The gospel according to Harper Lee, pt 2

“This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that goes to the essence of a man’s conscience–Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man.”

“Atticus, you must be wrong….”

“How’s that?”

“Well, most folks seem to think they’re right and you’re wrong….”

“They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions,” said Atticus, “but before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

[Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird]

The gospel according to Harper Lee

“Arthur Radley just stays in the house, that’s all,” said Miss Maudie. “Wouldn’t you stay in the house if you didn’t want to come out?”

“Yessum, but I’d wanta come out. Why doesn’t he?”

Miss Maudie’s eyes narrowed. “You know that story as well as I do.”

“I never heard why, though. Nobody ever told me why.”

Miss Maudie settled her bridgework. “You know old Mr. Radley was a foot-washing Baptist–”

“That’s what you are, ain’t it?”

“My shell’s not that hard, child. I’m just a Baptist.”

“Don’t you all believe in foot-washing?”

“We do. At home in the bathtub.”

“But we can’t have communion with you all–”

Apparently deciding that it was easier to define primitive baptistry than closed communion, Miss Maudie said: “Foot-washers believe anything that’s pleasure is a sin. Did you know some of ‘em came out of the woods one Saturday and passed by this place and told me me and my flowers were going to hell?”

“Your flowers, too?”

“Yes ma’am. They’d burn right with me. They thought I spent too much time in God’s outdoors and not enough time inside the house reading the Bible.”

My confidence in pulpit Gospel lessened at the vision of Miss Maudie stewing forever in various Protestant hells. True enough, she had an acid tongue in her head, and she did not go about the neighborhood doing good, as did Miss Stephanie Crawford. But while no one with a grain of sense trusted Miss Stephanie, Jem and I had considerable faith in Miss Maudie. She had never told on us, had never played cat-and-mouse with us, she was not at all interested in our private lives. She was our friend. How so reasonable a creature could live in peril of everlasting torment was incomprehensible.

“That ain’t right, Miss Maudie. You’re the best lady I know.”

Miss Maudie grinned. “Thank you ma’am. Thing is, foot-washers think women are a sin by definition. They take the Bible literally, you know.”

“Is that why Mr. Arthur stays in the house, to keep away from women?”

“I’ve no idea.”

“It doesn’t make sense to me. Looks like if Mr. Arthur was hankerin’ after heaven he’d come out on the porch at least. Atticus says God’s loving folks like you love yourself–”

Miss Maudie stopped rocking, and her voice hardened. “You are too young to understand it,” she said, “but sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whiskey bottle in the hand of–oh, of your father.”

I was shocked. “Atticus doesn’t drink whiskey,” I said. “He never drunk a drop in his life–nome, yes he did. He said he drank some one time and didn’t like it.”

Miss Maudie laughed. “Wasn’t talking about your father,” she said. “What I meant was, if Atticus Finch drank until he was drunk he wouldn’t be as hard as some men are at their best. There are just some kind of men who–who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.”

[Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird]

“Female Pastors: Making Progress…?” [by Elizabeth Felder]

From the magazine Gospel Today, 9.28.09.

Although female senior pastors continue to face a glass ceiling, a recent study reveals that women in the pulpit have made substantial gains over the last 10 years.

According to a new Barna Group survey, the number of female senior pastors doubled between 1999 and 2009. In 1999, 5% of senior pastors of Protestant churches were women. Today 10% are women.

The survey also revealed that over the last 10 years, the average age of female pastors increased from 50 years of age to 55; and women in the pulpit are disproportionately more educated than their male counterparts. In fact, 77% of female pastors have a seminary degree, while only 63% of male pastors have graduated from seminary.

Despite their educational advantage, female pastors continue to earn less money than male pastors. The current compensation package for women in the senior pastorate is $45,300 vs. $48,600 for men. The Barna study noted, however, that although men have seen a 21% salary increase since 1999, the wage gap between the sexes has diminished over the last 10 years–with female pastors earning 30% more than they did 10 years ago. In the past, male pastors were compensated (on average) $6,900 more than women. Today the gap has narrowed by almost half to $3,300.

In the study, Barna Group noted that congregational sizes have contributed to the salary variation between female and male pastors. Men, disproportionately, lead larger churches with an average of 103 adults in attendance each week. Female pastors, however, have a median attendance of 81 adults each week.

You can read more articles here, if you like.

Clap me in irons, then.

