announcement from apple computers
Apple Computers announced today that it has developed a computer chip that can store and play music in women’s breast implants. The iBreast will cost between $499 and $599. This is considered a major breakthrough because women are always complaining about men talking to their breasts and not listening to them.
Little bit of riske trivia for the weekend! Its Friday and I’m fried. Don’t blame me. 
Comments
40 Responses to “announcement from apple computers”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance...
- preacherman said: Wonderful post. I... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
- Andrew said: Matt, I don't understand...
Can I ask Alan… is that the Apple that caused Adam to fall…?
Breast Wishes
Celtic Fun
This is brilliant…It also rumored that Apple will be the releasing something similar for men. The name is still unknown, iPiece is a frontrunner. But I am afraid that this will only reinforce men listening to the wrong part of their body.
Good to see you are keeping abreast of what is happening in the world, Alan.
I suspect it’s a new urban legend. It’s not on the official Apple website news page but I did come across other reference to iBreasts on obscure web pages. Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/) didn’t have it in their listings as far as I could tell so I’ve reported it for investigation. It will be intersting to see how it evolves if what I suspect is correct.
You did get me for a second though. I laughed my head off before the anthropologist in me kicked in. I will look forward to the iRection.
…as we would say here in the US of A…I think that’s only for boobs. As to Matt Stone’s comment…it’s sometimes hard to keep things straight what with all the erumors. Now, Mr. Hirsch…since you are fried, be a good egg and get some rest. Sincerely, prayers going up for you from here in Colorado…and that’s no yolk…’er joke.
Hey, Actually Microsoft is coming out now with their own version. Its going to be called the “BoobTube”.
guys these are all very titilating responses. Matt, I do worry about you though. You actually went to look for one!!
And as for Irection, I went looking for that. How sick am I? The urban dictionary (first search in google) has an interestting defintion. Hah!
Hey by the way, where have all the women gone? I notice its only guys commenting today. Come back. This is your chance to rebuke us all.
OK, here I am. Shame, shame, shame. (only kidding).
I’ll confess… I looked at this and thought “crap” (and like Matt did a double check)… the chip might survive, the working electronic parts to make the music wouldn’t do well in a bag of saline.
Then I thought… why should the truth stand in the way of a funny story? I think my pouring cold water on the “flea training” thread “dampened” down a perfectly good discussion!
I am a worry.
In more ways than one!
How are you going at Morling Matt? Maintaining the rage?
Maybe a unisex iBot would suffice…
Well…I noticed it was all the guys commenting…and figured, like most things marketed for women, when the target is really men..IT IS PROBABLY DESIGNED BY A MAN!
No woman worth her salt (no “saline” pun intended
) has an ounce of trouble holding the wrapt attention of her man…but then, maybe I am a little saltier that most women… 
Just goes to show all of us that you need a life!
“like most things marketed for women, when the target is really men”
Yes… like breast implants in general! These are old stats I’ve linked to below, and I’m guessing the figure here is rising. I don’t want to sound judgmental, but when there’s over a million “cosmetic” surgery procedures per year in one country, that has to be a sign of sickness. If our spending tells our values, Christ have mercy on us. (Australia tends to copy US nuttiness with a bit of a time lag, alas).
Click here for the link… (Link was too big for the page - Admin)
At the risk of sounding terribly old fashioned, it would be good to reclaim “beauty of the soul” as a value, rather than beauty as some kind of marketable commodity.
Touche girls! Well said.
I’ll say a salty (couldn’t resist…)Amen to that, Janet! Especially the “it would be good to reclaim “beauty of the soul” as a value, rather than beauty as some kind of marketable commodity.”
Rather than old fashoned, Janet, I would call that “timeless wisdom.”
But I am a natural girl at heart…don’t even try to cover the bits of “salt” in amongst my “pepper” hair! Unnatural age-denying (rather than age-defying, as they are marketed) procedures are a form of dishonesty…they might start out as a little fib, but you just have to keep fibbing…until you have a mess that turns into a big, fat, lie. (Have any of you seen the Veggie-Tale called “Larry Boy and the Fib from Outer Space? I’ve seen it at least 200 times…)
Don’t get me started on this one, Alan….
Ah Penny, you are more righteous than I… I do put henna in my hair. But seeing it only costs about 50 cents a go, I’m not wasting much money on it!
