Pastor Explains the Proper Role of Women

I have no idea who this preacher is, but this is about equal parts amusing and sad to watch. My favorite part is when he says that a man shouldn’t get their theology from a woman because the Bible was written by men. And he’s right, men wrote it. That’s why there’s so much nonsense in it.

48 comments on this post.
  1. raven:

    It’s also backwards even for xianity.

    A lot of sects started ordaining women a few decades ago or even longer.

    The result: Some sects have women pastors. A lot of them. IIRC, in some of them it is around 30% and heading towards at least 50%.

    And it made no difference. No lightning bolts from heaven, no visits from angels warning the churches, no nothing. But then again, the gods haven’t actually done much of anything for centuries.

  2. daveau:

    God’s word was written by men. And yet it’s God’s word. Women just have to accept that. Why don’t all the women in that congregation just walk out? Of course I don’t understand why everyone in any congregation doesn’t just walk out.

    It also occurs to me to ask whether God is afraid to talk to women, or if the almighty homophobic God just doesn’t like women, if you know what I mean.

  3. Pierce R. Butler:

    I haven’t dug into this much, but have the general impression that many biblical scholars argue that several parts of the Hebrew (“Old”) Testament (the book of Ruth in particular) show signs of female authorship.

  4. neleabels:

    This man lives in a very tiny world surrounded by very high walls and even seems to be proud of his obtuseness. I pity him, he proabably will never have the chance to enjoy the company of strong and intelligent women.

  5. raven:

    in the Episcopal Church rose from 94 to 3482, or 20 percent of clergy. …

    Overall, 10% of Protestant ministers are female. Episcopals are 20%. IIRC, a few other mainline churches are approaching 30%.

  6. raven:

    that several parts of the Hebrew (“Old”) Testament (the book of Ruth in particular) show signs of female authorship.

    Mackie, a noted biblical scholar argues that “Luke” was actually a woman, the author or Luke and Acts. Those books are pro female for the time.

    The parts about not letting women be visible in the church are from the Epistles of Paul. Half of which are known forgeries. IIRC, the shut up and say nothing parts are from some of the later forged ones, probably written by early church male authorities.

  7. harikhalsa:

    “And he’s right, men wrote it. That’s why there’s so much nonsense in it.”

    Come now–women are just as capable of writing nonsense as men. If it were written by women the Bible probably wouldn’t have so much anti-female nonsense, but it would still be largely made up.

  8. Michael Heath:

    The problem here isn’t what this preacher is overtly arguing, but that he’s revealing the very premises of nearly all fundie/evangelical churches as they practice their religion in their churches. Most members instead prefer soft-shoeing the presentation of these very beliefs and practices.

    These are mainstream fundamentalist/evangelical positions presented here. It’s merely the style of rhetoric which is provocative coupled to the failure of the media to sufficiently report the facts regarding how evangelicals and fundamentalists systemically abuse women and children and how pervasive that abuse actually is. Abuse which harms even public school children who are not attendees of these churches.

    Principles relative to what was presented by this preacher which are predominately mainstream in nearly all Christian evangelical and fundamentalist denominations:
    1) Women are not equals and in fact are prohibited from leadership positions which have them ruling over men. They’re not even supposed to preach in the presence of men or teach Sunday School classes when the audience includes adult men. This is the plain teaching of New Covenant / New Testament biblical passages. The fact these passages contradict the 2nd Commandment attributed to Jesus in that very New Testament [1] is ironic given inerrantist claims the entire Bible is the word of God and he has certain powers. Powers which make it impossible for God to be so idiotic as make contradictory claims such as this – and yet here we are with one of many similar data points.

