“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
in those days, I will pour out my Spirit.” – Joel 2:28

The outpouring of the spirit of God in the last days, as prophesied by Joel, is not limited to men. Two times in this very prophecy Joel tells us that both men and women will experience this. All flesh means all flesh. Does this in any way mean that until this prophecy women were not able to prophesy in scripture? Certainly not. The bible is replete with examples of women operating in the prophetic ministry from the Old Testament even to the new. In this particular write-up, I will talk a lot about women in both the Old and New Testaments who instructed men, prophesied and operated in any of the 5-fold ministries.

In the Old Testament, we see quite a number of prophetesses, amongst them are Prophetess Miriam, Huldah, Deborah and Isaiah’s wife. Deborah was not only a prophetess, she was also a Judge. In the Old Testament, before Israel had kings, judges were ordained by God himself to lead his people. Gideon and Sampson were judges too. Deborah was so influential during her time as a judge that Barak refused to go to war if Deborah wouldn’t go with the army. The story of Deborah is proof that God himself can raise a woman to lead his people. The reason why this point had to be made is that in Paul’s instruction to Timothy, he made reference to an Old Testament reality as the reason why he, under the inspiration of God, prohibits women from having authority and instructing men in the church. The reason he gave was that Eve sinned first, therefore women are to learn in humility and not allowed to exercise authority over men. How is it that Deborah who was in the Old Testament wasn’t affected by this (if we insist that the apostle’s instructions meant women should never exercise authority over men anywhere in the body of Christ)? If indeed Paul meant that because of events that took place in the garden a woman cannot exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church, how is this instruction only being enforced in the New Testament when there were women like Deborah in the Old Testament who had both political and spiritual authority over the whole of Israel?

All these prophetesses mentioned above were in the Old Testament, the question is were there any prophetesses in the New Testament as well? The answer is a resounding YES! Before Jesus’ birth, we read of the 84-year-old prophetess Anna who fasted and prayed for the birth of Christ. Concerning the prophetess Anna, it is written that at the time Jesus was brought to the temple to be presented to the Lord, she walked into the temple and ‘began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Luke 2:38). The prophetess entered the temple and began to speak about God to all who were gathered there. We were not told that anybody shut her up for being a woman. All we know is that a prophetess entered the temple, started thanking God and telling all who were there about him. That could have been a sermon, you know?

Also, we are reliably informed in Acts 21 that Philip the evangelist had 4 daughters who prophesied. We weren’t told whether they were prophetesses or not, all we know is that they could prophesy. So yes, women can prophesy and can operate in the prophetic office as prophetesses. The fact that women can prophesy has never been under contention anyway. However, the point had to be made for the benefit of people who think Paul meant women should keep their mouths completely shut in the church. If that was the case, how are women supposed to prophesy in the church? Looking at the instructions Paul gave concerning how prophecy must be spoken in the church, he expected the entire congregation to be quiet while the person with the prophecy spoke. Therefore if a woman had a prophetic word for the church, that alone afforded her the opportunity to have everyone’s rapt attention while she spoke.

Can women instruct men in the word of God?

Well indeed they can and there is one example of such a woman in the New Testament. Her name is Priscilla. Paul himself stated that he traveled with Priscilla and her husband Aquila. In Romans 16 Paul also salutes the church in their house, meaning the couple had a thriving church in their home. It is recorded in Acts 18 that the couple came across a man who taught diligently the things of the Lord. However, this man, Apollos, didn’t know much as he only knew the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla took him unto themselves and ‘expounded unto him the ways of God more perfectly’ (Acts 18:26). Apollos’ ministry grew and he became very influential in Alexandria and it is remarkable to know that at some point in his ministry a woman helped him better understand the things of God. Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus. Indicating that Apollos definitely wasn’t their only student. If they had a church in their house, then they probably taught the word of God to a lot more people. We are admonished by the apostle in Colossians 3:16 to ‘let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom …’. Was this instruction gender-specific? Are men the only ones instructed to let the word dwell in them richly so they can admonish others?

Can a woman have genuine authority over a man in the church?

Again, from the writings of Paul, we can draw the conclusion that women can hold positions in the church. In Romans 16:1 Paul speaks about Phoebe who was a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae. She was a leader in the church and Paul was writing to the Romans to help her in any way they could especially if she asks for their assistance. Paul also made mention of Junia (or Junias in other translations) and stated that this person was highly respected amongst the apostles. Ken Bailey made the point that some scholars believe this person was a woman. According to him:

The word ‘Junia’ in this text was taken to be feminine by Origen of Alexandria, Jerome, Peter Abelard and others.  A Catholic scholar, Bernadette Brooten writes that she was unable to find any Latin commentary on the Book of Romans that has this name as masculine before the late 13^th century.

Some versions of the Bible spell the name as ‘Junias’ implying that this person was a man. Ken Bailey again says:

The difficulty with Stapulensis’s suggestion of ‘Junias’ is that the name Junias is unattested in any Latin or Greek text at any time in history.  The name Junia, however, has been found over 250 times.

Adoniram Judson also states in his essay ‘Women in Ministry’ that:

Yet Chrysostom, who, as a Greek Father, ought to be taken as a high authority, makes this frank and unequivocal comment on the passage; “How great the devotion of this woman is, that she should be counted worthy of the name of an apostle!”

From all that is stated above, it is possible that Junia was a woman and an apostle. This brings to mind another question, can women operate in any of the 5-fold ministries? Because it seems by stating that Junia was a woman then it implies that she was an apostle which is the first of the 5-fold ministries. Have we not already concluded that women can operate in the prophetic office? Are there specific instructions concerning the gender of people permitted to operate in each of the offices? .

It is clear that both men and women are instructed in the great commission to preach the word of God to all creation, the bone of contention, however, is whether women can operate in any of the ministerial offices. The reason is that, by operating in any of these offices, they would definitely exercise authority over men and instruct them in one way or the other hence some Christian denominations are against the ordination of women into any of these ministries. When Paul spoke about the 5-fold ministries he said nothing about the gender of the persons operating in them. Neither did Jesus say anything about the gender of the Christian who is supposed to go into the world and preach the gospel. Some people who believe that women cannot operate in any or some of the offices have no problem with women carrying out the great commission. They do this forgetting that as part of the great commission, we are expected to preach and MAKE DISCIPLES. Making disciples requires authority. One has to exert a certain level of spiritual authority over people he/she is leading. How can a woman make disciples of men without having authority over them?

In Romans 16 Paul makes mention of a number of women who have served the Lord in different capacities. Some I have mentioned above. Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are also mentioned in the same chapter and saluted by the apostle because of their work in the Lord. Also in Philippians 4, we see the Apostle mention the names of two other women, Euodia and Syntyche. He claims they labored with him in the gospel. Had he just said they labored with him, then we could come to the conclusion that they probably labored in different capacities other than direct ministry work of sharing the gospel. But the apostle stated that they labored with him in the gospel together with other laborers whose names are in the book of life. This is a bold reference to direct ministry work. It is very interesting to know that women played a major role in the ministry of Paul as they did in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus had women amongst his disciples too. In Luke 8 we are told that these women who followed Jesus supported his ministry financially from their own purses.

We can also see how Jesus made messengers out of women in his ministry. Firstly, he turned the whole city of Samaria upside down with the woman at the well. This was somebody who was probably despised because of her lifestyle yet Jesus managed to use her to draw the whole city to himself. Does he still use women as evangelists, send them into cities and use them to draw men to himself? Secondly, at the resurrection, we would expect that Jesus would reveal himself to his disciples first. I don’t see it as a mere coincidence for him to appear to the women first. He was literally walking through walls when he resurrected, so he could have just walked into the room where his disciples were hiding. However, he permitted the women to be the first witnesses of his resurrected body. Thereby making them the first messengers of the gospel of the resurrected Christ. Ravi Zacharias said that ‘all of Easter hangs on the testimony of a woman’ and it is true. Jesus did this in a time when a woman’s testimony meant nothing in court. If indeed the created order and Eve sinning first is the reason why women are not allowed to teach men and exercise spiritual authority over them, why did Jesus literally bypass his disciples to reveal his resurrected body to women first?

