black's
>         rights.  Why black's rights?  Why not women's rights?  Could it
>         be because he is black and not a woman?  And if so, isn't 'self'
>         in some subtle way still the ultimate underlying motivation?
>         And I'm not condemning a black man perhaps being passionate 
>         about black's rights.  I am only suggesting that the overriding
>         underlying motivation is the big thing.
  
        I think you may be going a bit far in wondering whether
        response in one's own community is "self" centered.

        I don't think it is wrong to give *proper* regard to one's
        own concerns, especially concerns one shares with others.

        Bob

      Hi Bob,
    
        I respectfully disagree!
    
        Note that I didn't say it was *necessarily* wrong.  What I
        did say is that if a person's 'causes' just always happen
        to be one's wherein that person is a part of that group one
        is trying to help and (just as coincedentally) is NEVER a
        group that one is not a part of...
    
        THEN I would suspect underlying motivation.
    
        Again, God looks on the heart.  The underlying motivation may
        or may not be selfless.
    
    							Tony

    Tony,
    
    I would go further and say, Self interest is important.  I believe that
    what is truly good for the individual members of society is truly good
    for the society as a whole.
    
    the equality and justice of each individual within a society is good
    for the society as a whole.  We are an interconnected web.  Using
    Christian language, "We are one body of Christ".  An illness or blight
    on any one part of the body is an illness or blight on the whole body.
    
    The key though is understanding that what is truly good for me is not
    having a bigger share of material goods but what is truly good for me
    is to be truly loving and to be truly loved.  That includes truly
    loving myself.
    
    As a woman who has felt oppression myself, I sympathize with all people
    who are oppressed.  I believe passionately in women's rights.  I also
    believe passionately in the liberation of people of color, in the
    liberation of Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters, and in the
    liberation of all people living under the choke of poverty.  I don't
    want a world in which any one person dominates another, but a world in
    which is radically inclusive and in which all live together in harmony.
    
                     
    Patricia

ZZ    Let me ascertain one thing first - do you indeed, in truth, have a
ZZ    male dominance agenda?
    
    Cindy, after thinking this through for about five minutes...still not
    sure how to word it because no doubt it will fit somebodys description
    of male dominence.  I do NOT have an agenda per sae...my wife for
    example does tend to give me direction at times and I tend to follow
    it.  However, the direction she gives me is in relation to taking the
    role of Spiritual leader in the home.  Now readers here consider this
    dominence but I do not.  I consider it the proper role of the husband
    in a family unit.  
    
    What I will state however is it is a fallacy to say men and women are
    the same.  It is a lie to propogate this.  Women and men have clearly
    distinct roles...alone by their anatomy and in other ways by physical
    ability.  In short, women compensate for men where they are weak and
    men compensate for women where they are weak.  
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    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?
    
    -Jack

================================================================================
Note 1146.79                The Institutional Church                    79 of 81
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                      14 lines  28-SEP-1995 12:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      
    Re.75 from Dolores
    
    Men - at least the ones who care about why there aren't more women
    actively participating here (and even those who aren't) -  please 
    don't let this comment from Dolores escape you:
    
    >   I don't note here at all and maintain a read-only
    >   status because I don't have the energy to battle
    >   all the time.  I agree with what you say, Patricia,
    >   but for me at this time in my life, I don't have
    >   extra energy. 
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.61
    
    Jack,
    
    Then since you are not consciously trying to forward the idea of male
    dominance, I cannot answer your question of how I would feel about it,
    since it is a moot point.
    
    I think that what you and your wife do in your own home with regards to
    spiritual leadership is your business, as long as you treat each other
    with respect and you do not abuse her in any way.  
    
    However, it's also important to respect that other people - including 
    me - do not choose this 'spiritual leadership' model for our own homes, 
    and there's nothing wrong with this either, regardless of whether you 
    think that it is wrong for others simply because 'the Bible says so'.
                  
    Cindy

         
    Last night I was at choir rehearsal and picked up one of the UU
    pamphlets entitled, "Can I Believe Anything I Want?"
    
    Under the UU statement of: "We affirm and promote an ongoing search for
    truth.", Clara Barton, Universalist and founder of the American Red
    Cross, is quoted as saying:
    
    	"I have an almost complete disregard of precedent and a faith
    	 in the possibility of something better.  It irritates me to be
    	 told how things always have been done....I defy the tyranny of
    	 precedent.  I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind.  I go
    	 for anything new that might improve the past."
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    I have never stated a family unit couldn't practice spiritual
    leadership, spiritual equality...whatever works.  I have only extolled
    the virtues of the man being the spiritual leader and it IS I who has
    beared the brunt of being accused of male dominence...not the other way
    around.
    
    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."  
    
    Great servants make the best leaders.
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    I don't ever recall personally accusing you of anything of the sort
    (male dominance).
    
