# Intellectual/Emotional Composition of Men and Women



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women (see this thread), but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church. Women are often not expected to know theology or even care about understanding and being able to articulate/discuss important truths merely because they're women, and such things are "for men."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church.



That idea found tremendous impetus in the secular Enlightenment (I often point out to feminists that they can't use Enlightenment standards of reason for that point).


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church.
> ...



And it goes back at least as far as Aristotle. I have no doubt that it also entered the Church through the Roman Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages who considered "the Philosopher" to be as much an authority as the scriptures.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2008)

I want to say thanks to Davidius: certainly the video is simply satire and not even of women but of repressive attitudes towards them: but at the same time I want to qualify somewhat.
Most women I know are not very interested in theology in the abstract; and when they do talk about doctrinal things it is often very emotional. Initially this frustrated me trying to have conversations with other women at church esp. because I realized it was not due to the repression of their husbands or of our church etc, but to their own interests (and of course there are exceptions to this: please don't mistake me for saying something I'm not). Then I realized that most of the women I interacted with at church were doing ten times the amount of practical godly things in an hour that I accomplish in a week. Not in every case certainly but women do tend to be more motivated by practical and emotional 'reasons' than men do, and tend to want to talk about practical or emotional things. To recognize that is to acknowledge their difference from men but not their inferiority. In our day and age to suggest that women are not always as interested in intellectual subjects as their husbands seems like a slur because it sounds like you're saying that they don't measure up to men in this area, and the feminists have framed the value of women in terms of their being not equally valuable but equally the same as men. 

Most of the people discussing theology on this board are men. If you talked with their wives many of them would talk about their kids more readily than about Calvin's sacramentology. They might even get up and leave the room while you talked about that and make you something to eat. If they interjected something it would in many cases be (as here) an argument from experience; often charged with emotion. I believe they deserve honor for this. I've come to appreciate them precisely for it. I learn a lot from them.

I do have female friends with whom I can discuss theology, again almost entirely on the learning end. Laura for instance of this board has read more Puritan literature than most men I know. But I don't undervalue my other dear friends who are raising seven kids in an admirably godly way, and would rather talk about daily struggles.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I know that it is a joke making fun of condescending attitudes toward intellectual women, but I do want to say that it's a shame that the idea that "men are intellectual and women are emotional" has gained a lot of footing even in the Church. Women are often not expected to know theology or even care about understanding and being able to articulate/discuss important truths merely because they're women, and such things are "for men."



Some of the women I have known are very intellectual and theological and rather emotional about being theologically intellectual.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2008)

Randy, I think I understand what you're saying. I don't stress out about hurting feelings etc. when I disagree with a man. It's very difficult to bring myself to contradict other women because there is whole different layer of emotion involved. Maybe this is because I'm also a woman and men feel the same pressure with men, I don't know. They don't seem to. 

I wanted to clarify that I didn't say what I said to try to say women are not very great or anything. I (obviously) think it's silly for people to discount women's opinions. But I think it's easy - at least it was for me- to slip into error on the other side thinking that women are equal to men therefore they are equally intellectual and so feeling superior or undervaluing the many women who would rather knit a cap for a premature baby while praying for it in their spare time than sit down to some intellectual pursuit. Or denying that these women exist in hordes and are the backbone of many godly homes and happy childhoods, in order to think women are equal. Why should a more practical or emotional motivation be less valuable in the whole spectrum of things than a more intellectual one?


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

How would we know that women are less intellectual than men? The bible certainly doesn't say that they're made that way. Is there something about being given the task of homemaker that makes women less intellectual? I don't see why this would be the case. Men, like women, also have callings, yet they are still expected to know the Bible and study theology. Why not women, too (under the leadership and guidance of their husbands of course)? Since there is no logical link between authority and intellect, we have no logical reason to believe that a woman's place under the authority of man means she is less inclined to contemplation. I would rather my wife be good with children _and_ be able to explain the doctrine of imputed righteousness than only the former.

We shouldn't make Aristotle's mistake. He surveyed Athenian culture and said, "Hmmm, well, all of these slaves are big and strong, but stupid. Therefore, they must naturally be made for slave labor" when the fact was that the slaves were doing more manual labor and had less education, so of course they were stronger and less intelligent. He did the same thing with women. He saw a bunch of dumb Athenian women who were such because they had never been given an education and thought, "well, all of these women seem to be dumb, therefore they must lack the strongly rational part to the soul which men have." Coincidentally it was the men who received formal educations. If men can learn how to be carpenters, teachers, scientists, etc., etc., and also become theologically astute, why can't women be homemakers and become theologically astute?

Many men are emotional. Many women are intellectual. I think it is wrong and potentially dangerous to make any broad psychological assumptions about how men and women "are" without biblical warrant.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius I'm certainly not arguing that women are dumb or don't have rational faculties. But what I experience is that the women I know are indeed more emotional than the men I know, and that most of them would consider for instance, the discussion that goes on on this board rather irrelevant. (Indeed several have told me so.) They are more interested in a practical than a 'theoretical' subject. They generally use their intellect to solve different problems and are generally more interested in what is more immediately relevant to those problems.

This isn't to say that most women I know can't explain imputed righteousness. They can. They just care more about it as an _applied _doctrine, applied in practical and emotional ways to daily circumstances, than 'intellectually' or in the abstract. I understood the point you were making to be that women were equally as interested in purely intellectual pursuits as men. As a generalization I would have to disagree: there are quite enough exceptions that to say 'women are necessarily less intellectual than men' is silly; but that women are usually as interested in intellectual pursuits as men isn't something I experience, or that I think many peoples' experience would bear out through life. As a defense of anyone's value I object to speaking in terms of being equally as intellectual because I don't think biblically, human value is based on intellectuality. But you might not have been saying that? (There should be a distinction made between being a rational creature -- that is possessing a rational faculty -- and being an 'intellectual'.)

