Why Not Women

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.(Galatians 3:28)

When God commanded Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply!” (Genesis 1:28), He addressed the entire human race, calling them to grow both in quality (fruitfulness) and quantity (multiplication). God repeated this command to Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:7) and to Jacob (Genesis 35:11), showing it remained valid after the Fall and applies to God’s people. Interestingly, this commandment extends beyond humanity to other living creatures (Genesis 1:22). We share this calling to grow in quality and quantity with the animal kingdom. Throughout history, we have fulfilled this mandate—developing civilization (quality) and increasing in numbers (quantity). From just two people, Adam and Eve, we have grown to 8 billion.

However, in the 18th century, English scholar Thomas Malthus warned that human population growth could be dangerous. He argued it tends to outpace food supply and natural resources, potentially leading to famine, disease, and catastrophe. Until then, few worried about overpopulation—the problem had always been too few people, not too many. But with the Industrial Revolution overcoming resource scarcity, European countries experienced rapid population growth, and Malthus predicted the previously unimaginable: overpopulation.

In the 20th century, this fear became reality. The global population rose from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to over 6 billion by century’s end—nearly a fourfold increase. Between 1950 and 1987 alone, the world population doubled from approximately 2.5 billion to 5 billion. During this period, the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” (1972), warning that if current trends in population, industrialization, resource consumption, and pollution continued, Earth would exceed its carrying capacity within 100 years, leading to sharp declines in population and industrial output.

This alarm prompted many governments to encourage smaller families. South Korea urged couples to have only two children. China introduced the infamous “One Child Policy,” limiting families to a single child. In China, where boys were traditionally valued far more than girls, countless baby girls were abandoned. At a time when the whole world feared overpopulation, these policies seemed completely rational.

Today, they look like colossal mistakes. South Korea now has the world’s lowest birth rate at 0.72 children per woman. China’s rate is 1.01 children per woman, far below the 2.1 needed to maintain current population levels. Low birth rates plague the entire East Asian region—South Korea, Japan, Macau, and Singapore all have the world’s lowest rates. But the problem extends beyond Asia. In Europe, only Monaco reaches replacement level at about 2.1. All other European countries fall short, with Italy (1.20), Spain (1.12), and Ukraine (0.98) showing alarmingly low rates. The United States, traditionally maintaining high birth rates among developed nations, has dropped to only 1.6 children per woman.

Even developing countries show signs of slowing growth. Niger, one of the world’s highest birth-rate countries, declined from 7-8 children per woman to 6.3 over 40 years. Because low birth rates are a global phenomenon, experts predict the world population will peak this century, most likely around 2084 at approximately 10.3 billion people. This may be better than the disasters predicted by Malthus or the Club of Rome, but it means countries with low birth rates face serious problems. As populations shrink, economies contract, with fewer jobs and lower incomes. Many houses stand empty, and small communities are abandoned—already happening in Japan. Governments spend heavily to encourage childbearing, but people aren’t changing their minds. The irony that these same governments urged fewer children just decades ago comes too late.

Battle of the Sexes

Many factors contribute to declining birth rates, but one key element is gender conflict. In the past, men loved women and women loved men. Because they loved each other, they married and had children. Today, among young people, negative attitudes toward the opposite sex are so common that many don’t want to marry or even date. Some blame feminism for this conflict, pointing to its provocative tendencies.

I disagree with feminists, especially radical ones, for two reasons: their antagonizing approach and their desire to control other women. First, many feminists see men as evil and try to antagonize them. I understand that women have suffered male aggression in words or actions, making it easy to view men as enemies. But personal experience doesn’t justify prejudice against an entire group, just as a police officer who arrests many people of a certain ethnicity isn’t entitled to racism. Even though it’s regrettable that women were oppressed by men, revenge isn’t the solution.

During the 1960s, two leaders fought racial inequality in America: Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Malcolm X believed that since black people were so oppressed by whites, they should seek revenge. Martin Luther King Jr. took a different approach. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, he envisioned the day when “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” For him, love, not hate, was the solution to racial injustice. That’s why Americans respect him, while Malcolm X remains controversial. Regarding gender inequality, I also believe Martin Luther King Jr.’s approach of love and reconciliation is correct.

