Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry

Posted by Helen on: 04.26.2008 /

Check out Eddy’s list of Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry

Here’s one of them:

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.


Semi-Related Posts


8 Responses to "Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry"

  • Comment by: Molly

    1 04/26/08 8:56 AM | Comment Link |

    Baaaaaaaahahahahahaaaa!

  • Comment by: Jason Horton

    2 04/26/08 10:22 AM | Comment Link |

    It is true that my physique is better suited to “wrestling mountain lions”. I’d better stay out of churches altogether and spend my time keeping in shape. Those lions don’t wrestle themselves.

  • Comment by: karen

    3 04/26/08 2:05 PM | Comment Link |

    That is great. I love this one:

    Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

    I think we have a new definition of woman: Man 2.0. :-)

  • Comment by: Why I (Speaking in Servant-Love) Believe Men Should Not be Church Leaders « adventures in mercy

    4 04/26/08 3:45 PM | Comment Link |

    [...] and pasted the hilarious above-quoted post from Serving Bread, and was made aware of the post by Helen from Conversation at the Edge.  We talk about women’s issues here a lot, since exiting the bowels of patriarchy has been [...]

  • Comment by: Randy

    5 04/26/08 7:46 PM | Comment Link |

    Somebody needs to send this list to Mark Driscoll…

  • Comment by: benjamin ady

    6 04/26/08 11:57 PM | Comment Link |

    Randy

    OMG. Driscoll would take serious offense, and rant against it in a sermon, saying that it led (goddess forbid!) to “Goddess Worship”. (which would potentially be slightly entertaining, as long as someone was willing to go to the trouble of pulling that 2 minutes out of whatever hour+ long sermon he inserted it in, and post it to youtube, and then link it here. Or something.)

    Ah come’on. Can’t we at *least* be “co-equal” or something? And we’re *not* *more* violent. Who have all the great heroes of the non-violence movement been? I’m thinking MLK Jr. I’m thinking Ghandi. I’m thinking Jesus. Guys!! (oh boy, now I’m in trouble =) And look at all those super violent women from history. You know … like … um …. uh ….oh, wait–I know–that queen from England named Mary–the one they named the cocktail after–Bloody Mary. yeah–her. See?

  • Comment by: Jason Horton

    7 04/27/08 5:01 AM | Comment Link |

    Boudicca wasn’t known for her flower arranging skills. Myra Hindley and Bonnie Parker were also known to be less than ladylike in their violence but you could always blame their male cohorts for that.

  • Comment by: Helen

    8 04/27/08 5:23 AM | Comment Link |

    Karen wrote:

    I think we have a new definition of woman: Man 2.0. :-)

    Yes indeed!

    Benjamin wrote:

    Ah come’on. Can’t we at *least* be “co-equal” or something? And we’re *not* *more* violent.

    Benjamin, there’s nothing to be upset about. Men are just as valuable as women; they simply have different roles, that’s all. You may think our role sounds more fun than yours but actually it’s not easy leading. It’s a big responsibility!

    Regarding your comment about non-violent men: maybe there are some men who go against their nature, but it’s best not to. That never works as well as sticking with the roles you’re designed to have.

    Boudicca wasn’t known for her flower arranging skills. Myra Hindley and Bonnie Parker were also known to be less than ladylike in their violence but you could always blame their male cohorts for that.

    Yes, I expect men are to blame – when women behave out of character it’s generally because men have pushed them into it

    ;-)