Would you say that men as a whole have been given the position of rule and women that of nurture without regard to their created suitability? I believe not only the role of submission doesn't imply inferiority to men, but the general focus I have seen on more practical things, and in a more emotional way doesn't, either.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Davidius I'm certainly not arguing that women are dumb or don't have rational faculties. But what I experience is that the women I know are indeed more emotional than the men I know, and that most of them would consider for instance, the discussion that goes on on this board rather irrelevant. (Indeed several have told me so.) They are more interested in a practical than a 'theoretical' subject. They generally use their intellect to solve different problems and are generally more interested in what is more immediately relevant to those problems.
> 
> This isn't to say that most women I know can't explain imputed righteousness. They can. They just care more about it as an _applied _doctrine, applied in practical and emotional ways to daily circumstances, than 'intellectually' or in the abstract. I understood the point you were making to be that women were equally as interested in purely intellectual pursuits as men. As a generalization I would have to disagree: there are quite enough exceptions that to say 'women are necessarily less intellectual than men' is silly; but that women are usually as interested in intellectual pursuits as men isn't something I experience, or that I think many peoples' experience would bear out through life. As a defense of anyone's value I object to speaking in terms of being equally as intellectual because I don't think biblically, human value is based on intellectuality. But you might not have been saying that? (There should be a distinction made between being a rational creature -- that is possessing a rational faculty -- and being an 'intellectual'.)
> 
> Would you say that men as a whole have been given the position of rule and women that of nurture without regard to their created suitability? I believe not only the role of submission doesn't imply inferiority to men, but the general focus I have seen on more practical things, and in a more emotional way doesn't, either.



What do the women you know find irrelevant about the PB? Discussions about the nature and meaning of the sacraments? Worship? Christology? Ecclesiology? Why should women not know these things? Why should they not be interested in them? Women shouldn't think that theology is irrelevant, and they shouldn't be taught that it's okay for them to find theology irrelevant because it just ain't their ballgame. Do men want their wives, who will be training the children for the majority of the day, to be theologically destitute? If not, how are we to expect our wives to teach our children if they themselves do not know? or worse, if they do not know and have no interest, even finding (some?) theology irrelevant? 

Also, from what I've read on the PB, a dichotomy between men and women positing opposed approaches to application is false. As I've seen in many threads here, all of theology is to be applied. No one is supposed to sit around gathering theological knowledge for the sake of having a larger vocabulary and library. Women and men may apply their knowledge in different ways, but we have the same bible, the same Confession (in many cases), and therefore the same knowledge. 

I want to emphasize the difference in our approaches. You are saying that women must be more emotional and less interested in intellectual matters because the women you see around you are like that, but this conclusion does not follow. Even if most people's experiences in life would bear this out, that's still not enough to give us a normalization. We must go to the bible to discover what is beneficial for our souls, and the bible says indiscriminately that seeking wisdom and knowledge is part and parcel to the Christian life. 

I definitely don't believe that value is based on intelligence, but I do not see a distinction made in scripture which calls for men and women to differ in their pursuit of understanding. One good example is Paul's chastisement that a certain group should have moved on to spiritual meat, but is still on the milk. He was surely addressing men and women. There are many other examples, too, dealing with things such as "growing in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 14, 2008)

My personal experience between the male and female is that we had more girls in the accelerated classes in school than we did boys. Girls tend to mature more intellectually than boys do in the early years. Then something happens to both male and female and they become even more messed up in their teen years. Somehow they emerge into a world of responsibility and either adapt or become even more degenerate. It matters not what you are. 

When Christ save he saves and regenerates the talents that are laden in each person he redeems. Be reminded the Word says not many wise. I am one who is of the crowd (not many wise).

(1Co 1:25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1Co 1:26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

(1Co 1:27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

(1Co 1:28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

(1Co 1:29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

(1Co 1:30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

(1Co 1:31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


Personally I have seen more women who have had more of a heart for God then men. David had a heart for God and probably tended to be more emotional. His son Solomon was the wisest man in knowledge. David had the better gift in my opinion. I tend to be rather jealous of the those who have a tender heart for God and his ways then I do of those who are wise. I love wisdom but a broken and contrite heart is something that God is very pleased in. He also doesn't want any of us to be unwise either. But to have a heart for God is very valuable and hard to receive or attain. 

I foresee many more women a head of me and who will be closer to the throne because of their hearts for God. They are obtaining the most necessary thing. And they are wise in doing so.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

Mr. Snyder,

Your references to emotional men are very helpful and important to the discussion. All I've been trying to say is that both genders should have both qualities; there's no biblical reason to see it otherwise, regardless of what we see in the society around us. If it's harder for men to have that heart, then we need to work on that. If it's harder for women to be interested in serious study for the gleaning of knowledge and wisdom, then they should work on that and we should do our best to help them. The answer is not to shy away from something difficult, counter-culture, or whatever by assigning one trait to each gender and saying that this is just how it is. I, too, err on the side of cold intellectualism. Perhaps my fiance can learn something about the pursuit of knowledge from me and I can learn something about the importance of a warm, "soft" heart from her.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius, so are you saying that I'm being more 'emotional' and 'practical' in my argumentation than you are?

And my reasons are less valid because of this?

