@philokalia said
If women were given a role in church governance, I imagine that we would quickly begin to resemble the denominations which have allowed women a role in governance: we would shrink at a very quick pace and soon become extinct, our position taken up by conservative churches that actually affirm what the Bible says.

If what you "imagine" were true, wouldn't women, therefore, be unable to attain church governing positions [because of their differences from men] ~ even without men using their corporate power to exclude them from doing so?

@philokalia said
However, I have brought in science to show that men and women have key differences, and that men are thus better suited to leadership for our church naturally.

How would the leadership of women be worse?

@fmf said
How would the leadership of women be worse?

We can imagine an openly homosexual man being able to perform all the necessary tasks correctly, being able to dispense advise correctly, and being able to do a whole variety of other things correctly, but because of his open homosexuality, he would stand in contradiction of our values.

Likewise, we believe in a sort of complementarianism. Even if a woman can fulfill the role of a man well, because she is not a man, she is not to fulfill the role of a man, and likewise, a man is not to fulfill the role of a woman or to behave like a woman even if he does these things well.

The practical result of countering the Bible in the Church is that the Church ceases to make sense and does away with its own basis.

It is because of this that Protestantism is shrinking as a denomination.

Why go to Church if the Church is just a reflection of the world? That was the point of my previous post.

@philokalia said
We can imagine an openly homosexual man being able to perform all the necessary tasks correctly, being able to dispense advise correctly, and being able to do a whole variety of other things correctly, but because of his open homosexuality, he would stand in contradiction of our values.

Can you be more specific: How would the leadership of women be worse?

What you are offering, instead of a head-on answer to my question, seems to be more or less 'It contradicts your values because it contradicts your values'.

@philokalia said
Likewise, we believe in a sort of complementarianism. Even if a woman can fulfill the role of a man well, because she is not a man, she is not to fulfill the role of a man, and likewise, a man is not to fulfill the role of a woman or to behave like a woman even if he does these things well.

So what would the problem be with some of the people involved in governance tending towards the women's temperamental attributes you mentioned, and others tending towards the men's temperamental attributes you mentioned. Why wouldn't there be complementarianism?

@philokalia said
The practical result of countering the Bible in the Church is that the Church ceases to make sense and does away with its own basis.

Would you have not converted to Christianity if you'd had to submit to leadership and governance by women?

@philokalia said
Even if a woman can fulfill the role of a man well, because she is not a man, she is not to fulfill the role of a man, and likewise, a man is not to fulfill the role of a woman or to behave like a woman even if he does these things well.

I am curious. Do you think your 'God said so' - and 'It wouldn't be proper because it wouldn't be proper, because it IS proper for me, while it's NOT proper for women' - attitude to women in leadership roles in your church would ideally be applied to civic and corporate leadership as well?

@fmf said
If what you "imagine" were true, wouldn't women, therefore, be unable to attain church governing positions [because of their differences from men] ~ even without men using their corporate power to exclude them from doing so?

No, because there are some women who would meet the general criteria.

Just as such, there are men who would be tremenoud stay-at-home moms, and who could nurture their children in a fundamentally feminine manner, never being a strong voice of authority but rather a nurturer, and leaving the "bad cop" role to the mother while they got emotional and near tears as the mother disciplined their child.

But this would be improper because the two genders are different and have different natural roles to fulfill, and for a man to fulfill things only a woman should fulfill, and vice versa, is actively tearing down the proper delineations and inviting disorder through seeking to normalize things that should not be the natural dispositions of people.

Just as such: look at what has happened to churches that have allowed women full positions of authority. They are invariably very liberal, and many of them are fascing schism, like the Wesleyans.

@fmf said
So what would the problem be with some of the people involved in governance tending towards the women's temperamental attributes you mentioned, and others tending towards the men's temperamental attributes you mentioned. Why wouldn't there be complementarianism?

The problem would be that women, being inherently less vigilant of rules and less disciplinarian, as the personal batteries earlier cited indicate, would probably result in the Christian churches abandoning hard doctrines in favor of some meaningless therapeutic deism.

@philokalia said
The problem would be that women, being inherently less vigilant of rules and less disciplinarian, as the personal batteries earlier cited indicate, would probably result in the Christian churches abandoning hard doctrines in favor of some meaningless therapeutic deism.

Does the "science" you cite suggest that women are naturally more inclined towards "some meaningless therapeutic deism" while men are naturally inclined towards what you see as "hard", "true" and "meaningful" theism?

@fmf said
Does the "science" you cite suggest that women are naturally more inclined towards "some meaningless therapeutic deism" while men are naturally inclined towards what you see as "hard", "true" and "meaningful" theism?

You misunderstand.

What happens when the doctrine and rules of an organization aren't followed? It degenerates.

Men being more disagreeable is bad in a number of ways, but it's great for the preservation of the doctrines, which we stubbornly have done for millennia.

The male temperament is better suited for guardianship of orthodoxy. The female temperament is better suited for other things.

@philokalia said
You misunderstand.

What happens when the doctrine and rules of an organization aren't followed? It degenerates.

Men being more disagreeable is bad in a number of ways, but it's great for the preservation of the doctrines, which we stubbornly have done for millennia.

The male temperament is better suited for guardianship of orthodoxy. The female temperament is better suited for other things.

No, I haven't misunderstood. So the question remains: Does the "science" you cite suggest that women are naturally more inclined towards "some meaningless therapeutic deism" while men are naturally inclined towards what you see as "hard", "true" and "meaningful" theism?

@fmf said
Would you have not converted to Christianity if you'd had to submit to leadership and governance by women?

You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to.

@fmf said
I am curious. Do you think your 'God said so' - and 'It wouldn't be proper because it wouldn't be proper, because it IS proper for me, while it's NOT proper for women' - attitude to women in leadership roles in your church would ideally be applied to civic and corporate leadership as well?

You can also not address this question. It's your prerogative.

@fmf said
No, I haven't misunderstood. So the question remains: Does the "science" you cite suggest that women are naturally more inclined towards "some meaningless therapeutic deism" while men are naturally inclined towards what you see as "hard", "true" and "meaningful" theism?

People who tend to be agreeable and warm more than rule vigilant and disagreeable will favor a therapeutic deism more than a rigid Christian (or any other religious) doctrine.

Therapeutic deism, of course, being the religious ideas which promote concepts like universal salvation or God simply living everyone regardless of whether or not they are consciously committing sins.

Do not get me wrong: the natural female temperament has its own roles it can fulfill far better than if these roles were taken as a male temperament, but safeguarding the church doctrine and providing stern discipline for churchgoers isn't one of them.