Are you a Boy or a Man?


  • A boy demands to lead; a man agrees to lead.
  • A boy is selfish; a man is selfless (credit Paul C. Brunson for this one!).mancard
  • A boy is a playboy; he lets his passions with women rule him. A man rules his passions to one day give them as an unblemished gift to one woman.
  • A married boy, thinks and acts like he’s still single. A married man guards his heart.
  • A boy likes the things his wife’s job provides. A man does everything he can to make her employment optional.
  • A boy jumps from job to job to job to job. A man swallows his pride or his temper when he must, to maintain a good job record and provide well.
  • A boy enjoys the locker room talk about girls. A man stands up for a woman’s honor anywhere he must.
  • A boy demeans a woman. A man defends a woman.
  • A boy is harsh and careless. A man is tender and careful.
  • A boy says, “Me first!” A man says, “You go first.”
  • A boy makes a baby and leaves. A man assumes his responsibility.
  • A boy splits the check; a man always pays.
  • A boy waits for the woman to decide. After asking her what she’d prefer, a man takes the initiative where to go for dinner, what game to play, were to go on vacation.
  • A boy lets his wife discipline the children. A man assumes this responsibility when he’s home.
  • A boy lets spiritual matters up to his wife; by deed and word, a man tells his family, “Follow me, as I follow Christ.”

Protecting Women from the Front Lines

As I wrap up my sermon series on sex, I’m preaching on what it means to be female, and what it means to be male.  While the western world increasingly likes to pretend we’re the same, we’re not.  Frankly, I love that God has made us different.  Clearly, He loves it to.

In one breathtaking moment of recklessness masquerading as intellectual and social advance, our government decided to open all military units–including front line combat ones–to women.  It’s about “fairness” and “equality” they say.  If it means that women get the same chance to die as violently as men do, then I’m against it.  From the creation of the first man, I understand that God created men to protect women in every way they can.  After the debacle in the orchard, that’s why God came looking for Adam instead of Eve even though she was the first perpetrator.  That’s why God blames the entire legacy of sin on Adam (Rom.5:12, 15) not Eve.  He was to get between her and danger, not follow her into it.

After the decision was made, a woman veteran who served with the marine corps in Iraq gave her opinion of the folly.  With the muscle that political correctness wields these days, smart vets who object to it but still enjoy military benefits, are not prone to want to be identified.  The following piece is anonymous but was vetted by Jazz Shaw and published as part of his 1-27-2013 post on Hot Air.  It’s a must read for anyone interested in the debate from either vantage point.

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

– Sentry

Free Church Law School collides with PCness

One of Canada’s finest universities is in the Evangelical Free Church education constellation.  Trinity Western University in British Columbia serves 4000 students from over 30 countries in 42 undergraduate and 16 graduate programs.  Five times in the past decade Canada’s most widely-read newspaper has given it an A+ for quality of education–an unparalleled recognition.gavel

In 1996 after being denied certification for the teachers it graduated, TWU launched a long and expensive court battle.  The rub the British Columbia Teachers’ College objected to was its student code of conduct which forbade “homosexual conduct”.  In 2001 Canada’s Supreme Court handed TWU’s opponents a stunning defeat.

Deja vu.  Now it’s TWU’s law school and law graduates that are under attack.  Here is the latest from President Kuhn.

May 6, 2014

Dear EFCA Friends,

We’re sending you this message today because we have an important update about the TWU School of Law. Trinity Western University has come under fierce public attack for standing up for our right to uphold evangelical Christian values, including the biblical definition of marriage. We believe the recent decision by Ontario’s Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) to ban TWU School of Law graduates from articling or practicing law in Ontario, and the Nova Scotia Barristers Society’s (NSBS) decision not to approve the TWU School of Law unless the University alters its religious beliefs and practices, have dangerous implications for all Christians and religious organizations in Canada.
We believe that the LSUC and NSBS decisions, which were made despite approvals from the BC Ministry of Advanced Education and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (whose approval has been followed by law societies in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, PEI and Newfoundland), are in contravention of the law. Therefore, Trinity Western University will commence legal proceedings in Ontario and Nova Scotia to defend the rights of Canadians to express religious beliefs without being excluded from the public marketplace.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in TWU’s favour for the right to grant teaching degrees. Canadian law requires that all Supreme Court of Canada decisions be respected and followed. Further, section 3.1 of the 2005 Civil Marriage Act itself makes provision for Canadians to uphold their own religious views concerning marriage, given the fact that many religions are opposed to same-sex unions. (Watch our frequently asked questions video news release to learn more about these legal challenges.)

In addition to the challenges in Ontario and Nova Scotia, on April 14 a Petitioner represented by Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby commenced a lawsuit against the BC Minister of Advanced Education to challenge the province’s December 2013 approval. TWU will apply to be added as a Respondent to this litigation so that it has opportunity to present arguments to the BC court.

As well, some BC lawyers are seeking to overturn the decision of the Law Society of British Columbia—which, after thorough consideration, voted 20-6 to approve the TWU School of Law. A special meeting for all BC lawyers, as well as students articling in the province, has been called for June 10. Many of you know lawyers in BC, and I encourage you to share the details of this Special General Meeting, which will be linked by telephone and held in 13 locations across the province.
 Most importantly, we’d like to ask for your prayers as we now face legal proceedings in BC, Ontario, and Nova Scotia—a long and costly prospect that can only move forward by the grace of God and on the prayers of His people. Thank you in advance for standing with our University and with TWU students and alumni, who are making an impact in their communities at home and around the world.

In His Service, and Yours,

Bob Kuhn
President, Trinity Western University | 604.513.2021

Pray for our friends north of the border that God may once again grant them favor in the courts so that Canadians might not exclude Christians from practicing certain professions due to prejudicial opinions about what it means to follow Jesus.