The stained-glass ceiling

Those who don't know me may be surprised to learn I believe the Bible frees women to serve in church leadership just as men, provided they are gifted by the Holy Spirit and willing.

Those who know me know this is a passion of mine second only to my passion to stop abortion. In fact, this topic was No. 1 for many years until displaced by a particular aborted baby boy.

TRENDING: Take heart, patriots! These 3 House members are the future of the GOP

My position may sound feminist. But it is to the church's loss, and I believe a colossal sin, if she allows the modern-day obfuscation of feminist ideals or deep-seated prejudice to keep her from following biblical principles that free women to serve as God determines.

My dander was raised when World Magazine's editor, Marvin Olasky, stated in his June 17 column:

If it were up to me, particularly considering my wife's capacities relative to my own, I would have women elders. But the Bible says otherwise, and God is much smarter than I am.

If Dr. Olasky's words about his wife are to be taken at face value, and not written to patronize, he wrote of a cruel God, a Lucy God who would tell women to trust Him with their aspirations and then pull the football away when they were ready to kick.

Only a Lucy God would gift Dr. Olasky's wife with "capacities" to serve as church elder yet refuse her the opportunity.

I expect Dr. Olasky would turn to I Timothy 3:2 or Titus 1:6 to defend his statement. He would likely say women are excluded from being church elders (also translated "bishop," "overseer" or "church leader") since they cannot be the "husband of but one wife."

But in I Timothy 3:12, Paul gave the same instruction to deacons yet called Phoebe a "diakonos," the specifically male term for deacon, in Romans 16:1.

And to be consistent, that mandate must also apply to men, meaning neither Paul nor Jesus would qualify as church overseer since neither were the husband of one wife.

Those are just two contradictions with that tired rationalization.

Actually, none of the aforementioned Scripture verses that list qualifications for church leaders contain male nouns or pronouns in the original Greek. One wouldn't know that by reading almost any modern translation.

It is as if Paul went out of his way not to say what his text has been interpreted to say.

Paul wrote with verbs in the third person singular that should always be translated with pronouns "he," "she" or "it." The pronoun Paul did use was indefinite, "If anyone aspires to oversight …" If Paul had meant to specify men, he would have said so.

"What is remarkable is the RSV translates I Timothy 3:5 not with a male personal pronoun, but with a male noun, saying, 'If a man doesn't know how to manage his own family …'" wrote Dr. Joseph Webb. "In fact, that is precisely what the Greek text does not say."

Bible passages on the role of women in the church cannot possibly be dissected in a 750-word column. I can only remind readers the Bible must be interpreted consistently, and restrictions on women in the church render it inconsistent.

If, for instance, it is true I Timothy 2:12 forbad women from teaching men, why was it acceptable for Priscilla to teach Apollos in Acts 18:26?

If I Corinthians 14:34 mandated that women be silent in church, why did Paul give instructions for women who pray publicly in I Corinthians 11:13?

If the word "helper" that God described of woman's benefit to man in Genesis 2:18 was meant to infer a subordinate role, why in 15 of 19 Old Testament verses did that same Hebrew word refer to God as a "helper" of His people?

Galatians 3:28 says, "There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus."

Some say this verse indicates how men and women will relate in heaven. Only there will women be free.

I wonder, why? If the church knows she must fight prejudice against race or rank, particularly within her doors, why would she condone prejudice against women?

In his book "Beyond Sex Roles," Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian of Willow Creek wrote, "Did Jesus base His definition of male-female relations in the creation ideal, or in the realities of the fall – or did He settle for some kind of compromise between the two?"

Answer: A.

Dr. Olasky and most churches today would have to answer B or C.

Related special offer:

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism"