Women Are Still the Most Discriminated Against

[BeforeThereWas]

Not because I say so--because the definition of inferiority is clear, and those who put forth the idea that women should always be relegated to a subordinate rank because they didn't happen to be born with a male anatomy don't seem to understand that definition.

Do you think our modern definition for inferiority has any real bearing upon God's intent from the beginning? Do you think the writers of modern dictionaries had God's order for the family in mind when wrestling with describing the meaning of words in modern usage?

You seen to be basing your conclusion on the idea that God's intent for the order within the family somehow ties into modern definitions for worth of individuals. I don't see the connection. The Lord inspired it to be written that, in Christ, there is no male nor female. That same Lord also inspired it to be written that the ORDER, not WORTH, within the family is to exist, which happens to be the headship of the husband, as is the relationship of Christ with His Church. Christ's relationship with the Church didn't end with the death of the last apostle, or the death of the Roman empire, so where's the substance in your argument?

This senseless push to force upon the husband's headship an alignment with definitions that have to do with worth teeters on the edge of what I call the martyr syndrome. If there exists a measure of worth on the basis of superiority versus inferiority between two people, you have no argument where scripture is concerned. The Lord already cut that one off at the pass. The Bible completely disqualifies any such association between headship and inferiority, but in the face of utter defeat, you seem to prefer insisting that there's no such disqualification. Anyone can deny the obvious to the point of their very death, but that will never have any lasting implications upon that over which you have no power.

Why do you prefer kicking aginast the goad? Is there some agenda behind all this? What really is your point?

How does saying that a man's covering is Christ, but a woman's covering is her husband NOT make her inferior?

You're ripping bits and pieces out from their proper context in order to piece together this totally unrecognizable tapestry of confusion. Christ is the Head of ALL true believers, not just husbands. That's made clear in the fact that there's no male nor female in Christ. Why can't you seem to get the obvious in all this. In the family STRUCTURE, there are distinctions of function, but not in Christ.

Where do you see any desparity in this?

I have a friend who is married--to assume that she is in some odd hierarchy where she needs an extra "covering" of authority because of her gender is absurd. WE ARE ALL COVERED BY CHRIST AND CHRIST ALONE.

You'll have to describe your usage of the term covering, because it seems that you take words to mean something quite different from their original definition.

Definition of "inferior":

1.lower in station, rank, degree, or grade
2.lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base
3.of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard
4.less important, valuable, or worthy
5.acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre

So, let's see, saying that a woman--because she was born a woman and not a man--must be under the authority of her husband (assuming, of course, she has a husband), definitely puts that woman under definition one and here, and I would argue that you could even apply definition four (because it's the next logical step--if she is not capable or allowed to take a position of authority based on her anatomy, and only males can take that position, it brings into question female worth).

This is an exercise in subjective alignment. You're subjectively aligning with headship external definitions peculair to a modern, English dictionary. Inferiority in one area of functionality doesn't make one inferior in all areas one chooses to force upon the example. If you think it does, then please explain your rationale behind that.

1.lower in station, rank, degree, or grade

I have no problem admitting that the husband is superior in station, or rank. However, I have a serious problem with subjectively forcing upon this the idea that the following logically applies:

4.less important, valuable, or worthy

This is a giant leap across a chasm that's far too wide for you to cross so easily. The scriptures have clearly drawn a line of distinction between being inferior in rank by way of function within the family, and the worth and value argument. You can't erase that line simply because you don't like the former, and therefore drag the latter across that line in order to poison the well of logic. Your reasoning is incoherent, and therefore inconsistent with the facts.

The point is, if women, regardless of their talents and strengths and gifts, are always placed in a position where they must assume the role of subordination, then they are by definition inferior.

Your point is invalidated on the basis of worth. The wife is never commanded within scripture to subordinate herself in every respect to her husband. The husband has no power to command his wife to deny the Lord, nor to take the life of another person, or even her own. The husband has no power to command his wife to do that which is sin. The husband has no power over his wife at all. Christ always remains her Lord and Master.

What you seem to have missed in all this is that a wife's godly submission to her husband is ultimately submission to God. That doesn't mean that the husband stands in the place of God for the wife. The authority the husband has originated FROM God, which has nothing to do with laying greater worth upon the husband. Children are also commanded to obey their parents. That doesn't make them inferior by way of worth to their parents, or anyone else walking this earth. Their obedience to parents is obedience to God. The husband's authority, therefore, isn't something he has by nature, mostly because we've all sinned, and are therefore worthy of death.

