Female Discrimination and the Bible
Most Americans still believe the feminist movement is about equality, but those who have been following their message know it’s about much more. A visit to any one of their many websites will show that feminism is about “liberating” women. It’s about “freedom” and it’s about “choice.” Well, what woman wouldn’t want to sign up for that? But what is it that women are being liberated from? The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, sheds some light on the question. For her, inner peace and security can only come from removing the constraint and prohibitions of “the cruel morality of self-denial and sin.” To Sanger, restrictions on sensual pleasures imposed by traditional values are the kind of hindrances that have enslaved women for centuries.
In the feminists’ struggle for “freedom,” Bible-believing churches are enemy number one. Their campaign against traditional values is complete with Bible quotes depicting the Scriptures as discriminatory and suppressive towards women’s aspirations, which they are quick to point out can best be found in a lifelong career. The feminists boldly claim that the shackles of biblical theology have made second-class citizens of women while legitimizing man’s dominance over them. Their favorite Scripture verse can be found in Ephesians 5:22 which states, “Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” For the feminist, the idea of submitting can only be equated with abuse and slavery. Well, based on this particular verse it sounds like they have a point. After all, the argument goes, King David among other Old Testament nobles had many wives. That sounds quite oppressive.
For these leftwing bomb throwers the institution of marriage, particularly men playing the role of provider and protector, is deplorable. They assure us that Christianity has stood in the way of female progress following centuries of domination. Every movement must have an intellectual origin. Liberalism seduces women by forcefully articulating the idea that Christendom is guilty of crimes against women. It paints a picture of a church that had little reverence for women and their rightful role as equals. For those who get their news from the Hollywood elite, The Da Vinci Code brings the point home.
The purpose of this section is not to argue that women have not suffered from an onslaught of male oppression, because they did and they still do. My goal is to counter the modern idea that such injustices found their origins or support in the church or in Scripture.
Today women in America have more rights and freedoms than any preceding generation in history. Facilitated by a society that protected free speech, women in the early twentieth century began to speak out against the social norms that had prohibited them from voting and fully participating in higher education. The early feminist movement established a level of equality in the West that previous generations could have hardly imagined.
But things are not always as they seem. When feminists today analyze the biblical role of women, they do it through a modern-day lens, using today’s social standards. But the Bible did not enter the world in modern-day America; it emerged in a very dark and sinister time, a world preoccupied with survival, a world in which the substandard role of women had been long established. So let’s board our time machine and point the flux capacitor to the dawn of Western civilization: Athens, in the third century BC.
As you step out of the present and into the past you are immediately welcomed by an unexpected cloud of dirt and dust which fills the dry streets of Athens. Donkey carts, men in white robes, and wandering dogs fill the bustling streets, while the heat of the sun is glaring down. Then it hits you—the stench of human waste, rotten meat, and live animals flowing through the air seemingly unnoticed by the citizens of this great civilization. As you make your way through the unrelenting crowds, open markets line the streets selling everything from olives to dried fish to miniature statues of the many gods that protect the all-powerful city.
Then your gazing eyes are suddenly captivated by the towering site of giant fluted marble columns and beautiful fountains we’ve come to know as ancient Greece. As we reach the outskirts of the city, a sense of tranquility draws us nearer to our destination. And there it is, lined with majestic columns and large shady trees. A carefully hand-carved sign confirms our arrival: The Lyceum, school of the great philosophers. Entering the gates we approach the crowd of elite men selected to hear today’s lecture. And then at last we catch the words of the great teacher, “It is best for all tame animals to be ruled by human beings. For this is how they are kept alive. In the same way, the relationship between the male and the female is by nature, such that the male is higher, the female lower, that the male rules and the female is ruled.” A bit taken aback by the statement, you look to the man next to you and ask, “Who is this?” The well-groomed Athenian looks over and says, “Alexander’s teacher.” The puzzled look on your face elicits a second response. “It’s Aristotle, the philosopher.”
Although this may be at odds with what we know of Greek philosophy, the historical record confirms their outright hatred for women. From the playwrights to the legal code to classical literature all the way through to their cultural norms, Greeks considered women vastly inferior to men and widely disposable. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all widely read through the twentieth century and all confined women to slavery. This hatred permeated their religion, which found its supreme god in Zeus, who you may remember was married to Hera, the deceiving, manipulating wife. But Zeus would get his revenge by beating her and hanging her, all the while having his own lusty little affair.
Women in these days where considered a curse from god, the source of all evil, and Athens was never short on men willing to exploit them. Female infants were left on the street to die and girls were sold as young as eight years of age, while women were expected to stay secluded. Men were expected to have concubines and mistresses while women were quickly killed for even the hint of an affair. The deplorable perception of women in ancient Greece set the stage for much of Western culture.
It’s in this cruel world that the Hebrew text finds itself contending for a radically different paradigm when it states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This is a far-reaching change from anything that had previously existed. Not only did it give all men the dignity of being a unique creation of God’s image, as far as we know for the first time women were elevated to equal status. Doesn’t sound like much today, but trust me it took centuries to set in. It is here that the Genesis account states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and be joined to his wife, [singular] and the two [not three or four] shall become one flesh.”
Now liberals claim that the Bible teaches polygamy because some of the patriarchs had more than one wife, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nowhere in the text does God condone polygamy; in fact He rebuked Abraham for taking a second wife. Another thing to remind our postmodern minds is that the text is talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Under ancient Greek culture, arranged marriages and multiple wives were a well-established social practice while women were prohibited from going to school, speaking publicly, or socializing without a male escort. Fast forward to the first century, when Jesus appears on the scene, and we enter the Roman Empire which had inherited Greek culture where by legal decree women were the possession of their husbands. It was unlawful for them to own anything including their own children, who were in the custody of the father. Women could not inherit property. While men were expected to have adulterous affairs, women were killed for merely getting drunk. The practice of abandoning infant girls was so widespread that laws were finally passed prohibiting the abandonment of firstborn daughters. The females who did live were nothing more than slaves born to live under the discretion of the men who ruled over them.
Despite the criticism, Jesus along with the authors of the New Testament negated these injustices with the idea of female equality by unashamedly breaking with tradition and elevating women to the undeniable status of joint heirs with men in God’s promises.
Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, we see Him interacting publicly with women. Although this seems normal today, it was prohibited under Jewish oral law. Jesus healed them, taught them, forgave them, and ministered to them. In His encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4) at the well, He breaks with the traditional Jewish hatred for Samaritans and astonishes her and His followers by engaging her in conversation and offering her forgiveness. When a woman is caught in adultery (John 8) the Pharisees bring her to Jesus and suggest that she be stoned, a longstanding tradition. His reply, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” For those who try to justify promiscuous sexual behavior with this scripture, it’s important to remember His next words: “Woman, go and sin no more.”
Despite what the liberals want you to believe about the role of women in the kitchen, Jesus’ actions come in sharp contrast to this view in Luke 10:38-42. Here, He enters Martha’s home. Martha is busy serving the guests. Her sister Mary sits at Jesus’ feet to hear Him speak. Shortly thereafter Martha complains that her sister is not helping with the chores. Jesus responds by reminding her that Mary has chosen the better of the two. Women were also the first to testify of His resurrection in a break from the common idea that a woman’s testimony was worthless.
As the New Testament teachings unfold, we see a consistent view of women enjoying an equal standing with men. Paul sums this up in Galatians 3:26: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As the early church began to spread, women played a prominent role it its growth. In 1 Corinthians 11 we see women praying and prophesying, in Colossians 4:15 women held church office, in Philemon 2 Paul refers to Apphia as a soldier in the gospel, in Philippians 4:2 he commends Euodia and Syntyche for their labor, and in Romans 16 Paul credits Priscilla with saving his life.
All these events were part of the Christian counterculture of the first century and would come to have a huge impact on women’s roles in the decades to follow. But the greatest impact on the female condition is found within the bonds of marriage, which at the time was nothing short of slavery. Let’s take a moment to address the current liberal notion of female inferiority which liberals claim can be found in Ephesians 5:22.
I once overheard a feminist talking to a student about the discriminatory ideas of the Bible. As predictable as the sunrise, she said, “The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands.” Never one to shy away from correcting a liberal, I jumped in and said, “Can you tell me what the next verse says?” and as predictable as the sunset she could not. So I reminded her that verse 25 says, “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her….” Verses 28-29 say, “So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.”
Now let’s break that down. The woman is to submit but the man is to give himself in the example of Christ, who died for the church. Which one is the higher calling—to submit or to die to your own desires and aspirations in an unconditional sacrifice? How easy is it to love someone more than yourself? Here the man is asked to nourish and cherish the wife. But to fly in the face of this liberal notion, verse 21 asks us all to submit to one another. Something tells me that if the roles were reversed and women were asked to give of themselves as Christ, they’d still be crying foul. The bottom line is that dying for someone is a much higher calling than submitting, and likewise submitting to someone who loves you more than themselves is not much submitting at all. What we see here is the all too familiar practice of liberals taking a statement out of context and building an entire theory around it.