I recently came across a halfway hilarious, halfway disturbing post written by someone who obviously feels very threatened by theological patterns somewhat newer than those s/he subscribes to. It’s called the “EMERGENT HOT LIST!“–yes, in caps lock–here’s what the author, Kenny Oliver, had to say…

“After running into one situation after another while speaking to people of the dangers of the Emergent Church movement I’ve decided to create a list of philosophies and characteristics of the Emergent Church as well as authors, speakers, and historic figures which have had and continue to have a major influence on the beliefs and doctrines of those involved in this movement. This is not a commentary on the views or the people involved in the Emergent movement just a list for the purpose of identification.

“It’s important to understand the factors influencing this movement and to inform readers so as to help them discern whether or not the leaders in their churches are drifting toward these views, and if suspected to be so, prayerfully confront their church leaders and ask what the views of the church leadership are. In many cases the doctrinal statements of Protestant churches are very solid and biblically sound but unfortunately what is being taught from the Sunday morning worship service or in the youth groups may NOT be in line with safe biblical doctrine.

“If your church’s website recommends certain books and you discover a book by one of the authors listed below like BRIAN MCLAREN or DAN KIMBALL or if let’s say your youth pastor esteems authors such as RICHARD FOSTER and his book Celebration of Disciplines or teaches things similar to that of someone like ROB BELL, I would suggest you first read up on what this author believes and is teaching. Next you should pray and then approach your pastor and ask him to give you a reason why the church would endorse such books and/or teachings. This does not necessarily mean your church is headed toward Emergent but it is cause enough to question where their leanings might be.”

WOW. So guys, it’s Banned Books Week. Am I the only one who feels the irony here? What I see when I read these paragraphs is a lot of fear and a lot of self-assuredness. Someone wise once said that if (science/facts/asking questions) can destroy your faith, your faith wasn’t very strong to begin with. I can hardly think of anything sadder than desperately clinging to a belief that your head knows is wrong, but you have to, because if you let go, your whole world will disintegrate. Because of facts. Or a simple curiosity! What could be sadder than people purposely deluding themselves to their own detriment? I’m not saying that this blogger necessarily feels this panic, this mindset, but that’s how I perceive it: someone desperate to shut the world out for just a little longer, trying to bail out his sinking rowboat, thinking he can patch the holes if only his faith is strong enough. (And, oh yeah–”pastor” to him is automatically a male word. Who’s surprised?)

To continue, here’s the list of “Emergent Beliefs and Characteristics”–and what’s more, I’m going to bold the ones I’m willing to identify myself with (bold and a star for those issues I feel could use a little more clarification, or those I feel he has represented EXTRA unfairly). Beware! As the blogger says, “This is a list of warning.” :)

-Redefine the Christian Faith to accommodate “post-modernity”
- *Redefining the doctrine of hell as not being literal
-God’s judgement interpreted as simply being embarrassed by your sin or an inability to gratify your desires
-Reinterpreting the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
-Questioning the inerrant authority of scripture
-The bible primarily as a “story” or narrative
-Conversion as becoming part of “[God's] story”
-Planetary salvation (Restoring the entire earth to its original Creation and “rhythm”)
-Proclaiming of the Kingdom of God being established on earth in present history more than the gospel of salvation
-Proclaiming a “social gospel”
-Defines themselves as “missional”
-The Protestant Reformation as possibly an ongoing process
-Believes Emergent could be a “Second Reformation”
-Questions are esteemed higher than answers
-Social and environmental activism
-Anti-war and political liberalism
-Promoting spiritual disciplines (meditation, fasting, contemplative prayer, breath prayers, centering prayer, labyrinth prayer walks, guided imagery, Lectio Divina, Ignatius Examen, stations of the cross)
-Promoting the mystical, the sensory and the experiential
-Anti-establishment
-*Truth is determined by cultural influences or tradition
-Truth is not propositional
-Teaching should be multi-sensory and creative rather than linear
-Traditional preaching is replaced by discussion and dialogue
-Reluctant to call homosexuality a sin
-Occasionally use profanity to get point across
-May become worldly to reach the world
-Life experiences determine theology and orthodoxy
-Language is oriented around self–feelings, opinions, and attitudes
-Community, relationships and unity are highest priorities
-*Uncomfortable with historic Christian orthodoxy as having an exclusive claim on truth
-Tolerate ideological and theological differences, very inclusive and ecumenical

I think that possibly my favorite entry on this list is the last one. “They’re not like us–wow, they can actually accept people with different ideas! Let’s ban them and their different ideas!” One obvious downside to the self-proclaimed intolerant ideological system is that there are so many theological issues–how rare is it going to be to find someone who matches your ideology perfectly on every single point? And of course, those are the only people you can “tolerate.” (Which, by the way, I think is a very poor word choice for the ideas encompassed in “tolerance.” Maybe “accept” or “welcome” would be a better choice?) Which of course brings us full circle: this is why he wrote this list in the first place. To warn his fellow believers of the scary people who think for themselves! Oh no!