Very few things about the Christian faith have been contested by skeptics and secular historians than the resurrection of Christ. The Christian faith hangs on the resurrection of Jesus from the grave. This is why Paul said ‘and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain’ (1^st Corinthians 15:14). Jesus went against the created order and the fact that Eve sinned first and revealed himself to women thereby placing the gospel of the resurrected savior in their mouths first. If women were the first to proclaim the message of the resurrected savior, is there any other message in the bible they are not allowed to preach to men?

References:

Ken Bailey – “Women in Ministry – Woodstock Q and A”

Adoniram Judson  – “Women in Ministry”

Hugenberger – “Women in ministry”

Kaiser – “Women in Ministry, commentary on the text”

However, ‘women in ministry’ has always been a controversial subject that has divided the body of Christ to an extent. There are denominations that believe women are not allowed to stand in the pulpit to instruct men publicly. Others see no problem with that. I don’t seek to merely take sides (although my opening paragraph gives my position away). What I seek to do with this write-up is to point out what God’s word says on the matter and I hope I do just that and not let my personal opinions and preferences cloud my judgment.

First of all, this problem arose from the misinterpretation of some portions of the New Testament – specifically the writings of Paul. In two separate passages found in two of his epistles, Paul admonishes the recipients of his letter to make sure the women in the church keep quiet and learn in submission. These two passages can be found in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Due to the instructions, Paul gave in these two passages, some believe that it isn’t scripturally correct for a woman to pastor a church. Before I proceed, I’d like to clarify a few things. The controversy is not necessarily about the prohibition of women from sharing the gospel with people – as that would have been an outright contradiction of the great commission Jesus gave to believers. I believe what is in contention here is whether women should be allowed to pastor a church thereby instructing men in scripture and exercising authority over them.

I will start with the easier of the two texts, 1^st Corinthians 14:33-36. In this passage, Paul states emphatically that women are not permitted to speak in church and that if they would want to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home. The second part of this instruction gives us a hint of the context of the events Paul was addressing. However, this isn’t clear to all so we would still have to delve deeper into the issue. So Paul prohibits women from speaking in church. How can we convince people that the gospel of grace is one built on the foundation of love if there is a verse that seeks to suggest that women as a sexually-defined group of people are not allowed to speak in the church simply because they are women? It is hard to reconcile this notion with the ethos of the New Testament. We don’t need to go far, let’s stay in the book of 1^st Corinthians. In the 11^th chapter of the same book, Paul admonishes women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. Throughout the book of 1^st Corinthians, we see the apostle speak elaborately on the gifts of the spirit and how they should be administered in the church. The gift of prophecy being one of the most prominent of all the gifts was duly addressed by Paul. He stated that when one person is prophesying, there should be total silence in the church. Since it is already an established fact that women can prophesy in church just like their male counterparts, doesn’t this tell us that they are at liberty to speak in church?

Indeed women are permitted to speak in the church to the hearing of everyone. This doesn’t in any way render Paul’s instructions for women to keep quiet in the church void. What we should be asking ourselves is, what kind of ‘quiet’ was the apostle referring to? Analyzing the text soundly would reveal that the apostle gave the instructions amongst several other instructions that would promote orderliness in church. Hence it is safe to say that he instructed women to be quiet in the instance when their talking was distracting the flow of the church service. It is believed that during service some of the women were fond of asking their husbands questions, seeking further clarifications of what was being taught. Hence the apostle’s instruction that they should ask their husbands at home if they didn’t understand what was being taught. The same Paul who said women should prophesy with their heads covered couldn’t have said in the same book that they are not permitted to prophesy (or speak publicly) in the church. In his essay on ‘Women in Ministry’, Adoniram Judson states that ‘So it seems, at least, for this word “prophesy” in the New Testament “signifies not merely to foretell future events, but to communicate religious truth in general under a Divine inspiration” (vide Hackett on “Acts”, p.49)’. This tells us that women are very much allowed to instruct men in scripture – I will delve into this a little more later on.

The second passage that causes confusion about women in ministry is in 1^st Timothy 2. This is a far more difficult text because it introduces some historical events as the basis of the instructions given by the apostle. Here again, Paul instructs that women should not be allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men. Let’s look at the context in which he makes this statement. So Timothy was head of the church in Ephesus that is why this letter was being addressed to him. If you know anything about the ancient city of Ephesus, you would know that it was a city that was wholly given to idolatry. Specifically the worship of the goddess Artemis. The temple of Artemis was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. It is an edifice that took 120 years to build. The temple was supported by 127 columns, each being 65 feet high (roughly 7 stories). Inside the building stood the huge multiple-breasted statue of the goddess. The servants (temple functionaries) of Artemis were mostly women. The men who were allowed to serve in the temple had to be castrated first – basically stripped of their manhood. This gives a bit of a background to the text under consideration. Some of these women had been converted and brought into the church. They were exposed to a system of worship where women exercised undue authority over men. It is believed that it was this particular problem that the apostle sought to address when he said I do not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man. It is worthy of note however that the apostle began this particular passage by stating that ‘let the women LEARN in silence and with all subjection’ (v11). This indicates that he wasn’t against female education and that is very important to this topic. It may appear trivial to us today but we need to understand that in those days women were not allowed to study the word of God. Kenneth Bailey mentions that:

Judith Hauptmann, in her essay on “Images of Women in the Talmud,” notes Rabbi Eliezer’s view that it is better to burn the words of the Torah than to give them to women.

With the passage in 1Timothy 2, the main problem is the fact that Paul makes reference to historical data as the basis for his instructions. He states that the reason he prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men is that in the garden, it was the woman that was deceived and not the man. This is interesting. So our quest is to find out why the woman was first deceived and not the man in the garden. Now it was Eve who was deceived first. That is to say that Adam was deceived as well so let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that there is a device preinstalled in men that prevents them from falling prey to deception. As a matter of fact in the book of 2Timothy Paul states categorically that there were some men teaching false doctrines, entering into homes of women who were burdened by the guilt of their own sins hence these women fell for their lies (2 Timothy 3:6). We can see that all the Apostle is advocating for is the teaching of sound doctrine. This cannot happen when the one being taught is exhibiting a haughty attitude towards the teacher. That is why he admonishes women to learn in quietness and not usurp authority over their teachers – who were men. This looks very much like the event in the garden where a woman was instructed by her husband and it was her who FIRST sinned. Was Paul admonishing all women to submit to the authority of all men? I doubt that, that is an instruction meant for married people. Paul was admonishing the women in the church to submit to sound teaching by being silent while they learn and not fall prey to deception like Eve did. 2Timothy 3 actually proves that they had already started falling for the lies of heretic male teachers in the city.

The last verse of this chapter talks about women being saved in childbearing. This is a tough one too. If you are familiar with the writings of Paul, you would know that he was vehemently opposed to any teaching that suggested that anybody could be saved in another way other than confessing Jesus. So definitely, he wasn’t saying here that women will obtain salvation in the Lord through childbirth. The word translated as ‘saved’ is ‘sozo’ – which can also mean ‘prosper’, ‘to be in good health’, ‘blessed’ etc. Therefore, we can understand that portion of scripture as Paul saying women shall prosper in childbearing. Why would he say that? Because it is believed there was a false doctrine going around intending to prohibit women from having children or even getting married. Again, we see the apostle address doctrinal issues here.