    Also, it's been quite some time since I've actively read this
    conference, so maybe it's better to consider either dropping or
    reevaluating some opinions you hold so that you can more easily hear 
    and interpret correctly that which I'm saying.  I don't like being 
    lumped in with stuff that I never said, and have assumptions made on 
    that which are completely incorrect.
    
    If you think the Bible is telling you that you, as a man, should be the
    spiritual leader in your home, and your wife doesn't have a problem
    with that, then I don't really have a problem with you both doing that
    either.  Fine - great.  
    
    But, (BUT) I don't personally agree that this is what the Bible teaches, 
    and furthermore even if it did and you successfully Proved Beyond a
    Shadow of a Doubt that it did, I *still* would not marry someone who 
    holds such an assumption/fact/whatever, because that's not the way I 
    prefer to live my life.  Also, since I'm not Christian per se, it is a
    moot point anyway, but that's an aside.
    
    Hope this makes things between you and me more clear.
    
    Cindy
                 

    
    Jack,
    
    I am really curious - do you wash the dishes in your home?  Bathe the
    children?  Clean the floors?  Etc.?  Or do you consider these things
    'women's work'?
    
    Cindy

re Note 1144.61 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     What I will state however is it is a fallacy to say men and women are
>     the same.  It is a lie to propogate this.  Women and men have clearly
>     distinct roles...alone by their anatomy and in other ways by physical
>     ability.  In short, women compensate for men where they are weak and
>     men compensate for women where they are weak.  
  
        Jack,

        The problem I have with statements like the above is that
        they are not *always* true, yet are offered as universal
        verity.  As examples:  Some men are physically weaker than
        some women.  Not all women are able to bear children.

        It is a *lie* to say or imply that all woman have a certain
        role, or that all men have a certain role.  It is a lie to
        say that because a certain person is female, then that
        particular individual must play a certain role, and it is
        equally a lie to say that because a certain person is male,
        then that certain person must fulfill a certain role.

        There is a vast difference between "true 99% of the time" and
        "always true".

        (I think this is another symptom of the human desire to
        regard certain things as absolute truth, the insistence that
        the things we rely upon must be *always* true -- *mostly*
        true just isn't good enough for human nature.)

        Bob

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Just to make note of a difference in understanding, I do not
        believe in loving myself.  1 Corin 13 seems to paint a love
        that does not look upon itself with that love.  I do however
        believe in personal dignity/respect and I find my comfort, not
        in loving myself, but in contemplating God's love for me.
    
        Yes, Jesus said to love others as you would love yourself,
        but many scholars, including Luther, felt that it means, "The
        way you used to love yourself.  NOW go and love others."
    
        Sort of like esteeming all greater than oneself.
    
      Hi Cindy,
    
        I admit to believing the word does call the man to assume the
        role of 'spiritual leader' (whatever that means!).  If I didn't
        believe in the inspiration of the word, I wouldn't believe this.
        BUT, I believe there is a Creator and men and women are physiolo-
        gically different.  There is some gender basis for some differences
        in behavior.
    
        To be 'spiritual leader' does not in any way imply being better.
        I believe men and women are equal, each having differing strengths
        and weaknesses in some ways.
    
        Ultimately, some basis is probably relied upon as that thing which
        forms our value sets.  My basis is the word of God in conjunction
        with reason and (hopefully!) submission to His promptings in my
        mind.
    
        I think an interesting tangent would be a discussion of the basis
        for why we are having differing views on this.  Just curious...
        what is your basis?
    
        By the way, I usually wash the dishes and take the laundry up and
        down the stairs.  I bathed the kids when they were younger and 
        changed diapers although my wife did the 'kid stuff' more often.
    
        I wouldn't have minded if my wife *preferred* to do auto mechanics.
        Maybe she's a sexist pig!  She had a STRONG insistence that I
        should do that!  She's probably not going to help me cut and split
        the 8 cords worth of logs I have in my backyard either!
    
        Oh well...
                                                                        
    							Tony

    My wife mows the lawn.
    
    My son sometimes takes out the garbage.
    
    We buy the two logs we burn in the fireplace every year.
    
    We pay a mechanic to work on the van.
    
    One of the 3 pastors at my local church is a woman.
    
    Richard
    

    Implicit in the commandment to Love thy neighbor as thyself is the
    commandment to love thyself.
    
    What rationale did you (or did LUther) use to seemingly alter the
    commandment?
    
    It is unfortunately that your belief in the innerrancy of the Bible
    forces you to accept the premise that the man is commanded to be the
    spiritual leader of the family.  I have often wonder what this means to
    a Christian women married to a non Christian man.  I guess that if the
    man insisted that the children be brought up in a different religion,
    then the Christian women must agree!  
    
    Or are there some unspoken conditions to the requirement?

    Richard,
    
    How come only 1 out of 3? (;-)

    
    Re.70
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    Long time!  I don't have a basis, per se, that I can point to.  I guess
    it comes more from several experiences I've had where I've experienced
    the essence of my own being far beyond the gender body that I happened 
    to be born into this time around.  Because of this, I see no need
    whatsoever of a male marriage partner being a 'spiritual leader' to me, 
    mainly as I prefer just go to God directly.    
    
