Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

If you support women in church leadership, it will soon lead to supporting homosexuals in church leadership – common hierarchical complementarian argument.

 My first question to the above complementarian claim is: So what?

To expound a bit more: If it was true, if Christian egalitarians will support homosexual preachers or elders, so what? Why should the church exclude all homosexual preachers and elders? You need to make a case that gays – even celibate ones – should not be allowed to preach or lead at church. Only if your case is accepted by your listeners, can you say women preachers will lead to undesirable results.

My second question will be: Why?

Why do anyone believe that the ordination of women leads to the ordination of homosexuals? Is there a logical progression? How do churches allegedly go from A – the ordination of women, to B – the ordination of gays? It hardly makes any sense. On the contrary, I believe that almost every  denomination large enough to have had more than 30 preachers in its time of existence have ordained homosexual males who hid their sexual preferences, or who vowed to be celibate. The ordination of homosexuals probably long predate the ordination of women in most denominations.

I don’t think the early church even asked someone’s sexual preference before calling him a preacher/ elder. They would have asked homo- and heterosexuals, men and women, to live a life of sexual purity, though.

You may interrupt here with: “We mean practising homosexuals!” Okay, if you mean practicing homosexuals, we could assume that “So what?” was answered. But “why?” becomes a bigger question  – the gap you have to bridge between allowing female (a common state in which half of humanity is born) preachers, and practicing gay (a behavioral choice) preachers becomes even bigger.



Please do not make any assumptions on my view of homosexual church leaders. Readers of my mother tongue blog, by the way, assume the opposite of what you would probably assume. They associate opposition to homosexuality with opposition to atheism, and there I often spoke out against New Atheism.

And gay apologists, please do not take offense at the words “practising homosexuals.” I am perfectly aware of why some in the gay community dislike the term. I use it because it is a term those I address here would probably use.

Comments on: "Women in church leadership, gays in church leadership?" (7)

  1. Honestly? I think they use this ‘logic’ for the emotional response they get. They do the same thing with all their ‘theories’ if you look closely. Funny, how they love that stereotype of how that SHOULD be a ‘female’ trait. The old females are the emotional ones stuff. Yet, they use it on everyone. You challenge them on it? The cloak and dagger responses happen. You can almost sense the ‘scary music’ in the background as they share they ‘authoritative’ dribble.

    They wouldn’t have to use all those games if they truly had a strong point of reality. So they scare people into believing it. Pretty sad.


  2. Good point, Retha. I would also like to point out that Catholics officially oppose homosexuality and women priests. Yet they have more homosexual pastors than any other religion. It wasn’t women priests who brought on homosexuality in the Catholic church. (It may have been the lack of women!). We know of numerous cases where male pastors have found to be homosexual, so does that keep ALL males from pastoring? Apparently not, or we wouldn’t have any pastors.


  3. This is a complicated set of questions.Tackling the Catholic church, I suspect that their set of problems with the various sins of their priests (fornication, pediphiles, drinking, homosexuality) are twofold. One, they made up a set of rules not Biblically founded. Two, therefore the Holy Spirit could not flow in the midst of such carnality.

    The most important aspect of having church gatherings is to encourage and allow the Holy Spirit to move in their midst. Thus, there is the fallback to formalities; a form lacking substance. This is the same thing that happened to the Jews. During the 400 years of prophetic silence men rose up to lead. Without the Holy Spirit to guide, they fell back to formalities, repititious forms, and the strong rule the weaker or less prestigious.


  4. I think they relate women to weakness, and thus, to gay people. Just like animals, women have always been oppressed as lesser beings, and gay people are also viewed as lesser, so they’re grouped together.


  5. Catholicism is not biblical Christianity! The Catholics took way too much from Mithraism and paganism, and that cost them their purity. It is no longer a bible based Christian religion. THAT has caused many demons to affect the priests as well as the people…


  6. […] I recently came across a self described radical egalitarian feminist website called “Biblical Personhood” created and hosted by a lady named Retha Faurie. One of the posts on this website really caught my attention that is titled “women in church leadership, gays in church leadership”  […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: