A Question for Egalitarians . . .

* 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”?

Of course there is, but that would be to apply stereotyped characteristics. What is wrong with allowing individuals to develop the gifts and talents they have? Training implies imposition. Nurture/development implies growing what is there. Anyone can be trained to do (virtually) anything. They may just be very poor at it regardless.

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?

You’re asking the wrong question. The issue isn’t whether one sex is more capable, but whether some individuals are more capable. This, I think, is the heart of your recent debates. You have claimed that egals are simply throwing up exceptions to your ‘rule’. However, it was, I think, shown that your ‘rule’ is simply another list of exceptions. In other words, there is no ‘rule’ for how men and women should be, at least not in terms of physical strength or mental characteristics. Why not accept the diversity instead of trying to shoehorn everyone into a mould?
TU..AD tried to make the point that in the Olympics there are men’s and women’s events. If all were equal then it would be a combined event. But this is a false argument because Olympians are themselves exceptions – they are extreme examples of physical and mental prowess. To use them as representative of their sex is nonsensical and so the argument falls. Place people on the statistical bell-jar curve and you’ll find that, overall, people are much of a muchness.

I have raised a daughter and a son. I did not raise them differently according to their gender. I think the whole question you raise here is irrelevant. Raise a boy to be a man? Raise a girl to be a woman? That is not our work, that is the work of biology. Our work as parents is to help develop character in our children.

Take note, the Bible, especially the New Testament says little about leaders but a lot about leading. You might think that my mincing with words is silly, but the point is that a true leader is one that others want to follow. Naturally, some of those will be female, some will be male.

If you just walk away from all the fear of women leaders going against some divine recipe, your life will be so much lighter, and you will find yourself enjoying being able to respect half of the population in a way you never have done before.

* 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”?

I would say yes but it would be according to culture and society not something intrinsic to being a man or woman. It would look like whatever culture you are in. If I had a son (I don’t, I have a daughter) and I were to teach him what it’s like to be a man it would be whatever I in my culture think it means to be a man and it probably differ quite a bit from what my father thinks it means to be a man and probably what his father thought it meant to be a man or even what my brothers think it means to be a man. The same goes for what my wife thinks it means to be a woman versus what my mother thinks or my sisters think. I’m sure there would be some commonality in all of these different pictures of gender. I don’t think however that you could then look at those things that each picture holds in common with the others and make those the essence of being a man or a woman since they may still be because of the fact that we all live rather close to each other in time and culture.

“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?”

Maybe but that says more about my society and culture than anything else.

BTW I didn’t bother with the previous posts or the comments because they were all too long and too much. It makes it kind of hard to participate on this blog even when one wants to. just saying.

If you define a “man” as having certain learnable characteristics then of course you can train a boy to meet that definition to an extent. You could probably train a girl to meet the definition to an extent also.

Alternatively, you could decide to train someone up to be patient, kind, loving, self-controlled, peaceful, honest, giving; and not worry about whether or not they’re “manish” or “womanish”…. Why bother majoring on the minors?

Hi there, I hope you don’t mind a single, childless woman from the UK butting in. 🙂

I would call myself ‘egalitarian’ — in practice, certainly, since I am a lay preacher in the Church of England.

Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?

If I had been blessed with sons, one of the things I hope I would have done would be to teach them not to be afraid of their emotions. (The blight of the average Englishman, I’m afraid. 😉 )

I would have taught them to respect women.

As to what my sons would have wanted to be and do in life … that would have been entirely up to them. 🙂

Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?

Nobody ‘trained me up how to be a woman’. I just … knew how to be a woman. I am someone who is very, very comfortable with her femininity and always have been. My father had a deep respect for all his daughters.

If I’d been blessed with daughters, I’d have taught them to respect men as their brothers in Christ and to respect themselves as women.

I would never have implied to them that sewing and cooking and the like are ‘female only’ activities, or that they were subordinate to men in any way. My mother never did that with me, and she is quite a traditional sort of person.