Another liberal favorite is the idea found in Genesis 2:18 in which God creates Eve as a helper for Adam. Once again, to the feminist this is an inferior position because helping someone is somehow derogatory. But for me it sounds more derogatory to the man because it implies he is incapable of coping on his own and needs help. But to set the record straight, I argue that the biblical idea of helping has never been the inferior position, nor has the position of helper been exclusive to women. In fact, men were called on to help women quite often. God Himself is referred to as our Helper in Psalm 10:14, 27:9, 33:20, and 118:7, leaving the question of inferiority no longer open for debate.
Early church historians reported that Christianity grew so fast among women that many thought it was a female religion. The reason it spread was because women found shelter and protection under church doctrine. They found a religion that helped widows (Acts 6:1-2), limited men to one wife (Titus 1:6), condemned adultery among men (Galatians 5:19), required men to honor their wives (1 Peter 3:7), and rejected slavery (Philemon 1:15). Proverbs 31, the most comprehensive chapter on the woman’s role in society, shatters the feminist’s lie, maintaining a biblical outlook of childbearer and housekeeper. It depicts the ideal woman as entrepreneurial and resourceful while devoted to charitable work and family. She buys and sells real estate, works hard, and helps the poor.
Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton, in Why Not Woman?, go on to demonstrate how it’s our culture which held a bias against women, not the original text:
Look at the word servant in Romans 16:1 describing Phoebe’s office. It is diakonos in the Greek. Almost everywhere in the New Testament, diakonos is translated as ‘minister.’ The word was used to describe a minister of the Gospel. Phoebe was a key leader of the church in Cenchrea. Why is the word diakonos translated here as ‘servant’ rather than ‘minister’ as it is elsewhere when describing male leaders? Both translations are correct. However, the inconsistency of the translators reflects their own bias, not biblical reality. There’s nothing wrong with calling a pastor a servant. Jesus taught that we should all be servant leaders. But if the word diakonos is translated here as ‘servant’ it should be ‘servant’ when describing male leaders, too.
Did the medieval church lack reverence for women? Well, seeing the reverence the Catholic Church has for the Virgin Mary, it’s hard to think such an argument has any merit. The West was among the few societies ever to have a female ruler with Elizabeth I in England and Catherine in Russia. And yes with the church’s support. The reality is that women all over the world have been oppressed under every kind of ideology known to man. And it goes on today unchallenged in China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. Men don’t need Christianity to oppress anyone, they’ve managed just fine without it. According to many historians, it was the West that had the ideological foundation to end slavery and female oppression. Women’s rights were able to advance here because of Christianity, not in spite of it.
So does the Bible call women to use restraint in matters of sex? Absolutely; but it places the same standard on men as well. There is no distinction whatsoever on the moral responsibility between the sexes, and this stands as a clear example of the behavioral equality found throughout the text. I brought this up to a feminist once and she fired back, “Oh, you don’t believe in that antiquated notion that sex is evil?” My reply, “The Bible makes no such claim. In fact it celebrates the beauty of sex in Song of Solomon. But, yes, it does it in the context of marriage, commitment, loyalty, and mutual respect.” The liberal’s response, “You can’t believe that sex is just for marriage, that’s ridiculous.” I said, “Listen, with today’s explosion of STDs, out-of-wedlock births, abortions, and divorce, I think some self-restraint is in great demand.”
Reader, despite what the liberals tell you, the Scriptures don’t set boundaries on our sexuality to limit our pleasure, but rather to enhance it, knowing good and well that promiscuous sex can only act to dilute the blissful experience found within the loving, lasting bond of marriage. Now backed by countless studies, all of which indicate that sex is most enjoyable within marriage, the biblical view of intimacy has been vindicated.
Meanwhile the feminists still defend a view of sex without boundaries which has found modern women riding a sexual rollercoaster. And, trust me, the men who once held women in high esteem have been quick to exploit the situation. Just take off your postmodern sun glasses and you’ll see men exploiting women for sex all over the place and with the consent of our liberal know-nothings.
