10 Reasons Not to Ordain Men

[Gregory Matthews]

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 ministerial duties might distract them from the responsibilities 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 worshipers.

4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. 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 them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Testosterone makes men more prone to violence; no really “manly” man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. It also makes them more prone to lust; consider King David. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being 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.

(Originally from the late Dr. David M. Scholer of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1997.) Found on https://ordinationFacts.wordpress.com/reasons/

[brotherly love]

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 ministerial duties might distract them from the responsibilities 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 worshipers.

4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. 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 them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Testosterone makes men more prone to violence; no really “manly” man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. It also makes them more prone to lust; consider King David. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being 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.

(Originally from the late Dr. David M. Scholer of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1997.) Found on https://ordinationFacts.wordpress.com/reasons/

​None of these is found in scripture, it actually makes fun out of scripture. It would be a satire someone like Richard Dawkins would present to undermine the Bible

Edited June 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[Aliensanctuary]

None of these is found in scripture, it actually makes fun out of scripture. It would be a satire someone like Richard Dawkins would present to undermine the Bible.

 Unfortunately, unlike Bible times, today men are women and women are men.

[Tom Wetmore]

​None of these is found in scripture, it actually makes fun out of scripture. It would be a satire someone like Richard Dawkins would present to undermine the Bible

It is satire of course. But satire often speaks the truth.  It is obviously intended as a contrast of the often spurious reasons given against women serving as pastors or church leaders.  It simply illustrates the foolishness of some arguments being made.

[brotherly love]

It is satire of course. But satire often speaks the truth.  It is obviously intended as a contrast of the often spurious reasons given against women serving as pastors or church leaders.  It simply illustrates the foolishness of some arguments being made.

​If it is true in this case, then Richard Dawkins or other atheists are illustrating the foolishness of God and revealing truth using satire. It actually shows  desperation. The bible would be a wiser choice to use

[Tom Wetmore]

Missing the point...

[Gregory Matthews]

Satire, of course.  However, there is truth in it, even when it is not a literal truth and some of the statement have more truth than do other statements.  In reality, the foolishness of the above statements demonstrates the foolishness of some of the arguments that are made by the other side.

 

 

[brotherly love]

Satire, of course.  However, there is truth in it, even when it is not a literal truth and some of the statement have more truth than do other statements.  In reality, the foolishness of the above statements demonstrates the foolishness of some of the arguments that are made by the other side.

 

 

​Then it is completely useless when discerning truth. Satire is designed to humiliate another side

[Gregory Matthews]

I Do not see any people here who have been humiliated.

 

Further, satire does not humiliate another.  Some people may feel humiliated by the that they said.  But, not only was it their choice to feel humiliated it was their choice to put into word what they said/wrote.

 

NOTE:  There have been times when I have felt personally humiliated by something stupid that I said.  But, I took responsibility for that.  It was I who had humiliated myself.  It was not the person who pointed out the fallacy in what I said or wrote.  You know, every such case has been a learning experience for me.  I would resolve not to make the same mistake twice.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[brotherly love]

I Do not see any people her who have been humiliated.

 

Further, satire does not humiliate another.  Some people may feel humiliated by the that they said.  But, not only was it their choice to feel humiliated it was their choice to put into word what they said/wrote.

 

NOTE:  There have been times when I have felt personally humiliated by something stupid that I said.  But, I took responsibility for that.  It was I who had humiliated myself.  It was not the person who pointed out the fallacy in what I said or wrote.  You know, every such case has been a learning experience for me.  I would resolve not to make the same mistake twice.

 

 

 

 

 

​Satire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.

Both you and Tom missed the point. Atheists use satire to ridicule the Bible and God. Are they ridiculing something stupid that God said in His Word? No, they are ridiculing something they dont agree with by distorting truth. If you consider satire to be an authoratative method of truth telling, then you also have to accept it when it is levied upon the Bible for an example.

Satire can be useful in certain circumstances, but when used against the Bible it is very disrespectful. You could use satire against those who believe black slavery was iuntituted by the Bible-because there is little evidence. To use satire against a Biblical stance that does have merit and is honestly debated within the confines of Orthodox faith may be riduculing God. The same would go the other way around

[Gregory Matthews]

Your definition does not agree with that of standard dictionaries.

[Tom Wetmore]

​Satire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.

Both you and Tom missed the point. Atheists use satire to ridicule the Bible and God. Are they ridiculing something stupid that God said in His Word? No, they are ridiculing something they dont agree with by distorting truth. If you consider satire to be an authoratative method of truth telling, then you also have to accept it when it is levied upon the Bible for an example.

Satire can be useful in certain circumstances, but when used against the Bible it is very disrespectful. You could use satire against those who believe black slavery was iuntituted by the Bible-because there is little evidence. To use satire against a Biblical stance that does have merit and is honestly debated within the confines of Orthodox faith may be riduculing God. The same would go the other way around

OK Atheists use satire.  They also use logic.   They also use metaphor, simile and poetry.  They also use air and water.  Shall we stop using those because the wrong people use them too?  Your effort to use guilt by association is foolish.

