Swinging from the Vine / 791 posts / 2,699 comments / feed / comments feed

my first “I don’t like this person’s ideas” blog post

WOOHOO! A taste of the high life ;)

Ok, probably not the first, but the first I have noticed in my technorati links.

It’s always good to hear from the “other” so pop over to her blog and give her some traffic :) Her post is quite long so be prepared. Oh….and it’s in response to my ideas about women, gender roles, etc.


  1. Erin — September 11, 2007 #

    I thought her response was well thought out and respectful.

    What I do see is that it all seems to depend on whether or not a person believes some things in the bible were cultural in the time, rather than timeless…i.e. the use of a male pronoun for God…and the role of a woman, to name two.

    I still have yet to meet anyone who can convince me that complementarianism was God’s intent…seems a bit like our arguments for segregation in the mid-century…”separate but equal” isn’t the same as “equal”.

  2. Tameshia — September 11, 2007 #

    Your response was so good, and excellent example of how to avoid blog comment wars. Sometimes, it’s not worth getting it. It would be really easy to rail against it, but why? You aren’t going to change her mind, nor her yours. But, you each know where you stand.

  3. Mak — September 11, 2007 #

    Erin - I agree, she was very respectful - as for thought out, I will credit her to knowing her “stuff” that’s for sure.

    Tameshia - exactly.

    And I sincerely have nothing “against” women like that. Many of my closest friends and partners in ministry over the years have been just like her and I respect them very much for their convictions. I strongly disagree with them and passionately debate them sometimes but they’re sisters and I have no intention of trying to “convert” them.

  4. Jonathan Brink — September 11, 2007 #

    I’m not baiting you, but what would you say is your primary objection?

  5. Mak — September 11, 2007 #

    my primary objection to what?

  6. Dianne — September 12, 2007 #

    I agree with the others - both of you stated your positions with respect, which is good to see.

    Maybe I’m too “middle of the road” but while I think there are roles, I just don’t think the roles have to define us. i.e. we need to define our roles in light of God’s word, way beyond the gender thing. God gave us our gender, there’s no denying that. He also gives us our roles. Do they have to be connected? Is one dependent on the other? Roles change, gender doesn’t. Just thinking & pondering . . .

  7. Ross — September 12, 2007 #

    Excellent discussion Mak…

    I’m going to pitch in a secular viewpoint to keep things interesting (not that I don’t understand the scriptural positions… I’m just shining the light in a different corner).

    Blanket statement: Gender roles are worthless to debate without context. I could make almost the exact same points that you are about the SBC, as I could with the Army Officer Corps… if your family is swimming in those waters, there is a significant expectation of traditional gender roles and familial obligation. Likewise with many professional classes, politicians, etc. If you as a family (key concept), decide to walk those hallways, you’re signing up to put your family, and especially your spouse, on display. And, if being a “successful” man in the SBC calls for you to keep a June Cleaver at home, and she (the spouse) gets fulfillment from that role, I really can’t see anything wrong with it. Have a ball…

    I think the real crime takes place when the institution (pick one) feels that they have the right to manipulate your marriage relationship in order to make you a better Christian/Officer/Republican, etc. In my “Christian” opinion, those are the powers and principalities that we are wage war against…

    After all, what is more holy, the institution of marriage, or the institution of career?

  8. Musicmommy3 — September 12, 2007 #

    Thank-you. You were very respectful in your comments both here and at my blog. I appreciate it. :):)
    I, too, have no intention of starting a “blog war”. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t submit a lengthy comment in your blog in the first place. I knew that I wasn’t going to change your mind about anything but still wanted to share my views so I just wrote about it in my own blog. :):)

    If I were wearing a hat I would tip it to you.
    Have a great day!

    -Angela :)

  9. Jamie Arpin-Ricci — September 12, 2007 #

    Her respectful approach was refreshing, as was your kind comments at her blog. With all the arguments she put forward, what bothered me the most was the almost casual closing sentences, in which she makes the unsupported claim that without one leader in a marriage, it would devolve into chaos. It is all fine a good to have arguments as to why one believe as one does, but when they imply an unsupported, extreme consequence, I get frustrated. Then again, I am really tired, so probably cranky.


  10. Jonathan Brink — September 12, 2007 #

    You said, “There are TONS of rebuttles.” My wonder is what was your primary one. I’m looking to understand here.

  11. Julie Clawson — September 12, 2007 #

    You know I just really wish cultural history of gender would be a required course for oh, just about everyone. If we could ever get over the myth that things have always been “this way” life would be a lot easier…

  12. Alaina Archer — September 12, 2007 #


    I have been reading your blog for awhile, and your response to SBC was well thought out and theologically grounded. I struggle a lot with this response to your argument and agree with Jamie. The most scary part of her response was her statement that there can only be one leader in a marriage. I also, respectfully disagree with her omission of ‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ Ephesians 5:21, the verse which everyone leaves out when discussing so-called ‘gender roles’. As a new, young, married, female pastor I just do not know how to respond, but I think you did so graciously and thoughtfully. Thank you for speaking for all of us. You do it well.

  13. Lyn — September 12, 2007 #

    Well said Julie!

  14. Pingback - Women! : Beyond the 4 walls — September 12, 2007 #

    [...] I was over at Makeesha’s blog earlier and read her latest post which is about a response that has been written to a post Mak wrote a few weeks ago about a new course being offered to seminary students wives in order to prepare them for ministry.  I’ve been pondering over the response to Mak’s post all afternoon, mainly thinking about calling and the role of women.  One thing which disturbed me in the bloggers response to Mak’s post was that she said that pastors wives are called to be pastors wives.  I have to really dispute this.  I’ve never felt God “call” me to be a pastors wife.  It’s not like he said to me one day “Lyn you’re going to be a pastors wife, so go off and find yourself a pastor to marry!” I believe that God brought Jonathan and I together and we have a joint calling to worship and serve God, as everyone does.  I really struggle with this role and calling thing right now though.  Sometimes we get so het up about what God wants us to do, that we forget to simply be with him, which is far more important. [...]

  15. sonja — September 12, 2007 #

    Julie … it would have to be a course that included something other than Judeo-Christian and Helenistic women’s history … or it would just be more of the same. It would need to include native american, celtic, african and asian women’s history to get some perspective.

  16. Julie Clawson — September 12, 2007 #

    Sonja - are you suggesting we actually learn about other cultures! And women in other cultures at that! What a novel idea… :)

Leave a comment