Comments on: L.O.I. (10/07) http://michaelwender.com/2006/10/07/loi-1007/ J. Michael Wender - Graphic Artist, Web Developer, Coder Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:28:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Michael http://michaelwender.com/2006/10/07/loi-1007/#comment-135 Michael Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:44:19 +0000 http://beta.michaelwender.com/2006/10/07/loi-1007/#comment-135 Claire my Sister in Love, It's nice to hear from you via my blog. ;) Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts. In regards to your reflections on proper gender roles for men and women in the church, I will start by pulling a quote from Rut Etheridge's critique of Eldredge: <blockquote>Eldredge sees God Claire my Sister in Love,

It’s nice to hear from you via my blog. ;) Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts. In regards to your reflections on proper gender roles for men and women in the church, I will start by pulling a quote from Rut Etheridge’s critique of Eldredge:

Eldredge sees God

]]> By: Claire http://michaelwender.com/2006/10/07/loi-1007/#comment-134 Claire Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:58:51 +0000 http://beta.michaelwender.com/2006/10/07/loi-1007/#comment-134 Interesting critique. On the subject of Elderidge's strong focus realizing (what he takes to be) proper masculine and feminine ideals, I've been thinking about the following recently: Much of contemporary Christian discussion is on this topic of the proper roles for men and women. It seems to me that Christians who want strongly-defined roles are going to have to come to terms with (say something about) the relevant fact that not everyone's sex is well-defined. Some people are born intersex (having both male and female sex organs); not everyone is either XY or XX when it comes to the 23rd chromosome; and some people who are XY suffer from androgen insensitivity, so that they (to VARYING extents) have the external features of females and identify themselves as females. So, those who want well-defined gender roles are going to have to answer the question: what are such individuals to do? I'd like to emphasize that I think this is an important point; these are real people, and while their conditions are uncommon, the Christian message applies to everyone (not just the 99.8% majority). I also want to say that in bringing up this point, I'm not just trying be argumentative; I really think the church needs to think about it. Interesting critique. On the subject of Elderidge’s strong focus realizing (what he takes to be) proper masculine and feminine ideals, I’ve been thinking about the following recently:

Much of contemporary Christian discussion is on this topic of the proper roles for men and women. It seems to me that Christians who want strongly-defined roles are going to have to come to terms with (say something about) the relevant fact that not everyone’s sex is well-defined. Some people are born intersex (having both male and female sex organs); not everyone is either XY or XX when it comes to the 23rd chromosome; and some people who are XY suffer from androgen insensitivity, so that they (to VARYING extents) have the external features of females and identify themselves as females.

So, those who want well-defined gender roles are going to have to answer the question: what are such individuals to do? I’d like to emphasize that I think this is an important point; these are real people, and while their conditions are uncommon, the Christian message applies to everyone (not just the 99.8% majority). I also want to say that in bringing up this point, I’m not just trying be argumentative; I really think the church needs to think about it.

]]>