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.)

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo House Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Find him everywhere: Find him everywhere

    140 replies to "A Question for Egalitarians . . ."

    • Sue

      Twice as many women as men went overseas as missionaries in the 19th century.

    • Michael T.

      I was just making up numbers here. So don’t read anything into them. I’m trying to understand CMP here and what he means by what he says and how it looks practically. Not determine whether or not a higher percentage of men or women are gifted at a certain thing so I’m just making up examples and numbers to get a better idea of how CMP sees things.

    • TL

      ” I would see it as a gift given 73% of the time to men and 27% of the time to women. Doesn’t mean that the women with the gift aren’t just as capable as the men at this task, just that there are less of them that are.”

      Thinking in terms of other gifts, such as teaching and preaching. it may well be that a comparable number of women are gifted. The problem is that they are either discouraged from exercising their gifting or not allowed, being told that only men are allowed. So for men who have found comfort in the men only room, it could be really scary and threatening their security to find that women do as well as they and have insight and wisdom equalling theirs to share with the Body of Christ.

    • TL

      “And it all comes down to what Paul had in mind when he was discussing this issue.”

      And that is the crux of the matter. Many egals have studied this carefully and come to the conclusion that Paul was simply advising Timothy to allow women to learn and while learning Paul was not then permitting them to teach and dominate men. The thought is that because of what was said in chapter one, Paul and Timothy were referring to some women who were being deceived and dominating some of the men with their false teachings. IOW Paul was NOT making a new, never before made rule, that from henceforth women were to be forbidden from teaching or leading. But Paul was responding to a specific set of events with specific individuals that Timothy was having difficulty handling.

    • TL

      ”Will there be times when there is no man to do it? Certianly. Look in Judges. So there are exceptions. However, all things being equal, men should always be sought and chosen for this role.”


      Scripture does not indicate that God chose Deborah because He couldn’t find a man. God chose Deborah because he gifted her. God knows us from the womb. He formed her for the job from the beginning, just like He does all people. There is no indication that God prefers men over women. God chooses the best people for the job in the times.

      It is statements like this that reveal your bias toward thinking men are always more qualified than women in teaching and leading ministries. Yet Scripture says that God equips by the influence of the HS, not our fleshly natures.

    • El Bryan Libre

      I mentioned early on that I thought as an egalitarian you could raise boys to be men and girls to be women. I did note that it would be rather specific to what my wife and I thought was important which would be heavily influenced by what my time, society, culture, and personal ideals and values were. I’m not really sure based on what those things my wife and I thought were important for men and women what specific roles in life would be excluded to my daughter or my son (if I had a son). Is it possible that there might be? Sure I guess but again I can’t think of any.

      I think it’s more likely that society might exclude them from certain roles or careers not based on abilities or characteristics but simply because that’s what society thinks a specific gender should or shouldn’t do. So if I had a son I imagine it might be hard for him to get a job at a nursery or day care taking care of children simply because society generally doesn’t see men in that capacity whereas it does see women in that capacity. And he might even be discouraged from ever seeking to be in that role/career. The same for my daughter. Maybe she wants to be a pastor but society in general doesn’t see women in that capacity as much and so regardless of her ability, knowledge or characteristics it would probably be hard for her to fulfill that desire to pastor a church.

      Don’t know if I’m really addressing what you’re questioning or where a disagreement might lie between us (if there is one).

    • ahunt

      In this, as I have said, there is a combative nature that men are, generally speaking, much more able to accomplish due to drive AND, more importantly, the respect that they will command.

      This is interesting. If I’m following you…then you believe that men, by nature, command greater respect from others than do women.

      If so, does this phenomenom not reflect sinful pride and arrogance? If you are suggesting that people are less able to “respect” women solely because they are women, regardless of giftings…are you not giving the sins of pride and arrogance and self-entitlement a pass? Are you not encouraging the worst elements of human nature here?

    • mbaker


      I will take one more stab at this:

      Re: the remark about some of egalitarian views being similar to the homosexual views. You have not presented a set of reasons why you feel this way. To make remarks like that without being specific about which views you think fall in line between the two camps is certainly going to make some people think you are making an equal comparison between us. You ask us to honestly state how we felt on this post, and I think we have been, and given many illustrative examples of why we believe as we do. I see no evidence here in the comments to suggest that anyone is suggesting it’s okay for their children to practice homosexuality simply because they hold egalitarian views as Christians.