This is the end of part one of this short series. Do look out for the continuation in the next blog post. Remember to make your contributions and ask your questions in the comment section below.

References:

Ken Bailey – “Women in Ministry – Woodstock Q and A”

Adoniram Judson – “Women in Ministry”

Hugenberger – “Women in ministry”

Kaiser – “Women in Ministry, commentary on text”

This is clearly not worthy of celebration. In fact, I was appalled at this fact when I read it. Those were 60 million lives that could have been but weren’t given the chance. For various reasons women commit abortions. All kinds of women take this decision: married, single, rich, poor, abused etc. I am not outraged at them, but rather the system that allowed this. I am not quite keen on acquiring a tag but if this viewpoint makes me pro-life, then so be it. One thing I know is that nobody can be more pro-life than the fetus. Within a period of 9 months, what started as a clot of blood develops limbs and transforms rapidly into a full-blown human being in the womb. That is pro-life. Nothing can be more indicative of a pro-life stance than growth. Absolutely nothing. Always remember that humanity loses a pro-lifer after each successful abortion.

But it is an issue of choice, they say. It is an issue of what the bearer of the baby says. I’m really not here to debate that, but I just wanted to point out a few things I noticed from the ongoing discussion on social media. From what I know about abortions, especially the ones I have heard about, it was the guys who forced the idea on the ladies. In Lecrae’s song ‘The Good, The Bad, the Ugly’ he recounts how he forced his woman to get an abortion when he was much younger. He stated in the song that the lady went on with the plan because she loved him. But from all indications, he regrets that decision. I remember hearing a story about this macho man in the neighborhood I grew up in running after a lady with a glass of water and some pills in broad daylight. He was literally forcing her to terminate the pregnancy in the full glare of everybody around.

All lives matter; those in womb matter too. The life of a fetus matters no matter who takes the final decision to end it.

My main concern is the misrepresentation of the word of God in the ensuing debate. I couldn’t help but cringe at some opinions which were expressed based on faulty analyses of scripture. Two bible stories emerged in most of the discussions:

1. Onan spilling his seeds (withdrawing while having sex with Tamar)
2. God declaring that he knew Jeremiah before he formed him in his mother’s womb.

Onan’s story is quite an interesting one. He was the second son of Judah. His older brother Er was married to Tamar and he displeased the Lord so he was killed. As their custom was, Tamar was given to Onan to sleep with for her to bear a child to continue the lineage of Er. Onan knowing that the child wouldn’t be counted as his, chose to spill his seed. God killed Onan for what he did. NOTE: God didn’t kill him for merely spilling his seed, but for the implications of this act. Many times I’ve heard people use this story as the basis to condemn masturbation. Masturbation is indeed sexual sin but Onan didn’t masturbate. What he did was a deliberate act to discontinue his brother’s lineage. It is also worthy for us to note that this is the same Judah whose lineage became the tribe of Judah. Both David and Jesus came from this tribe. It is easy to tell why God had a keen interest in the affairs of this family. I can’t tell the exact reason but I am tempted to believe God’s decision to kill Onan had a lot to do with the implications of his actions on the tribe of Judah (According to Gen 38:9).

It is not right to liken what Onan did to masturbation or even abortion. A sperm is not a fetus. Therefore whatever means of birth control a man applies to prevent conception cannot be likened to abortion. Why? Because conception has not taken place yet. The male body is fashioned to naturally dispose of semen once in a while in the sleep of the said man. Is this abortion too? Does this apply to menstruation too? I get what this is all about, though. It is all because some ladies are of the view that any man who takes a stance against abortion is primarily attempting to take away a certain level of freedom from women. Also, there is this assertion that a man’s opinion is worth very little on the topic of abortion. Are we implying that one can only have an opinion on a topic when it directly affects him/her? Do we need to strip the proponent of a contrary view of his right to express it? Doesn’t that imply our assertions are weak in the face of opposition? Nobody’s view should be discredited because of his gender. That is sexism indeed.

The other bible story that has come up in this discussion is the story of Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah:

‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb I sanctified thee and, I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations’

Many have misinterpreted this because they have either misquoted the verse or have truncated it to suit their interpretation. God didn’t say ‘before you were formed in the belly…’ but ‘before I FORMED THEE in the belly…’. What difference does that make? A lot! The understanding that this verse implies God knows each sperm by name and therefore when a man ‘spills his seed’ he has committed abortion is false. God formed Jeremiah in his mother’s womb. God didn’t just know him before that, he ordained Jeremiah way before he formed him in the womb. This means, that verse up there is not about identity or identification but rather predestination. The verse doesn’t mean God knows each sperm by name. It means God knows which one would eventually fertilize the egg and in this case, it was Jeremiah. So before he was a clot of blood, God had already ordained him to be a prophet unto the nations. As simple as that. Therefore abortion is the termination of that which God has formed. As Ravi Zacharias said ‘We can’t talk about human rights without the right to be human’. If your human right terminates another person’s right to be human, how many humans will be left if everybody exercised that right?

There are so many push factors when it comes to abortion for eg. Poverty, stigmatization, unpreparedness etc. It is my hope that we wouldn’t lose sight of the real issue as we go on to fight these factors. Also, there should be counseling and therapy available for women who have already committed abortions. The trauma they go through is unmatched and therefore special care must be given to their psychological health.

We are all fallible. It is natural to want to deal with your mistakes lest they interrupt your plans for the future or because you can’t afford to live with the consequences. But is it right to end a life so you can live yours comfortably? I believe as many of us that read this post should try and answer this question and please share your views with me in the comment session. Thanks.

Often when this topic comes up for discussion, people make reference to the first couple in human history: Adam and Eve. Adam didn’t have the option of choosing a life partner for himself but God ‘recognized’ a lack in Adam’s life and decided to provide a solution for it. Let me veer off a bit to address a pertinent issue here: Eve was not an afterthought! Even the devil wasn’t an afterthought.  I can’t ever come to terms with the fact that God didn’t intend to create Eve initially. Especially when he created the male and female species of every animal and instructed them to be fruitful and multiply. He said that even to birds and fishes. Now, he gave the same instruction to Adam and Eve, which implies that that was his intention all along. How was man supposed to do that if Eve wasn’t created? The question is, why didn’t God create Eve right away? The lion and the lioness were created at the same time, so the lion was never alone. Why did God allow Adam to feel the absence of Eve before creating her? God is sovereign but never have I read in scripture that he abused his sovereignty. So anytime I see him exercise his sovereignty in any part of the bible, I know there is a lesson to learn.

Adam saw creation in its purest state before the fall. If you are impressed by the beauty of nature in our day and age or blown away by the awe-inspiring colorful display of flowers in any garden, I wonder how you would react at the sight of the garden planted by the Gardener himself. Eden had to be the most amazing place on earth at the time. To top it all, Adam had fellowship with God. It isn’t stated in scripture but I don’t doubt he might have had face-to-face encounters with God. So if after all these – the splendor of Eden and fellowship with God – Adam was still considered ‘alone’, by delaying in the creation of Eve, God was just showing off the value of womanhood. It is more like God kept man’s greatest asset away from him so man could feel how empty life would be without her. Then BAM! One day, here she is. Brother man didn’t know what to say upon seeing her. Knowing God and how he communicates to us sometimes, I believe the delay in the creation of Eve was all a set-up to reveal how man is incomplete without his suitable helper (Eve).

