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. Continue Reading »

The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:

Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.

Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.

or…

Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.

Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.

or…

Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.

Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.

While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.

In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:

It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.

Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…

Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.

Here is what Complementarianism is:

Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.

Here is what Egalitarianism is:

The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity. Continue Reading »

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a debate about this issue. So don’t debate the issue (and I say that with all my masculine authority!) This post assumes the position that women cannot teach and seeks to give rationale as to why. Posts are already being deleted that are vehemently on the attack (and there are plenty).

I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.

There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)

There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.

I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.

“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:

1. Intelligence

2. Wisdom

3. Love

4. Concern

5. Rational

6. Persuasiveness

While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.

The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.

Pop quiz: What did she do next?

a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.

b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.

c. Woke me up and had me go out there.

Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.

Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach: Continue Reading »

Towards the end of last semester as I was immersed in studying Greek, I came across the names of a couple of female New Testament scholars.  Naturally my curiousity got the better of me.  My preliminary quest turned up a platform on gender issues amid other publications.  I must say I was disappointed.  I then sought to find a female NT scholar whose research and speciality did not involve gender issues.  Why did it bother me so much that women scholars utilized their platform for gender issues?  As a women with academic and leadership interests, it seems like I would have been pleased to see such efforts.  But I wasn’t.

To be clear, what I am referring to ranges from women’s role in leadership in a complementarian paradigm to full blown support for egalitarianism and everywhere in between.  I am referring to research that specifically addresses to what extent a woman can exercise authority over a man, if at all, and participate in ministry leadership.

So what’s my beef with gender issues?  I know I might get into a bit of hot water with the ladies for this one.  Maybe it’s just me and this is only an opinion, but I think it undermines the legitimacy of female scholarship, particularly in fields where issues are secondary.  I am not saying that Biblical theology of women, and particularly women in leadership should not be explored, but there is something about effort being exerted to promote a cause that can be perceived as self-beneficial.  And especially where the sword of gender issues is optional and research efforts can be focused on other topics.  It might be subtly or not so subtly saying, ‘I’m here and demand that you take me serious.’

I am NOT saying that is the motive behind such a platform but I can’t help but wonder if that is the ultimate impact.  I can’t help but wonder if the perception of self-promotion can be self-defeating, and perhaps undermine the premise that such scholarship aims to promote.

Yes, somebody has to research them.  To be honest, I appreciate the men that take up the cause for gender issues.  I think far too many men, particularly in more conservative evangelical circles, are prone to lethargic study and easy dismissal of understanding a woman’s place in leadership.  After all, why should they be concerned?  But for the ones who do, I think it does give a little more credibility to the issue because it is no longer perceived as a woman trying to insert herself where some believe, she should not be inserted.  Again, I am not saying that those who take up the cause with their research interest and literary publication are doing this, but perception can say a lot.

Why do I have concerns?   While I maintain an active complementarian perspective regarding male headship in the home and church, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that it is not as neatly packaged as the more conservative platforms would espouse.  I don’t believe I will ever accept the abolition of an authoritative order, aka, egalitarianism.  But I do believe there is ample room, in present day context, for women to legitimately hold leadership roles more than some segments within conservative evangelic circles are willing to accept.  I say this not in support of my own ambition, but as a student of Scriptures that seeks to honestly digest what the whole counsel of Scripture would say on a topic.  This also involves evaluating what is contextualized versus commanded.

Yet, there have been solid lines drawn in the sand.  For those that hold to #1-4 in Michael’s chart (here), I think there is the expectation that women will rebel and possibly construed as outward defiance against God’s authority.  A smart, capable, degreed and well-read woman taking up the cause against restrictive views most likely support this expectation.  Moreover, for the stricter conservative branches of evangelicals with low incentive to investigate issues further, I can’t help but wonder if the cause of scholarship in the area of gender issues would not be construed as further motivation for strengthening those lines.

Regardless of one’s position in the complementarian/egalitarian debate, perhaps the best support for the legitimacy of female leadership is demonstrating scholarship in a variety of disciplines within theological study.  Rather than concentrating research on why women can hold leadership positions or to what extent women can hold leadership position, perhaps the greatest proof would be in the pudding of demonstrated capability and meaningful contributions in all areas in the body of Christ.  I know this can mean various things depending on ones position, (whether a woman can pastor, for example) but the argument of the position is not really the point here nor is this post in support of one position vs. the other.   The point is that if there is a place for women in leadership, it might be better to demonstrate leadership in that area rather than proving why you should.

