Comments on: Theology and Gendered Ministry http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2008/04/22/theology-and-gendered-ministry/ let's activate something Sun, 20 May 2012 22:34:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: DavidD http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2008/04/22/theology-and-gendered-ministry/#comment-13271 DavidD Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:24:24 +0000 http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/?p=470#comment-13271 There are the spaces and differences of 'gender' within us, among 'same sex', and in relationship to 'opposite sex' so in this way men's ministry has relevance to the extant that it explores those various spaces and desires without unnecessarily foreclosing the difference. There are the spaces and differences of ‘gender’ within us, among ’same sex’, and in relationship to ‘opposite sex’ so in this way men’s ministry has relevance to the extant that it explores those various spaces and desires without unnecessarily foreclosing the difference.

]]> By: SteveK http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2008/04/22/theology-and-gendered-ministry/#comment-13261 SteveK Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:37:38 +0000 http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/?p=470#comment-13261 Interesting. You've given me some stuff to process. It seems to me that part of the point of sexuality and family in general is the drive to pursue and to be united with the Other. We are not drawn to those like us, but those who have qualities that are unlike us, which fulfill us, in a way. Yet the paradox of this is that the very thing that draws us is that which, at times, repels us. Yet our drive to be unified with that which repels us, ideally, draws us out of ourselves and causes us to be more than who we are by ourselves. Thus, our drives lead us to suffering, and acceptance of that suffering is the context of love. The drive itself is not love, but the accepting of that which is in opposition to ourselves is. Thus, the very thing that creates society is meant to create love. People sidestep love by attempting to force the object of their desire to be like them, or by separating from the object of their desire. But the ideal is unification which can only be created by the setting aside of ourselves. If that is the case (and I am willing to be wrong in this) then isn't the focus of "men's ministry's" simply a desire to deny the unification with the other? Steve K Interesting. You’ve given me some stuff to process.

It seems to me that part of the point of sexuality and family in general is the drive to pursue and to be united with the Other. We are not drawn to those like us, but those who have qualities that are unlike us, which fulfill us, in a way. Yet the paradox of this is that the very thing that draws us is that which, at times, repels us. Yet our drive to be unified with that which repels us, ideally, draws us out of ourselves and causes us to be more than who we are by ourselves.

Thus, our drives lead us to suffering, and acceptance of that suffering is the context of love. The drive itself is not love, but the accepting of that which is in opposition to ourselves is.

Thus, the very thing that creates society is meant to create love. People sidestep love by attempting to force the object of their desire to be like them, or by separating from the object of their desire. But the ideal is unification which can only be created by the setting aside of ourselves.

If that is the case (and I am willing to be wrong in this) then isn’t the focus of “men’s ministry’s” simply a desire to deny the unification with the other?

Steve K

]]>