(I'm smiling, by the way)

They [my friends who find the puritanboard irrelevant] don't see how most of these discussions bear on their own daily lives, the immediate problems they are engulfed in. It isn't real life to them, and doesn't help with real life. They simply aren't interested. They are taught theology at church and in daily devotions -private & with their husbands; they love the truth they learn there but the puritanboard is not a pursuit they find helpful or enjoyable as something to do in their free time. They would rather do something to help the lady who lives next door. In this way their enjoyment of truth is more 'practical' than 'intellectual'. I think we agree on most of what you are saying: women should learn the doctrines, have joy in them, be able to teach them to their children: all of theology should be applied, etc. But the application most of my friends make of the theology they learn is to use their spare time to do something for the lady next door, while their husbands use the same spare time for further study or getting on the puritanboard.

I think you aren't making a consistent distinction in your arguments between having a rational faculty and being more prominently motivated by intellectual than practical concerns. I am not trying to argue that women are somehow lower down on the scale of rational being than men. I am concerned to point out that women who quietly and diligently, with a richness of emotion and practical thought about details, provide a nurturing home for their children and help their husbands - but aren't all that interested in the puritanboard - are no less valuable as humans or Christians than men. They have good practical and emotional reasons (emotion and practicality are real aspects of life: indeed intellect without them is nowhere near justice or truth) for what they think, even if their reasons aren't primarily 'intellectual'.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> Your references to emotional men are very helpful and important to the discussion. All I've been trying to say is that both genders should have both qualities; there's no biblical reason to see it otherwise, regardless of what we see in the society around us. If it's harder for men to have that heart, then we need to work on that. If it's harder for women to be interested in serious study for the gleaning of knowledge and wisdom, then they should work on that and we should do our best to help them. The answer is not to shy away from something difficult, counter-culture, or whatever by assigning one trait to each gender and saying that this is just how it is. I, too, err on the side of cold intellectualism. Perhaps my fiance can learn something about the pursuit of knowledge from me and I can learn something about the importance of a warm, "soft" heart from her.



I agree with you. I, too, have thought about the importance of training my children (and other women) in the Scriptures. My husband is not with them as much as I am. I have many long theological discussions with my daughters, and I am thankful that I was Biblically trained in churches and schools where women were expected to know as much as the men, even though we were not allowed to preach or lead the church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 14, 2008)

Men and women do think different brother. It is a physical thing as much as a spiritual thing. Our offices in life are necessarily different and so our desires were created differently. Our gifts and talents are different also. Our pursuits should be different also. 

Our sanctification will be different because we are called to different things. As far as virtue goes we are all to pursue virtue. But our offices will require different forms of wisdom concerning ruling and submission, vocation and homemaking, and each of us will respond differently towards our children. No ones temperament is like the others. So our level of relating to wisdom and emotion will all differ. But everyone's goal should be that of becoming Christlike. We should all reflect God's goodness and Glory.


----------



## etexas (Jan 14, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Snyder,
> ...


Good stuff, I want my sister to have talks about Scripture with my niece. Sis is divorced so that would be a great thing!


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Davidius, so are you saying that I'm being more 'emotional' and 'practical' in my argumentation than you are?
> 
> And my reasons are less valid because of this?
> 
> ...



Haha! Well, I guess that's what I was trying to say.  You win. 

I guess it does sound like we're saying pretty much the same thing.

Just for clarification, though, I never said that I think all women should become members of the PB. My entire angle the whole time was to respond to those who have taken a pagan view of women by saying that they don't have the same faculties men have, basically saying that they aren't created in the image of God. This has led some throughout history to believe that women shouldn't be educated at all, because it was assumed that they just would never get it, that education in general is only for men because women can't think, etc. This is what Aquinas said, i.e. that the only possible reason why God could have wanted to create women was to have babies because men are better for everything else. 

By "intellectual" I never meant to imply that some certain volume of time spent talking about doctrine, or debating doctrine, is a sign of wisdom or knowledge. This is, of course, not even true for men. My main issue was that I thought you were saying women don't even need to know doctrine or be interested in _it_ (not the PB, or debate, etc.).


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Just for clarification, though, I never said that I think all women should become members of the PB. My entire angle the whole time was to respond to those who have taken a pagan view of women by saying that they don't have the same faculties men have, basically saying that they aren't created in the image of God. This has led in throughout history to not educating women at all because it was assumed that they just would never get it, that education in general is only for men, or that women are not really much better than men. This is what Aquinas said, i.e. that the only possible reason why God could have wanted to create women was to have babies because men are better for everything else.
> 
> By "intellectual" I never meant to imply that some certain volume of time spent talking about doctrine, or debating doctrine, is a sign of wisdom or knowledge. This is, of course, not even true for men. My main issue was that I thought you were saying women don't even need to know doctrine or be interested in _it_ (not the PB, or debate, etc.).


 
I'm in complete agreement.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 14, 2008)

What a good thread.

Very thought provoking.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Most of the people discussing theology on this board are men. If you talked with their wives many of them would talk about their kids more readily than about Calvin's sacramentology. They might even get up and leave the room while you talked about that and make you something to eat. If they interjected something it would in many cases be (as here) an argument from experience; often charged with emotion. I believe they deserve honor for this. I've come to appreciate them precisely for it. I learn a lot from them.



That's very insightful. It reminds me of Heb. 11 -- By faith Abel offered, Enoch was translated, Noah prepared an ark, Abraham went out and sojourned ... and Sarah received strength to conceive seed. Blessings!