    2) That hateful, bigoted positions based on false premises are to be accepted and promoted if one can interpret the Bible that way; especially when it’s consistent with contemporaneous conservative political ideology. The fact this preacher and this large branch of Christianity argue this is a justifiable defense of bigotry reveals how delusionally idiotic these people are. Not necessarily because of a lack of raw intelligence, but instead because their religion develops them into delusional idiots on certain topics. [2]

    3) His reference to Adam and Eve is consistent with what NT writers/editors had Paul arguing in order to justify the denigration of all females and their promotion of the subjection if not effective subjagation of women to all men. [3]

    [1] Matthew 22 [RSV]:

    *36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

    [2] Growing up fundie I do think these churches also attract a disproportionate number of stupid people. Simply because the church welcomes all if you’re willing to behave a certain way coupled to other groups who aren’t as welcoming to stupid people. I think my observation was validated when we watched videos of the Tea Party rallies a couple of years ago where these same types of stupid people seemed to gravitate because their vote is equal to any smart, well-informed voter.

    [3] Some of Paul’s supposed directives on women which contradict the supposed 2nd commandment of Jesus can be found the link the follow. This section contains his justification referencing Eve as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_women#Silence_in_the_church

  9. christinelaing:

    @raven

    The parts about not letting women be visible in the church are from the Epistles of Paul. Half of which are known forgeries. IIRC, the shut up and say nothing parts are from some of the later forged ones, probably written by early church male authorities.

    It’s worse than that. The famous “let your women be silent in church” passage is an interpolation in a genuine letter. Paul’s churches frequently had women leaders and Paul’s letters often address women. In that same letter Paul mentions Priscilla, a female evangelist. The high standing of women in some early Christian churches was a huge problem for pig-headed men, hence the alterations to Paul.

  10. Who Knows?:

    I pity him, he proabably will never have the chance to enjoy the company of strong and intelligent people.

    FTFY

  11. tacitus:

    God’s word was written by men. And yet it’s God’s word. Women just have to accept that. Why don’t all the women in that congregation just walk out? Of course I don’t understand why everyone in any congregation doesn’t just walk out.

    Because too many women have been brought up to believe that their place in the world is to subordinate themselves to the men in their live, be they husband or pastor. It’s all they have known and all they have been taught.

    That’s why I am ambivalent about laws banning Muslim women from being fully veiled. Yes, there are some — more likely a few — women who have genuinely decided of their own free will to remain fully covered, but I am certain that most do it because they have been told ever since they were little girls that it is the only way they can remain pure in the eyes of their God.

  12. Modusoperandi:

    My God, that man has a wedding ring.

  13. procyon:

    But it’s obvious God hates the womens. He made them the weaker sex, he gave them the monthly curse, he made them carry the babies, he made them suffer through the menopause and Lord knows they can’t think straight with all those emotions.

  14. Michael Heath:

    raven writes:

    It’s also backwards even for xianity.

    No it’s not, at least not within the Catholic church and those evangelical and fundamentalist churches which comprise the predominant group of Republican voters. You are of course right that this sort of bigotry is backwards within liberal and mainline Christian churches, but those denominations don’t have much influence on all of us like Catholics and fundie/evangelicals do.

  15. dingojack:

    Uh Pastor – *ahem* Mary Magdalene
    So why, exactly, were women airbrushed out of the history of christianity*?
    Dingo
    —–
    * cf. Aisha of the Battle of the Camel fame & etc.

  16. Michael Heath:

    neleabels writes:

    This man lives in a very tiny world surrounded by very high walls and even seems to be proud of his obtuseness. I pity him, he proabably will never have the chance to enjoy the company of strong and intelligent women.

    Actually this cocoon is very large, comprising about 22 – 28% of the country. In addition the denominations which house such beliefs have many “strong and intelligent women”. Like nearly all conservative Christians these women are very good at denying reality, where they avoid the reality of how they’re systemically discriminated against to order to maintain the communal and societal benefits they receive being part of these sorts of denominations – along with keeping their Get of Hell insurance premium paid-up.