      It’s sort of like saying just because two people share the same political views they are alike in all other ways. Following that reasoning further I could ask that since you have identified yourself as an evangelical and Ted Haggart, the president of the evangelicals was a homosexual, does that make you one? Of course not. To assume that would be ridiculous, as well as offensive. Here’s my point: Please present some more clarification of what you think the similarities are and why as an egalitarian parent my child would be any more likely than yours to change their gender preferences to homosexuality.

      I think it’s time for that post on all the different types of comp-egals, and the other categories you have named so where we will know where you are going with this.

    • mbaker

      And just to reiterate what I believe: I believe in the God-given authority of the Bible to mandate what goes on in the church and the home. What I do not believe in is parents, Christian or otherwise, deliberately training boys that as men they have the right to boss women around, just because they are male and stronger physically.

      As far as the homosexual issue goes, I also believe in the view of marriage as outlined in the Bible. That is the ideal, to have two parents. However, like Sue and Lisa and possibly other single parents here however, that wasn’t the situation in my home. Nor was my daughter’s father interested in being present in her life as a role model, even though he was invited to parent equally. I have other single parent friends who raise sons and I have never seen any evidence that their boys are adversely affected as far as being less male because they were raised to respect women equally with men.

      I don’t see that teaching children to respect people as people has anything to do with not respecting authority. We all know the standing joke about preacher’s kids, right?

    • ScottL

      CMP –

      What I feel you are doing is saying that if one believes there are differences between men and women, then this cannot allow for an egalitarian belief. [Well, for starters, I will confess that I’m not a fan of the word egalitarian, since it carries a lot of baggage.] Still, I recognise differences in male and female, even the ones you have mentioned in your posts and comments. But I still believe women are not to be hindered from walking out the ministries, gifts, and callings that Jesus would give them, whatever that may be. I know you would probably agree with that statement, but I would also say that this allows for women to have authority. I will also say that men have historically had a more innate nature to lead, to rule, to deal in an oversight way (that’s what elders do). But this by no means should lead us to say, ‘Ah, that means only men can lead, rule and shepherd in the church.’ That’s silly to conclude.

      So I would encourage you to realise, though you probably do, that someone like myself can recognise the general varying differences between male and female (in general, I like what John Eldredge has to say in his books), but that this does not lead to a de facto complementarian view.

    • Ed Kratz


      “This is interesting. If I’m following you…then you believe that men, by nature, command greater respect from others than do women.”

      Yes, in certian areas. And in certian areas women command greater respect than men. Complementarianism 101. Now you are seeing it.

    • Michael T.

      I really need an answer to comment 100 to see if we can agree here. I need to know what “celebrat[ing] these differences by instilling them in people and teaching them to capitalize on these areas.” means to you and how this would look on a practical level for child rearing and education.

    • mbaker

      Here’s a late thought that ties in with my posts above:

      Let us suppose that a church has a well qualified pastor, whom everyone likes and respects. Under the teaching model you’ve presented of men being stronger and better able to confront things, let’s say a stronger male comes into the church, and says “Well, since I am stronger and better able to confront danger, I should be your pastor instead.”

      Would you accept that? Or would you say that Pastor X is more acceptable for his giftedness in the area of teaching God’s word, and in his willingness to commit several years of study to achieve that? Most people would choose Pastor X, not because he was the stronger male but because he was the more qualified of the two.

      Now let’s change the situation just a bit. Suppose Pastor X had been a female, and the same scenario happened, but you didn’t know the gender of Pastor X in the beginning. Upon hearing this story, you would automatically say the position should go to the one most qualified right? However, under the complementarian model you have presented, the moment you found out Pastor X was female, you would automatically elect the physically stronger more aggressive male to replace her strictly on the basis of his gender, rather than his true qualifications as a Godly leader.

    • Ed Kratz

      Scott, I think you are asking your question in a vacuum. The male leader has to be affirmed by the community and meet the qualifications of eldership according to Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:2-7. Now if a man marches in and demands that he fill the position simply because he is male, I’d say he has violated a few items on the list. And if the community of faith affirms an unqualified male over a qualified female simply because of his gender, then they have not understood the qualifications for an elder.