Right. On to the list of damned authors and thinkers…

N.T. Wright
Brian McLaren
Henri Nouwen
Dallas Willard
Richard Foster
Donald Miller
Tony Campolo
Rob Bell
Dan Kimball
Doug Pagitt
Erwin McManus
Gregory Boyd
Andy Crouch
Tony Jones
Chris Seay
Leonard Sweet
Shane Claiborne
Brian Walsh
Miroslav Volf
Brennan Manning
Walter Brueggemann
Dr. Robert Webber
Steve Chalke
Alan Mann
Matthew Fox
Tom Hohstadt
Bono
Ryan Bolger
Spencer Burke
David Bosch
Eddie Gibbs
Tilden Edwards
Marcus Borg
M. Scott Peck
Jacques Derrida
Karth Barth
Søren Kierkegaard
Carl Jung
Thomas Merton
Thomas Keating
Cynthia Bourgeault
C. S. Lewis
Sue Monk Kidd
Anne Lamont
Rowan Williams
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Madam Guyon
Jürgen Moltmann
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
William Blake

And what list of scary Emergent people would be complete without a special subcategory for “Preferred Catholic Mystics, Desert Fathers and Monks”?

St. John of the Cross
Ignatius of Loyola
Peter Faber
Dionysius
St. Francis of Assisi
Juliana of Norwich
Thomas Merton (yes, I also noticed he’s listed twice)
Meister Ekhart
Basil Pennington
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Thomas Aquinas
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (him too)
Richard Rolle
The Cloud of Unknowing (anonymous monk)

Hm. Yeah. I’ve never met ANYone so fearful of new ideas introduced into Christian thought that s/he warned of THE DANGERS OF C.S. LEWIS.

Attached are a few of my favorite comments (or quotes from comments), as seen on the original page…

“This list reminds me of the things I saw growing up that warned parents of the ’satanic’ bands their children might be listening to. And much like those, it’s garbage. What is it that you have against letting people decide for themselves? I mean, come on, N.T. Wright and Dallas Willard are leading people astray? Most Christians would be a lot better off for reading either of these fine men’s books.” -Phil Miller

“Do you have a clue what you are saying? Are you upset that they are doing church slightly different than you see fit? Does it bug you that they are reaching out to people who may otherwise never walk through the door of a church? How many of these guys have you actually sat down with to find out for yourself what they are really about? How many of these guys’ books like Chris Seay or Rob Bell have you read?” -JP

“What I want to know is that if all these guys are dangerous, does that mean you anti-guys are safe. If I talk against you are you going to chalk that up to you being persecuted for His name’s sake. In that way you use scripture to justify your platform. If they are 100% wrong, are you 100% right? If they are misguided in their use of scripture, then do you have it pegged down? You are the good and correct, and they are the evil and false…” -seeker101

“If you really would like to spend your time better, perhaps you need to spend your time doing less critiquing and more loving like Christ. You talk about truth, but remember, Jesus said “I am the truth!” So truth cannot be contained in propositions and cannot be known exhaustively! If you think you can know God exhaustively, you are guilty of idolatry. Spend less time trying to arrive at certainty and more time humbly living out the love of Christ in your life.” -anon.

“Wow..in your profile under your favorite music you list Richard Wagner, who could very well be one of the most anti-Christian composers ever to walk the planet, and then you list Bob Dylan, who I imagine would fit in well at an ‘Emerging’ coffee house. I’ll take my chances reading Bonhoeffer and C.S. Lewis.” -anon.

“Perhaps instead of ‘reading up on what that person is teaching’ one should actually read some of the books and find out for oneself what an author is teaching. Just a thought.” -Jennifer

“There’s only one thing on that list that troubles me: the item ‘anti-war and political liberalism”….Christians are to be peaceful; they are not to repay harm with harm. No exceptions were made. There exist no clauses for exceptions such as ‘if you were hit first’, or ‘if your assailant does so in the name of a false god’, or ‘if you wear a uniform’. If Scripture is not enough authority for you, then consider further the examples of the martyrs, who, rather than taking up arms against their persecutors, went peacefully to their (often very unpleasant) deaths…Opposition to warfare is just about as traditionally Christian as one can get. And unbelievers see the hypocrisy of the Church, with its cheering for war, and spit on its God. Make absolutely no mistake: this pro-war attitude of the modern conservative-in-name-only Church makes Jesus a byword among the heathen, and you may rest assured that if the Church does not soon repent, it will be chastened severely for dabbling in this heresy.” -anon.

