[Vision2020] women, C.S. Lewis; Flannery O'Conner
Michael
metzler at moscow.com
Wed Jun 14 23:19:14 PDT 2006
You girls have fun. I like southern bells in their fluffy dresses drinking
tea. Sorry Bill; no political talk amongst women and men.
Michael
Thanks Keely. While I think I understand what you're saying, I don't know
that I've made myself clear. I'd much prefer interacting face to face. All
the more reason for future coffee. Hope to do it again soon!
Cheers,
Heather
PS and I am glad you enjoyed my friends
PPS Bill, I hope to take another look at your questions in the morning
>From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>To: heatherlinn at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:31:45 -0700
>
>Unfortunately, I have enough experience with principles at Christ
>Church to not have to rely on Vision 2020, blogs, and anecdote for my
perspectives.
>And I think I made clear that the women I enjoyed coffee with love
>their husbands -- as they should -- and obviously have embraced a
>theology that they have some affection for as well.
>
>Their husbands are likely very loveable men; their theology, which I'm
>a bit more qualified to discuss, is one I disagree with on a number of
>points, not the least of which is an overarching need to defend
>masculinity and patriarchy at every turn. It grieves me to see my
>friend Heather, then, exhibiting this same overarching need to defend
>not only the theology but the husbands as well, when I'm content to
>separate the beautiful and appropriate affection between spouses from
>the ugly and Biblically inappropriate demonstration of hard patriarchy,
>whether between spouses or anyone else. Good men can practice
>patriarchy -- and good men are sometimes married to good women who join
>them in opposing it. Nobody, though, would suggest -- I didn't -- that
>these women ought to not love their hKeelusbands. Keep the menfolk and
>dump the patriarchy, I always say. Which probably explains why I'm not
>invited to many coffee gatherings . . .
>
>Bill asks Heather to discuss "women submitting to men," and I of course
>have volumes to say on the matter. But I'll wait for her comments, and
>jump in with mine later. I'm sure that all of us pro-submission folks
>can agree on one thing, though -- it's not gender-based, and is a
>mutual requirement of reciprocity from husband to wife, back again, and
>encompassing the Christian's relationship with everyone in her world,
>but only from a position of strength in the Spirit.
>
>keely
>
>
>From: "Heather Linn" <heatherlinn at hotmail.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:38:13 -0700
>
>First, I'd like to thank Keely for joining us for coffee. I'm glad to
>hear that she enjoyed herself as did we. However, I'd like to point out
>that there seems to be an alternative she's missed or at least is
>unable to consider. Perhaps not all information out there in V2020 land
>and the blog world concerning our church, our pastor, and our husbands
>is true. Perhaps we, women whom Keely views as "reasonable, intelligent
>and sincere in their faith", have a better grasp on our own situations
>and lives than those who don't know us. We aren't merely "willing to
>endure" our husbands and our theology but rather enjoy (love) them
>both. Why would "intelligent" women love living with domineering
>patriarchal peacocks? Maybe we're not actually intelligent. Maybe we
>don't really love them. Or, the option you haven't been willing to
>consider, maybe they aren't domineering at all. Longshot, I know. But
>it is possible.
>
>We don't "grieve, or are at least puzzled by, [your] Biblical feminism,
>outspokenness against Doug Wilson, and [your] sharp theological
>disagreements with Christ Church."
>I've been curious how you've drawn your conclusions but unlike what has
>been asserted, we don't all mind when people disagree. In fact, it can
>make community life a lot more interesting and fun.
>
>Hope we still seem intelligent when you realize that we are on the same
>page as our husbands. We didn't mary stupid boys out of pity. We like them.
>Mine's even funny.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Heather Wilson
>
>
>>keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
>>Tue Jun 13 13:25:27 PDT 2006
>>Previous message: [Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash
>
>
>>I appreciate Douglas Hunter's wise comments below, as well as Joe's
>>point that we consider Doug Wilson separately from those unfortunate
>>enough to be shepherded by him.
>
>>I had coffee yesterday with five warm, intelligent, delightful women
>>from Christ Church. They have every reason to presume that I am as
>>bad and mean as some have depicted me, and yet they've decided to do
>>what mature women do -- spend some time with me and find out for
>>themselves. And I am grateful for the invitation extended, the warmth
>>expressed, and the trust presumed; I
>hope I reciprocated with the same warmth and trust. I have absolutely
>>nothing against them and would welcome a friendship with any of them
>>-- as much as I grieve the bad theology they've embraced, or are
>>willing to endure, and the hyper-patriarchal and hierarchical
>>worldview it produces that, I'm convinced, is as bad for men as it is for
women.
>
>>But I would imagine they grieve, or are at least puzzled by, my
>>Biblical feminism, outspokenness against Doug Wilson, and my sharp
>>theological disagreements with Christ Church. That's fair. In fact,
>>that's great. I only hope that we can discuss it more. I have no
>>doubt at all that it would be a loving, reasonable, intelligent and
>>stimulating discussion, because these women, like most of the folks at
>>Christ Church, are reasonable, intelligent and sincere in their faith.
>>For every unloving Kirk man, many of whom we're all acquainted with
>>here, I know there are several more, men and women, who love Christ and
are willing to love me in
>>His name. I feel he same way.
>
>>That doesn't negate my concern and anger about what I know of Wilson's
>>world and worldview. In fact, it heightens it. I love a good roll in
>>the theological hay of debate, but what's of real consequence is that
>>real people -- good people -- get hurt by bad theology and worse conduct.
>>Conscience compels me, then, to defend them and to defend the Gospel
>>-- to offer, with gentleness and respect, a reason for the hope that
>>lies within me; further paraphrasing 1 Peter 3:15, I might add that I
>>hope to offer a reason for the anger and concern that lies within me
>>regarding the Kirk, and I hope that I've done it with gentleness and
>>respect to the sincere and offered clear, truth-building rebuke when
needed.
>
>>And so, I'd like to publicly thank my friend Heather Wilson and her
>>sister-in-law, Meredith Wilson, for a delightful morning yesterday. (And
>>it wasn't just the delicious coffee cake and great coffee, either!)
>
>>keely
>
>
>=====================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
<http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>====================================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
=====================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
====================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060614/681e7e89/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list