I consider myself a very feminine woman. I am lousy at sewing and only average at cooking but I love to be hospitable and I like being a shoulder to cry on even more.

If so, what does that look like for each?

I would have given my sons and daughters equal education, as my parents did with me.

What does it uniquely look like to be a “man”?

My ‘ideal’ man is strong, loving, wise and has a great sense of humour.

What does it uniquely look like to be a “woman”?

The ‘ideal’ woman, in my opinion, is strong, loving, wise and has a great sense of humour. 😉

Both my sons and daughters would have been taught that marriage is a great…

I have a son (8) and two daughters (12, 7). I have much more interest in them growing into mature adult followers of Christ than in them becoming a man and two women. They will become the latter regardless of what I do.

The relevant distinction is between the pairs “boy/man” and “girl/woman”, not between the pairs “boy/girl” and “man/woman”.

My son is more cautious than my daughters. I am trying to help him become more brave, but I have never once placed this is a male vs. female context. I have never said anything like, “Be brave like a man, don’t let a girl be braver than you.” That’s just ridiculous. He is who he is. I want him to be braver so that he will be a more mature, more capable person, not because bravery is masculine.

I feel there is enormous risk in trying to train a child to adapt to some definition of manhood or womanhood. I never want to give my son grounds for this syllogism:

Premise: All (real) men are brave.
Premise: I am not particularly brave.
Conclusion: I am not a (real) man.

Some men are brave, some are not. Some women are brave, some are not. Is the bell curve for bravery in men such that the average is braver than the average woman? Maybe. So what? What possible relevance does that fact have to my son?

Of the character qualities which the Scripture calls us to pursue (love, joy, peace, faith, etc.), how many of them are ones which are for men only or primarily or for women only or primarily? I say: few, if any.

‘Both my sons and daughters would have been taught that marriage is a great blessing from God’, is how my post should have ended!

(Sorry, I must have run out of my allotted 3,000 characters per post.)

The other posters have pointed out that pretty much all human virtues are ‘gender neutral’. I totally agree.

Having said that, I am not one for saying there is no difference between men and women. I am really glad to be a woman and have never had the slightest desire to be a man, or like a man.

And I’m not surprised when little boys gravitate to racing around like mad things and yelling at the tops of their voices, nor when little girls gravitate to playing ‘babies and mummies’ with other little girls.
Needless to say, little girls can also do their fair share of racing around like mad things and yelling at the tops of their voices … so I don’t believe in stereotyping either sex. There is nothing wrong with a little girl who is a tomboy, or with a little boy who is gentle and sensitive.

But believing that men and women are different in some — even many — ways is NOT the same as believing that women must be subordinate to men.

What do we mean when we say the words “men” and “women” in statements like “men and women are different” (as in the poll)?

What does it mean to say (for example) “men are natural leaders”? Does it mean:
1. “All men have more leadership ability than all women” (which implies any given man has more leadership ability than any given woman)
2. “Most men have more leadership ability than most women” (which implies any given man is likely to have more leadership ability than any given woman)
3. “Some men have more leadership ability than some women” (which doesn’t allow any particular prediction about any given man and any given woman)

The thing is, I have never in my life encountered “men” or “women” as aggregate entities. I have only ever encountered unique persons. If we don’t mean #1, what possible relevance can it have to say “men and women are different”?

Perhaps I can gain some insight into my wife by someone pointing out that “most women are X”, but I can’t assume that she fits the description. She is herself. She is not some abstract entity.

Of course, maybe we mean “God intends for men to be leaders and women to be followers, and to the extent they are not, this is a symptom of sin or the Fall.” The burden of proof lies on those who would makes such a claim.

According to Eph. 4:13, the goal for all Christians, male or female, is Christ-likeness. Teach them to do as Jesus would do. The fruit of the Spirit is same for all.

