truthseeker

In Lin’s statement about men and women both expressing ego, but in different ways, she said the difference in how they expressed their egos was due to what was acceptable in society, not inherent male/female characteristics. That is culture, not physiology (‘acceptable in society’).

The bible is curiously quiet about male/female non-physical characteristics. If it is, then it must be due to the fact that they either don’t exist or they are not germane to biblical topics. (Two possibilities)

In 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 notice several things.

First, he is addressing husbands, not all men, so the weakness their wives have ‘since they are women’ may be by virtue of being women AND wives, not just being women. In the same way, slaves might be said to have been diminished in capacity NOT because they were diminished as individuals in their inherent make-up but because of their position as slaves. In fact, egals often point this out. It would seem to be contrary to their position on slaves to then turn around and attribute qualities to women wives because of their gender rather than their position in that society.

It would seem that the understanding of why ‘wives are weaker, because they are women’ in 1 Peter 3:7 would need to be explored and understood. What does weaker mean in that context? Was it referring to the general economic status of women of that time and culture (as some egals have postulated) or to their physical strength or to some other facet? Was it for that time or for all times?

I understand that we can observe and note general characteristics of male and female in any given time and society, but I am not convinced that very many-if any-of these can be attributed to anything other than cultural influence. Sociologists have spent much time studying these things and can document societies that run counter to everything we have mentioned so far. Each of those societies may only have some of the exceptions, but the exceptions are out there.

Even the egal arguments used here on this site use the argument that because even one or two examples of an exception to comp thinking can be found, it negates the particular comp thinking in question (for example: Junias being named among the apostles is the single example of a female apostle so it is used to validate female apostleship.) Using the same rationale, if even one example of a non-nurturing female or nurturing male can be found, it negates the ‘females are most nurturing’ theory.

The reason I say it is dangerous to tread on the ground of adding one’s own observations about male/female characteristics to the discussion of a biblical topic is that it presents/relies upon extra-biblical observation which opens up a Pandora’s box. Unless it can be proven, beyond a doubt, it ought to be left out. We have used extra-biblical evidence (as have comps) in support of egal thinking, but it has been valid when and because it has been factual, proveable, historical, contextual evidence, etc. Do we have that for male/female emotional/mental theorized differences-beyond a shadow of a doubt and without acceptable exceptions? And who defines ‘acceptable exceptions?’

That there are ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ norms for any given society is fairly obvious, but that these norms are inherent to all females and males is not even possible because of the many exceptions. Sin is so pervasive it makes it difficult to see the true ‘non-sinful’ condition of males and females. We have to look at the pre-fall condition for that, and we see no clues there of male/female emotional/mental differences. At least, I don’t.

The statement that ‘women are needed spiritually to bring a balance’ suggests to me that there is a ‘pink and blueness’ to biblical truth. I don’t see that supported anywhere in scripture. Can God not speak the same truth through a man or a woman equally? Is that not what we, as egals, are positing? If one is speaking about a particular issue related to men, women, slaves, etc., then, yes, having a representative of that particular group would be extremely useful. Otherwise, I don’t see how it would be necessary.

I think it is noteworthy that the many places where the bible makes reference to sins such as pride, greed, adultery, fornication, anger, etc., it does not differentiate between male and female versions of nor proclivities towards these sins nor does it address a specific gender. The ‘love’ chapter is a noteworthy example in that it discusses numerous attributes that might have been attributed to male/female but aren’t, at all.

Respectfully,
Truthseeker