----------



## satz (Jan 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the people discussing theology on this board are men. If you talked with their wives many of them would talk about their kids more readily than about Calvin's sacramentology. They might even get up and leave the room while you talked about that and make you something to eat. If they interjected something it would in many cases be (as here) an argument from experience; often charged with emotion. I believe they deserve honor for this. I've come to appreciate them precisely for it. I learn a lot from them.
> ...



Rev Winzer,

With respect, I don’t know if I agree. I have agreed in general with most of Heidi’s posts, but I do not think there is any shame or error in stating that women ought to be more interested in theology than in homemaking – just as men ought to be more interested in theology than their money-making professions. Naturally, this assumes we define theology as knowledge followed by practice, not just intellectual bible fact gathering. 

Heidi,

Without meaning any offense, I guess I am a little confused at why you say what you described here is so honorable. There is certainly nothing wrong with it, but I am not sure it should be especially singled out for honor. If a woman leaves a discussion to prepare a some food for her husband or others, that is certainly a praiseworthy act of service. But if someone were to imply that a woman should be more concerned with the domestic than theological, I would have to disagree. To me that seems no different from saying a man ought to be praised for walking off from a theological discussion to check the stock market. I am not saying that is you are saying, and it is sincerely not my wish to offend.

I am not very sure what you meant by ‘an argument from experience; often charged with emotion’. Again, I respectfully submit I do not quite understand why it is praiseworthy to respond to a theological discussion in this way. Again, lets assume we get our definitions right, and theological discussion is not merely an academic exercise, but a true discussion on what is important in life – how to please God etc. Why then is it good to respond to such a discussion not with the bible but with our own experiences? I am not in anyway saying our experiences have no value, they have much value, but that value can only be seen when they are interpreted through the bible. To give an example, telling me a story about a woman who stayed home to raise her children and how well the children turned out honestly doesn’t mean anything to me, because its just someone’s experience. Starting first with the bible principle than telling the story as an example of obedience and faith that was rewarded – now that means something (And yes, I know sometimes when these stories are told the biblical basis goes unsaid because it is assumed). 

Again, I hope no offense was caused. I am just interacting with the thoughts brought up by the OP and others. Peace.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 15, 2008)

satz said:


> I do not think there is any shame or error in stating that women ought to be more interested in theology than in homemaking – just as men ought to be more interested in theology than their money-making professions. Naturally, this assumes we define theology as knowledge followed by practice, not just intellectual bible fact gathering.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Without meaning any offense, I guess I am a little confused at why you say what you described here is so honorable. There is certainly nothing wrong with it, but I am not sure it should be especially singled out for honor. If a woman leaves a discussion to prepare a some food for her husband or others, that is certainly a praiseworthy act of service. But if someone were to imply that a woman should be more concerned with the domestic than theological, I would have to disagree. To me that seems no different from saying a man ought to be praised for walking off from a theological discussion to check the stock market. I am not saying that is you are saying, and it is sincerely not my wish to offend.




I know you were not meaning to offend, but I think you are missing part of the equation: calling. Plus, there is an appropriate time for each thing put before us.

For example, it's approaching dinner time and the woman, who has the task of planning and preparing dinner, knows that she needs to get things done in certain order by a certain time. If she leaves the theology discussion to do that, she is doing the right and honorable thing.

If my duties require that I check the stock market, or answer the phone at work, or spend 6 hours studying something entirely worldly, it is the right thing to do at the time.

Theological discussions have their time and place. Many people, women or men, chose to do those things elsewhere. For instance, my wife has read more of the Puritans than I have, she writes about what she has learned, and thinks about these things constantly. We discuss theology more than anything else.

But she doesn't want to be on something like the PB because she perceives it as cutting into her other duties and meditations. She'd rather knit than post here. I support that completely.

So, we are faithful to deal with the tasks at hand and to learn as much theology as we can, but not always the same way as others may do it.

BTW, I should add that my wife is both a lawyer and has a master's degree, has learned Greek, Italian, French, and Spanish, is a published author, and my intellectual peer if not my superior. Yet she is the one who asks my guidance on theology. It is a blessing to be challenged in such a way.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 15, 2008)

I agree that this is a very interesting thread. I was waiting for someone to say something, and it hasn't been said yet, so I will venture out on a dangerous limb. 

The thing about theological inquiry that strikes me is the number of logical steps required to get somewhere. It requires a step by step approach that is extremely detail oriented (and I'm actually a big picture kind of person, so I have had to learn this). As with any logical system, it takes a step by step kind of mind. 

Most women I know have a more intuitive kind of logic. Notice I use the term "logic" in the same sentence as "women." This is not an accident, I assure you. What I mean is that women tend to want to get to the point. It is not as if they are illogical. It is just that they get there faster, skipping over the steps in between. To men, this seems illogical. All it really means is that the woman intuitively saw what it would take many steps for the man to see. Neither approach is better than the other. If one is doing engineering, for instance, one must have all the steps in proper order, or the bridge will collapse. How many female engineers do you know? On the other hand, when it comes to English literature, here women excel, because literature is written not in a step by step logical process, but rather at the pace of life, which leaves out a lot of steps. One must make quite a few more logical leaps. I am positing, then, that women are more practically oriented for precisely this reason: they want to know the "so what" quicker than the man does. They don't necessarily need all the steps to be spelled out: they just go there. These comments are, of course, generalizations with plenty of exceptions to both analyses. What do ya'll think?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 15, 2008)

