Saturday, May 06, 2006

Who is to blame?

According to this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060501.wxwomen01/BNStory/National/home

women in Alberta are leaving the workforce while the economy is so hot it needs more workers. The article goes on to say "conservative social attitudes... are to blame".

Got to love that word "blame". Using the word "blame" means this is automatically a negative phenomena. And of course there is a target for blame... conservative social attitudes. But who holds those attitudes? The people of Alberta.

So in essence, the people of Alberta need to be liberated from the right to hold their own opinions, so that women can be liberated from what they want to do and liberated from what they have decided they should do, and can get back into the workforce. I guess in the liberal mindset, women should have freedom but only if they will use that freedom to do what the liberal elite want them to do.

3 Comments:

Blogger Blake said...

"So in essence, the people of Alberta need to be liberated from the right to hold their own opinions, so that women can be liberated from what they want to do and liberated from what they have decided they should do, and can get back into the workforce."

How is that any different from how Brethren assemblies work in terms of when members theologically disagree with some mote or speck of Brethren theology? Double standard, much?

11:30 AM  
Blogger Shawn Abigail said...

A couple points:

- most Christian churches have a body of knowledge and understanding which members, and particularly teachers, are required to hold. The "Brethren" are no different in this regard.

- I've always been surprised at the diversity of opinion in the "Brethren" churches I've attended. Maybe that has not been your experience, but it has been mine. For example, infant baptism, charismatic gifts, divergent positions on prophecy, etc., are not that rare.

- where Brethren churches draw the line (typically) is in what teaching is allowed from the pulpit. So an individual member of the congregation may speak in tongues, but we wouldn't be too happy if he taught this from the pulpit. Again, Brethren churches are not too unusual in this. Try preaching in a Pentecostal church and telling them the gift of tongues is not around today.

- because we don't have a formal clergy, perhaps we are more open to divergent options on doctrinal issues.

- many of us are concerned about the tendancy of Brethren churches to fracture over small issues. This is why I posted the analysis section of the "Brethren History FAQ" on brethrenonline.org. My emphasis is in trying to show forbearance towards others within a Brethren church, rather than trying to fracture them more. You're preaching to the choir here.

3:53 PM  
Blogger Blake said...

So, "duck and avoid" is the only defense you have to offer? My point isn't for you to point around at other denominations and say, "we're not so bad!"; it's for you to deal with the fact that you condemn pressure for conformity in this instance, but not in your own. That, my friend, is a double standard. And if you don't think social pressure to conform exists in Brethren assemblies, I don't know what to tell you.

"because we don't have a formal clergy, perhaps we are more open to divergent options on doctrinal issues."

Are you even for real? Brethren, open to divergent opinions on doctrinal issues? I've been told in no uncertain terms I'm going to hell for being a Calvinist, and that was at a fairly liberal Bible Chapel. Shawn, go to Arkell Road Bible Chapel sometime and for instance hint that legalized gay marriage may not be such a bad thing, not even from the pulpit, and watch what happens. For you to even hint that the Brethren are open to anything that "doesn't sound right" is beyond my 8 years of experience in assemblies, and as far as I'm concerned, a complete whitewash of reality.

4:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home