    • Ed Kratz


      Celebrating has to do with an acknowledgment of the differences. First and foremost this comes through the opposite sex appreciating the differences of the other. Men, more than anything, need to learn to acknowledge the importance of the nurturing role in women and elevate this to the point where appreciation is invested in numerous ways.

      My mother taught me this very early and instilled an appreciation for the uniqueness of women and how to encourage women in this. She taught me to acknowledge the tenderness and sensitivity that females bring to the table and to take advantage of the unique wisdom and “color” that this brings to the world. Learning to celebrate it means that we don’t look down upon it as a lack of strength, but a different type of strength.

      The same goes for women with regard to men. The celebration first comes from the opposite sex.

      With my son, I teach him continually that he is to protect women and, as the Apostle Peter says, understand that there are ways in which they are “weaker.”

      Learning to relate to the opposite sex, not because they need to be pitied, but because we recognize that without the unique disposition of both contributing to the world, the image of God is diminished greatly.

      I try to get people to close their eyes and imagine what the world would be like if there was only one sex represented. What would a world of women miss (in a good way) if there were no men? What would a world of men miss (in a good way) if there were only men? (besides the obvious!). The list is what we celebrate, appreciate, and hope to instill.

      I am very hesitant to get into very specific examples as I do believe that there is a cultural element to how these expressions find a place, but the principled differences are going to be there and are going to be consistent. As well, if I brought up specific examples, there would be people who misuse them as representative of my entire position and attempt to place me in a box. So if you are looking for the “hunting” and “ironing” specifics, I cannot give them now. But I don’t really think that they are necessary as I don’t really do that with my kids. As long as the differences are appreciated, they will find sufficient and satisfying expression without fear or feelings of inadequecy that so often accompany those that attempt to elevate one role as being more important than another.

    • ScottL

      Lisa –

      My comment was not just about women in eldership.

    • ahunt

      Celebrating has to do with an acknowledgment of the differences. First and foremost this comes through the opposite sex appreciating the differences of the other. Men, more than anything, need to learn to acknowledge the importance of the nurturing role in women and elevate this to the point where appreciation is invested in numerous ways.

      And this is what is so frustrating…you continue to define those “timeless” differences in terms of social roles while simultaneously acknowledging that gender roles are culturally derived.

      Nurturing? Our three sons were brought up in a hunting/fishing household, and remain committed outdoorsman, but all of them were by nature nurturing of one another in between the wrestling matches, and particularly of the animals, wild and domestic, that they would rescue out here in podunk…right down to checking kitten formula heat on their wrists.

      You cannot have it both ways. Certainly there are distinctions but magnifying those distinctions into rigid social roles and codes of conduct is simply irrational, a denial that human behaviors cut across gender lines…by design.

    • Michael T.

      If your are saying that we shouldn’t view a stay at home mom as being a lesser role then a senior pastor then I agree with what your saying and have said so on one of the other posts. However, I still don’t see how we get from this to saying that in the case of individual giftedness women shouldn’t be allowed to be senior pastors.

      My major hangup here is the scenario in which your 16 year old daughter comes to you and says that she feels called to go to seminary and be a pastor. How can we tell women they can be anything they want to be in the secular realm and then exclude them from the ecclesiastical realm??? It’s illogical. I really do see this as an either or thing where either all women should be homemakers because this is their proper role regardless of perceived talents and gifts, or the realm of senior pastor should be open for those who are so gifted. Saying you can be the CEO of a fortune 500 company, but not a senior pastor just makes no sense.

    • Kay

      “As long as the differences are appreciated, they will find sufficient and satisfying expression without fear or feelings of inadequecy that so often accompany those that attempt to elevate one role as being more important than another.”

      c michael,
      Why do you continue to define those “essential differences” in terms of social roles while at the same time acknowledging that gender roles are culturally derived?

      I am curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry? Consider that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”
      He also said not to use the hierarchial model of world, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” He said to be servants, not exercise authority over one another. I can’t find anything called a “head pastor position” in the Bible.

    • mbaker

      “I can’t find anything called a “head pastor position” in the Bible.”

