• Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington

Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington

I would ask that you visit the Patheos blog post I am linking you to. It’s very long but a good read. I am only providing some excerpts from that page here on my blog.

Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington, June 2015, on Patheos

….Never mind that the Bible does not have categories like ‘senior pastor’ or ‘pulpit minister’, the NT has been used over and over again to justify the suppression of women in ministry— and as I was to discover through years of research and study, without Biblical justification.

…So in this post I am going to deal with the usual objections to women in ministry, one by one.

….1) Women can’t be ministers, because only males can be priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass etc.

The root problem with this argument is that the NT is perfectly clear that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, elders, deacons ARE NOT PRIESTS IN THE NT.

There is no need for a separate order of priests in the NT because Christ’s sacrifice made obsolete the entire OT sacerdotal system of priests, temples and sacrifices.

Continue reading

Advertisements

• Complementarian Marketing To Men Doesn’t Work, but It Doesn’t Stop Comps From Blaming Women – Churches Are Not “Too Feminine”

Complementarian Marketing To Men Doesn’t Work, but It Doesn’t Stop Comps From Blaming Women – Churches Are Not ‘Too Feminine”

Gender complementarians have turned male leadership, masculinity, and the male biological sex into idols that they worship.

And this obsession and strategy has not worked to draw in men to churches or to keep them in church – and complementarians, most of them anyway, keep assuming it will work.

This fixation on masculinity and making churches more masculine in feel does not account for women who have begun dropping out of church in large numbers the last several years, either (The Resignation Of Eve).

Male hierarchy, and defending and promoting it, now takes precedence over about any thing else with complementarian Christians, and, at times, it causes them to do and say some very weird (and unbiblical) things.

Continue reading

• Rejoinders to Wartburg Whiner Posts: Women Navy Seals, Damore’s Google Memo, and Notice How Griggs’ Sexism Extends To Secular Life; It Is Extra- Biblical

Rejoinders to Wartburg Whiner Posts: Women Navy Seals, Damore’s Google Memo, and Notice How Griggs’ Sexism Extends To Secular Life; It Is Extra- Biblical

Re: woman trainee dropping out of Navy SEALS training:

Men; Women: – Viva La Difference – post on Wartburg Whiners blog

First of all, it’s a good thing, or just a neutral thing, that women are allowed to even to try out for the Navy Seals. How is it bad that the Seals allow women to apply?

Is Griggs implying no, it’s not a good thing that the Seals are open to women members?

Or is Griggs just happy that a woman tried out and dropped out? What if she had stayed in and passed the course, what then?

Continue reading

• The James Damore Google Tech-Bro Meme Stating that Women are Biologically Unsuited to Work at Tech Professions (Part 2)

The James Damore Google Tech-Bro Meme Stating that Women are Biologically Unsuited to Work at Tech Professions (Part 2)

(( Part 1 ))


I believe, it is my view, that the thing that really motivated this guy, Damore, to write this entire memo was this part of his memo (for more on who this guy is, and what my posts are all about, please see Part 1):

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

(end)

I am a conservative – and yes, I agree, often times, liberals use P.C. to silence dissenters by using fear.

I’m sympathetic with this guy to a point, but the way to correct some over-bearing P.C. beliefs or practices of liberals, or a P.C. work culture, is not to argue, as he’s doing essentially, that some sexist views should be openly practiced or embraced.

Damore wants to openly believe sexist things about women, and wants to argue for corporate policies that would hold women back, but he doesn’t want to be held accountable for any of this – because holding him accountable would be, in his view, “political correctness” or a case of liberals picking on a conservative.

I’m a right winger, I am a conservative myself, and sorry, dude, but I’m not buying this.

I may be anti-P.C., and I’m not fond of all things liberal, but I am opposed to sexism, no matter who, what, where, when or why it’s being championed or allowed.

And the fact that you, Damore, keep insisting in your memo that your sexist views really aren’t sexist because biology!, and because you really aren’t sexist, doesn’t really change the fact that those views are in fact… sexist. They’re still sexist.

Continue reading

• The James Damore Google Tech-Bro Meme Stating that Women are Biologically Unsuited to Work at Tech Professions (Part 1)

The James Damore Google Tech-Bro Meme Stating that Women are Biologically Unsuited to Work at Tech Professions (Part 1)

(( Part 2 ))


I am a conservative and never have been a supporter of P.C. (political correctness).

Do liberals sometimes create a climate of fear and dread such that any one who does not support their views feels too afraid to speak up and disagree?

I’d say yes, most definitely. Even this one liberal tech lady admits to that, and she’s not okay with it.

A young Google employee named James Damore wrote a ten page memo (memo? That’s more like a research paper) explaining why he believes there are not more women working in STEM- related fields.

Some of Damore’s views supposedly hinge on biology: he believes there are biological reasons that explain women’s career choices, or how women are treated in technological based careers.

I am going to hit this point home off and on in this blog post and the next, should I break this up into more than one post:

If Damore had written that he’s seen studies that suggest that black people are biologically superior than white people at picking cotton on plantations and not as biologically adept at working on computers as whites, and should therefore not be employed at coding with a tech firm, your reaction to those views would be, what? Would you be just as angry or sad that he was fired by his employer?

Damore does not cite the research, if he used any (not that I saw, and I looked several times on a site that copied his memo).

He just states things as fact, things such as,

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).

(end Damore quote. Source)

Edit:

…Many of Damore’s controversial conclusions rest heavily on one recent study and much older, now-discredited research, ignoring reams of data that tell a very different story. (source here, and excerpts in Part 2, at bottom of page)

He also states (and I will return to this later)

…Women, on average, have more:

  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)…..

I have no idea where he is getting these ideas from.

What research is he referring to? I did not see book titles or URLs listed. There is no “works cited” page under his memo anywhere that I could see.

Damore has a section in his memo entitled, “Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap” with bullet points of suggestions.

Damore later says, “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity…”

If he truly means he wants greater diversity, he has a strange way of going about it.

Continue reading

• The “It’s All In Your Head” Diagnosis Is Still A Danger To Women’s Health by Emily Dwass

The “It’s All In Your Head” Diagnosis Is Still A Danger To Women’s Health

The ‘it’s all in your head’ diagnosis is still a danger to women’s health 

Snippets:

Op Ed via Los Angeles Times, by Emily Dwass

…In my case, it took four years and several doctors before I learned that I had a meningioma, the same type of nonmalignant tumor that Menounos had. By then, the mass in my skull had grown to be the size of a baseball, causing permanent problems and making surgery much more dangerous.

Even after my diagnosis I had to contend with dismissive, condescending doctors.

Continue reading

• ‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

The article in question:

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson, via Aussie ABC news

My introductory comments:

Complementarians like to insist that their gender theology has nothing to do with domestic violence, but funny, isn’t it, how so many Christian wives who divorced their abusive Christian husbands remark how their husband would sometimes cite male headship or “wife submit” type Bible verses or complementarian concepts to justify their abuse?

I think it’s very deceitful for complementarians, on the one hand, to prop up this view that says it’s God’s (God’s! – talk about taking God’s name in vein) design for a husband to be in a boss-like or deity-like position of authority over a wife, but then feign ignorance at being able to connect the dots at seeing how such a sexist view could of course be used and misused by a husband to abuse his wife physically, emotionally, financially, or by some other means.

Most of the complementarian husbands who are not abusing their wives are not living out complementarianism proper, or taking to its logical conclusions or abusing its inherent unfairness to women, but are living out egalitarian marriages in practice (their marriages are complementarian in name only, which even complementarian Russell Moore pretty much recognized).

For complementarians who like to proclaim the “no true complementarian” fallacy (“no true complementarian husband would ever abuse his wife”), especially in regards to the correlation between domestic violence and complementarianism, I point you to this page on another blog:

John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy

For those complementarians who like to say complementarianism properly carried out and practiced is acceptable and not violent or sexist, I point you to this post on my blog:

Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)

Here again is a link to the Aussie ABC news article, with portions of the article reproduced below (in my view, all of this, or about all of this, is applicable to American complementarianism and American Christianity):

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson

Snippets:

Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically. Church leaders in Australia say they abhor abuse of any kind. But advocates say the church is not just failing to sufficiently address domestic violence, it is both enabling and concealing it.

This is the second instalment of an ABC News and 7.30 investigation into domestic violence and religion. You can read part one in the series — on domestic violence and Islamhere.

….”Your problem is you won’t obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse,” he [Peter] yelled [at his wife Sally]. “You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s**t.”

Continue reading