    In addition most of these women are born into this belief system, come to it from more primitive cultures, or marry into it without having the emotional maturity when they marry to fully appreciate the ramifications of this belief system as it’s applied to women and their daughters. At least these are the three predominant ways I’ve predominately encountered, where I was raised fundie and remain surrounded by them and evangelicals (a primary reason I hang out in this venue).

  17. slydog:

    Yeah… this douchebag preaches at a church in Hammond, Indiana. We’re so proud.

    not.

  18. cry4turtles:

    Awww! Wee wittle pastor man is jealous ’cause us wimmin can’t be kicked in the balls (hence superior sex organs). On another note, when I studied the babble in college, I got the distinct notion that Paul was a man scorned, helpless in unrequited love. Good for the son of a bitch. Hope he died a miserable bastard.

  19. Michael Heath:

    slydog, what’s his hame? Perhaps he or one of his sheep have a Google Alert on this name and they’ll comment here.

  20. Zeno:

    I think the pastor is Jack Schaap of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. His website is Ask Pastor Schaap. You can see his Bible-inspired answers to such questions as “Is it Biblicalfor ladies to say amen at church services?” Schaap says this is a “good question.” Not much point in listening to more after he says that.

  21. christinelaing:

    It’s Jack Schaap of the First Baptist Church in Hammond Indiana. To say they have a colorful record is, well, a whitewash. I used to think of them as the front line of King James-only-ism, but apparently I lost track of them because ol’ Jack says the KJV is optional. Quite a shock that, along with accusations of rape, beatings, and thousands of bogus “conversions” to drive their numbers up. Check out the Associate of Science degrees in “Marriage and Motherhood” or “Missionary Wife” at the church-sponsored associate college, Hyles-Anderson.

  22. peterh:

    Three of the epistles attributed to Paul – notably the misogynist I & II Timothys – are demonstrable forgeries (three more are probably forged); I & II Peter are likewise forgeries. As noted above, there have been contrary insertions to biblical texts. There’s a voluminous literature discussing the deliberate and inadvertent alterations of texts over time and the effects of those alterations on doctrinal matters. Fundies carp and twist, but the plain evidence is there.

  23. Who Knows?:

    Ask Jack Schaap

  24. dingojack:

    christinelaing – “Check out the Associate of Science degrees in … ‘Missionary Wife’”
    Can one get an ASSociated degree in ‘doggy wife’ one wonders?
    :D Dingo
    —–
    Sorry, but someone would have eventually…

  25. Ellie:

    “Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do with Him.” Sojourner Truth

    But I’m sure this pastor wouldn’t hesitate to keep her little half measure from her, or from any woman.

  26. Michael Heath:

    Here’s more of Schapp on women: http://goo.gl/8TrP8 . H/T to Zeno whose above link is broken, here’s the correct link: http://www.jackschaap.com/ .

    I posted the following comment at the above YouTube link though Mr. Schapp or a delegate controls which comments are posted. That video has him answering what Zeno referenced, “Is it biblical for women to call out, ‘Amen’ in the worship service?”. Here’s my comment post:

    Mr. Schaap,

    Do you think it’s bigotry to treat females unequally as you advocate because the Bible commands it? Do you concede your positions on the unequal treatment of women makes you a bigot or do you instead think that if the Bible teaches you treat women unequally you are not a bigot simply because the Bible commands such behavior?

    I am an objective moralist where it appears you are as well. I simply use a different standard which defines your positions as both bigoted and inconsistent.

    YouTube’s character limit in comment posts prevented me from explaining how I found his morality inconsistent using both my standard and his own biblical standard, the latter given contradictions in the New Testament / New Covenant passages.

  27. Michael Heath:

    Given I just noticed Jack Schaap disabled ratings and he’s had 13,000+ impressions on his aforementioned YouTube video, I’m guessing Jack Schaap’s far too much of a bully and an impotent coward to post my comment or anyone else’s comments except those by sycophants.