Here is the thing, God never told Adam directly that Eve was his life partner. In other words, God didn’t impose Eve on Adam, he just presented her to him. It is Adam who was so blown away by the beauty of Eve that he said passionately ‘… this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh…’. Nevertheless, it is clear Adam didn’t have options. He didn’t have Evelyn and Eva snooping around his relationship and ready to comfort him anytime he had issues with Eve. Adam didn’t have options, therefore it is logical to conclude God expected him to marry Eve.

Anyway, here are two key lessons from Adam’s story:

1. God will never force you to marry a particular person.

“Errm but God commanded the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute?” Well, of course he did. But at the end of the day the specific prostitute Hosea married was up to him. God just told him the kind of woman to marry and not which one in particular. In Adam’s case God presented Eve to him. God intended her to be a suitable help to him. However, God never imposed Eve on Adam. But because Adam didn’t have options, the union between Adam and Eve appeared to be an imposition. I believe God hasn’t changed since the incidence in Eden. Often people say ‘oh because Adam blamed God for giving him a woman that led him into sin God won’t force anybody into marrying a specific person’. While it is true that God won’t force you into marrying somebody, the reason stated above is rather a weak one. The main reason why God won’t force you into marrying a particular person is, He will never violate the human will. God will never ever violate the human will in any instance. That is what makes us human beings in the first place: the ability to choose to be what we want to be. If there was ever a reason for God to violate the human will, it wouldn’t be for an ephemeral and a trivial matter as who you marry. Now, a person’s spouse can make or break him/her but that cannot be compared to the salvation of the human soul. If God cannot force every human being to become a Christian, then he surely cannot go against his very nature and force his choices on you. This isn’t a sign of weakness at all, on the contrary, it proves to us that even in his sovereignty God allows us to willingly choose the right path.

2. There is such a thing as the perfect will of God which he has intended for all of us to willingly walk in.

From the story, we hear the thoughts of God concerning the singleness of Adam. God said ‘it is not good for man to be alone, I will make for him a help-meet’. Which means he had a plan for Adam concerning the creation of a suitable helper for him. This is God’s intention. We all know how that story ended but let’s assume Adam rejected Eve and didn’t want to have anything to do with her. Would God have force Eve on Adam? Would God have twisted Adams arms into accepting Eve? God will respect your choice though he has a better option for you. By respecting your choice I don’t mean he will honor it. He just steps back and watches as you make a mess out of yourself. In Jeremiah 8:3 God said ‘And death shall be chosen rather than life…’. Basically, life and death are the options, it is up to you to choose one. Though God would rather you chose life, he won’t impose it on you. If even in the matters of life and death God wouldn’t force you to choose life but rather leave it up to your discretion, why would he force a life partner on you? Nobody stumbles and falls into the will of God. It takes a lot of dying to walk in God’s will. It takes a lot of humility to do that. Until you intentionally ask God to assist you in taking a decision – especially concerning your life partner – do not expect his will to be done automatically in that area of your life.

So the point is made, God won’t force you to marry a particular person even though he has a specific person in mind for you. How then can one get to meet this person? By asking God to direct you to the person or let your paths cross. He can choose to give you directions via whatever medium. It could be prophecy. It could be in a dream. It could appear as a coincidence. Sometimes he will burden your heart with the specifications of a ‘perfect spouse’, so that you set out in search of such a person. Whatever it is, when you ask him about it, he will definitely show up and direct you. I believe God can speak through his servants the prophets concerning your future spouse. As has been discussed already, it doesn’t mean he has imposed the person on you. Just like all other prophecies, you will never get a detailed description of the person. At best you can be told the person’s name, physical features, career etc. just a ‘little something’ to help you identify the person. As you may know already, this is because prophets know in parts and prophesy in parts. There is always an element of mystery about every prophecy. So yes, prophecy can come in to guide you in the process of selecting your spouse. It doesn’t come to bind you and make you stiff-necked. Though a prophetic word has the power to create miracles, most of the times it comes in just to inform you about a future matter. It is up to you to subject your will to it for it to come to pass. When God says you will marry person A or B, it is still up to you to accept it as his perfect will for you or to choose your own path. If you go ahead and marry person G it is all on you.

This is a stern warning to the people – especially the brothers – who can’t woo a woman to save their lives and therefore resort to blackmailing them with so-called revelations and prophecies. Desist from that! If God revealed it to you that she is the one, be honorable enough and don’t go and tell her God said this and that therefore she should give you a chance. That is infantile. Prophecy is not a tool for blackmail. Will you walk into a bank and demand a million dollars because there’s a prophecy concerning an impending wealth hanging over your head? When God says you will be rich, it usually means you will work hard to get there. God promised the Israelites a land flowing with milk and honey. He didn’t tell them about the giants they had to kill to get the milk and honey. Even if there were no giants, they would have had to milk cows to get the milk and rear bees to harvest the honey. There is no such thing as a land flowing with milk and honey in reality. But there is such a thing as a land filled with bees and cattle. When a prophecy comes, often there is a certain amount of work to be done by the person the prophecy is about. God said Sister Belinda is your wife … blessed and highly favored are you among all men bro. Now get up like the confident brother that God expects you to be, step up to Belinda, strike a conversation, start a friendship and develop it into a relationship. Faithful is he who has said it, he is more than able to help you work it out too. Believe in him.

The conclusion of the matter is, God has a perfect will for all of us even concerning the most trivial things in our lives. I once got a prophecy concerning the fact that I have been desiring to grow my beard for so long. I want to be ‘Beard Gang’ so bad! Though I deem it embarrassingly trivial to speak about it openly, guess who cares about it too: Elohim. The one who created over a billion stars in space and knows each one of them by name. God indeed has a perfect will for all of us concerning every area of our lives. Will we humble ourselves and pray about it? He won’t impose it on you but he will guide you to it so you make the choice yourself. Whatever your choice, there is either a blessing or a curse waiting for you. Pray about it and he will definitely intervene and lead you to the right person.

References: Hosea 1, Genesis 1 and 2, 1 Corinthians 13:9.

‘I have never seen the General vulnerable to any situation. He is always in control’

Fatima told me once. Well neither had I, until it was my turn on the duty roster to clean his house. I spent a week and some days doing everything he asked me to. He didn’t speak much. The sharp contrast between who he was outside his house and his personality indoors was staggering. I came to the realization that he was human after all; and that was like a groundbreaking discovery for me.

He always drove me out of the room when he received a telephone call.

‘Nobody is allowed to remain in the HQ when I am on the phone’, he would say.

On the last day of my assignment to the General’s house, he received a call by his bedside while I was sitting on the floor dusting the numerous pairs of boots under the bed. He knew I was still there but strangely, he received the call anyway. Whoever was on the other end of the line seemed far more powerful than General Abubakar. After saying ‘hello’, the General froze and stared out the window as if he was having an out-of-body experience. Then he attempted to speak a few times, but the words came out incomplete. It was clear he was being cut-off by the caller with  every attempt he made at speaking. Finally, as if given the go-ahead now, he started mentioning cities in the Northern parts of Nigeria and some figures:

‘In Kano, 20. Maiduguri, 12. Kaduna, 11….’.  He choked for a while and then went on to say ‘No, we are not wasting your money Sir, we haven’t been too successful in our latest attacks because the government forces have been a thorn in our flesh’.

Sir? The General had a boss? The whole conversation began to make sense to me at that point. Those numbers he was mentioning were the death tolls from their recent attacks. I had already heard the numbers; I had heard them from the stories the militants told us when they arrived at the camp after each invasion. So I knew. Had the death tolls been lesser, I wouldn’t be any less devastated than I was already. Apparently, ‘Sir’ wasn’t too pleased by the small number of people losing their lives to Boko Haram invasions in the past weeks. He should have been there to see the militants gloat over their kills like some village boys retelling the story of their snail-catching expedition.

