Why less women?

Dan DeVilder said:

here is the spirit that upholds both uncompromising truth and a gentle spirit toward those in error:

Dan DeVilder said:

The donuts are reserved for the elect only.  Those with holes in their theology get, well, . . . . the holes.  

 

                                                                       [^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

K.J. said:

So, ... We should just accept others the Right to be Wrong? ... Kumbaya?

Hi, K.J.

You need only remove six words from your question: "So, we should just accept others?"

Yes. Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. It means...acceptance.

"But what if they disagree with what I just KNOW is the single most important theological issue ever?"

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. It means...acceptance.

"But what if they're WRONG?"   (John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast our demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn't in our group."   Mark 9.38)

Just accept them.  ("Don't stop him!" Jesus said. "No one who performs a miracle in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me."   Mark 9.39)

Bill

Bill Coley said:

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. It means...acceptance.

That would depend on which definition you choose to attach to the word..."Accept"

Bill Coley said:

I take definitions 5, 6, 9, and 12.... As in, "I accept (welcome, affirm, receive) you as part of the Body of Christ."

                                                                        [^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

But, Do you reject folks who choose 7 or 8? [:D]

                                                                         Ted Hans said:Where has the trade mark gone?

                                                                                [^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

It was "implied" [:D]

Silent Sam said:

It was obvious to me. I get the feeling that it wasn't obvious to you, till Logos allowed us to have this little chat.

The HHHMMMmmms  have finally got to me. I either don't understand your point or I disagree with it.

My point throughout this exchange has been that we don't have to accept (agree with) people to accept (welcome, affirm) people.

But you DO have to accept (welcome, affirm) fellow followers of Jesus as part of the Body of Jesus even if you don't accept (agree with) their views. When people post things such as clear suggestions that Christians of liberal theology are not in the faith, that's not only non-acceptance (disagreement), that's non-acceptance (unwelcoming, judgmental).

Bill

Jeremy said:

I still think the issue is related to complementrianism. While only 16% of Logos' customers are pastors, the idea that serious Bible study is to be left to men in the church and home still rampant

I think this all depends on what circles you run around in.  I know in my circles, women are the ones who are leading the study at home.

tom collinge said:

Jeremy said:

I still think the issue is related to complementrianism. While only 16% of Logos' customers are pastors, the idea that serious Bible study is to be left to men in the church and home still rampant

I think this all depends on what circles you run around in.  I know in my circles, women are the ones who are leading the study at home.

There certainly are pockets, but this is not more common than men leading it.

Dan I must say that taking nibbles out of internal demographic data is helpful to having some understanding of the clientele of Logos.  Yet the 800 pound gorilla that we are all dancing around (I think) is the theology of exclusion (right or wrong) that limits women to the "secrets" of the Kingdom of God.  Also of import is the distribution channels in which such theology of exclusion is taught and the filtering down of this theology to denominations, congregations, and families that support such a theological worldview.  This of course does not mean (to anticipate the next part of the conversation) that Logos itself has such a bias granting the amoral nature of the profit motive that might drive the company to produce things that the core demographic users want.  Because one sells something does not necessarily mean they agree with it. 

In the seminary that I attend I cant even get the academic packages the last time I checked (last year of course) even though its a middle-of-the-road UMC school...however it has a heavy influence of feminist and liberation theology and Christian mysticism.  Is there a connection?  I think so...but thats just me.  Changing the materials sold by a company may expand the clientele base or destroy the company from customer blowback.  It seems to me if you want more female customers you have to go where that demographic (and attached theological worlviews) go.

Dan Pritchett said:

A few people have mentioned here and on Facebook, that they feel it is because our market is pastors, and fewer women are pastors. So let me throw a wrench into the spokes there... surprisingly enough, only 16% or so of our customers are actually pastors!  So if being a pastor is the issue, then even if only 1% of our customers were female pastors, we'd still have 85% of our customer base that should be split half and half, male/female right?

Because the other 20% female facebook fans use their husband's Logos account for reading. So they are facebook users, just not facebook purchasers.

If indeed the question is a marketing one, the number one thing I'd do (but I'd suspect Logos can't) is to offer a simple intro version of Logos not unlike Biblia. The issue here isn't that 'you can get your money back' but that you really have to 'need' Logos in order to get a flavor for it. And I don't think it'd be that hard to accomplish .... same program, a VERY small set of resources, standard clickable layouts that are pre-connected, maybe a generic devotional and similarly a pre-setup reading plan. The initial Logos intro screen would take you to the Wiki's, forum and the Logos Shopping Center (of course).

