Boys are Warriors and Girls are Princesses? Spiritual Gifts are not Divided by Gender

I would, perhaps, rephrase this to mean that women don't respect men who aren't 'partners'. I know I am not alone in describing the person I want as a mate (and found) to be a partner in my marriage, not a leader. You seem to imply that men are either 'leaders' or followers, and followers are, by nature, weak. What a false dichotomy!

No, I said what I meant and meant what I said.

Well, Joe Allen Doty, you give me opportunity to cite my scholarly credentials without boasting. I have a bachelor's degree with a major in religion from Wayland Baptist Colege (now University). WBU is and was accredited by the Southern Association of schools and colleges). At Wayland I took a course in Biblical Hermeneutics. Our textbook was by Bernard Ramm. My 76 years will perhaps excuse me from not remembering the title of the text. I also have a BD (now called MTh) and a PhD degree in Biblical Studies from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1969). My education of course does not prove that my interpretation is correct. But it does show that I am not arguing from a position of ignorance. Actually you and I are in agreement on the issue of gender equality in church leadership. (My seminary alma mater now insists--I think contra Paul--on such gender differences.) Of course there are biological gender differences. But they do not count in the Kingdom of God any more than the cultural/historical differences between Jew and Greek or the economic differences between free and slave.

Charles Kiker, retired pastor and theological educator
not retired progressive social justice activist.

Thank you for writing this article. I agree with those who have said that in most churches, men and women assume traditional gender roles. This is one reason I don't like most churches. Not all women enjoy watching chick flicks. Some prefer camping and football and are more comfortable in leadership rather than caregiving roles. Being expected to fall into the women's tea/prayer group role can be quite marginalizing. Perhaps the reason these roles persist is because the people for whom they fit insinuate that there is something biologically wrong with the rest of us (since, after all, they say these gendered behaviors are biologically hard-wired). As a result, those of us who don't fit in avoid most churches and the stereotypes and ignorance continue.

No one is arguing that a young girl's servant heart shouldn't be nurtured. Or that boys should be scolded when they play rough. However, girls who like to play rough should also be encouraged, as should boys who are sensitive. Gifts don't always come in the form and to the people that we expect.

Again, thanks for the article -- I think the church really needs get over its gender role rigidity. Great spiritual gifts are being wasted.

I told a feminist friend about 25 years ago, to her agreement: "Women are equal to men, but women are not the same as men." At some point we're going to have to accept the idea that the differences in gender are not merely cultural or spiritual but biological in nature.

It's more germane than is obvious. The reality -- and I've seen this time and time again, in both egalitarian and complementarian evangelical Christian fellowships -- is that women regardless of orientation simply do not notice, let alone respect, men who aren't "leaders." And that can be a problem when it comes time to find a mate.

I told a feminist friend about 25 years ago, to her agreement: "Women are equal to men, but women are not the same as men." At some point we're going to have to accept the idea that the differences in gender are not merely cultural or spiritual but biological in nature.

While I agree that there are some biological differences between men and women, I don't think that is really pertinent to the argument here. Teaching girls that their only place in the church is as a "princess," is not only detrimental to the girl's spiritual journey, but to the church as a whole. Similarly, teaching boys that their place is to be a warrior for God is detrimental to the boy's spiritual journey and to the church. Both circumstances ignore God-given traits and talents that the child may have. The girl may be gifted with a servant's heart and the boy may be gifted with a peace-making talent.

And while there may be biological differences when you look at the population as a whole, we must remember that there is a span of normalcy. A female individual may, in fact, be stronger than a male individual. And a male individual may, in fact, be more emotional than a female individual. Gifts from God are given on to individuals, not to the population as a whole.

It's more germane than is obvious. The reality -- and I've seen this time and time again, in both egalitarian and complementarian evangelical Christian fellowships -- is that women regardless of orientation simply do not notice, let alone respect, men who aren't "leaders." And that can be a problem when it comes time to find a mate.

"At some point we're going to have to accept the idea that the differences in gender are not merely cultural or spiritual but biological in nature."

I remember listening to White segregationists while I was involved in the 1960s African-American civil rights struggle. Most of them kept emphasizing that the differences between races were not merely cultural or spiritual but biological in nature. They believed in these biological racial differences as firmly as you believe in biological gender differences.

Hmmm, the more things change, the more they stay the same -- just with different names and catagories.

