Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Supreme Court Justices fit to lead.

There is no argument women are qualified to lead in any position they choose outside of the church with success. In the recent years there has been what many may deem as the "dawning of the age of the woman." Women are leading in politics and political positions in almost a take over fashion.

Any one of the above named women could draw a diverse audience to a speaking engagement and I dare say to a Bible study group. Men would not object if Sarah Palin taught them a Scripture or two.

So the question is not about the ability of women to teach, but not teaching men. In my next post I will tackle the most quoted of all Bible versus against women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or have AUTHORITY over a man; she must remain silent) and break it down piece by piece so be ready.

The early church fathers, great ponderers of theology and doctrine, had much to say about women in their attempt to define the role of women in creation and religion. In the fifth century Augustine pondered Eve's(woman's)role and reflected on what kind of help she was suppose to be to Adam (man) in "Literal Commentary on Genesis." He states:

"If it were not the case that the woman was created to be man's helper specifically for the procreation of children, then why would she have been created as a helper? (Gen. 2:18). Was it so that she might work the land with him? No, because there did not yet exist any such labor for which he needed a helper, and even if such work had been required, a male would have made a better assistant. One can also posit that the reason for her creation as a helper had to do with the companionship she could provide for the man, if perhaps he got bored with his solitude. Yet for company and conversation, how much more agreeable it is for two male friends to dwell together than for a man and a woman!...I cannot think of any other reason for woman's being made as man's helper, if we dismiss the reason of procreation."
From "Women in the Early Church." Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1983, 28-29.

As great as Augustine was, he failed to realize that it was not until after the original sin of the snake, Adam, and Eve that we are told Adam knew his wife (Gen. 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.")

If Adam and Eve had sex before eating of the tree it would seem they would have not been shocked to know they were naked and try to hide their genitals (Gen.3:7 "and the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.") The knowledge they obtained from eating from the tree was the knowledge of their nakedness and shame from being naked.

The awareness of sexual organs (Sex) seems to be the original sin immediately followed by shame. From that point onward women have been portrayed as wicked seductresses, even though it took a whole conversation for the snake to convince Eve to partake of the tree and Eve just said "eat this" to Adam and he did and then blamed God for giving him the woman in the first place.

Satan pulled off the greatest trick ever in the Garden of Eden that day. He got man to turn his focus off of the true enemy--the serpent (Satan) and focus on the Woman; making her the enemy instead of himself. We cannot continue to forget who the true enemy of man is--Satan.

How do we reconcile what Paul said in the book of Timothy then about women teaching men? STAY TUNED.