Mike

Wow, you folks do a lot of writing and fast – I’m going to need a PhD to keep up with all of this…  😉

I would like to offer (IMHO) that when Adam was first made, he was a complete representative of God – after the separation of the aspects of God’s person into two distinct beings, a situation was created where the two needed each other in order to fully represent the totality of God on all levels… Thoughts..?

Secondly, I would agree that we need to allow the two genders to remain two genders – or we give credence to the homosexual argument – we are two genders, in need of each other, distinct and different, however neither one has a full representation of God within them in the natural – this can only be accomplished by the spirit man dwelling inside all of us, but is still not an easy task by any means… I don’t think that it means females are supposed to try and act like males, or vice versa.  I tend to think that we each have equally valuable, yet different characteristics to bring to the table…

Thirdly, I would argue that we are all man – sons – etc…  The term used to express Eve’s character was an addition to the original – ish for Adam, (post separation) and ishah for Eve – meaning if you will, a man with a womb – Eve completed Adam, and vice versa – each had the ability to pro-create and grow the vision of the concept of the ‘body of Christ – the church, the bride, etc.” – each being has many differences and many similarities on all levels – but I still point to the fact that God set it up this way – so we would depend on each other for completeness – not just in marriage…

Look, if I can be a bride, you women can be a man, son, etc…  😉  that was just as fun to say as it was to read…  lol 🙂

My last point – in marriage, in society, in church (etc.) we need each other to bring wholeness and completeness to the table – the early church figured this out pretty quickly – of course they had Jesus as their teacher – he set the tone, the church followed in earnest – God generally (not always) uses males to start a thing (probably because we possess the need to cast the seed – another discussion) – I’ve seen women start a thing, but more often than not its a male – but once the thing is up and running, again IMHO, all bets are off – everybody is needed and has a place.

I would encourage us all to allow the various differences that we bring to the table (not just the gender ones) – we need all that expression within the church – again, in my mind the question still has not been answered – what is the best way to do this on a practical level?  I’ve seen so many variations – but not too many of them were very effective…

I like this blog site by the way Cheryl et al. I’ve been reading a lot of your stuff – you may be on to something – I’m just trying to understand it all and figure out in my small little brain, how we can take this learning and apply it on a practical level within the church?  How can we overcome the barriers? There may be a vein of gold here that the church needs – I wanted you to know that I recognize that…  😉  MM