“Is Jesus emergent because he promoted spiritual disciplines such as meditating on scripture and fasted? Do all of these authors/pastors subscribe to all of these “qualifications”? If I am missional and reaching people for Christ, am I emergent? Being against war is considered heresy? People involved in the ’social gospel’, such as those helping widows and orphans in Africa, are emergent? So many questions…and for a guy who hasn’t read each author he is calling emergent (or influencing the emergent crowd), you are making a lot of bold claims.” -Nathan

“the words ‘witch hunt’ come to mind here….add this guy!…what about so and so!…Let’s not forget him…he practices voodoo too!” -anon.

“I wonder what would happen if the church became missional? If the church decided that, oh I don’t know, caring for the people of the world, making sure they had food to eat and clean water to drink, not trying to run them down with dogma, using scripture as a battering ram, and taking environmental initiatives as a call to be good stewards of the resources we were given. Maybe if people were shown the love God has for them rather than what the church has been doing for the better part of the last century, there might actually be people wanting to become Christians. Besides, one of the greatest revivals in history took place when the ideas of enlightenment were embraced. Read the accounts of John and Charles Wesley. Postmodernism is not something to be feared, but we as Christians need to learn how to relate to the postmodern culture.” -anon.

“Hey, what a list of good people, I think I should join them! Thank you!” -Reinald

“Ok first of all, emergents LOVE reading Lewis. and second of all, even more surprising they also love reading the Holy Bible.” -Vivian (imagine that!)

“I guess the sad thing is, lists like this and the black-and-white, this-or-that statements contained in this post demonstrate a complete lack of effort to understand the true meaning of the ideas and writings of the ‘villains’ of the emerging church. As someone far closer to the emergent side of things than that of my Southern Baptist roots, your words on the movement hold very little weight for those of us who understand it. The way they sound to me are comparable to how the section on Christianity in a college religions course would to you. What you’ve written reads like a politician summarizing the stances of an opponent. Unfortunately I don’t think this is the kind of discourse that will benefit both sides of the conversation–but at least it will solidify your ‘base.’ (But is this really the road you want to walk down–creating a list of indicators to find people out? Seems eerily similar to how we handled Communists 50 years ago….)” -Dusty

“This information is extremely misleading….” -Jeff

“I didn’t make the list? That’s a shame.” -Matt Scott

“Thanks for adding a few authors to my must read list. You got the making of one heck of a witch hunt here. Thanks for the hate but you didn’t do much but embolden the enemy here bud.” -LandonSandy (I second THAT emotion–the lengthened reading list, I mean. I don’t, however, consider myself an enemy.)

And then, one commenter goes over and above by tacking some other “danger warnings” to the master list…

“-Accusation of ‘bibliolatry,’ or worshiping the Bible
-Pitting love against truth, claiming a ‘hermeneutic of love’
-Exclusively relational discussion of salvation over and against legal or objective
-Discussion of the cross as exemplary rather than atoning
-Inclusive language versus exclusive (e.g. ‘Christ follower’ rather than ‘Christian’)
-Resistant to (and resentful of) labels (sometimes even of ‘Emergent’)
-‘Deeds not creeds’
-*Highly defined by reaction against yesteryear’s megachurch movement
-Value on innovation and novelty
-Skeptical of certainty
-Particular emphasis on reaching those burned by religion
-Neo-Orthodoxy-like redefinition of terms (like inerrancy, or othodoxy)
-Accusation of doctrinal contamination with Greek thought
-*Value on tension as a teaching tool” -Travis

PS–if you have a bone to pick with me now, or if you’d like me to clarify some of my views on these topics, comments are always open. :)

Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[Hadn't posted on this yet for some reason, but oh, it makes me smile.]

“Former President Jimmy Carter has announced that he is leaving the Southern Baptist Church after sixty years because of its treatment of girls and women.” [via Feministing]

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women: Discrimination and abuse wrongly backed by doctrine are damaging society, argues the former US president [by Jimmy Carter]

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…” -Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” -Galatians 3:28

I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited them from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief–confirmed in the holy scriptures–that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. The discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated women has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices–as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to change.