      Interestingly enough the word ‘pastor’ itself is only mentioned once in the Bible that I can find and that is in conjunction with the list of other church leadership positions in Ephesians 4:11. The word ‘leader’ is pluralized in the only place I can find it in Hebrews 13:7. I have an ESV study Bible.

      The word most mentioned is ‘elders’ which seems to denote that the early church had a much more democratic idea of the role of leadership in mind for the church than just placing one person in the ‘head pastor position’.

    • ahunt

      Yes, in certian areas. And in certian areas women command greater respect than men. Complementarianism 101. Now you are seeing it.

      Oh Dear. The Laconic Better Half has just weighed in…reminding me that our boys were master manipulators in their “tweener” years, smart and fast and argumentative.

      Mom and sons would engage in long, drawn out negotiations and discussions…3 against one…until Dad would stroll into the kitchen and say: “The answer is no because your mother said no.”

      (Bringing up the big guns)

      The related scenario?

      Me: Did you check with your Dad?”

      Whining chorus: ” Ah c’mon, Mom. Dad’s just gonna agree with you anyway.”

      Point being…our sons understood that while Dad was invariably the “end of the discussion,” Mom was the one who had to be convinced and reckoned with.

      Equal authority…but filial respect manifested perhaps slightly differently…

      You see, my Manly Man Better Half was in fact the “softer touch” and our boys knew it.

    • […] again stirred up the pot concerning women in ministry, in the home, and as leaders.  In one post he asks egalitarian if they think there is any way to train boys to be men and girls to be […]

    • PamBG

      Sorry if this is a tangent, but something has been going through my mind reading the threads here and this post brings my question to mind again.

      As I said on another thread, I think the best argument for complimentarianism is actually “Based on biblical instruction[1], God tells women to be subservient to men. That’s just the way it is and we are called to obey, end of story.”

      [1] Obviously, I’d disagree with this, but I accept that complimentarians believe it within their interpretive framework.

      Yet, there is actually a lot of commentary on this blog trying to show why this command is so. Rather like when people say the laws of Kashrut (Kosher laws) make sense if a person lives in a hot climate without benefit of refrigeration.

      Is the agenda under the surface here that family life in the 21st century Western world is falling apart because women don’t know their proper place? Is it assumed that this is causing women to be less feminine and men to be less masculine? Do you think that you can strengthen the family unit only by being complimentarian? Is there a belief that if men were properly masculine that they wouldn’t be gay? (And why is no one as afraid of lesbians as they are of gay men? *grin*)

    • mbaker


      I don’t think it is tangent at all, based upon some of the previous comments comparing egalitarian beliefs with those of homosexuals. I think THAT comparison is patently ridiculous. I share political views with those who aren’t Christians, but because we agree on how the country should be run doesn’t automatically make me a non-Christian. That’s what I think a lot of comps are missing entirely.

      Because egals believe in democracy when it comes to Christianity, and I believe that is more biblically supported, doesn’t mean that the complementarian model is necessarily the ONLY right one. I happen to hold some of both views, and believe to make it an either or thing, as so often happens, is much more of a detriment to the church than a true representation of what it was meant to be to all Christians, regardless of gender or race.

      Thanks for your lucid comments.

    • codepoke

      I guess I’m getting old, because I no longer consider this stuff fun. I never did enjoy the part where people tell me what I must believe if I’m to be consistent, but I no longer even enjoy the part where I state my own case brilliantly.

      Michael, your appeal to relativism is logically unwarranted and is certainly not descriptive of most of the straight-laced egals I know. Yes, some members of the egal position are gleefully sledding down a slippery slope, but some members of the comp position are tucking abused women into bed with a merry, “Be blessed, sleep in peace,” too. I’m tired of arguing against positions because mere mortals hold to them. Mere mortals attach themselves to every position.

      You celebrate the differences between men and women. So do I, and we both do so as unto the Lord. Paul tells you not to let a woman ______ and I hear him differently. One of us is wrong, but debate won’t decide who that is. History will. I can wait.

      This sport of sharpening our arguments on each other’s dearly held beliefs, though, scares me. I don’t really know what history will decide about egalitarianism, but I’m pretty confident what it will say about the great Internet chat room of the early 21st century. A friend described a brilliant geek’s relationship to him, “To X, I’m just a faceless hate receptacle.” It’s a risk.