Another problem with radical feminists is their attempt to mold women into their ideals. They don’t seem willing to support women in choosing any career. Rather, they believe women should study engineering and become tech executives without marrying or having children. If a woman abandons a successful career to focus on raising children, they claim she’s a victim of the cult of domesticity and refuse to accept it as a legitimate choice. Even when women do what makes them happy, radical feminists criticize them, saying they’re mistaken. Related to this, the message that all women are strong and aggressive burdens many women. Some women are like that; others aren’t. “Women are strong!” can hinder some women from enjoying quiet, peaceful lives without conflict. Feminists seem to think women are only allowed to do what they consider acceptable. That’s why many women don’t support feminism.

Women in Distress

While I don’t agree with radical feminists, I admit there are positive aspects of feminism. I belong to a generation that witnessed women’s suffering. In Korea, women were valued less than men because traditional Confucianism teaches “Men are valuable and women are worthless.” Even in my childhood, poor Korean families sent boys to college while making girls start working young. If you watch movies from recent history like Nine to Five, or TV shows depicting recent history like Mad Men, you see that until recently, working women were often sexually harassed, and most simply accepted it as part of being a woman at work.

Even today, countless women suffer under male oppression. The #MeToo movement revealed the depth and breadth of sexual violence against women. I’ve seen pamphlets reportedly distributed in Russia giving “practical advice” to military wives on what to do if their husbands beat them—advice including enduring abuse, hiding bruises, and asking forgiveness. Imagine being beaten by your husband and having to ask for forgiveness!

In politics, women struggled greatly to achieve equality. In the United States, women didn’t gain universal voting rights until 1920, while black men received the same right in 1870. This pattern of recognizing equal rights among men of all races before recognizing equality between men and women appears in other countries like France and Brazil. Some countries granted women voting rights only recently: Switzerland in 1971, Liechtenstein in 1984, and Saudi Arabia in 2011. In Afghanistan, where women previously could vote, the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021 effectively eliminated women’s right to vote and run for office. Even today, many women simply endure suffering, and this is a great evil. In this situation, feminism naturally has a role to play.

Men in Distress

While women suffer from gender inequality, men aren’t enjoying life either. One concerning sign is the media’s dangerous tendency to depict men as stupid and immature—like Peter Griffin in The Family Guy or Charlie in Two and a Half Men. Such portrayals disrespect men. Moreover, men risk mistakenly accepting these caricatures as role models, unconsciously thinking, “Oh, that’s how a man should behave. I’ll be lazy and immature, and that should be acceptable.”

While some men internalize this flawed idea of manhood, others react by gravitating toward those preaching the opposite message of self-discipline and hard work, such as Jordan Peterson, who famously advocates for making one’s bed each morning as a foundational act of self-mastery. Given the choice between Peter Griffin and Jordan Peterson, many will choose the latter. Similarly, many are attracted to masculine activities like weightlifting or Stoicism, which emphasizes enduring hardship. Clearly, many men are seeking ways to affirm their masculinity.

Young men are more confused than ever. They know they are men but don’t know how to be men. They never learned to be men and rarely saw good examples. Then they see feminists trying to take away one thing they have as men: their pride. No wonder many men are angry toward feminists. I don’t intend to justify the misogyny so common among young men today—their anger toward feminists is misplaced—but instead of judging them too quickly, we should try to understand the difficulty young men experience.

Women in Leadership

One key issue in Christian gender discussions is female leadership. Many believe leadership is only for men, and women aren’t allowed to lead. I disagree. My experience in Korea heavily shapes my understanding of this issue. As I wrote above, Korea was once a very unequal society where women were casually oppressed. Today, probably as a reaction, it has become a society where gender equality is highly valued (though inequality still exists). For example, I never heard the concept of “wife submitting to husband” in Korea, whether in society or church. In fact, wives often take leadership and responsibility. Usually, husbands give their entire salary to their wives, who give some pocket money back and manage the rest. When a female politician ran for president, nobody argued that her gender disqualified her as the national leader. The concept of female leaders is nothing foreign to Koreans. Even among Christians, gender equality is accepted without problem, with most denominations ordaining female pastors. So I was surprised that in Europe, some Christians doubt that women can be leaders.

