Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jerome, Sep 25, 2014.
She sounds like an angry woman and that's too bad because it detracts from an otherwise good message that she brings.
Huh? What's prompting you to call her "an angry woman"?
Mostly the second paragraph you quoted. I don't doubt that all these things have actually happened to Anne Graham Lotz, and while they may be personally offensive, they are not sin. Yet she so characterizes it. None of these practices should be surprising to her of all people, yet she finds them noteworthy and calls them "sin." That is an angry woman.
So you disagree with her. That doesn't make her "an angry woman".
I'm baffled how someone could read that and come away censuring her as "angry".
She enumerates a series of minor snubs, which are really breaches of etiquette, and characterizes them as abuse. It's right there in the title, "Women Like Me Are Abused Worldwide." Anyone who regards being denied a seminary chair, or being asked to speak from the floor rather than the pulpit, as "abuse" is an angry person.
FYI I agree that the practices she describes should not exist but that doesn't make them sinful, although I doubt if my fundamentalist brethren would agree. Also, I doubt if that is what Jimmy Carter had in mind in his book.
Perhaps Anne Graham Lotz needs to consult her Bible. She wants to do something that Scripture says she is to not do. How is her disobedience any different from the homosexual engaged in fornication who refuses to admit the disobedience?
She calls it discrimination and makes it clear she hasn't experienced the abuse women in other parts of the world endure:
But I still don't see where you're getting this "angry" charge from.
If what you have quoted here was all she said, I would agree with you that Lotz is simply indignant at the inhuman treatment of women--mostly in Islamic regimes. But that's not all she said. She found it necessary to enumerate various personal affronts, to wit:
Men turning their back on her when she spoke.
Having a seminary chair revoked because she would not subscribe to the principles laid out by the seminary.
Having invitations to speak be withdrawn because of potential controversy ove her presence.
Having to speak from the floor of a church rather than behind the pulpit.
None of these things can compare with the killing, beating and imprisonment of women in the context that Jimmy Carter was talking about, yet she compares herself with them. Sure, she admits that her situation is good compared to theirs but still she finds it necessary to bring these things up.
Anne Graham Lotz is a powerful woman who has had every advantage possible in life. Most women can only dream of having her influence and notoriety. Yet she complains about practices that she, of all people, should understand as being a misguided but good faith attempt to adhere to God's word. She is an angry woman and that's too bad because she preaches a pretty good gospel.
So you disagree here with her choosing to speak out about the discrimination she's faced. Fine. But that doesn't make her "an angry woman".
You're entitled to your opinion. I think most would disagree. It seems so obvious to me I didn't think I was venturing into a controversial topic.
I sense in her statement the same kind of anger that I sensed in statements of many moderate Southern Baptists during the 1990's.