Monday, February 23, 2009

The Eagle, the Unicorn and the Lion: going to Presbytery


We drove toward Chico on a sunny afternoon.
My husband and I on our way to Presbytery in Orland.
He for an outing which turned into a tuning, I preparing to help with devotions and my two minute speech and voting to do.
Spring was peeking out of the gloominess of a California February.
The grass was green from late rains and the beginning of swelling in tree buds cast all their empty branches in a faint hazy pink.


Returning birds flew in formations landing in the wetlands and rice fields. A white egret was almost on the road eating among the new greens.

In an extremely tall tree leaning by the highway at the very tip sat an eagle.


“You yourselves have seen … how I bore you on eagles wings, and brought you to myself.” (Exodus 19:4b)

“High above him some winged thing went through the air; he could not tell what it was but he felt comforted to see it. He was not entirely alone, it seemed; the pure balance of that distant flight entered into him as if it had been salvation.” The place of the Lion, by Charles Williams

“The fields are all yellow with flowers” I say.
He calls them rape seed plants.
I argue they are wild mustard. We do this every spring.
It is unimportant, the kind of argument older married couples enjoy renewing with the seasons.


“’Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one’? (Matthew 19:4-5)

In a small Italian restaurant, a place, my husband has been wanting to take me, we sat eating.
The veal was very good, the wine marvelous.
A very old piano sat in a corner and some one began to play
Baroque and Bach’s “Sheep May Safely Graze.”


“We are his people and the sheep of his pasture.” (Psalm 100:3b)

“None but the Virtue understood, in its soaring comprehension, the safety in which the sheep still lived, or from what yet deeper distance of spirit was to arise the Innocence which everlastingly formed and maintained them.” The Place of the Lion

In the morning we met.
Prayed, read Scripture, each text twice.
The moderator had read my blog;
He called and asked me to read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.
Please listen to the word of God.


“Love … does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

Many spoke for, many against.
The Moderator asked us to face those in the pew as we spoke and speak to brothers and sisters.
I spoke of communion, the Lord’s Supper.
How the word rightly preached must be with the sacraments.
Jesus’ words:
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”
How shall we take the Lord’s Supper in a strange land;
A land where the word is not rightly proclaimed?


“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads my bond servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality …” Rev. 3:20)

There didn’t seem to be many there; one or two figures were moving at the upper end; a few more were scattered about the small building. They were seated as if waiting--perhaps for the Breaking of Bread. …he saw it. It was standing at the other end of Zion; it was something like a horse in shape and size, but of dazzling whiteness, and from the middle of its forehead there grew a single horn. … He saw the Divine Unicorn gently sustaining itself in that obscure and remote settlement of the faithful. … it lowered and tossed its head, and again that gleaming horn caught all the light in Zion, and gathered it, and flashed it back in a dazzling curve of purity.” The Place of the Lion

The vote came: pro 65, con 75.
A lady asked me afterwards, “Do you really believe the Bible could change a homosexual person?”
I said “no, but Jesus could.”
On the way home we drove by orchards, and here and there a lonely almond tree in bloom.
Red wings gathered on a fence and one field was filled with sheep, heavy with wool, waiting for a spring shearing.
Christian bikers with crosses and crowns of thorns roared past.


"By the side of the road, … there appeared the creature they had set out to seek. It was larger and mightier than when they had seen it before--and, comparatively close as they now were, they fell back appalled by the mere effluence of strength that issued from it. It was moving like a walled city, like the siege-towers raised against Nineveh or Jerusalem; each terrible paw, as it set it down, sank into the firm ground as if into mud, but was plucked forth without effort; the movements of its mane, whenever it mightily turned its head, sent reverberations of energy through the air, which was shaken into the wind by that tossed hair.” The Place of the Lion

“Stop weeping; behold the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome.” Rev. 5:5





39 comments:

robert austell said...

wow! and I'm not talking about the vote... your post was pure, beautiful, Spirit-filled poetry! What a blessed day from start to finish. (I think the wine and Bach tipped it for me!)

Dave Moody said...

