Christian Parenting: Training Your Child’s Gender Identity

284 thoughts on “Christian Parenting: Training Your Child’s Gender Identity”

1. When preparing for the birth of my first baby (8 years ago), I read a book about breastfeeding. I remember it referencing men breastfeeding. I looked it up, and yes it is possible. http://blogs.static.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/20193.html So since God has created males with this capacity, I don’t care that “they” think nursing is inappropriate play. Good for you JA for not buying into the nonsense.

   Coincidentally my sister sent me this today: WARNING: offensive language follows!
   http://www.thedaddycomplex.com/post/55268573331/latest-parenting-trend-the-ctfd-method

   LikeLike

2. Yes, you’re right – – men can actually nurse. Oh my, I think the folks at CBMW would have their panties in a wad if they thought about that too much. Hmm, so if God made men capable of breastfeeding – now what? LOL

   Oh, and that link definitely deserved a language warning. That was funny! 🙂

   LikeLike

3. Enforced or even heavily preferred gender roles growing up can be hell on adult children if they don’t quite fit comfortably into these predefined roles – and there is a sizable number of us that don’t. This is probably one of the first thing that broke down in my relationship with my parents… I always wanted to be the rescuer, the defender, the dragonslaying knight.

   My blog title/livejournal account is ‘flamesword’ for a reason – I’ve gone by that for so long it feels like a second skin. I even wrote a song about it, years ago; it was written with a specific fictional character in mind, but one that I very strongly identified with:

   Watching Over You

   I’m standing here with a flaming sword
   Watching over you
   A sword of steel, sharp and bright
   I’m protecting you
   Sword of truth defiant, a fiery defense
   I’ll stand before you, standing strong
   Casting shadows in the dark

   You are the reason that I live
   The only hope I have
   They’ll have to go through me
   To get to you
   I made a promise, branded on my heart
   I will never let them, let anyone hurt you

   No matter what, here I stand
   Watching over you
   I will never leave you alone
   You’ll be safe I vow
   Resolute, a burning shield, by fire I have sworn
   This charge to keep, by my life
   Nothing harms you while I stand

   I will fight for you
   if need be I will die for you
   Dragon fierce I will defend your heart
   Even if it costs me mine
   And my choices leave me cold
   Though I’m shattered I will be
   Your hero till the end
   My soul I count no sacrifice
   If it means your smile
   Stays alight

   That’s what I want to be for my loved ones, but especially my siblings, and I often feel like I didn’t live up to it well enough, didn’t do enough to shield them from my dad’s behaviour, growing up. But they tell me I did take the focus and the brunt of it, so they were spared a little. So there’s that.

   I’m sorry, I’m just rambling here in your comments, I’m very sleep deprived. I had a point somewhere in there – I have an awful hatred of enforced gender roles and overemphasis on some one-size-fits-all BS ‘gender identity’ based on predefined characteristics. My identity is whoever I turn out to be and want to be, and nobody can decide that but me. I don’t fit into any nice neat little boxes; and yes, I’m a little bit genderqueer, but I’m okay with that. Not everybody has to fit. You can’t just generalise people like that, we are not all the same, and I always thought that was supposed to be a good thing.

   tl;dr: forced gender roles screwed me up but good, and I hate them, especially the idea of people trying to ‘train’ their children into it. if they don’t fit, they’ll feel fundamentally flawed and useless and rejected, because they know they aren’t what you want.

   LikeLike

4. Great article!!! My parents and I have talked much about me and my brother’s upbringing. I was born in 1968, my brother in 1971. My parents, too, were not given a manual on raising kids — no Piper, no CBM&W, no Simms, no Dobson (thank God). They were Southern Baptists, raised me and my brother as Southern Baptists, teaching us to love and obey the Lord. I’m gay, my brother is straight, so what “went wrong”?

   Me and my dad have particularly talked about this issue. He mentioned that at a very young age, I didn’t share any of his interests. Could that be some contributing factor to my alleged “gender confusion”? I wasn’t allowed to play with dolls, and was reminded what “being a boy” was all about behaviorally. Well, he then reminded me that my brother and him didn’t share any interests, either. News flash: my brother is straight. No “gender confusion” there.

   Me and my brother were raised by the same parents, in the same religious, Southern Baptist context, treated equally and with the same amount of love. One is gay and one is straight. Life is complicated, and human sexuality even more complicated. Plus, even some of those raised under the CBM&W motif end up gay — “gendered-identity confused.”

   Well, let me inform you, I’m not confused about my gender one bit. I like being a man, have no desire to be a woman, even though I’m attracted to men. Oh well, Simms. Don’t know what to tell ya, except that you need to study human behavior and human development more — way more.

   LikeLike

5. Maybe I should rebuke my parents for giving me/letting me play with “dolls” like G. I. Joe and Major Matt Mason? 🙂 (Maybe not, since I apparently had no trouble growing into manhood, marrying, being a father, etc.) Maybe someone should rebuke me for playing dolls with my girls when they were little, and my grandchildren now? Maybe I should rebuke these people for their obsession with ensuring that Christianity has a “masculine feel” and the myopia they engender in themselves and others? Maybe they should rebuke Jesus for wanting to gather the people of Jerusalem under his wings like a “mother hen” (Luke 13)? Maybe I should stop now…

   LikeLike

6. One look at women bloggers such as Julie Anne and Deb/Dee, tells you that some women are far more comfortable in high-stakes exchanges of ideas than some male bloggers are. Note the number of male bloggers who delete comments they disagree with and shut down entire comment threads. You wouldn’t want them running a Fortune 500 company. They don’t have the finesse and savvy.

   LikeLike

7. Kagi – it sounds like you had too much responsibility for your siblings in trying to shield your dad from them. That’s not the way childhood should be. That’s sad.

   LikeLike

8. Anonymous: How boring to stop communication by shutting down comments. Why would someone continue reading if your voice is not valued? To me it’s about respect. One-way communication seems authoritarian.

   I was just talking with Dee the other day telling her all of the words/ideologies that I was clueless about until last year through blogging. Having diverse voices is challenging, helps you to cement your beliefs or question them. There is a wide range of backgrounds here. I love it and learn so much from my readers.

   LikeLike

9. William, Christians have a hard time knowing what to do with people like you. I’m happy to have your voice here and appreciate your honesty.

   LikeLike

10. On one level, I agree with Simms. We should as parents teach our children what it means to be godly men and women. In general, there are differences in how boys and girls think and function. These differences should be celebrated and embraced, as the genders do complement one another (and not merely in a physical, biological way).

    HOWEVER, this is a starting point, and NOT a “one size fits all” mold. Kids (and adults) cannot be forced into strict gender roles. I believe there are some responsibilities that fall more heavily on one gender than another (and in that way I would say I lean more complementarian). At the same time I think that the way that those responsibilities are realized is much more flexible than what most complentarians would agree to (and in that way I feel I lean more egalitarian).

    Furthermore, to force a child into a strict gender role is to often overlook the God-given personality, charcter traits, and natural bends of that particular child. A nurturing personality, for example, is traditionally a feminine trait and in strict gender identity guiding would be trained out of a boy (or it would at least be attempted). I feel that from a Biblical standpoint, this is wrong.

    Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Most Christian parents associate this verse with faith, but this isn’t the case. More accurately, this verse is about fostering the natural strengths and character traits are within the child in a healthy manner. In other words, parents should discover what their kids are good at and what character traits they possess, and help them to learn how to use those traits in healthy ways. So if you have a son that shows a keen interest in helping people and taking care of others, encourage that nurturing spirit, even though it is tradionally feminine. If you have a daughter that is charismatic and a natural leader, teach her good ways to use those abilities, even though it is a traditionally masculine bend.

    LikeLike

11. I took one look at the title “Training your Child’s Gender Identity” and mentally added “So He Doesn’t Turn Out QUEER.” Because that’s what it comes down to in Christianese. The Homo as The Ultimate Other and Culture War Without End, Amen.

