10 reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry
In light of last week’s two intense posts - Ultimate Fighting Jesus and Conversation with Rob Bell [re: women in ministry], this list is too funny not to share. Here are 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry. I’m personally very convicted about #5 - I am sorry for being such a stumbling block. :)
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.
8. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.
5. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.
4. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as 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 prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.
1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.
[h/t Erika Haub]
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
[...] Westby 10 grunner… april 27, 2008, 7:20 am Arkivert under: morro …til at menn ikke bør være prester. Ingen kommentarer hittil Kommentér RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
[...] Posted by Don Bryant on April 27, 2008 Ten reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry Thanks to Eugene Cho [...]
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
[...] This post made me laugh this morning. Eugene Cho brought up an excellent point overall though, and one worth pondering. If you think the reasons why men should not preach are funny and not to be taking seriously, then what should we make of the argument about woman in ministry? As Pastors? I must admit that my own opinion on the matters has changed a few times. Just when I think I have it figured out someone tossed out a curveball to get me thinking. [...]
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
[...] 10 reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry: Made me laugh so hard. (By no means related to the account above.) [...]
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Dude, you are going to get the watchdogs after you.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
That’s amazing. Truly.
If only people recognized that the list of supposed reasons that women shouldn’t be ordained is just as ridiculous.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Rebecca,
I remember reading a list from 100 yeras ago of the reasons why women shouldnt be allowed to vote - it was basically all the same arguments used for why women shouldnt be allowed to minister
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
wow…that is hilarious.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Hmm…it is funny, BUT if that is the reason why women are not ordained, that would indeed be sad….
and here, I thought it was because Scripture made it clear that they weren’t to teach men?
Silly me.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Brilliant food for thought
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
The same mindless liberals who do their best to smear the Catholic Church and its members at EVERY opportunity are the same two-faced frauds who suddenly care about the fact that women cannot say Mass!
They will COMPLETELY ignore the many Christians and Catholics that are oppressed, discriminated against, and martyred day after day are the same two-faced frauds who worry about how the Church runs its own business!
They are utterly SILENT about how Muslims treat their women, but fret about the fact that women aren’t priests!
They say nothing about the Quran and what IT says about women, but will publically complain about how women cannot say Mass!
This unfunny and illogical “10 reasons” list is presented by someone who clearly knows NOTHING about the history of the Catholic Church. Without the Church, the simpleton who runs this blog (and the rest of Western Civilization) might be living under VERY DIFFERENT circumstances.
But it’s MUCH easier to post unfunny lists rather than become, say, educated about the very institution that he rips on. For Cho and his foolish readers, ignorance is very much bliss.
~ Sisyphus
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Hahaha. Awesome.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
I told you to watch out for these watchdogs. They’ll bite you in the ass.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
Who the heck is this is Sisyphus guy? Shouldn’t he be rolling a rock somewhere? ;)
Great list, Pastor Eugene and definitely some food for thought. Obviously, some folks don’t understand the satire behind it is to make us think about the issues about gender roles in ministry, especially the issue of women serving in pastoral roles.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 at
I love the last one - and the reference to Judas the male who betrayed Jesus. Helps us XY chromosomes understand women’s feelings every time Eve is brought up.
Saint Lewis, IMHO, it would be more accurate to say that Brother Paul told a particular group of Christians in a particular time and place that it would be a bad idea to have women teach men.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
This is what I heard you saying with your “innocent” post:
10. They should just make ‘man’ mean ‘woman,’ and ‘woman’ mean ‘man.’ Everything is just language right? They don’t really mean anything.
9. Who cares about bio-ethics, they should just let bio-engineers decide who should have children and who should not. Natural law was mean to be broken.
8. “Ditto” with number 9
7. When I say Eugene is a Mr. Cho is a man, what I really mean is that he is not a man, it just depends on how you look at it.
6. We need everyone to live in a bubble capsule so that no social norms form. And then we wouldn’t be prejudiced and make generalized caricatures of people.
5. We should just all go to church butt-naked, who cares how people dress, we should be focused on God.
4. All human should not listen to their parents, teachers, or other figures of authority and decide for themselves whether the stars are really there, whether touching poison ivy really gives you rash, whether the world really is round… They need to figure out everything for themselves.
3. “Ditto” with number 6.
2. Bible teaches Abraham was willing to kill Isaac. We should all imitate God, the Father, and kill our sons for our beloved fellows.