Alright, you win. Best post presbytery vote post ever. When you can work in Bach, Vino, Charles Williams, win the vote, and make it a meditative reading on the more solid spiritual realities 'round about us- all at the same time....

Its a good day.

Thanks Vi,
dm

Viola Larson said...

Robert , the wine was Ronco dei tassi: pinot grigio.
I had them write it down so I could look for it.
The fun thing was that my husband, Brad, had already made friends with the owner--Brad looks like Mark Twain so everyone is friendly. He didn't know about the piano so when the lady started playing he told the owner he would come back the next day while I was in Presbytery and tune it. Now we have a free dinner coming to us next time we are up that way!

The Holy Spirit was surely with us.

Viola Larson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viola Larson said...

Dave,
It was a good day and it is a good day. The first part of this post came to me the night before presbytery when I was trying to sleep and couldn't. I didn't know how the vote would go, or the day or the trip back home. But I knew that whether the amendment got rejected or not the posting would be the same. Funny how God's word and his promises and his peace are the same no matter how things turn out.

Andrea said...

What is a rape seed?

Andrea
Sacto, CA

Viola Larson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viola Larson said...

I don't know why I didn't look that up before.

"Rapeseed (Brassica napus), also known as rape, oilseed rape, rapa, rapaseed and (in the case of one particular group of cultivars) canola, is a bright yellow flowering member of the family Brassicaceae (mustard or cabbage family). The name derives from the Latin for turnip, rāpum or rāpa, and is first recorded in English at the end of the 14th century. Older writers usually distinguished the turnip and rape by the adjectives round and long(-rooted) respectively."

That means that rapeseed and mustard belong to the same family. And the Wikipedia says that is where canola oil comes from. It is also used for Biodiesel oil. Thanks for asking.

Anonymous said...

"A lady asked me afterwards, “Do you really believe the Bible could change a homosexual person?”
I said “no, but Jesus could.”

As He could change a frightened homophobe as well. We live in transitional times. Jesus is changing the hearts and minds of people all around. Some will accept the change, others will not.

As usual, time will tell whom He was changing and where the change was going. And those that changed will vaguely remember those that refused and wonder:

"What WERE they thinking?"

Tom

Viola Larson said...

Tom you need to leave your full name, city and address. And that is my fault that you didn't know that--the conversation has been so light that we haven't been doing it. But it is on the side on my blog. Also please be careful about name calling

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Andrea said...

Thanks for the definition. I thought you were trying to be funny (poetic) by eluding to rampant wildflowers as 'raping' the side of the highway.

Andrea
Sacto, CA

Debbie said...

Viola, that was beautiful! Poetry!

I've only read War in Heaven by Charles Williams, and now I know I need to read The Place of the Lion.

Tom, I'm at a loss as to where you saw that anyone was frightened. Mostly when people call orthdox/evangelical believers frightened, it's a kneejerk, unthinking response and a way of dismissing their claims without considering them thoughfully. I hope that wasn't true for you. Can you point out what in this post made you say "frightened"?

Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA

Viola Larson said...

Thank you Debbie,

The Place of the Lion was C.S. Lewis’ favorite book.

I agree about the frightened part it simply ends any kind of discussion about the issue and instead focuses on the person. And because one is frightened or not frightened does not change the rightness or wrongness of something.

Viola Larson said...

Tom,
I also had another thought on this. Yes Jesus is changing people, he always has. But it is always according to who he is in Scripture--in fact it is always according to Scripture because that is God's word and Jesus is God so it is all his word. And I believe I quote some very pertinent Scripture in what I wrote:

“’Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one’? (Matthew 19:4-5)

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

robert austell said...

Viola,

I'd like to suggest an even more direct clarification to what Tom then you wrote.

There is such a thing as homophobia, and it is in keeping with the Gospel that Jesus can and would heal a frightened homophobe from unjust fear or hate. And truthfully, the culture and the church do contain people who fear and/or hate homosexual people. I want to be the first to call the Church away from any legitimate expressions of hate or fear of people. Those expressions are easily identified: physical violence, mocking, jokes, etc... Christians (and anyone) engaged in those behaviors need to get the log out and clean up their act.