So getting back to my search, I came across Dr. Karen Jobes, a professor of New Testament study at Wheaton College.   No gender studies, only research involving the LXX and New Testament exegesis.  And her commentary on 1 Peter is bar none, where she also gives props to her husband for modeling Ephesians 5.  I do not know much more about Dr. Jobes than is written here but am eager to learn more.  I would like to believe there are others like her, who quietly work out their giftings for expedient contribution to the body of Christ amongst the din of gender promoters.  I am likely to take Dr. Jobes a little more serious because of it.

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

A friend wrote to me recently, asking why I haven’t written anything about wife abuse on Parchment & Pen. She urged me to do it because, according to her, complementarianism is rich soil in which to grow this kind of wickedness (she’s an egalitarian). Now, I could dispute the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll pass. Instead, I want to take a pro-active position on what the Bible says about how a husband should treat his wife. I’ll talk about the do’s and don’t’s.

But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!

Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.

The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them? Continue Reading »

1 Timothy 2:12-14
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.”

There are a few ways in which this passage has been taken. These go from the most conservative (hard complementarian) to the most liberal (hard egalitarian):

1. Under no circumstances can women teach men in any setting.

2. Under no circumstances can women teach men spiritual truths.

3. Under no circumstances can women teach men theology.

4. Under no circumstances can women teach men the Bible.

5. Women can teach men when there is no male who is willing and able to teach, but this is not ideal (i.e. Deborah as a Judge).

6. Women can teach men in the church but should not be the primary teacher of men.

7. Women can teach men, but they should not hold a position of authority (i.e. elder) in a church setting.

8. Paul did not let women teach due to the often combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine, but this is limited to similar contexts.

9. Paul did not let women teach, but this was more of a proverbial suggestion rather than an absolute command. This would be likened to Paul’s suggestion that people remain single (1 Cor. 7:26) due to the “current distress.”

10. Paul’s command was purely cultural without any necessary abiding or eternal principles. Because the culture of the day was not prepared to tolerate women teaching men, Paul accommodated the culture by restricting all teaching of men to men, but this is not how God intends things today. Therefore, all teaching roles are equally accessible to both women and men.

My position is a combination of 5, 6, and 8. I reject all the others.

Focusing in on 8 for a moment:

8. Paul did not let women teach due to the often combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine, but this is limited to similar context. Therefore, men must be the teachers only when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine, not administration of those within the church.

The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women. The other day, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.

I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.

My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.

Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.

Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).

I also believe that with the way that most elderships are set up in the Evangelical church today that women can and should be elders. I believe that women should be ordained into ministry. And I believe that women can have the gift of pastor/shepherd and carry this office, understanding that the office of pastor does not necessarily mean primary teacher.

OK, I am now going to get it from my strong complementarian friends and from strong egalitarians friends alike. At least you can say that I am not trying to be a people-pleaser!!

Considering the topic as of late, I thought that this might even be better to lighten the mood a bit before round two (I have no idea where this comes from, but have been using it for years.)

Let’s say a guy named Roger is attracted to a woman named Elaine. He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of them is seeing anybody else.

And then, one evening when they’re driving home, a thought occurs to Elaine, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: “Do you realize that, as of tonight, we’ve been seeing each other for exactly six months?”

And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: Geez, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he’s been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I’m trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn’t want, or isn’t sure of.

And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months.

And Elaine is thinking: But, hey, I’m not so sure I want this kind of relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I’d have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily toward … I mean, where are we
going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?

And Roger is thinking: … so that means it was… let’s see…. February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer’s, which means … lemme check the odometer … Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here.

And Elaine is thinking: He’s upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I’m reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed- even before I sensed it-that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that’s it. That’s why he’s so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He’s afraid of being rejected.

And Roger is thinking: And I’m gonna have them look at the transmission again. I don’t care what those morons say, it’s still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold weather this time. What cold weather? It’s 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a darn garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent thieves $600.

And Elaine is thinking: He’s angry. And I don’t blame him. I’d be angry, too. I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can’t help the way I feel. I’m just not sure.

And Roger is thinking: They’ll probably say it’s only a 90-day warranty. That’s exactly
what they’re gonna say, the scumballs.

And Elaine is thinking: Maybe I’m just too idealistic, waiting for a knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I’m sitting right next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic fantasy.

And Roger is thinking: Warranty? They want a warranty? I’ll give them a darn warranty. I’ll take their warranty and stick it right up their

“Roger,” Elaine says aloud.

