Works=Actions...Or Do They?

Over the last few days, I have been engaged in some rather lengthy and in-depth discussions of the concept of “justification-by-faith” with others, especially those from the Reformed tradition. As I have discussed this concept, I have come to the conclusion that the common conception of “justification-by-faith, apart from works” is a loaded and incorrect concept. In the following, I shall outline the objections which I have to this theology.

Per the “standard” explanation of justification-by-faith, humans are justified when they place their faith in Christ, hence “justification by faith.” As sinful humans cannot even be looked upon by a holy God, there must be a way by which humans are somehow changed from sinful to holy, from rejected to accepted of God. The doctrine of justification by faith advocates that this occurs through an “imputation” of righteousness. In this imputation, the righteousness of Christ, the only perfect human, is “placed over” or “imputed” to the one who has faith. Because of this imputation, God is now able to look down upon the sinner (who is still a sinner, BTW). However, instead of seeing sin, filth and wretchedness, God sees only the righteousness of Christ which literally “clothes” the one who has faith in the vicarious righteousness of Christ.

Conceptual problems aside (e.g., how one’s righteousness can be imputed to another...), the doctrine of justification by faith leads to a disavowal of the “necessity” of good works, bad works–any works at all. Sure enough, those who affirm this theological idea will advocate that works are an “outflowing” of the righteousness of Christ that manifest phenomenologically in the life of the believer. However, these “works” are not necessary for justification, for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the grand act which has theological, causal and instrumental priority. This, of course, is why the notion of 11th hour death-bed conversions is so popular and has been pretty much the strategy of Protestant missional activity. After all, if one is justified on the basis of an abstract assent of faith and the equally abstract imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the whole of one’s conduct in life-past as well as life-future is virtually a non-issue.

With this being said, I am a firm believer in the concept of “justification by faith.” However, I strongly deny the penal/forensic complexes which Protestant theology has tended to place upon it. The following represents some of the thoughts which I have had over the last couple of days.

Incorrect Identification of “Works”

As already noted, the “standard” Protestant conception of justification by faith (JBF) eschews the role of “works” in justification. An oft cited passage used by proponents of the Protestant conception of justification by faith is Romans 3:28:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law...” (NASB)

and Galatians 2:16:

...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (NASB)

In both of these passages, Paul speaks directly to the causes of justification, and flatly contradicts any who would suggest that human persons are justified by the “works of the Law.” Rather, it is through faith in Christ that Paul teaches humans will be justified before God.

To proponents of JBF, these passages are key to their argument. Playing upon Paul’s words, these protagonists, like Paul, assert that humans are justified not by “works” but by faith alone (sola fidei). However, if one looks at the Protestant argument, a devious twist of Paul’s thinking emerges. What is this twist?

As often happens with decontextualized interpretation, the crisis to which Paul was writing in both passages has been forgotten and alternative assumptions have been substituted in their place. As the JBF argument goes, humans are justified not by “works” but by faith. Okay. But what is meant by “works?” To the modern advocate of JBF, “works” are reductionistically equated with “action.” In other words, the “works” to which Paul is alluding, in the interpretation of the JBF-phyte, are unqualitatively equated with any “doing” whatsoever, meaning, intention and effort notwithstanding.

For the past 500 years, this assumption about Paul’s meaning of “works” has dominated Protestant thinking. For those, like myself, who have grown up within the Protestant Church (or, more precisely, within one of its many splintered communities), the equation of “works” with “actions” (unqualitatively) is more natural than breathing. Although Protestants normally avoid cathechisms, the doctrine of works=actions has so enculturated the theological consciousness of its adherents that it is easier to think of denying the Triune nature of God than to think of questioning such an “obvious” equation. Nonetheless, as with all things, a critical assessment is required.

Is Paul really making the equation between “works” and “actions?” I would advocate that the answer is affirmatively “no.” Here’s why:

If one looks at Paul’s discussions of “works,” these same discussions always and without exception occur within a very particular theological context. What is this context? It is the continual crisis which the early church faced between its history in Judaism (and observance of the Mosaic Law) and the very Pauline spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The perennial question that faced the diversifying church was not so much what to do with the Gentiles, but rather what the church was to do with its “Jewish-ness.” In other words, what place would the ceremonial/ritual/symbolic cultus of the Jewish people have within the life and community of Christ-followers?

