[BBC List] not all of CT's articles are lame

Fri Jul 13 09:57:32 EAST 2007

We Are Not Pregnant

The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.

Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says,
"We're pregnant!"

Related articles and links
<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/128-42.0.html#related
> 

"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only
women could get pregnant."

I've heard this phrase-"We're pregnant"-too much recently, but it's time to
move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is
absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to
participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men,
it simply means, "My wife and I are expecting a baby."

But the first dictionary <http://www.bartleby.com/61/18/P0521800.html>
meaning of pregnant remains, "Carrying developing offspring within the
body." Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the
word's meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that
some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but
it's the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident
that this phrase, "We're pregnant," has arisen in a culture that in many
quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental
differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an
inadvertent co-opting of women by men-men using language to suggest that
they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy
is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should
acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in
less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist,
but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and
bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of
women.

It is also a slap in the face of our Creator, who made us male and female.
We were not created with interchangable parts or traits, nor is it our
purpose to duplicate or replace one another.

That's not a happy thought to many, because egalitarian culture resents
differences. We believe (wrongly) that differences by their very nature are
unequal. History would seem to support this assumption. The sad history of
most cultures has assumed that male traits (authority and leadership) are
superior to female traits (meekness and service). But that is more a product
of human pride than of the created order. In the end, we have no objective
standard by which to judge the intrinsic value of differing gifts and
abilities.

For the Christian, any attempt to exalt male traits is utter nonsense. If
one must traffic in in notions of superiority, then we'd have to grant
superiority to women. For the teaching of Scripture and the example of Jesus
make clear that meekness and service are the traits to glory in. But the
very paradox of that sentence suggests the fruitlessness of such an
approach.

Though social scientists try to deny the "superiority" of humility as well
as differences in gender, they keep on bumping into hard facts. Professor W.
Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia summarized some such findings
a couple of years ago in an article in  <http://www.touchstonemag.com/>
Touchstone, "Reconciling Differences: What Social Sciences Show About the
Complementarity of the Sexes and Parenting."

He says that studies show what common sense could have predicted. Mothers
have a distinctive advantage over fathers in at least three areas.

1.	Breastfeeding. Along with pregnancy, this is another biological
difference that can hardly be gainsaid. Breast milk offers infants sugars,
nutrients, and antibodies that can't be recreated in infant formula. It also
protects infants from at least eleven serious maladies, from ear infections
to sudden infant death syndrome.
2.	Mothers-probably partly due to the physical bond they have with
infants during pregnancy and breastfeeding-are more sensitive to the
distinctive cries of infants. For instance, they are better than fathers at
detecting the difference between a cry of hunger and cry of pain.
3.	Whether it's hormones or instinct, mothers are better at overall
nurturing behavior, including hugging, praising, and cuddling.

In short, women are better at these behaviors, and it shouldn't surprise us
that they enjoy nurturing children. We all like to do things we do well and
that come naturally.

Studies also show that fathers bring their own gifts to the parenting table.
Carrying babies to term and breastfeeding are not, alas, two of them. But it
isn't as if God has left them high and dry.

1.	Fathers tend to excel at discipline. Because of their physical size
and strength, and the deeper pitch of their voice, they tend to instill more
respect in children. They tend to be more assertive with children and tend
to enforce family rules more consistently.
2.	Fathers excel at play, or at least a certain type of play. Fathers
are much more likely to engage in vigorous and physical play, including
wrestling, kicking a soccer ball, and so forth. As children play these more
physically demanding games with their fathers, they learn how to manage pain
and regulate strong feelings that arise in physically aggressive situations.
3.	Fathers play a central role in helping children confront the
challenges and opportunities in the world. Fathers are more likely than
mothers to encourage children to risk, to try new things, to be independent.
They are more likely to introduce them to the worlds of work and sport and
civil society.

One cannot make such distinctions nowadays without the usual caveat: Not all
women excel at nurturing, not all men excel discipline, and so on. What a
boring world this would be if we all fell into predetermined slots just as
social science tells us to! But the fact that something isn't always true
doesn't mean it isn't generally true. God has not made us robots, but he
loves this planet enough to forestall chaos. In nearly all cultures up to
this point in history, the above noted strengths of men and women have
played out in daily life. That men have often used their natural strength
and authority to abuse and subjugate women is not an argument against
differences, only against the hubris of men.

My point is simply this. I continue to look for ways to encourage us all to
relax a little about gender. I'm hoping that after the tumult of the last 30
years-during which time women have rightly learned a great deal about things
like leadership and men have rightly learned a great deal about things like
nurturing-we can once again affirm what culture after culture in human
history seems to confirm: We are created male and female, both fully loved
in God's eyes, but created with unbridgeable differences.

Better than the language of equality, I believe, is the language of
fulfillment. "God created man in his image, male and female he created
them." That is, we do not reflect the divine image when we try to duplicate
or co-opt or replace each other. It's only when we participate with each
other, with all our differences as male and female-as married couples, as
friends, as co-workers-that we begin to fill out the image of the Triune God
who created us.

Whenever that happens, I believe God once again says, "It is very good."

Mark Galli is managing editor of Christianity Today, and author of Jesus
Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God
<http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mean-Wild-Unexpected-Untamable/dp/0801012848/re
f=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1875924-2306565?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184020103&sr=1-1>
(Baker 2006). You are invited to comment below or on his blog
<http://www.markgalli.com/galliblog> .

Copyright C 2007 Christianity Today. Click
<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/features/info.html#permission>  for
reprint information.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/128-42.0.html

Thanks.

For the King's honor,

Charis,

Mike Abendroth

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

Ephesians 3:21 auvtw/| h` do,xa evn th/| evkklhsi,a| 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

"Faith is not our physician; it only brings us to the Physician ... Faith is
not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on
Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us;
that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for
our sins.  It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a
sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can
pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It
brings us to the cross, . but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor
the sacrifice; . Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between
itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross alone saves,
and that it saves alone. Faith adds nothing to the cross, nor to its healing
virtue. It owns the fulness, and sufficiency, and suitableness of the work
done there, and bids the toiling spirit cease from its labours and enter
into rest. Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see
the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion
without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the "It is finished!"
of the Sin-bearer, and says, "Amen."   

NOT FAITH, BUT CHRIST 

by Horatius Bonar 
(1808-1889) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20070713/7bb082dd/attachment.htm