CMP,

I did not respond to your earlier posts, because I thought that you had used the most moderate example of a complementarian and contrasted it with a very extreme example of an egalitarian. In truth, my moderate egalitarion position is not that different from your complementarian position.

That being said, the difference comes down to what I consider to be descriptive versus prescriptive. (Not to mention a few different interpretation of verses.) Yes, I acknowledge the difference between boys and girls, men and women. I also acknowledge that these differences may lead them into different careers and different roles. But I am not willing to make these careers or roles prescriptive. I will always say to my children, “you can do if life whatever you choose to do, or whatever God calls you to do.” I will be there to support you. Some of these choices will be difficult, largely because there are complementarians out there saying “you are a woman, you can’t do that”, or “you are a man, you can’t do that.”

A previous post talked about the most influential Christians in your life. For me, one is a previous Pastor, who is now a vice-president of the denomination. In his local church, one of his primary ministries is serving in the church nursery. In doing so, I see that he had the attitude of Jesus Christ, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant…”

I think that this is the attitude that should be driving all of us.

P.S. My 15 year old son does not like boxing or mixed martial arts, an attitude that does not bother me in the least. One of my daughters plays hockey, a sport that girls just didn’t play 20 years ago.

I recently told my 6 year old son not to fight/rough house with girls as he might with boys, yet I am egal. As a general statement, boys will be stronger than girls for much of their lives, and so this is similar to “Do not pick on someone smaller than you.”

The goal of a Christian parent is to raised up Godly people, those who evidence the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, which are the same for both genders. When my older kids were growing up, I never even considered a reply to any request they might have made to be “Boys do not do that.” or “Girls are not supposed to do that.” or similar. It was either, “Do not do that.” when they were young or with more explanation when older, but not by gender, it was by concern for others, etc.

I guess here are some responses that may not answer the question.

To “pastor” means to care for, shepherd, be an example for and to train. Can women do all of these? Yes, can men do all of these? Yes, it seems that we are making “pastor” an authoratative office, instead of a loving function. If there are women, who are good teachers, mature Christians, obedient to the word and able and willing to share their lives with others, so that they can be modeled (hospitable) and people want to submit their lives to them because they are such, then that person is a pastor.

If people don’t want to do those things because that person is a female, then fine, that female will not be able to be that person’s pastor; however the day I come to someone and submit my life to them because they best reflect the Character of Christ and they are willing to be an example for the flock that person is a pastor.

Much like my job, I have female managers who are competent, able to teach and patient enough to teach. I do submit to them because they are my “bosses” but there is also a personal submission (a joy) submitting to them because they are comptetent and apt to teach.

We make pastors this permenant office and then say “you are to submit to that office” instead of it being a relational outworking that is flushed out into submitting and leading because of their lives. This is how a man can come into a church where no one knows him, apply for the job by via “pulpit” and then get “hired” to care for others. You have no clue who they are but they become your pastors, yet someone among you will not submit to because he doesn’t hold the office. This seems to be the exact opposite of Heb 13

Hey Mike,

A quick question, so if a dude was a weak, scarey (physically) midget would he still qualify for being a leader in the church? Or does he have be a UFC type of dude? It seems that the qualifications are all charachter related and has nothing to do with physicality or aruging ability, the actually says “don’t argue” 2 Timothy 2 :o) , just rebuke and move on

CMP,

I agree with Don above , who says:

“The goal of a Christian parent is to raised up Godly people, those who evidence the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, which are the same for both genders.”

Well said.

Christ calls upon all His people equally to live Godly lives. I raised my daughter to respect men, even though I was a single mom for much of her life, and her father, unfortunately, not an ideal role model. I think it is a great mistake to retreat into ‘training’ people in specific gender models as Christian parents. In real life, that rarely works, because each child is different.

However, in the church idealized versions of roles for men and women remain, but now the situations are being reversed. For instance, among many of the younger Christian women I know the most idealized lifestyle nowadays is not a career, but is one where the woman gets to stay at home after she has children and is able to home school them. That sounds like a good thing, no? However, among young men I meet it seems to be a more Christian ideal nowadays to expect their wives to work outside the home instead, as their financial “helpmeet”.