      May the Lord bless and continue to bless the family and the church you’re building.

    • Kay

      “I happen to hold some of both views, and believe to make it an either or thing, as so often happens, is much more of a detriment to the church than a true representation of what it was meant to be to all Christians, regardless of gender or race.”

      I have to agree with you here – paradigms that are built on “differences” rather than things shared encourages “separation,” not unity.

      Yes, men and women have differences, but equality is not the same as uniformity. Having equal authority is the foundation for fully developing and fulfilling the differences.

      It’s not impossible to appreciate both our differences and commonalities at the same time.

    • mbaker

      Well said, Kay.

      My husband and I have found that by not having these kinds of silly who’s in authority here arguments, but respecting where God has gifted us both makes us not only stronger in our marriage, but enables us to better see Christ’s bigger picture for the entire church. That is: It is not about us, but about Him.

      For each of us, (having previously had marriages before that were based upon one person or the other trying to control another’s behavior), this has been a valuable lesson. And it happened not because of what we did or didn’t do to make it work out that way, but because we both submit to Christ first now.

      No striving and straining on our parts, just simply saying, ” Lord we are both submitting all that we are and have to you first, because what we did before didn’t work.”

    • JohnO

      Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been following this and the related debates but have become increasingly depressed as positions have become more intransigent. They are prime examples of an either/or approach to theology rather than a both/and. I can’t help but feel that God’s grace is big enough to encompass a multitude of understandings and that it’s only when either position gets too extreme that there has to be some sort of corrective.
      But maybe I’m just a relativistic po-mo who’s going to hell in a handcart. I guess I’ll take my chances and continue to affirm and encourage the pastoral and ministerial gifts and callings in friends and colleagues regardless of their gender.

    • Kay

      “How do you dignify one as a purpose in God’s design and another as man-made? Not so easy, I admit.”
      C Michael,

      I am still curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry?
      Considering that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”

    • Dave

      “Because egals believe in democracy when it comes to Christianity, and I believe that is more biblically supported, doesn’t mean that the complementarian model is necessarily the ONLY right one.”

      I am an egal and I am not convinced Christianity is a democracy.

      “Democracy – A form of government in which political power resides in all people and is exercised by them directly or given to elected representatives”

      Christianity is not about everyone having power, but rather everyone submitting to (loving) others. It is about following Jesus, not because we elected him but because he died for us.

      Of course it can also be defined as, “The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality.”

      But once again, does Jesus tell his followers to be equal with each other, or does he tell them to place themselves UNDER others? Christianity is far more radical than democracy IMO!

    • […] another blog I read the following comment; “…egals believe in democracy when it comes to […]

    • caraboska

      The very fact that complementarians view it as necessary to train boys to be men, and girls to be women, means one thing to me: that it is not automatic, that it is a matter of nurture, not nature, and that sex roles are something imposed from outside.

      Now, my family knew that society would try to impose its view on me, so they very carefully taught me their strictly and literally egalitarian view. It was made clear to me that their manner of upbringing would in no way materially differ if I were male.

      Now, I have no basis for direct comparison, since I have no brothers. But I do know that my father actually lives a strictly egalitarian life in every detail – namely that the only difference between him and a woman is his plumbing.

      He does this by conviction, not by upbringing. And it does not mean he is ‘effeminate’ (i.e. stereotypically feminine). He is just himself. So I have no doubt that he absolutely is telling the truth when he says that he would have raised me the same had I been a boy.

      And while it took me years to find a basis for egalitarianism in the Bible, which caused me no end of trouble in that I wanted to be a serious-minded Christian but knew egalitarianism to be true in my heart, I finally did it.

      I cannot speak for others. I can just tell you that it is possible to live a strictly egalitarian life and be at peace about it. Make no mistake, it will be hard to fit in, because most people are not egalitarian. But some things are more important than ‘fitting in’ 😀

    • Gary Simmons

      This debate is a matter of justice. It’s a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of honor. It’s a matter of femininity and masculinity.