If we look at Paul’s writings, one answer that was continually presented by the leadership of the church was that the Gentile believers should be proselytized to Judaism and its cultic observance of the Law of Moses (particularly, males must be circumcised and food rituals must be observed). This thinking was so prevalent and held sway over the leadership to such an extent that even Peter–the original pro-Gentile evangelist–was convinced to treat the Gentile believers in a different way (because they had not be proselytized to Judaism–see Galatians 2:11-21).

In opposition to this movement (and even to Peter), Paul denounced the Judaizer’s methods and theology. In direct contradiction of their beliefs, Paul assertively taught that it was not on the basis of the Mosaic Law that humans would be justified, but rather through becoming a follow of Christ (not a Jew). Therefore, as we approach Paul’s teachings on “works,” this understanding must be the interpretive paradigm.

So if we take this perspective as the “lens” through which to understand Paul’s teachings on “works,” what will our conclusion be? First of all, we will find that Paul, contrary to the assumptions of JBF, is not making a reductionistic equation between “works” and “action.” Rather, Paul’s entire complex of argument against “works” is based upon his understanding of how the individual stands in relationship to the Law. To Paul, the “works of the Law” are not simply “doing” the Law. To stand in proper relationship to the Law was, for the Jew, much more than simply performing “acts.” Rather, to be rightly related to the Law was more related to “what” one was. To the Jewish people, the act of circumcision was not like a tattoo that merely identified one as part of one group of people. Circumcision, in the most profound way possible, was seen as an ontology-altering act. By circumcision, the participant fully entered into the promises of Abraham and bound themselves indelibly to service to Yahweh.

With this deep, ontological understanding of circumcision, it is understandable why the early Christian Jews were so serious about the circumcision of converted Gentiles. Drawing upon their religious history, they reasoned that just as life with Yahweh required circumcision, so also must following Christ–the son of Yahweh–require the same.

In opposition to this, Paul calls into question the entire logic of the Judaizers, denying not only the necessity of circumcision of the flesh, but also of all other “alignments” (“works) with the Mosaic Law. Yet, as mentioned before, Paul has in his sights not simply the “actions” of the Law. Rather, he is undermining the entire legitimacy of the Mosaic Law in relationship to the follower of Christ. Why does he do this?

To Paul, the fundamental problem with the Judaizers is not that they’re trying to get Gentile believers to “do” the Law as opposed to not “doing” the Law. This is not the issue to Paul at all. What Paul has in his sights is the exclusivity of righteousness that the Jewish Christians believed they had because of their identification with the Law. These believers, like the Pharisees, believed they were justified not simply because they “kept” the Law by actions, but rather because they were Jews (in relationship to the Law). It was their circumcision, their history and their tradition that formed their belief about their righteousness and was the impetus for compelling Gentile believers to become Jews.

Therefore, to Paul, the “works of the Law” are not “actions” in an unqualified sense. Rather, the “works of the Law” is the presumption that one is justified because of who one is in relationship to the Law of Moses. Paul himself notes that he used to struggle with this conception of righteousness. In Philippians 2:4-6, Paul notes:

...although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

According to Paul, he surpassed all in his “righteousness.” Yet of the things he listed, only one is related to “doing” the Law–all the others relate to his origin, upbringing and theology. In Paul’s mind, his righteousness was based primarily upon “who” he was and only minimally upon what he “did.”

With these thoughts in mind, our perspective of Paul’s teaching on “works” changes dramatically. Instead of uncritically equating “works” with “actions,”, we find that Paul is taking aim at a deeper, more fundamental issue: he is attacking the very foundation and exclusivity of those who believed themselves justified with God because of their identification with the Law of Moses. Paul is not saying that what one “does” is unimportant to justification; rather, he is saying that humans are not justified with God by becoming Jews. It is not, in Paul’s thinking, the conversion to a particular moral/legal framework that provides the impetus of justification, but is rather identification with Christ through faith.

Obviously, this last statement, “identification with Christ through faith,” requires some serious unpacking. I shall direct my attention to this idea in my next post.

Sumerian King Lists and Genesis 5 - Part Deux

My first post concerning this issue raised a lot of questions and spurred a lot of dialogue. Regardless of whether or not a concensus has been achieved amongst those who supported my opinions and those who did not, it did serve to create conversation, raise more questions, and better articulate and outline the salient issues that are involved in the act of interpretation. I believe this dialogue is important, especially in relation to texts that are shrouded in contexts which we will never be able to fully penetrate. Hopefully, this second post can move the conversation to other possibilities for thinking and reflection as well.