Now, if we are going to concentrate on training men as men and women and women, what do you think is wrong with that picture?

mbaker,

I would say neither of those are Christian. They are cultural. Working outside of the home, homeschooling, staying home…. are not Christian morals just cultural disctinctives.

P.S. As an egal, I believe in the complemetarity of the genders, my wife complements me and I her, that is God’s plan. I do not see any hierarchy in the idea of complentarity.

I see the term “complementarian” as a way to present gender hierarchy in a more “sellable” way; since patriarchy has such negative connotations and masculinism is not very well known, but masculinism is exactly what hierarchical comps teach, males on top.

So my question for hierarchical comps is, why the obfuscation? Why not be plain speaking? How do you know you are not being conned by the obfuscation?

Don,

I’m also wondering how a mother teaches her son that the complementarian heirarchy you are speaking about is okay. Does she allow the boy to talk back to her because he is a man? Does the father correct him if he truly believes his son is just fulfilling his biblical role as a male? Does mom say anything when her daughter bops her brother over the head, and then does the “I’m a girl, so you can’t hit me back” type thing to her male sibling?

That’s still another reason why why I see a potential can of worms on both sides in ‘training’ children to live strictly by individual gender roles.

“The goal of a Christian parent is to raised up Godly people, those who evidence the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, which are the same for both genders.”

Bingo !!! Don , I believe you are right on!!

Having and still in the process of raising “My three sons” has been a complementarim blessing for my wife and I. Having said that our approaches to this are different, but not I believe because of our gender but because of our gifts and abilities.

Not all males or females turn out the same, nor do I think are they intended to by design. In all churches where does absolute authority lie, (Yes, I know God) it rests with the church membership…..they listen and respond to church business and functions as a member of the body of Christ. If all authority/submission is granted to men only….then why do Churches still govern as a democracy? All members , both male and female have equal status and just because a board of deacons or male leaders may submit opionions doesn’t guarantee church body acceptance nor should it!!!!

OK, my wife is no longer looking over my shoulder……what I meant to say was………………………………

I am an egal, but I disagree utterly and completely with the line of argument taken by my fellow egals on this thread.

Furthermore, I think Michael’s questions, if taken seriously, rather than minimized, are a great argument for having women in the pastorate.

Here is a first stab at saying what I mean:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/02/why-michael-patton-is-still-wrong-about-women-in-pastoral-ministry.html

Michael,

I’m happy to go to the mat with you on this. Say the word, and we can cross-post back and forth. There really are more than two ways to skin this cat.

I don’t know.

Really.

There’s no question that boys and girls are different, but there’s nothing but questions about how different. One little stat that’s always fascinated me. 15 years after violence became a staple on TV, the murder rates in America spiked. 15 years after women committing violence on TV became a staple, murder rates by women spiked.

So how different, really?

Even the genital differences between men and women are subject to this very question.

Of course, this has no bearing on whether God has forbidden women to exercise their gifts, but it’s an interesting discussion.

CMP,
The problem with answering the questions that you propose is that in order to answer them one must resort to stereotypes which may be true in a majority of the circumstances, but are not true in each individual circumstance. This is why I believe that the egalitarian approach of treating each individual according to that individuals own unique talents and gifts is the correct one. As far as my kids are concerned (should I ever have any – many might consider this a bad idea) if I happened to have a daughter I would encourage her in whatever she felt lead to do. If she felt that it was her place to be a homemaker who took it upon herself to raise children up in a godly way then I would fully support and celebrate this. If she felt that it was her calling to be a neurosurgeon I would support this. And if she felt that it was her calling to go into the ministry I would support that. It would all depend on the unique talents, gifts and characteristics of the individual. Whether or not more men might have that gift then women or vice versa is irrelevant to the individual.