Although we were not able to outline the feminists’ entire claim, hopefully we gave you a good idea of what’s going on. Primarily that the Scripture is standing in the way of modern women’s desire for a value-free lifestyle. Sadly, the only way they can divorce our culture from Christianity is to misrepresent the teachings, take verses out of context, and ignore centuries of solid historical data to the contrary. Has the church discriminated against women in the past? Absolutely; but it’s only because it was infected with this inferior view from longstanding tradition, not because the Bible takes such a position. The Bible, properly understood, laid the foundation for women’s rights over the centuries, not vice versa.
In the feminists’ struggle for “freedom,” Bible-believing churches are enemy number one. Their campaign against traditional values is complete with Bible quotes depicting the Scriptures as discriminatory and suppressive towards women’s aspirations, which they are quick to point out can best be found in a lifelong career. The feminists boldly claim that the shackles of biblical theology have made second-class citizens of women while legitimizing man’s dominance over them. Their favorite Scripture verse can be found in Ephesians 5:22 which states, “Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” For the feminist, the idea of submitting can only be equated with abuse and slavery. Well, based on this particular verse it sounds like they have a point. After all, the argument goes, King David among other Old Testament nobles had many wives. That sounds quite oppressive.
For these leftwing bomb throwers the institution of marriage, particularly men playing the role of provider and protector, is deplorable. They assure us that Christianity has stood in the way of female progress following centuries of domination. Every movement must have an intellectual origin. Liberalism seduces women by forcefully articulating the idea that Christendom is guilty of crimes against women. It paints a picture of a church that had little reverence for women and their rightful role as equals. For those who get their news from the Hollywood elite, The Da Vinci Code brings the point home.
The purpose of this section is not to argue that women have not suffered from an onslaught of male oppression, because they did and they still do. My goal is to counter the modern idea that such injustices found their origins or support in the church or in Scripture.
Today women in America have more rights and freedoms than any preceding generation in history. Facilitated by a society that protected free speech, women in the early twentieth century began to speak out against the social norms that had prohibited them from voting and fully participating in higher education. The early feminist movement established a level of equality in the West that previous generations could have hardly imagined.
But things are not always as they seem. When feminists today analyze the biblical role of women, they do it through a modern-day lens, using today’s social standards. But the Bible did not enter the world in modern-day America; it emerged in a very dark and sinister time, a world preoccupied with survival, a world in which the substandard role of women had been long established. So let’s board our time machine and point the flux capacitor to the dawn of Western civilization: Athens, in the third century BC.
As you step out of the present and into the past you are immediately welcomed by an unexpected cloud of dirt and dust which fills the dry streets of Athens. Donkey carts, men in white robes, and wandering dogs fill the bustling streets, while the heat of the sun is glaring down. Then it hits you—the stench of human waste, rotten meat, and live animals flowing through the air seemingly unnoticed by the citizens of this great civilization. As you make your way through the unrelenting crowds, open markets line the streets selling everything from olives to dried fish to miniature statues of the many gods that protect the all-powerful city.
Then your gazing eyes are suddenly captivated by the towering site of giant fluted marble columns and beautiful fountains we’ve come to know as ancient Greece. As we reach the outskirts of the city, a sense of tranquility draws us nearer to our destination. And there it is, lined with majestic columns and large shady trees. A carefully hand-carved sign confirms our arrival: The Lyceum, school of the great philosophers. Entering the gates we approach the crowd of elite men selected to hear today’s lecture. And then at last we catch the words of the great teacher, “It is best for all tame animals to be ruled by human beings. For this is how they are kept alive. In the same way, the relationship between the male and the female is by nature, such that the male is higher, the female lower, that the male rules and the female is ruled.” A bit taken aback by the statement, you look to the man next to you and ask, “Who is this?” The well-groomed Athenian looks over and says, “Alexander’s teacher.” The puzzled look on your face elicits a second response. “It’s Aristotle, the philosopher.”
Although this may be at odds with what we know of Greek philosophy, the historical record confirms their outright hatred for women. From the playwrights to the legal code to classical literature all the way through to their cultural norms, Greeks considered women vastly inferior to men and widely disposable. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all widely read through the twentieth century and all confined women to slavery. This hatred permeated their religion, which found its supreme god in Zeus, who you may remember was married to Hera, the deceiving, manipulating wife. But Zeus would get his revenge by beating her and hanging her, all the while having his own lusty little affair.
Women in these days where considered a curse from god, the source of all evil, and Athens was never short on men willing to exploit them. Female infants were left on the street to die and girls were sold as young as eight years of age, while women were expected to stay secluded. Men were expected to have concubines and mistresses while women were quickly killed for even the hint of an affair. The deplorable perception of women in ancient Greece set the stage for much of Western culture.