I think the billions of dollars spent on makeup, hair treatments, skin care, fashion, diets, plastic surgery etc. feeds into something in women that calls out: “I need to be loved… does anyone love me? Does anyone notice me?” In a consumer society young women are a very vulnerable “market”.
At the other extreme (and it is an extreme) I was speaking to a collegue who went to an ecumenical women’s event, who looked around the room and had one word come to mind: “frump”. It was almost of this group of women in ministry and leadership had over-reacted, and were so careless about their appearance they looked not only unprofessional but severe, or hopelessly unfashionable, or dressed in a way that was totally unflattering. There is some kind of unwritten “code” in terms of what constitutes professional dress… I’m not sure that women in ministry do the cause of equality any favours when they look absurdly dowdy.
Is that just me being picky, or is “moderation” needed here?
I’m assuming you’re talking to me Janet (strangely enough, I have a friend who persists in calling me “Penny”)…
I will say, in an acknowledged HUGE overgeneralization…speaking from MY OWN experience here…that both extremes are, at their root, related to male attitudes:
1. The need of young women to be loved (especially by the men in their family) in an unconditional manner is huge…let’s not forget the whole tragedy of anorexia, where our precious girls starves themselves to death in order to fit the role (that it is a psychological issue just begs the question…). Think back…how many “ugly duckling” “late bloomer” girls have you known that were more than a little homely at, say, 12…who were very lovely at 21? But look at the messages our 12 year old girls are bombarded with? And look at the example of the mothers and sisters and friends? (BTW, I really appreciate the current campaign by Dove…have you see it?)
I was freed from this bondage at the age of 36 by my precious husband…who refuses to weigh in on the “does this look OK, honey? would you like me to do/wear this instead?” questions by ALWAYS saying, “sweetheart, you always look beautiful to me.” Now, you can call that a cop-out…especially at times when I KNOW I am looking aweful…but it sends me a powerful message because he’s never changed his story ONCE in 14 years (and the very “natural” birth of our 3 children). Interestingly enough, the only “opinion” he has shared is that he loves my long (below waist) hair. That has made it very easy to resist every attempt (there have been many) of those who say I just MUST update my hairstyle. Not going to happen any time soon, friends….
…take a deep breath…on to the next issue: women in ministry.
2. Men traditionally have worn suits to preach or “work” as clergy…or other professional jobs. Only lately has this changed significantly (ala Rick Warren and others). But what does a woman do whose place ministering along side men is “tolerated” do? She has incredible pressure not to be seen as “sensual”, especially in this day and age of “sexual falls” in church leadership. As in every other area where women are seen to “compete” with men, there is one standard for men and another one for women. (I worked 12 years in BIG business before being ordained.) In appearance, this impacts decisions on hairstyle, makeup, jewelry, fashion…because these women don’t want to be a stumbling block or distract from the message as they serve….only to be a stumbling block because they are “frumpy.” Talk about the catch 22, rock-and-a-hard-place….and “the medium is the message.”
We’re talking about an unwritten code that goes much deeper than surface appearange on this one, I think….
Well…a swan-song rant…
There is no easy answer here, brothers and sisters. But I, for one, will love my frumpy sisters and look past their out-of-step appearance to hear Jesus in their insights and see Jesus in the way they love and serve…and I think Jesus and Paul are standing with me here.
Blessings
Oops… Peggy. Must proof read posts!
“unwritten code that goes much deeper than surface appearance”
Agreed… here’s one of my hunches, for what it’s worth.
I think for female pioneers into the blokey world of “IC” ministry some have learned intuitively to be somewhat “masculine” in order to get a hearing in a blokey world… to speak very assertively, to be more confrontational than invitational, to to use “blokey” analogies in speech etc. etc. They’ve found that if they hint they’re not heard… if they state opinion they’re not heard… they actually have to bring it up a notch (”we must address this issue now!”) to have their views noticed by male elders / boards / deacons whoever.
And they’ve learned if they get upset, or cry, or grow their hair long, or don a frock, they lose credibility, and it’s hard to claw it back.
It’s very understandable…. but I do see this as a barrier to something I’d really hope for in both the IC and the EC… the full participation of women in all levels of ministry… and the full participation of people with diverse personalities and gifts… and a Christian culture that encourages people to become more of who God designed them to be and less conformist… a culture that lets people be feminine or masculine… a culture that lets diverse people “shine”.