We are living in a world where freedom is one of the highest values, and we cannot take away people’s rights as before. We cannot say, “A woman cannot be a doctor, engineer, or firefighter.” Women have succeeded in every job they’ve undertaken. If so, how can we say, “A woman cannot be a leader”? Also, countless Christian women serve in the church, and it would be unfair to benefit from their service without giving them leadership positions.

Female Leadership in YWAM

In YWAM, we believe women are called to serve as leaders alongside men. Loren Cunningham, YWAM’s founder, co-authored Why Not Women: A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership with fellow YWAM leader David Hamilton. While Loren Cunningham was well-known as a champion of young people, he was equally a champion of women in ministry. He worked with and released into ministry many women, including Corrie ten Boom and Joy Dawson. In YWAM, people always say, “YWAM was founded not only by Loren but by Darlene as well,” acknowledging the vital contribution of Loren’s wife.

Like most Christian organizations, YWAM has many more women than men, so appointing women to leadership positions is natural. I’ve worked with many female leaders and never felt they were less qualified than men.

But some Christians believe leadership is only for men, and usually, men teach this. When I hear a male Bible teacher say, “It is God’s will for men to lead and women to follow,” it sounds like someone from a powerful country saying, “It is God’s will for my country to lead and other countries to follow.” Whether it is true or not, it sounds awfully self-serving. Even worse is when aggressive, rude male Christian leaders justify their behavior by saying, “This is how a man is supposed to behave.” These disillusioned men are as bad role models for young men as those male influencers who claim to be “alpha males” and peddle misogyny.

How to Read the Bible

Some Christians believe female leadership isn’t biblical. As Christians, we should accept the Bible’s authority as God’s inspired word, and I have no intention of contradicting biblical teaching. But what does accepting biblical authority mean? Some think it means reading the Bible as literally as possible. But that’s not what we do.

For example, the Bible says, “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for it is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaven” (1 Corinthians 11:5, NASB). Yet in Protestant churches, we don’t follow this because we believe it was an instruction for the original recipients only, and not a universal commandment. So, though we accept the Bible as God’s word, we must always try to understand how to apply it today. I think that’s what Luther meant when he said the Church should be continually reformed.

Without making the effort to understand the Bible in our context, we become like Muslims. Muslims believe 7th-century Arabic culture was perfect, so they try to reproduce it by reading the Quran in Arabic, wearing desert-designed Arabic clothes everywhere, and treating women as in that culture. What’s the result? Wherever Islam spreads, people become stuck in an old culture. Muslims always say Muhammad promoted women’s rights—and they’re correct. As a 7th-century Arab man, he was progressive regarding women. But we don’t live in the 7th century; we live in the 21st. What was progressive then is unacceptably backward to most people today.

Divorce, Slavery, and Homosexuality

When Jesus discussed divorce, he said, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). According to Mosaic Law, men were supposed to give divorce certificates when divorcing. But Jesus opposed divorce, seemingly contradicting the law. How could he contradict it? Jesus explained that divorce certificates existed only “because of your hardness of heart.” God’s perfect plan was for married couples to live in love. But sometimes marriage didn’t work. What happened then? Usually, the husband had freedom to do whatever he wanted, like finding a new partner, while the wife remained stuck in a dead marriage. So, to ensure the woman could move on, giving her a divorce certificate was better. That was the best solution in the ancient world. But Jesus reminded them of God’s original commandment: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:5, quoting Genesis 2:24).

God’s will is perfect, but reality falls far short. If God simply told people to live according to his perfect will, it wouldn’t fit reality and could bring great harm to the world. So instead of stating his perfect will, He gives what’s appropriate for a given age. That’s why the Bible contains commandments meant for original readers but not for us.