It’s in this cruel world that the Hebrew text finds itself contending for a radically different paradigm when it states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This is a far-reaching change from anything that had previously existed. Not only did it give all men the dignity of being a unique creation of God’s image, as far as we know for the first time women were elevated to equal status. Doesn’t sound like much today, but trust me it took centuries to set in. It is here that the Genesis account states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and be joined to his wife, [singular] and the two [not three or four] shall become one flesh.”
Now liberals claim that the Bible teaches polygamy because some of the patriarchs had more than one wife, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nowhere in the text does God condone polygamy; in fact He rebuked Abraham for taking a second wife. Another thing to remind our postmodern minds is that the text is talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Under ancient Greek culture, arranged marriages and multiple wives were a well-established social practice while women were prohibited from going to school, speaking publicly, or socializing without a male escort. Fast forward to the first century, when Jesus appears on the scene, and we enter the Roman Empire which had inherited Greek culture where by legal decree women were the possession of their husbands. It was unlawful for them to own anything including their own children, who were in the custody of the father. Women could not inherit property. While men were expected to have adulterous affairs, women were killed for merely getting drunk. The practice of abandoning infant girls was so widespread that laws were finally passed prohibiting the abandonment of firstborn daughters. The females who did live were nothing more than slaves born to live under the discretion of the men who ruled over them.
Despite the criticism, Jesus along with the authors of the New Testament negated these injustices with the idea of female equality by unashamedly breaking with tradition and elevating women to the undeniable status of joint heirs with men in God’s promises.
Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, we see Him interacting publicly with women. Although this seems normal today, it was prohibited under Jewish oral law. Jesus healed them, taught them, forgave them, and ministered to them. In His encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4) at the well, He breaks with the traditional Jewish hatred for Samaritans and astonishes her and His followers by engaging her in conversation and offering her forgiveness. When a woman is caught in adultery (John 8) the Pharisees bring her to Jesus and suggest that she be stoned, a longstanding tradition. His reply, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” For those who try to justify promiscuous sexual behavior with this scripture, it’s important to remember His next words: “Woman, go and sin no more.”
Despite what the liberals want you to believe about the role of women in the kitchen, Jesus’ actions come in sharp contrast to this view in Luke 10:38-42. Here, He enters Martha’s home. Martha is busy serving the guests. Her sister Mary sits at Jesus’ feet to hear Him speak. Shortly thereafter Martha complains that her sister is not helping with the chores. Jesus responds by reminding her that Mary has chosen the better of the two. Women were also the first to testify of His resurrection in a break from the common idea that a woman’s testimony was worthless.
As the New Testament teachings unfold, we see a consistent view of women enjoying an equal standing with men. Paul sums this up in Galatians 3:26: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As the early church began to spread, women played a prominent role it its growth. In 1 Corinthians 11 we see women praying and prophesying, in Colossians 4:15 women held church office, in Philemon 2 Paul refers to Apphia as a soldier in the gospel, in Philippians 4:2 he commends Euodia and Syntyche for their labor, and in Romans 16 Paul credits Priscilla with saving his life.
All these events were part of the Christian counterculture of the first century and would come to have a huge impact on women’s roles in the decades to follow. But the greatest impact on the female condition is found within the bonds of marriage, which at the time was nothing short of slavery. Let’s take a moment to address the current liberal notion of female inferiority which liberals claim can be found in Ephesians 5:22.
I once overheard a feminist talking to a student about the discriminatory ideas of the Bible. As predictable as the sunrise, she said, “The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands.” Never one to shy away from correcting a liberal, I jumped in and said, “Can you tell me what the next verse says?” and as predictable as the sunset she could not. So I reminded her that verse 25 says, “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her….” Verses 28-29 say, “So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.”
Now let’s break that down. The woman is to submit but the man is to give himself in the example of Christ, who died for the church. Which one is the higher calling—to submit or to die to your own desires and aspirations in an unconditional sacrifice? How easy is it to love someone more than yourself? Here the man is asked to nourish and cherish the wife. But to fly in the face of this liberal notion, verse 21 asks us all to submit to one another. Something tells me that if the roles were reversed and women were asked to give of themselves as Christ, they’d still be crying foul. The bottom line is that dying for someone is a much higher calling than submitting, and likewise submitting to someone who loves you more than themselves is not much submitting at all. What we see here is the all too familiar practice of liberals taking a statement out of context and building an entire theory around it.