Why do I see it as a barrier? Because positive role models can be really important for young women asking the “what do I want to do with my life?” question. An inspiring, switched on, lit up woman in ministry… who is sufficiently connected with her local culture that she doesn’t look or act like an oddball (ie who can “cut it” in local mission)… can open up the imagination of young women… “maybe I can pursue vocational ministry because I can relate to pastor X… actually, I’d love to be more like her.” I used to work with a young woman who decided to pursue ministry studies for precisely that reason… her pastor did ministry as a woman does ministry, and did it beautifully… she wasn’t trying to be a “he-woman”.
I do believe there’s a middle ground between sexy and frumpy… and that’s dressing as a professional… and if you are a minister in an IC you ARE a professional, and there’s some subtle expectations of the dress of professional people. No hard and fast rules, but if you’ve worked in other professions you’ll have some idea of what is and isn’t OK.
Please don’t read me as saying I don’t love and respect women ministers regardless of what they look like… I personally couldn’t care less and I know there are so many more important issues to talk about… I’m even a little uncomfortable flagging these thoughts because they sound so superficial. I’m just hoping that the “next wave” of women in ministry don’t find they can’t act or look feminine if that’s the kind of person they are.
Girls, this is such a big issue for the church at large, I will blog on it someway. Again the movements teach me things here. Some analysts of the Chinese church say that it is over 60% woman and this shows in the leadership structures as well. Goes to show, that when you are actually doing the Kingdom stuff, gender does not seem to matter very much. Marginal texts in the scriptures don’t become major texts and supplant the ministry and destiny that God clearly gives to all people, regardless of gender. For my part, I am sorry for what we guys have done to women in the name of Jesus’ cause.
Janet, I am right there with you…I just wanted to take the moment to make the point–hoping you all know that I do have a sense of humor…and I look forward to the day when appearances become non-issues or less of an issue. I did not take anything you had to say in any negative light. I try to serve in “timeless” or “classic” fashion, and that’s how I deal with it personally.
When I worked in aerospace (talk about a “blokey” industry…) I owned enough power suits and silk blouses/scarves to not repeat an outfit for six weeks. (I happily gave them all away when I went back to college.) I was involved in the women’s management circles and tried to help them see that women can have different management styles to offer…and don’t have to smoke cigars, drink like fish and spew off-color jokes and language in order to be respected…accepted…whatever. It was a hard sell….but there are many more voices — and positive examples — than there were in 1980….
I do wonder what the men consider “professional dress” for ministry…the range seems very large, from what I have observed….
Alan, I look forward to the day when you weigh in on the issue. This is the second time you have brought an apology to me on behalf of what the guys have done to women in the name of Jesus’s cause. I received it with appreciation in Long Beach, and I receive it with appreciation today.
I hope that you and Deb can confirm to those here that I do not have an axe to grind…but I do have a keen sense of the historical experience that I have lived and am more than willing to articulate the situation when appropriate.
Thank you, Alan, for the breadth of your interest and influence. You are so very appreciated.
I do think that men need to speak on behalf of women on these kinds of issues… otherwise it can sound like sour grapes… and the kind of men who most need to hear this message have the most trouble hearing the voices of women! (They glaze over for some reason).
Even amongst those who are open to the ministry of women, the issue easily drops off the agenda. I spoke with a female collegue recently who raised a question among some senior ministers: “so what are you doing to develop the leadership of women?” It met a deathly hush. They hadn’t really thought about it.
As you point out Alan, this is a persistent issue in the IC, but in the small organic house church movement it’s an irrelevancy… there IS no power hierarchy there… so the valid criticism that males predominate in power positions (in both secular and church leadership)becomes a non issue there.
Of course, some of what is dubbed “the emerging church” is based in larger groupings, and there is a tendency for males to dominate when this is the case. I suppose this is also true of emerging church conferences. I actually wonder whether it would be worthwhile to have some workshops in such gatherings that are just for women… and possibly just for men… (at the risk of sounding very 19th century)…
I know some people will think that’s incredibly retrograde and I’m setting back the cause of women… but I remember chatting to a couple of girls after one of the few Dangerous Stories electives delivered by a woman (we were all crying, and got chatting over a discussion of who had tissues. Feedback for the next conference… put a pocket pack of tissues in the showbag for the chicks).