    Btw, I have split wood before.  (;^)  
    
    Cindy
                                                 

    
    An interesting comment to come from the Beijing 4th Conference on
    Women:
    
    >In Norway, where Brundtland has been prime minister for fifteen 
    >years, four-year-olds sometimes ask their mothers: "But can a man 
    >be prime minister?" 
    
    Cindy

ZZ    I am really curious - do you wash the dishes in your home?  Bathe
ZZ    the children?  Clean the floors?  Etc.?  Or do you consider these
ZZ    things 'women's work'?
    
    No exaggerations here...pure truth...
    
    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.  As far as bathing the children, I shower the boys
    about 80% of the time.  Michele likes bathing Audrey as she is a year
    old and she is clinging to taking care of real little one's!
    
    In my nine years of being married, I have swept and cleaned the kitchen
    floor every week.  I believe this to be a man's job as well as cleaning
    the bathrooms...although I will say she does that more than I do.  It
    is happening this way because we have kind of fallen into a routine.  I
    never make beds because I am incompetant in such matters! :-)  
    
    The other thing, against popular belief, is that all these things I do
    are a part of spiritual leadership.  Michele thinks intricately whereas
    I think of the whole picture.  Therefore, I am able to complete tasks
    alot faster than she does.  She is far more detail oriented. 
    Therefore, I take on the tasks that would occupy much of her time.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1144.76 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Michele thinks intricately whereas I think of the whole picture.  
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Is there an oxymoron note? :-)  Jack, I'm curious. How does one
think of the whole picture without thinking intricately? 

| Therefore, I am able to complete tasks alot faster than she does. She is far 
| more detail oriented. 

	Jack, a lot can be said from the above. Maybe you should slow down a
bit, and look more into details. I think this will help you complete tasks
correctly, and not just complete tasks. By tasks, I am talking about noting.
Details, especially in a forum such a this, become so very important. Something
we need to get the whole picture. 

	Speaking Spiritually now, details have to be there if a message is
going to be given/received correctly, right?

| Therefore, I take on the tasks that would occupy much of her time.

	My father used to do the same thing. As my father is a lot like you, he
gets things done quicker. My mother is a lot like your wife, as she is detailed
in how she approaches things. Over the years my mother found it much easier to
do the work herself, though, as where my father wasn't paying attention to the
details, she ended up going back and redoing it again. 




Glen

 ZZ           Is there an oxymoron note? :-)  Jack, I'm curious. How does one
 ZZ   think of the whole picture without thinking intricately? 
    
    To rephrase, Michele is more micro whereas I am more macro.  If she
    substitutes a Sunday school class for young children, she will spend
    two hours writing out a lesson plan...three pages long.  I on the other
    hand will take an index card...write out five important points and
    expound on those points.  Considering the pace we have with the
    children, there are times where my method is far more practical.
    
    However, you are correct.  She never forgets things or misses any
    details.  She tends to be more organized and yet she would have trouble
    making deadlines.  I make the deadlines but I'm more likely to leave my
    notebook on the kitchen table.  I rarely forget what I need but she
    never forgets.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1144.78 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| However, you are correct. She never forgets things or misses any details. She 
| tends to be more organized and yet she would have trouble making deadlines.  

	Jack, if she is as organized as you make her out to be, she wouldn't
have trouble making deadlines, would she? Wouldn't the deadline be part of her
being organized? 

| I make the deadlines but I'm more likely to leave my notebook on the kitchen 
| table.  

	Then how did you make the deadline? :-)  Jack, I have heard people give
updates on projects that made the deadline. Some looked like they were
researched, while others looked like they were done on index cards. With
children, for now anyway, you might be able to get away with index cards. With
this forum, it doesn't seem to be working. And I was talking about this forum.

	I will say that the more you discuss this, the more I think I understand
you. Leaving out the details seems to fit you quite well. :-)

	Oh yeah. You didn't address this, and I am still curious about it.
Don't details need to be there when talking, reading, listening to things about
God so the person listening, or reading will understand what is being said? 



Glen

    Yes...those details need to be expounded upon...many details like
    eternal judgement, sovereignty, righteousness, holiness, and many other
    unpleasant attributes that are many times neglected in this conference.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, yer gettin a little grumpy here! :-(  

    Me???!!!!! Neverrrrrrrr........
    
    Surely you realize you aren't the first person who has implied I leave
    out detail here.  I just wanted to be sure it is understood there are
    alot of us with our hands in the cookie jar eh???  
    
    You like photography eh?????  Pictures ehh????? 
    
    Ahhhhh.....say no more!!!

re .19


derek,


my provocation with "better half" was intentional. though i agree,
the term "better half" implies an imbalance, perhaps i should have 
used "neglected half".

being single and without partner by "better half" i mean quite literally
the better half _within_ ourselves. 

which means that every man should have the courage to allow the "woman" 
in him to grow, like every woman should also listen to the "man" inside 
her.

how much do we give way to stereotypes and how much do we listen to our
hearts. i don't believe that in their hearts people across the gender
gap are as different as we sometimes want them to be.



andreas.