As I have continued to study this issue, I have come across some interesting information. For example, consider the following data set:

Name /Age When Son Born / Remaining Years / Total Years ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Adam / 130 / 800 / 930
2. Seth / 105 / 807 / 912
3. Enosh / 90 / 815 / 905
4. Kenan / 70 / 840 / 910
5. Mahalalel / 65 / 830 / 895
6. Jared / 162 / 800 / 962
7. Enoch / 65 / 300 / 365
8. Methuselah / 187 / 782 / 969
9. Lamech / 182 / 595 / 777
10. Noah / 500 / 450 / 950

In the "genealogy" of Genesis 5, each listing follows a formula in which the patriarch's name is given, his age at the birth of his son is listed, the remaining years of his life are noted, concluding with a final "sum" of the total years of his life.

If one looks closely at the numbers, rather than the random number set which appears at first glance, there is actually a very specific theme which unites each entry. For example, each number from each category for each name ends in either the number 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9. As many who have studied this document in relation to Mesopotamian literature have concluded, the totals that are listed for each category are a combination of the Mesopotamian sacred number "60" (as months [5 years] and years [e.g., 60 years] ) and "7." For example, Enoch's data can be computed as follows:

65 [60yrs + 60mos] / 300 [60 x 60mos] / 365 [60 x 6yrs + 60mos] (or 1 solar year)

Following this pattern, never once in the antedeluvian or postdeluvian data sets do the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, or 8 ever appear. As an actual dispertion of ages across 30 data sets (not to even consider the postdiluvian data sets) would predict that an even dispersion of end-numbers would attain, the fact that the end-numbers in the Genesis 5 data sets are restricted to a certain range of values so strongly suggests an underlying structure that Sparks insists that the probability of such a data range occuring is 4.5 x 10-11, less than one chance in a billion.

So what does this all mean? Clearly, there is strong evidence to suggest that the numbers in the genealogy are artificially generated and do not represent actual numbers. However, in anticipation of the obvious question about this information to an understanding of the "inspiration" of Scripture, I do not think this should create problems for the student of the Scriptures. In my previous post, I advocated that the fact that the genealogy of Genesis 5 is probably based upon a Sumerian king list does not mitigate "inspiration." Rather, it merely requires that one adjust what is potentially a too materialist conception of inspiration.

Concerning this additional information, I do not think it is surprising that the writers would utilize mathematical formulae to create numeric (or, more properly, numerological) meanings. After all, as any cursory reading of the Scriptures quickly reveals, the writings are plentiful with numerological devices (7 days of creation, 40 days of the flood, 70 nations, 12 tribes, 3 days and 3 nights, etc.). What the modern interpreter of the Scriptures must avoid, however, is reading modern conceptions of history and the strict "realist" usage of numbers into the text. Consequently, if the original writers meant to use these numbers in a more "sacred," numerological sense, and were not necessarily attempting to record "real" history, then we, as modern interpreters, actually do violence to the texts by assuming that our utility of numbers and their meaning are categorically applicable to every instance of numbers in Scripture.

Sumerian King Lists and Genesis 5

For one of my classes this summer, I am reading Kenton L. Sparks’ Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible in which Sparks meticulously draws comparisons and outlines the relationships between the content, form and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures with other texts from periods and people groups predating, consonant with and following the potential dates of authorship of the various biblical texts. While I am barely into this text so far, I have come across some very interesting information.

For example, remember the “genealogy” of Genesis 5? In this section of Genesis, 10 persons, from Adam to Noah, are outlined, including their respective lengths of life. As Sparks points out, the “genealogy” in Genesis 5 is oddly out of place in Mesopotamian literature of the time, for the genealogies of other peoples did not include time frames. Rather, they were simply genealogies that outlined the descendency of families and tribes. However, and interestingly, there was a genre of literature that did include chronological information–“king lists.” For example, consider the following Mesopotamian/Sumerian kings list:

Name Length of Reign

1. Alulim-------------28,000
2. Alagar-------------36,000
3. EnmenluAnna-----43,200
4. EnmengalAnna----28,800
5. Dumuzi------------36,000
6. EnsipaziAnna------28,800
7. Enmeduranki---21,000
8. Ubar-Tutu--------18,600

Obviously, as compared to the “genealogy” of Genesis 5, the chronology listed above is quite exaggerated. However, as Sparks notes, the “chronology” was not based upon a belief in an actual passage of time, but rather represented the identification of the personages with specific astronomic values. He goes on to show, in a later chapter of this book, that the Hebrew “genealogy” functions in a quite similar manner.

Finally, one of the most interesting correlations between the earlier Mesopotamian “king list” and the “genealogy” found in Genesis 5 surrounds the seventh member in each list. According to Sparks, the seventh figure in this particular Mesopotamian king list (Enmeduranki) is recorded to have not died, but “ascended into heaven.” Interestingly enough, the seventh figure in the Genesis 5 list, Enoch, is claimed to have “walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.” According to traditional interpretations, Enoch’s is an example of one being translated directly to eternal life without passing through the experience of death. Therefore, not only do both lists recite the occurrence that one of the people from the lists “went to heaven,” but moreover, the precise “ordering” of the individual is identical between lists.

Obviously, issues like this raise important questions about the Scriptures, not least of which is the concept of “inspiration.” It would seem that those who hold to a very “strong” or “direct” conception of inspiration would have serious problems with this information. Of course, protagonists of a strong view of inspiration could claim that the relationship is merely coincidental and that while the Sumerian king lists are obviously exaggerated in their recording of the length of lives of the kings, the Hebrew “genealogy” records accurate information. Obviously, there is no way in which to completely overrule this possibility. However, as Sparks notes, the correlation between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy” is quite strong and provides for few other conclusions than that the latter is derived from and mimicks the former.***

While some may see this information as destructive to the Scriptures and their role in faith, I disagree wholeheartedly. In my understanding, the relationship between these two documents reveals that the Scriptures, rather than being magically transcribed, were written by real people within a real sitz em Laben that responded to revelation in a honest, embodied way. To attempt to remove the Scriptures from their larger historical context (which would be done if one were to deny the obvious similarities between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy”) would be ultimately to deny that the Scriptures functioned in any meaningful capacity for the people by whom they were originally written and would represent nothing more than a literary narcissism on the part of the modern interpreter.

Of course, acknowledging the existence of correlations comes at a cost. It forces us to leave behind materialist interpretations of the texts, and stretches us to move beyond the blinders of our modern, hermeneutical prejudices in an attempt to understand and engage with the understanding and worldviews of the various writers of the Scriptures. While definitely a challenge, I believe such an approach will actually make the Scriptures more enriching for the reader, for entering into the sitz em Laben of the original writers will allow us to create an existential connection with them that is not possible when interpretation proceeds exclusively from the paradigms of the modern reader.

*** EDIT: In my original post, I noted, "so strong, both in content and form, that the probability that the latter is not directly related to the former is 4.5 x 10-11, a big number, to say the least." In reviewing my material, I inadvertantly misapplied this statistic. In Sparks' usuage, the probability is applied to the Hebrew utilization of certian numerical sequences (probably derived from astronomical data) and not derivation from the older Sumerian king list. My apologies.

Universal Reconciliation and the Deconstruction of Personhood

One of the scandals of religion is that of exclusivity, the belief that the adherents of the particular religion will receive “X” benefits and those who don’t will not. In reaction to these claims of exclusivity, there are many who attempt to equalize the playing field, so to speak. These advocate that if there is God who rewards humans with “X,” then all humans, without qualification, will receive “X” unconditionally.

There is one level, of course, on which this idea, i.e., universal reconciliation, is an appealing concept. After all, it is difficult to imagine eternal separation from reconciled life with God. As callous as we humans can sometimes be towards others, there is something innately disturbing about the idea of another person existing in dysfunctional relationship with God for all of eternity. Such reflections quickly lead to sentimentalized conceptions of eternity in which all, unequivocally, are reconciled to God and others.

Unfortunately, in my understanding, the sentiments of universal reconciliation deviously ignore the issues that lie at the heart of the meaning of reconciliation and forgiveness. In reality, such a move co-opts the crises of reconciliation and forgiveness and replaces it with the opiate of universalism. However, this anaesthetizing of the severe consequences of relationship and its potential dysfunctions serves only to deconstruct the personhood of the those whose eternal destinies are being considered, creating a picture of eternity in which universal reconciliation is entirely anti-personal, the annihilation of both the divine and human self.