But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy–and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: “The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.

Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place–and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence–than eternal truths. Similar Biblical exerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: “Women preach all over the world. It doesn’t bother me from my study of the scriptures.”

The truth is that male religious leaders have had–and still have–an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.

Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions–all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

[Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.]

“A decidedly bookish, musical, thinking young man”

[Exerpted from "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" by Thomas Hardy, first published 1891.]

Some two or three years before Angel’s appearance at the Marlott dance, on a day when he had left school and was pursuing his studies at home, a parcel came to the vicarage from the local bookseller’s, directed to the Reverend James Clare. The vicar, having opened it and found it to contain a book, read a few pages; whereupon he jumped up from his seat and went straight to the shop with the book under his arm.

‘Why has this been sent to my house?’ he asked peremptorily, holding up the volume.

‘It was ordered, sir.’

‘Not by me, or any one belonging to me, I am happy to say.’

The shopkeeper looked into his order-book.

‘Oh, it has been misdirected, sir,’ he said. ‘It was ordered my Mr. Angel Clare, and should have been sent to him.’

Mr. Clare winced as if he had been struck. He went home pale and dejected, and called Angel into his study.

‘Look into this book, my boy,’ he said. ‘What do you know about it?’

‘I ordered it,’ said Angel simply.

‘What for?’

‘To read.’

‘How can you think of reading it?’

‘How can I? Why–it is a system of philosophy. There is no more moral, or even religious, work published.’

‘Yes–moral enough; I don’t deny that. But religious!–and for you, who intend to be a minister of the Gospel!’

‘Since you have alluded to the matter, father,’ said the son, with anxious thought upon his face, ‘I should like to say, once for all, that I should prefer not to take Orders. I fear I could not conscientiously do so. I love the Church as one loves a parent. I shall always have the warmest affection for her. There is no institution for whose history I have a deeper admiration; but I cannot honestly be ordained her minister, as my brothers are, while she refuses to liberate her mind from an untenable redemptive theolatry.’

It had never occurred to the straightforward and simple-minded Vicar that one of his own flesh and blood could come to this! He was stultified, shocked, paralyzed. And if Angel were not going to enter the Church, what was the use of sending him to Cambridge? The University as a step to anything but ordination seemed, to this man of fixed ideas, a preface without a volume. He was a man not merely religious, but devout; a firm believer–not as the phrase is noe elusively construed by theological thimble-riggers in the Church and out of it, but in the old and ardent sens of the Evangelical school: one who could

Indeed opine
That the Eternal and Divine
Did, eighteen centuries ago
In very truth . . .

Angel’s father tried argument, persuasion, entreaty.

‘No, father; I cannot underwrite Article Four (leave alone the rest), taking it “in the literal and grammatical sense” as required by the Declaration; and, therefore, I can’t be a parson in the present state of affairs,’ said Angel. ‘My whole instinct in matters of religion is towards reconstruction; to quote your favourite Epistle to the Hebrews, “the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.”‘

His father grieved so deeply that it made Angel quite ill to see him.

‘What is the good of your mother and me economizing and stinting ourselves to give you a University education, if it is not to be used for the honour and glory of God?’ his father repeated.

‘Why, that it may be used for the honour and glory of man, father.’

. . . .

The effects of this decisive debate were not long in showing themselves. He spent years and years in desultory studies, undertakings, and meditations; he began to evince considerable indifference to social forms and observances. The material distinctions of rank and wealth he increasingly despised. Even the ‘good old family’ (to use a favourite phrase of a late local worthy) had no aroma for him unless there were good new resolutions in its representatives.

. . . .

Unexpectedly he began to like the outdoor life for its own sake, and for what it brought, apart from its bearing on his own proposed career. Considering his position he became wonderfully free from the chronic melancholy which is taking hold of the civilized races with the decline of belief in a beneficent Power. For the first time of late years he could read as his musings inclined him, without any eye to cramming for a profession, since the few farming handbooks which he deemed it desirable to master occupied him but little time.

He grew away from old associations, and saw something new in life and humanity. Secondarily, he made close acquaintance with phenomena which he had before known but darkly–the seasons in their moods, morning and evening, night and noon, winds in their different tempers, trees, waters, and mists, shades and silence, and the voices of inanimate things.

Top 10 Reasons Men Shouldn’t Be Ordained

[Via]

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Fathers Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. 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 subordinated position that all men should take.