	Say no more..... I guess if I understood what you were saying..... 

re .43,.44


is womankind a better term for mankind or just an unusual one?

with the english language you are blessed with far less controversy
than in french or german. in these languages, each noun has a GENDER!

in german for example, the default gender for god is maculin. wouldn't 
you as a man expect to think of god differently if the gender of god was 
feminin by default? then, if you also consider that in the german language
nouns like politician, supervisor, doctor, boss all have a *masculin* gender 
by default it is no wonder that in germany there are comparatively less 
female politicians and bosses than in the gender-neutral-english US!




andreas.

re .84


i can't read your thoughts, glen. but if you look at that table in .1
you will notice that at the headers it says "?-space" and "!-space" and 
not "woman-space" or "man-space". you might find it easier to determine 
your column under the "?" and "!" titles instead of under "woman", "man" 
titles. 

"woman", "man" are overloaded with stereotypes.



andreas.

| <<< Note 1144.86 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>


| i can't read your thoughts, glen. but if you look at that table in .1
| you will notice that at the headers it says "?-space" and "!-space" and
| not "woman-space" or "man-space". you might find it easier to determine
| your column under the "?" and "!" titles instead of under "woman", "man" 
| titles. "woman", "man" are overloaded with stereotypes.


	andreas, I should have been more specific. I can see what you are
saying quite clearly. What I did not understand though, was what Jack Martin
was talking about. Something about cameras and such. Sorry for the confusion.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Monty Python, cerca 1978.  It was incoherent to display my apparent
    noting style!!!

re .24
    
>   In general, women prefer to discuss rather than debate.  At least I do. 
>   It's a no-win situation when the other person (a man, usually) isn't 
>   *really* listening...rather they're only selectively listening so they 
>   can pick up on points to shoot down in the next round.  More debating 
>   goes on in notes files than does real discussions where both parties 
>   work together to find common ground and work from there.  


you make a very interesting observation of male dominated discussion, cindy.

the debating style of selectively listening so that points can be picked
up to be shot down in the next round, is very similar to the behaviour 
of boys on the playground. seen in this light, the underlying motivation 
must be that none of the debaters expect to seriously discuss, but rather 
seek (albeit subconsciously) the fun of the game. this is all fine as long 
as all participants join in the game. but to someone who wants to engage 
in a serious discussion rather than just play, this debating style can be 
very irritating. if a more profound response is sought, my recommendation 
to break the play is, to 1) insist on the item you wish discussed and 2)
to take the playful (unreflected) statements of the debating noter(s) 
seriously and to hold them up against them as a mirror. this is sure to
provoke a more thoughtful response and one which will seek common ground
rather than division.

and to make another observation on male dominated discussion, cindy, can 
all discussions be expected to lead to grommon ground? common sense would
suggest so. sadly it seems, that particularly amongst men there is often
either complacency or lack of courage to look above and beyond the own 
fence and to refuse to engage in discussion until a common ground is found. 
the only common ground then found is the wall which divides the territories 
on which it is agreed to differ. this discussion style has its merits too,
as it serves to avoid too many loops. but the whole idea of dialog is 
completely missed if the motivation of this discussion style is to build 
and strengthen the wall of division rather than to gradually take down the 
wall, brick by brick.




andreas.

	Re 1144.83 Andreas

	> which means that every man should have the courage to allow the
	  "woman" in him to grow, like every woman should also listen to
	  the "man" inside her.

	There are still, unfortunately, many who deny this duality of gender
	in humans despite a wealth of biological and psychological evidence to
	support it.

	My own childhood, during which I spent a great deal of time from age
	7 to 15 "masquerading" as a girl (some call this sexual abuse; but I
	loved almost every minute of it), gave me a very early and special
	insight into this duality.
    	
	I can only underline and applaud Andreas' advice, above. It can lead
	to the most exciting and rewarding insights into one's own inner
	life if the complimentary gender is acknowledged and its voice heard.
	IMO: there can be no greater enrichment of one's "here and now".
    
    	Greetings, Derek.          

    
    Re.78 and so
    
    Jack - I congratulate you for sharing 'housework' tasks.  I think that's
    great. 
    
    (Still to read the last 10 notes...)
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.89
    
    Thank you for that, Andreas.  Great insight there about debating and
    common ground.  
    
    I really do believe that if both parties want to find common ground, 
    then nothing will stop them - not language, not gender, not anything.  
    But if they *really* don't want to - even if they say they do - or 
    aren't fully committed to doing so, then nothing will work.
    
    Also on the 'inner male/inner female' that we all have inside of us 
    from .83, which is so true.
    
    Re.90
    
    Yours too, Derek.  I especially like 'complimentary gender' far better 
    than 'opposite sex'.  My IHH (Internet Highway Honey) uses the same
    term for the same reasons, btw.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

 ZZ   Jack - I congratulate you for sharing 'housework' tasks.  I think
 ZZ   that's great. 
    