They were saying how great it was to hear from a woman… and how different it was… that she had a very distinctly feminine style of communication and sense of priorities. It was really affirming to them to hear someone with whom they had such resonance.
I’m involved in organising mentoring for women, and the ones from EC / missional settings in particular sing the praises of connecting with an older woman… because many of these missional settings are very “age-level” and it can be very difficult to access mature Christian women to discuss issues such as marriage and parenting and friendships and caring for older parents and stage of life issues etc. etc. Processing these kinds of issues with someone who has travelled the road before us is invaluable… and difficult in our isolated kinds of lifestyles.
Anyway… sorry that’s a round about ramble. Go for it Alan… when you can!
Peggy… it may not be quite your thing (it’s generally not as “nice” as theforgottenways as quite a few Nearderthalls weigh in)… but there was an interesting discussion about women in leadership at Signposts if you feel like broadening your blogging career!
http://www.signposts.org.au/2007/03/08/those-damn-women/comment-page-1/#comments
“How are you going at Morling Matt? Maintaining the rage?”
Good thanks Janet, I chose well to do the Christian counseling class first. We’ve all been sitting in circles. I’ve been blogging some of the experiences and balancing it all out with some posts Aleister Crowley.
Hey Matt,
you missed out a word “some posts ____ Aleister Crowley”
I for one am hoping that all the sitting in circles hasn’t pushed you over the edge and the missing word is not “to”
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hullo-o-o…
Since Janet’s invited blokes to the party, I’ll drop in me two bob’s worth… I’ve tended not to focus on my thinking on imago Dei too much on this blog. I see it as a core root of missio Dei and therefore as foundational for missional church - but it is a bit of a distraction to the issues that Alan is discussing in TFW. However, I can’t wade into this stream without reaching back to those fundamentals; otherwise I’ll be up that creek without a paddle…
I pray that this makes some sense, that it raises useful discussion points and is not too loaded in respects of gender or theological persuasion, which of course, despite my best intentions, it will still be! I’ve chosen to voice my consideration without quoting chapter and verse – that option is available, but elsewhere I’ve labelled that kind of usage as “pick’n’mixing,” and I’m more concerned to have an overview, that relates God’s revelation across the breadth of the Scriptural data, rather than just post a few of my favourite things. A friend helpfully pointed out to me recently, that my lack of awareness of my blind spots was obviously because they are blind spots, I’m sure some of you can help me!
The gender agenda runs deep – it’s in our cultural make-up, in our workplaces, in our churches, in our minds… The telling of the story might require a little complexity… so, if you’re planning to digest this, stop now… put on the kettle, grab a beer, a juice, a glass of wine - read to the end, rather than bite off a morsel and choke on it along the way - give the whole thing your consideration and then fire away in response… I genuinely look forward to further enlightenment in your response.
God has an agenda for gender.
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
The communal, relational God procreated communal, relational people in their image. God’s agenda is that the image of God, invested in His procreation, exists in the relationship between people… In people’s ability to relate to one another, to build relationship, to establish community, is the revelation of the image of God. The DNA of God invested in His children is the DNA of community (communitas) forming relationships.
In Genesis 2
God gives direction to the man - don’t eat of the fruit of one specific tree, because if you do you will die - simple straight forward direction given to the man. Then, consistent with God’s relational character, they voice that it is not good for man to be alone. What was voiced first in Genesis 1
is confirmed and outworked in Genesis 2
. The report of the man’s creation prior to the woman’s is frequently cited in support for the concept of man’s “headship.” In the light of the whole of Scripture I have come to agree with this conclusion, but not the general expression it has been given… where “headship” has been used as a concept to limit women, it is a corruption of the design of God.
In the breadth of the counsel of God’s Word it is clear that headship is relational not gender driven - by that I mean all women are not subject to all men… it is not an issue of leadership or domination, but an issue of service and protection; as Christ loved the church and gave up His life for her. Men are intended to be prepared to give up everything, even life itself, to free the women (and children) that God has assigned them responsibility for, to enable them to freely be the women that God created them to be… That sounds patronising, it’s not intended to be, and I’d be delighted to have some linguistic direction in better ways of expressing some of my thinking.
