Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 13 May 91 06:01:32 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Lines: 92 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Paul Ferwerda writes: ---------------------------------------- I'm also uncomfortable about "demanding" my rights before God, whether it is right to do something in particular or perform a certain role. As I see it, as Christians we have no "rights" whatsoever. I don't have a "right" to be ordained, even if I feel called, or I'm a great preacher. ---------------------------------------- I think this is a good point. I remember talking with a friend of mine who is a Presbyterian minister, and he was telling me about the caucuses in the Presbyterian denomination. I remember thinking that there didn't seem that much difference between the Presbyterian denomination and the Democratic party. It occurred to me that it would have been interesting if the caucuses consisted mostly of people who were not members of the particular group whose interests they were advocating -- the xxx caucus consisting mostly of people from group yyy, which would have been more along the lines of the bible. I don't intend to condemn the Presbyterian denomination in particular; it just seems that in these kinds of things Christians often don't look much different from ``the world.'' As a possibly amusing sidelight, during the time I was going to New College, Berkeley, a woman started a discussion group on Biblical Feminism. One of my roommates thought it was kind of strange that there should be such a thing as Biblical Feminism; he said something to the effect that people would think Biblical Masculinism was ridiculous. This was an unfortunate thing to say with us having time on our hands. The result was that a few days later a poster appeared on the bulletin board at New College. It contained a picture of a body-builder posing, and was an advertisement for a seminar on Biblical Masculinism. It contained several verses along the lines of ``The glory of young men is their strength,'' ``Do not give your strength to women,'' ``Saul killed his thousands, David his tens of thousands,'' and so on. The main speaker was to be Jack Tatum of the Oakland Raiders. It had a long sign-up sheet, with the names of various celebrities on it. The response of the woman leading the discussion on Biblical Feminism was to post an addendum to her notice saying, ``Seminar on Biblical Feminism; Biblical Masculinists also welcome as long as they don't lift weights in the livingroom. Spittoons will be provided.'' -- -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com [People in your college seem to have a better sense of humor than many I've run into. It's probably inevitable that churches take on many of the same characteristics as other human organizations. It's made up of humans, after all. In both Presbyterian and Methodist churches I've been involved with there seems to be a feeling that the church needs to use the best organizational techniques. This is not confined to "liberal" churches, I don't think, though what I see of more conservative ones is primarily their marketing strategies. (This is presumably because I'm on the outside.) My own church gets caught up from time to time in the "planning process". Each of our commissions is supposed to have "measurable goals and objectives", and do formal evaluations. I've found it interesting at times when I was simultaenously doing staff evaluations at Rutgers and at church. It gets to be hard to tell when I'm at church. I've come very close to asking my Rutgers staff to join me in the Lord's Prayer at the end of staff meetings. Describing these things can make for good fun, but it's not necessarily bad to want to place our best organizational skills in the service of the church. I do wonder from time to time whether there should be distinct principles for managing churches. One group that clearly has a distinctive theory is the Friends, with their principle of concensus. However that doesn't necessarily get rid of the problem of knowing when you are at church. When I was a student at Haverford College, the College tried to run many of its organizations along Quaker lines. I understand that trying to run a faculty meeting where a single person's objection can block action is a unique experience. About the caucuses again: Many people within the PCUSA see the existence of a diversity of groups who care passionately about the direction of the church as a strength. The question becomes whether we can have differences while still maintaining Christian communion among people with differing opinions. It seems to me that the difference between church caucuses and political parties should be the perception of caucuses as being still part of one Body and joining with the rest of the church in the praise of God. In fact managing disagreement within the church has recently become a problem for many groups at both ends of the spectrum. The PCUSA is currently agonizing over what official status the special interest groups should have. (Currently there is some organizational recognition by the denomination.) But conservative groups such as the Southern Baptists and Lutherans seem to be nearly tearing themselves apart over attempts to regain doctrinal purity. --clh]