Barney Zwartz, chickified Christians, and time for god to get busy with her fickle finger of fate ...

Friday is the quietest day on the pond.

Is there something about the commentariat that inclines them to take a long weekend?

Dedicated, devoted eccentricity takes a rest on Friday, and so we're left with the likes of Henry Ergas, who relentlessly confuses being as dry as dust with being an economic dry, as he dons sackcloth and ashes and broods about how our prosperity could be undermined for years. (Kevin 7/11 needs to think long term).

A statesman, Bismarck famously observed, is a politician who thinks of his grandchildren.

Got them water wings and taught them to swim yet Henry? Taught them how to convert an abandoned quarry into a nice townhouse?

But we want ironies rather than fatuities, and where better to look than the fickle finger of god.

Every so often, she speaks, as a way of startling and shocking atheists, and when she strides the earth, how the wretches tremble.

We all remember that Hurricane Katrilna hit New Orleans because she was unhappy about gays and music, as noted by Pastor John Hagee, keen supporter of John McCain.

Amazingly the indefatigable compilers of wikis have put together a compendium of assertions of supernatural causation for Katrina to join an even longer list of explanations of natural events involving a supernatural deity.

It always makes it more poignant when the fickle finger of god sends a bolt of lighting straight at a church, with predictable results:

Yep, when god sent a bolt of lightning heading towards the statue outside the Solid Rock church in Ohio, she proved she was either (a) a serious aesthetician, or (b) seriously displeased with the theology on display. Alternatively, you could go with the preposterous theory that the lightning hit the plastic foam and fibreglass statue in a random natural way.

Naturally the story set the full to overflowing intertubes aflame:

News about the statue’s demise was the top search topic on Google, with a hotness rating of “On Fire;” YouTube videos of the fire were highly viewed; and thousands of Facebook and Twitter fans worldwide posted comments on the news — some regretful but many humorous or even scornful.

“Seriously, you build a giant statue of Jesus, then God strikes it w/ lightning and destroys it. Aren’t you clearly doing something wrong?” wrote ToplessRobot on his Twitter page.

Others viewed the statue fire as a bad omen. “I think it’s a sign of the end of the world,” said Paul Wright, 21, of Oxford. “If lightning is going to strike God, then there’s no hope.” (We can rebuild 'Touchdown Jesus').

That's more like it, that's the kind of loonacy we hunger for on the pond.

Thus emboldened and hopeful we headed off to Barney Zwartz, who only a little time ago offered up Why can't a woman be more like a man? And then led with this provocation:

“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?” inquired Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady – a most reasonable yet unanswerable question.

If Barney had been dinkum, he might have led with why on earth would a woman want to be more like a man ... a most reasonable and yet unanswerable question.

Barney, you see, has to dance around a peculiar difficulty, reconciling patriarchal ratbaggery with Christianity (unless of course in a transubstantiated sort of way, the two are one, and the three are one, and you like your wafers eaten straight with a shot of blood).

The ratbaggery can be entirely credited to the patriarchal posturing of the men around the campfire since hunters roamed the earth, who refuse to acknowledge that if god gave birth to the universe, chances are god would have to be a she (though we will also accept in a gender stretching way the possibility of hermaphrodite or some kind of cosmic transexual).

Poor old Barney puts it this way:

Is there anything a man can do a woman can’t? “Yes” is not a popular answer in wider society, but in much of the church it is emphatic. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians – the great bulk of Christianity – do not allow women to be ordained priests, and many Protestants are uncomfortable with the idea as well. Or, to be more precise, the institutional hierarchies and the tradition are against it – many more in the pews have no problem.

Oh it's a vexed and vexing question, and Barney dances neatly on the head of a pin:

When it comes to the debate within the church (or within religions generally), I think it’s important to acknowledge that both sides want to honour God, and want every one to live rich and fulfilled lives. I’m not interesting in demonising anyone. Even those who preach that women should be subordinate acknowledge that this is purely a matter of roles, and that they are of equal value with men.

Purely a matter of roles, and equal value, provided subordinate! Why that makes the cleverness of a hermaphrodite worm seem quite unremarkable. And no demonising please, in the way recent racist remarks have been demonised. Putting down women should be viewed in a natural context, with everyone involved wanting to lead rich and fulfilled lives, provided women are subordinate, as they should be. It being only natural ... just a matter of roles. Of equal value ... missionary position only, please! Woman on top not allowed ...