  28. Azkyroth:

    I haven’t dug into this much, but have the general impression that many biblical scholars argue that several parts of the Hebrew (“Old”) Testament (the book of Ruth in particular) show signs of female authorship.

    What makes them so sure they can tell?

  29. Pierce R. Butler:

    Azkyroth @ # 28: What makes them so sure they can tell?

    Few serious scholars claim surety about anything in the distant past, but, as the Great Pffft puts it (regarding Ruth):

    It has been proposed – although it cannot be proved – that the anonymous author was a woman, or if a man then one who took women’s issues seriously.

    See (Pffft’s source, which I have not read) Ruth and Esther: a feminist companion to the Bible by Athalya Brenner for more.

  30. christinelaing:

    Similar claims of having a “female” perspective have been made about the author of Luke (who may or may not be the author or compiler of Acts) and J (the hypothesized author of the oldest sections of the Torah who refers to the foremost deity as YHWH). Given all the oral histories and revisions and people who contributed directly or indirectly to the present texts, it’s likely that there’s at least one woman in there somewhere.

  31. otrame:

    I’m guessing Jack Schaap’s far too much of a bully and an impotent coward to post my comment or anyone else’s comments except those by sycophants.

    Oh, yes. Note he said he didn’t care who quoted him because that meant the words of the Bible were getting out. But he tried to force the take down of a Youtuber who had that piece of his “wisdom” on a video, supposedly for copyright issues*. He’s a liar, a coward, and a bully. But you already knew that.

    * and naturally I cannot for the life of me remember which Youtuber is was. Sorry.

  32. maureenbrian:

    As soon as I saw this I pulled from my shelves a volume which argues – with absolutely no arm-waving but plenty of history and textual analysis – that the earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible to be put in writing were written down and edited by a woman known only as J.

    I have not kept pace with every last twist in sophisticated theology since I read it 20 years ago but I found it extremely interesting then, as I’m sure would others above.

    So it is The Book of J, originally in Hebrew with my English translation dated 1990 – Author Harold Bloom, translation and some notes David Rosenberg, publishers Grove Weidenfeld, New York, and Faber and Faber, London – ISBN 0-571-16111 1

    And if it should all turn out to be bollocks? Well, at least it is literate bollocks, unlike your preacher.

  33. maureenbrian:

    christinelaing,

    We crossed in the post, as it were.

  34. bananacat:

    There are many denominations of Christianity, but most of them fall into a few large groups. All of the groups that allow women in leadership roles are mainline Protestants, and in this pastor’s view, they’re not even real Christians. This idea of women as inferior is extremely common among fundamentalist and Evangelical denominations (which tend to have large overlap but aren’t exactly the same thing). Most people who make a big deal about their Christianity are Evangelicals, which means they are most likely fundamentalist too. The Duggars on tv fall into this type, and they are pretty strict about keeping women in their place. They don’t like to emphasize that unsavory aspect on tv because it could hinder their attempts at luring people in, but lying is pretty standard for their type. In general, most fundamentalists are pretty good at hiding this horrifying stuff from the mainstream public, but it’s there and it’s extremely common. This pastor is saying what other fundies are only thinking or saying in private. Don’t trust them when they put on that wholesome family front. If you scratch the surface of the nicest Evangelical, you’ll find this kind of thing pretty fast.

  35. sheilaomaha:

    Wow, that’s pretty arrogant. Just another reason I became an atheist. Notice all the men in the background and cheering. Is this one of those “all men” lectures?

  36. Aquaria:

    On another note, when I studied the babble in college, I got the distinct notion that Paul was a man scorned, helpless in unrequited love. Good for the son of a bitch. Hope he died a miserable bastard.

    Sort of. Some scholars think that the evidence points to Paul being homosexual.

  37. danielrudolph:

    He’s not that mainstream. He represents the views of the Southern Baptist conference, which is pretty big, but almost all pentecostal churches ordain women in theory, at least. From looking at the Wikipedia article on the subject, Catholics and the SBC are the only major hold-outs.