Michael,

What if you had a daughter who wanted to act, think, and dress in a masculine way. Or a son who wanted to do so in a feminine way?

In other words, would you train your children to be masculine or feminine or do you think that these type of terms are stereotypes that oppress individuality?

Or something else. I don’t want it to sound as if I am setting you up here.

you ask the wrong question(s).

and in asking the wrong questions, you build strawmen (and women) with abandon.

how about this:

how do i raise my son to be a christian?
how do i raise my daughter to be a christian?

or is it more important that your sons and daughters be men and women than be christians? pick your priorities.

I would argue that those things which you mention (dress etc.) are related largely to hardwired physical and sexual attributes. Now that being said how do you define masculine and feminine clothing?? I know many extreme conservatives who would say it is a sin for a women to wear pants because pants are a masculine piece of clothing. I can’t personally think an article of clothing in my closet that would be “masculine only” per se in our culture. Now of course anatomical difference would often necessitate adjustments for a women (i.e. a man’s suit vs. a woman’s suit). Beyond that so much of clothing tastes is cultural that it’s really hard to even use this as an example.

However since I know what your getting at the example I will use is a male who wants to wear a females dress which in turn would basically mean that we have a boy who thinks he’s a girl. Of course I would see this as a psychological disorder, but one that stems from physical and biological realities rather than career and role choices. Then again could there be a culture where men wearing dress or skirts is the cultural norm (what about the Scottish Kilt?) I think a more apt example would be a male who wants to be a (insert stereotypical female profession here) and would believe in such an instance that this should be supported according to that individuals own talents and gifts. If a male happens to be a spectacular florist so be it.

boy, this stuff is really illustrative.

My older son was very sensitive when growing up.

So we decided that home schooling was best for him, even tho my older girl was going to public school. We made an individual decision as to what we thought was best for each.

I NEVER thought about trying to “toughen up” my older son so he would not be as sensitive as he was, I just accepted that that was the way God made him and loved him as he was.

And I never thought that because he was sensitive that he was somehow “too feminine”, I do not map the various human psych attributes into hard categories of male or female.

I would suggest, if you have not already, esp the Egalitarians, to go to John’s site and read his comments about this post: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/02/why-michael-patton-is-still-wrong-about-women-in-pastoral-ministry.html

He is an egalitarian. Really good stuff.

CMP,

You have said on more than one occasion there are several types of complementarians and egalitarians. I think the one size fits all approach so far has not done justice to those of us who share beliefs of both camps.

Perhaps a post on how you see all the nuances coming into play?

You are very right. I actually already have a chart in the works right now!

There is definitely a specturm of beliefs here. I have learned much beyond the academics of the issue about how people think here. It has been really good. I hope that others, even if we stand on different sides of the river, have benefited from this.

I will try to put together the “across the spectrum” post soon.

John Hobbins: “Michael,

I’m happy to go to the mat with you on this.”

OoooooOOOh, such a manly challenge.

How much are the tickets for a UFC blog war on “Women in Head Pastor” between a complementarian and an egalitarian?

Go CMP!!

😉

Interesting.

I don’t find the answer: “Kids are individuals and we must raise them as individuals,” of very much use. Neither is the answer, “Boys should be Christians; Girls should be Christian,” any better. Of course, both are good. They are “priorities.”

But how do you raise a boy to be a man? A girl to be a woman?

Many have said, “I have problems with your terms, with your presuppositions.” and then go on to talk about individuality. You know, that is great too, but it doesn’t answer the question. And I was wondering why, as an egalitarian, we are having trouble with this question?

See, I really don’t care if my son grows up to love many female dominated professions or hobbies. I don’t care if my daughter becomes a hockey player or a ballerina. As others, I pray they are Christ-like, I pray they are mature, I pray they enjoy their personal mission/vision.

But what if we change the question: What does it take for a boy to become a good husband to a loving wife? What does it take for a girl to become a good wife to a loving husband? Now, that changes things entirely for me.

