Dalbey: Gordon.

Yardsticks: I’m sure some yardsticks are cultural. Think of standardized testing, which is always also a reflection of the dominant culture. Some yardsticks ought perhaps even to be changed to reflect changing values (though I’m cautious about adapting yardsticks to every passing fad). We’d be in a mess if we still applied 19th-century yardsticks to voting eligibility, for instance. In other words, yardsticks should be shifted from excellence to excellence, not from excellence to mediocrity. However, I wonder if people ever discuss shifting yardsticks, or if it is simply a sequence of faits accomplis by people who have a vested interested in the direction of the shift.

All-rounder: I’m glad that’s also a strength, or I’d be one strength the poorer, as kuroodo-san knows from my incessant unanswerable questions…

i’m new to the field of education but i can appreciate the issues you’ve raised. in Singapore, where i’m at, there seems to be an unspoken preference for the ‘all-rounder’. i personally prefer to operate where my strengths are but it is often regarded more positively if you try to build up areas where you’re weak at by being willing to take it up (you have appropriate ambitions to better yourself). mediocrity appears inevitable to me. very frustrating.

thanks for the recommended site. i shall check it out when i can.

I’m very much interested in the idea that part of the problem is so much focus on a single person as pastor and less on developing the gifts of the whole body.

It is definitely good to look at “gifting” when deciding who should do what. The female priest I respect a lot does very well in some areas, better than most male leaders I’ve known. But I generally dread her sermons. I had a male pastor who could preach inspiring, knowledgeable sermons, but his counselling and personal skills left very much to be desired. Perhaps we are expecting too much of the pastor/priest role. Some churches try to solve the problem by becoming very top-heavy in their paid leadership: one pastor for preaching, one for counselling, one for youth, etc. I’m sure that’s not the way to go — too much of the church’s money being spent internally — but don’t have a good alternative to offer.

I readily admit that strong, intellectual knowledge of the Bible, theology, church history, and other subjects taught in seminary is not the most important pastoral attribute, but do believe it is vitally important nonetheless, especially for those who are in authority. This is where I feel the bar has been lowered. I’m also fully aware that a little female influence could and should raise the bar for the men, particularly when it comes to compassion and understanding.

I’m very glad I majored in mathematics rather than humanities. There, a yardstick is a yardstick — or rather a meter stick is a meter stick. 🙂 One can either do good mathematics or not. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about “revising” a yardstick.

If you want to elevate different gifts, better to acknowledge that and create different positions accordingly. For example — to take it away from the hot-button male/female issue — universities serve their students very poorly by emphasizing publishable research over teaching ability when hiring, retaining, and rewarding faculty. But I don’t think the solution to the problem is to change the meaning of having a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard. Let the universities hire some for their research abilities, and some for their teaching abilities, not putting the former in a position to confuse undergraduates, and not asking the latter to take valuable time from the work of teaching to publish mathematical papers. When you expect the same person, or the same kind of person, to do everything — whether in business, university, church, or even family — you won’t get the best results.

if there are gender differences, does it mean there can be no equality? where did the idea of equality although different/expressed differently originate?

if there are differences, whether because of nature, nurture or both, but only one yardstick or a set that favours a limited group, what is the value of yardsticks?

is it always “lowering the bar” when yardsticks are revised? how might balancing the ratio and encouraging plurality contribute to redefining/addressing standards that may have historical/class biases? or might revisions be a reaction to broader shifting realities like market forces?

if we take the context of the Church, should gender or gifting be used to define who may be ordained into leadership? are there giftings that are gender-specific? is spiritual leadership limited to those who are ordained or among laity only? what are the historical/social/class biases of ‘standards’ and leadership in the Church?

thankfully God is sovereign and my limitations/hang-ups do not prevent His will being done regardless if i’m conscious of it although i much prefer to be conscious of and aligned to it…

I wouldn’t have taken it as a negative commentary on her, and you’re right, she’s a very intelligent woman who on top of that has people skills and character traits her brother lacks that qualify her better for the job.

What bothers me is that I’ve seen too many instances of “lowering the bar” for the sake of increasing the number of females in a particular institution, from churches to universities. I have it on the authority of some good friends in the mathematics world that even Harvard has dumbed down its curriculum to make it easier for female math grad students to get degrees. This behavior does no one any favors, least of all the women, and all but shouts the belief that women can’t really measure up. I believe we can, given the right opportunities, which of course should start from birth. You can’t undo years of disadvantage in a hurry, and lowing standards to try to speed up the process is a terrible idea.

This, by the way, is in no way a negative commentary on your pastor-to-be sister, whom I don’t know, but who probably shares the obvious intelligence of her brother.