Women leave the church!!

Sexism is one thing male chauvinists have in common with the Church.   Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is a matter of ideology not just the idea that Churchgoers and atheists are both people.  If in death, both men and women are equal in the face of oblivion and if people never had the choice to choose to be a man or a woman, then people are alike all over.  I bring this point for sexist atheists (aka the amazingatheist on youtube), not all atheists.  While I do agree with some things he says, I do not agree that "physical" differences/processes such as menstruation makes a women any less capable then a man in the work force.  I also do not agree that you can generalize feminism in such a narrow way to mean "man-hating."  This is by no means true, and it is by the amazing atheist's mouth that influences others to generalize groups.  (i.e. American's are loud and obnoxious).  Really, it is only the loud and obnoxious ones you hear about.

One thing that organized religions (particularly Christianity) does is provide information on some passages, then leave it closed for comments or ratings.  Only "thumbs up" are allowed thereby going against the philosophy of the first amendment, the market place of ideas.  By not allowing articles to be evaluated, they are are narrowing their thoughts for other possibilities such as allowing women to be pastors.

http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders
I was looking at the above in particular.  Matt Slick claims
 "There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men  However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling."
This implies that a man can have a calling, but no skill at preaching and still preach.  A woman can be a prophet and having preaching skills, but will never have a calling.  God calls no women for the job of preaching.  But what is a "calling."  Is it a voice inside a person's head, an urging?  If it is as I say, then what validates a man's calling over a woman's?  

 I looked for an inherent quality of men over women that allowed only men to be pastors.  I found none.  The fact of the matter is, a vast majority of us are afraid of public speaking.  A man can be tall, but then he'll have to be taller than other men to have a voice over other men.  The fact of the matter is, the inherent quality of a pastor cannot by any means be a quality of gender, because assuming men are the more charismatic gender, that man will have to speak above other charismatic men.  Also, we obviously know there are charismatic women and quiet men in this world. 

 Matt Slick claims that man was created first.  First of all, the premise of entire idea of Adam and Eve is creationist.  There's no evolutionary "Lucy" there, nor is there an assumption life could exist beyond Earth and Adam and Eve.  Also, by mentioning the bible's Adam and Eve, Matt Slick abandons any claims for science, and therefore, any piece of information he takes from published empirical results should be scrutinized, assumed to have come from a particular agenda / biased, or his word abandoned all together. Also, another problem with mentioning chronology is that animals were created before humans.  By Slick's reasoning, that would put animals above man as being more qualified than man to be pastors.  Why then do Christians eat meat thereby killing God's creatures?  Why would the chronology of man before woman only matter for the creation of humans and not all things?

Matt then says regarding female pastors:  "are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?"  In my opinion it is a desire.  God is a desire for the mental stability of man, so male pastors also preach for their own desires.  Everything a person does is inherently selfish anyways.  Also, Matt Slick should also definitely answer to why he can say this when  a lot of male pastors all say vastly different and possibly contradicting (gay churches) things in different churches and lead very different religions all across the world.   He must answer if his goal as a believer is to help and not abandon non believers, and for the sake of his credibility. 

I'll admit the article is well documented and logical in that it does follow a source called the bible.  The problem is translation, interpretation, and the ideological contradictions it has with a ideologically changing society today.  I won't agree with many Church leaders when many more women attend church than men do:  http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/  .   Possible solutions are to demand a legit reason for sexism in church or to abandon the church entirely.  We cannot ask a church to change their doctrine because an opinion is an opinion protected by the first amendment, and here in America, we have freedom of religion.