Therefore your worth argument is completely meaningless in all this. The husband's authority originates from a Source that is above him, not on the same level as himself, or beneath himself.

If another mortal man told me that I'm the authority over my wife, I'd reject that installment because I'd then expect her to submit to me on an inferior basis. Her submission would have no lasting benefit. However, the One who created us all, He bestowed a mantle upon the shoulders of the husband that carries with it an enormous responsibility.

I still remain baffled as to why the anti-headship crowd seems to think that the mantle of authority upon the husband is a benefit to anyone, and therefore to be desired and demanded by rebellious women. That mantle doesn't make the husband better or superior in worth to the wife. At least some of the anti-headship defenders had the common sense to avoid that argument, for which I admire them, but you fell head-long into that pit. Why?

Headship is a heavy burden, and thus carries enormous responsibility and ramifications up to the very day of judgement. It's not a benefit that adds worth or value to the one over the other. This has nothing to do with worth. To say that authority denotes worth or value is a purely dishonest assesment of the reality. This has to do with the burdens of living in a fallen world, and therefore the necessity for an authority structure within the family.

Guess what? I'm inferior to my wife in the arena of bearing forth children. You'd demand that I was being rediculous if I were to argue that men are therefore inerior to women on that basis. Why? Simply because of the physical realities.

Does the fact that you're not arguing with something that doesn't have a physical limitation make your case that much stronger? Who are you trying to fool? Both arguments are equally foolish. The only difference is that the one is an easier target for your bullets simply because it doesn't hinge upon a physical limitation that makes the distinction so obvious.

Go figure.....

BTW

 

[LJSGM]

Women are to be under the authority of those who are elders (older) and who are in spiritual authority (ei, prophets, apostles, teachers), same as men, and can be in spiritual authority. When one is in spiritual authority, it does not mean that they rule over or lord over anyone, but that they "lead us."

1tim2:11 is an example of husbands having authority because they were "teachers" teaching their wives because women had been left in the dark and needed to learn the scriptures, and my opinion is that Paul used women's husbands to update them or those that needed it. It's not so much the case to day. and in context, Paul speaking of Eve says "and she will be redeemed/restored through the childbirth/childbearing then refering to all women if they stay in grace, showing the purpose of them learning. Paul is taking them out of slavery and restoring them as rightful hiers as "sons."

If I am not your wife, the scriptures say that you are to treat me as either your SISTER or your MOTHER (depending on one's age). In a family, as an example, can a sister teach and lead her brother? Can a mother have spiritual authority over her son? In each case, yes.

 

[Tissue]

Do you think our modern definition for inferiority has any real bearing upon God's intent from the beginning? Do you think the writers of modern dictionaries had God's order for the family in mind when wrestling with describing the meaning of words in modern usage?

It seems clear that a proper definition of 'inferiority' will need to be agreed upon if we are to talk about inferiority in interpersonal relationships.

Surely the concept of inferiority existed during ancient times, and surely there was some word used to refer to that concept.

You seen to be basing your conclusion on the idea that God's intent for the order within the family somehow ties into modern definitions for worth of individuals. I don't see the connection. The Lord inspired it to be written that, in Christ, there is no male nor female. That same Lord also inspired it to be written that the ORDER, not WORTH, within the family is to exist, which happens to be the headship of the husband, as is the relationship of Christ with His Church. Christ's relationship with the Church didn't end with the death of the last apostle, or the death of the Roman empire, so where's the substance in your argument?

A marriage is meant to be one of equality, not one of hierarchy. The Ephesians household code is presented right after a command to all believers for mutual submission. The Colossians household code is presented after a command to all believers (male and female, Jew and Gentile) to teach and admonish one another, which expressions an equality of position.

A woman is to be subject to her husband as a husband is to love his wife. I argue that this love implies subjection, such that they are called to mutually submit (a reflection of the command to all believers in Ephesians). The order is one of perfect equality; an expression of the relationship of the perichoretic nature of the Trinity. Their worth is equal.

You must understand that many of us view the order which your interpretation of Scripture claims as demeaning to the worth of the woman in the context of the marital relationship. The inferiority that such an order marks upon the woman is, for us, contradictory to the nature and tone of the author's command in Ephesians.

