"Women shouldn't preach" MUST mean "women can't preach"

[content note: Christian misogyny]

So there's this tweet:

Screenshot:

Link: https://twitter.com/haymes_joshua/status/1801036705434128801 

Text:

[tweet by @haymes_joshua, June 13, 2024]

It's not that Women "shouldn't" preach... 

It's that Women "can't" preach. 

To try and have a woman preach is to both misunderstand the nature of women, as well as the nature of preaching. 

Women are not forbidden from a task that they are actually well suited for. 

It's not that they could preach on the Lord's Day if it weren't for those pesky Bibiclal commands which clearly forbid it. 

No. 

It is not in their nature to preach. 

Preaching is not simply a TED talk on a Sunday morning. 

Preaching is quite literally representing Christ, as an under-shepherd to his people, and then preparing the troops for a week of battle. 

It's not that women shouldn't lead men into battle, it's that they can't. 

It's like having a lady come in the locker room and try to get the football team riled up and amped for the second half... That is just simply not their place. And if they were to try, it would just be embarrassing and uncomfortable for everyone. 

Women are different. 

They were made for a peculiarly feminine glory. 

The fact that this is even controversial tells us how captured The Church is by feminism. 

It should not upset women that they cannot do what they were not made to do in the same way that it should not upset men that they cannot give birth to and feed a baby with their body. 

Women often make great orators, teachers, and communicators. There are many powerful examples of this throughout history... BUT preaching is more than teaching, and it requires a masculine gravitas that women simply do not have. 

They have other wonderful glories. 

And those glories are found in submitting to the Biblical vision for womanhood laid out in the pages of scripture.

Okay a few things to say about this:

First of all, this is some guy on twitter with bad opinions. Let's not bother with arguing with him or responding to his "logic." 

Second, the thing I want to talk about in this blog post is this: The way he says this, the way he presents his complementarian viewpoint, this really gets at the core of it in a way that's transparent and honest and I haven't heard before. It's disgusting and misogynistic, obviously, but this is the only way that complementarianism can make any logical sense. If you believe in complementarianism, you have to believe in something this disgusting. (Or you believe in a god who just says women can't be pastors, for literally no reason at all.)

Complementarians always try to spin it in a nice way, like "God made men and women equal, but for different roles!" (By the way, let me give a definition of "complementarianism"- it's the belief that God made men and women different, and therefore men can be leaders in a way that women can't. In a marriage, the husband has to be the "spiritual leader." [Apparently queer people don't exist.] In the church, there are restrictions on what kinds of leadership positions women can have- different complementarians have different ideas about what exactly these restrictions should be.) But no matter what, this ugly sexist crap is the belief behind it. If you believe women can't teach men in the church, that only makes sense if you believe that when a woman stands up in front of the church and says "Christ is risen," that there's something wrong about that. That her femaleness makes it wrong, contaminates it.

I read Haymes's post about how "It's not that Women 'shouldn't' preach... It's that Women 'can't' preach", and it's so disgusting and sexist- but at the same time, this is the logic. What other logic could there possibly be behind complementarianism? A woman can't be a pastor because... because why? What bad thing would happen if a woman were a pastor? It only makes sense if women are just incapable of doing a good job of it. If every single one of the billions of women on earth would do such bad job that in every case it's better to have some kinda-sorta-maybe-qualified man instead.

(But actually, since I just said "billions of women on earth" that reminds me of how many complementarian churches allow women to be missionaries- to be pastors in other countries, but not in their own church. So, uh. What's the logic there? Pretty much just racism... women can't teach *white* men.)

It reminds me of when I was younger, and I believed in complementarianism, because I thought that Christians *have to* believe in it... and I tried so hard to make it make sense. And no one ever gave explicit clear rules- it was just "men are the leaders" but they didn't teach me what exactly that meant- what specific actions women are or aren't allowed to do. Just this very vague "God made men to be the leaders." (Some complementarians do give explicit rules. My church did not.) I wanted answers- what does that mean, that God made me to be led by men? And why? And this whole thing sounds really sexist- someone explain to me how it's not sexist!

And the way Haymes says it is so vile and offensive- but this is the only way complementarianism makes sense. I've never met anyone who said this in such a sexist and disgusting way, but this has to be the belief behind it. Otherwise, God says women can't be leaders because... because why?

---

Related:

Men have no idea what it's like for women in complementarian churches

"Desiring God" says God wants women to be scared of men