I think considering Mary and Martha and Sarah gives us a good balance here. Mary shows us that it is good for women to pursue theological knowledge, and that seeking to leash them to the kitchen is inappropriate. But we also have the example of Sarah, lurking in the tent door and listening while Abraham talks with his supernatural visitors. Then Abraham goes out and intercedes with God while Sarah stays home --and receives strength to conceive seed. Men and women both need theological knowledge; but their pursuit of it and their use of it and their method of grasping it are going to vary according to gender and vocational differences.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 15, 2008)

Hi Mr. Li,

Throughout the discussion, my point has been that not only is a woman's role different, but (in my experience) women are generally suited to that role by a different temperament. Neither the role nor the suitability implies inferiority. It's a fact of human experience through many cultures that men and women do not merely differ physically or in an arbitrary imposition of role; but that there is such a thing 'masculinity' and 'femininity', descriptive of something more essential to men and women than mere appearance or function. For instance in literature there is a definite 'masculine' or 'feminine' tone or voice that has nothing to do with appearance or function. Despite feminism and the consequent feminization of society, the marriage sitcoms are still rooted in the facts of a more essential difference between women and men than the physical. One of the differences is that by and large women are more emotional. My point has been that this does not imply their inferiority: indeed if it did, then men who tend to be more emotional than intellectual in their outlook would also be inferior. 

We can take an example from the body. Scripture uses the body to point out how ridiculous it is for people with different gifts in the church to feel more necessary than other members. Yet the functions of the body are not imposed arbitrarily without regard to design, any more than spiritual gifts are a superfluous addition to a person. The hand functions to grasp things: the nose does not. Not only do our brains tell our hands rather than our noses to grasp things, but our hands were designed to grasp things and our noses weren't. In spite of the difference between the hand and the nose going beyond role to design God can use the parts of the body as a good illustration of equality. I think men and women are like that. 

The emotion, for instance, ties into the physical (men don't have to deal with cycling hormones every month that affect brain chemicals and so feelings) but involves the whole person. Physical makeup and role can't be isolated as superficial differences because both things involve the individual more essentially: they are not divorced from, but expressive of the whole. A woman who has carried a child around for nine months, in many parts of the world still facing great pain and even death to bring that child into the world, whose daily life revolves around the hourly aspects of their being kept in life and well being is, in most cases, going to care more about ideas that impact her child (the 'so what' Mr. Keister was referring to) than about a two vs. a three covenant theory; and is going to speak about ideas in those terms. If that doesn't make sense to you than forgive me- but it probably speaks to the very difference I'm arguing for (in that obviously, you're a man). In women this approach is honorable, because it is the way God made her, and the work He gave her to do.

I was struck by the point Rev. Winzer made: it is a life effort of faith for a Christian woman to have and to rear children. Her faith is in most cases going to be very geared around that effort. Her theological concerns will be grounded in it. She is practical and passionate (Kipling says she's more deadly than the male). This will often be her approach to theological discussion, and it is worthy of her high calling. In the list where Paul is talking about those women who are rich in good works he speaks of those who have brought up children. 

(the following is personal example)

I have no children to talk about; I don't have enough health to throw myself into any physical activity: I don't know how to relate on a host of practical scores to the daily experiences of other women. I don't have much interest honestly in many of the things that daily consume many other women's lives. I enjoy theology: indeed learning to approach it outside of practical concerns (not having many) has been the biggest help and joy to me. But I find it absolutely appalling to suggest that *I* should be considered closer to some kind of ideal for women: that I, abstracted as I am from practical things and so more interested in whether or not Grotius was an Arminian am superior to my own mother who brought me up with faith and grace and worked out our weekly budget literally to the nickel, taught us not only all the bible stories but how to clean the bathroom and cook: who was a source of comfort and happiness: and has never heard, nor could she probably work up much interest in, John Brown of Haddington. My dad taught us doctrine for an hour every evening, and in my opinion the burden of doctrinal teaching for the family does lie with the man. But my mother showed me Christ all day every day. 

She told me the other day that when we were in Korea they were living on an income insufficient for a single person -- we ate cornmeal and noodles and tomato sauce without meat daily -- in an unheated house, without hot water or any kind of machines for laundry in the winter in Seoul, us four kids constantly sick. They were without a car and she was taking five or six busses daily to and from language school. She dropped out of language school because it was more important for her to take care of us and her home than to be able to talk -not just theology but at all- with the women in the seminary where my dad was working. Evidently this was very hard for her. I watched her during that time from the outside and never knew she struggled with any of these things. She was always selfless and happy. I have only two memories of her ever even raising her voice with me, though she never let me disobey. I rise up and call her blessed, honorable: I don't pray that I can instruct her from the _Institutes_ but that I can learn from her how to be a godly woman. Indeed this discussion has forced me once again up against the fact that I know very little about that. I've been concerned to defend those women who do against any idea of a more 'intellectual' man or woman being, in terms of human value or of godliness, 'superior'; but I'd probably best leave it to better (more theological or experienced) defenders (smiles). I hope that clarifies in spite of my undeniably feminine approach to theological discussion. All the best.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 15, 2008)

Through my experience it seems that women are more encouraged to be emotional, so it seems to be like its more of a cultural aspect rather than biological or spiritual. I know several women that are MORE rational than men, and they tend to be secular. Why is it than in the church women are more pushed to have roles of emotion and not an intellectual understand of the scriptures which is so important and can benifit both parties in a marrige?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 15, 2008)

Interesting thread . . .

Both my wife and older daughter are seminary educated (as are my older son and myself). My wife works full time in children's and Christian education ministries ("family life") and my daughter teaches at a Christian high school. There ARE significant differences between men and women in so many areas (as previous posts have discussed exhaustively). 