YET, it is unfair and untrue to say that Christians who read scripture and believe that homosexual sexual intimacy is not God's express intent or desire for human relationship are acting out of fear and/or hate. God's Word of truth about human sexual relationships is not hate language however much it might fly in the face of culture or personal behavior (across the full spectrum of human behavior). God's Word IS truth in love, and it points us consistently to freedom through Christ and reveals Christ to us.

Robert Austell
Charlotte, NC

Viola Larson said...

Robert,
Thanks for the clarification and you are certainly right.

Kattie W. Coon said...

Wow!

Tom's "frightened homophobe" comment certainly developed a lot of traction. I hope y'all will go back and read his comment again. He accused no group in particular of being anything in particular. It was Debbie who seems to have flown off the handle and made the association with "orthodox/evangelical believers".

Is there something inherently incorrect in saying “He could change a frightened homophobe as well”?

I wonder does Debbie equate orthodox believers with evangelical believers.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
while you are right Tom did not actually say "I equate Evangelicals and the orthodox with a frightened homophobe.” Still, he was writing about Jesus changing peoples minds and quoting what I said about Jesus changing the behavior of practicing homosexuals so it did seem that that was what he was suggesting. Of course he will have to answer that question himself.

Evangelicals are generally orthodox. orthodox meaning the acceptance of the essential tenets of the faith, that is, that which has been held for the whole history of the Church, including the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, his atoning death on the cross and bodily resurrection, as well as the authority of Scripture. Evangelicals emphasis the sharing of their faith with those who do not know Jesus Christ.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Anonymous said...

So many responses!

I must have hit a nerve or something...

In order then:

Viola,

Name is Tom Evans. City is Kansas, for now.

"Also please be careful about name calling "

I thought I was. Who was I name calling? Nobody that I can think of.

Debbie,

"Mostly when people call orthdox/evangelical believers frightened, it's a kneejerk, unthinking response and a way of dismissing their claims without considering them thoughfully."

I suppose that is true, but I was not calling orthodox evangelical believers frightened. I don't even know what an "orthodox evangelical believer" is. Is that a special kind of orthodox, a special kind of evangelical, or a special kind of believer?

I was referring to a special kind of homophobe. Although one could argue I was being redundant. It reminds me of a bible verse I know:

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love"

Many people who attack homosexuals do so out of fear, not religious belief or affiliation.

Jesus can change such people. Loving a gay person usually does the trick. It did for me.

Viola,

"Yes Jesus is changing people, he always has. But ..."

But nothing. That should be a period, next paragraph.

"it is always according to who he is in Scripture--in fact it is always according to Scripture because that is God's word and Jesus is God so it is all his word."

Well, that is a topic for so much discussion that I can't address it here. But it is also a very narrow statement of faith. The "in fact" part seems rather arrogant to me since none of it is about fact. It's just a religious belief you are entitled to have, but which other people are equally entitled to not have, and while both kinds of people may never agree, Jesus is likely to love and accept them both equally. And others as well.

Do you think Matt 19:4-5 has something to say about gay sex? I do not. I think it was about divorce.

Robert Austell,

I agree completely with your first paragraph.

In your second you state:

"it is unfair and untrue to say that Christians who read scripture and believe that homosexual sexual intimacy is not God's express intent or desire for human relationship are acting out of fear and/or hate"

Maybe. I never said that anyway.

But it is also unfair and untrue to say that Christians who read scripture and believe that homosexual intimacy is not forbidden by God are somehow acting out of sinfulness or unfaithfulness to God or God's word.

The scriptures say that sin and faithfulness are about choice. Being gay is not a choice, and needing intimacy with the gender you are attracted to is also not a choice.

I agree with the rest of what you said.

Katie,

I also agree with what you said.
See my response to Debbie.

And back to Viola,

You claim that evangelicals are usually "orthodox" and then you define orthodoxy. That's fine. But to state that it has something to do with "the" faith and "the" church makes it an arrogant absolutist and exclusive claim. Perhaps you should have said "my" rather than "the".

I believe God is much more accepting than that. I believe for instance that while I may completely disagree with your definition of evangelical and orthodoxy, God still loves you and accepts you just as much as he loves me and accepts me.

And I believe that if the Bible can't change you, Jesus still can.

God bless you and keep you.

Tom Evans
Kansas City, for now, till I get a real job

Kattie W. Coon said...

"Evangelicals are generally orthodox. orthodox meaning the acceptance of the essential tenets of"...

OK Viola, that's half of the tautology Debbie seems to have been referring to. What about the other half where orthodoxy implies evangelicalism? In other words, why did you reply if you weren’t going to address the actual comment I made?

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Tom,
A whole lot of thoughts and questions.

Please define homophobe, because while orthodox (with a little o)Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, they don't hate LGBT people but rather love them and hope they will be healed.

You write, "Many people who attack homosexuals do so out of fear, not religious belief or affiliation."

I think that is true when you write about someone who is truly a homophobe, but Christians on the grounds of scriptural authority believe homosexuality is sin. We desire for those who practice such sin to repent and find healing in Jesus Christ. That is not hate nor fright. It is simply what we desire for all sinners including ourselves.

You write, "But it is also a very narrow statement of faith. The "in fact" part seems rather arrogant to me since none of it is about fact. It's just a religious belief you are entitled to have, but which other people are equally entitled to not have, and while both kinds of people may never agree, Jesus is likely to love and accept them both equally. And others as well."

Of course other people are entitled to believe differently. And Jesus Christ does love all. Yet, he calls the sinner to repentance. He accepts those who come to him for forgiveness and new life. Remember his tears as he wept over Jerusalem because the people would not accept him as their Messiah? (Luke 19:41-44”

Do you believe Jesus Christ is God as well as human? Because, if not, that would change our conversation quite a bit.

You write, "You claim that evangelicals are usually "orthodox" and then you define orthodoxy. That's fine. But to state that it has something to do with "the" faith and "the" church makes it an arrogant absolutist and exclusive claim. Perhaps you should have said "my" rather than "the".

I do not intend to be arrogant, however it isn't my church. The Church has existed for almost two thousand years all holding to the teachings of the Bible and the ecumenical creeds of the Church such as The Nicene creed and the Creed of Chalcedon.

Christians will just have to endure being called, "arrogant absolutist and exclusive," because we are not post-modern in our beliefs and we do believe there is truth with a capital "T".

I will pray that you find a job.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Viola Larson said...

Sorry Kattie,
I didn't realize I hadn't addressed your whole comment. I don't think that Debbie meant to make a tautology out of orthodox and evangelical. Orthodox for evangelical Christians means right belief meaning holding all of the essential teachings that the Church has always held which I have already listed above in the post you are referring to.

I think that Evangelicals add to that an emphasis on proclaiming the Good News of Christ's saving life, death and resurrection. The important point here is that Evangelicals are orthodox.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Kattie W. Coon said...

"I don't think that Debbie meant to make a tautology out of orthodox and evangelical."

I really think she should answer that for herself, but there is no indication in what she wrote that she meant anything other than interchangeability of the two terms, and I will hold to my interpretation as a reasonable one until she indicates otherwise. Thanks for your input though.

"I think that Evangelicals add to that an emphasis on proclaiming the Good News of Christ's saving life, death and resurrection."

This is certainly true, but I certainly don't consider myself an Evangelical even though I whole heartedly agree with your statement above. I personally think your description of orthodoxy is too subscriptionist to be considered classically Reformed, and I also think your "Orthodox for evangelical Christians means ..." comment only goes to show how some will create their own definition in order to pat themselves on the back.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Presbyman said...

Someone's got a chip on her shoulder, and it isn't Viola or Debbie.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
This," I personally think your description of orthodoxy is too subscriptionist to be considered classically Reformed," is for me, at least, one of the strangest comments I have read. Since when does classically Reformed not mean the things I have listed, "the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, his atoning death on the cross and bodily resurrection, as well as the authority of Scripture."

Perhaps you are thinking of progressive/reformed?

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Kattie W. Coon said...

"Since when does classically Reformed not mean ...” So now "classically Reformed" is synonymous with orthodox?

