I don't deny that there are differences -- psychological, emotional, physical -- between the sexes. It'd be hard to contest that and of little value to do so. However, one thing that bothers me, particularly in the reading of this book (Women and Men in Ministry) and which I hope to address more fully later is this: Why is it so inconceivable, particularly in today's world in which men and women share many of the same responsibilities, circumstances and even temptations -- why, then, is it so hard to believe that they may actually have overlapping, rather than opposite, needs?

Does having a certain need preclude one's filling that need in another? I would hope not. Otherwise love is flat out.

An example of this: in the book, "exaltation," or recognition is given as a need of man -- and one that he should rightly desire, according to the authors, because of his primacy in creation and his role as the expression of the observable aspects of God) -- while for a woman, the need is "to feel needed." The ideal woman of this book is a supporter who "uplifts" (it says "others," but the only "others" the context allows is "men") and who has no need beyond that. The ones who do are simply "broken."

Why is that which is seen as a virtue in the one seen as a weakness in the other? Besides, traditionally, aren't we taught that the man needs to feel "needed" and therefore feels compelled to be protector and provider while the woman has a more "exaltation" based need in that she "needs to feel cherished, loved and put on a pedestal?" That's what my notes from Christian home say ... maybe Dr. Isom was flip-flopped.

Anyway, it bothers me that in reinforcing the differences between the genders, it suddenly becomes impossible for any overlap to occur without immediately blaming it on a brokenness in one or the other.

I'll have tons more to say on this later. Later, I'll post the checklist that I've made for myself that I have to refer to constantly to keep from flinging this book across the room in a rage against the vacous lack of logic.