On the authority of Paul (Galatians 3:28) I will say that "in Christ" there is no male and female.

Most of them kept emphasizing that the differences between races were not merely cultural or spiritual but biological in nature. They believed in these biological racial differences as firmly as you believe in biological gender differences.

Nonsense -- I have more in common with a white male than with a black female. Besides, anthropologists have determined that there is no such thing as a "superior" or "inferior" race.

Do you forget that Paul ministered with women who were pastors, evangelists and deacons?

In my educated theological opinion, "there is no male and female" refers to being equal in spirituality and equal in church LEADERSHIP ministry gifts. ckgmail gave a literal translation of the Greek text of that scripture.

God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can choose to call women to be pastors, deacons, evangelists and Bible teachers (by the latter, I mean to adults in Wednesday evening services and not merely to children in Sunday school classes).

Of course, when a small child accepts Jesus, the child is no less saved than adults who believe in Jesus.

That means only that men and women were no less "saved" -- which would have been in issue in his day.

"Nonsense -- I have more in common with a white male than with a black female. Besides, anthropologists have determined that there is no such thing as a 'superior' or 'inferior' race."

You might think that scholars who argue that there are biological differences between Whites and Blacks are advocating nonsense. However, these scholars are quite serious. For years and decades, these scholars used the research that they did to justify racial segregation. In the past, they used their research to justify slavery.

I personally agree with you that research that proports to show biological differences between races -- that would lead to biological differences in intelligence or complex behavior -- are nonsense. However, unlike you, I believe that research that proports to show biological differences between genders -- that would lead to biological differences in intelligence or complex behavior -- are equally nonsensical. Of course there are biological differences between genders, as there are bilological differences between races. But these external, physical characteristics play no part in determining intelligence or complex behavior.

You say that you've observed differences in gender behavior in your churches that You've attended -- and have thus concluded that these differences are due to biological factors. You are welcome to visit my current church and any previous churches that I've attended (most which have been racially diverse). You will not find the sort of dynamic between genders that you have witnessed.

Is it possible that the gender differences in behavior that you saw in the evangelical churches that you've attended have resulted from theologies that preach biological gender differences? The preaching of racial segregation and biological racial differences in many churches -- some which I observed in Mississippi in the middle 1960s -- likely led to differences in racial behavior within these particular church communities. These observations that I observed did not lead me to conclude that there are hard-wired biological differences in complex behavior between Blacks and Whites. For me to have drawn such conclusions would be nonsense. I would say the same for whatever differences in gender behavior that you have observed (which I have not observed in my church community).

I've read your posts in the Sarah Palin thread. Do you truly believe that Sarah Palin has reacted as she has because of her biological gender characteristics? I'm curious as to why you haven't yet brought up this aspect about Sarah Palin up in the conversation.

What I find so ironic is that, as firmly as you dismiss research that supports biological differences between races that would lead to comlex behavior. And at the same time, you readily support and accept research that supports biological differences between genders that would lead to comlex behavior. It's one of many mysteries in the world.

"Nonsense -- I have more in common with a white male than with a black female. Besides, anthropologists have determined that there is no such thing as a 'superior' or 'inferior' race."

You might think that scholars who argue that there are biological differences between Whites and Blacks are advocating nonsense. However, these scholars are quite serious. For years and decades, these scholars used the research that they did to justify racial segregation. In the past, they used their research to justify slavery.

I personally agree with you that research that proports to show biological differences between races -- that would lead to biological differences in intelligence or complex behavior -- are nonsense. However, unlike you, I believe that research that proports to show biological differences between genders -- that would lead to biological differences in intelligence or complex behavior -- are equally nonsensical. Of course there are biological differences between genders, as there are bilological differences between races. But these external, physical characteristics play no part in determining intelligence or complex behavior.

You say that you've observed differences in gender behavior in your churches that You've attended -- and have thus concluded that these differences are due to biological factors. You are welcome to visit my current church and any previous churches that I've attended (most which have been racially diverse). You will not find the sort of dynamic between genders that you have witnessed.

Is it possible that the gender differences in behavior that you saw in the evangelical churches that you've attended have resulted from theologies that preach biological gender differences? The preaching of racial segregation and biological racial differences in many churches -- some which I observed in Mississippi in the middle 1960s -- likely led to differences in racial behavior within these particular church communities. These observations that I observed did not lead me to conclude that there are hard-wired biological differences in complex behavior between Blacks and Whites. For me to have drawn such conclusions would be nonsense. I would say the same for whatever differences in gender behavior that you have observed (which I have not observed in my church community).

