It’s good for me to remember that I’m not the only one challenging Tertullian.

Yesterday, I came across a helpful post by Laura Turner. You might know Laura Turner, but more likely you’ve heard of her parents, as Turner is the daughter of Christian ministers, authors and teachers John and Nancy Ortberg. The Ortbergs come from the Willow Creek church context.

The thing I appreciated about Turner’s post is how she frames the issue of the role of men and women in the church in terms of gifting. As in, if you have a spiritual gift, you are bound before the Lord to put it to work, whatever your gender.

I recommend the whole post here, but to whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt:

“From the outset at Willow Creek, there was nothing being done anywhere in the church that could not or was not being done by a woman. Every Sunday morning I took the thick gray brochure with green embossing and read five names under the “teaching pastor” positions: three men, and two women. One of those women happened to be my mother, which deserves its own separate post–she’s remarkable in ways I cannot even name–but the reality of the situation remained that I was reminded every single week that women were called to follow their gifts, too, and that their gifts weren’t relegated to the domestic sphere and that gifts of leadership and teaching did not require an all-female audience. I never once got the message that women were weaker, more emotional, less able, or needed caring for. I was part of the largest evangelical church in the country, and my dreams for the future were never limited by my gender.

The issue has always been framed, in my experience, in terms of giftedness. If there is a man who is gifted in the areas of hospitality and care, we shouldn’t put him in a preaching position simply because he’s a man. And if there is a woman who is gifted in areas of leading and teaching, then she ought to be leading and she ought to be teaching. Not to do so would to be unfaithful to our Lord.”

I appreciate Turner’s words, but I think I appreciate her story even more. Growing up at Willow Creek, she didn’t encounter the barrier of prescribed gender roles until college. That’s extraordinary.

Oh that my kids, and my girls in particular, would experience that kind of environment as well!

Despite what you’ve been led to believe, not all entrepreneurs are men.

Think about it. The popular cultural entrepreneurial narratives are dominated by men. From the 19th century, there’s Edison, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie and Rockfeller. Last century, you’ve got Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Today’s news tells us the stories of Richard Branson, Mark Cuban and Mark Zuckerberg.

What we’ve taught is that entrepreneurs are sort of corporate Marlboro men. You remember the Marlboro man? A man, alone on the prairie, astride a sweaty stallion, all stubble and grit gazing confidently into the distance.

Or maybe not.

According to this article and infographic, having women involved in a tech start-up can be economically advantageous:

“OnlineBusinessDegree.org says women-led private technology companies achieve 35 percent higher returns on investment and bring in 12 percent higher revenue than male-owned, venture-backed tech companies.”

As you can see in the infographic, the data shows that when women are involved in the entrepreneurial enterprise with numbers (at least 5 women in the org), the companies are twice as likely to succeed.

Want a greater return on investment? Want the company to succeed? Have women entrepreneurs involved.

In my line of work, I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside many women with entrepreneurial gifts. One of these women is right now pioneering a new ministry at a small community college. Compelled by a vision to reach the whole campus, last year she started a Bible study with the football team. The football team.

With schools starting, this week it was time to recruit. So picture this. A pint-sized, brave-as-you-can-imagine woman standing up in front of more than 100 hulking football players and inviting them to join her every week to study the Bible.

She got 41 interest cards. Amazing.

When it comes to starting something new, it’s time to recalibrate our paradigms. What if women are not only just as competent as men at new ventures, but in some cases they are even better?!?

Ultimately, as a culture and in the church, it’s time.

Let’s put the Marlboro man out to pasture.

In a week where an already ugly and tragic situation further deteriorated in Syria with the news of the use of chemical weapons, the American populace as one turned it’s attention to:

Miley Cyrus.

Unless you live in the wilderness, you probably caught wind of the fact that erstwhile popstar Miley Cyrus made quite a stir at MTV’s Video Music Awards (VMAs) last Sunday night. I’ll spare you the details, but suffice to say her act involved tongues wagging, stuffed bears, very little apparel and a dance move known colloquially as “twerking.” (full disclosure: I’d twerk, but I think I’d throw out a hip).

