With long history of several family members serving their lifetime in Africa, I had questioned, as a querious young man, the seeming duplicity in how my faith community absurdly bent morals to accommodate the polygamy slant. My question then was: why did the church not foster an adoption program to embrace the children of such polygamy-at least until their single-again mother remarried?
To use poetics, if the church would only stand up, the orphans and widows would be embraced…
Thank you Matthew for your eloquence and beg your forgiveness to humor my additional observation. Given the dissonance between a biblically exposited history of polygamy (which is a complex subjugation of women in the guise of “hand out” to an unmarried woman in a future-less society for an unmarried woman) and our risible fixation that somehow “sexual sins” are of a special severity, it is risible to argue theological logic that prohibits co-ordination but simultaneously countenances polygamy. The connection between the two, sadly, seems to be subjugation. The bible can easily be used to support this hyper-negative view of “sexual sins” this way-but gender discrimination ordination practices cannot.
As I read the mostly exquisite responses, I was struck by what Kim (cincerity) notes above
"I am struck by those who first felt discrimination but who now are the “discriminators” "
A similar caution should be heeded here-not only within our faith community but especially within our larger society as well, that those discriminated against not exact even an ounce of retribution.
That may not be humanly possible; pray for the spirit to infuse our hearts afresh.
I sense Mr Wilson will leave a “W.O. is mine” legacy, after all. You can’t hold back the dawn.
The sun set on apartheid, on segregation, and will equally surely soon set on gender discrimination.