    Thank you.  I believe it is also important for the children to see this
    so that they learn to respect their spouses when they someday marry and
    also understand that there are alot of stereotypes out there in regards
    to the duties of a wife and a husband.  Again, humility is a big part
    of spiritual leadership.
    
    -Jack

      Hi,
    
        Do you think complementary gender might even be better than
        complimentary gender?
    
        This whole 'female half' stuff kind of makes me shake my head
        a little!  But, I recognize it as a terminology disconnect.
    
        Every cell in my body happens to have one x and one y chromosome.
        I don't have a single one that is xx.  Not one.
    
        I think when you speak of 'female halves' and such, what you are
        saying is that you are recognizing that there are various behaviors
        that women are recognized as performing perhaps more often and/or
        more intensely than men and vice versa.  And you're simply talking
        about one sex sometimes cultivating/getting in touch with those 
        behaviors more often associated with the other.
    
        I mean, for example, of course men should better learn how to
        nurture and submit and stuff, but those aren't 'woman things', they
        just happen to be things women might do more often.
    
        Actually, come to think of it, with the above in mind, to use
        the term 'getting in touch with my female half' is really sexist
        because it takes behaviors and applies them in a gender way.
    
        Am I right on this?
    
    						Tony
                                                                    

>       Actually, come to think of it, with the above in mind, to use
>       the term 'getting in touch with my female half' is really sexist
>       because it takes behaviors and applies them in a gender way.
    

the terms used in .83 were 'better half' or probably better, 'negleted half'.

if you feel uncomfortable with getting in touch with the opposite sex inside
you then getting in touch with the subconscious is probably just as good
a suggestion. at least after carl gustav jung's typology, every aspect of
the conscious personality is reversed (compensated) in the subconscious
personality.




andreas.

    re: .94
    
    I do not have a "female side" or "inner woman" or "<insert gender 
    behavioral label of your choice>".
    
    Women do some things better than men.  Men do some things better than
    women.  That's by design, IMO.  I think it is wrong to apply gender to
    any of these traits, as we all have them to some degree.  This in no
    way means that men have a "feminine side" or that women have a
    "masculine side".  Every time I hear such disengenuous psychological
    drivel I feel like heaving lunch.
    
    Men can be nurturing, but in general women are better at it.  Women can
    be physically strong, but in general men are physically stronger.  Etc.
    
    
    -steve

re Note 1144.96 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     Every time I hear such disengenuous psychological
>     drivel I feel like heaving lunch.
  
        Why is this "disingenuous", Steve?

        The people who use such language are quite sincere and have
        no intention of deception, and the fact that you strongly
        disagree with them doesn't change that.

        Bob

    <---
    
    You are right, I should not have used "disingenuous".  Perhaps
    "misguided" would have been a better choice.
    
    In any case, you are correct.  I strongly disagree with the concept.
    (but that much is obvious  8^) )
    
    -steve

      But, its just terminology.
    
      Andreas, by rejecting your terminology, I am merely being candid
      about my personal view that saying I have a female half implies
      saying I am part female.  I'm not a hermaphrodite.
    
      Other terms would just as well express your meaning all the while
      also leaving out how some might incorrectly infer it.
    
      I am not stating that I am against getting in touch with nurturing
      and other characteristics more associated with women, I a, just
      stating that your terminology can very easily imply totally false
      things.
    
      Like I said, every cell in my body is xy (male).
    
    
      By the way, I think Carl Jung's typology thing was great!!!
      I came out very low extrovert, sky high intuitive, high feeling,
      and moderate judging.
    
      I thought it was really neat.
    
      So his middle name was gustav, huh?
    
    						Tony

    	And to think that all this time I thought the term "better half"
    	was used by a man to refer to his wife in a complimentary manner...

    
    Re.96
    
    It isn't psychological drivel at all, but rather a very ancient religious 
    view of the totality of God or Oneness/Wholeness, and is represented in 
    the (also very ancient) Yin-Yang symbol.
    
    Cindy

    re: .101
    
    I disagree, it is psychological drivel.  I don't care if it's been
    around for thousands of years, it's still drivel.  "New" Age isn't new,
    either, but I think it's drivel, too.
    
    
    -steve 

    
    Well, one person's drivel...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    Obviously anything one doesn't understand or that causes
    a visceral reaction ("heave lunch") *must* be drivel, Cindy.

    Heaven forbid we allow another to simply be different or
    hold a different view.

    /Greg

    
    Oh how silly of me...I didn't realize.
    
    Thanks, Greg. (;^)
    
    Cindy 

    ZZ  I think it is wrong to apply gender to
    ZZ    any of these traits, as we all have them to some degree.  
    
    I actually agree with Steve on this part.
    
    I once called a Soapbox participant a sissy boy and a gay participant
    took offense to this.  Said I shouldn't associate characteristics with
    gender...just like Steve said.
    