I wanted to know who ‘Sir’ was. I wanted to know the person whose voice made General Abubakar stroll back and forth in his own room with less confidence than even I would. I wanted to know who it was that was throwing money behind the terrorists. I really wanted to know. Was he the same person behind those trucks that marched into the camp at midnight almost every fortnight to deliver guns and all kinds of weaponry to the militants? All those sophisticated machines and cameras stashed away in boxes inside the General’s house, who bought them?

The revelation I had after eavesdropping on that telephone conversation left me more petrified. It was like a door had been opened right before me, revealing who the real enemy was, only that he was faceless. The deception of terrorism is that we often loath the puppets parading themselves on the internet and on the news without thinking who could possibly be the puppeteer. ‘Sir’ could be taking a stroll on a beach at Hawaii. He could be walking in the midst of the horde on the sidewalks of New York City or jogging with his dog down a sandy path in Saudi Arabia. Whoever he was or wherever he lived, we should all be scared because he is faceless. If ‘Sir’ was that nasal voice on the phone that could make even General Abubakar look like he needed to use the bathroom, then we should all be really scared.  I just couldn’t come to terms with the fact that a worse-than-the-General walked freely somewhere on God’s green earth yet the General was in the news because he posted videos on YouTube proudly claiming responsibility for every Boko Haram invasion. They are fooling us all. What hope do you have in a war when you don’t know the real enemy? The guy who claims to be behind the evil acts of Boko Haram is actually a front. That is very scary!

Early the next morning after the telephone incident, the militants came into our tents to wake us up. They came wielding assault rifles as if preparing for a war or another invasion. We would have known if they were about to embark on another attack. Before they left the camp for any attack, they were always taken through a series of rituals. I couldn’t tell whether the rituals were for fortification or a preparation for death – seeing that their whole psyche was conditioned to accept death for a ‘holy’ cause. Then out comes the Babalawo from nowhere. None of us had ever laid eyes on him on any ordinary day in the camp. However, the day before every Boko Haram attack, he would appear and lead the jihadists through a series of rituals. The atmosphere was extremely charged by their chanting and dancing. Baba blew white powder over each of them while hopping and throwing himself about as if possessed. He had this eerie appearance. He was barely clothed by the animal skin he threw over his left shoulder. Anytime I saw him, I made funny mental pictures of his appearance, because I felt he was too small to be of any spiritual use. A beaded dark imp was what I often pictured in my head. His whole demeanor spelled evil. The beads on baba’s wrists and waist rattled abruptly with each step he took and that made it easy to notice his presence even while we were half-asleep. Sometimes at night we could hear him reciting incantations outside our tent.

So it was obvious the militants weren’t preparing for another invasion. I was amongst the 30 girls selected and forced to get dressed as quickly as possible. We were packed in the bed of one of the big trucks. The truck took off right after the General took his seat in the front. It was quite a nostalgic moment for me when we drove through the gates: I was reminded of how they brought us in. We were driven to a secluded part of the forest where the grass was ankle-height. The militants went about setting up cameras, hoisting their flags and posing with their guns in front of the camera. Within a few minutes we were all before the camera. The General gave a lengthy speech about selling some of us into slavery and how his aim was to establish a caliphate in the northern parts of Nigeria. Even the Boko haram militants were oblivious to the main reason why the General was making those claims in the video. But, I knew it. It was all just a ploy to remain relevant in world terrorism. He had to do something to salvage his fading image as a sadistic terrorist leader. He wanted to get into the good books of ‘Sir’ again. Pathetic!

Fatima crept into our tent that very night and slapped me on my back to wake me up. She whispered in my ears:

‘Isa, has agreed to help us escape. He will be here at 12 am. Stay awake. I’ll come for you’.

‘Ok’

I kept my eyes open for the next 5 minutes. I needed to stay awake to mentally process what had just happened. First of all, I was the one who was always talking about escaping. So if there was ever a plan to escape, I had to be the one to initiate it. The Lord knows how much I had to fight to maintain my relationship with Fatima because of the number of times I spoke about escaping. She simply didn’t want to hear it.

‘It wasn’t worth it’, she often said. I couldn’t blame her though. She had been a witness to the execution of so many girls and even militants who attempted to escape. The terror of those scenes had crippled her. To her, the mesh fence surrounding the camp was rather imaginary but the terror and confinement she felt from within were shackles she couldn’t shake off. This same Fatima was the one initiating our escape. How she got to convince Isa to be of help, I couldn’t tell. Isa was the water tanker driver; he sometimes drove into the camp with a truckload of drums filled with water too. I knew Fatima had an amorous relationship with him to some extent. She told me how he often expressed disgust at the activities of Boko Haram. Isa was driving the water tanker purely for the money and not out of principle. He was vehemently opposed to terrorism – but he needed the money. So it wasn’t much of a surprise that he was the one assisting us in our escape. What would make a man want to put his life on the line for two captives? We didn’t deserve any of this. I feared for his life because even if we were successful with our escape, he would be going back to the camp every other week to deliver drums of water. They might trace our escape to him and he would be executed. He of all people should have known this. And if the reality of that didn’t deter him, then nothing else would.

I must have dozed off. Fatima with her baby strapped to her back came calling again. I didn’t pick anything. We stepped out of the tent and there they were crowded around the truck. They were offloading the drums. I pulled at Fatima’s dress and told her ‘let’s go back inside, they will see us’. Apparently, she had a plan. We stood frozen in front of our tent, all that while Fatima looked away from the militants standing around the truck and focused her attention on the two conversing in front of the empty drums arranged a few feet away from the truck. I wanted to go back in. We would have been severely punished for staying up that late not to talk of standing outside the tent. When Fatima whispered ‘let’s go’ I knew it was time to run because of the urgency in her voice. The two militants had walked away so we ran towards the empty drums. The rest of them were standing at the opened end at the back of the truck. Our only option was to climb up from the side. Fatima let me go first. She unstrapped her baby from her back, handed her to me and then she joined us a while after. The two of us squatted in the midst of the empty drums while the militants packed more into the bed of the truck.

The engine of the truck started. The drums were shaking and knocking against each other. There was nothing to hold onto. Nevertheless, we remained still till the truck left the camp. Then Fatima stood up and span the lid of one of the drums open. In a single leap I entered the drum, Fatima handed her sleeping baby to me first and then she climbed into the drum slowly.  

‘Today is the happiest day of my life’

‘Ada, Me too oo’, Fatima responded.

She left the lid halfway open to let in some air. I thought of Mariama and the other girls and how I would miss them. But nothing could be compared to the sweet taste of freedom. We were crammed up in a drum, but we knew we were freer than we had ever been in the last few months.

The reality is, it is not Christianity that is misogynistic, IT IS THE JEWISH CULTURE THEN THAT WAS MISOGYNISTIC. But Christ came to introduce us to a new life which he exemplified by showing the highest form of respect to women. We will delve into this later on. I would like to state this blatantly, one of the oldest acts of feminism is recorded in the bible. The fight for the rights of women started thousands of years ago. It was a very successful one seeing that the laws of Israel had to be amended because a bunch of young ladies who knew their rights, stood up to fight for it.  I speak of the daughters of Zelophehad – all five of them. There are a lot of lessons in their story that present-day feminists can learn. These young girls, upon realizing that they were being denied access to their father’s property after his death (because of their sex)  rose up and went straight to the highest authority of Israel – Moses – to demand what was duly theirs. Moses took the matter to God and God said “What the daughters of Zelophehad are saying is right”. Hence, they received properties amongst the relatives of their father and a new law was established. The point is, they didn’t go accusing Moses of being sexist – seeing that the law was above Moses himself. These ladies didn’t challenge Moses’ authority. They simply made an appeal, yet their actions yielded overwhelming results for them and the many other women like them. This is indeed feminism.