By and large, Miley’s antics have been roundly panned. As over-the-top hyper-sexual. As inappropriate for prime time TV. As a shameless publicity stunt. And more. The backlash has been strong. For instance, the Parents Television Council condemned the performance, writing:

“MTV continues to sexually exploit young women by promoting acts that incorporate ‘twerking’ in a nude-colored bikini. How is this image of former child star Miley Cyrus appropriate for 14-year-olds? How is it appropriate for children to watch Lady Gaga strip down to a bikini in the opening act?”

For my money, two things are true about Miley’s behavior. First, we really don’t need that on TV. What good did Miley’s performance do? How did it help our culture? How did it build up people? I think the answers are “none, it didn’t, they weren’t.” And, second, her stunt distracted us as a society from what we really should be paying attention to; namely, Syria, or the 50th anniversary on the march on Washington and what’s next for the national conversation about race.

But lost in the “what the heck is wrong with Miley and what the &*%$ was that at the VMAs?” conversation is Miley’s dance partner. That’s right. Because at the VMAs, Miley’s act involved one other critical component:

Robin Thicke.

Rocker Robin Thicke was Miley’s “twerking partner,” if that’s such a thing. And he’s been largely ignored in the post-VMA kerfluffle. Why? Could male privilege have something to do with it? Does a cultural bias in favor of men in some way explain how a 36 year old, married father of a 3 year old son could participate in a sexually charged dance with 20 year old popstar in front of a bazillion television viewers and come out basically unscathed?!?

For the most part, in Tertullian’s reductionistic world, when it comes to sexuality men are there to be serviced. It’s our privilege. And at the VMAs, Robin Thicke was certainly playing his part, singing lyrics about liberating the young “animal” grinding against him.

In the end, I appreciate this take on the topic, with this summary of what was happening last Sunday night:

“This is about how the music industry uses every aspect of women’s lives, bodies, and sexualities in order to benefit off of their careers, and then lets them take all the fire for being sluts, dumb, shallow, crazy, and other endearing terms that the public and the media throws at them. The producers, agents, and Robin Thickes just get to smoothly walk away with all the money and none of the public shaming. “

Indeed. Robin Thicke, you need to better than that. We all do.

You’ve heard the expression “it takes two to tango?” Let’s update that expression to read:

“It takes two to twerk.”

If you know my wife, you know she is amazing.

Published author. Mom of four. Wife of a guy with a crazy job, a weakness for grad programs, and a fondness for long runs.

And soccer coach in training.

As I type (on Saturday morning), Amy is at the second session of her two day coaching certification course. Today is the field portion of the training. She’ll spend four hours this morning, busting her tail learning how to wrangle a group of under 8 girls into some semblance of a soccer team over the course of this Fall.

I’m guessing she’s going to come home tired, sore and overheated. I’m guessing she’ll also come home…

Relieved.

Turns out that of the 30 coaches-to-be in Amy’s certification course, 2 are women. On top of that neither of the facilitators are women.

Talking with Amy before last night’s kick-off lecture, she was anxious about going, knowing that there would be very few women in the room. Would the instructors take her seriously if she had questions? Would she have to endure innuendo? Would she feel safe in the room? Walking to her car after?

Processing with her beforehand, I was struck by the contrast to my experience in the same course, two years ago. I had none of those concerns. Instead, my big worry was being bored. It’s laughable really. And illustrative.

Male privilege is the real deal.

This morning, as Amy prepared to head out the door, there was more to fret about. What should she wear? Fresno summer mornings are hot, but you want to cover up, especially in the presence of 30 male strangers. Or, it was clear that there wouldn’t be bathrooms at the field site, and it’s, uh, tough for a women to pee behind the bushes…

In the end, mercifully, the whole experience was better than she feared. We’re thankful. And yet that still makes the point. The men at this training had the privilege of not worrying about what they’d experience, a privilege that Amy did not have.

So, let’s add this to the list of Amy’s amazingness:

Woman of courage.