No, not a biblical one. No, not a theological one. This is a very practical question of application. I want to see how your belief plays out in real life.
Here is my question(s):
- Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?
- Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?
If so, what does that look like for each?
- What does it uniquely look like to be a “man”?
- What does it uniquely look like to be a “woman”?
Or, alternatively, you might suggest that we take a gender neutral stance on child rearing since there are no defining characteristic for each?
I know that there is some diversity out there and I don’t want to be accused of any reducio or slippery slope here. I am honestly interested in seeing the patterns and the spectrum of belief here.
In a way this is a set up. You know that. I will just be up front. Because if you do say there is validity in the aspiration of training boys to be “men” and girls to be “women” and you define what that means, you are going to show that you believe that there is, no matter how slight, a unique path for each sex. In doing so, you will have conceded the foundation for complementarianism. Next thing you know you will be putting a “males only” sign on the pulpit! 😉
I also know that there will be some of you who believe in these unique paths, but do not believe in any sort of hierarchy. However (for this breed), another question:
Is it possible that the characteristics of the unique path that you suppose (along with us complementarians) will have qualities that make one sex more capable than another in certain areas? Therefore, one sex could quite possibly be leaders over the other in some areas? Is that possible?
In all honesty, I want to focus only on this for a bit . . . I want to hear from you on this.
Keep it safe.
(For those of you just joining us here, you really need to read the two previous posts on this topic. We are having a ball and some great conversation.)