gengwall

Lin – with respect (no pun intended), you are reading past what Cheryl, I, and even Eggerich are saying. We all believe and understand that the needs for love, respect, etc. are on equal footing across the human spectrum. Eggerichs is not talking about real need, he is talking about felt deprivation of need. His citing of Gottman and Murray does not counter their conclusion, it confirms it. (BTW – have Gottman and Murray claimed he lied, or is this just some blogger’s opinion?) If anything, the posts at Suzanne’s Bookshelf grossly misquote and misinterpret Eggerich. But we are not here to debate that blog.

But, your concern is valid because if the apostles were indeed setting up a situation where real needs differed, then hierarchy could be a conclusion (and has been the conclusion) some may come to. Let me see if I can summarize – some would interpret Paul and Peter’s instructions to indicate that women are emotional wrecks that are easily deceived and men are the strong logical Rodney Dangerfield’s of the race who are only “looking for a little respect”. Of course, many people draw those conclusions. But as Cheryl repeatedly points out, they do it in a vacuum which is absent of any context. When one considers the complete message of these apostles, especially Paul, it is clear that they are not just “preaching to the (culturally bound) choir”. In fact, they are preaching completely outside the box within that culture. Equality of needs, as expressed through the equality of obligations for the Christian, is rampant through the teaching. There is no reason to conclude that that equality stops at the front door of a household and a completely new paradigm emerges within marriage. The needs and obligations of the individual Christian within marriage do not differ from those outside.

But, despite that truth regarding real needs and obligations, marriage does have a dynamic that differs from other relationships. It is good you bring up Adam and Eve and their pre-fall state. It is very true that prior to the fall and their eyes being opened to all the ways two people can hurt each other, there was no need for gender based instruction because there was no existence of felt or real needs being denied. But after the fall, things became very different, including the way in which Adam and Eve interpreted and reacted to harmful words and actions of their spouse. Apparently, those interpretations and reactions, what each gender felt was being denied to them in terms of needs, were different.

Now, of course, I could be wrong, but I think Paul and Peter back me up. If not why, did they never say “wives agapeo your husbands as Christ does the church”, or even the more generic “wives and husbands agapeo each other”. It doesn’t mean at all that wives and husbands are NOT supposed to selflessly love each other in equal measure. But wives naturally love and so they don’t need to be instructed to do so. Men, on the other hand, naturally “rule”, which is very selfish and unloving. So, although we know we need to love everyone without regard to our own needs, when it comes to our wives, we need an extra kick in the pants to remind us because of our fleshly nature, as a result of the fall, toward our wives.

OK – so, I don’t see how any of that sets up hierarchy in marriage or how any hierarchy translates to the body. I believe you draw a false conclusion:

“If there are clear ‘God ordained’ gender differences in emotions, thinking, intellect, etc., then the comps have a good point that women are more easily deceived and lack proper leadership skills.”

First of all, none of this has anything to do with intellect, leadership skills, or susceptibility to deception. No one, Peter, Paul, Eggerich, or I, are saying anything like that. And differences in thinking and emotions are simply differences – there is nothing inherently good or bad about them. Certainly we recognize that such differences add flavor and depth to any organization. So much so for the church.

Let me give an example. Let us say for example sake that women are universally more emotional than men. Now, there is trouble even within that statement because “emotionality” would be almost impossible to measure. So lets make it more specific. Lets say that women universally “emote” more than men. (Still troublesome, but at least there is a cultural perception of what “emoting” is). Even if that were true (or even if it were true in general), what makes that “worse” for ministry (or better, for that matter) than less emoting? Nothing that I can see. It isn’t wrong, it isn’t worse, it isn’t inferior, it’s just different. That is why “emoting” or lack thereof is not a requirement for an overseer.

Again, I want to keep this on topic. Peter’s example here is sound and his sidebar into marriage is very pertinent to church ministry because it avoids hypocracy. One must make certain they conduct their marriage relationship with the same amount of love and respect that they conduct their other relationships. Their obligation to their spouse is the same and the needs of their spouse are the same as their needs. BUT, their spouse may interpret and respond to harmful actions differently than they personally do, and the testimony of the apostles as well as much reseach (Gottman and Murray are not the only ones to have thought this was important) proclaims that there is a gender tilt in that reality. So when dealing with married couples, there needs to be an emphasis on love or respect that is equaly gender specific.