Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained for Ministry

Apologies if you've read it already. It was new to me and made me chuckle.

I found it on Eugene Cho's blog here and traced it back to the original author on the Serving Bread site here.

Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained for Ministry

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.

Boom, boom.

What Divides Us?

Came across this quote from S. Michael Craven from the Center for Christ and Culture. The quote is from his recent blog post Love Believes All Things. I agree with the content and the tone of the piece and made some similar comments on a previous post myself.

"How many times have you heard the phrase “doctrine divides?” In response, I would say it isn’t doctrine that divides us but rather epistemology. In other words, it’s what we think we know with certainty that divides us. Such certitude is presumptuous and arrogant, the height of hubris when measured against the humility of Paul, who in the same chapter on love conceded the presence of mystery when he wrote, “Now I know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). If the apostle Paul did not know the truth completely, then neither do you or I. The consequence of this fact should be a more humble epistemology that is more inclined to listen, to process and ponder, rather than critique and attack."

You can read the rest of Michael's blog post here.

A Sick Proposal on the Health Service

The Social Market Foundation, a British political think tank, is proposing that a £20 charge should be payable for members of the public to see an NHS doctor. The proposal, it is claimed, is a response to the "financial crisis" facing the NHS in the coming years.

The proposal, which is of course not government policy at present, illustrates the huge gap that exists in Britain between those who make such proposals and those who would suffer their consequences should they be implemented.

Report author David Furness (pictured) is clearly immune from the pressure that such an outrageous move would have on low and middle income families. The report's recommendation that the charge should not be levied on "anyone receiving tax credits" is a typical piece of nonsense driven by people whose life experience of poverty appears to be acquired from studying statistics and calculating averages rather than from struggling to make a living in the world of low-paid work.

The report's statement that "A charge of £20 for GP appointments should be introduced to encourage healthier, wealthier people to avoid using the NHS except when absolutely necessary, with anyone receiving tax credits totally exempt" represents an incredibly naive perspective - dividing British society up as it does into the wealthy and those on tax credits.

As noted on Left Luggage in May, many poor parents register as self-employed rather than accepting what is described as "poverty pay" in clerical or manual jobs and, in doing so, make themselves illegible for tax credits or other forms of social security. Such low income families would, of course, still be required to pay the proposed £20 charge to see a GP.

Under the report's proposal, furthermore, middle-income families with children would find themselves hundreds of pounds out of pocket every year just for making an appointment with their GP, despite assurances that such charges would be capped at "around £100 per year" per patient. This is before the cost of any prescriptions and other charges and before the hidden cost of illness such as work time lost, travel costs to hospital or the "choice" of going private for major surgery.

When faced with the option of making such payments or risking their children's health, parents will do whatever they feel they need to in order to get the service they are being taxed to provide and will, if they cannot afford the £20 levy, will turn up at A & E centres in large numbers demanding to be seen by a doctor. Hardly an efficient use of public money.

Perhaps we should not be too surprised by the report's lack of rootedness in the real world. The Social Market Foundation is chaired by Lord (David) Lipsey whose statement in the House of Lords in 2001 on the crisis of capitalism seems rather apt under the circumstances:

"However, that does not mean that there will not be a crisis of capitalism. A different kind of crisis can come over an economic system: it is not so much an economic crisis as a moral crisis. It can occur when a system becomes so far divorced from the moral sense of the people who make it work as to become inoperable."
Hansard Feb 2001

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Is Local Democracy Back in Fashion?

The Local Government Association has produced a new pamphlet arguing for much more radical decentralisation of political power and decision making in the UK.

"Who's in Charge? A Manifesto for a New Politics" calls for, among other measures, the dismantling of the Quango State; local tax autonomy, including the power for local councils to set business rates.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The Problem with Plastic

For a cool-headed, well-written and accessibly-scientific analysis of what plastic is doing to the environment, please read this.

It will take about ten minutes and may discomfort you greatly.

The following video gives a short preview of the issue from a different source.









If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.