This is a Christian society, established in Japan at Toyohashi in 2006, whose primary function is to enable both Christians and Non-Christians to study the Bible.

WHY NO WOMEN PRIESTS

Reverend I.P.S.G. COSBY

IV. NATION, GIVEN OVER TO ITS SIN

iii. Masculinity v Femininity

There are two points to note in passing. What is universally called Feminism, which is the driving force not only behind the change in people’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of ordaining women to the priesthood, is actually a propagandist misnomer.

A more accurate description of the phenomenon is Masculinism, since the driving force behind the movement is for women to be able to function and do the things that men do. Until now cultured opinion having been founded on a Christian view of life, has considered the masculinising of the feminine not just to be inappropriate, but to which it is degrading for women to have to succumb.

As women embark on traditional male roles, there is a comparable tendency to display qualities and traits typically associated with manhood: strength, aggression, headship and manliness of style and dress, sweatiness, etc. This is taken to absurd lengths in the field of sports, where women’s bodies are being‘ masculinized’ in order to achieve better results. The practice where women assume roles normally associated with, and often required of responsible manhood, is understood in terms of liberating women. In short, women are encouraged to believe themselves to be liberated if they assume the roles and functions of manhood.

This begs the question, liberating women from what, to which the superficial answer is: from the world that has traditionally been seen to be feminine, or simply put, liberation from themselves. This of course is an absurdity. However, the consequences, after the novelty factor has worn off, will ultimately be to render what has traditionally been valued as feminine to be regarded as something secondary, undervalued, and in some sense inferior.

This is quite contrary to a traditional Christian and biblical mindset, as it is for many other cultures and societies rooted in realism. As stated above, a foundational principle of Christianity is that in human kind there are in the real world only two sexes, male and female. There may be effeminate men and emasculated women, on which there will be opinions, but they are still respectively and factually men and women and nothing else.

Each is capable of aping the other, to a degree in what they do, and there will be opinions as to the rightness or wrongness of this. Any evaluation of one over the other, if either sex is treated as being anything other than the sex it is, is of Man’s own doing. If acted upon, let alone persevered in, it is a recipe for evil, and immeasurable suffering.

It needs to be kept in mind that ultimately one is not dealing with jobs or tasks per se. There are many tasks and jobs that can be equally well done by men and women. Ultimately, it is about effects on relationships and roles that are required of men and women in their relationship to each other.

To illustrate the point. If a branch bank manageress is married to the chairman of a major international bank, the careers of the couple concerned are not likely to put a major strain on the husband’s duty of headship, and the wife’s duty and willingness to recognize that headship. If the same manageress were married to the proverbial seller of the Big Issue and is the main bread winner, the pressure to maintain the traditional husband wife relationship will likely be somewhat different, and will require great strength of character on the part of both parties to maintain a natural, biblical, prescribed relationship.

If on principle one chooses to ignore the propensity of certain types of job or career, which by their nature place a strain on, or test the duties of a man and women in their GOD given duties to each other, one should not be surprised if the strain of relating reaches breaking point. The same applies to differences in personal character. If the Christian husband/wife relationship is recognized and valued, the argument and belief is that it will have a long-term positive bearing on the longevity and happiness of that relationship.

The eulogising and aping of male aggression in women, is aptly illustrated in the
picture below:

Fig. 1. Taken by the author at London airport, sometime between 2012–2016

What that advertisement is purporting to reflect is the belief that no distinction should be made between a man’s world and a woman’s world or in how they behave, because women should be able to function and behave exactly as men do if they so choose. The question posed is, why should they not play rugby? To which the answer quite rightly is, ‘Yes, if they want to.’

This is really the wrong question. The important and meaningful question is, ‘Why should these girls want to behave in this manner?’ The observation might also be made that their grand-parents would not have dreamed of wanting to behave in this way. The secular humanist argues that that former generation was not free, to do what it wanted to do. The reality and truth is more likely to be that the women of former generations did not at all think of themselves as being shackled in that way. On the contrary, they would not do what they would have considered mannish, and for that reason, demeaning behaviour for their sex.

The reality of this picture is, of course that it is a bunch of girls aping the behaviour and mannerisms of male rugby players, because they think that by being manly, it is how they as liberated women should behave. The truth is that although they are women aping male aggression, they are actually still women, not a manifestation of the sexes having become confused. The ‘joke’ is not as the advertisement would have the viewer believe that rugby is not now confined to men, but that the girls in the picture are aping manhood. What is not a joke is the dillusion, a visual attempt to confuse two quite distinct and qualitative different sexes.