Viola,

It's the ol' "authority of Scripture" trap that results in all kinds of subscriptive beliefs. It's never reasonably defined in such a way that it doesn't play toward our essential depraved nature. I would like to hear how you define that phrase.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Yes!! but to clarify one can certainly be orthodox without being a classically Reformed Christian. Notice nothing I listed eliminates Methodists such as Tom Oden. And sorry but I am not sure what phrase you would like me to define?

Also you keep referring to subscriptionist or subscriptive as though it was some sort of doctrine that the Reform adhere to. It is my understanding that the PC(USA) does not allow the drawing up of a list of essentials that one must agree to. However that is not a doctrine and it certainly isn’t Reformed, its just a quirk of the PC(USA).

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Anonymous said...

Viola,

By your request, from Merriam Webster's:

"Homophobe: A person characterized by homophobia."

"Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Religious beliefs are not truly rational. That is why they call it "faith". So aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality on the basis of religious belief is, by definition, homophobia.

And by this definition, frightened homophobe is indeed redundant.

"Christians on the grounds of scriptural authority believe homosexuality is sin."

It sounds like you believe that if a person does not believe homosexuality is a sin, said person is not a Christian.

Is that what you believe?

You also said,

"Christians will just have to endure being called, "arrogant absolutist and exclusive," because we are not post-modern in our beliefs"

Again, do you believe that to be a post-modernist is to be a non Christian?

Then you said,

“He (Jesus Christ) accepts those who come to him for forgiveness and new life.”

Are you saying he accepts ONLY those who come to him?

And only those who come to him for the purpose of forgiveness and new life?


Tom
KC

Kattie W. Coon said...

"And sorry but I am not sure what phrase you would like me to define?"

Uh, how about "authority of Scripture"?

"Also you keep referring to subscriptionist or subscriptive as though it was some sort of doctrine that the Reform adhere to."

Oh come on Viola! Is that really what you thought I was saying? You have it exactly backward.

So now that you know; define "authority of Scripture" in such a way that it doesn't lead to subscription to beliefs derived from and consistent with your own depraved nature.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Tom,
It seems to me that after you gave me the definition for a Homophobe you then gave your own definition of religious beliefs in such a way that you might be able to redefine a homophobe. So Christians are homophobic because they have irrational beliefs!

The truth is despite Kattie's hopes you are calling those who are orthodox and Evangelical homophobic. And the funny thing (well not really funny) but by your definition in a sense you have called Kattie irrational also. And Kattie seems to believe that it is okay for people who are unrepentant in their sexual sinfulness to be ordained. So now you have a dilemma. Or maybe its Kattie who has the dilemma. I will let you two sort this out.

And since you believe all faith is irrational I am not sure what the rest of your questions have to do with anything.

However, let me answer this way, I think if a person professes to be a Christian but believes each person's truth is okay for them, they may just be a confused Christian. Only God knows. That does not change the fact that if something is true the opposite cannot also be true. If Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father there is no other way.

As for those who come to Jesus they come because they have been called. Jesus Christ does not turn away those who are his. Our only righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. We cannot come to God unless we come through Jesus Christ.

Viola Larson

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
You wrote "I personally think your description of orthodoxy is too subscriptionist to be considered classically Reformed."

Sorry I just saw what I did-I meant you seem to be making "non-subscription" a reform doctrine. Perhaps that is the one essential : )for those who are progressive?

The scriptures according to Westminster

"IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men

Take any of the other Confessions.

The Bible’s authority comes from the fact that it is God’s word written.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Anonymous said...

Viola,

I am afraid you misunderstood me.

"So Christians are homophobic because they have irrational beliefs"

That is not what I said. I merely demonstrated that people who discriminate against or have aversions to homosexuals on the basis of religious beliefs are homophobes just the same as those that are not religious.

It is you who seem to believe that being a Christian requires one to be homophobic. A sad but incorrect affirmation. I personally know dozens of Christians who have no such issues.

I am truly astonished at your beliefs about what it takes to be a Christian. I seriously doubt that Jesus Christ agrees with you, but that is above my pay grade. In any case there must be hundreds of millions of Christians who have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it is you who is not a Christian. Ever think about that?