1. Everyone should be identical. Let’s just create a cybernetics institute that removes all distinctions in people. Make them energy efficient biologically and keep them as batteries while computers run everything like Matrix.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
Nothing like a good satirical jab to bring about new perspective. In response to the saintlewis comment implying that these 10 reasons are disconnected from scripture, I think they actually interact with scripture a lot more than you think and indulge in the same kind of argumentation that is used by those who advocate only for male ordination.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
ahh the double edged sword of satire…
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
as a female senior pastor in the Vineyard, i have to give u a cyber-high-five for posting this beautiful piece of savvy satire. so glad we have some advocates who actually want the Kingdom to advance through the called and gifted regardless of gender :))) peace.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
beattieblog:
Honestly, this isn’t a HUGE issue for me. Even though I disagree with having women teaching men, I have no issues with women sharing during a church service, not even being ordained, if it is for the purpose of doing ministry to other women. And, even with those beliefs, I have friends who are women pastors. It’s not an issue I would die over, for sure, but I am convinced.
1 Timothy 2:11-15; “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”…“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing –if they continue if faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”
Now, I readily admit that some passages that SEEM to be against women having leadership/speaking roles in the gathered church are easily recognized as ‘cultural’, but what is Paul’s argument that women should not “teach or have authority of a man” in this passage based on?
First, the pre-fall created order (in other words, this is the way God made things), and secondly, on the fall of man itself. Man should have authority for he was made first, is Paul’s main point. Don’t let this reading imply that the fall of man is to blamed on the women – keep in mind, if Adam was to be the head, he is held responsible for her actions – in fact, we are not born into Eve’s sin, according to Scripture, but Adam’s. Even more troubling is this; Genesis 3:6 says, “…and she (Eve) also gave some to her husband (Adam) WHO WAS WITH HER, and he at it.” Adam stood silently by and did nothing during the whole of Eve’s temptation by the Serpent, then ate of it himself!
Anyway, back to Timothy’s passage, the admonition seems to not apply to the teaching of simply anyone who is male, since surely a son may learn from his mother (which is implied by the Biblical command to honor one’s father and mother). I must admit, even, that oft-times I have been challenged and encouraged by women’ exhortations WITHIN the church, and I’m sure such Godly encouragement could not be condemned. So WHAT IS PAUL SAYING?
It seems to me that this applies to official teaching roles within the church; BUT, there is evidence that some women in the Scriptures may have had some sort of leadership role within the New Testament Church…that is why some argue that the only role excluded by this passage is that of minister, or preacher, since, were a woman teaching UNDER the minister, she may be doing it under HIS authority and not her own. Teaching however, to some extent seems to be equated with Authority within the Scriptures, so I believe this to be a COMPLEX issue to tackle, and one to take very seriously.
Concerning the END of the passage – “women will be saved through child-bearing” – there is NO ideal reading of this…it seems odd no matter WHAT, but my first thought is to look at other, possibly more reliable translations than the NIV and see if there are any significant differences. The NAS reads, “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” The RSV reads “Yet women will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” Lastly, the KJV reads “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue if faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” As I suspected, the Greek word for “through” can also mean “in”, which can significantly alter our reading of the passage. Paul also seems to be using the term “save” (there are MANY biblical meanings to this word) to mean “kept safe from injury”/”restore to health”/”keep from perishing”/or “preserve”. This use of the word here is also consistent with Paul’s theology, which often speaks of God preserving and protecting his people in and through calamities. So, it seems that Paul is reassuring women in his congregation that Christ is their savior, even in the dangers of childbirth. I do not believe it is an absolute promise that they will not die, but they will indeed be “saved” in the dangerous act of giving birth. I admit, it’s a complex passage, but other scholars do indeed agree with my interpretation.
Anyway, so I don’t seem like an overwhelming male pig (which some will surely think I must be to hold such an opinion), When I was a campus minister I would often ask the men I was counseling a series of questions; 1.) Do you hope to one day marry? 2.) If so, what sort of woman are you looking for?
The issue was this, if they thought of their future wife as a woman staying home, barefoot and pregnant, as only a homemaker, while the guy acts as the breadwinner, that’s not a Biblical concept.
The fact is, this option wasn’t even a possibility until after the industrial revolution – till then almost ALL work was based out of one’s home, and the whole family was involved; the wife, and children were co-laborers for the business. In those days everyone HAD to work were they to survive. We see hints of this in the “Proverbs 31 woman”; “A wife of noble character who can find?…she selects wool and flax and works with eager hands…she gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls…she considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard…she sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for the task…” READ THAT LIST! WOW! This woman is an intelligent, strong, go-getting businesswoman, stock-trader, gardener, provider, cook, real-estate agent, fashion designer, and teacher! And lastly in that passage we read, “Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the City gate.” The “barefoot and pregnant” helpless homebody housewife is simply not a Scriptural mandate.
I think the Scriptures do indeed affirm that genders serve different roles both in the church, and even more-so within relationships, but with that said, let me also make it clear that I think women are often under-utilized, and under-honored for their work, within the church. On top of that, even if in a position of lesser authority, are none-the-less of equal, if not GREATER importance than men. We have as our model God himself: Jesus is subservient to God the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both of them, but all are equally God – they have different roles in what we refer to as “salvation history”, but none are less valuable because of their individual roles.
