Turning the other cheek since 75.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind classes in cooking and sewing. I just don't want to pay thousands of dollars to take them and I'm not sure what the purpose of a degree in those arts would be now-a-days, either. (Unless, of course, you wanted to be a jr. high home-economics teacher . . .)It's a little over the top, yes. Undeniable. But I definitely think there is an underlying need they're trying to address. I just think they're a bit over-zealous in their tactics. I think homemaking (or whatever you call it) is very important, but I think it's under-valued as of late. As a result, no one (parents, educators, roll models, etc.) emphasizes it and suddenly we have an entire generation that's utterly deficient in this area, comparatively speaking. It's not that I think a formal degree (and tens of thousands of dollars in debt) in homemaking is the solution, but I definitely think there's a need there to be addressed.
huh? disgraced by my own wife? how dare you! :Pi'm not arguing against the idea of housekeeping. in fact, i believe it's a good, beautiful and holy thing (or can be good, beautiful and holy, but can also be a tool for repression or laziness). again, i would recall Lauren Winner on this one: www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/004/11.14.htmli would also say that parent taking classes on childhood development (social, physical and psychological) is a downright good idea.what i am so upset about, and i think you may agree, is that a prominent theological seminary from the largest Protestant denomination in the US (second largest organized religious body behind the RCC here, i'm pretty sure) is 1) saying that keeping house is a prescribed vocation for women - and only women (in the article, Patterson argues that what they are doing is trying to "establish family and gender roles as described in God's word for the home and the family" before moving on to more hubris about the dangers of the nation and denomination being destroyed if preventative action isn't taken. he makes al gore seem downright playful.)2)this being the only class offered to females at the seminary, this move is also saying that the women's role in ministry is simply limited to this one aspect, and this one aspect only - keeping house (replete with interior design).Mary Magdelene, in the Gospel accounts, was a good friend of Jesus and one of the first witnesses of the Resurrection and became his witness, Jesus' apostle to the apostles. in the gnostic re-telling offered in the DaVinci Code, though, she was his domesticated wife. not that that's a bad thing, but it wasn't who she was, and it's not always who women should be.(and, btw, it's "role models".)i love you.
I have two BIG problems with this, and and neither are that these classes are being offered or that they are being offered for women only. One problem is the implication that it is the only way. Certainly there are still women who desire to fulfill the role of wife and mother in a traditional way and I think that's great but there are also many, many more women - Godly, righteous women - who do not. I think that's great also. The other problem is that these are the only classes for women in this institution. That's simply wrong.The combined message is clear. Clearly wrong...
and clearly divisive and limiting and ... let me stop before i get into name-callinglisten, i can understand if a seminary said that they don't believe that women should be pastors b/c of the references in the epistles, et. al. but then that same institution should uphold alternative and equally valid roles for women in full or part-time church-based ministry.and, no, church secretary doesn't count.this isn't being biblically conservative, it's being socially and culturally arch-conservative. and the SBC coming from the roots it does, this is just not a good idea.
Be kind. Rewind.