    LikeLike

12. When preparing for the birth of my first baby (8 years ago), I read a book about breastfeeding. I remember it referencing men breastfeeding. I looked it up, and yes it is possible. … So since God has created males with this capacity, I don’t care that “they” think nursing is inappropriate play.

    Many-many years ago, Bloom County had a strip where one of the characters (Opus the Penguin?) described and demonstrated something called “The Baby Bonder” — a chest harness holding two breast-shaped baby bottles — “So men can have the bonding experience of breastfeeding.”

    Last panel of the strip: “That’s it. The joke is, we’re NOT kidding. Sharper Image, $49.95.”

    LikeLike

13. I think you are right, HUG. I keep thinking about the situation with my son nursing his doll and how that would have impacted his life. He was such a compliant child that I’ll bet he would have just learned to occupy himself elsewhere and ignore babies because that is a job for girls/women. That would have been such a loss for him, his future wife, his future children.

    LikeLike

14. At 7:19 Anonymous observes, “One look at women bloggers such as Julie Anne and Deb/Dee, tells you that some women are far more comfortable in high-stakes exchanges of ideas than some male bloggers are.” To my mind, every time one of these seminary-trained fundamentalist/conservative bloggers shuts down the conversation, they are admitting that their ideas cannot survive the challenges of even those who are without high levels of formal training but who, nevertheless, exhibit a modicum of native intelligence and common sense. Another way of putting it is that when these fundamentalist/conservative types present their ideas as incontestable, inerrant, and not-subject-to-question, they are showing that they insecure; and they are being bullies. When they shut down discussion, they are simply turning tail and running; which, again, is the way of bullies.

    LikeLike

15. This is an interesting subject, and I know this is a long post. 🙂 Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am 34 years old, have never been married, have no children, and have no desire to have biological kids.

    If I wanted to marry a guy I really liked who already had kids I could see committing to being someone’s step-mom but that’s about it. Part of that is a lifestyle choice. I think that if you have kids they should be your #1 Priority on a fundamental level and I feel called to do things with my life that preclude making that commitment now. But mostly I don’t have the strong instinct to have kids that most people have.

    I am a Christian and follow Christ’s teachings to the best of my ability, but I would never survive in an SGM Church or any other Church espousing the type of Christianity SGM represents given my history/attitude toward having a family.
    I’m not trying to offend anyone – I’m just giving some context to my opinions on parenting and gender roles generally.

    All that was also my way of saying I have zero child-raising experience so am not well-qualified to talk about raising kids as pertains to gender issues on a day-to-day basis.

    Yet I still have thoughts and opinions pertaining to gender roles and the teaching/training kids get in that subject area at home.

    What is Being Taught in the Homes of People Saying They Raise Masculine Sons and Feminine Daughters

    What I don’t understand is what is really being taught in the homes of people like John Piper and other big-name proponents of raising kids to act in ways that seem to be traditionally masculine or feminine. They haven’t done a good job training boys and men to protect girls and women, from what I see.

    I don’t have exact citations but I believe I have heard John Piper say that any man who would dream of putting a woman in combat so that he could function in a non-combatants role, rather than insisting that it be the other way around irrespective of either person’s desires and qualifications, is a wimp. He’s said that a man had better not let his wife try to fend off a burglar even if she has a black in Karate and is better equipped to protect the family than he is. Etc. Etc.

    Thus you’d think that John Piper would rush to the rescue of abused women and children in a manly way. But no, he won’t even state that his good friend C.J. Mahaney’s argument that Pastors have the Constitutional right to cover up sexual abuse or alleged sexual abuse, which is primarily affects women although I know there are male victims, is fundamentally immoral and not aligned with almost anyone’s concept of Biblical values pertaining to protecting families.

    The young men John Piper attracts/we were raised in families embracing strict gender roles are acting similarly.

    Being Mindful of the Realities of Gender Differences Without Being Legalistic

    I’ve made clear above that I would probably be fairly “traditionally liberal” about enforcing gender roles regarding any kids I might have. However, I confess that an experience I had recently demonstrated that I do believe men should protect women on a fundamental level when they are best equipped to do so.

    I was in an environment in which a political group I was working for was targeted by trouble-makers (to put it kindly) pulling the fire alarms in the building. The first time this happened we didn’t know that. We thought there might really be a fire.

    This was a big issue as the people I was responsible for were on the 16th floor and that’s a lot of steps to climb down. I noticed that an older woman who was not in good physical shape was struggling and I didn’t want her to have a heart attack running from what was likely a non-existent fire.

    So I told the people coming down the stairs that I would wait with her. They got my cell numbers and knew where I was. Several outstanding and very strong young men stayed with us/the 91-year-old in a walker and her mother upstairs.

    Arguably we weren’t in terrible danger. However, I thought less of every single able-bodied man who asked why were sitting on the stairs, nodded, and then walked on.

    This woman weighted at least 300 pounds and I could stand to lose some weight myself. And I probably have more upper body strength than most women but I’m nowhere near as strong as even most small men. In a real emergency the men who passed us by would have been better equipped to get her out of there than I was and some of them out-ranked me on the employment rung. Thus I think they, as men, should have offered to take my place.

    On the other hand, if a 24-year-old man with children and I were on the Titanic, and it looked like there was no hope of rescue, I hope I would have the courage to to give the last lifeboat seat to the man with a family instead of adhering to a notion that I should get in just because I’m a woman.

    So if I had kids I hope my sons would stay with the woman on the stairs who may have a heart attack if she keeps going because they’re better equipped to do that than the woman next to them, likely. And I hope my daughters would give the last seat in the lifeboat to a man with a family if no one was depending on them in the way his kids were even if the man said, “I think you get in because you’re a woman.”

    God did make men and women differently and I see no reason to deny that. And lots of folks would argue that the Bible states clearly that I should get in the lifeboat no matter what the needs of a man might be yet I can’t believe I would be serving Christ by letting kids go childless, based strictly on a gender issue, in a circumstance in which physical strength or other clear differences between men and women mean nothing practically speaking.

    Wimps All Around

    So there’s subtly to the gender issue.

    But from what I see and I wish it weren’t so, John Piper’s crowd is raising men who will not protect women and children under any circumstances for any reason despite having reputedly been trained to do so from birth.

    In my experience, most men embracing Complimentarianism publicly act like chicken—-ts when it comes to protecting women in any context. So what are these guys really teaching boys to do behind the scenes, I wonder?

    LikeLike

16. You are raising such a good point, Janna. I think I need to tweet that somehow.

    LikeLike

17. Take note: the loudest voices on gender roles, ie, men as leaders/protectors are the ones who won't sign this! http://t.co/f0Vuh0gnJI

    — Julie Anne (@DefendTheSheep) July 18, 2013

    LikeLike

18. I loved that tweet, JA. And good on Greg Hahn for challenging the great “OstraKahn” to sign it.

    LikeLike

19. Speaking of enforcing gender stereotypes, I have an issue with the phrase “tom boy” which is applied to girls and implies that physical play is reserved for boys. When I was a little girl and heard that I felt accused of acting like a boy. All children like to run and climb and throw things. It is good for growing young bodies to be active and Its just as natural for girls as it is for boys.

    LikeLike

20. Kagi – Your song is beautiful and heart-wrenching at the same time. I am sorry your childhood was shattered like that, by someone who should have been protecting you. I completely agree with you. We don’t train children to fit. They were wonderfully made in the image of God. We train them to love Jesus and love like Jesus. It seems you know more above love and protecting others than some “Jesus followers” do. I pray for healing and for you to know Jesus’ love more and more.

    LikeLike

21. Janna Chan, You certainly hit that one out of the park about Piper and the like.

    “Thus you’d think that John Piper would rush to the rescue of abused women and children in a manly way. But no, he won’t even state that his good friend C.J. Mahaney’s argument that Pastors have the Constitutional right to cover up sexual abuse or alleged sexual abuse, which is primarily affects women although I know there are male victims, is fundamentally immoral and not aligned with almost anyone’s concept of Biblical values pertaining to protecting families.”

    LikeLike

22. My Christian parents did not, nor did anyone that I can remember, direct me to behave in a “gender-specific” way. It is apparent more and more to me what a true blessing that was. Okay, I’m putting myself out there, but I think my story is helpful. So please try to be nice. Here goes:

    I am just a little younger than William Birch. Growing up, I was one of the littlest girls in my class, and one of the biggest tomboys on the playground. My Dad didn’t treat me any different, and would pitch hardballs to me (Kids would come over to play. I guess they wanted to be around a nurturing parent, especially if theirs didn’t take time.). We were dirt poor, by far the poorest in my neighborhood (although I didn’t feel “poor”) and playing various sports of all seasons outside was free. We did not have a tv. We had to read books for fun, so sad. My library card still wears out fast. My first car was a stick, and I am 100% comfortable driving a truck. I worked my way through college without incurring debt.

    Recently, I had the sheer joy of connecting with a bunch of 85-90 mph baseballs in the batting cage (thanks Dad) and it felt good. I love sports of any kind, nature and a belly laugh. I love walking cities and have walked cities in various countries by myself, always carefully & capably. I have a healthy fear, I’m big on prevention, but I do not live in fear. I have installed my water softener, flooring, ceiling lights and on and on – all without incident. Did I mention I’m careful? All the power tools in the garage are mine, and I enjoy using them. And I just got a Kreg Jig tool from a friend for my birthday!

    But I also like to cook. I love to eat. I make the best stromboli and chateaubriand (Alton Brown’s). I am petite, wear dresses (sometimes), have pretty jewelry, like plays and musicals. If you saw me you would not judge me to be a handy girl. I don’t wear makeup. No one thinks I am a lesbian, and I am not.

    I have never seen things from a girl does this, boy does that, perspective. Naturally, I don’t parent that way either. I was told early on by a wise man that boys need affection just as much as girls, and that’s what I practice. I was raised to love Jesus and care for others. And that race, gender, circumstances, orientation (don’t freak out), etc. do not exclude others from our love or the love and salvation Jesus offers.

    On a lighter note… Has anyone seen Tim Hawkins and his “liquor reference, honey get the kids in the car” freak-out denomination parody on youtube? It just popped into my head when I typed the orientation reference. Danger, orientation reference. LOL But seriously, we should be able to have these conversations without shutting down and pulling out the “you don’t agree so you’re not saved” card. It can go from that, to fear, to hate. It goes back to the main thing – What is saving faith? Why does greed, fear, selfishness, abuse get a pass?

    Following Jesus has become like an exclusive club. And it’s a club that excludes the very people the Bible tells us Jesus cared about and spent his time with. It’s sad the woman in Luke 7 would be shunned in most churches today.

    Where do I fit in? Does that put me in gender crisis? Or does it make me a capable woman? What do we really want our kids to become? It seems we are so afraid. Or maybe control freaks? I don’t know, but we make following Christ so much harder than it needs to be. And kids are suffering. Or at the least, not offered a full, blessed life.

    LikeLike

23. SMG – Yes, I too was glad to see Greg’s tweets and specifically tagging Owen Strachan, the president of CBMW. I should see if Doug Phillips has a Twitter account.

    Cheri – I couldn’t agree more!

    A Mom – love your comments. This was great: “Following Jesus has become like an exclusive club. And it’s a club that excludes the very people the Bible tells us Jesus cared about and spent his time with. It’s sad the woman in Luke 7 would be shunned in most churches today.”

    LikeLike

24. Thanks, JA and A Mom.

    I know I made a lot of points in my post. Irrespective of what one thinks of traditional gender roles and the Bible, the male Compimentarian crowd is not displaying the Godly masculinity it insists is so essential to Christianity and the future of the world.

    Regarding parenting and other issues, the question is becoming, “what went wrong?”

    LikeLike

25. A Mom-

    Total agreement with you! Especially this: “But seriously, we should be able to have these conversations without shutting down and pulling out the “you don’t agree so you’re not saved” card. It can go from that, to fear, to hate.”

    LikeLike

26. You are so right. This is so obvious. They go off on women in the military, women taking leadership in corporate jobs (can you believe they even discuss whether it’s ok for a Christian man to have a woman boss in the workplace?) and yet they seem to be silent on the issues of abuse. They talk about “servant leadership” and “loving authority.” Where is the loving authority to stand up against abuse.

    Here’s a quote promoting complementarianism from the CBMW site:

    Sin introduced into God’s created design many manifestations of disruption, among them a disruption in the proper role-relations between man and woman. As most complementarians understand it, Gen. 3:15-16 informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways.

    3. Gen. 3:16 – Sin brought about, not the beginning of a male/female relational hierarchy, but a disruption of the God-intended role of male-headship and female submission in the male-female relationship. Most complementarians understand the curse of the woman in 3:16 to mean that sin would bring about in Eve a wrongful desire to rule over her husband (contrary to God’s created design), and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her. This understanding comes from comparing the sentence structure and terms of Gen. 3:16 with Gen. 4:7. In 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is seeking to destroy him, and so He says “its [sin’s] desire is for you, but you must master it.” This means, of course, sin desires to rule over you, but you in response must rule over it. Now, the exact sentence structure is found in 3:16, where Eve is told “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This means, in light of 4:7, Eve’s desire will be to rule illegitimately over Adam (note: certainly sin could not be credited with giving Eve a loving or caring desire for Adam, could it?), and in response Adam will have to assert his rightful rulership over her. Most complementarians hold, then, that sin produced a disruption in God’s order of male headship and female submission, in which a) the woman would be inclined now to usurp the man’s rightful place of authority over her, and man may be required, in response, to reestablish his God-given rulership over the woman, and b) the man would be inclined to misuse his rights of rulership, either by sinful abdication of his God-given authority, acquiescing to the woman’s desire to rule over him (and so fail to lead as he should), or by abusing his rights to rule through harsh, cruel and exploitative domination of the woman.

    http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/summaries-of-the-egalitarian-and-complementarian-positions/

    LikeLike

27. Basically, the Comp leadership crowd says trust our “servant” authority you women and children, then they circle the wagons, and hang the women and children out to dry.

    LikeLike

28. A Mom wrote @ 12:25p, :”Following Jesus has become like an exclusive club. And it’s a club that excludes the very people the Bible tells us Jesus cared about and spent his time with. It’s sad the woman in Luke 7 would be shunned in most churches today.”

    So very true in most churches. That’s why I heartily recommend Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality by Richard Beck to anyone and everyone that has concerns about the growing exclusivity of many churches.

    LikeLike

29. This specific gender identity focus can wreck havoc from a spiritual point of view. Our Savior came as a “male” yet we are all to be like Him. He is our model. So how does that work with this focus in gender identity in the Body? Can women be Christlike since Christ was male?

    Is not our focus to be “spiritual”?

    I came to the conclusion years ago, the people focused on the rules and roles for penis’ and vaginas are actually leading us away from a focus on our spiritual standing in Christ. They stunt spiritual growth.

    We are ALL full heirs in Christ. IN CHRIST, there is no male or female.

    LikeLike

30. Janna, I have been following Piper’s ridiculousness for many years. What Piper is teaching is about maintaining male pride and position when you analyze it over a long period of time.

    One of their big problems is that there IS so much of their writings/behavior and teachings to analyze over a long period of time and more folks are catching on. Piper’s stance on Mahaney/SGM was a big wake up call for many still on the fence about his gender teachings. CJ still gets to keep his manly man position according to Piper. That says it all. These guys are not just confusing but frauds. It is ok to say that, folks. they are frauds. The are teaching these gender roles as salvic when they are not and then they promote and protect those who protected child molesters. How much more proof does anyone need?

    LikeLike

31. So many good comments on this topic! You guys have got your act together!

    @ Kagi Thank you for sharing your poem! It is excellent and heartfelt. The passage that comes to mind is: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

    @ B.K. Cobb Loved the word “myopia”—precisely!