      What do those words mean, anyway? Justice, fairness, honor, femininity and masculinity are abstract ideas. We cannot define them so easily. It is true that every culture has different ideas of what is masculine or feminine, just as every culture has different definitions for the other concepts I just mentioned.

      All cultures have taboos on killing, although what constitutes “murder” varies. All also have taboos on what is “sexual immorality,” though the Hittites thought that what a man does with his horse is nobody’s business. All cultures also have some idea of masculine or feminine, even though the exact expression differs from culture to culture.

      Yes, it is true that masculinity and femininity are social constructs. But you know what? So is “justice” or “murder” or “sexual immorality.” I don’t see anyone here debating those three, since they play a huge role biblically. Yet, if gender is a “relative,” then we must admit that it is a “universal relative,” since it is one that takes place cross-culturally. Its definition is elusive, as is the case with ALL abstracts. Yet it is even harder to define than “justice” because “justice” does not describe a range of human traits whereas gender does.

      Here’s the thing. Egalitarians seem to be seeking an explanation for why Comps tend to look above the individual level and them impose a broader structure onto the individual.

      The answer is because we all do it all the time. That is what experience is. Learning takes place when we accumulate events in our memory that we group together. Based on that preset pattern, we have an idea of how a present or potential future event will play out. Our thoughts do not take incidents or individuals ONLY in isolation, so I think this is a mistake to call for us to do this with gender issues.

    • PamBG

      Egalitarians seem to be seeking an explanation for why Comps tend to look above the individual level and them impose a broader structure onto the individual.

      No. We believe that the broader structure of the Gospel tells us that men and women are equal before God and equally gifted.

      Soft complimentarianism is illogical because you claim to believe that and then tell us that there is One Function that God has ordained from before the ages that women cannot do.

      What we seek an explanation for is the “Animal Farm type logic” of “All people are equal but some are more equal than others” which is what the soft complimentarianism argument boils down to and which makes no sense at all.

    • Truth Unites... and Divides

      Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife… (Genesis 3:17).

      Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.

      A father doesn’t want to do the hard work of vetting his daughter’s choice of a husband, so he pays for her degrees and establishes her in a profession where she’ll be impervious to any husband’s future failures. A husband doesn’t want to do the hard work of silencing his wife in the church, so he argues that women need a place at the table, too, and that good churches will enfranchise women’s voices. Elders don’t want to do the hard work of training their daughters how to dress modestly and conduct themselves in a feminine manner, so they condemn all efforts to teach and encourage modesty or feminine deference within the church as legalism, patronization of women, and masculine insecurity.

      Feminist men are schemers hiding their rebellion against God. They abhor the weight of woman’s glory God has placed on them in their duties as pastors, elders, deacons, husbands, and fathers. But rather than following the time-honored pattern of cowards who turn their back on the battle and run, these men use their uniform as cover for attacking and killing their comrades. They betray every duty towards woman God has dignified their sex by, then claim they are faithful to that duty by their very betrayal. “I believe women are persons!”

      Adam had a choice between obeying the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name or listening to his Eve, and he chose listening to Eve.

      That’s where it all started. And likely, where it will all end.

      What did the first feminist give his wife?

      Greatly increased pain in childbirth, followed by death.

      Read it at Fleeing Manhood.

    • EricW


    • caraboska

      I recently did some posts that deal with the matters Truth Unites… and Divides brings up. You may be interested to know that they are part of a lengthy series I did explaining how I came to cover my head full-time.

      The most relevant segments are to be found here:

      These segments discuss the salient passages which speak to male-female relationships in the Bible – directly or otherwise – where necessary bringing in the original languages.

    • […] See follow-up posts here and here. […]

    • newenglandsun

      It would not be in harmony with latest psychological research on this issue. I left you two APA links for studies on issues dealing with genders on another blog of yours on three questions for egalitarians. I think that being an egalitarian means acknowledging that despite the biological differences, there really is not that much different between men and women with the social pressure to conform to stereotypical gender roles neatly stashed in the closet.

      What does it mean to be a “man”? There’s no exact definition. When I was growing up, I could say a man was someone who had short hair. Then I realized I had to account for heavy metal. It was the same in regard to short hair and long hair. Basically, growing up, I could tell what a man was and what a woman was but I realized I could only do so based on the total physicality as opposed to just one stereotypical aspect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.