Barney of course has been led astray by feminism:

My own position for what it’s worth ($1.27, which is still more than you are paying for it) is what the debaters call egalitarian. Roles in the church should be decided on ability and experience and willingness to do the job, not gender. But perhaps I think that because I grew up with feminism, I’ve observed (and been influenced by) the social revolution that opened up other areas to women – the law, medicine, the upper echelons of business, not to mention factory production lines and legal prostitution.

Ah yes, the prostitutes. Didn't Jesus legalise them?

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Not sure why he gave the tax collectors a break, but there you go. Meanwhile, Barney is torn, because deep down, it's possible to entertain the suspicion that despite the insidious persistent influence of feminism, he likes the way things were:

So is there any place for distinguishing gender roles? These seem to persist, however politically incorrect the idea becomes.

It seems the number of mothers who stay home with the baby is still much greater than the number of fathers who take the primary caring role. This is true even though the mother is more likely than ever before to have her own career, to be earning as much or more than the father, and though couples have got much better at sharing this part of their lives. Is this just a social custom that we have yet to outgrow, or did nature – or God – intend it that way? It is women who have the biological apparatus to tend the young, and they seem also to have the psychological apparatus.

Oh yes, and here we are in full magical circle. Did nature, or god intend it that way? Come to think of it, did nature or god send that bolt of lightning into the statue? Did a woman give birth to the universe?

Is there something poignant about a Christian reverting to the natural order to explain why things are so and thus? Since if you follow this kind of logic, many things, cultures and societal structures can be justified ...

For much of my adulthood, a man could get into trouble for suggesting anything that sounded like biological determinism, for suggesting that one’s gender could determine, particularly limit, one’s capacities or opportunities. In the past decade, the rise of such disciplines as evolutionary psychology have put the notion of biological determinism back on the agenda. It seems not all gender differences are socially constructed – some may be hard-wired.

And so of course, while a woman can sit on the board of bhpbilliton (there's two actually Jane McAloon, group company secretary, and Carolyn Hewson, here), there's something intrinsically hard wired into women that should naturally restrict and limit their role in churches and their capacity to relate to god! Which thankfully has nothing to do with the patriarchs putting in the fix early in the history of Christian churches, and now holding on to power like Charlton Heston holding on to a long gun. From my cold dead hands ...

Ah yes, the Pellist hersey and the Jensenist nepotism.

But it wouldn't be Barney if he didn't try to have it both ways, the thin slice of feminism and the rich cake of patriarchy:

So which gender differences are foundational and should be respected, and which are socially constructed and should not, is naturally the subject of intense debate.

What are the religious, political, social, biological factors we should be governed by? In other words, what are the important questions? Are there biological limits we should respect, or should we work to overcome them? What gender distinctions are legitimate?

Yep, that's as good a bout of determinist blather as we've come across in some time, using questions as a way of avoiding actual answers, and avoiding an actual stand, while allowing much hand ringing about foundational gender differences and respect and how it shouldn't really hurt that much if women just let men hang on to power, you know, just to keep the poor possums happy ...

All blather and all the more poignant because the piece arises from Barney's story Men lead, women obey?, wherein he charts the new trend in Melbourne churches towards the subordination of women, and the influence of American evangelicals:

(Mark) Driscoll, of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, wants more testosterone in the church. He complains that the church has produced "chickified" men.

"Sixty per cent of Christians are chicks, and the 40 per cent that are dudes are still sort of chicks."

In a famous 2006 sermon, he said real men avoid the church because it projects a hippie, queer Christ, whereas men want the "ultimate fighting Jesus".

Pardon me while I go quietly into a corner and have a heave. Or a chuckle.

It seems god has a lot more work to do, and plenty of statues to knock over if she's to fulfil her mission here on earth.

Barney ends his blog piece with a series of quotes, and so we will revert in the same style to Groucho Marx:

Please accept my resignation. I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

And a few quotes culled from this 101 list:

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov

If all the Christians who have called other Christians “not really a Christian” were to vanish, there’d be no Christians left. Anon.

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams

A hippe queer Christ? We should all be so lucky ...

(Below: an oldie but a goodie, and while god seems to have lost or misplaced McCain, thank the lord she still has Palin).