  38. danielrudolph:

    To clarify Assemblies of God ordains women, so does Foursquare. Both are huge. (Foursquare no so much in the US.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

    I’ll actually expand what I said earlier: Mormon, Catholics, Orthodox and the Southern Baptist conference are hold-outs, but evangelicals who are not Southern Baptists almost all ordain women. It isn’t just a mainline thing. However, I grew up in Assemblies of God and Foursquare and never actually saw a woman as pastor, even though camp exposed me to a lot of pastors and Foursquare was founded by a woman.

  39. organon:

    Some comedy for the new year.

  40. Francisco Bacopa:

    Ruth Graham was once asked about women in ministry. She pointed out that Paul’s letters were probably overruled by the risen Christ’s direct command to Mary Magdalene. to spread the good news.

    we m,ust also remember that eve was not deceived by the serpent. The serpent said that God lied about the fruit and that the fruit would open her eyes and make her wise. The very next verse in Genesis says that Even found the fruit was good for food and that it opened her eyes and made her wise. The serpent did not lie, God lied. The Bible itself says so. Eve chose to share her liberation with her husband. She told Adam no falsehoods in doing so.

    The only mistake Eve was not stealing and hiding some of the fruit of the tree of live before eating the fruit of knowledge. But it seems that without the fruit of knowledge, she couldn’t have thought of doing this.

  41. Tony:

    raven:

    Overall, 10% of Protestant ministers are female. Episcopals are 20%. IIRC, a few other mainline churches are approaching 30%.

    -I find this odd given how god is such a misogynist. One would think women wouldn’t want any position in the church. Religious indoctrination runs far too deep.

  42. Balstrome:

    Point of Order.

    You all are bloody Atheist, what the hell are you trying to educate these theists on how their holy books work. Just say that the books are bs and leave it at that. You correcting their theology, like it matters. Do you want them to believe the correct versions of what Paul said? Why are you explaining and interpreting the mutterings of Jesus to them? Yes, we all know that you know their books better than they do, so what is your point?

  43. Balstrome:

    If you really want to be Christian, you know the ritual you must preform.

  44. democommie:

    “Why are you explaining and interpreting the mutterings of Jesus to them? Yes, we all know that you know their books better than they do, so what is your point?”

    Because we know that they’re douchebags, but they don’t know they’re douchebags. It’s our unKKKristian duty to let them know that they’re douchebags–are you getting my drift?

  45. Michael Heath:

    Balstrome writes:

    . . . what the hell are you trying to educate these theists on how their holy books work. Just say that the books are bs and leave it at that. You correcting their theology, like it matters. Do you want them to believe the correct versions of what Paul said? Why are you explaining and interpreting the mutterings of Jesus to them? Yes, we all know that you know their books better than they do, so what is your point?

    I think the most appropriate response can be found here.

  46. raven:

    what the hell are you trying to educate these theists on how their holy books work

    Because it amuses us.

    It also has a serious purpose. They have no idea how their magic book works, where is really came from, or even what is in it.

    If you actually read the magic book two things jump out blazing.

    1. It simply doesn’t make sense. God created everything. God created satan, demons, and hell. Thanks god, it isn’t like we can’t screw thing up on our own.

    2. It looks like a bunch of fiction tossed together by a bunch of ancient Jerry Falwell clones. There are contradictions everywhere. Parts of it are forged. A lot of what xians believe isn’t even in the bible. What the priests say is in the bible isn’t in the bible.

    After a while, the magic book theory collapses from lack of any evidence. Reading the bible for understanding is a common pathway out of toxic religion.

  47. lonnyjames:

    This preacher and his followers should just fess up that they are actually a NAMBLA chapter…

  48. dingojack:

    onnyjames – even NAMBLA would be hard pressed to be such scum-sucking bottom feeders (well OK, realistically, it would an extremely close race).
    Dingo

Leave a comment

You must be