This senseless push to force upon the husband's headship an alignment with definitions that have to do with worth teeters on the edge of what I call the martyr syndrome. If there exists a measure of worth on the basis of superiority versus inferiority between two people, you have no argument where scripture is concerned. The Lord already cut that one off at the pass. The Bible completely disqualifies any such association between headship and inferiority, but in the face of utter defeat, you seem to prefer insisting that there's no such disqualification. Anyone can deny the obvious to the point of their very death, but that will never have any lasting implications upon that over which you have no power.

You need to distinguish between what Scripture actually says, and what your interpretation is. As you and I are human, we are fallible, as are our interpretations. The fault I have is not with Scripture, which I consider consistent with my view, but with your interpretation of Scripture, which produces ideas of inferiority that I do not find acceptable.

 

[Nadiine]

This is a copy of a post I made in another thread, but it fits some
of the 'inferior' or 'discriminatory' assertions being made here and
why I take issue with them.

Unfortunately, I see misapplication of terms placed onto scripture.

As if a SPIRITUALLY authoratative position or service going only to
a male has to be labeled "sexism".
The problem is that the Spirit realm is God's domain - His to rule
and design for His reasons and His purposes and His meanings.

They're taking God's spiritual domain and forcing it to comply
with secular worldly domains as if man's domain is somehow "better" and more "fair".

This is judging God by man's standards as if ours is more modern
and civil!

At that point, why claim to follow God when God needs to follow
us?

 

[Tissue]

My father was and is a real bastard (pardon my french), and was never a big part of my life, and is now entirely removed from my family. My mother was and is the spiritual head of the household, and fulfills that position with grace and substance.

Why can't two people fulfill that position? Why must it be male? What is the difference between a male spirit and a female spirit?

 

[Rajni]

My father was and is a real bastard (pardon my french), and was never a big part of my life, and is now entirely removed from my family. My mother was and is the spiritual head of the household, and fulfills that position with grace and substance.

Why can't two people fulfill that position? Why must it be male? What is the difference between a male spirit and a female spirit?

Good point. In Christ there is no male or female! (Galatians 3:28)




.

 

[Nadiine]

Good point. In Christ there is no male or female! (Galatians 3:28)




.

please read the CONTEXT of that verse.
It's about SALVATION, not positional order or anything else. It cannot be applied here to mean what you're trying to
push it as.

It's saying all are of equal value to God as human beings -
there's no age, no color, no race, no gender, no financial class,
that God cannot reach or will not reach becuz He is racist or prejudice.

Any class, race, color, age, gender, size or status of human beings
can be born again (in Christ). ALL are considered equal.
Using that verse does not apply to this topic and has nothing to
do with positional/spiritual order

 

[Rajni]

please read the CONTEXT of that verse.
It's about SALVATION, not positional order or anything else. It cannot be applied here to mean what you're trying to
push it as.

It's saying all are of equal value to God as human beings -
there's no age, no color, no race, no gender, no financial class,
that God cannot reach or will not reach becuz He is racist or prejudice.

Any class, race, color, age, gender, size or status of human beings
can be born again (in Christ). ALL are considered equal.
Using that verse does not apply to this topic and has nothing to
do with positional/spiritual order

How does being in Christ not apply to this topic? Or anything else for that matter? Please don't diminish Him that way.



.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

A marriage is meant to be one of equality, not one of hierarchy.

I disagree. Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between Christ and His bride.

The Ephesians household code is presented right after a command to all believers for mutual submission. The Colossians household code is presented after a command to all believers (male and female, Jew and Gentile) to teach and admonish one another, which expressions an equality of position.

Proximity doesn't always denote parallels in all aspects between two independent examples.

A woman is to be subject to her husband as a husband is to love his wife. I argue that this love implies subjection, such that they are called to mutually submit (a reflection of the command to all believers in Ephesians).

Again, you're having to drag various elements of distinction across the line of demarkation in order to form that new lump from bits and pieces of other pots (so to speak).

The tornado sirens are sounding, so we have to get over to where there's a basement.

More later.

BTW

 

[Nadiine]

How does being in Christ not apply to this topic? Or anything else for that matter? Please don't diminish Him that way.



.

Becuz being in Christ doesn't mean that all Christians are equally
gifted or called in service like the other is.

God placed Adam in authority (dominion) in Genesis - God didn't
discriminate in the OT as He doesn't now. He is the same God
then as He is now.