I've read your posts in the Sarah Palin thread. Do you truly believe that Sarah Palin has reacted as she has because of her biological gender characteristics? I'm curious as to why you haven't yet brought up this aspect about Sarah Palin up in the conversation.

What I find so ironic is that, as firmly as you dismiss research that supports biological differences between races that would lead to comlex behavior. And at the same time, you readily support and accept research that supports biological differences between genders that would lead to comlex behavior. It's one of many mysteries in the world.

For years and decades, these scholars used the research that they did to justify racial segregation. In the past, they used their research to justify slavery.

They're not doing that research anymore, trust me.

You say that you've observed differences in gender behavior in your churches that you've attended -- and have thus concluded that these differences are due to biological factors. You are welcome to visit my current church and any previous churches that I've attended (most which have been racially diverse). You will not find the sort of dynamic between genders that you have witnessed.

Oh, yes, I will, and it won't take me long to find it. I've attended both mainline and evangelical churches, egalitarian and complementarian, liberal and conservative, and I've seen it every time. The only difference is the way men are regarded, either as essential or irrelevant (depending on their perceived status).

Is it possible that the gender differences in behavior that you saw in the evangelical churches that you've attended have resulted from theologies that preach biological gender differences?

Emphatically no, because the evangelical ministry I was tied to most closely was egalitarian and associates with churches that to this day have a similar orientation. And that's how I know -- in such situations, despite "equality," the "strong" men are fawned over and the "weak" men are ignored.

"[WT]'For years and decades, these scholars used the research that they did to justify racial segregation. In the past, they used their research to justify slavery.'

"[BD]They're not doing that research anymore, trust me."

Trust me. They are.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicC...

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_insi...

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-race-bi...

These are not "White Power" or neo-Nazi sites. These are articles published by scholars.

"[WT]'You are welcome to visit my current church and any previous churches that I've attended (most which have been racially diverse). You will not find the sort of dynamic between genders that you have witnessed.'

"[BD]Oh, yes, I will, and it won't take me long to find it. I've attended both mainline and evangelical churches, egalitarian and complementarian, liberal and conservative, and I've seen it every time. The only difference is the way men are regarded, either as essential or irrelevant (depending on their perceived status)."

You haven't been to my church. So you cannot blythely assume that you will be able to draw any conclusions about leadership and gender roles. My church as a woman pastor. Men and women are in leadership positions. No one in our church pays any attention to that. I've been involved in other churches before, and they were the same. So my church truly isn't any different than many other churches. Men are neither ignored nor fawned over.

Your church might be different. I haven't been there so I cannot draw any conclusions about it. Same with you and my church.

I've found that beliefs that are based on EITHER race or gender biological differences (regarding complex behavior) cannot be substantiated. Even if there are some scholars that insist that these biological racial and/or gender behavioral differences exist.

Reading all of the literature (including your comments) makes me realize how similar the rationalizations of those who believe in racial segregation are to those who believe in gender segregation.

As I said before: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Including the denial and blindness of those who insist that there exist broad biological differences, based on race or gender, that determine complex behavior.

"The reality -- and I've seen this time and time again, in both egalitarian and complementarian evangelical Christian fellowships -- is that women regardless of orientation simply do not notice, let alone respect, men who aren't "leaders." And that can be a problem when it comes time to find a mate."

I would, perhaps, rephrase this to mean that women don't respect men who aren't 'partners'. I know I am not alone in describing the person I want as a mate (and found) to be a partner in my marriage, not a leader. You seem to imply that men are either 'leaders' or followers, and followers are, by nature, weak. What a false dichotomy!

Maybe you have seen that because that's what youd're looking for.

"The reality -- and I've seen this time and time again, in both egalitarian and complementarian evangelical Christian fellowships -- is that women regardless of orientation simply do not notice, let alone respect, men who aren't "leaders." And that can be a problem when it comes time to find a mate."

I would, perhaps, rephrase this to mean that women don't respect men who aren't 'partners'. I know I am not alone in describing the person I want as a mate (and found) to be a partner in my marriage, not a leader. You seem to imply that men are either 'leaders' or followers, and followers are, by nature, weak. What a false dichotomy!