    @ Gary W Agree. With your last statement, I would simply add: “When they shut down discussion, they are simply turning tail and running; which, again, is the way of bullies—‘and of cowards’!”

    @ Janna Thank you for your Fire drill and Lifeboat stories. Great imagery.
    I agree with your insightful statement, Janna, apart from the spelling. 🙂 Ha ha. You said: “Irrespective of what one thinks of traditional gender roles and the Bible, the male ComplEmentarian crowd is not displaying the Godly masculinity it insists is so essential to Christianity and the future of the world.” Right on!
    I see the big “H” word here: HYPOCRISY, big time!

    @ A Mom Thanks for your descriptive account of who you are and all of the activities that you like to do. That sounds balanced and impressive to me. I used to enjoy chatting with my dad while he fixed the car in our garage. I would and him all kinds of questions about cars or tools or whatever. My dad supported me while in school and allowed me to be a summer tom boy and truly feminine at the same time.

    Furthermore, I loved climbing trees, especially on the street near our back alley. In fact, I have some wonderful memories of feeling close to God while perched in the branches of that tree, especially when the wind blew. How neat was that growing up?!

    @ lydia You affirmed: “I came to the conclusion years ago, the people focused on the rules and roles for penis’ and vaginas are actually leading us away from a focus on our spiritual standing in Christ. They stunt spiritual growth.
    We are ALL full heirs in Christ. IN CHRIST, there is no male or female.”

    Agreed, another descriptive word: FRAUDS.

    LikeLike

32. So ‘reinforcing’ the gender our children are born with is now wrong? That’s all the referenced article really talked about. I suppose if you are against the God-given roles for men and women/husbands and wives (we ARE created equal but with differences) I suppose you must take that stand and read into another article what is not really there. Your consistency overwhelms me.

    LikeLike

33. Speaking of frauds…

    LikeLike

34. In my experience, most men embracing Complimentarianism publicly act like chicken—-ts when it comes to protecting women in any context. So what are these guys really teaching boys to do behind the scenes, I wonder?

    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!

    LikeLike

35. Speaking of frauds…

    B4B is back, looking for a fight as usual?

    LikeLike

36. Born4Contention,

    “Your consistency overwhelms me.”

    You consistency underwhelms me. Could you point out some words in Julie’s piece which stated: “reinforcing the gender of our children are born with is now wrong”? If not, then YOU seem to be the one guilty of “taking a stand and reading into another article what is not really there.”

    LikeLike

37. Call me a sucker, but I kept this comment in the SSB moderation doghouse for 12 hours until now. I’m watching closely.

    JA is smiling. Within minutes of releasing that comment 3 MEN came promptly and very appropriately to act like guard dogs of SSB. Real men right here, looking out for us all. Thanks, guys.

    LikeLike

38. Excellent job on all those gender issue questions, Julie Anne. What it really points out to me is that a lot of people get their knickers in a twist over things they think have to do with doctrine but are really not doctrinal at all. Boys can play with dolls and girls can rescue their brothers from dragons, for crying out loud! As if God ever said he’d smite someone for doing either this. Sheesh!

    LikeLike

39. “Real men right here, looking out for us all.” Hahaha! I’m a real man. Take that, NARTH! 😀

    LikeLike

40. In situations where their egos are on the line, these guys love to make up rules about what women can and can’t do. Child abuse doesn’t seem to register to them because their manliness isn’t in immediate danger.

    LikeLike

41. One problem (among a million) with gender role teachings is that the complementarians usually assume that everyone will get married. Around 44% of the adult American population today is single. People are not getting married until their late 20s, or much older, if at all. I’ve heard sermons by preachers on TV who have said that a husband is to act as a “protector” for his wife: what of women like me, who make it to their 40s, had hoped and expected to be married, but are still single? Preachers such as that are in effect saying God has left me without a protector, if you equate protector to “husband’ only. If your gender role views cannot be equally applied to men and women adults who are not married, there is, I think, a big, big problem with your position.

    I at least appreciate that the lady in the example you gave allows her daughter to “defend” her brother in their dragon play time: her daughter may never marry, and her dad won’t live forever, which means her daughter will have to be able to defend herself, if need be.

    Most complementarian teaching fosters overly passive, dependent behavior in females, which might be passable in youth and teen aged years, but can be problematic and even dangerous when they get into their 20s and older.

    LikeLike

42. Growing up, my younger brother and I played together. Sometimes it was with cars and blocks and, our favorite, “take it apart” (take apart various toys such as vacuums and other larger objects then put it back together); other times we played with dolls, dress up, school, etc… My brother was much better at dress up than I was – he had to teach me how to walk in the plastic dress shoes because his coordination and muscle tone was better. I never saw it happening but my little brother was always pushing me to be as active as he was. In his world, there was absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t be able to climb the large tree in our backyard or kickball or anything else, the only thing that got in our way was my lack of leg strength. Does that make him less manly now because he dressed up in girls clothes and shoes as a 5 year old or does that show the qualities we all desire to see in siblings – protective instincts and the desire to help? Today he is finishing up a master’s degree and is a better cook than I will ever dream of being. He can also clean a house top to bottom, change diapers, play with small children and decorate his apartment with something more than a blanket on the bed. He buys flowers on a regular basis for the women in his life, plans his visits home around visits to our grandmother in a nursing home and keeps in touch with more cousins than I can name. In other words, he is an incredibly well-rounded young man. How a child plays as a young child can positively influence them later in life if we let it happen. I have also seen families who adhere to the principles described in this post and playtime is miserable for the children – it is all about pleasing mom and dad and not about having freedom and creativity.

    LikeLike

43. “I suppose if you are against the God-given roles for men and women/husbands and wives (we ARE created equal but with differences) I suppose you must take that stand and read into another article what is not really there”

    Girls can grow up to have babies and boys can’t. So besides the OBVIOUS biological differences what spiritual differences are there? Is there a pink Justification/Salvation process for girls and a blue one for boys?

    Should I keep reminding my daughter she has a vagina and my son about his penis or should I focus on the fact they both are in need of a Savior and both are beloved by God?

    LikeLike

44. “In situations where their egos are on the line, these guys love to make up rules about what women can and can’t do. Child abuse doesn’t seem to register to them because their manliness isn’t in immediate danger.”

    Jeff, your comment reminded me of one of the survivor stories at SGM where a 3 year old girl was molested by a 16 year old boy. The SGM pastors response was that he was just “experimenting”.

    I got the impression they thought of such a thing as normal….part of manliness.

    LikeLike

45. JA wrote “JA is smiling. Within minutes of releasing that comment 3 MEN came promptly and very appropriately to act like guard dogs of SSB. Real men right here, looking out for us all. Thanks, guys.”

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “Beat it, or I’ll call the Brute Squad!”

    “I’m on the Brute Squad.”

    “You ARE the Brute Squad!”

    😀 😀 😀

    LikeLike

46. kind of thinking out loud, appreciate your thoughts on this too.

    …could it be that we don’t all fit into the the nicely shaped boxes of complimentarianism vs. egalitarianism, or gender teaching vs. gender ignoring, etc. (there are others, just run with it 🙂 ) Something like that; like maybe its possible to believe scripture in balance that will often look like both views – these are both taken from Scripture.

    this would come from my thinking that many of the “issues” are not entirely the actual teaching, but more related to the practice. I find that there is good in many arenas of thought, but if one was to explain their beliefs, they’d be pigeon-holed into a box by the listener, presumably (I think we do all that). But then, maybe this isn’t far from the norm as most folks may indeed take a specific teaching, hook, line, and sinker without questioning or being good Bereans. The opposite conduct in my estimation, then, is totally discounting a more conservative or progressive teaching that is contrary to one’s understanding of scripture; especially when the practice of those who follow said teaching are practicing it very legalistically, or incorrectly altogether.

    these things lead me back to the simplicity of scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit. we all have permission to go back to the Lord and follow His ways as outlined more clearly in the Word; without the secondary teaching and associated practices (do this, don’t do that; drink this, don’t drink that, taste not, touch not, etc.). The Lord will teach us too. The spirit of Christ, with all power, will change our inner being as well, away from sin and to him.