The headship of the Godhead is our model. According to the Scriptures it is formed in the choice of willful submission, made by the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son and the Father. The Son only does what he sees the Father do and speaks only what he hears the Father speak, the Son has confidence that everything - even death on a cross - is ultimately in God’s best interest. In mutuality of complete love, trust and submission, headship is established - that’s God’s agenda for humanity.
In Genesis 3
the relationship between man and woman, and humanity and God became distorted. Instead of supporting their relationship, when he clearly knew that something was not right, since he had already chosen to hide his nakedness, the man sacrificed the relationship for the sake of his “self.” Rather than admit his fault and deal with the consequence, he followed his physical cover-up with a spiritual and emotional cover-up - it’s been a human problem ever since and often seen in men! And the consequence came anyway…
The consequences have been interpreted by some as “punishment”; however, there is a difference between the consequences of your actions and punishment for doing the wrong thing. When I say to my beautiful children (they have their Mother’s genes) don’t put your hand on the stove-top or you’ll get burned, I warn them of the consequence of their actions… If they are foolish enough to take that action, the burning that they receive is not a punishment from me, it is a consequence of not heeding the wisdom of an elder. God said to Adam don’t eat the fruit or you’ll die - death wasn’t punishment it was consequence - that is a vital concept to hold on to…
The relationship and thus the image was battered and bent and the consequence of death was in play… Since the man had not played his assigned role, the woman was incapable of playing hers and God acknowledges the broken nature of the relationship “your desire will be to dominate your husband, and he will rule over you…” a distorted gender agenda had come into play… but it wasn’t God’s agenda.
Jesus comes to restore God’s agenda, which among other things means restoring the original concept of headship, which contrary to God’s design had become about dominion and manipulation. Even Moses had allowed certain practices, which were not God’s intention, because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Over generations the culture had limited and denigrated women, Jesus opposed those limitations; He spent time with women, He taught women, the first person who had the revelation He was the Messiah was a woman, the first witness to the resurrection was a woman, He was supported by a number of women mentioned in the gospels.
The communal, relational God is about the business of restoring their image in the relationships of people. In reflection of the relationships of the Godhead, headship is a perspective of human relationships. Headship has a bearing on leadership, but it has been misconstrued and manipulated – headship is relational and based on relationships; leadership is a gift applied in the administration of the practices of the church. They are different elements - headship is a playing field that releases participants to play soccer or rugby or baseball or to cycle - the ability to play a particular sport well is a gift, sure it requires exercise and development, but is nevertheless a gift. Headship releases people – male and female – into their calling, including if their gift and calling is to leadership.
When people confuse headship and leadership, or worse ascribe the same value and definition to them, there is a false justification for excluding some people from leadership based solely on their gender, and encouraging others- without a leadership gift – into a position of leadership based solely on their gender. To deny women leadership on a biblical basis requires us to expunge Miriam, Deborah, Esther, Huldah, Priscilla, Junia(s), Phoebe, Euodia, Syntyche – or at least make the choice to view their roles through lenses that enable and encourage us to apply limitations that are not in the text.
In fact, in most of these cases, the women mentioned in the Bible are mentioned in the text alongside the male relation that has headship responsibility… the fact that there is relational headship, releases them to serve in leadership as they have been gifted. The same principle extends to all people in “ministry” roles, the image of God is revealed in our relationships, we keep them right to enable people to see Christ revealed. So, Paul teaches that male elders must have their relational headship in order, to release them to be free to administer their gifts and calling in the church.
The two controversial verses used to limit women cannot be applied, as it is suggested they are, if we address the whole counsel of Scripture. If women must be silent then God made a mistake with Miriam, Huldah, the daughters of Phillip, all qualified as prophets. If women cannot teach men then God made a mistake with Deborah, Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche. If women cannot lead men then God made a mistake with Miriam, Deborah, Junia(s). The verses in question relate directly to people that Paul knew, and the issue he points to relate to their relational headship rather than any gift or role as leaders, teachers in the body.
While I am on a journey being transformed into the likeness of Christ, I am also aware that I come into that awareness of Christ with a cultural heritage, the brand of the beast stamped firmly on the inside of my eyelids. As a man, I have an appreciation for a certain limited range of shapes of female, indoctrinated into me with incredible regularity. The image has nothing much to do with reality, it is a construct – had I grown up in 16th Century Europe perhaps the type would be a voluptuous Rubenesque maiden, rather than the emaciated Twiglets, girls aspire to be today. If I grew up in certain island communities the largest girls would be the most attractive, since their families could clearly afford larger quantities of food.
