Cheryl Schatz

Lin,

There would have been male pride without sin?

I am sure it would have been called something else before sin. Sin distorts our differences. It doesn’t create them.

Why is that considered nurturing? Why not loyalty or courage? Or just plain Boldness for their Messiah?

Or perhaps we can say that nurturing is part of how women’s loyalty is shown. However we describe it, we see subtle (or not-so-subtle) differences of what separates the sexes.

I think Truthseeker has it right. We are treading on dangerous grounds that we cannot prove ingrained before the fall.

I do not see how it can be dangerous if we are merely commenting on the differences we see. The focus is on understanding one another not forcing anyone to comply to our own definition.

Peter shows how there are both differences in the genders and complete equality in spirit. He said:

1 Peter 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

I don’t think that we could tell Peter that he is on dangerous territory telling husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way **because she is a woman**. Peter emphasized her differences for one reason only – to encourage men to work to understand their wives and not treat them as if they are just like men. Then after Peter has emphasized her difference and the careful way that men need to treat their women because **she is a woman** he turns around and shows that women are absolutely and completely equal with men in the spiritual realm as equal heirs. This is what I call the proof text for different yet equal. I think the comps have it somewhat backwards when they say equal but different. It shouldn’t be a “but” but a “yet”. Different yet equal.

In the natural I want my husband to treat me as different (and special) but in the spiritual I want my husband to treat me as equal. I absolutely do not believe that Peter got it wrong. I do not believe that Paul would have chided Peter for the statement “because she is a woman” and told him that he is on dangerous territory. To me the dangerous territory is not understanding the subtle differences that God made in the sexes. It is not a spiritual danger but a danger of misunderstanding. The true spiritual danger is that if men do not treat their wives as spiritual equals, their prayers will be hindered. That is quite a warning to men to wake up and figure this one out.

Women took their sinful place after the fall to be dominated in Patriarchy. And this place has been passed down over thousands of years through expectations for women. They characteristics have been taught and caught.

That is true. But I am not talking about these sinful characteristics. I am talking about what a woman is naturally even within groups of women. We are what we are. What I am trying to do is affirm our differences while dispelling the myth of inequality.

I think there is also a danger in being afraid of comps accusing us of teaching unisex so we buy into some of their teaching on non physical character traits for men and women. As in women being natural nurterers. (Breastfeeding is a great example of this as it comes very hard for some women and is even impossible for some)

It is not an issue of fear. It is an issue of having the egalitarian position misunderstood and the hindrances that block our message from being heard. Also the issue of nurturing I am speaking about is a characteristic not connected to the physical ability to breastfeed. Watch a woman hold a baby and then watch the average man hold a baby. The difference is the characteristic that I speak about.

To claim that there are no differences spiritually between the sexes but then to claim there are vast differences in emotions, intellect, ego, pride, nurturing, etc., negates the claim there are no differences spiritually.

I didn’t say that there are vast differences in emotions or intellect. I don’t recall making any claim at all about these things. I see no connections whatsoever that would make us spiritually unequal. I believe that women are needed spiritually to bring a balance. I would need an example of how my understanding of male and female in the natural would make them spiritually unequal. I do not see it.

If there are no pink or blue characteristics, then why are we having this discussion?

People see “pink” and “blue” as removing one gender from a characteristic or from a spiritual gift. I am not advocating that people see it that way.

But, I can tell you this is not true at all that men struggle more with the ego issue. It is a folk myth. As one who consulted in hundreds of companies all over the USA, I can tell you that female pride and ego are alive and well. It is just that the METHODS for carrying out this sin are different based on what society deems is acceptable for a female to do and a man to do.

“Ego” is not a sin if it just means our self-esteem. However I have been using the term “male ego” as a way to express egotism which is sinful. Your quote above actually confirms what I am saying about the differences between male and female. Men and women have different ways of doing things especially the acting out of our sinful ways. When women undercut each other, I do not see that as an acceptable thing in our society. But I heartily agree with you that men and women act out differently. That has been my point.