However, when we discuss theology, the whole family (5 kids, 1 son-in-law, 3 daughters-in-law) usually jumps into the conversation, including the attorney and his marketing executive wife, the son-in-law who is program director of an inner city youth ministry, the stay-at-home mom daughter-in-law, and (sometimes) the rock musician ("sweet") son and his wife. Only my 16 yr old, who thinks her older siblings are boring, opts out of some of the give and take. She also complains that her older siblings don't take her seriously enough, so why bother mounting an intellectual argument with them (she saves those for times with her mother and me!).

Actually, the youth ministry son-in-law and the marketing exec. daughter-in-law tend to grow impatient with the precision of some of the discussion. They will only participate up to a point. My wife, naturally responsive rather than assertive can also sit back. Usually, the excited conversation involves my oldest son (assoc. pastor), my teacher daughter, the attorney son, the stay-at-home mom daughter-in-law and myself. Here, temperament rather than gender seems to describe the conversation. Those of us who will chase the rabbit all the way down the hole are the ones who become most agitated and engaged.

In my experience, where most of the men and women have advanced degrees (three of my kids and one of their spouses have a masters or more), the willingness to engage in intellectual discussions of the faith seems to relate to temperament rather than gender. The more reticent ones will sometimes hold back, the more assertive ones will dive into the conversation.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 15, 2008)

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Women are truly wired "different" than men are; yet that does not mean that they don't have the same faculties that men do. Both have the faculties of the mind, will, and affections, with similar capacities. But, the wiring as to how they connect and relate is different. While there are many similarities in the connections, there are also many differences. And, men and women are not even all alike within themselves. There is a general mold to which they fit, yet, even within that mold, there are differences, which accounts for some men being more high strung with emotions, and some women being less so than their women counterparts.

The neat thing is that both reflect the image of God. I Thess. 2:7,11 shows that Christ-like ministry involves both sorts of characteristics being administered: those of "gentleness...like a nursing mother taking care of her own children", and those of a "father with his children, exhorting each one and encouraging and charging them to walk in a manner worthy of God." 

In a family, only a woman can properly teach her husband and her children, by example, how they are to submit to Christ, (and, for that matter, how Christ himself submits to the Father), by how she submits to her husband. And, only a father can properly teach, by example, how Christ loves the church, and how the Father loves Christ, by how he loves his wife. Both have an invaluable job to undertake in a family, and it truly is the scheme of Satan to distract both men and women, husbands and wives, from their calling before God; to get them off course into some sort of "feminist" movement, or even some "anti-man" movement, to where they desire to cast off the mold of God's creation of man and women for some melting pot or hybrid version of their own. 

Both men and women are truly beautiful creations of God, and both are to be honored and cherished as they are, both in their similarities and in their differences. Both instruct of how God is, for he is both rational and emotional, theoretical and practical, theologically minded and application oriented; yet, he is all of these to the highest degree all at once, and all of the time, and not in part or percentage, like we are.

Blessings!


----------



## satz (Jan 15, 2008)

Heidi and Vic,

I am just about to leave the house now so I won't be able to respond in detail till much later today.

I do think you missed my point a little, which is probably the result of my being unclear.

I would say for now that I do agree with you, Heidi, regarding what you said in your long post about the kind of women you admire. That was not what I was trying to refute. 

More later...hopefully.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm sorry about the length -- I honestly didn't know how to answer your question as I understood it without starting over and explaining everything again - it seems an easy subject to have misunderstandings over. If you don't disagree with what I said there then probably we are in agreement. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2008)

Regarding emotions, that's kind of a running joke in any Church I'm in. Megaloo was giving me a hard time recently telling me that she doesn't remember the last time her husband cried but can tell you the last time I did. 

I know there are a lot of people that are purposefully manipulative with emotion but the Gospel is often so overwhelming to me that I get impassioned and, before I know it, waves of emotion are passing over me when I'm trying to teach something.

I'll be honest with you - I'm not so sure that men are more theologically oriented than women are. Women are often the more faithful when it comes to being at Sunday School and are often more teachable and reliable than men. There are obvious exceptions. There is a drive in males that, if you get them passionate about theological studies, they are typically more motivated and focused on the single task of study but such men are few and far between. I always note, in fact, that men will complain about theology being difficult to understand but then you can get most guys to prattle off a million statistics about their favorite football team or a variety of sports. It's not a matter of not having any knowledge or passion but where those passions are typically directed.

In Reformed Churches, I think there are many reasons why women seem less interested in theology than men. One of those reasons, frankly, is that a lot of stuff that should be accomponied with passion is treated as if it were just so much theory. In this, I'm not saying that theological presentation has to manipulate emotions but, frankly, it's sort of a male thing to think that theology is supposed to be monotone and staid or it's not really theology. If you teach theology in the way that Job cries out to God or David marvels in his love for God, or Paul speaks with passion against the Judaizers then, not only do you demonstrate that to be male isn't to be without passions, but you also interest many of the women who might otherwise not be interested in these things.

Recently, I received one of the most encouraging notes from a man in my congregation who has faithfully attended every men's Bible Study for over a year as I've gone through Romans and now into Hebrews. He and is wife came from the Phillipines where they attended what are mostly Pentecostal Churches that corrupt the Gospel with "you believed the Gospel so now prove to God you're serious by obeying" message. 

I'm always curious as to how I'm being heard by the members of the congregation when I teach but, the other day, he told me his wife had recently heard me talk about the fact that God has saved us apart from anything we ever did for Him. He said she just sat there for a while with her mouth open saying "Wow". It's funny that I got emotional hearing it then (No, I didn't cry but almost did).