Oh, of course, maturity, sacrifice, commitment, love, forgiveness, integrity and so-forth are going to be MAJOR requirements for both. I don’t want to lose my “egalitarian” credentials I have presented. 🙂 But still, there is more, is there not?

If my teen child wants to marry, what is it that I should help them to become? Does a man need to strongly enter his world, to stay strong, and yet let that strength be under control, tempered and gentle? Does a young woman need to learn to be strong in embracing her husband, warmly inviting to him, and willing to embrace the team that they have become above all others?

Those seem to me to be relational skills that are needed for marriage. But again, the way each exercises those skills are highly individual. But I would love to hear your thoughts.

JJ

JJ, you are heading in a good direction, but I would say that limiting it to husband and wives, while helpful is not going to be representative or comprehensive as an expression of masculinity or femininity. Are these only expressed if one is married?

I had to deal with this a lot as a singles pastor.

Thanks for your contribution my friend.

[Sorry for my poor English]. The social doctrine of gender “equality” is the necessity of the doctrine of “individuality”. And every Adam’s child is fighting for his “equality” and “individuality” againts God.
What does it mean to be Christ-like? I think “equality” and “individuality” is the core doctrine of Adam not Christ. Christian character is about “submission”, not “equality”.

I work with secular agnostic women and none of them think that men and women are the same, and none of them want to be more like a man. I cannot imagine what they would think reading this thread.

Yes, women want financial success. Well, why not. We have dentist bills, and college fees to pay just like you guys. We will put on a suit if it helps. But from my perspective women do NOT want to be like men.

”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.”

Firstly, training boys and girls to be mature individuals deals both with character and choices. Yes, some of those issues will be different between boys and girls. Boys will have to deal with keeping testosterone/hormonal rushes in check, will deal more with aggressive anger, and need to learn how to use their denser muscled physical strengths to bless others. Girls need to learn how to be modest, not give in to their hormonal urges, learn how to say no to boys for both their welfare, and use their physical strengths to bless others. IMO all children should be taught to find their own unique gifts and hone them into something useful and enjoyable. All children should be taught how to be useful to society and their community, and their local church.

All egals believe in complementarity, both between the sexes and between individuals. What we do not believe in are gender based lifelong hierarchies. And really, complementarianism, true to its foundations from patriarchy is much more about hierarchies than it is about complementarity.

”s 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?”

Every bit of true research that I have read indicates that within each gender there are so many differences in abilities, inclinations, mental interests and physical abilities, etc. that there can be no absolute gender standard on such things. Every time we think we come up with a standard there are exceptions. When there are exceptions, it invariably means we have limited some who…

”What does it mean to be Christ-like? I think “equality” and “individuality” is the core doctrine of Adam not Christ. Christian character is about “submission”, not “equality”.”

I don’t know. Sounds a bit simplistic. If it weren’t for Adam’s sin we wouldn’t be worrying and fighting about equality, we’d be living it. It’s only because some want to take away equality from others that we are forced to think about it. We ARE equal in Christ. And we are each individually different and unique from one another in addition to being male and female. All women are not alike and all men are not alike as well. We each accept the Lord’s salvation individually. We are called and equipped individually. Individuality is not an excuse to sin, it is simple who we are: individual humans who have our own personal relationship with God.

BTW, what does the statement “different by design” mean in relationship to your poll?

There is that egalitaian word again: “exception.” Should exceptions create rules?

Can you bring up boys to be “men” and what does that look like?

If not, then we promote a gender neutral child rearing because of “exceptions”?

I am glad to see the poll. People are acknowledging that people are created with differences.

Although, it is interesting how many people here are still hesitant to do so without so many qualifications that it becomes meaningless.

“Should exceptions create rules?”

Rather, man made rules create exceptions. 🙂

And OF COURSE, people are created with differences. The problems arise when us imperfect humans decide we are going to categorize and restrict so that a select few have more privileges and opportunities to be who God has created them to be.

post #36 I accidentally cut myself off….