Furthermore, the eulogising of the masculine over the feminine has the effect of demeaning, or making secondary, qualities associated with femininity. It inevitably leads to tension between rather than respect for the opposite sex. This competitiveness initially triggers an instinctive adverse male reaction on account of an innate sense of duty of headship. An adverse side effect of this trend is that men absolve themselves of any responsibility for women, which responsibility they perceive is not wanted anyway by women. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that we see following on from this so-called feminism (masculinising of womanhood,) a corresponding increase in sadism and laddish behaviour.

To avoid confrontation, there is a tendency for men to move away if they can, and do something else leaving women to their own devices. As a result, when women fall prey to some male predator such as the American film director, Harvey Weinstein, the male response becomes one of little concern, since the women in question having assumed responsibility for themselves, should have looked after themselves. The logic of essential sexual sameness is that if women are independent, free and self-sufficient to do whatsoever thy choose to do, so are men free to do what they choose to do. It is a recipe for creating a very unsafe world for women.

Having bought into the current Humanist concept of the interchangeability of the sexes, the UK Ministry of Defence wants to achieve a 40% ratio of women to men in the armed services. If the above observations are valid, the Ministry may achieve its target rather more quickly than it had anticipated. As the percentage of women entering the armed services increases, the likelihood is that men will decline to join the services preferring, instead, to do something else.

They will not wish to be a party to the increased prevalence for bullying that occurs when the sexes are thrown together in confined quarters. Nor will they want to jeopardize a career, because of some momentary ill-judged sexual misdemeanour. The growing reports of women being bullied in the armed services is not surprising, given the thesis of this paper. It is a basic uncontrolled human instinct, all too often brought on when maleness is perceived to be undermined or thwarted.

It is an unsurprising trait that is symptomatic of the imposition of policies influenced by a philosophical doctrine that fails to take into account the realities of human nature and interaction. The policy of obliging (forcing) the Armed Services, Police Services and Fire Services, et al to treat men and women as essentially interchangeable, open to all roles indiscriminately, is causing havoc in all the services.

If the government insists on applying the humanistic algebraic principle that a + b = 2a (see above p. 97) in how the services employ their personnel, the worse the incidents of bullying and dis-functional social cohesion will become. In effect, men and women are being driven to behave as animals, which is the logical progression of this principle. (See above ‘Bestiality,’ p. 111.) The solution is not to increase the harshness of punishment for misdemeanour. Rather, it is to be guided by reality and not be governed by a particular philosophical principle that does not take into account the reality of human life and interaction.

The only solution to resolving the problem is to remove women entirely from the services concerned. If the government insists on the grotesque policy of putting its women folk on the frontline to be killed, it should have separate services for men and women. Women submariners, for example, should serve in submarines crewed entirely by women. The army will have to raise regiments composed entirely of women. The notion of all women Fire Service Stations highlights the absurd unreality, i.e. fiction (stupidity) of applying the a+ b = 2a formula. Not only do the relationships concerned degenerate into bestiality, but those in authority who insist on applying the formula are living in a world of fiction not reality. There is a very limited auxiliary role for women in the services.

This was exploited to its extremity during World Wars 1 & 2, but remained in conformity with the Christian principle of a + b = a + b. It should never have been taken any further or developed to conform with the current a + b = 2a principle. To a Christian biblical mindset, quite apart from the cross-dressing involved, the notion that a so-called civilised society should place its womenfolk in the front-line of battle and positions of real physical danger alongside, if not in in place of its menfolk, is a distortion that is grotesque in the extreme.

The second point is that if you believe that the European Enlightenment/Humanist understanding of equality is correct,³⁶⁾ no case can be made against ordaining women to the priesthood. The feminine of priest is priestess. With respect to the above observations, it is not surprising that there is a reluctance to call ordained women priestesses.

The first obvious reason is that priestess is quite rightly associated with heathen religions. As a Judaic-Christian concept, as stated at the outset, it does not exist in the Bible. It is suggested that the more subtle factor here is that woman priest not only reflects the fact that we are dealing here with masculinism i.e. women aping manhood, because there is a perception, however unadmitted, that the phrase ‘Woman Priest’ reflects the manhood nature of the office of priest/elder, which is superior to the seemingly demeaning term ‘Priestess.’

Similarly, in the secular world women are now actors, not actresses, manager not manageress, etc. In other words, we are all one sex now, and no distinction between them should be made. Here, it is important to lay to rest the argument often used to justify priestesses being priests. She is such a good preacher, much better than some men of one’s acquaintance. Or, she is such a caring person. Of course, this can be the case in particular cases. Some women soldiers can shoot and kill more effectively than some men.

As this paper has tried to show, one should not argue from the particular to the general, but from the general to the particular. It is important to understand the wider context and what are the consequences to which the phenomenon leads. The forementioned qualities of priestesses alluded to, and others like them, have always been valued, but must be exercised in the correct context as they used to be.

★★★★★★

36) 　 See above, p. 96

Next time is "Law & Order"