Men are prone to be captivated by the image their eyes behold, filtered through the predominant construct and then by the presence of women conformed to the image. To counter this men need to choose; make a choice to prioritise vision seen by faith, rather than just by sight. It requires us to value faithfulness and to esteem the faithful rather than just the famous. The externals are impossible to avoid, we exist in a material world, but there is a need for renewing the mind and developing self-control. There is a need to see ourselves as God sees us and see women as God sees them – holistically not objectified. There is also a need to empower, encourage, allow, equip women to see themselves as God sees them.
The issues surrounding limitation based on gender are issues that the emerging/missional church must address… the misunderstanding and abuse of the Bible, to justify actions contrary to the heart of the Father contribute to the death of the church… There is a need for men to make/take the opportunity to share their struggles together. There is a need to stop applying pressure – conscious and otherwise – to women in our lives to conform to an image that is an illusion. There is a need for us all to be healthier in body, soul and spirit – to live outside of the agendas of others. To be neither unhealthily thin in competition with Barbie, or excessively unhealthy because we are carrying too much weight – these are issues we all must face, of health and stewardship, rather than avoiding authentic accountability by making them about image.
We have a core leadership team of 14, without intentionally specifying gender distribution we have seven male and seven female leaders - 4 couples and 6 individuals. We all have different roles and responsibilities and contribute to the decision making and life of our broader community. Without one gender represented we’d be incomplete…
I could carry this on further, but your coffee cup is cold, your glass is empty, you need to pay a visit somewhere or head to bed, work or something much more important. We are carriers of the image of God… let’s allow God out to play. Without relationships that are balanced and people operating in their gifts the church lacks the image of God and it lacks the Spirit of God… can you hear the bell tolls… unless we grow in this area the bell tolls for us too!
Beannachd Dia dhuit
(Blessings of God be with you)
A Celtic Son
Thanks, Janet, for the link…it was interesting, but I must say that I’m completely wrung out with the whole discussion…I was over at jesuscreed.org and their threads about Women in Ministry…and it will probably take me years to detox from the trash…although I did appreciate the number of great (male & female) scholars who weighed in on the discussion.
I did appreciate your “spin” on Paul’s sarcasm in the 1 Corinthians “silence” passage. Not many folks bring that one is…thanks! Humor is the last thing to be grasped in another language….
And thanks, CS, for stepping up to the plate!
Be blessed, all.
Hi CS.
I loved just about everything in your post… although I’m actually questioning the concept of “headship” at all in relation to men and women in the Christian era… I’m questioning whether this is a construct of a patriachal church looking back and attempting to interpret the text, rather than a clear teaching of the bible itself. The word “headship” and “head” is used very little in the bible… I could only find it in a couple of places in relation to men and women. Rather than wading through the argument here, I’ve questioned this at the link above from Signposts if you’d like to explore my thoughts.
I’m not saying anyone’s definitely right or wrong here… but I’m not convinced your ideas about “headship” are unambiguous teachings of the bible. So you might need to go against your natural inclinations and throw some verses at me to ponder!
Peggy… I know what you mean about “detoxing from the trash”… I simply cannot fathom why some men get so emotive and even nasty about this… although I have a naughty hypothesis it comes from a primal fear that if women step out of the kitchen and into the pulpit the traditional man will starve to death. There’d be few more basic fears than that of starvation!!!!
Thanks, Janet and Celtic Son, for your comments. I think I must be recovering faster than I expected…praise God for that!
I have decided to weigh in on the “headship” conversation…because that was the major point discussed over at jesuscreed.com.
So that I don’t clog this blog more than you’ve come to expect, I’d like to just make a number of short comments and provide links to what I’ve already said and what some significant voices have said, as well, that really represent what I have come to believe after my 30 year process concerning this subject. Here goes:
The thread I got caught up in can be found at:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2143#comments
I did not arrive at the discussion until comment #94 (Alan knows just how fast the blogservation runs over at Scot’s site!), and added at #98, #102, #115, #123 (which is a rehash of what appeared to be a lost comment #115…but, as always, I said a number of things differently in each), #126, #132, #134 and #139.
I would suggest that #166 is an important piece of context for this entire discussion, and it was made by the man (Michael Kruse) who championed the discussion so that I could extricate myself before really losing my cool…beside the fact that he knows so much more and says it so much better than I ever could…and, being a man, is better received [tee hee, Janet
].
I do, however, want to provide you with some important links from Michael’s comment #151 about the whole headship idea. (You will see that he owned many of the 179 comments on that thread!):
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/09/pauls_subversio.html
This article has, in its references cited section, a couple of important links, as well. The first one is from Gilbert Bilezekian:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/male_headship.shtml
The second one is from Gordon Fee:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/CulturalContext_Fee.pdf
The last one is to Rodger Sellers’ wonderful sentence diagram of Ephesians 5:18-22
. (Took me back—way back (like 33 years!)—to my early days in “Tools” class….
http://www.rodgersellers.com/Ephesians%205.htm
So, there you have it, friends.
Be blessed!
Janet and Celtic Son, I’m working with Neil to post a comment with a number of links concerning my take on the “headship” issue.
Stay tuned….
Done! - Neal
I await with interest!
Janet, Neal has it posted now…
Janet,
the issue of “headship” is challenging and my comments are certainly not unambiguous. What I am attempting to do is reconcile an element that exists in Scripture - that has been seized pick’n'mix style and misused to limit women - and frame it within an understanding that can be seen as consistent across the whole counsel of God.
We have women in leadership, preaching and teaching in the church that my wife and I lead. We have a leadership team that is currently 7 men and 7 women - that has not been created to reflect a gender equality. We have simply recognised the gifts in people’s lives and invited them to join us in leading our church - the outcome has been a balance of genders… without having to try too hard!
Rather than revisit the issue from my perspective Peggy (thank you Peggy) has pointed to a helpful discussion that articulates most of my thinking better than I can! A quick read through of Michael Kruse’s comments that Peggy points out on Jesus Creed are helpful. He is a much more agile blogger than I am and the blog there is much more of a to-and-fro dialogue. Also in the midst of the first article that Peggy has pointed to is a helpful exposition of headship.
I think choosing to ignore the headship issue leaves you with a weakness, ready to be exploited by anyone who is versed in a contrary opinion - a lesson I learned the hard way!
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Thanks for the links… but now my brain hurts.
I should now read a bit more about philosophy of the Enlightenment period for some light relief… essays looming!
Janet…everything about this topic seems to be painful, I guess
So, Alan…are you following here…fodder for your future foray into this minefield???
Blessings,
I was discussing the women in leadership thing at Signosts and (predictably… although from quite a nice person) had this response:
“The guts of it is that I don’t think any of us like authority being exercised over us - whether it be rightly or wrongly - we all kick against it.”
That’s probably true… but this comment raises concerns for me… because it can be used as a “stick” to stop the argument. (”Well, women rant about oppression in the church because they just don’t like authority… they should just get over it and submit their hearts to Christ.”)
Imagine you were a priest in the Roman Catholic Church trying to argue that the verses used to support celibacy were specific to a time or place, or reflected a very unique spiritual gift, but that people without this gift should be able to exercise a “priestly” function.
Well… you could quickly attempt to silence such a priest by claiming they had personal struggles with celibacy and needed prayer to overcome them… or they had an attitude problem with the authority of the church… or they REALLY needed to surrender their heart to Jesus because they had a struggle with the clear teaching of the bible…
It shifts the ground from an academic discussion: “perhaps the church has incorrectly interpreted the bible” to “you have an attitude problem”
I think when the ground shifts here it matters not a whit how much you stand on the theological high ground, you’ve lost the argument because you’re the problem.
And I think the same happens for women who seek to suggest that the verses that have been used to keep women in the kitchen, the women’s group and the Sunday School only have been incorrectly interpreted… well, they’re “just bitter and have an attitude problem”.
This battle can be a “no win” for women.
Having gotten that off my chest… I don’t know if it’s a battle for Al to pick because I think when emerging churches embrace team leadership and / or a fairly flat leadership structure the marginalisation of women doesn’t happen to the same extent. Any IC males out there like to take this issue up?