    How do I raise my female children? How do I raise my male children? I think we may have some books that discuss this, but can’t remember one that is written just for that. We have books on raising kids, but have always taken them with a grain of salt, and disposed of the teachings that didn’t sit well with us, or, were so extra-biblical they weren’t worth using to start a camp fire. But to totally discount them altogether? Its funny, these books have been criticized, while on the other hand, links to web sites, even profane ones, are quickly posted to get read – maybe how to do it right… 🙂 funny as it was, the chil-out one was actually pretty good – and what the author was actually saying, foundational. But these neo writers don’t make the other books anathema, nor do those who put into legalistic practices discussed in the books. There is still a lot of wisdom for new parents who don’t have an idea what to do; but with humans writing, plenty of stuff to just read over and press on…

    anyway, just thinkin here, trying to take into account the fullness of the discussion.

    LikeLike

47. At Genesis 3:16b, God says to Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (ESV) According to Julie Anne’s 12:44 PM quote from the CBMW website, the complementarians assure us that this seemingly simple and to the point statement means all of the following:

    1. The male/female relationship would now be affected by mutual enmity.

    2. Woman would henceforth have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation.

    3. That the rule of man over woman would otherwise have been rightfully-corrective.

    4. Instead, woman’s attempted usurpation of man’s authority would now lead the man to exercise his authority in wrongfully-abusive ways (note how blame is being ever so subtly shifted to the woman).

    5. It was not sin that brought about the beginning of a male/female relational hierarchy.

    6. Rather, sin brought about a disruption of the God-intended role (there’s that word again) of male-headship and female submission in the male-female relationship.

    7. Finally, as if usurpation of the general authority granted to only Adam were not enough, Eve’s desire would be to rule over Adam himself.

    Wow! I would never have guessed that so much incontestable dogma could be unpacked from the simple observation that Eve would desire her husband, who would rule over her. These CBMW people are just extraordinarily brilliant.

    No, wait! Maybe they’re just making it up as they go along. I certainly hope that’s the case. Otherwise, I’ll look quite the fool when I admit that I was only seeing that this verse might indicate that Eve’s desire for her husband would enable Adam’s tendency to sinfully dominate her.

    I really don’t much care who has what to say about gender roles. The authoritarian domination of women by men is a sin. It is not a God given prerogative.

    LikeLike

48. regarding men and guard dogs. if making personal attacks isn’t tolerated, then shouldn’t personal attacks, even on those whom are contentious, be considered worthy of censure? :0

    LikeLike

49. B4B, I bought my son his own doll to play with, “Dapper Dan”, when he was little. Am I in some kind of violation or sin for not reinforcing his gender role? Is learning to care for a baby a female job? Or may it’s only a married female’s job? Or is a boy with a doll the problem?

    One of my single Christian friends is fostering a child. Is that a problem for you? Maybe we should check the gargantuan 576 page “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” book by Piper/Grudem to see if it’s “Biblical”.

    Not in there? It looks like we (whose good deeds are filthy rags, NOT) are in dire need of a sequel, “Reinforcing Biblical Gender Role Training”. Maybe it will double as a 10 pound dumbbell.

    LikeLike

50. Ric – regarding men and guard dogs – –

    I believe I gave those 3 men a compliment, not to be confused with complement.

    LikeLike

51. Gary W. wrote @ 7:36 pm : ” Maybe they’re just making it up as they go along. I certainly hope that’s the case. Otherwise, I’ll look quite the fool when I admit that I was only seeing that this verse might indicate that Eve’s desire for her husband would enable Adam’s tendency to sinfully dominate her.

    I really don’t much care who has what to say about gender roles. The authoritarian domination of women by men is a sin. It is not a God given prerogative.”

    Zack Hunt, of The American Jesus, wrote a very interesting blog post on sin a few days ago. From the post: “That being said, I think we make a categorical mistake if we think the sin of Adam and Eve was stealing or simply breaking the law.

    If we, once again, look to one of my favorite passages in scripture, Philippians 2, Paul tells us exactly what the sin of Adam and Eve was and why it was and continues to be so catastrophically problematic for us today.

    In verse 6, Paul describes Jesus’ life by making the point that he “did not consider equality with God something to be exploited.” A better, more literal translation would read “something to be grasped.” Why does that matter? Because Paul, as he does often in his writing, is comparing Jesus, the new Adam, to the old Adam. The old Adam quite literally grasped at equality with God when he and Eve stole the fruit from the forbidden tree for in doing so they believed, or so the serpent told them, they “would become like God.”

    Which means the sin of Adam and Eve wasn’t theft.

    The sin of Adam and Eve was trying to put themselves, mere creatures, in the place of the Creator as lords of their own lives.

    The sin of Adam and Eve was their attempt to become God.

    The sin of Adam and Eve was idolatry.”

    The desire of a Christian to rule over another person is an example of that same idolatry, the desire to put one’s self in between God and another person. Zack wrote about the Atonement in his next post and posited that this sin of idolatry was the prime reason for Christ’s sacrifice. If someone is going to promote and live a complementarian marriage, it would probably be best to ensure that one is truly living a life that is as sacrificial as Christ’s. That’s a very tall order for anyone.

    LikeLike

52. Eric said:

    If someone is going to promote and live a complementarian marriage, it would probably be best to ensure that one is truly living a life that is as sacrificial as Christ’s. That’s a very tall order for anyone.

    Preach it, bro.

    LikeLike

53. B4B,

    If there were a hard-and-fast gender identity for each sex, I suppose it would be right to reinforce it. But I don’t think there is. More than that, I don’t see how there can be. Humans are just too individual. Mandy, Kagi and others have spoken about this above — how they don’t fit into any kind of traditional mold. And if such is impossible for so many, what good does it do to insist upon a fully formulated “gender identity” (whatever that is anyway) that can’t apply to every woman or man?

    P.S. To Eric: Thanks for the “Princess Bride” reference. Love that movie!

    LikeLike

54. When parents are preoccupied with gender roles, children can start to think something is wrong with them, even if they make just one “wrong” move that gets “corrected”. This can lead to self-loathing, self-medicating, cutting, depression, or suicide. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is not necessary or Biblical to load the backs of children with this baggage.

    Matthew 23. This whole chapter applies to this discussion. Jesus addresses the crowds and His disciples and warns the Pharisees. Verses 1-4 is about the heavy load put on other people’s shoulders.

    My single friend who is fostering has gotten negative feedback from other christians. She must be married first, “as God designed”. Well, there would be zero children (in bad situations) waiting for foster parents if just 10% of christian families fostered children, as I understand the stats. This is called “gnat-straining”.

    Matthew 23:23-24 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

    These things are quite sad and awful. Things are upside down. We are, again, talking about children here.

    LikeLike

55. I forgot to mention this earlier: Has anyone read “Why I Play with Dolls: A Dad’s Take,” written by Thomas Fuerst, hosted on Asbury’s Seedbed site? He opens:

    “I’m a dad of two little girls and one little boy. And when my little girls play with dolls, I play too.

    “Does that make me less of a man? Does that make me effeminate? Does that lay the groundwork for my being gay? Does that make me a bad example for my son?
    No. Because I think the best question hasn’t been asked yet.

    “The better question is, ‘Does that make me my daughter’s hero?’ Yes — and that’s all that matters.”

    It’s worth the read!!!

    LikeLike

56. Great story, William.

    I remember running into a guy at church who had his fingernails painted with some girly color, pink or purple. I can’t remember if I or someone nearby mentioned something about it, but I do remember his response. He said he had painted his granddaughter’s fingernails the day before and she wanted to paint his. He didn’t have enough time to get polish remover before church. It takes a strong man to walk into church with pink fingernail polish. H

    Yea, I think this grandpa is a hero, too.