Every bit of true research that I have read indicates that within each gender there are so many differences in abilities, inclinations, mental interests and physical abilities, etc. that there can be no absolute gender standard on such things. Every time we think we come up with a standard there are exceptions. When there are exceptions, it invariably means we have limited some who didn’t fight against our formulas. Thus, I don’t believe in setting such formulas. Allowing God freedom to choose and equip seems more respectful to God and to our fellow humans.

I am glad to see the poll. People are acknowledging that people are created with differences.

Although, it is interesting how many people here are still hesitant to do so without so many qualifications that it becomes meaningless.

I don’t think anyone has suggested there are no differences. The big issue is that you (comps) are using those differences to justify precluding women from particular roles.
When egals suggest that there is no difference in being able to fulfil a role (though there are differences in how that role will be fulfilled) you have taken that to imply there is no difference between the sexes – gender neutral. That is simply not the egal argument (and I suspect the root of what John Hobbins is getting at.

TL, couldn’t it also be just observing and obey natural laws? Rom 2. How do you dignify one as a purpose in God’s design and another as man-made? Not so easy, I admit.

John,

“The big issue is that you (comps) are using those differences to justify precluding women from particular roles.”

The fist issue restriction for particular roles, but a development and celebration that capitalizes on the differences. If we can meet there, then I will be satisfied for now. I am trying to rewire the system here so that people don’t just look to how palatable the outcome is for each in these roles, whether they be leadership or otherwise.

Aha, Michael,
I see your subversion now. Once everyone agrees that there are substantive differences between the genders and everyone realises we are saying the same thing in a different way and are therefore fundamentally agreed, then it’s a small matter for the comps to step over to the egal side (and claim that’s what they meant all along). 😉

JohnO,

However you want to express it. Terms or nominal concessions make no difference to me! As long as we are meeting and agreeing on these essential foundational principles, I think it is going to go a long way.

It seems you want me to agree that there are differences between “the genders” or between “men and women” or between “masculinity” and “femininity”.

This seems very platonic. We’re not talking about actual individual men and women or boys and girls. We are talking about the forms “Man” and “Woman”, or about aggregate entities such as averages or means or medians. Exceptions (e.g., variations among actual individual men) are distractions or unimportant.

I don’t interact with Man or Woman, or with Masculinity or Femininity. I interact with actual unique people.

Could someone please answer: What difference does it make (say) that the average man can do more pushups than the average woman? How does that statement (true as it is) help me be who I should be? How does it help me raise my son to be who he should be? How does it help me raise my daughters to be who they should be?

I do not wish to deal in abstractions, and for this (ironically) I feel like I’m being treated as disconnected from reality.

” TL, couldn’t it also be just observing and obey natural laws? Rom 2. How do you dignify one as a purpose in God’s design and another as man-made? Not so easy, I admit.”

Michael,

I’m not sure that I see the difficulty. Perhaps you can explain what you are thinking.

God’s design cannot be resisted, only perverted, controlled, etc. IOW men cannot become pregnant and bear children. Women cannot fertilize their own eggs. With the exception of disease or medical abnormalities men and women are born with certain physical attributes. That is God’s design.

Man made rules seek to add characteristics of their own determination (such as men being leaders) and bind them to one gender denying the other gender. This can be resisted.

God’s design cannot be perverted? It is preverted every day through those who follow the “natural” course that so many of you want to back off and stay neutral about?

Do you don’t “shape” your children, reinforcing in them a sense of right and wrong? Do you ever prevert God’s design in your life?

“I don’t interact with Man or Woman, or with Masculinity or Femininity. I interact with actual unique people.”

We are to disciple people. Sexes are different by evident disign. Individuals take form as they grow and are a great mystery exactly what they will be.

The arguments that I am hearing from you all is very much the same as I hear from the homosexuality community. What is the difference?