I just really believe that if you come near people - alongside them so to speak - they listen to you in a way that a "lecture" just won't do. I used to have a Pastor who had a large problem in this. I finally figured out that his presentation was so distant that it was like listening to a college professor. If I was paying attention I could learn something and be edified by it but I also didn't really feel like he was my elder in the faith. He was distant and cold. He kind of lived and acted in a way that was closed off from the congregation and his preaching reflected that. His presentation was true but it could have been typewritten and read by a computer to the congregation for all the concern it seemed to have.

I think men and women need theology that cares about them with the love of Christ. Men are composed in such a way that they sometimes will learn anyway out of the hobby of it all. Women can too but I really think the nurturing and caring character of women makes a dry theology too hypocritical for them to pay attention to.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 16, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I'll be honest with you - I'm not so sure that men are more theologically oriented than women are. Women are often the more faithful when it comes to being at Sunday School and are often more teachable and reliable than men. There are obvious exceptions. There is a drive in males that, if you get them passionate about theological studies, they are typically more motivated and focused on the single task of study but such men are few and far between. I always note, in fact, that men will complain about theology being difficult to understand but then you can get most guys to prattle off a million statistics about their favorite football team or a variety of sports. It's not a matter of not having any knowledge or passion but where those passions are typically directed.
> 
> In Reformed Churches, I think there are many reasons why women seem less interested in theology than men. One of those reasons, frankly, is that a lot of stuff that should be accomponied with passion is treated as if it were just so much theory. In this, I'm not saying that theological presentation has to manipulate emotions but, frankly, it's sort of a male thing to think that theology is supposed to be monotone and staid or it's not really theology. If you teach theology in the way that Job cries out to God or David marvels in his love for God, or Paul speaks with passion against the Judaizers then, not only do you demonstrate that to be male isn't to be without passions, but you also interest many of the women who might otherwise not be interested in these things.
> 
> I think men and women need theology that cares about them with the love of Christ. Men are composed in such a way that they sometimes will learn anyway out of the hobby of it all. Women can too but I really think the nurturing and caring character of women makes a dry theology too hypocritical for them to pay attention to.




You said what I was thinking. Women tend to draw their experiences into situations. They want to know "how can I apply this truth to my life?" That is what God wired us to do. I love this quotation by The Earl of Lytton (1831-91):

"_It is a wonderful advantage to a man, in every pursuit or avocation, to secure an adviser in a sensible woman. In woman there is at once a subtile delicacy of tact and a plain soundness of judgment which are rarely combined to an equal degree in a man. A woman if she be really your friend, will have a sensitive regard for your character, honor, reupte. She will seldom counsel you to do a shabby thing; for a woman friend always desires to be proud of you."_ 

This quotation implies two things that I find important in this discussion: 1) Women are equal but different for a good reason. They help balance out and compliment men. 2) A man who does not carefully consider the value of a good woman in his life is foolish. 

So, should women study theology and be included in theological discussions As I already said in a post above: "YES!" However, our approach will be different, and we will add a different perspective to any discussion, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. What we need to learn in the church is appreciate those differences and work together to grow our knowledge of Christ and build His Kingdom in the world.


----------



## satz (Jan 16, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> I know you were not meaning to offend, but I think you are missing part of the equation: calling. Plus, there is an appropriate time for each thing put before us.



Hi Vic,

I guess I wasn’t clear enough in my post but I did feel I dealt with the idea of callings. My point is basically this; the primary role of each Christian, male or female, is to love God. We have secondary (but important) duties that differ between men and women, but those callings are still secondary to the first one. So in 1 Corinthians 7:29-32, Paul tells the Corinthians that the married must in some respects be like the unmarried – they cannot let their marriages so consume them and take up all of their time and energy. They must strive to still be like single people in the sense of having a devotion to God, despite the practical duties marriage brings. Likewise he tells them in verse 32 ‘I would have you without carefulness’ and again, he is referring to marriage, for Christians should not let their marriages take up so much of their time and energy that they have no time left for God. 

Now obviously to build up your marriage one of the greatest ways to serve God, but Paul still draws a distinction – verses 32 -34 distinguish between caring for the things of the Lord and caring for your husband/wife. Serving your spouse is a great Christian duty, but it seems to me Paul is still saying here that if a Christians spends _all_ their time and energy on their spouse, this is an unbalanced situation.

Again, I acknowledge there are differences in callings. My point is that those callings must still be subservient to loving the things of God. I was not saying it is always wrong to say I have no time for this discussion now I have something to attend to. I was saying it seems to me conservative Christians are quick to jump on men for being too preoccupied with their calling – being more interested in their jobs or professions than in spiritual things. But for some reason it is sometimes considered commendable for women to do the same. Please note I said ‘_too_ preoccupied’. We all have practical duties in this world we need to fulfill. Men can’t be reading their bibles 24/7 because they need to go out into the world to make a living. Likewise women have domestic duties to attend to. These different duties are ordained by God and I believe he understands completely that they will necessarily take up much of our time. They just should not be the be-all-and-end-all of your lives.



> For example, it's approaching dinner time and the woman, who has the task of planning and preparing dinner, knows that she needs to get things done in certain order by a certain time. If she leaves the theology discussion to do that, she is doing the right and honorable thing.
> 
> If my duties require that I check the stock market, or answer the phone at work, or spend 6 hours studying something entirely worldly, it is the right thing to do at the time.



I agree 100%.



> Theological discussions have their time and place. Many people, women or men, chose to do those things elsewhere.



I am not saying people need to be on the puritanboard or reading theological books. I do think men and women equally need to be interested in the bible, and knowing it and applying it. But you need to know it before you can apply it.