Differences are good, are to be enjoyed, and ultimately to be used to the glory of God, who Himself created us different. Women and men are made in a way that women can be a help-mate, making what might otherwise be impossible for man to accomplish be well within his grasp – that is what is means for two to become one. And two are stronger than one, especially when the two have different strengths, roles, and callings to ministry. That is the beauty of it all - that’s God’s picture of how the sexes were MADE to operate: not as two ‘heads’, but as ‘one body’, each fulfilling the God-ordained roles to which we’ve been called in our relationship, and our ministry.
Hope you enjoyed the ‘essay’…
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
btw…I also thought the original post funny.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
[...] (HT: Eugene Cho) [...]
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
For perspective from the Coventant Church (Quest’s Denomination):
http://www.covchurch.org/resolutions/2006-women-in-ministry
http://www.covchurch.org/uploads/Ul/K8/UlK8DVqhlBLtMRvceuJU9A/A-Biblical-and-Theological-Basis-for-Women-in-Min..pdf
http://www.covchurch.org/uploads/rS/Jz/rSJzIbNZDq2vGiQSsvH6wg/Called-and-Gifted.pdf
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
saintlewis - I think this discussion could get a little too long for Eugene’s blog - I’d be happy to take it up on my blog, yours or via email. It’s clear you have invested a fair amount of time in understanding why you believe a complimentarian view of this passage and I think your thoughtfulness on it is commendable. Here are a few brief responses.
The complimentarian view of I Timothy you are describing ignores the larger context of what Paul is addressing - women, most likely young widows, were teaching falsely and Paul wants to stop this deception. To pull the verse out of the larger context in which it is being applied to these women and apply it as a mandate for all women is not consistent with the larger body of Paul’s and the bible’s teaching which has women on a clear trajectory towards equality and freedom. I think Paul’s reference to the order of creation must be seen within the context of the specific issue because I also don’t think you can make an argument for the subordination of women from Genesis outside of the curse. The striving and competitiveness that comes out of Genesis is a result of the curse - with Christ’s coming I believe that though the effects of the curse are clearly evident in creation, as Christians we no longer live under the curse while we await the full renewal of creation. This reflects my “kingdom theology” (sorry for the all the Christian-eze, Eugene).
I could paraphrase Don Williams here on this but I really need to get back to my class work (though this kind of dialogue is more fun:)) so I’ll just put his words in here on the issue of subordination:
“The arguments against finding subordination in this chapter are the following. Man is created first, not for governance or priority in function, but to establish his loneliness. “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18a). His created need for woman does not imply his superiority in any way. The animals do not complete him. Without woman, he is less than fully a man. She alone completes him. Second, in his task to care for the garden, a helper fit for him does not imply subordination. In fact, as his helper, woman rescues man from his loneliness and complements him in his vocation. Next, man and woman equally share human nature. She alone is taken from him. She alone is to be united to him. Subordination must be read into the passage, it cannot be read out from it. Finally, man’s initiative in leaving and cleaving tells us nothing about his superiority to woman or her subordination. The next verse tells us that the man and woman are naked and not ashamed. In their “one flesh” they have complete union and communion: equal standing before God and each other (Genesis 2:25).”
You can read this full paper on Genesis by Williams on his http://www.kingdomrain.net site. Hopefully this doesn’t t totally hijack what was a lighthearted blog entry, Eugene and others. Cheers.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
and on that note, i take my exit before a full orbed feast of prooftexting and countertexting occurs
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
i thought it was satire…
it was satire, right?
’cause if it was, it was funny
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
You are a wimp Eugene. Seriously, grow a spine and submit to the Word of God. This isn’t satire but it’s insulting.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
Honestly, I wasn’t trying to ‘pick sides’ - our church was trying to decide where to stand on it a few years back when it become ‘an issue’ we needed to figure out for the future of our congregation… a number of us just took to the Scriptures, grabbed a few commentaries, and various translations of the Bible… we each took a few months researching, and writing papers, then we each presented our ‘case’ of what we found, then about 50 of the church’s members (at least 6 or 7 of which were Greek and or Hebrew experts - a very ‘odd’ church, it was), and some folks from other churches who were interested, gathered to debate/discuss the issue.
I do love Williams, as I also do the Vineyard as a whole, so I’ll check out his paper …however, at this point it would take a lot - like, some massive discovery of mis-translation from the original languages of a few important texts - to change my mind. Again, no judgement from me on those women who pursue ministry - I hope they reach folks for Christ. It just seems that we need to be consistent, and ordain Gays & Lesbians as well, as the interpretive approach that allows for one, also leads to the other.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
Thanks saintlewis - actually, I think it’s a big mistake to tie the two togethger. I don’t make the connection myself.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at
Eugene, I have seen this countless places in the last week and I just love it. I also hate it because it only proves how ridiculous the reasons of why women cannot be in ministry are. I really appreciate you, a male pastor, putting this on your blog. It means lots for us, the women who are pastors, to have people like you standing up for us - even if it is in funny ways. Thanks.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at
well, some of you are going to have a fun time with next week’s post about women and leadership.
yes, the double edge sword of satire. elderj: i hope you don’t have any dreams of me getting pummeled.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at
Eugene, I love reading your blog. This issue gets me fired up. I’m glad that you are an advocate for women like me pursuing ministry. I hope that one day I get to sit with you at ministerial meetings, because knowing that you’ve got my back on this issue is huge.
Something my New Testament professor always says is that scripture was written in a specific time and place to a specific situation. We need to exegete carefully to understand the context in which it was written.
How many women are called and gifted in this world, but prohibited from living into that call?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at
thanks pe for a great post, and for your ongoing support. last week, a female student at a bible college sent me 10 questions she hoped i could help answer about women in ministry. some were about ministry, some about people’s reactions and acceptance of a woman called to the role of minister, and some about being a pastor. i wonder what a man’s reaction to the same questions would be, for comparison. how different are our experiences, really?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at
[...] Should men be ordained? [...]
Thursday, May 1, 2008 at
sometimes it’s not about who gets what privileges in ministry. yes, some do reduce this discussion into to politics. but from a Christian perspective, it is more about humbly living out the gospel of Jesus Christ. there’s a powerful verse in Ephesians chapter 5 which speaks about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church. for many advocates of male headship, it’s not even about politics, but more about faithfulness to living out the gospel (even if it is politically incorrect)
can you imagine seeing the Church complaining that it should have “equal rights” with Christ? kind of funny way to see the divine romance drama of Christ and His Bride. the issue of men and women in ministry is a sub-issue which spills over to the greater issue of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a fallen word which rejects inherent meaning and purpose in this world. it’s a slippery slope which leads to destroying the Gospel story.
maybe, politically, women should be allowed to serve in ministry. possibly even exegetically (when taking cultural context into consideration), but in the overarching drama of Scripture, it makes a mockery out of the Gospel story.
Friday, May 2, 2008 at
[...] A very funny, tongue-in-cheek top ten list: Why Men Should Not Be Ordained for Ministry. My favorite may be #7, Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation. (via Eugene Cho) [...]
Friday, May 2, 2008 at
Trying to fight for the conviction to honor Christ “makes a mockery of the Gospel?”
What? Really? Goodness gracious.
Saturday, May 3, 2008 at
lizboo, i think u need to re-read it again in it’s full context. =)
Saturday, May 3, 2008 at
This was meant to be funny. I got a huge laugh from it. Thanks for posting this.
And Eugene, I’m with Sarah. Thanks for being such a great advocate for women in ministry. I’ve been trying to sort out vocational issues since I was 19 (I’m 26 now, and still no closer to answers), and hearing your thoughts on ministry and calling have helped me clarify my own questions. You rock!
Saturday, May 3, 2008 at
@P.Dan — So, what is the full context of what you’re saying? That saying both women and men should serve in vocational ministry makes a mockery of the Gospel story?
This is not an issue of allowing cultural politics to dictate the Church’s approach to leadership and service. This is a question of taking Scripture — all of it — seriously. Often, the people I have heard ranting about women in church leadership simply proof-text whatever passages conveniently uphold their preconceived cultural notions of gender roles. For example, if a person genuinely thinks that a women shouldn’t teach ‘because the Bible says so’ (and they often can’t even cite particular passages) then, by the same interpretation principle, they shouldn’t allow women to speak at all. However, even the most conservative groups allow women to say “hello” in their churches — so, clearly, everyone is doing interpretive work here.
One argument I have heard ad nauseam from certain circles is that people who believe in women and men in vocational ministry are “liberals” who “don’t believe in the Bible.” This kind of rhetoric is not helpful at all.
Clearly, it is possible for followers of Christ who love God and take Scripture seriously to come to different conclusions on this issue. It’s not just a matter of politics. Many astute scholars have shown how there is a solid biblical basis for women and men to serve side-by-side in church leadership.
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at
[...] in Ministry Posted on May 4, 2008 by Rustin This is too good - HT: Eugene Cho & [...]
Sunday, May 4, 2008 at
[...] http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/10-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-ordained-for-ministry/ [...]
Monday, May 5, 2008 at
Reason # 2 may be the only reason - we ain’t worthy…
Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at
[...] and ministry… Well, I guess this is the serious entry in response to satire entitled - 10 reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry. And to give you a little context, this is what I wrote in an earlier post about supporting [...]
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at
#8 in itself kept me out of seminary.