Slavery is a good example. God doesn’t favor slavery, and we can detect his displeasure against it in several passages (“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”—Galatians 5:1). But if Paul had said, “God is against slavery,” slave owners would have found it very difficult to join the church. Also, the church would have become a political group rather than a community of Jesus’ followers. The best approach was to tell everyone to act as Christians, whether slave or master, and try not to become slaves. And it worked. Soon, Christians agreed that owning slaves was wrong and released them voluntarily. Later, when Christianity became the Roman Empire’s religion, slavery weakened considerably. Eventually, through almost 2,000 years of struggle, slavery was abolished worldwide (at least in theory if not in practice), with Christians playing an important role.

But I’m not saying we can simply ignore parts of the Bible we dislike, claiming, “It’s not for our time.” We must always ensure our interpretation fits the Bible’s general principles. For example, we cannot say, “The biblical ban on homosexuality can be ignored.” Homosexuality was completely accepted in the ancient Mediterranean world. In Greece, there was a long history of accepting homosexuality as part of masculinity (for example, Plato and his teacher Socrates were both homosexual). In the Roman Empire, all emperors (probably except Marcus Aurelius) were bisexual or homosexual. So when Paul condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27), he wasn’t accommodating culture. Rather, he opposed a culture that embraced homosexuality. You cannot say, “Homosexuality was only forbidden because of culture.” It was completely accepted by culture but rejected by the Bible.

Boys and Girls

But if men and women are equal, and anyone can do any job, including teaching and leading, what’s the difference between genders? Maybe gender is just a “social construction” as many believe today? I don’t think so. First, you cannot deny physical differences. No man claims he can get pregnant, and no woman claims she can impregnate another person. Some might say, “That’s the difference between the sexes. Gender is still socially constructed.” But that ignores our bodies too much. If we ignore our physical reality, we lose the core of who we are.

I believe men and women differ not only in bodies but also in tendencies. They don’t just learn to behave differently—from a young age, boys and girls show different preferences. Usually, boys like guns, robots, and cars, while girls usually like dolls. You may say, “I know boys who like dolls and girls who like cars.” Of course, there are individual differences. No group has characteristics that every member shares 100%. But we still use shortcuts to characterize groups. Groups have general characteristics with many exceptions. A few exceptions don’t nullify a group’s identity.

Some might say, “Boys and girls act differently because parents expect them to act differently.” But if their behavior merely reflected parental wishes, it wouldn’t explain why boys act so loudly and unruly. No parent wants boys to act like that, yet that’s how they behave. Others might say, “That’s because of hormones, and anyone with hormone injections would behave like a man or woman.” Today, many dissatisfied with their gender get hormone shots to change their gender identity. But I think hormones show who we are rather than determine who we are. You have high testosterone because you’re a man; having high testosterone doesn’t turn you into a man. Changing hormone levels doesn’t change your gender. Thinking you can change gender through hormone therapy is like thinking you can become African through tanning—you imitate one aspect without being truly African.

Beauty

A famous photo illustrates male/female differences well. It shows a simple apartment with an easy chair, a TV, and little else. A woman’s caption reads: “Guys really live in apartments like this and don’t see any issue.” I show this picture in my lectures, and most male students don’t see any problem either. Why? Because, for a man, home is a place to relax and watch something on a screen.

But women have a different attitude toward home. For her, home expresses who she is. And since she is a beautiful being, she wants her home to be beautiful. Think of a wall. Men and women see this simple object very differently. A man sees a wall for its basic function—supporting the floor and separating spaces. A woman sees a wall and thinks about how to use it to make her home beautiful. So she hangs beautiful pictures and objects. That’s why a bare wall is completely fine with a man who sees it serving its function well, while a woman sees it as a problem—a missed opportunity.