> For instance, my wife has read more of the Puritans than I have, she writes about what she has learned, and thinks about these things constantly. We discuss theology more than anything else.
> 
> But she doesn't want to be on something like the PB because she perceives it as cutting into her other duties and meditations. She'd rather knit than post here. I support that completely.
> 
> ...



Again, I can’t see a single thing here I disagree with.


----------



## satz (Jan 16, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> I was struck by the point Rev. Winzer made: it is a life effort of faith for a Christian woman to have and to rear children. Her faith is in most cases going to be very geared around that effort. Her theological concerns will be grounded in it. She is practical and passionate (Kipling says she's more deadly than the male). This will often be her approach to theological discussion, and it is worthy of her high calling. In the list where Paul is talking about those women who are rich in good works he speaks of those who have brought up children.
> 
> (the following is personal example)
> 
> ...



Heidi,

Like I said before, inasmuch as you were trying to defend the type of women you describe here, I am in complete agreement with you. They are not lesser Christians simply because they cannot engage in ‘theological’ discussion. 

I guess I will try to summarize my point again. Men and women have different callings. Men should not be so obsessed with their role as providers that they concentrate on their professions to the exclusion of interest in spiritual things. Likewise women should not be so obsessed with child-rearing or domestic concerns to the exclusion to interest in spiritual things. When I say ‘spiritual things’ I don’t mean fancy theological words or the intricacies of church history. All I mean is being interested in their bibles, wanting to know their bibles, wanting to know about God and Jesus Christ. That’s all I mean. 

I’am sorry this is a short response to your long post. But I hope it makes what I was trying to say a little clearer.


----------



## BJClark (Jan 16, 2008)

JBaldwin;




> "_It is a wonderful advantage to a man, in every pursuit or avocation, to secure an adviser in a sensible woman. In woman there is at once a subtile delicacy of tact and a plain soundness of judgment which are rarely combined to an equal degree in a man. A woman if she be really your friend, will have a sensitive regard for your character, honor, reupte. She will seldom counsel you to do a shabby thing; for a woman friend always desires to be proud of you."_
> 
> This quotation implies two things that I find important in this discussion: 1) Women are equal but different for a good reason. They help balance out and compliment men. 2) A man who does not carefully consider the value of a good woman in his life is foolish.



Something our pastor discussed with my husband and I before we married were these differences..women being able to look at a given situation and 'see' the emotional effects on everyone involved..where as men process the logical and tend to ignore the emotional effects..so the best situation is where the husband and wife sit down together looking at every logical conclusion adding the information the wife see's from the various emotional aspect's to see which works best for them as a couple and family.

It's brings about the best balance..the problem comes when one or the other try to push aside the other..because they see it as either to logical or to emotional..and they basically discard the spouses input..

I have found my husband has done that on a few occassions, discarded my input on the emotional effects, and everytime he's done so, it didn't have a good outcome..because he was only looking at self and how he would personally benefit..

the most recent issue on this I refused to submit to him in the situation, knowing the outcome would be hazardous to our marriage and my feelings towards him. I stood firm and allowed God to do battle in his heart, where he was putting self first, and it was awesome to watch God bend his heart towards Him and me in the situation. As he let go of self, his entire demeanor changed, and it was if I watched God literally step in and fill that place in my husbands heart with Himself..


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 16, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> The thing about theological inquiry that strikes me is the number of logical steps required to get somewhere. It requires a step by step approach that is extremely detail oriented (and I'm actually a big picture kind of person, so I have had to learn this). As with any logical system, it takes a step by step kind of mind.
> 
> Most women I know have a more intuitive kind of logic. Notice I use the term "logic" in the same sentence as "women." This is not an accident, I assure you. What I mean is that women tend to want to get to the point. It is not as if they are illogical. It is just that they get there faster, skipping over the steps in between. To men, this seems illogical. All it really means is that the woman intuitively saw what it would take many steps for the man to see.



This is interesting and may have some bearing, from the _Pensees:

_[edit: incidentally, Rev. Keister, I've sometimes wondered whether the FV debates don't have something to do with a 'mathematical', as defined below, approach to theology over against an intuitive one? I think the argument/presentation of the FV is often strong in 'poetic appeal' but lacks precision - whereas our responses tend to be more precise but often without 'poetry'. Perhaps _some _of the famous 'misunderstanding' is the gap between the two approaches. I do believe precision is necessary to theology by definition. The reformers and Puritans seem to have had both?][SIZE=+1]_

1. The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind._-- In the one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that direction: but if one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.
Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.
But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical.
Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds, provided all things are explained to them by means of definitions and axioms; otherwise they are inaccurate and insufferable, for they are only right when the principles are quite clear.
And men of intuition who are only intuitive cannot have the patience to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptual, which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out of the common.

(from "Section 1: Thoughts on the Mind and Style")
[/SIZE]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jan 16, 2008)

I think the practical/speculative theoretical distinction is better than the emotional/intellectual one, although the latter does hold true as well. I am a student of philosophy. In my experience thus far, men are more prone to be sucked into speculative metaphysical disputes than woman are. I am a prime example of this. Again, there are exceptions to the rule, but women on the whole seem to be more of a practical mind. They have the same capacity for discussion of such topics, it just usually doesn't appeal to most of them. And this isn't a bad thing either. Btw, some guys are the same. Its just that more guys are prone to such speculation than woman are. 

On a side note, in my Classical Pragmatism class, there are about 20 guys and zero girls. Its kind of pathetic and sad, but it is a good example.


----------