If you're going to carry it this far with that verse out of context,
then I can also say that all Paul's qualifications for church
leadership mean nothing becuz all are "in Christ" and there's "neither
Jew nor Gentile".

Just becuz we're of equal value doesn't mean we're equal in position
spiritually.

We cannot just rip scriptures out of context and apply them to
everything carelessly and especially biasely.

 

[Nadiine]

and most importantly, we cannot use that verse universally over
any context when it directly contradicts other known scripture.
Which that is doing when used in this way.

 

[Rajni]

The tornado sirens are sounding, so we have to get over to where there's a basement.

More later.

BTW

Oh no -- stay safe! Praying for you!



.

 

[Rajni]

Becuz being in Christ doesn't mean that all Christians are equally
gifted or called in service like the other is.

God placed Adam in authority (dominion) in Genesis - God didn't
discriminate in the OT as He doesn't now. He is the same God
then as He is now.

If you're going to carry it this far with that verse out of context,
then I can also say that all Paul's qualifications for church
leadership mean nothing becuz all are "in Christ" and there's "neither
Jew nor Gentile".

Just becuz we're of equal value doesn't mean we're equal in position
spiritually.

We cannot just rip scriptures out of context and apply them to
everything carelessly and especially biasely.

All of the above is according to one professing Christian out of how many in the world?

Anyway, if I take Context to it's logical conclusion ("context" changing depending on who one talks to, as anyone who has spent any amount of time on these forums can attest to), I would have to go all the way and say that, since the letter to the Galatians was written to the Galatians, and I myself am not a Galatian, it therefore is really none of my beeswax to begin with. I'm just reading someone else's mail. Frankly, that's probably the only approach to "taking Scripture in context" that would settle all disagreements in modern Christianity. It's the only approach to "context" that could truly be one-size-fits-all. We're not supposed to stop at Scripture anyway -- Jesus admonished people for not progressing beyond Scripture and coming to Him to have life (John 5:39-40)

Got Jesus? Then ya got Context.





.

 

[Tissue]

I disagree. Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between Christ and His bride.

I've no doubt you are basing your position upon Scripture. I am also basing my position upon Scripture ('one flesh', 'mutual submission', etc).

I would argue that you are taking an analogy too far. Surely a husband does not 'save' his wife. That would clearly be taking it too far. But there is an element of truth in the analogy, or else the author would not have mentioned it. What is the purpose of the analogy, then? To clarify the nature of the relationship of Christ to the church, or to clarify the nature of husband and wife? Which is being defined here?

I argue that marriage is being used to illuminate the nature of Christ's relationship to the church, not vice-versa. It appears as though the household codes stem out of the expression of the Christian ethic, and the image of Christ's relationship to the church stems out of marriage. Salvation, which is key to Christ's act, is not part of this analogy; why must authority be, then?

Proximity doesn't always denote parallels in all aspects between two independent examples.

No, but it can be a reason to look for such parallels. It's important to read the Bible holistically.

Again, you're having to drag various elements of distinction across the line of demarkation in order to form that new lump from bits and pieces of other pots (so to speak).

I've no idea what you mean by this.

 

[Nadiine]

but mutual submission does not negate authority of the male
in any way.
He is the final authority - otherwise you have 2 heads at a
stalemate and both cannot mutually submit to opposite
ends. One has to give way.

Even the Godhead has a head, Christ is submissive.

I highly doubt we're going to argue that Christ is lesser than
the Father as one God.
If there is order in the Godhead, then there is definite
support for order in the home.

We have the order listed right out:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is head of the wife,
as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Gen. 3:16To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."

It seems people would rather manipulate scriptures out of context
to try to refute what it plainly says above.
It doesn't work, it shows bias in what people dislike

 

[Rajni]

We have the order listed right out:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Taking it truly in context, the verse in 1 Corinthians was part of a letter written to the Corinthians. I'm not a Corinthian; are you?

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is head of the wife,
as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Again, taking it truly in context, the verse in Ephesians was part of a letter written to the Ephesians. I'm not an Ephesian; are you?

Gen. 3:16To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."

Countless incidents of painless childbirth (epidurals are a God-send, trust me) and women who have been less than thrilled with their husbands says that God was addressing this statement not to you, not to me, but to Eve specifically. Context is grand, isn't it? Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that God was obviously speaking to a certain individual, and what He was saying evidently applied to her.