Of course, connecting women with beauty might be dangerous. Men have oppressed women by demanding that they be beautiful. As Naomi Wolf explains in The Beauty Myth, societal standards of female beauty often function as oppression. Women had to make themselves beautiful because it was required. Many women suffer from eating disorders because of pressure to be thin and attractive. As a reaction, some feminists even try to look ugly on purpose—known as “escaping the corset” in Korea. But this is too extreme. If imposing certain beauty standards is oppression, taking away the freedom to make efforts to be beautiful can also be oppression. Because of the pressure from the feminists not to be beautiful, some women complain they don’t want to feel bad when they look beautiful, and that’s understandable. Besides, men need female leadership in beauty. Without women, men will continue living in barren bachelor pads and never in welcoming homes.

Civilization and Its Discontents

There’s a big difference between men and women regarding the body. A man sees his brain as his core and often doesn’t know what to do with his body. When Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory appeared before his friends as a moving robot avatar, he represented the male dream of being bodiless and living as a brain with a robot’s physicality. Because they don’t have a good relationship with their bodies, they often treat their bodies like enemies by inflicting pain. Those involved in strenuous or dangerous activities are mostly men.

Women are different. They are one with their bodies and cherish them. They know how to treat their bodies with respect. It’s mostly women who enjoy nice weekends at spas with all the body care they can get.

Thinking about this gender difference, it becomes clear that civilization expresses feminine desires. Compare primitive and civilized societies. The former is where violence rules, with insufficient beauty and much physical pain; the latter is where there is beauty, peace, and little physical pain. Of course, men played vital roles in building civilization, but the desire to live in peace without violence is quite feminine. In that sense, civilization is a female project.

Because civilization is a female project, men struggle to find their place in it. In primitive society, whatever men did was naturally accepted: he was a warrior, risk-taker, bearer of physical strength and courage. In civilized society, if a man is violent or aggressive, he’s a troublemaker or worse, a criminal. In primitive society, a violent man could easily have a successful life; in our society, he might go to jail. There’s no easy way of being aggressive in a civilized world. That’s why games are so popular among men. In games, men can still be aggressive, go on adventures, and win glory and reputation. He feels like someone. He feels like a man.

Civilization transformed male-female relationships as well. In primitive society, men treated women as objects. If you read Homer’s Iliad, you see the winner gets the loser’s woman. This is what a man can easily understand. Now, a man isn’t supposed to objectify women anymore. He needs to win a woman’s heart, which is complicated and often beyond the ability of an immature man. That’s why many men are attracted to pornography. In pornography, women are treated as objects, just like in a primitive society, and men can have sexual satisfaction without winning a woman’s heart. Of course, nothing justifies objectifying women. Moreover, contrary to what some men believe, pornography harms both those who make it and those who watch it. But we must understand why some men are so attracted to it.

Living in a civilized society is a great blessing. We can avoid most physical pains and dangers. The life in primitive society that Thomas Hobbes described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” is a thing of the past. However, the trade-off is that men become almost irrelevant. In an uncivilized world, his strength and risk-taking are necessary for everyone. In civilization, where most people use only their brains to work, he has no advantage over women, and often his masculinity only causes trouble. Now, men must be not only strong but also wise to find their place in society. This new situation brings a big challenge for men, especially young men. No wonder they react by blaming women for all their problems. We need to make efforts to raise men who are secure in their masculinity, who know their place in the world, and who can relate to women in healthy and mature ways.

Male and Female He Created Them

The Bible says God created both male and female: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Even though we live in a world where tension between genders is very high, we should never forget that both men and women are precious creations of God.

God created both male and female to reveal himself through them. God is not just masculine or feminine. If you reject man, you can never know God as your father. If you reject woman, you can never know God who comforts us as mother comforts (Isaiah 66:13). We can only understand God when we think of masculinity and femininity together.

Carl Jung said a man’s soul is feminine and a woman’s soul is masculine. When we’re in love, it’s a way of discovering ourselves. I see my soul in a woman, and a woman sees her soul in me. And that’s how we discover God as well. The alternative is man being alone, which God condemned as “not good” (Genesis 2:18). We are called to love each other, and through it, discover ourselves and understand God.