    LikeLike

57. Pondering out loud here a bit…

    I’ve seen at least a few comments in various posts that mention equating complementarian style teaching with wife ownership, or something along those lines. In my experience, with the complementarian style teaching I’ve heard, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Now, that does however fall more closely in line with patriarchal style complementarianism (just because patriarchists are complementarian, it does not follow that a complementarian is patriarchist).

    Most complementarian teaching that I’ve seen personally (I have not seen all complementarian teaching) would say that if you are not a mutual partner with your wife in such things as matters of the home, finances, children, church, etc, then you are doing something wrong. (Side note: I do agree that there is a disparity when it comes to teaching, outreach, and fellowship with and for singles in the church, though I am not addressing that issue at this point). What I have seen though, is trying to help men and women recognize the differences between the genders, especially in terms of communication styles, love languages, thought processes, etc. I would agree that there probably are complementarian teachings out there by various teachers that place far too strict an adherance on gender identity (personally, I see no problem with boys playing with dolls and girls slaying dragons for example).

    It would seem to me that because of these differences, the two genders would, IN GENERAL, be better suited for differing, and usually complementing, roles. This isn’t based just on biblical ideas either, but also on more recent secular psychology. This isn’t saying that a man can’t do this, or a woman shouldn’t do that; and I think that is where a lot of complementarian teaching fails big time. I think it is a good thing to learn these differences. If nothing else, they can help husbands and wives to communicate better.

    We shouldn’t stop at learning the general differences though. When it comes to our spouses, we should try to learn how they specifically think, communicate, desire love to be showed, and what their strengths are. Quite often, they will differ in some way to ourselves. The challenge then is to figure out how these differences can complement one another. I think this is where a lot of complementarian teaching out there fails big time. They see these general differences on some level, and many will try to force all men and all women into their respective “roles” with very arbitrary rules, rather than helping husbands and wives figure out how they ACTUALLY differ, and how these differences can be used so that the roles they SHOULD fill based on these ACTUAL differences can complement one another. To me, that would be a much better definition of what complementarianism SHOULD be: recognizing general differences between the genders while looking for the specific differences between a husband and wife so that they can use those differences to complement one another.

    *Sorry if I rambled a bit*

    LikeLike

58. JoeJoe,
    Your definiti0n of complementarianism is sound, and a biblical principal. You are also right in that some (men and women) abuse their roles. That does not invalidate the concept, or establishing guidelines (sometimes called rules) for relationships for the GLory of God.

    LikeLike

59. maybe get the kids a G.I. Jane doll, complete with accessories for running for president, while living in a complementarian marriage with her man… — possible? 🙂

    LikeLike

60. JA – not pink, salmon… 🙂

    LikeLike

61. JoeJoe – said, “I’ve seen at least a few comments in various posts that mention equating complementarian style teaching with wife ownership, or something along those lines. ”

    that’s the way arguments tend to run, it seems. I’ve seen some very good things written regarding both philosophies, here, but the temptation to move toward polarization is strong… I think, because we want to be right.

    LikeLike

62. Ric said: “I’ve seen some very good things written regarding both philosophies, here, but the temptation to move toward polarization is strong… I think, because we want to be right.”

    I actually think there are 3 labels: egalitarian, complementarian, and patriarchy. I believe patriarchy is complementarianism on steroids.

    LikeLike

63. Jeff, your comment reminded me of one of the survivor stories at SGM where a 3 year old girl was molested by a 16 year old boy. The SGM pastors response was that he was just “experimenting”.

    I got the impression they thought of such a thing as normal….part of manliness.

    “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
    PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

    LikeLike

64. Girls can grow up to have babies and boys can’t. So besides the OBVIOUS biological differences what spiritual differences are there? Is there a pink Justification/Salvation process for girls and a blue one for boys?

    Lydia, I think a lot of the motivation is Fear of Homosexuals, a fear which has driven many Christians over the cliff with everyone around them in the car. Unspoken but implied about “proper Christian gender roles” for boys are “So They Won’t Grow Up To Be QUEERS”. (I think there was even one preacher who got into the news advocating literally “Beat the Fag out of your kid.”)

    And if Boys have to be Manly Men (“Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”), what do Girls have to do to be proper Girly Girls (“Lie back, close eyes, and think of England”)?

    LikeLike

65. Ric:
    “JA–not pink, salmon. :-)”

    Exactly! “Real men” wouldn’t be caught dead in pink. Salmon though, not a problem. 😉

    LikeLike

66. Ric said: that’s the way arguments tend to run, it seems. I’ve seen some very good things written regarding both philosophies, here, but the temptation to move toward polarization is strong… I think, because we want to be right.

    Sad but true. We are all susceptible to polarizing, myself included. And personally, I see a decent Biblical argument for at least portions of both complementarianism and egalitarianism (not patriarchy though).

    JA said: I actually think there are 3 labels: egalitarian, complementarian, and patriarchy. I believe patriarchy is complementarianism on steroids.

    I agree. I think patriarchists use complementarian ideas, but they twist and distort those ideas into something they shouldn’t be. There are many couples who follow a more complementarian style in their relationship that I would say are loving, respectful, meaningful, and God-honoring (and I believe the same with regards to egalitarian couples). I don’t believe that can be truly said with regards to patriarchy though.

    LikeLike

67. My 23-yr old son No.2 Boy Child loves the color pink. It’s his favorite color. I found this out last spring. He wouldn’t call it salmon. He’d love a pink shirt and when I find one, I’ll get it for him.

    LikeLike

68. JoeJoe, Your theory about comp. or egalitarian relationships among married couples may sound good in theory. This may work okay–till there are problems that arise in the relationship. When you start out with the premise, based on a faulty interpretation of Scriptures to begin with, then you are on shaky ground. When this ‘interpretation’ of the Scriptures is given equal footing as a valid ‘choice’ for couples to follow–the woman in the relationship is already in a compromised position.

    Add to that any personality inclinations, problems with either family background, poor father/mother modeling, church expectations/stipulations, and so forth, the comp. belief system begins to weaken and again the woman/wife is the one who continues to be the brunt of distressing behaviors by the husband in the marriage. Now he can claim that he is just doing his duty as a ‘godly’ husband– according to the Scriptures. Who can argue with that?

    The reason that some apparently comp. marriage relationships seem to work is that the couples lean towards mutuality from their biblical perspective. Basically, how mutuality is worked out in a marriage, based on their view of Scriptures, is crucial to a healthy marriage. If the measure of mutuality is lacking in their belief, then it will be evident in how they treat each other.

    Again, is it a culturally traditionally view of marriage with biblical grounds added in or is it really a NT belief in the equality of husbands and wives in the love of Christ? What Christ purchased is freedom and wholeness in Him. Equality and mutuality between marriage partners is crucial in a healthy and truly Christian marriage relationship.

    LikeLike

69. Speaking of pink, fuchsia, yellow, mauve, and purple–if you travel to other countries, esp. ones with a tropical climate, the men wear all of these wonderful colors. You wouldn’t want to mess with some of these guys about calling their shirts ‘sissy’ cuz in their culture, that is perfectly acceptable. Maybe we are just too culturally stuffy!

    LikeLike

70. I have a question for strict egalitarians that I am curious about. To frame it, can I pose a hypothetical? Let’s suppose there is a Christian couple that is trying to make a decision on something. It is nothing that is earth shatter, but it would have a noticable effect on the whole family nonetheless. The couple has tried finding a reasonable compromise, but none appear to exist. The husband and wife each have their own idea of what should be done. They prayerfully consider it, but keep coming to an impass. Neither option is wrong or sinful, but both options cannot be selected. The husband believes his idea is best for the family, and has his reasons, and the wife feels the same about her idea. How do you determine what to do? The complementarian position would say that the husband/father is the one that bares the brunt of the responsibility for the direction and well being of his family and as such also is held accountable for it as well. In a case such as this, the wife should bow out and follow the husband’s lead. The egalitarian position would not allow for this, because there is no such thing as a leader in the family who bares that responsibility. From what I understand of the egalitarian view, it would be wrong of the wife (not necessarily sinful, but wrong) to submit and give up her view. I am asking in all seriousness. Yes, this is a hypothetical, and a situation like this would not likely come up often, but I think it is a good question nonetheless.