"The Bible’s authority comes from the fact that it is God’s word written."

There is that phrase again. "the fact". How is it that you come to make such lofty claims? Is this a case of circular reasoning?

Tom
KC

Kattie W. Coon said...

Viola,

You said to Tom:

"The truth is despite Kattie's hopes you are calling those who are orthodox and Evangelical homophobic."

Speak for yourself Viola, and don't try to pretend you know what my hopes are. I find your penchant for so doing more than just a little offensive.

Viola,

You said to me:

“The scriptures according to Westminster…”

That's an interesting response, and I think an ok one as far as it goes, but I can't help but think that it would have been easier for you to have just said read Chapter 1 of Westminster and take any of the other Confessions as well. The way you actually expressed it, it looks like you are cherry picking two paragraphs from Westminster Chapter 1 and ignoring the rest of it. I happen to like the entire first chapter, particularly the parts that tells us where to look when we want to see the true authoritative language.

The interesting thing to me though about Westminster is the fact that denominations such as the OPC, the PCA, and others, who require subscription to Westminster, see an authoritative Biblical witness against the ordination of Women. So, in their eyes, the PC(USA)’s practice of ordaining Women would be a sinful practice since it goes directly against God’s will as relayed authoritatively by Paul.

Paul’s refusal to let women serve as overseers is one statement that is so clear in every Bible translation I have ever seen (as well as the Greek) that, according to Westminster, we need not go anywhere else to understand what it means. All other references in the Bible that are used relative to Women’s ordination pale in comparison to Paul’s direct and outright refusal to ordain women, therefore those other references should be understood in the light of Paul’s clearer statement, and not the other way around.

Since you personally have accepted such an ordination, you share in the sin, and in a serially unrepentant manner.

So I’ll ask again, can you come up with a definition of “authority of Scripture” that doesn’t play to our essential depraved nature?

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
I will get back to you later in a more fuller way. But let me just say as far as the authority of Scripture goes I have already given you my answer. I do not believe Paul forbade the ordination of women. And I base that on scripture and nothing else. And do not start commenting on that now, that is not what this thread is about. Just to make myself clear, the scripture gives verses that seem to contradict the ordination of women and those which encourage the ordination of women. In that case one reconciles scripture with scripture. And on the women issue that is not at all hard to do. But as far as homosexuality goes the Bible does not say anything good about it at all. It is sin. (It is not a sin to be a practicing woman :--) )

For your additional information many conservative Churches in the past and today allow women preachers. The Assembly’s of God and the Salvation Army are two that come to mind. They have always had women preachers. Moody at the time of his ministry allowed women ministers. In fact one of the great leaders of the Women’s Suffrage and Temperance movements was his friend and preached in his Church. Her name escapes me at the moment. There were also women preachers at the very beginning of the Methodist movement.

If you care to read a chapter from my History thesis, “ An Exploration: Feminist Ethics and The Principles of Orthodox Christianity” you can find it at http://www.naminggrace.org/id64.htm.
That is the first chapter which is entitled, “Early Feminism: Equality, Ethical Theory and Religion.” If you hunt around on my web site you will also find the last chapter. So please do not get me started.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Kattie W. Coon said...

"I do not believe Paul forbade the ordination of women."

Of course you don't.

"And I base that on scripture and nothing else."

Of course.

Excuse me, but your depravity is showing.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Kattie we are all sinners and I do believe in the depravity of humanity. But if you insult what I am saying one more time I will delete you. You may argue with me but you may not insult.

Kattie W. Coon said...

Viola,

I'm sorry you see it as an insult. No insult intended. I see it as an unavoidable fact of nature, and from your comment I suspect you do too, so I don't really understand your threat.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Tom & Kattie,

I am closing this thread and insist that this be the last word. Tom you did call religion and faith non-rational. So you did offer your own definition of homophobe.

Kattie you did insult what I said by suggesting it was a product of my depravity which is a long way off from the topic of my posting.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

My own definition? No.

They wouldn't call it "faith" if it was rational, would they?

But that is a subject for a different blog or post. "The nature of faith", perhaps?

Be well,

Tom
KC