Why leaving seminary was a damn good idea…
7 February 2007
Proof that our church knows what it’s doing by ordaining my wife and not me…:
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.
8. Men’s physical build indicates that they are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling with mountain lions. It would be unnatural for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, men represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football games and cricket matches shows this.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshippers.
4. The task of an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
Dr. David Scholer presented this list in 1998 at Fuller Follies. It was taken, with small modifications, from a November 24, 1997 e-mail communication from W. Ward and Laurel Gasque. It is not known whether they are the authors. From http://www.fuller.edu/student_life/semi/PDFs/Spring%2003/Spr2003_week2.pdf
Entry Filed under: Christianity, Church, Fun stuff, Ministry, Religion. .
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Rory | 7 February 2007 at 3:32 pm
Great list. Are you going to show it to your church leadership?
2.
Benedict | 7 February 2007 at 3:33 pm
I’m not sure they need it!
3.
PB and J | 7 February 2007 at 6:30 pm
benedict
thanks for the humorous interp. i think you raise some good points as to why the fundamentalist churches are wrong about women in ministry (i assume that was your point). with that said, while a women can and ought to be in ministry, there is a different question of whether she should be a presbyter.
presbyters are called to be husbands of but one wife (meaning it was assumed they would be men). on the other hand, paul allows women to prophesy and pray, etc. there is certainly no reason a women cant have responsibility in a church, but should she be in charge?
paul seems to say no. (certainly there are exceptions, deborah in the OT, etc) but i think the biggest question in my mind is: if a woman is married and has a child, isnt her duty to her children? (even if no more than physical needs like feeding, which a man cant do (of course we now have formula, but that wasnt invented til recently))
if her duty is with her children (at least for a few years) can she be a fulltime presbyter who has oversight over a local church?
i think it would be very very difficult. notice i didnt say impossible. it might be ok for women to be presbyters, but it certainly makes less common sense (plus paul didnt allow for it, not that he is God, but he is wise) than having a man.
just my two cents
peter
4.
Benedict | 7 February 2007 at 7:13 pm
Hey Peter,
Thanks for the comments. Gotta love parody, great way to say things that are unambiguously ambiguous.
I wasn’t necessarily targeting fundamentalists or even evangelicals, because, as you point out, the issue is unclear enough to provoke debate even in the most progressive of churches (such as mine, which is Prebyterian!). We currently have an interim pastor, who is a single mom of two adopted elementary school girls. While we all love her dearly, there are many who struggle with the line of thought in Paul that interprets her leadership as unbiblical or just “controversial” in the larger scheme of things. I myself have less “interpretive difficulty” than others, but I fully understand and appreciate the issue of the pastor/wife/mom’s responsibilities. The issue, for me, is less a biblical one than a biological-psychological one; are women indeed more naturally inclined to nurture and care to the point that they would need to be a “mom” to an entire congregation, even if she herself has no experience or even interest in child-rearing? It’s just so tough.
Best,
Jay
5.
cumby | 7 February 2007 at 7:13 pm
I thought I’d stumbled into David Letterman’s blog. Pretty funny!
6.
JakeB | 7 February 2007 at 9:17 pm
Eventually I’m going to read “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals” by William J. Webb. I’ve heard it’s a good contribution to these sorts of things. http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619