It seems people would rather manipulate scriptures out of context
to try to refute what it plainly says above.
It doesn't work, it shows bias in what people dislike

That's for sure. These are things that were written to a certain group of people at a certain point way back in history in a land far away from here. We 21st-century types are essentially reading (and arguing) over other people's mail. Still, that’s no reason to demonize those whose interpretations of said mail differ from our own.

 

[Tissue]

but mutual submission does not negate authority of the male
in any way.
He is the final authority - otherwise you have 2 heads at a
stalemate and both cannot mutually submit to opposite
ends. One has to give way.

They are one flesh; there is one end; there is one head. Compromise happens, and it is a beautiful thing (even if it doesn't always feel like one).

Even the Godhead has a head, Christ is submissive.

And the Father is submissive. And the Spirit is submissive. They submit to each of the other members of the Trinity, in self-emptying love. The love of the Godhead is one of sacrifice, of 'giving-away'.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Verse 2: 'I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.'

Verse 4: 'Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head.'

Neither of those verses apply to the church today. We don't remember Paul in everything (at least, not in the way the Ephesians/Church were/was), nor do we maintain all of the Pauline traditions.

I pray all the time with something on my head. I also have long hair.

To be fair, 11:3 does appear to be worded as eternal law. But it should cause us to pause for reflection when we see that the surrounding verses are clearly tied to a specific culture.

Ephesians 5:23

For the husband is head of the wife,
as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Paraphrased: "Women, submit to your husband, because the husband is the head of the wife. Men, submit to (love) your wife. You are one flesh, and no person hates their own body."

If they are one flesh, then they should share the head, ja? If they are truly one flesh, how can the husband be said to be exclusively the 'head'? Any amount of authority expressed in this verse must be girded by the love of Christ and mutual submission, which complete negates the theme of superiority and inferiority found in many conservative expressions of this doctrine.

Gen. 3:16To the woman He said,

"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."

This is a curse. The manner in which this verse expresses the matter does not display it as the ideal, but as the sorry current state.

We have largely negated pain in childbirth, in comparison to a fully natural birth. We have also evolved as a culture toward equality for women.

 

[johnd]

As they say in France... viva la difference.

And for all the attempts to impose human reason on the Bible... I have to say it's sure sounds like the garbage programmed into people's mental processes that there is no difference in males and females.

And it's sad that the fundamentals have to be brought up and reiterated that females and males are different. Neither is better than the other. Neither deserves salvation more or less than the other. Both are of equal worth.

But they are not the same.

And what has been ram rodded down peoples' throats for 50 years is the agenda of malcontents unhappy with the gender they were born as trying to blur the clear lines of distinction.

And the only reason the malcontents were given such a strong voice in the women's movement is because the Church refused to step up and do what it was supposed to do because men were reverting back to the pagan practices of abusing women and children.

The women they exploited and the children they put to work in sweat shops. Both were usually beaten... not simply spanked (the children, that is) beaten. Drunken husbands blew the rent money on gambling or prostitution and the women and children were told by a lazy, fat, good for nothing bunch of Church leaders to go back home and submit to those buzzards. After all they misdiagnosed it as a submission problem.

BUT!

The malcontents went way beyond getting god and fair treatment and equality for women. And the politically correct machine was in place (though they did not call it that for another 20 years). That same political machine that tells the Christians here on both sides of the issue here to keep our faith to ourselves... don't discuss Jesus in public, pray silently if you can't just do it in the Church building... and other such suppression of the words and the deeds and the things of God... no creation taught in schools, abortion is the sacred cow of our day... and so on...

These same people tricked most of us to think of genders as not only equal but one and the same. They are not! By their very nature they destine us all to different roles. I never expect to be a mother. I cannot access emotions the way women do. I do not think with both sides of my brain at the same time. I cannot always sense what is going on between the lines.

Does that make me out to be just a dumb guy? Less value? No. Just different.

In my earlier posts I said some things I am beginning to doubt after having read the humanist centered replies here... Nadiine was correct in assessing them... whether or not those who reason from that pov realize or not, they were imposing Gloria Steinem on the scripture passages they quoted out of context and ended up with a pretext.

I said better to have women teach and preach than no one. Then I cited the prophetess Deborah. But her ministry was to shame the males who did not step up. Judges 4-5. And that uincluded fighting a war. She lead that too, and another woman killed the arch enemy.

My point?