The Co-Dependant God

Classic theism presumes that God is a personal being. As a personal being, God is capable of existing in relationship not only to Godself, but also to that which God has created and endowed with personhood. If it is assumed that God relates to human persons on an inter-personal level, one must also affirm the potential for the consequences of such relationship. Therefore, it is not only possible that God can relate in a reconciled manner towards humanity, but also in dysfunctional way.

Universal reconciliation, however, denies this nature to God and introduces to the divine personhood a severe co-dependency. For example, universal reconciliation advocates that in eternity, all will be reconciled to God and exist harmoniously in relationship with God. Therefore, regardless of the way in which the human person has related to God, the end will be the same. Even if one desires to live dysfunctionally in relationship to God, this dysfunction will be erased and replaced with reconciliation.

However, this perspective ignores the nature of personal relationship and the reality of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not something that can be compelled from another. Rather, it is a crisis of personal intersection in which forgiveness and love repair that which is dysfunctional and overcome hostility and enmity. Universal reconciliation, however, allows for no such crisis. Within this framework, reconciliation is necessarily compelled from God. In this way, God is actually required to be reconciled to humans, regardless of how these have individually related themselves to the divine person and in spite of any particular desire they might have one way or the other.

This represents the infinitizing of the neurosis of co-dependency. After all, within universal reconciliation, God must be reconciled and exist in reciprocally reconciled relationship with those who do not desire to be reconciled to God (per the dysfunctional ways in which they have related themselves to God). Like the abused who craves the attention and over-power of their abuser, the God of universal reconciliation co-dependently exists in relationship to those who do not desire proper relationship with God. Yet in this relationship there is no redemption, no equality, and no manifestation of the self-giving nature of love. Rather, it is simply the ultimate form of abuse, self-deprecation, and relational neurosis on behalf of the divine person. Just as abuse and co-dependency are ultimately de-personalizing, so universal reconciliation de-personalizes God, denying that God can meaningfully exist in relationship to other persons. Quite contrarily, the God of universal reconciliation is the ultimate non-person, lacking any real personhood to which human persons could be related, an entity from which relationship can be extracted and commoditized.

Ultimately, it is a wonder why anyone would wish to be reconciled to such a God (even though actual, life-giving reconciliation is actually impossible in such a scenario), yet this is precisely the kind of deity which universal reconciliation engenders.

The De-Human

Although the consequences of universal reconciliation are devastating to any robust conception of the personhood of God, it is also particularly destructive to understanding the nature of the human person. If personhood is central to what it means to be human, then it would naturally follow that as God is also personal, there is room in which human persons can be related to the divine person. As mentioned before, this possibility carries the corollary necessity that this relationship can be either mutually reciprocal or dysfunctional. Therefore, if God is truly Creator and the infinite person, all persons exist in relationship to God, either positively or negatively.

To be able to exist in such a relationship (not only in relationship to the divine person, but also to other human persons) is central to personhood. For example, one would not assign personhood to a chair. After all, although one can exist in relationship to the chair (via a positive or negative assessment of it), this is not a relationship of personality. Interpersonal relationships, however, function on the level of personal and mutual interaction, reciprocity, dysfunction, etc. In other words, persons are able to choose the ways in which they will relate themselves to others. While such choices of relation will not automatically engender the desired relationship, overtures towards a relational end create the possibility of such relationships materializing. Whatever the outcomes of these relational movements will be, the central issue is that the possibility of existing in these kinds of relationships to others is central to personhood, central to being human. The removal of this potential equates to the de-personalizing and de-humanizing of the relational, human person.

Unfortunately, this de-humanizing is precisely the consequence of universal reconciliation. If all are eventually reconciled without qualification, the very potential for determining the ways in which one will relate oneself to others (including the divine person) is annihilated. In another way, if this possibility of relational consequence embodies the very marrow of personhood, the inevitability of universal reconciliation is ultimately de-personalizing and de-humanizing. As human persons, in the eschaton, no longer (or did they ever really have it?) have the potential for either being reconciled to God or existing in dysfunctional relationship to God, the very meaning of personhood has ceased to exist. Although from the divine perspective (noted above) human persons are the abusive overlords that exact a particular relationship from God, from the anthropological perspective, they are equivalent to the chair mentioned above--i.e., they are de-humaned beings who, like the chair, are incapable of existing in reciprocal relationship to the divine person.

Therefore, in attempting to mitigate the admittedly distasteful conception of an eternity in which some will exist in perpetual relational isolation from the divine person, universal reconciliation has effectively deconstructed the human person, removing the potential that any will exist as personal beings beyond the grave. It is curious how this conclusion is any better than the alternative which it seeks to overcome.

Towards an Alternative

If one is to preserve the dynamic of relationship which much exist to not only safeguard the personhood of God, but also protect against the de-humanizing of human persons, I think one must reject universal reconciliation. If reconciliation is something that occurs reciprocally between persons, there must be space in which its opposite can also be a reality. If God must exist in fully reconciled relationship with all human beings, then God has ceased to be a fully-formed personal being, and is merely the co-dependent deity who destructively capitulates to the wills of those who do not desire relationship, but rather power. And if all human persons will inevitably be fully reconciled to God, they have been de-pesonsed and de-humaned, for the potential of personhood to exist destructively over and against another or willfully in reciprocal, reconciled relationship has been effectively annihilated.

Therefore, a middle way must be pursued. There must be space in which the will of God to be reconciled to all can be affirmed while concomitantly preserving the potential that humans persons can choose to be or not be reconciled to God. Against those who assert that this is a cruel perspective of eternity, I would vehemently disagree. While the consequences of choosing to not be reconciled to God and others may be devastating, to not have the potential to embody these consequences would be even worse. A de-humaned eternal existence would be worth nothing, as would a de-personalized God. It is only with the potential for dysfunctional relationship that true reconciliation can be engendered. The magical reconciliation of all things may be aesthetically pleasing and emotionally satisfying on a superfluous level. However, it creates a pseudo-relationship that is plastic and hollow, one which lacks the depth of the true personal interaction for which humans were created.

Why Men Should NOT Be Ordained...

For those who have even been party to the absurdity that is a conversation against the ordination of women, this is wonderful!

Why We Oppose Men's Ordination

1. Because man's place is in the army.

2. Because no really manly man wants to settle disputes otherwise than by fighting about it.

3. Women would not respect men dressed in skirts.

4. Because men are too emotional to be priests. Their conduct at football matches, in the army, at political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force and violence renders them unfit to represent Jesus.

5. Because some men are so handsome they will distract women worshipers.

6. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, and bishops are as husbands to the Church, all priests should be female.

Some more reasons " Why Men Should Not Be Ordained " from The MENNONITE REPORTER, "Fly on the newsprint" by Ivan Emke (with acknowledgement for inspiration to Rosemary Radfore Ruether.)

1. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as picking turnips or de-horning cattle. It would indeed be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with the intended order that is instituted and enforced by nature?

2. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less attention from their male parent. Some couples might even go so far as to put their children into secular daycare centers to permit the man to fulfill his duties as a minister.

3. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women, presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

4. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

5. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinate position that all men should take. The story also illustrates the natural tendency of all men to be either unwilling or unable to take a stand. From the Garden of Gethsemane to football locker rooms, men still have this habit of buckling under the weight of the lowest common denominator. It is expected that even ordained men would still embarrass themselves with their natural tendency toward a pack mentality.

6. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

7. If men got ordained, then they wouldn't be satisfied with that; they'd want more and more power. Next thing most of the Conference leaders would be men and then where would we be? No. The line must be drawn clearly now before it's too late.

8. Many, if not most, men who seek to be ordained have been influenced by the radical "men's movement" (or "masculist movement"). How can they be good leaders if their loyalties are divided between leading a church and championing the masculist drive for men's rights? The tract writers haven't pronounced on it yet, but the masculist movement is probably profoundly un- Christian.

9. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Rather, throughout the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. Women, the myth goes, are fulfilled and completed only by their service to others. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. But if men try to fit into this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with Role Confusion Syndrome, which could lead to such terrible traumas as the Questioning Tradition Syndrome.

10. Men can still be involved in Church activities, without having to be ordained. They can still take up the offering, shovel the sidewalk, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. In other words, by confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church. Why should they feel left out?

http://harbs.blogspot.com/2005/12/opposing-ordination-of-men-to.html