http://disqus.com/by/dnamkung/enMon, 23 Nov 2009 19:56:23 -0000http://www.chrisheuertz.com/post/254016894#comment-23914036<p>Chris,</p><p>Your courage to prompt this dialogue is one of the reasons why you are my role model.</p><p>I miss you tons my dear friend.</p><p>-Dave Namkung</p>dnamkungMon, 23 Nov 2009 19:56:23 -0000http://www.chrisheuertz.com/post/119862865#comment-11860057<p>I love this, Chris. Excellent observation. </p>dnamkungSun, 28 Jun 2009 15:35:45 -0000http://ifiblogged.tumblr.com/post/47519931#comment-2192437<p>thanks for your kind words. it was a pleasure meeting you as well. we hope to visit again in the near future. WMF and Omaha have such a special place in our hearts.<br></p>dnamkungSun, 07 Sep 2008 00:22:31 -0000http://ifiblogged.tumblr.com/post/47519931#comment-2188632<p>Hey all! Lots of discussion going on here. <br>Chris, great post. Again, thanks for your homily at our wedding. Bethel and I will do our best to live up to them. It was very hard not to cry when you spoke those words to us.</p><p>I have to admit, when we discussed our wedding, it was kind of hard for me to break from tradition. It has been even harder to consider my child not bearing my (unique) last name. However, in the end, when Bethel and I discuss such aforementioned traditions, I find it hard to argue what I want (i.e.: kid taking my name) without resorting to arguments like "well that's tradition..." Despite what we want to make out of our interpretations of scripture, if the effects of what is literally read translates into a sexist hierarchy, something is awry.</p><p>The whole notion of headship, which has been thoroughly discussed, poses an unavoidable problem for me. The language itself, even if some wish to interpret is as a mandate for husbands to properly love their wives, poses a fundamental problem of the lens that most congregations will interpret the language. From the English language, order and power are embedded into "headship". <br>I remember I heard a local preacher once talk about headship. The way that he explained "headship" plays out in reality is that wives are to submit to their husbands when there is an argument. In the end, men will have the final decision (as long as they have been prayerful about it). Their "biblically granted" role is what one of the respondents below feared most since men apparently have a better position to understand God's voice. Although some who advocate headship might find this example extreme, what does headship mean in the alternative? I'm not trying to say this as a rhetorical question, I really want to know if a properly loving model exists without implying that men have a closer relationship to God.</p><p>I asked that preacher what the wife should do if the husband is pushing for something that is actually unloving and therefore unbiblical. He gave me a response stating that if a husband wishes to engage in thievery, of course the wife should not follow suit. My reply was that reality of what is right is not so cut and clear and that a "veto" card in any heated discussion takes away a lot of the substance of a couple's investigation of right and wrong. My retort to the preacher was what if a wife and a husband were to fight about slavery a hundred years ago, the husband for it and the wife not. In this instance, his understanding of headship prelcudes a loving posture.</p><p>To continue the conversation, I know that there is not clear cut answer to this, but for those that advocate headship, please describe what this unique role for men entails in practice [with the assumption that we do not want to compromise the integrity of women].</p><p>look forward to hearing responses. hopefully i was clear enough - my brain is mush.</p><p></p>dnamkungSat, 06 Sep 2008 17:30:18 -0000http://ifiblogged.tumblr.com/post/32692680#comment-392379<p>You've got a new item to add to your list: Sour Cream.<br>We went to Taco Bell yesterday and you said you'd never eat it.<br>You're missing out!</p>dnamkungTue, 29 Apr 2008 12:03:10 -0000