Maybe we are not so short handed of males willing to preach and teach after all... that a form of affirmative action in the more liberal churches has put up roade blocks in the males' path. The church I have been attending (UMC) certainly has tell tale signs of this.

And God will not be without a witness. If Moses had continued to chicken out as he did in Midian when God sent him back into Egypt, he would have raised up another... man. Not Zipporah as the most recent animated movie about Moses portrayed. She was not at his side in Egypt, Aaron was.

Yep. The humanist arguments made my own sound rather sour to me. Time to pray through.

 

[AngelusSax]

And God will not be without a witness. If Moses had continued to chicken out as he did in Midian when God sent him back into Egypt, he would have raised up another... man. Not Zipporah as the most recent animated movie about Moses portrayed. She was not at his side in Egypt, Aaron was.

I agree it probably would have been a man, but that is due to the prophetic nature of the deliverance (it foreshadowed Christ's deliverance of humanity), and not due to "Well it has to have male genatalia in order for me to ordain it to lead anyone".

It the prophetic nature and symbolism were not so important, it could've been Miriam. I doubt Zipporah, but Miriam is a possibility, judging by how she is demonstrated to be the first worship leader after the passage through the Sea (she leads them in song of worhsip), and how when she and Aaron question Moses, and she is stricken (which leads me to believe hers was a harsher criticism that was more unfounded, not that "oh well woman should shut up and not have opinions"), the entire Israelite community waits for her to be healed and cleansed before they move on...

If women didn't mean a lot and weren't capable of being or seen as leaders, she would've just been left for dead.

I said better to have women teach and preach than no one. Then I cited the prophetess Deborah. But her ministry was to shame the males who did not step up. Judges 4-5. And that uincluded fighting a war. She lead that too, and another woman killed the arch enemy.

Judges were raised up to shame and restore the Israelites ad nauseam for 400 (give or take a few) years. The fact that Deborah's judgeship is mentioned in detail when so many are glossed over tells that she was important, and not just because she was shaming men into being men... she was judging a nation and getting them to return to God.

Eudia and Syntyche (sp?) were admonished by Paul to come to an agreement... now why would Paul tell two women to stop their quarrel with one another and reach conensus if they were just baking cookies and letting men lead? He WOULD NOT HAVE. It would have been pointless and a waste of precious ink and time and parchment. It seems that they were important figures, they had leadership roles of some capacity, and Paul urged them not to shut up, sit down, knit something and let men do all the leading, but to come to agreement with one another.

Then there's Priscilla and Aquila. The literary means of introducing them suggests Pricilla's role was more prominent, that she held more power and more authoority than her husband. The more important of any grouping was listed first. And Aquila, the man, is always listed FOLLOWING Priscilla.

Who happened to teach. A man. With her husband, yes. But she is mentioned first when they are mentioned together, suggesting, grammatically, she held greater importance within the community, and not just the secular community.

I am not ever going to say that men and women are just alike in everything. Obviously there are physical differences, as well as emotional and physiological ones. But we are also more alike than many would like to admit.

Masculine society says men don't cry for anything (maybe the death of a spouse or parent, but even then they must do so quickly then "be strong"). Hogwash. Masculine society tells us men are good leaders and women should just follow, maybe give an opinion but be ready to just go with what the person with more testosterone says just the same. As silly as it is to quote Peter Griffin (of Family Guy):
That's cute, honey, but this is grown-up time and I'm the man and I say...

God raised women up to be full heirs in Christ, and to be full partners in Christ with men. Only after the Church became institutionalized and a few Popes into it did they decide "no women priests allowed".

And lastly, the desire to preach the Gospel can come from 1 of 2 places, ultimately. God, or Satan. One may say "but it could just be us getting too big for ouselves, deceiving ourselves, etc..." Perhaps, but that comes from the devil. The devil uses our egos and inflates them so that we do what he wants by making us think it's what we want/deserve. So, God or Satan.

Why in the hell would Satan want ANYONE to preach the Gospel? He wouldn't. Every soul who hears it and is saved as a result is a soul he loses forever, and he does not want that. Unless he's even dumber than I thought. (And funny how Satan is always personified in the he... well being a fallen angel and all, it fits, but still... never she... just a thought that's mostly silly with only a hint of seriousness directed at this topic).

Now if you'll excuse me, or even if you won't, I must go. I'm going to try and help my wife discern her Call, which I know she has heard through the still-small voice.

 

[johnd]

But it was a procession of women Miryam led.