Report: Women ministers gaining ground in Baptist life

We feed our dog. We pay attention when our dog barks. However, we never let our dog sit at the dining table. That would be against all nature and decorum. Dogs do not have table manners and make a mess of everything. Now I would imagine there is just somebody out there who does let their dog sit at the table. But I’ll bet their table is a mess.

who is the dog in this analogy?

If women are the dog(s) in this analogy… then misogyny must be the mess to which he refers.

It appears those objecting to the analogy suffer from having been conditioned by social literary ignorance. When an analogy is used its elements must be viewed in light of its principle. Here the principle has nothing to do with the person of a woman but the appropriateness or inappropriateness of her role as a Minister. Hence, one could have used a myriad of nouns to represent such as parrot, tornado, cat, turkey (in fact there is currently a commercial on television utilizing the turkey bird to point out why it is inappropriate as a babysitter, funny commercial), or a horse and so on. The point is not a parallel between the person of a woman and the object in the analogy which represents the woman (in this case a dog) but the inappropriateness of the two in the positions in which they are placed.

Unfortunately people do not have a history of disciplining themselves and confining what they understand to be in view to what is truly intended to be in view, particularly with respect to rules of grammar. Here the analogy’s principle is that a woman (and those men who are not qualified but the article is only about women, hence the exclusive comparison per the article) is inappropriate in the position of a Minister and the analogy has nothing to do with an actual, factual, practical, real or implied comparison of her person to the object (in this case a dog which only serves as a prop for the principle).

But then if people are looking to be offended it takes little more than one saying “Hello”, on such occasions.

It’s just offensive. It is also indicative of IFB attitudes towards women.

It appears those objecting to the analogy suffer from having been conditioned by social literary ignorance.

Or perhaps just in possession of a small dose of common sense.

I do apologize if I offended any dog owners. Perhaps some people do have them sitting at the table.

[Jeffrey Dean] It is also indicative of IFB attitudes towards women.

Really? How do you know the person who made the analogy is IFB? It’s a bad idea to generalize, anyway. There is no such thing as an “IFB attitude” towards women. There is a Scriptural attitude, and wide variance within any group (including IFB) as to how well people mirror it.

As far as I know, no universal IFB church council ever anointed Bob T as the ordained representative of IFB attitudes toward women. If I’m wrong, perhaps he’ll fill us in. But this analogy tells us only one thing about his attitude towards women. He believes it is inappropriate to have women in the ministry, and it is inappropriate to have dogs at the dining table — both create a lot of problems. It tells us no more and no less than that about his attitude.

Since we’ve decided to draw meaning from details, I’m much more concerned about what his analogy reveals about his attitude towards ministry. He’s comparing the ministry to a dining table. He’s telling us that he sees ministers as wooden, hard, usually square (or at least rectangular), sometimes with sharp edges and pointy corners, and as unusual creatures with four legs. Furthermore, he thinks that all a minister is for is to hold out food for people to eat. People can dump all kinds of stuff on their minister when they aren’t eating, and they can forsake him to go eat in front of the TV if they want. (I never thought Bob would endorse TV evangelists, but there you have it.) Some people even let their kids climb on the dining table, or bang on it with their spoon and fork. People think nothing of putting really hot stuff on top of it. A minister is really nothing more than a piece of furniture, and you could actually get by quite nicely without one if you like to sit in front of the TV to eat.

It’s indicative of SI attitudes towards the pastorate, isn’t it? ;)

Since the article is about women, maybe it’s time for a woman to comment. Bob T., I understood the intent of your analogy, but must say it didn’t sit well with me. I think a better analogy could have been used. After reading it I got the idea that women are only demanding, pushy, and loud and ought to be put in our place. I might get myself in trouble for saying that! However, your later comment, #7, required a reply. That was offensive and insensitive.

I heartily agree that women do not belong in ministry. Several weeks ago I met a woman introduced to me as a pastor when in reality she led a teen’s ministry. I don’t think that’s right. God has clearly shown that males are the leaders within the church so I’m not disputing that at all. But as a woman who has grown up within fundamentalism, I do know that some places do have sneering attitudes toward women. It’s not an outright (at least the circles I was in) “know your place, woman” type of attitude, but it is often present in subtle ways.

While women should not be ordained as ministers, I am glad that church leaders in more ways today recognize women’s gifts to help and serve.

[Larry]

It appears those objecting to the analogy suffer from having been conditioned by social literary ignorance.

Or perhaps just in possession of a small dose of common sense.

Ignoring the rules of the analogical literary device might be common but it certainly does make sense. Perhaps such people need a large dose of common sense to put them on track to utilizing such rules so they may not find themselves offended for no genuine reason.

My wife wanted to tune into the TBN Kennel and watch the dog show this last week end. So we did.
Many in their Kennel are not well trained so sometimes it turns out to be a really rowdy show. ;)

Someone mentioned the IFB. Is that the “Insensitive Funnymentalist Beasts?” Do they have some shows on TV too?

OOPS - need to be careful with my posts. Wouldn’t want to offend those sensitive folk out there. One poster said:

Since the article is about women, maybe it’s time for a woman to comment. Bob T., I understood the intent of your analogy, but must say it didn’t sit well with me. I think a better analogy could have been used. After reading it I got the idea that women are only demanding, pushy, and loud and ought to be put in our place.

Talk about imaginative inferences! At least that poster didn’t say they should have a collar and leash. By the way, my wife comments every time I use that analogy. She thinks its hilarious but understated.

One could also say I posted my favorite analogy just to give those really senstive people something to post about. :bigsmile:

There are good analogies and bad analogies (yes, I stated the obvious). The Washington Post periodically has a “bad analogy” contest. Some of the entries are really painful to read, others are funny, and a few are so bad they just don’t make any sense at all. But, they all make the list because they fail to bring further understanding to whatever it is they are being compared with.

I’ve never lived in a house with a dog, but I have visited other houses with dogs. I’ve never seen any of those dogs eat at a table, but I have seen them eat on the floor. And, you know what? Those dogs lick and clean up the crumbs or food pieces that fall out of their bowl or their mouth. Those dogs leave less of a mess than my kids do after eating.

Maybe the dog eating/women preaching analogy helps some understand the issue better because they’ve actually seen dogs eat messily at tables. When I first read the analogy, I imagined dogs being messy at tables because the author suggested it. But, as I thought back to my observance of other people’s dogs I had to admit that those dogs didn’t eat messily at all — regardless of where their food was. I’ve seen a dog pick and clean a bone smoother than your teeth feel after a dental cleaning. (That’s my lame attempt at an analogy — maybe I should submit it to The Washington Post).

Maybe we should just have a poll:

1. People who are offended by Bob’s analogy
2. People who are not offended by Bob’s analogy

Then we can move back to discussion of the topic of the thread.

But I have to say I marvel at the vigor with which Alex has worked to apply lipstick to Bob T’s pig.

I started reading http://www.bwim.info/files/State%20of%20Women%20in%20Baptist%20Life%202…] the report on which the article in the OP is based- it gives a history of Baptist women in organization like the SBC, and definitely gives credit to feminism as a source of the ‘progress’ women have made in Baptist churches. It should give anyone with an ounce of Biblical discernment pause when supportive Scriptures are nowhere to be found.