    LikeLike

71. folks, drop the silliness… I wore PINK in the eighties! 🙂 ha ha ha

    LikeLike

72. Exactly. I remember shopping back when with my sweetie for some new clothes. We bought him pink heathertone pants and a matching golf shirt. He got lots of wear out of that set for years. 🙂

    LikeLike

73. Barb,

    I agree that mutuality and equality are essential for healthy marriages. I may not have alluded to that well enough in my previous comment. Husbands and wives should work together in their marriage. A husband pulling out the “I’m just doing my Biblical duty” card in many cases would border on authoritarian, which I believe is wrong. Also, I do not believe a husband has authority over his wife. Some complementarians may think that, but I believe that is a very distorted view of scripture. What I would say is that a husband should be the leader in his family. A leader is NOT the same thing as an authority. A leader has the responsibility of modeling Christ to the family, bringing up the children in a godly manner, providing for the well being of his family. Now, this does NOT necessarily mean that it is the husbands job to be in the actual role of modeling for all of these things. The couple should work together as much as possible, and decide also which of them are better suited for various tasks. For example, if the wife has a well paying job to provide for the family, and has no strong desire to be a stay at home mother, while the dad has always wanted to be a stay at home father, then the husband should encourage that rather than enforce “traditional” roles. If, on the other hand, the wife has alawys wanted to a stay-at-home mom as well, being a very nurturing person, then the responsibility of providing financially for the family falls on the husband, even if the wife had a higher paying job.

    I see strengths and weaknesses in both the comp and egal position. Many in the strict comp camp take a view as the husband as authority. which I believe to be wrong. Some in the strict egal camp seem to ignore too much the fact that there are differences in the sexes. I could not strictly hold to either view, as I think a strict view of either is unbiblical.

    LikeLike

74. Barb, what color shoes did yall purchase? (snicker)….

    LikeLike

75. For the record…I have no problem wearing pink, and have myself owned pink shirts. 🙂 Just in case anybody didn’t realize it, my earlier comment on “real men” not wearing pink was said in jest.

    LikeLike

76. this is an amusing discourse on the colors, but realistically, it seems culture (as mentioned above) is more of an influence than the church (from observations). As folks become believers in Christ, it would seem these influences come with them (us). These things (stereotypes, etc), are those we are being sanctified from as the power of the Lord, through the Spirit is working in our inner being.

    LikeLike

77. My comment to your question, JoeJoe. First of all, if things are being discussed in a mutual and caring way all the way along in a healthy marriage, your hypothetical cases would certainly be minimized. As couples grow in love and respect for one another, they learn what matters (more) to each of them. It is a wise couple who grasps this factor. Here are some brief suggestions from my perspective.

    If there is an impasse, I think that the topic/area of the difference of opinion might be an area to explore. If it is something in the home that the wife feels important and the husband can’t see the point, then after a long discussion, what would be the options. One thing is just leave it alone for awhile; just not decide. If it is that important, then both will need to make it a matter of prayer. They could decide on a time/date that they would come to a decision.

    If it is the wife’s area of expertise, then it would be suitable if the husband acquiesced to her valid reasons. If it is the husband’s area of expertise, then his reasons should be considered and valued. Is the issue a matter of finances–then maybe they should wait this time or maybe take a risk, because of timing issues, and trust God. If it is relational, and there is an impasse, there are helpful parents or trusted friends to bounce the ideas off. There are helpful pastors and esp. family counselors who could help the couple to look at the issue in a fresh way. There is a place for a healthy church community to be available to couples who might be struggling in an area.

    It would be a matter of consensus. This approach would work for a church leadership team. It would also work in a secular business situation–valuing each person’s contribution, skill set, as well as mutual respect and who might have the greater expertise in the matter. Just seems a simpler and better way to go. Anyone else want to chime in. Hope that helps.

    LikeLike

78. “Let’s suppose there is a Christian couple that is trying to make a decision on something. It is nothing that is earth shatter, but it would have a noticable effect on the whole family nonetheless. The couple has tried finding a reasonable compromise, but none appear to exist. The husband and wife each have their own idea of what should be done. They prayerfully consider it, but keep coming to an impass. Neither option is wrong or sinful, but both options cannot be selected. The husband believes his idea is best for the family, and has his reasons, and the wife feels the same about her idea. How do you determine what to do?”

    I would say then that the issue needs further discussion and a decision is not ready to be made yet.

    LikeLike

79. Barb – Your idea sounds very similar to someone I spoke with recently. Their arrangement was that if they couldn’t agree, then they don’t change the situation. Ie, my friend really wants to move from her current home for many reasons – partly because it was the home of her in-laws and still looks and feels like the home of her in-laws. Her husband does not want to move. So, instead they are staying. However, she is getting things updated in the home. That seems like a reasonable way of doing things.

    LikeLike

80. JoeJoe –

    One option is to simply not take action at all on this particular issue. If it isn’t an earth shattering event, then why is there a need to make a decision? Sometimes ‘waiting’ brings the answer.

    A few years back my husband and I were in a situation similar to what you described, accept the resulting outcome could have a serious affect on a child’s life. My husband and I disagreed on what to do. I was actually the one taking, what would seem like, a harder line. My husband felt strongly in the direction he was leaning. After prayer, I found that I couldn’t ask him to go against his conscience. I felt that it was the wrong decision, but at the same time I had peace from God to not persue my perspective and cause an impass. I knew God was able to work in the situation no matter which one of us was correct. Within a few months, it was clear that my assessment was correct. My husband had no problem admitting that I had a clearer perspective on that situation and we should have taken a different direction.

    The main thing to point out here is that my husband would take the same route if the situation were reversed. It isn’t a matter of “needing a tie-breaker person” so much as it is learning to love and support one another in difficult circumstances, without expecting the female to always desist from her perspective concerning a decision because she has to be “in submission” to her husband.

    Of course, this example is assuming that the resulting decision isn’t causing someone to sin. No person should ever back down from a perspective if the result would be stepping into sin. However, in my experience anyway, 99% of the decisions in a healthy marriage have nothing to do with a clear sin issue. Patterns of poor decisions that cause harm or suffering to family members are a different issue altogether. This could be an indicator of pride and/or selfishness. This could be an issue with the husband or wife.

    LikeLike

81. Refer to Genesis 3 passage you hate so much. When someone absolutely must make a final decision, God says it’s the responsibility of the husband, along with whatever consequences arise from a bad decision are on him as the one accountable to God for the family. As it was written, so let it be done.

    ****Mod note: I let this comment through, but the tone is still there, B4B (see bolded part). Please be kind.

    LikeLike

82. Many of us were writing at the same time and seem to have similar thoughts on the subject 🙂

    LikeLike

83. JoeJoe – – While you were talking about dad vs mom staying at home while the other worked to provide for the family, it reminded me of something. I think these guys who push the complementarian stuff are really only focused on us here in the States or at least Westerners. I don’t think they’d be saying half of the stuff they say if they were thinking in the context of impoverished countries where both parents must work to survive.

    They are pretty black/white on these kinds of rules on their articles when it comes to breadwinning.

    But check this out, they are not consistent. I wish I could find the link, but I was reading on someone’s blog (maybe Owen’s) about a time where the wife is working while putting the husband through seminary and he was okay with that. Hellooooooooo!!!! Do you see what I mean? They change the rules when it works for them. If they were a “real man” wouldn’t they be going to school and working at the same time so that the wife could stay home (even if she didn’t have kids).

    For the record: I have no problem with wife working to put husband through school. I don’t have these types of hangups. If dad wants to be stay at home dad and mom wants to work, fine. I think kids get far better care with having one of their parents as primary caretakers.

    LikeLike

84. Bridget said: “Many of us were writing at the same time and seem to have similar thoughts on the subject”

    I know, I was cracking up!

    LikeLike

85. RE my 11:37 comment that might not see the light of day either. I would like to add that IF there has already been agreement as to who would make the final decision about certain issues, as is done, it’s up to the father and husband to make the final decision if there is an impasse and a decision must be made. that’s what it means to have ‘headship’ in the home, according to God’s plan.

    ***Mod note to B4B: Word to the wise – if you think that your comment might not see the light of day, fix it so that you know it will see the light of day. Voila!

    LikeLike

86. B4B said:

    I would like to add that IF there has already been agreement as to who would make the final decision about certain issues, as is done, it’s up to the father and husband to make the final decision if there is an impasse and a decision must be made. that’s what it means to have ‘headship’ in the home, according to God’s plan.

    Well, that’s your interpretation of God’s plan.

    LikeLike

87. Thanks for all the responses everyone! I have to say, thanks also for politeness from everyone too (I know we’ve seen conversations like this blow up pretty bad, even on this blog). A lot of what y’all said lines up along the same lines of what I think I would probably do. I don’t necessarily argue for a complementarian view, as I said, I don’t really agree with the strict complementarian view that many of its leaders espouse, but at the same time, I don’t think I really fully understand the egalitarian view. I don’t believe I could completely agree with a strict egalitarian view either, but I do believe the view has some things right. Either way, it is always good for understanding to increase, and discussions like this certainly help with that.

    LikeLike

88. JA-

    That is one of the problems that I have with some who hold a comp view. It is my belief that the couple should determine for themselves who stays with kids or if both work (though I also believe that from a psychological and developemental standpoint, the ideal is for one parent to stay home). The husband, as leader, should encourage this rather than tradition roles, and also, as leader, should the wife have a strong desire to stay home, the responsibility falls on the husband to provide financially for the family while allowing his wife to fulfill what she believes to be her calling in that season. That’s real leadership–serving.

    LikeLike

89. JA, My interpretation is not the issue. Read the book. Over and over if necessary. It’s all true. Let what doesn’t seem clear be interpreted by what is clear. Read it enough and the lights come on. In other words, if God decrees that the husband is head over the wife and she should be submissive, and the husband is the one ultimately responsible to God as ‘head’, that’s the way God wants it. You don’t need any interpretation unless you want to rewrite the Bible and make it mean what you would rather it mean.

    LikeLike

90. Of course interpretation is part of the issue. Just as you tell me what you believe the Bible is saying, I can find someone else who can tell you that it doesn’t mean what you say. Who is right?

    LikeLike

91. “JA, My interpretation is not the issue. Read the book. Over and over if necessary.”

    Why do you keep assuming nobody here reads the Bible?

    LikeLike

92. B4B is indeed right about using clearer parts of scripture to interpret less clear parts. That is a basic part of sound Biblical interpretation. And while I at least partly agree with B4B, as I do believe that the husband is the leader of the home, and bears ultimate responsibility for the family’s well being as much as he can influence (spiritually, financially, physically, etc), which would typically identify me as complementarian, I believe even I take a much more moderate view of how that is interpretted and practiced than most complementarians, especially the leaders of the view. I believe there is still a little bit of wriggle room in the interpretation of these topics in Scripture, and that it is not as completely black and white as people like Doug Phillips would have you think.

    LikeLike

93. “. . . which you hate so much . . .”

    Julie, I must say how much I admire you for tolerating Calvinist bullies like Born4Contention. You gain the respect of you readers every time he posts. Good on you! You were most right to call him on the grounds of hermeneutics. Good on you again!

    By the way, Born4Contention, hermeneutics (pronounced her-men-ooo-ticks) is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text. I realize they don’t teach you that in your Calvinist mind-control class (neither does the Watchtower).

    LikeLike

94. JoeJoe, Your hypothetical situation is great for thought. Let me stretch it a bit. Suppose, after following all manner of suggestions, the couple is still at an impasse. Now suppose they flip a coin. What’s wrong with that? Is it really any different than giving the decisive vote to the husband or to the wife? If they flip a coin, who is responsible for the outcome? Can the couple blame the coin? If not, then what does all of this talk of the husband being responsible mean?

    LikeLike

95. Craig – I like your idea of the coin flipping, but what I’ve read time and again from the comp camp is that the husband is the one who must stand before God on his ability to lead his family, not the wife.

    BTW, can someone name a biblical reference for that idea? B4B, can you?

    LikeLike

96. @ Bridget, Thank you for sharing from your personal experience. Exactly: “it is learning to love and support one another in difficult circumstances.” You also bring up the issue of a matter of conscience–that the spouse might have strong feelings about an issue that the other spouse should respect and not be given so-called ‘biblical’ grounds to overrun.

    It is certainly not the perceived need for a ‘tie breaker’ decision in the relationship for every situation. That could be where a major problem lies in thinking through the whole decision-making as a Christian married couple.

    It is frankly a put down toward women, who God has created in his image, who is endowed with amazing mental and spiritual capabilities, who has also learned about life through various experiences, and who has much to offer when working through items that seem to continually crop up in a living together relationship. This is also true for any sort of living relationship for that matter. It could be a couple of cousins, two single brothers or three sisters who reside together and share expenses.

    There is always a need for consideration and compromise in any relationship between two people or a group. How do old pals keep the relationship going? It is through love, care, share, and considering that the other person might have some insights or an idea or two regarding what the topic of discussion is about. No one person has all the answers or expertise on everything! That is just too much pressure to put on hard working husbands who seek to provide for their wives and families. Wives are a wonderful resource in the marriage. Last time I checked, that was a God-idea. :)

    LikeLike

97. @ B4B You are free to have your opinion about: “that’s what it means to have ‘headship’ in the home, according to God’s plan.” The problem is that you have not really taken a deeper look into what the term ‘head’ might mean in the NT. Head [kephale in the Grk.] means ‘source’ not head, like the president of a company. You have bought into the going interpretation of this/these passages to the exclusion of digging deeper and understanding what was meant by these words used.

    Besides, it is talking about the husband being the head/source of the wife, not being the ‘head of the house’. That is an archaic cultural way of looking at the husband/wife relationship. IMO, both the husband and the wife, together, are joint heirs with Christ and are, therefore, the joint overseers/managers, under God, of their home. This is a much better view than the traditional, cultural, and Christian perceived roles of husband and wife.

    LikeLike

98. @ JoeJoe Thanks for your comment—I sometimes think that you may be getting the picture. :) However you slice it, mutuality is just a better way to ‘run a railroad’! One thing, I am at a loss to understand: What exactly a ‘strict egalitarian’ view might look like from a regular or everyday version of an egalitarian model of mutuality being played out in everyday life??

    Further, from a later comment, you talk about the husband being ‘THE leader’ in the relationship, which might be well and good or not so good, depending on the marriage, :)but the problem arises when you have a single parent raising a child/children. The marriage turned out to be a disaster, for whatever the reasons, and now there is no husband, then who is THE leader in that home.

    Speaking of which, if you have Christian marriages with this type of ‘I’m male’ and ‘entitlement’ then that creates enough of a problem for the wife to be de-valued and disrespected from the start. Unless there is a major change in the attitude of the husband, this marriage is headed for the rocks. The love they seemed to have at the altar is now a failed model of how a godly, loving, caring relationship could have been. The single mom is now ‘the leader’ in the home, with all its challenges.

    LikeLike

99. Julie Anne, I suspect there’s some evangelical mythology at work here (I write this as an evangelical). The mythology is that our lives consist of all of the choices we make and that God has, somewhere, the perfect life for us. We live this perfect life when we make all the correct choices (do His will). In order for this whole setup to be fair, it must always be clear what choices we should make. This picture is seductive, but we don’t live in such a world.

    LikeLike

100. RMR – We must not be reading the Book since we are not coming to the same conclusion as B4B 😉

     LikeLike

101. “Craig – I like your idea of the coin flipping, but what I’ve read time and again from the comp camp is that the husband is the one who must stand before God on his ability to lead his family, not the wife.

     BTW, can someone name a biblical reference for that idea? B4B, can you?”

     Yes, where does Scripture make this claim about husbands??

     LikeLike