The Sex Talk
Last week’s “Kickoff” event sponsored by the Roosevelt Institution was a huge success. We drew in well over a hundred people to this political event, despite really wet and nasty weather. Many of the intellectuals on campus really enjoyed past debate events also. Last year, we had two important debates; one was on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and one was on Pacifism vs. Just War from a Christian perspective. Both of these were excellent events, especially because they presented both sides a chance to develop an intellectual discussion. After last Thursday’s Kickoff, a lot of people said, “we should have more debates.” I couldn’t agree more.
More political debates could be interesting, especially in the fall before the general election. In the meantime, there is another issue that is very important to our generation of Christians. What is euphemistically referred to as “the role of women in the church” is an increasingly important issue for a lot of us. This is one of the things that separates the Church of Christ from almost every other denomination of Christianity and as time passes, it becomes more and more controversial. And while some of the old guard might want to just ignore our generation’s questioning, that is a doomed strategy. Meeting a controversy head-on and getting ideas out in the open is certainly the best way to deal with it.
I randomly came across a comment on a post that I wrote back in April of 2007 on Sexism at Harding in which Lara suggested “a live, on-campus debate on this issue.” Last year, this topic was hot enough to attract 49 comments while this blog was in its earliest stages. I think this university would really benefit from a frank, open discussion of the many issues involving gender and Christianity. This is my official call for a public debate on sexism, “the role of women in the church,” and Harding University’s policies that relate to gender. It might be time for the Church of Christ to reconsider its traditional views on women. It is certainly time to discuss this important issue.
You forgot to link over to this post when you mentioned it in our comment on my post. Here’s a link to my link: Don’t forget to shameless promote you blog, wherever you happen to comment.
Oh, and I completely agree with you.
Think it would ever happen?
Can I help it happen? I’m not an employee of Harding, but I play one on TV (meaning I’m on campus but paid by someone else). But if there’s something I can do to help, please let me know! I would love to see this happen. It’s past due.
I think it would be a huge test of maturity for the campus as a whole. Has Harding really grown out of its arcane, modern stage? It’s hard to tell.
Steve: The short answer is no.
However, there are some changes happening in the student body, as you may have seen Thursday night in the straw poll results.
hmm, i think this should happen – I say we make it an issue in this year’s SA elections – that usually gets some attention
Michael, I knew I liked you.
Very interesting idea. If this were an issue, would you be on the side with the good guys or the bad guys?
Is this for real? I mean, seriously.
It is a very good point to say that something like this would be “a huge test of maturity,” both for the student body and for the administration. Before a debate could ever be held, it has to be accepted that there may be two legitimate, differing points of view. I would love to see this campus accept more plurality of opinion, especially with traditionally dogmatic issues like gender roles.
Is it serious? I sure hope so. I think there will be a lot of support for bringing this issue out of the closet and out into the open. I think men and women, students and professors from all over the school and community will support it.
Yeah, absolutely. The only thing worse than a wrong perspective, is an uncontested one. I think it would do the campus a lot of good to actually take a step back a examine what they believe, think, and preach.
So, assuming this does happen would it be appropriate to allow to women to discuss the issue?
It would have to be women discussing this. The most inappropriate thing of all would be a group of men debating what should be done with the women-folk. Maybe some men could participate, but never to the exclusion of women.
Careful now, you’re treading into some very dangerous waters.
Discussing the womens’ issue in the CoC is sensitive enough on its own, but you won’t be able to broach the subject without simultaneously throwing some key HU administration policies under scrutiny. I’m not just talking about rules against women teaching men in Bible classes, chapel, etc., but also the draconian in loco parentis approach to womens’ dorm life.
These are not only the positions of trogldyte HU administrators, but a very big, very conservative donor base. You ain’t just messing with doctrine now, you’re messing with money. At the end of the day, the HU admin cares a lot more about the latter than the former.
Having said all that, you guys should definitely push the envelope. You (undergrads) are pretty much the only people the admin can’t fire for making trouble. If there’s going to be big change, it has to start with you.
Raise Hell!
As a woman, and someone who has lived in Sears for the past three years, I wholeheartedly agree. I’d even buy tickets to see it! :p
I like where this discussion is going. But David, I actually think the debate would be more fasinating done by only coC college educated men, preferrable only HU Fac. The reason is b.c if you get the women up there debating it, the debate will automatically lose b.c it was woman debating it. They people you’re hoping to change the minds of will not even hear what you have to say if women are the ones saying it.
And Jh is 100% correct. You’re messing with money, and that’s the real issue.
I don’t know, I think having a group of men decide the fate of women in church would be inappropriate. Perhaps a compromise – some men and some women on both sides could achieve the best of both worlds?
I realize there is a lot of money involved and a lot of entrenched ideas that aren’t going away quietly. This would not be expected to change everything at HU overnight, but it is a necessary first step – initiating the public discourse must happen before any real change can even be contemplated.
Don’t get discouraged, David. Keep thinking about this. I do think it would need to be both male and female debaters. An all-woman panel around here could be summarily dismissed, unfortunately, as just a bunch of women yacking and getting uppity. It’s sad to say that. Very. But I’m afraid it’s true.
In a place where men, as key administrators and elders and deacons, etc., are the key deciders of what the woman’s role will be in the church of today and the future, it will have to be brave men fighting the fight for us and beside us–until we are given the freedom to have voices of our own.
Lara it is sad but true… It will take the men’s voices. I love David’s belief that a woman’s voice is all that’s needed (and he’s right) but those that are opposed would never hear a woman’s voice speaking.