The essence of man can be found in Father Time:
- Just as time ticks away incessantly and is predictable, so men are predictable and flat.
- Time is consistent and stoic as are men, temperamentally.
- Time is a simple concept, easy to be understood and calculated. Men are simple in thought structure and motive.
- Both men and time are nothing to look at.
- Time is logical, practical, rational, and unadorned. Men share this degree of austerity.
- Time provides capability of life.
The essence of woman can be found in Mother Nature:
- Nature is not predictable. Women share this volatility, usually in emotion.
- Nature is inspiring and complicated. Women are also a source of fascination due to their intricacy.
- Nature is wild and not easily brought under the subjection of man. Even when man believes he has achieved some measure of control, she will often prove his dependence upon her.
- Nature, above all, is the very epitome of beauty and wonder as are women.
- Nature, like women, is not always logical, but in the end, gives more than it takes.
- Nature provides purpose and enjoyment of life
Men are practical. Women are romantic. Practicality is the opposite of romanticism.
- Men can provide the means to live. They are hunter-gatherers, protectors, and problem solvers that operate as a simple machine would. If the input is the same for a man, the output will likely never vary, either. They have superior physical power over the woman. Men are ugly, simple-minded, and boring. This is practical.
- Women can provide the reason to live. They are nurturers and lovers with passion, admirability, grace and distinction. They are more complex than men and not as able to fortify emotions from themselves. They are the embodiment of magnificence, with a natural beauty that strikes awe into men. This is the most base and animal force that attracts the latter to the former. Women have superior emotional power over the man, which is more effective than the man's physical superiority because it is often used to sway his decisions. Women are exquisite creatures of immaculate form, labyrinthine mind, and intriguing persona. This is romantic.
Which, then, is superior?
Can time exist without nature, or can nature without time?
Even if one could exist without the other, its existence would be either so terrifying or so listless, that it would not continue on its own for long before chaos and self-destruction ensued.
Imagine a world where everything was perfectly logical. No complications, no color, no feeling, no joy. Everything would be in its proper place, and nothing would ever be out of the ordinary. Some might jokingly prefer this, but only because the true form of such extremism could never be reached on this Earth. It would drive mankind literally mad, and many would gladly end their own lives to be rid of a condition lacking in meaning.
Conversely, imagine a romanticized world where all was beautiful and involved, lacking all rationality and logic. It would not take long before chaos permeated every moment and the entire existence turned into a nightmare.
Neither man, nor woman is meant to be without the other. They are mutual ballasts.
Without practicality, life cannot be lived. Without romanticism, life is best left unlived.
Joel, your post about men and women is sooo true. Even if you're a woman or a man, you'll find yourself as quite an unhealthy being if you don't have that healthy balance between emotion and logic within yourself. Having that opposite sex to help balance you out is key! Very well said. Keep it up:)
ReplyDeleteSo nicely and beautifully said. I enjoyed reading this post. I like how you highlighted that neither is superior, but each has its distinct important role to play.
ReplyDeleteBut I would disagree that men are ugly :) Surely, it's not the case about you ;)
Joel, what do you think of women as leaders in church? Do you think it's ok or not?
ReplyDeleteThis raises an interesting point. The whole of the question of women's prerogative to speak in the church emanates from a scripture in the Bible that says in other words, let women keep silence in the churches.
ReplyDeleteWhen were women greater suppressed, in the Old Testament or the New? Likely in the Old Testament they had less standing. Yet we know of a prophetess in the Old Testament named Deborah. Are we to assume that in the Old Testament a woman could be given preeminence in the sight of God to preach and prophecy, yet under the new covenant a woman cannot so much as make an utterance in God's service?
Peter stated that under the New Testament, Joel's prophecy was fulfilled: your sons AND daughters shall prophecy. This would be difficult to do with a silent tongue.
Why then does the Bible say that women ought to keep silence in the church? The only answer for this can come from knowing the times and situations that necessitated such a commandment.
The Bible also says that if any woman pray with her head uncovered, let her be shorn also. All the eminent Bible scholars agree that this refers to the wearing of the veil. Why would the Bible mandate this? In those times the only women who went into public with their head completely uncovered were the harlots, and such a display was not fitting for a saint. Likewise no woman today should approach the throne of God with any outward resemblance to a harlot, though the standard of the world has changed in that it is not immodest for a woman's head to be uncovered today as it was then.
Likewise, with this seemingly contradictory commandment of women to keep silent in the churches, one must find out the peculiar circumstances of the times and situations to clarify the motive of the command. Bible scholars and historians are also unanimous on the circumstances which produced the issue in question here as well. The demand was given by the apostle Paul after he had definite reports of women who were disrupting the services of God by asking questions in the middle of "church." It was done in an unseemly fashion. As Paul had admonished that every husband should love his wife and that every wife be SUBJECT unto her husband, it was deemed out of order that the women of that congregation should be too outspoken and disrupt the natural order of the family which places the man at the head, for it seemed to render the women as having dominance to interrupt the services with questions of detail. That is why in the same place in the Bible, Paul advised that particular congregation to have the women keep silence AND that if they had any question, let them ask their husbands at home. So we see that this was an isolated situation and not a standing order for the church of God as a whole.
Aside from women's right to speak, there is the issue of whether women can have authority in the church, because the Bible says not to suffer a woman to usurp authority over the man. This however was not a spiritual imperative, but a relational one. Its purpose is to define that the man is the head of the home and that the proper place of the wife is to support him insomuch as he remains Christ-like and not to seek to gain his authority. As far as the church goes, it is given to sons and daughters alike to prophesy. Women can be leaders in the church because the Bible also says that in Christ there is no Jew, nor Greek, nor bond, nor free, nor male, nor female.
Given the content of the Bible which approves of women's involvement in the work of God, it is clear that women do have the right to speak and even be leaders in the church.
Thank you for such a detailed response, Joel. Your view on the matter is very much like mine. Although, being a woman myself, I often feel uncomfortable stepping up in leadership position in church because majority of people don't accept it. Also, I noticed that often women rise to be leaders/ministers in church because men step back and don't want to assume responsibilities and prefer to just be observers in church. This is sad, because I feel that men still are better suited to be leaders then women. I would rather be just a helper, instead of leader in church matters. Seems like God created woman to be a great helper, rather than leader.
DeleteAlso, from my experience, I used to be member of church where woman was a pastor, and I had no problem with that. However, after a while I realized that she couldn't handle it very well due to some characteristics like being very emotional, using manipulation over people and flatter to have people do what she wanted (although one doesn't have to be a woman to behave like that, seemed like it was rather women's characteristics) . Also, because of her leadership in church, it was obviouse that she was dominating in family, too. It seemed like the entire church started to be dominated by women. Pretty much all leaders were women, and men were sort of dominated in church and at home, as it seemed.
Because of such experience, I now prefer to be part of church where pastor is man.
Once again, thank you for taking time to write such an extensive response. I appreciate it.
I also just wanted to add, that surely God gives His gifts to all his children, both men and women. The gifts of Holy Spirit can be given with no respect to gender. However, the responsibility to lead a church is too much responsibility for women. Men are stronger and, like you wrote in the post, are more logical and practical. These are the qualities that leader should have, instead of doing everything on emotions, and being subject to the burden which she is unable to handle.
DeleteAs a woman, I feel safer behind the back of a man helping him with everything I can, rather than being in the front line myself.