    -Jack

    re: .94 Tony Barbieri
    
    > Every cell in my body happens to have one x and one y chromosone.
    > I don't have a single one that is xx. Not one.
    
    In all probability, you are right regarding your chromosone count. But
    it gave me an interesting thought:
    
    What do you think Jesus' cells looked like:  xx? xy? or even yy?
    What leads you to your conclusion?
    
    Greetings, Derek. 

    re: .104
    
    Fine, feel free to believe in whatever drivel you like.  Don't bother
    me none.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

re .99


tony, right.


the terms (in the original texts) which carl gustav jung uses for 
the counterparts in the subconscious are "anima" (for men) and "animus" 
(for women).

from recollection, the anima is closely associated with mother and eros, 
the animus with father and logos. the jungian eros (which is NOT to be
confused with plato's eros) concerns all to do with human relationships,
the capability/willingness of entering and maintaining relationships,
and logos is to do with the sense of discrimination, the capability
to discern and to rationalise. 

(keeping the above in mind) as jung has observed, in a persons lifetime,
during the younger years (up to mid thirties maybe), a person is primarily 
concerned with the development of the conscious personality. in the second 
half of life, the focus is turned to the reconciliation with the anima (in 
the case of men) or the animus (in the case of women) in order to round of 
the whole personality.

describing this maturing process as seeking the "better half" or 
discovering the "negleted half" is definitely misleading and over-
simplifying. as far as i understand, the reconciliation with the 
anima/animus is a natural process and part of maturing.

you are right in pointing out the apparent sexism in gender specific 
attributes. jung's work on anima/animus comes out of the PC-unaware 1930s, 
where the position of women (particularly in jung's own country) was still 
very much that of second-class citizens. a more important effect of jung's 
work, which is also widely regarded as the basis for feminist theology 
(and as a basis for the development of a specifically female rationality), 
is that it provides a solid and coherent framework for the harmony and 
equality between the genders.




andreas.

              
    Re.109
    
    To add to that, and also what I missed in .99...
    
    The 'inner female/male' doesn't so much occur at the physical level, as
    it does at the energetic level, so it's independent of chromesomes,
    etc.
    
    Western science/medicine deals primarily with the gross physical body, 
    as opposed to the subtle energy body, however Eastern medicine does
    focus on the energy body.  Through things such as the pulse diagnosis, 
    for example (which I took a 1 day seminar on several months ago), an 
    Eastern practitioner can tell if your energy (Yang or Yin) is out of 
    balance. One can then take steps via diet, exercise (yoga, tai chi), 
    vitamins/minerals/herbs, energy/polarity balancing (which I can also do
    at a beginner level), etc. - to bring the energy back into balance.  
    While Western medicine tends to treat the symptoms only, the Eastern 
    medicine gets at the root cause (almost always an energy imbalance or 
    block of some sort) and focuses on bringing back the balance instead.
    
    Cindy 

      Actually, if you want to take Jung's typology and use the
      'male side/female side' terminology, given that I came out
      a high feeler would probably imply (again given this jargon)
      that I am really in touch with my female side!!!   ;-)
    
      I heard that of all Jung's typology, the only one with a
      gender dependance is thinking/feeling where 60% of men are
      'thinkers' versus 40% 'feelers' and 60% of women are feelers
      verses 40% thinkers.
    
    						Tony

    tony,
    
    I believe you are discuss myers/briggs type which has its basis in
    Jungian psychology.  You are right about the thinking/feeling side
    though.  The results on that scale alone are adjusted based on gender.
    

    
    re: -1
    
    Phew.  I'm glad to hear that scale is adjusted somewhat since I am
    one female that scored NOTHING on Feeling, ALL on Thinking.  (That
    does not imply I don't 'feel'.  My first reaction is to analyze.)
    But I have had some colleagues who have also taken the Myers/Briggs
    give me a great deal of flack for how I tested out...  ;-)
    
    Mary Jo
    
    

re .111



you may very well be connected, tony!

in the typology, the four aids to orientation which jung describes are
thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting, as i translate the original 
terms. thinking and feeling being judgemental, with judgement based on 
reason and on emotion respectively, and sensing/intuiting being 
non-judgemental, perception oriented. it is possible that jung ascribed 
the thinking more often to men and the feeling more often to women as 
the dominant senses of orientation (in both their extrovert and introvert 
forms).

jung's typology targets on the individual with particular regard for
the aspect of inward and outward orientation (intro- and extroversion).
the orientation aids discussed for this purpose appear to be secondary to 
the central subject of ex/introversion, since jung leaves it up to the 
reader to extend his typology at will by, adding/redefining orientation 
aids.

in contrast to this, the work on subconscious counterparts in men and
women, targets more explicitly on gender differences (differences which 
have not gone undisputed particularly by female psychologists) where the 
logos of the animus (male counterpart in women) is described as a 
differentiating, dividing force whilst the eros of the anima (female 
counterpart in men) is described as a connecting, integrating force.

so, to cut a long story short (i do find jungian psychology so very 
interesting! :-) a woman connected to her animus would have to be one
happy to debate, analyse and to differentiate, whereas a man connected 
to his anima would have to be one happy to moderate, facilitate and to 
integrate!




andreas. 

ps. every test i have taken gives me just over 50% "thinking extrovert"
    though i definitely feel a strongly developing intuition. no doubt,
    anima at work here! :-)

      I have to admit, the Briggs/Myers thing is really neat.
    