Nevertheless, throughout the bible we see so many instances where women are treated unfairly because of their sex. But let’s not go cherry-picking in the bible. The issue is, it is a bad academic exercise to pinpoint the misfortunes of women in the bible and use it as the foundation to argue out the fact that the bible is misogynistic. That is wrong.

Christianity derives its essence from the life and teachings of Christ. So to determine whether the Christian doctrine in itself is misogynistic, we need to look at the life of Christ and how he treated women. Jesus indeed made a deliberate attempt to go against the status quo set for someone of his status in his relations with women. First and foremost, he allowed his feet to be washed by Mary (a known whore). This is such a big deal considering who Jesus was and his purpose on this earth. Undoubtedly one of the most outstanding events fueled by patriarchy in the bible is the story of the woman who was about to be stoned by an irate mob. Apparently, she was caught committing adultery ‘alone’… all by herself. This is how patriarchal the people were. They didn’t think the man she was in bed with was as guilty as she was so they let him go and decided to stone only her. But Jesus stood up for the rights of this woman and turned the law against the mob. Being convicted by their own conscience and knowledge of the law, they left her alone. Even on the cross, Jesus displayed his love and respect for women. While hanging there, Jesus told his mother ‘woman, behold thy son’ and to John he said ‘behold your mother’. This little gesture implies that Jesus entrusted His mother into the caring arms of John before he died. As a Christian gentleman I am supposed to emulate this lifestyle in every way possible. The gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to respect women and fight for their rights.

One of the most controversial chapters in the bible, so far as sexism and misogyny is concerned is 1 Timothy 2. Militant critics are of the view that Paul’s pastoral letter to Timothy expresses some level of contempt towards women when he commanded them to remain silent and also forbid them to usurp spiritual authority over the men in church. I find people’s assumption that Paul promotes misogyny in this chapter to be very inconsistent with other Pauline writings. The apostle was a leading advocate of gender equality within a culture that was popularly known for its heightened hatred towards women. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it crystal clear that there’s no such thing as male or female in Christ’s family. That is, men and women are of equal importance in the eyes of God. A chunk of the New Testament informs us that Paul actually team-taught alongside various women, commending them with the highest form of respect for breaking their backs for the sake of the Gospel. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul stated that a husband had NO authority over his own body, but his wife DID and vice-versa. Now, that’s a very heavy pronouncement. This is Paul championing gender equality again by demanding mutual respect between both sexes in marital homes – especially concerning sexual activities. Just in case you missed it, the ‘so-called’ chauvinist, in Romans 16, makes a unique reference to Phoebe a sister in Christ, as a deacon. It was such a big deal in those days, that a woman could be a deacon just like Paul, Timothy and Apollos – who had presiding authorities over churches. Seems like the ‘sexist apostle’ is digging his own grave, right? Be reminded that we are examining these facts in the 1st century context where women were heavily despised!  

We see time and time again that Paul’s teachings were in sharp contrast with the promotion of sexism. What then do we make of Paul’s admonition to Timothy concerning women? 2 Timothy 3:6-7 and 1 Timothy 5:11-13 give us a clue as to what Paul intended to communicate to the people. The women of Ephesus then were deeply associated with paganism before they got converted to Christianity. As a result, they were probably spiritually immature. It then makes sense if Paul wasn’t going to risk anything by putting them on the forefront to promote the Gospel. Moreover, there were false teachers around who were ever ready to pounce on any of these women to teach them false doctrines—the very thing Paul was trying to avoid. In summary, I believe Paul was addressing a specific problem that plagued a specific church (the Church of Ephesus). He wasn’t making a general rule, nevertheless, any other church going through the same problem can apply this solution in their case. So if you should ask me, this ideology that Paul was sexist falls flat because the arguments to support such fallacious ideas do not in any way fit the teachings of the Bible. Proper exegesis reveals to every reader that NO passage in the Bible encourages people to oppress women. Rather the bible encourages wives even to strive hard in economic ventures. The woman in Proverbs 31 is a superhero; she has a stable job and still has her family at heart. This appears impossible in today’s world, but the bible encourages women to work hard in their careers while caring for their families.

I would like to say this quickly. More often than not people call out religious leaders for propagating sexist ideologies in their sermons and opinions expressed on other platforms. But why doesn’t anybody question evolutionism for its sexist ideologies? I honestly want to know how a woman can be a feminist and an evolutionist at the same. Especially because Charles Darwin claims that “… males are more evolutionarily advanced than females”. Which means by nature, men are ahead of their female counterparts intellectually and physically.

While it may seem like a greater portion of scripture records several masculine accomplishments, the Bible does extremely well in capturing equally significant events involving women. God appointed powerful women like Deborah and Esther to lead the Jews during Israel’s dark and spiritually-barren period. Jesus (God in flesh) revealed His true identity as the Savior of the world to the woman at the well, much to his disciple’s chagrin. The most important historical event of this world (the Resurrection of Christ) was revealed FIRST to a group of women. The prophet Isaiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, alluded God’s tender love towards His people to that of a MOTHER who comforts HER children. What a powerful positive feminine image! Time and space wouldn’t allow me to prove to you more that the Bible doesn’t oppress women but rather celebrates them. Sexism has never been God-orchestrated because in the beginning, He [God] created human beings—male and female—in His own image to reflect His nature. The Bible, God’s Word, will forever respect the intrinsic worth of both men and women. It is a word that is settled forever.

Written by: Elvis Sampson and Elikplim Sabblah

References: Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 7:4, John 4, Isaiah 66:13, Numbers 27 (Daughters of Zelophehad), 1 Timothy 2.

The family is the oldest human institution and also the seed from which every other institution sprouts. This makes the family a very important body in the society. Among the things that make any institution thrive, the following are paramount: love, respect, hard work, understanding and role-playing. The last of which is my focus in this post.

In a typical Ghanaian home a 100 or more years ago, the father was probably a hunter, the mother was a stay-home mum and the children assist the parent of their gender. It makes perfect sense, if you ask me. In those days, the duties of wives were mainly to provide food, clean, sweep, nurture the children etc. because they were usually not involved in any economic venture. Husbands did all the work to make the family financially sound. Once again, I will say that this makes perfect sense. But times have changed. Women are actively involved in economic ventures now and are raking huge sums of money every month; sometimes even more than their husbands. A husband who is the CEO of a multinational company could be married to a woman who is a medical doctor by profession. The question is, does it mean the duties of wives at home need to be revised?

I believe the roles of both husband and wife should be revised. I know in Marriage Counselling men are advised to lend a helping hand with chores at home. I lean more towards this assertion. I have heard men with my own two ears state emphatically that they will do no such thing. It is like they can’t imagine themselves in the kitchen, whipping up something for the entire family. This brings me to the focus of this post: what exactly do wives expect their husbands to do at home? Women weren’t born with cooking and cleaning genes, men weren’t born with working genes either. This is even more evident in the way women have swarmed the corporate world in the last few decades. There is still much room for improvement though. Back to the question, what do wives expect their husbands to do at home? For most men, it isn’t the idea of doing something around the house that they find repulsive, but the fact that it has to  – of a necessity – be cooking and cleaning.

Socialization is society’s way of programming human beings for life. It is hard to change roles when you were made to think that you are hard-wired to do just that. Nevertheless, it is possible.

