His litany of “Where are the men who…” is a load of… OK, let’s back off a bit… There are men (and women) all across this country that are doing everything he says in that list. Problem is, many are not doing it in the style Camp disapproves of – therefore they are not doing it. Others are flying under the radar, so he assumes they do not exist.  Others have abandoned the meat of the Gospel – therefore most all have…

Bottom line – Camp’s article is so vague, so over-arching, so “The work is going to Hell in a hand-basket” that it hardly worth bothering with.

Is that because I’m a woman?

He should know… he disagrees with everyone… even John MacArther recently…

iggy

Thus:

As I noted, I think the only legitimate “gender” issue with Ingrid is her hypocritical juxtaposition of complementarian/egalatarian doctrine, where she criticizes those who aren’t complementarian, but acts as an egalatarian (when it comes to her “ministry”).

is where I was going. I was not trying to juxtapose the author of Slice with anything or anyone. I want to clear this up now. I’m not sure how my comments were construed to mean anything other than this. As it is, we can see a rise in the church of popular female ‘preachers’ like Paula White or Joyce Meyers. But I don’t think that is what Mr Camp is criticizing because if he were I would most likely agree with him.

Be that as it may, I hope this clears up where I was going with my original comments. I hope I didn’t offend anyone because that’s not why I visit here. Thanks again for the space to share.

jerry

ps–Merry, with all due respect, it was hardly a strawman, but I won’t be so offended as to argue the point with you.

iggy

Anyhew, does it make me a girly man to be concerned with others’ feelings? (empathy?)

AIGGGGHHHHH

“So… this would seem to imply that Ingrid is masculine, right?”

I think these statements are a bit of a strawman, as well. This has nothing to do with anything mentioned.

When I think of “girly-men”, I think not so much of “nice” (most men I know are nice and aren’t girly, so I don’t get the point of the article), I think more of . . . I don’t know, prissy? Just, you know, sensitive in a bad way (being sensitive toward others is the good way), overly-emotional- irrational-I-pretty-sure-they-have-PMS. Nice has nothing to do with it. Yes, I have known men like this. Sorry if this made no sense.

“Boy these comments about Ingrid, who is someone’s mother, wife, daughter, etc. AND a child of God seem a bit mean spirited etc.”

Aren’t you over looking that this is Steve Camp’s view of men and women? that means it is his view of Ingrid and Hillary… not ours. So I think you need redirect who is being mean! LOL!

“Jesus was the ultimate human- we should strive to be like him.”

Wow! I have state this and been run throught the ringer by ODm’s and others for taking it to mean I deny the deity of Christ… funny how you state it and are not even emerging.

Actually, though if you mean on our own strength… aint gonna happen… if it by Jesus in us being our only Hope of Glory… then it will.

iggy

Where I think it crossed the line, particularly, was the juxtaposition of ‘masculine’ and Ingrid.

With Hillary (and Ingrid), I think that any reasonable criticism is fair game, but I think we cross the line when we make it about gender and start joking in that direction. As I noted, I think the only legitimate “gender” issue with Ingrid is her hypocritical juxtaposition of complementarian/egalatarian doctrine, where she criticizes those who aren’t complementarian, but acts as an egalatarian (when it comes to her “ministry”).