Women, Behave. Don’t Ever Try to Lead Men.

I was reflecting on the pelvic denominations, those focused on abortion, gays and birth control, and realized something.  For about 40 years, I was a member of Methodist and Presbyterian churches.  Because I was in local politics, I also attended churches of many other denominations.

In all those 40 years listening to Methodist and Presbyterian preachers, I’m certain I never heard a sermon about the Biblically proper roles for men and women.  That is not to say there never was one, since I was not in my church every Sunday.  I just don’t think so.

In the other churches, specifically evangelical and Catholic, I heard about the proper role of men and women a few times.  Since I attended only when invited as Mayor, my small sample yielded quite frequent sermons on this.

On the evangelical site, ChristianPost.com and realclearreligion.com, the topic is covered every week or so by evangelical and Catholic writers.  This unscientific observation leads to the conclusion a certain branch of the Christianity, the pelvic branch, really wants to keep women off the leadership roster.

This week, Pastor John Piper, said, “This has to do with God’s created dynamic of what a man is and what a woman is in their gut with regard to the ballet of leadership and submission….women shouldn’t be, in general, leaders of men…”

In the Catholic Church, you have the Pope and sub Popes scowling at women and sending the message, “Don’t even think about it.”

The rest of us try to understand why women put up with this.

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Women, Behave. Don’t Ever Try to Lead Men.

  1. Henry says:

    Jon: “Since I attended only when invited as Mayor, my small sample yielded quite frequent sermons on this.”

    Sounds like you had your own version of pelvic theology.

  2. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    For what it’s worth, I find it interesting this discussion of ‘pelvic’ obsessed Christian denominations.

    I wonder if this just might be the future fracture of the Christian faith . . . sort of the new protestant. Those who are concerned with the spirit and those that are concerned with the genitals.

    • entech says:

      Henry introduced me to the three ages of earth idea a couple of topics ago. It seems in the pre-genesis age humanity was all soul and spirit. In the current age we have physicality and need gender to create the physical bodies, not sure about the pre-existent souls though – it could mean that as all the souls exist and existed forever we may run out of souls to put in the bodies. With no more souls to allocate then perhaps that will be the beginning of the next age which again will be all spirit. So you just need to wait for the next life to be with your soul mate without all that genital stuff to interfere – I wonder is some righteous types will find another reason to condemn you, some love your neighbour types always seem to need an exception. The real you is not gender specific.

      • Henry says:

        entech: “Henry introduced me to the three ages of earth idea a couple of topics ago.”

        I made no such mention of three ages. I merely pointed out some scripture and referenced some beliefs of Origen in regards to pre-existence of souls.

        • entech says:

          Little Hank, my friend? Of course, you are right as usual. Indeed you “made no such mention of three ages.” You “merely pointed out some scripture and referenced some beliefs of Origen in regards to pre-existence of souls.

          On the other hand I never said that you mentioned them merely that you “introduced me to the three ages of earth idea a couple of topics ago. And indeed, such commentary as:
          I would point you to Rev. 12 and a close allegorical reading may indicate a fall prior to the garden. Ezekial 28 also suggests this with the “king of Tyre” (Satan). Then there is the interesting Greek word Katabole used in Matthew 13:35.
          Most certainly led me to investigate and research further; some people do draw the three ages ideas from the scriptures, from the canon you rely on. I do not suggest that you believe such nonsense as you also say “Perhaps … Rev. 12, some of us suffer in this age to test and save some of the fallen 1/3 from the age of pre-existence. Of course, all of this is supposition.

          Try not to read everything as being so “black and white”. Lovely expression thank you for introducing it.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Hankie 4:23 “…in regards to the pre-existence of souls.” I wish it possible to be always respectful of views like this. I’m unable.

          • Henry says:

            Johnnie, so what else is new? You aren’t respectful of the canonized Christian beliefs either. No surprise here.

            I don’t endorse the concept of pre-existence of souls. There isn’t adequate scriptural basis to affirm it. Is it possible? It isn’t denied by scripture, and there are some passages that point to the possibility.

          • entech says:

            “There isn’t adequate scriptural basis to affirm it. ” or almost anything else!

    • Henry says:

      Big Mac my friend: “I wonder if this just might be the future fracture of the Christian faith . . . sort of the new protestant. Those who are concerned with the spirit and those that are concerned with the genitals.”

      Big Mac, there is nothing new under the sun here. These issues you are interested in were common in NT times as well. Despite being in Jorgenson’s age of technology including “LOL”, it doesn’t seem like society has resolved these issues.

  3. Bob Jorgenson says:

    What don’t those Abrahamic followers get about a body part is just a body part.
    I’ve taught my children that one part of the body is not different than any other part, they all have their functions, and not to sweat it.

    So what? A boob is a boob, a vagina is a vagina, an elbow is an elbow, a penis is a penis, who cares? No big deal. This is what I’ve taught my children and thus they aren’t obssessed like their religious counter parts are. My little kid gets this, but the poop, oops, pope can’t understand this?
    Jon, will the Abrahamic dumbness never stop?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Bob 11:36 “…a body part is just a body part.”

      So true–and–interesting that some parts of religion is so obssessed with certain parts. Then there is all that about covering up certain body parts. There was a headline yesterday on a Christian site, “Don’t come to church dressed like a harlot.” Of course, it was referring to women only. Did not the god give women these body parts? Why would it be so sinful to show off some of them in church? What should not we check to see men and boys do not wear pants that are too tight–would not want the parts God gave them to be revealed either.

      • Henry says:

        Nothing wrong for a church to hold standards. If they have a specific issue to address, they should be allowed to address it. I guess church organizations aren’t allowed the “PG” status that Jon holds for himself in his cult of “really really smart white men”.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Hankie 3:54 Of course they can require a dress code if they want to. I’m just saying it’s all part of men “managing” women.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, are you sure there there weren’t some women complaining to whomever was in charge? It seems like this would more likely be the first reaction. Rarely, in public settings, have I heard men complain about how women dress or underdress. I have heard women complain about how other women dress or underdress.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 6:47 Of course there were/are women complaining about other women. It’s common for abused spouses (men and women) to defend their abuser. Now, I’m not saying all women who put up with male donminated churches are “abused”–just saying people who should stand up and push back often pull instead.

      • entech says:

        Jon, consider yourself blessed, you have been upgraded to a cult. But still misquoting really smart white men.

  4. Bob Jorgenson says:

    When it comes to the managing of women through “dress” nothing beats a muslim.

    Except the man beating the wife(s) hidden under the black bag.

  5. Bob Jorgenson says:

    And I’m not trying to single out muslims, Christians, as we’ve been discussing here, of course abuse their women through their religion.

    The bible itself if an abusive text towards women and children and anyone else men think they should as Jon says, “manage”.

    As I’ve stated in past posts, its the Abrahamic texts, all three of them, that is abusive and just all around really bad.

    But still, there’s something very insidious about those bags or bee keeper outfits muslims keep women in. Same with Catholic nun gear. Or the religions where women wear only skirts, long hair, scarfs, whatever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>