Women in the Church

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (I Timothy 2:11-15)

There are many churches nowadays that are readily condemning homosexuality (which only mention very briefly, in passing, in the Bible) and claim they are following scriptures. These churches ordain women pastors and have many women leaders leading men. This is a clear violation of the above scripture. In fact, there are more scriptures in the Bible telling women to keep silent and submit to men than saying homosexuality is a sin. However, how many women in church nowadays are following those scriptures? Why pick and choose scriptures that are convenient to practice?

The above is my response to one of the letters in Malaysiakini (http://malaysiakini.com/letters/142706). I don't think I want to argue with evangelical Christians about whether homosexuality is biblical or not because they have already made up their minds that it is a sin. However, just as Jesus says about a plank in your own eye, the evangelical Christians don't seem to see the inconsistency in the way they interpret scriptures. The role and position of women in church is the best example. If one just read the Bible and let the Bible speaks for itself, one basically will come to the conclusion that women should submit to men because God created them as helpers to men. In fact, if you look at out Muslim women in Malaysia, they follow the biblical guidance of how to be a godly woman much better than many evangelical Christian women.

Why no one says anything about that violation of the Bible? First, there are still few Bible believing denominations that are keeping their women in line with the biblical teaching (Brethren, Presbyterian etc) so that kind of become like a denominational thingy. Second, women nowadays have a lot of power and not easily bullied (LGBT don't have that kind of power so they are easily targeted). I bet these church women will be up in arms if any of the church minister were to preach that women should keep silent and submit to men. Thirdly, this basically reflect the homophobic prejudice of the church.

These Evangelical Protestants may not realize that Protestantism is about diversity. Look at the number of denominations in the Protestant community. For an evangelical to actually claim he/she has the correct way to interpret the Bible is basically a bunch of bull. They can't even agree among themselves what is the right way to interpret the Bible. Women's role in the church is one. Throw in speaking in tongues you will have these evangelicals tongue and cheek arguing with each other.

This is the folly of people who think they have already found the truth and have the correct way to interpret the truth. They can only see the saw dust in others' eyes but can't see the plank in their own eyes.

BLISS

When a man kisses a man

Adam Lambert's performance in 37th Annual American Music Awards was pleasantly shocking. Then of course the conservatives are crying "disgusting" and "perversion" now but if one is familiar with Madona's videos or concerts, what Adam did was just a "copy" of that type of performances. What created the boo boo baa baa is mainly because, I think, Adam is a man, more specifically, a gay man.

It's perfectly ok to have lesbian sex scenes in the straight porns but you wouldn't find any gay sex scenes in the straight porns (if they are they will be labeled as bi-sexual porns). So it's ok or tolerable for two women to kiss (Madona and Britney, they are straight anyway) but when a man kisses a man in the public, all hell break lose.

That was what Adam did on stage at the performance. I want to yell "BRAVO!" to Adam. He is probably the first male performer I know of who dare to express his sexuality on stage, especially on national TV. I hope he has started a trend that will eventually make men kissing men a mainstream thingy in the public.

However, it's very dangerous for a man to kiss another man. The kiss that changed and turned the world upside down was the kiss between two men in the Garden of Gethsemane about 2000 years ago. Perhaps that's the reason why when a man kisses a man the whole world will tremble.

Bravo! Adam Lamber! Keep it up!

BLISS

Sex with Animals

November 20, 2009 (2 am, Fri)

Just done reading Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao's, a Singaporean pastor, "Reflections on Sexual Ethics". It is a working paper he has written to stimulate discussion. So far no response on the web group he posted the paper, I wonder why. However I do like to say something about sexual ethics, especially on human animal sex.

I remember few weeks ago I attended a counselor training session and there was a sexologist from Singapore (yes, Singapore again) talking about sex. One of the issues discussed which I responded strongly was sex with animals. Many argued there was nothing wrong with having sex with animals because it was an individual taste and being liberal and tolerant people, we should respect the individual's freedom to choose. (I was pleasantly surprised how progressive we Malaysians are).

But what about the animals? Do those animals have their rights to choose? I'm a liberal person and even agree that incest is kind of ok if it happens between two consenting adults. Yes, the key word here is consent. How do we know or get the animal to consent to have sex with us? Up till now I haven't watched a single human and animal porn. According to what I was told, the animals in the porn seem to enjoy the sex. They may have consented. However, just the thought of human having sex with animals has really disgusted me. This is why I refused to watch any human and animal porn.

If the question of consent is answered by seeing the animals are actually enjoying the sex with human then there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals. No one gets harm and everyone have fun, including the animals.

For the longest time I believe that if two consenting adults (over 18) agree to have sex with each other and derive joy and fulfillment from the sex act, it is ok. However they want to do it is none of my concern as long as they are adults, consented to do it and there is no physical harm or danger and practice safer sex, then that's fine. That's why I even grudgingly accept that incest can be ok if it happens between two consenting, matured adults.

However, this human and animal sex thing really put my liberalism to the test. I am absolutely disgusted and sickened by the idea but I don't want to let that compromised my objective ethical judgment. Perhaps, I may use mutuality to argue against human and animal sex. You see, sex should also be mutual. If one party has coerced and manipulated the other party to have sex then even the sex can be enjoyable during the process, it is not mutual. Animals have no freedom of choice like humans therefore the sex they have with humans are not mutual. They may have enjoyed the sex but they are coerced or manipulated into doing it with humans.

Therefore I now declare, having sex with animals is wrong. It is a sin in the eye of God!! But I'll still love you if you are having sex with your dog because we should love the sinners and hate the sin. I will pray for you and your dog.

The good Rev has listed guidelines for ethical sexual behavior. I now list them here for reference for anyone who is making an ethical sexual decision.

1. Do no unjust harm. 2. Free consent of partners. 3. Mutuality. 4. Equality. 5. Commitment. 6. Fruitfulness.
7. Social justice.

BLISS