The satire piece is not ridiculing God or Scripture.  It lampoons the arguments people use to justify things that in fact are really not in Scripture, things like tradition.  

You need to perhaps lighten up a bit, loosen your tie and go smell the roses.  You are missing the whole point of satire.  Not us.

[brotherly love]

OK Atheists use satire.  They also use logic.   They also use metaphor, simile and poetry.  They also use air and water.  Shall we stop using those because the wrong people use them too?  Your effort to use guilt by association is foolish.

The satire piece is not ridiculing God or Scripture.  It lampoons the arguments people use to justify things that in fact are really not in Scripture, things like tradition.  

You need to perhaps lighten up a bit, loosen your tie and go smell the roses.  You are missing the whole point of satire.  Not us.

​We dont have to stop using water because Atheists use water, this is not really rational or part of the conversation. You make a charge about tradition, but tradition can also have scriptural backing. The issue has scriptural support, you may not agree, but in mocking a position that can be defended from scripture, you run the risk of mocking God. This is your choice to make.

Atheists use satire to ridicule God, and it is not part of a healthy conversation. If you have to resort to satire, then it shows more of an emotional argument.

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:

You are simply wrong. On several levels.  Just because atheists use satire to ridicule God does not automatically make satire the exclusive tool of the godless or of Satan.  But more to the point here, it does not make the satire of the OP an atheist bit of satire nor does it make it ridiculing God.  That is an accusation like that of guilt by association.  That you continue to hang on to that fallacious argument seems to be your way of trying to attack Gregory's character and motives, accusing him of mocking God.  That is a profoundly serious accusation which needs to be rebuked.  I have known him for a number of years and know him to be a Godly man.  Since I believe it to be an attempt to unfairly and inappropriately attack his motives and character I would suggest an apology to him from you is in order.

You have inserted emotion into this and may have an emotional response to it for any number of reasons.  But that does not make it an emotional argument. Nor is satire inherently emotional.  Quite the opposite it is usually a very rational and intellectual perspective. It is quite similar to The unhealthy part of the conversation is not the satire or the point of the satire.  It is the apparent emotional reaction (anger, it seems), that it upsets you.  If you cannot take it in the perspective intended, and take it personally because it may strike at notions you hold dear than perhaps you need to examine yourself.  

Humor and satire is admittedly sometimes a tricky thing since people's sense of humor varies greatly.  But you are overreacting and making far more out of this than was intended.    Either that, or you are just engaging in purposely trollish behavior.  Either way you need to stop.  Take this as an official warning.  As you have already been told, this is not open for discussion or debate.  

[Tom Wetmore]

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 ministerial duties might distract them from the responsibilities 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 worshipers.

4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. 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 them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Testosterone makes men more prone to violence; no really “manly” man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. It also makes them more prone to lust; consider King David. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being 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.

(Originally from the late Dr. David M. Scholer of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1997.) Found on https://ordinationFacts.wordpress.com/reasons/

​I have seen several variations on this theme.  It does make some valid points.  While intended somewhat tongue in cheek, it has a ring of truth about it.  It may strike a raw nerve in some as a result.  But that is not its intent.  It is intended to provoke thought.  If it does not, it is wasted on those unable or unwilling to get the point.

[Gerr]

To paraphrase and plagiarize the above, here are the -

Top Ten Reasons Why Men SHOULD  Be Ordained

10. A man’s place is in the Lord's Army.  Men are stronger physically and mentally to meet the rigors of army life.

9.  Men are not as good as women in parenting.  That's why women are needed at home, barefoot and pregnant, like Bobby Riggs said. Too much crime with too many loose children.

8.  Since their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions, they are therefore also more suitable to battling the devil who attacks as a  "roaring lion."             

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was  pre-eminent. - da head, knucklehead though he may be.

6. Women are too emotional to be priests or pastors.    They cry when they are happy.  They cry when they are sad.  They say yes when they  mean no,  and say no when they mean yes.

5. Some women will be too distracting with their short, tight, skirts, big boobs, heavy mascara, strange hairdo or color, etc.

4. While women are better at nurturing, what the church needs is tough love, a  firm hand, nay, a  kick in the butt.

3. It takes balls to produce the testosterone that gives a leader the courage to make the unimpassioned, tough, bare-knuckle  decisions..

2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus chose only MEN!  Ordained only MEN!  The foundation stones of the New Jerusalem were named only after MEN!

1. Women can still be involved in church activities, of course, even without being ordained. They provided vital supporting role in Christ's ministry.  They can continue to do that. They can also  sweep sidewalks, sew clothes for the Dorcas society, and perhaps even lead the song service on Mother’s Day if they so desire. By confining themselves to such traditional female roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.

[Ron Lambert]

Delightful satires, Gregory and Gerry!

To anyone who would condemn the use of satire, I would point to Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

[Kevin H]

However Jesus did NOT ordain only men.