In a not-so-recent discussion about women and their role in society, the conversation got around to the ordination of women — as if that is the bottom line for so many things about women and society and the beginning point for justifying so many things women can or shouldn’t do. So often it is not a matter of who is better qualified for a particular job or role but who it benefits to claim certain roles and jobs exclusively for the other. This is at best a specious argument — sounding correct or right but really neither, especially when it comes to women. Why especially when it comes to women? Because so much of the argument about what’s good for women is wrapped up in a reality that desires only what is good for men. Let me demonstrate, using the same logic that some men and women use to justify their stance against ordination of women, but instead let me use it to justify why men should not be ordained.
Here it is: The Top Ten Reasons 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. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshippers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional role for men. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes women the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means 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, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the 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 symbols of the subordinated position that all men should take.
When framed in this way, a number of men and women may rise to offense, providing counter points that sound rather similar to the ones other men and women have offered to support the ordination of women. So my question is this: if the only difference between the two arguments is gender centered, then why is one the “correct one” and the other one just “flat-out wrong”? Could it be that denying either men or women on the basis of gender is the real argument that is just flat-out wrong? And let me offer another view: Do you really think the Holy Spirit minds whether the one ordained wears a skirt or a tie? If we truly believe that God is in charge, the one who calls and ordains, the one whose words are the guide in our lives, then are we humans focusing on the wrong things when we assert that we know better than God to allow a woman to do a “man’s job”? Shouldn’t that be God’s call anyway? And shouldn’t that be God’s job, not man’s in the first place? Oh, what hath man wrought when he denies the Holy Spirit!
Tags: Christian feminism, church leadership for men and women, ordination of women, subordination of women in the church