Another liberal favorite is the idea found in Genesis 2:18 in which God creates Eve as a helper for Adam. Once again, to the feminist this is an inferior position because helping someone is somehow derogatory. But for me it sounds more derogatory to the man because it implies he is incapable of coping on his own and needs help. But to set the record straight, I argue that the biblical idea of helping has never been the inferior position, nor has the position of helper been exclusive to women. In fact, men were called on to help women quite often. God Himself is referred to as our Helper in Psalm 10:14, 27:9, 33:20, and 118:7, leaving the question of inferiority no longer open for debate.
Early church historians reported that Christianity grew so fast among women that many thought it was a female religion. The reason it spread was because women found shelter and protection under church doctrine. They found a religion that helped widows (Acts 6:1-2), limited men to one wife (Titus 1:6), condemned adultery among men (Galatians 5:19), required men to honor their wives (1 Peter 3:7), and rejected slavery (Philemon 1:15). Proverbs 31, the most comprehensive chapter on the woman’s role in society, shatters the feminist’s lie, maintaining a biblical outlook of childbearer and housekeeper. It depicts the ideal woman as entrepreneurial and resourceful while devoted to charitable work and family. She buys and sells real estate, works hard, and helps the poor.
Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton, in Why Not Woman?, go on to demonstrate how it’s our culture which held a bias against women, not the original text:
Look at the word servant in Romans 16:1 describing Phoebe’s office. It is diakonos in the Greek. Almost everywhere in the New Testament, diakonos is translated as ‘minister.’ The word was used to describe a minister of the Gospel. Phoebe was a key leader of the church in Cenchrea. Why is the word diakonos translated here as ‘servant’ rather than ‘minister’ as it is elsewhere when describing male leaders? Both translations are correct. However, the inconsistency of the translators reflects their own bias, not biblical reality. There’s nothing wrong with calling a pastor a servant. Jesus taught that we should all be servant leaders. But if the word diakonos is translated here as ‘servant’ it should be ‘servant’ when describing male leaders, too.
Did the medieval church lack reverence for women? Well, seeing the reverence the Catholic Church has for the Virgin Mary, it’s hard to think such an argument has any merit. The West was among the few societies ever to have a female ruler with Elizabeth I in England and Catherine in Russia. And yes with the church’s support. The reality is that women all over the world have been oppressed under every kind of ideology known to man. And it goes on today unchallenged in China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. Men don’t need Christianity to oppress anyone, they’ve managed just fine without it. According to many historians, it was the West that had the ideological foundation to end slavery and female oppression. Women’s rights were able to advance here because of Christianity, not in spite of it.
So does the Bible call women to use restraint in matters of sex? Absolutely; but it places the same standard on men as well. There is no distinction whatsoever on the moral responsibility between the sexes, and this stands as a clear example of the behavioral equality found throughout the text. I brought this up to a feminist once and she fired back, “Oh, you don’t believe in that antiquated notion that sex is evil?” My reply, “The Bible makes no such claim. In fact it celebrates the beauty of sex in Song of Solomon. But, yes, it does it in the context of marriage, commitment, loyalty, and mutual respect.” The liberal’s response, “You can’t believe that sex is just for marriage, that’s ridiculous.” I said, “Listen, with today’s explosion of STDs, out-of-wedlock births, abortions, and divorce, I think some self-restraint is in great demand.”
Reader, despite what the liberals tell you, the Scriptures don’t set boundaries on our sexuality to limit our pleasure, but rather to enhance it, knowing good and well that promiscuous sex can only act to dilute the blissful experience found within the loving, lasting bond of marriage. Now backed by countless studies, all of which indicate that sex is most enjoyable within marriage, the biblical view of intimacy has been vindicated.
Meanwhile the feminists still defend a view of sex without boundaries which has found modern women riding a sexual rollercoaster. And, trust me, the men who once held women in high esteem have been quick to exploit the situation. Just take off your postmodern sun glasses and you’ll see men exploiting women for sex all over the place and with the consent of our liberal know-nothings.
Although we were not able to outline the feminists’ entire claim, hopefully we gave you a good idea of what’s going on. Primarily that the Scripture is standing in the way of modern women’s desire for a value-free lifestyle. Sadly, the only way they can divorce our culture from Christianity is to misrepresent the teachings, take verses out of context, and ignore centuries of solid historical data to the contrary. Has the church discriminated against women in the past? Absolutely; but it’s only because it was infected with this inferior view from longstanding tradition, not because the Bible takes such a position. The Bible, properly understood, laid the foundation for women’s rights over the centuries, not vice versa.