But that said, my experience with other women (and they ARE all different) is that in mixed company like Bible class, bringing up a critical textual issue simply invites all the 'men' to launch into a detailed argument (like on this thread). And usually the point of the initial comment is to simply add to the conversation. So you know it's wise to not go down that road.

I attend an evangelical church, and once we had an evening Bible class and just by chance all the participants were women, and the elder of course was male. I was really surprised how animated the conversation became, indeed delving into the text. But the next week, the leader explained about his busy schedule and that was the end of that. Later on the 'ladies' organized their own Bible study.

Once I was a greeter with a fellow male Christian. We got to chatting while we waited for greetees. It turned out he used Logos2, best I could figure. But I didn't tell him I used Logos4. In our church (as with most?), one-up-man-ship is not good. You have to be careful. And so I suspect that all the Bible software companies face a similar issue, and that is how to demonstrate benefit to potential users.

MJ. Smith said:

My observations from years of teaching Bible study, adult Sunday School, RCIA, retreats etc. is a follows:



1.Women generally prefer a narrative based approach - think of resources
such as Barbra Green's Interface series, Renita Weems,  Fortress Press
Guides to Biblical  Scholarship,

2. Women frequently view scripture through art - think of resources such as Imaging the Word: An Arts and Lectionary Resource

3. Women lean towards Biblical study that leads to concrete action -
whether mystical, political or charitiable - think of sources such as
Roberta Bondi, George A. Maloney, Leonardo Boff

4. Women tend towards anthologies when approaching doctrine - think Raniero Cantalamessa, various "catechisms" (official and unofficial)

5. Women tend towards devotional commentaries such as that published by
The Word Among Us or Liturgy of the Hours with readings that allow
informal study in limited time - without feeling you've cheated
yourself.

6. Because of the tendencies listed above, women skew their deep study
towards multiple passages dealing with topics or biographies... and
story activities that they can share with their children.



Obviously, the titles are primarily Catholic - but all of the authors
mentioned are books that the average Sally in the congregation have
brought to my attention excited about their discovery That is not to say
that they don't use the standard language, reference and commentary
resources - it is simply a lower percentage of their time and interest.

Yes, I am a woman and, yes, some of the above is stereotypical.

Last I checked I am a man and I think these are great resource suggestions and would likely buy several of them.

Jack Caviness said:

They tend to treat conservatives as poor, ignorant country bumpkins who need to be pitied and ignored. Of course, most of my fellow fundamentalists firmly believe that all liberals are surely going to hell.

Jack,

I've had great difficulty communicating in this thread my passionate belief that we begin to tear down the walls of suspicion, ridicule, and judgment we have built to separate liberal and conservative followers of Jesus when we respect, honor, and listen to each other. I don't agree with my siblings on everything, but we will always be family. Similarly, conservative and liberal followers of Jesus must decide that their unity as the Body (Paul told the Corinthians that members of the Body belong to each other) is more important than what they think are theological necessities. If I believe that, then you are inescapably my brother, whom I must treat as such. I don't have to agree with you, but I may not diminish or judge you. The same goes for your response to me.

There was a season in my faith journey when I probably resembled the stereotypical liberal you describe. I no longer do, but I know beyond doubt that there are many of us who still that bill (often in the name of reason and intellectualism) -- their actions are sinful. From encounters with conservatives, I'm confident there are among them judgmental types who condemn people to hell for failing to ascribe to their particular brand of orthodoxy (often in the name of "what the Bible says") -- their actions, too, are sinful.

My solution to the great divide between conservatives and liberals is this: I tell my story and confess my failings. You do the same. We both respect what we hear from the other. I don't talk about you (except to affirm and seek greater understanding). You don't talk about me (except to affirm and seek greater understanding). Disagreement's okay. Conversion is not necessary. We won't send money to the "winner's" favorite ministry. We will simply confess, listen, and respect...... I know: Good luck with that.

For what it's worth,

Bill

                                                                                [^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

MJ. Smith said:

Jack Caviness said:

How does this show evangelical bias?

My take on this is based on the observation that psalm-scripture based prayer is more common in liturgical churches and intentional communities. Mennonites are a counter-example. These prayer traditions are opened ended and would never think that entering God's response would end the prayer. I know a number of people would like scriptural links for a variety of reasons. But the combination of no links and answers closing off the prayer implies a prayer style quite unlike the psalm-scripture based approach. I'm not proposing that prayer lists be converted into prayer books. I'm suggesting that the prayer lists are not designed for the open ended prayer requests that the psalm-scripture based prayer encourages.

Jack, 

I too am not an evangelical, and I think MJ did an excellent job here describing a difference between evangelicals and non-evangelicals.