A lot of people are of the view that cooking and cleaning are the only chores in every home. This is so wrong! If it takes only cooking and cleaning to maintain the sanity, safety and well-being of family members then I dare say we have belittled what it means to be parents. I don’t ever remember seeing my dad in the kitchen cooking. Does that make him a lazy man who overburdened his wife and kids to work like donkeys? Before you pass any judgment, let me tell you a little story. In the community I grew up in, my dad was arguably one of the most hardworking men around. Not in terms of his job, but chores. You wouldn’t expect a Pharmacist with a very busy schedule as his to do the stuff he did. I grew up in Koforidua and my dad had a garden in front of the house and a farm behind the boys’ quarters. Oh yeh, he put the ‘farmer’ in Pharmacist. He planted maize and cassava. I didn’t quite get it at the time though, but lessons in Agricultural Science in Junior High School revealed that that system of farming was called Mixed Cropping. I was the type of child to throw baby tantrums anytime I was given work to do. That demon has long left me; it was beaten and caned out of me *insert your Amens here*. But one chore that my brother and I couldn’t wait to do was breaking off withered corn stalks after the harvest. We would do this every time in a faux action scene of one of the Chinese movies we used to watch. Kicking and punching at the sinister accomplices of the most evil antagonist standing before us as withered corn stalks. It was fun. Now, that was Koforidua and having a farm at the back of your house was a common practice. When we moved to Tema, guess what the old man did… he made another farm. This time, a smaller one because the soil was sandy and our backyard was smaller. My dad initiated all general cleanings at home. He was brutal towards any of us who appeared reluctant to participate in it. My question is, does such a husband still have to actively work in the kitchen to prove himself a hard-working fellow? Is the kitchen the only place where there is work to be done in the home?

Chores are not gender-specific but honestly there are some chores that come more easy to  people of a particular gender. This is not because of our biological makeup – as some people would be irritated by this if it were so. It is simply by socialization: the way we were brought up. It is very cool and helpful on his part, if the husband cooks in the house. Per the way most of us were brought up, our female counterparts are better cooks than we are. So, which is the more reasonable approach, to get all men to start learning how to cook now or to have them actively involved in the things that require masculine strength at home? The latter is more reasonable. I don’t need to quote any literature to buttress the point that men are physically stronger than women. It is an observable fact. Hence, wouldn’t men be more suited to do the things that their strengths can afford them the luxury of doing? If we are to remove the demarcations and say that since no one is born with a specific gene to do some chores men and women should not specialize, that would wreak havoc in the family. I don’t know about other guys, but I know there is something about the picture of my wife washing her own car I find off. I can’t picture my wife ‘spidermanning’ her way up a ladder to the roof to fix the TV pole because she wants to watch her favorite telenovela. I can’t sit, with folded arms and watch the woman of my life sink a few nails into the spine of a broken door in her bid to fix it. Why should a husband allow his wife’s palms to blister away into hardness because she was weeding with a cutlass while he made supper in the kitchen?  If you didn’t cringe at any of these scenarios, then I must admit there is something wrong with me because I did… and ever so emphatically. It is not even a matter of which chore is demeaning, it is a matter of which one comes easy to whom.

When it comes to gender, I am not conclusive in my views as it is a very touchy subject and a controversial one. You could touch raw nerves by passing a loose comment about women these days – and rightly so. I just wish we would dialogue more and accept that marriage has some dynamics that don’t accommodate stiff rules that cannot be bent or turned to favor both parties every now and then. Plus, what works for one couple may cause a divorce in another. Hence, the two parties involved should sit and decide who does what in the home.  

These are just spiders anyway; hence they do not have to grapple with gender issues like humans. If this were to happen amongst humans, it would be a media sensation. Heads would roll and laws would spring up involuntarily from the depths of legal archives to put the perpetrators away for good. Maybe we would also start our own movement. We might just call it MALELISM: a movement for the brothers. But no, in the real world, it is the other way round. Women are being treated badly. Sometimes it is not even the actions against women that worry me the most, it is the sort of condescending opinions and prejudices people hold. Those really appall me because it means deeply seated within their hearts are these perceptions which will inform every action in their dealings with women. This gave rise to Feminism. A worthy cause; and like all worthy causes, it will not stand or be successful without the active participation of both sexes. I repeat, Feminism will not stand without the active participation of both sexes; because patriarchy wouldn’t have been this successful without the active involvement of both sexes. Over the years the image of the movement has been tainted. Most men would want to have nothing to do with it or to be associated with it. It may be due to several other reasons, but I believe that paramount amongst those reasons is the attitude of feminists. The belligerence and the venom in their speech totally deter men from participating in anything related to Feminism. How do you fight negativity with negativity?

Gender equality is a myth. I wonder why I never thought about it until recently. If this remains at the core of Feminism, I would like to state emphatically that it will end up empowering men rather than women. What is the yardstick that indicates equality with men; same number of men and women in parliament? To be a man is not that pleasant anyway so I wonder why equality with men seems to be deemed so highly. Women must fight for what is theirs. We have no idea what a fair society looks like: a fair society being one that gives what women deserve to them. We may never see it if the goal of our women is to have what we have as men and neglect what is due them. For all you know, what is due women could possibly outweigh that which society seems to have given to men. Society is made up of male and female members. I see society as a giant 2-pieced jig-saw puzzle. What people do not realize is that the call for Gender Equality is like shaping the edges of the two pieces of the puzzle the same way – making them identical pieces. That seems like a fair action, but it is highly unreasonable (that is, if piecing the pieces together is our motive). When you shape the edges the same way, they won’t fit. But this is what Gender Equality is seeking to achieve. How I wish women would understand their place and value. How I wish they would realize how blessed they are and embrace their uniqueness. Men and women are equal and different. The right and left arms belong to one individual but they are different because of their location. This is it. So for the left arm to start a movement to achieve equality with the right is rather absurd, because it is already an arm too. Nevertheless, if the left realizes that it is being treated badly, it has every right to speak out and with the assistance of the right hand justice will be served. I am not the only one who holds this assertion. The bible also makes it clear that women and men are both equal and different. In 1Peter 3:7, it says:

‘Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as THE WEAKER VESSEL, SINCE THEY ARE HEIRS WITH YOU of the grace of life…’

The verse above indicates the difference between men and women by the phrase ‘…the weaker vessel’. Simply put, compared to men, women are weaker (physically) and must be treated as such. The verse states the equality of both sexes by saying ‘… since they are heirs with you…’. Meaning, in the sight of God we are equal. Paul put it better when he said ‘in Christ there is neither MALE nor FEMALE’. From this we can infer that God looks down and sees a sexless humanity. No wait, God looks down and sees a sexless humanity, except that a section is advocating equality that is already glaring in the sight of God. Gender Equity (it might not make semantic sense) would rather be appropriate. Where we understand our sameness and uniqueness hence we give each person his or her due. Especially the basics of this life: choices, good education, health, respect, fair representation at gatherings etc.

We teach little girls to be better than their male counterparts. We hide this message in the cliché ‘what a man can do a woman do better’. It is unfortunate that there are people who hold this assertion. Who said being better than the men around you is equal to success? Right away we are implying that little girls would have to fight to do better than their male counterparts in order to feel fulfilled. What if she is surrounded by poor performing male counterparts? Does she attain success in life by merely being better than them? This is the height of insecurity. We should let little girls know that being good is good enough. They need not feel like they are in a competition with boys. We should let them know the only competition is their previous performance; hence they must move heaven and earth to beat that. We live in a right-handed society. Our aim is to make it ambidextrous. Ambidexterity will not be achieved by demeaning the right hand; it can only be achieved by empowering the left hand to be strong and improve. Right-handed people can get away with things like writing and eating but when it comes to bathing or cleaning themselves they cannot do it properly without the aid of the left hand. Similarly, when it comes to washing or ridding our society of irksome patriarchy, we need both hands to play a major role. How do these two come to work together in harmony when the left is hurling abusive words in the direction of the right?