      Patricia, did they really adjust the feeling/thiunking part?
      My 'take' was that they scored them identically, but simply
      acknowledged that more men score on the thinking side while
      more women on the feeling side.  On top of that, do they 
      *really* adjust?
    
      Andreas, my intuition was sky high.  We had a whole group take
      the test and my intuition score was the highest.  "Ground control
      to Major Tom!"  (I was in orbit.)
    
      I think its neat being a high intuitive tho.
    
    						Tony

    
    
    Having people make assumptions on how a person will react/respond
    based on whether that person is male or female can be tough on 
    communications. 
    
    For example, in the 'church', I encounter an inordinate number of 
    people who don't quite feel comfortable dealing with me because 
    I don't fit the traditional 'woman' mold.  I don't have kids, 
    I work outside the home, I am not married, I work in a 'technical'
    job, I hire someone to clean my house (so I can spend more time in
    the barn), I don't 'do' crafts, I don't cook, I play a trombone, 
    etc...   
    
    These differences do not make me any less committed to the Lord. It 
    just means that I have different priorities and interests and 
    necessities.  But having folks assume I will react in a certain 
    way or be interested in certain things just because I am female
    causes some VERY interesting discussions.
    
    It seems that at work, folks tend to make a lot fewer assumptions
    based on gender than in the 'church'.  
    
    By the way, on the Myers/Briggs, I am INTP with all but the 'I' being
    on the extreme ends of the ranges.
    
    Ciao. 
    
    Mary Jo 
     

re .116


>   It seems that at work, folks tend to make a lot fewer assumptions
>   based on gender than in the 'church'.  


mary jo, i think certainly one big advantage of communicating at work, 
is this electronic media - whilst much is lost communicating this way, 
this form of communication does at least make for a high degree of equal 
treatment and doesn't force one so much into traditional molds.

in my experience 'curch' environments are particularly prone to putting 
on strong pressure on the individual to conform to predefined roles. in 
a manner perhaps only matched by military environments, which also suffer
from the same short-comings! i find such pressure to conform to some 
predetermined role can easily become overbearing to the point of being 
suffocating, simply because the collective pressure is ultimately based
on disrespect (or fear) of individuality.




andreas.

    
    I tend to not get fearful in such situations.  Mostly I find it 
    annoying.  But I also figure the Lord has me attending the specific
    church for a reason.  A dear brother of mine described my 'calling'
    as 'A Ministry of Spoons' (as in stirring things up).  
    
    RE:  Work versus church.  
    
    One thing I have noticed in the 'church' or in religious organizations
    folks tend to be very careful about saying exactly how they feel or 
    think in attempts to not offend.  But this can cause real issues to 
    not be addressed until things really get dicey.
    
    At work, we tend to be more open to address issues as they arise.  
    Which causes little skirmishes but many issues get dealt with
    immediately.
    
    Mary Jo 
    

re .118
  
>   One thing I have noticed in the 'church' or in religious organizations
>   folks tend to be very careful about saying exactly how they feel or 
>   think in attempts to not offend.  But this can cause real issues to 
>   not be addressed until things really get dicey.


how true. this then can easily give the impression that problems are swept 
under the carpet or that appearance counts more than reality!

coming to think of it, christians in particular are taught not to be quarrel-
some. given this restraint, what would you regard as a good christian way
of speaking your mind and of conflict resolution? is an open, honest and 
straight-forward approach all that it takes?



andreas.

    	.119
    
    	St. Paul addresses this in detail.  

do you have any particular council in mind?

from all that i have learned so far, i suspect that paul,
if he lived today, wouldn' be a great promoter of women's 
rights. this wouldn't qualify him today as a source of
reference for integender communication.




andreas.

    
    RE:  Paul
    
    I have studied LOTS about Paul and his writings.  A couple of sources, 
    'Women At the Crossroads' by Malcolm and 'What Paul Really Said About
    Women' by ?? have investigated the Greek the books were written in 
    and give interesting light to the subject of women and society and 
    the church.  
    
    On the basis of those two books as well as looking at the scriptures
    as a whole, I suspect we would find Paul a proponent of treating 
    women well.  
    
    Historically, during Paul's lifetime, Hellenism was a very popular 
    mode of operation.  And under Hellenistic culture, women were less 
    than slaves.  And wives were less than prostitutes (as in prostitutes
    of the Temple of Diana).  So some of the scripture that appears to be
    harsh regarding women's appearance and communication were aimed at
    a culture that had shrine prostitutes and valued them more than 
    wives and daughters.  
    
    Yes, I know, this is a real debatable point-- the business of whether
    we interpret Paul's letters purely word for word as rules for living 
    then AND now.  Or if they need to be interpreted with some
    understanding of who the target audience was.
    
    However, Paul did say enough things like 'there is no slave nor free, 
    male nor female, for we are all one under Christ Jesus' that encourage
    me to investigate the scriptures where he APPEARS to not value women
    at all.  
    
    Mary Jo 
    

    Mary Jo,
    
    See not 544 on "Paul".
    
    I believe that Paul recorded some things that contribute to the
    liberation of all people.  Paul also said some things which have been
    used to oppress women, people of color, and homosexuals.
    
    some statements that have been used to oppress women, have been falsely
    and unfairly attributed to Paul. (i.e. the timothy/titus statements.)
    
    Paul was a complex character, but to quote Richard he was "a man of his
    time" which meant that he believed there was a place for men and a
    different place for women.
    
                            

>    <<< Note 1144.17 by HURON::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

    
>    Because there, women know their place and the limits of their gender.

>    	Eric

I think there is a fairly wide variety in viewpoint in the other file. For
example, I share with many of the people there a view that the Bible is the
word of the Creator, Sustainer, and Sovereign of the universe. However, my
view on what it says about women and women's place in both society and the
church differs greatly from many in there, and from much of traditional
Christianity. I think the Bible presents a much stronger, more positive view
of women than many people seem to think, and that the "know your place", 
"husband is the boss" attitude is not from what God's perspective, but is 
a human twist to use the Scripture for human purposes. However, I do not align
myself with the feminist viewpoint either, if indeed, the things Patricia has 
written in this file are what the feminist viewpoint is.

As to why men are more vocal in this file than women, (I may get into trouble
with this viewpoint) as a general rule, I think women tend naturally to be
better listeners and responders than men, who often seem to charge in and 
vocally proclaim their views without spending as much time listening. Have
I put my foot into it now?

Leslie

    Leslie
    
    My views are "a" feminist viewpoint and not "the" feminist viewpoint.
    
    Except for our beliefs about the nature of the Bible, I would suspect
    that you and I have more in common than  not in common.

while i don't mean to sidetrack the discussion here which appears to me
to be between non-gay women and men, i'd like to add my perspective.

personally, i don't feel myself to have a specific gender in the same
way that others here apparently do. i think of myself as a gay man as
being somewhere which includes both, as Native American people say of
gay people, i see myself as "two-spirited".

as far as communication with 'single-gendered' people goes, my experience
has been that 'single-gendered' women are much more apt to be willing
to communicate with me than 'single-gendered' men (many of whom are simply
unwilling to speak with me at all). while i'm not trying to stretch my
own experience too far, i would mention that even within our own Notes
files it is much easier to discuss gay issues in Womannotes than it has
ever been in Mennotes.

i don't believe that the lack of gay/lesbian participation (other than
glen and myself) in this file is necessarily due to the 'atmosphere'
or comfort level but by a general disinterest in Christianity by gay/
lesbian people given the treatment most have received.

peter

    
    Part of the reason this 'female' tends to not respond in these notes
    very often is: 
    
    1.  I am very busy with my job 
    2.  I consider whether or not if it is worth it to me to take time to 
        respond--(i.e., I am responding just by emotion or do I have 
        something to offer folks in general OR is it better to just keep 
        my mouth shut and go on.)
    3.  I usually pray before responding.  I usually regret it when I 
        don't (hence my personal name).
    
    Mary Jo 
    

	re:  my comment about Paul --
    
    	My intention in bringing up what Paul said had nothing to do
    	with intergender communication, but rather to specifically
    	address the question asked at the end of .119, namely:
    
    
>given this restraint, what would you regard as a good christian way
>of speaking your mind and of conflict resolution? is an open, honest and 
>straight-forward approach all that it takes?

.128, and applied to intergender communication, joe, what would paul's advice 
be? i am interested to hear this and am looking forward to learning from your 
views on the question of .119

.127, mary jo, you truly honour this place by staying around! i wish i could
exercise your wisdom and restraint more often. i also often put in much time 
and thought before entering a note and wish i could be more spontaneous and
proficient instead. but it's true, often discussions are just 'hot air' and 
then it's better to go by that proverb which in german says 'word is silver, 
silence is gold.'

.126, andrew, if gay men communicate better with single-gendered women then
maybe single-gendered men could learn something from gay men. i think that 
some single-gendered men are good at communicating with women too, though.
at least in my case, i have always preferred the company of women over men,
and i also know of men which are also capable of relaxing and sharing in 
conversation.

.124, leslie, nice to see that you're still here! no you haven't put your foot
in it at all. i think your note adds very well to the observations made in 
.1, .24 and .89 - there are definitely differences. though rather than drawing
a line between the genders i prefer defining differences along masculin and
feminin attributes, as these can be represented in either gender.





andreas.