“What?” says Roger, startled.

“Please don’t torture yourself like this,” she says, her eyes beginning to brim with tears. “Maybe I should never have … Oh my, I feel so …” (She breaks down, sobbing.)

“What?” says Roger.

“I’m such a fool,” Elaine sobs. “I mean, I know there’s no knight. I really know that. It’s silly. There’s no knight, and there’s no horse.”

“There’s no horse?” says Roger.

“You think I’m a fool, don’t you?” Elaine says.

“No!” says Roger, glad to finally know the correct answer.

“It’s just that … It’s that I … I need some time,” Elaine says.

(There is a 15-second pause while Roger, thinking as fast as he can, tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one that he thinks might work.)

“Yes,” he says. (Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand.)

“Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?” she says.

“What way?” says Roger.

“That way about time,” says Elaine.

“Oh,” says Roger. “Yes.” (Elaine turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last she speaks.)

“Thank you, Roger,” she says.

“Thank you,” says Roger.

Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted, tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Roger gets back to his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a tennis match between two
Czechoslovakians he never heard of. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in the car, but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand what, and so he figures it’s better if he doesn’t think
about it. (This is also Roger’s policy regarding world hunger.)

The next day Elaine will call her closest friend, or perhaps two of them, and they will talk about this situation for six straight hours.

In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said and everything he said, going over it time and time again, exploring every word, expression, and gesture for nuances of meaning, considering every possible ramification. They will continue to discuss this subject, off and on, for weeks, maybe months, never reaching any definite conclusions, but never getting bored with it, either.

Meanwhile, Roger, while playing racquetball one day with a mutual friend of his and Elaine’s, will pause just before serving, frown, and say: “Norm, did Elaine ever own a horse?”

I have taught a Humanity and Sin course in The Theology Program many times. Before we begin our session on the theology of genders, I spend some time asking both the men and the women some questions. I don’t want people to think that this is necessarily leading anywhere so that their answers are not representative of a loaded defense of any particular theological position. In fact, when I started teaching this course, I was simply curious, not knowing how people would respond.

The questions are simple. Women, what do you like best about being a woman? What do you like least about being a woman. The same question is asked to the men about their gender. Having done this numerous times to people all over the world for many years, I found that the answers were always the same. Yes, there were a few exceptions here and there, but greater than 90% of the time, women and men answered the same.  Each semester I would take these results and write them all down and compare them to the previous semester. 

Below represents an agglomerated summery of the answers I always receive from each group. 

What WOMEN like MOST about being women:

• Femininity
• Child bearing
• Emotions
• Compassion
• Multi-tasking
• Verbal communication
• Intimate relationships
• Being protected
• Receiving Chivalry
• Security
• Female intuition
• Nurturing
• Inner strength
• Emotions

What women like LEAST…

• Too complex
• Perception of women
• Complexity in roles
• Self image
• Hormones/child bearing
• Physically vulnerable

What MEN like MOST about being men

• Simplicity
• Low maintenance
• Enjoy competition
• Physical strength
• Leadership
• Respected
• Being relied upon
• Problem solving
• Accomplishing goals
• Being a provider
• Logical
• Will power (resolve)
• Male bonding
• Less emotion
• Acceptable immaturity

What men like LEAST…

• Responsibilities
• Pressure
• Not understanding emotions
• Lonely
• Communication issues
• Can’t show weakness
• Inability to solve a problem
• Fear of failure

The top rated answer for women is “nurturer.” The top rated answer for men is “leader.”

I don’t necessarily ask you to do the same thing because the survey might be more contaminated since you know I have been discussing the gender debate. What I do want to ask you is for your thoughts on this survey.

Supposing this survey is correctly representative, does this speak in any way to whether God has created the sexes with a predisposition— physical, emotional, psychological—to carry out certain roles better than the other?

(Remember, the exception, while important, cannot be our focus.)

In response to Ruth’s “Top Ten Reasons I am a feminist,” I thought that I would have some fun with one of my own.

10. I like to smoke cigars.

9. I am a completmentarian and by default that what we are supposed to be.

8. The woman made me do it.

7. If Jesus and Paul were here today, they would be smoking a cigar with me.

6. God’s name is masculine.

5. I don’t like pink.

4. If it weren’t for women, lust would not be an issue (for most )

3. Jack Bauer.

2. The thought of Hilary as president.

1. My wife thinks its a turn on (yeah right!)