I believe feminism is a worthy cause that men need to play an active role in. Gender Equality on the other hand stems from insecurity. There is no need to be equal when you are uniquely designed to fit together. Society is a giant 2-pieced jig-saw puzzle; society is supposed to be ambidextrous; one hand down-playing the importance of the other will do it no good.

Apparently, he had taken her along with him to America and found her a very lucrative work to do. Soon she grew wings, and soared way above his command and authority and therefore didn’t give him the respect due him. This old man, well over 60 years, clearly hadn’t gotten over the pain. He didn’t seem to care how inappropriate his personal experience was, as a contribution to our casual conversation. He went on and on. I looked at him and said to myself, ‘mehhnn I wouldn’t want to experience that, and even if I do I don’t want to be bitter about it for many years after’. When I look at my life and around me, I see the reenactment of this same story. For some funny reason, most of my friends, especially those in my inner circle have had bad experiences with women in their relationships. At least 7 of my friends have experienced this (I am not exaggerating). 7 of my closest friends have been treated badly in their relationships. 7!!!. And some of them have had this experience multiple times. And for others, though it has been many years since they were ditched, they are yet to understand why it had come to such an end. I do not understand it at all. These are guys I have known for many years and wouldn’t mind the idea of them dating my sister (if I had one). So for such fine gentlemen to be treated badly and disposed off, with the most unreasonable excuses, I find that rather strange. I haven’t had the best of experiences in that area of my life either. I am  too embarrassed to talk about them. It just doesn’t make sense. I know guys are notorious for taking their relationships for granted or toying with ladies’ emotions, but honestly tables are turning now. It appears  guys are on the receiving end now. So yes, I am doing this for the brothers. I am doing this for the brothers who have been hurt and are suffering deep inside because our societal norms stifle the expression of emotions in guys. I am doing this for all of you. I find it very annoying, the number of blog posts and articles one can find on the subject of ‘how to treat a woman’. Some of them have the most outrageous captions too. For example ‘crossing the 7 seas leading to a woman’s heart’ , ‘you are not good enough for her’, ’12 steps to take to make your woman happy’ and my personal favorite ‘how to swing successfully across 17 monkey bars into your woman’s arms’. Apparently it is impossible to walk into her arms, because you might just slip on a banana peel, so it’s better to swing on monkey bars.

Nobody seems to care about the fact that men need attention and understanding too. Of course we all agree that women can be a bit complex, but what is the sense in making every effort for a man to understand a complex woman and none at all in making the woman understand her man? We need a balance. We need to be understood too. It is obvious some ladies think they have us all figured out. So you will often hear them make such statements as ‘guys are just babies’. This shouldn’t come as a surprise at all to our dear ladies. We all have elements of childishness in us, when you do discover it in your man, good for you! Don’t  go about rubbing it in his face every day. The act of discovering the weakness of a person and rubbing it in his/her face isn’t particularly a mature act anyway.

I have discovered that most guys react in a very negative way after such ordeals. They tend to be very resentful and vengeful. Some go to the extreme extent of becoming very distrustful and emotionless in subsequent relationships. Listen, that isn’t good enough bruh! Yes, it is painful. Yes, it makes you doubt your worth. Every breath you take in after that day, makes you feel you are unworthy of the next because of your folly. The folly of believing that you were supposed to love her with every bit of you. Chill bruh! That is wrong! Just as there are good women, there are very mean ones out there. So if you encountered the mean ones, do your best to pick up the necessary lessons, dust yourself and move on to become a better person. No lady deserves the punishment for the sins of your previous partner. Work on yourself. Forgive and let go of the past. There is no need to be bitter. When you toss dried grains of maize from a bowl, the chaff floats away and the grains fall back into the bowl. When people leave your life, they are chaff: white powdery chaff. Let them go!

I believe when you feel hated or rejected it is best you focus on the love around you. The love of God is rather more than enough and it is best to feed on that greatly during such instances. Also, for us as guys it is best we feast on the love our first female lovers(our mothers) have for us. Some of us are treated as kings by our mothers. We literally see them devise means and ways to get us to eat even when we don’t want to. We feel like we are the center of their world. So when that lady isn’t giving you all her attention, turn your back and give your attention to the woman who does. More often than not, you will end up enjoying it.

‘Misogyny’ is basically a hatred of women as a sexually defined group; the definition is that simple and straight forward. So I was really taken aback when in the latter parts of last year, I found out  that there was a school of thought, that asserts that the Christian God (Yahweh), is misogynistic. Wow!!!! I think people who live their lives governed by this school of thought, actually need sound biblical schooling for their thoughts. I mean they can’t possibly be talking about the same God I know. Certainly not!! But then again, education has taught me to be very careful about jumping into conclusions when people seem to hold a different view from mine. So I decided to do a little reading about the topic, to find out what biblical evidence there was that supports this assertion. Lo and behold, there was  a website for women who are of this view. I decided to read the entire page. I couldn’t, because, apparently they claim there are over 300 verses in the bible that seem to suggest that God is misogynistic . Actually, the main reason why I couldn’t finish reading the entire page was the fact that the content of the web page is the most absurd analysis I have seen made of any portion of the bible. I mean if you would come up with such a controversial view, at least support it with facts. Leveling outrageous and uneducated accusations against such a loving God is totally wrong.

Paramount amongst the several examples cited in that write-up was the issue of polygamy. So there was a long list of men who got married to more than one wife in the bible, and this they said, makes the bible misogynistic. If what is said in the 2Timothy 3:16, concerning the fact that ‘every scripture is breathed(inspired) by God…’, is true, then one would have to read the entire bible or a sizable portion, before he can make an informed opinion of it. There are various ways of communicating to people. One is by making an emphatic statement of the truth, another is basically allowing the turn of events to send a strong message to the intended recipients. Concerning the issue of Christianity and polygamy, I think God opted for a mixture of the former and the latter. We see that though there were several polygamous marriages in the bible, yet there seems to be some sort of wrongdoing in most of them(if not all). A typical example is David’s story. Though he had a lot of wives, we see him still lust after another man’s wife. This implies that, the hunger for a new wife grows any time a man gets an additional wife. And if this is the case, God’s default setting for marriage is totally distorted. God’s default setting for marriage is seen in Eden, where He makes a woman out of the  ribs of Adam for him. This is enough proof that, God originally intended for every man to be married to one wife. Yet, we see a deviation from the norm. The bible says, a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife. I believe that answers it all. Another scenario in the bible, used in defense of this school of thought is Lot’s story. In connection to that, they said:  

                      Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel  rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8.

The fact that Lot was willing to surrender his daughters to the perverted men outside his door makes the entire bible misogynistic? And emphasis is laid on the point that the bible refers to him as a ‘just man’ in the New Testament. This scenario actually makes Lot fit for the name: a just man. Here is a man who has just been visited by angels of the Lord and he finds himself in a tight corner, since the perverted men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with his visitors. Lot in his decision to give up his daughters instead of the angels, actually proves how much he revered God. It is surprising that in their analysis of this issue, they did not take into consideration the fact that prior to this event, there could have been times when those men made advances at Lot’s daughters or came to ask for their hands in marriage. Obviously, Lot may have refused knowing what sort of men they were. It is very likely that this happened and does it show his hatred for his daughters in any way? You cannot say God hates women because of some of the misfortunes that happened in the lives of women in the bible, while totally ignoring those which happened to men. That is a biased judgment and highly hypocritical.

Honestly, there are a lot of issues to discuss as far as this topic is concerned. As I always say, a sequel to this blog is  inevitable. In conclusion I would like to say this,  God is not misogynistic, He loves everybody, and if there is ever a time when you doubt this truth, read your bible.

Here is a link to the website i made reference to >>> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html