Bah humbug…
Janet… you’re absolutely right. The greatest weakness, in all of our arguments, is the priority we place on the perceptions we have gained from our own personal experience. Our greatest blindness is a plank blocking our view of the bigger picture of the grace of God. The fact that we all kick against authority simply means that we are all wrong, and have a need to submit… it is an act of the will; the choice to be who God says you are, rather than the selfish, spoiled brat the world insists we become! It would be just as “fair” to argue that men, educated in a westernised model, rant against women in leadership, because those men are culturally indoctrinated to feel uncomfortable with women in leadership - men like that are “just bitter and have an attitude problem”. The battle is a “no win” for the church - among various other faults, our exclusion of women in leadership has led us to where we are today!
As a community church, we are pretty clear that we recognise people in leadership based on the gifts given by the Spirit, and gender is not a prescriptive issue from our perspective. We’ve gone through discussion on why we believe this is an appropriate model biblically, and we’ll share that with people who have concerns. We have gone through it pretty exhaustively and come to our conclusions and frankly for us it is now no longer an issue that we’re prepared to engage in extended debate about. It is an internalised “Christian” distraction, which takes us away from our commitment to our community.
We do our best to encourage people to consider our approach, but if they are still uncomfortable then we’d suggest there are several other Bible based churches in our local area, that they may be more comfortable joining. That doesn’t for a minute suggest that we don’t care or we think we’re right… it’s simply more productive for believers to work with people they’re in agreement with, rather than be caught up in internal arguments on secondary issues, that distract us from the primary goal. Perhaps in time God will reveal His truth clearly to us and we can repent (change our thinking) where necessary, in the meantime we carry on in the convictions that we have received from engaging with the Word.
To contribute further to my inevitable iconoclasm, here’s my initial take on the subject of leadership…
As far as a leadership structure goes, we tried to develop a flat leadership structre - well at least flatt-er. Eventually we came to the conclusion a few years ago that the flat structure was a well-meaning diagram on paper (it did flatter!) that disguised an alternate reality. One description of the church is as a house and the Lord and the APEST gifts - particularly apostles and prophets - are described as the foundation… yet the pyramid structure places those roles at the peak - who builds a house by putting the roof in place first?
On the basis of Ephesians we’ve suggested that the attitude of the APEST gifts is that they provide a foundation - with Christ as the chief cornerstone - that the church is built as a network of living stones upon. We have inverted the traditional pyramid, with the leaders developing the maturity to grow further towards the bottom. Key leaders are challenged to journey DEEPER in relationship with God, engaging a deeper humility, to develop a greater capacity for service, enabling us to support, equip and release greater numbers of saints in works of service.
Those called into key roles of leadership and eldership are reminded the foundations of a home are the base the doormat is placed upon, for people to wipe their feet on entry. That’s how we should expect to be treated and to treat people who arrive at our doorstep, carrying all the baggage and crap the world has laid upon them - we help them unload the crap! We are reminded that no-one looks at or inspects the foundations of a building, except the occasional visit from an expert to confirm its ongoing health and security. In fact all the attention gets paid to the decorative finish - which of course couldn’t stand if the foundation was not secure. We are called to wash the feet of others, not to lord it over but to serve… and we have a developing community of leaders, seeking to serve one another and see people released to be all that they can be. Our crown is not the glory of the rooftop here on earth, but our awareness of the blessing and privilege it is to play a vital role as co-labourers with God. We serve, often unseen and unheralded, in a sense in proximity to Christ the cornerstone of the foundation, and the building will be tested at a future time.
We are blessed to be a blessing…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Love your work CS.
The interesting thing of course, is that we DO operate out of our “gut feeling” most of the time… sometimes it’s helpful to name it… and then put it aside, because as you say, it’s a no win situation for anyone!
Janet,
that’s where I consider an understanding of “repentance” comes in… The agreed understanding of the original terminology is “change the mind,” so rather than just go with the instinct that comes first to the mind (which our vernacular suggests is located in the gut!) we “repent” and correct our thinking. As Paul challenges the Corinthian church, his practice is to take captive EVERY thought to make it obedient to Christ - the Christ in us, the Christ we are included in… We are not limited to wage war in this realm, but to exercise the self-control that is the fruit of the Spirit at work in us…
The discipline we require is to practice becoming conscious of our self-centred thinking and developing an internal dialogue that empowers us to “name it” every time and to mature in Christ. Then we are challenged to pass on this discipline, to others who seek to become disciples of Jesus the Christ…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
That’s deep stuff…