http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5007
Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible
In
little more than half a century, American culture has experienced a
massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual
standards. One facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of
biblical values has been dramatically altered gender roles. The feminist
agenda has penetrated the American social landscape. Indeed, the onset
of the feminist movement in the turbulent 1960s sparked a significant
adjustment of societal norms resulting in the transformation of
virtually every sphere of American culture—from the home and the church
to the business world and beyond. Women now routinely serve in
historically male capacities, including the military, politics, sports,
and a host of community services including fire, police, ambulance, etc.
Make no mistake, a number of changes with regard to gender have emerged
that may be deemed beneficial and positive. Nevertheless, the
overall
impact on American civilization has been negative, and the erosion of
femininity has ushered in a host of evils that are hastening America’s
moral implosion (e.g., abortion and homosexuality). Concomitant with the
effort to eradicate gender differentiation has been the degradation of
masculinity and the restructuring of the family unit (the fundamental
building block of humanity—Genesis 1:27; 2:24). As womanhood has been
devalued and her function altered, the rest of society has suffered
dramatically. After all, women inevitably exert a profound influence on
culture and society—for good or ill. Virtuous femininity is the glue
that holds human civilization together. In the words of American poet
William Ross Wallace’s immortal poem, “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,
Rules the World” (1865). Sadly for America, feminism has overturned the
rocker, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, punched Dad in the face,
and stomped away from the house in a huff.
the bible still has the correct perspective
Amid this polarization that plagues American civilization in general,
and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between
those who wish to conform to Bible protocol and those who wish to
modernize, update, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of
those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the
past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply
because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say we are
the product of a male-dominated society and have consequently
misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
The underlying catalyst for this social turmoil, and resulting gender
confusion, has been the rejection of the Bible as the authentic Word of
the divine Being Who created the Universe and humans. Even among those
who continue to profess their allegiance to Christianity, large numbers
have capitulated to political correctness and abandoned the traditional,
i.e., biblical, depiction of gender roles as defined by the Creator. In
their quest to maintain relevance among the shifting sands of secular
culture, they have imbibed the spirit of the age, been infected by
humanistic philosophy, and consequently have compromised the clear
teaching of Scripture on the role of women (cf. “Gender Inclusive…,”
2013; “Believe It…,” 2006; Pauls, 2013; “The Role of…,” 2006; Stirman,
2010).
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being
reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one
who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be
restricted in worship, he is hailed as engaging in “fresh scholarly
exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God
intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is
guilty of prejudice and being unduly influenced by “Church tradition” or
“cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and
interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing
the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually
every segment of American society?
Nevertheless, Bible teaching on this subject is not that difficult to
ascertain. Recent attempts to redefine gender roles fall flat, not only
before a sensible assessment of relevant Bible passages on the subject,
but in the face of the 2,000 year history of Christianity which has, for
the most part, demonstrated a generally accurate grasp of the basic
parameters of God’s will on this matter. Such has certainly been true in
America where the Founders and 18
th century men and women
embraced the Christian worldview, and believed that “family integrity
was indispensable for the public safety and happiness” (West, 1997, p.
85).
Relevant Bible Passages
A detailed study of the relevant biblical texts in one article is
impossible. However, God’s Word is essentially simple on any significant
subject in the Bible [NOTE: For useful discussions see Hicks and
Morton, 1978; Piper and Grudem, 1991; Cottrell, 1992; Highers, 1991;
Laws, 1994; Warren, 1975; Miller, 1994; Miller, 1996.] In fact, it is
the more recently emerging “scholars” with their intellectual
complexities and imported seminary bias that have contributed to the
confusion over this subject (e.g., Osburn, 1993). Carroll Osburn
summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any
female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that
information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they
may be” (1994, p. 115). Is such a cavalier attitude to be allowed to so
easily dismiss the historical and biblical distinction between the
sexes? The reader is invited to give consideration to the following
brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of
women in leadership in worship and the church.
1 Corinthians
Chapters 11 and 14 of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing
with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of
11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together”
(cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural
principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to
know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and
the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but
to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for
women to be subordinate to men. [NOTE: The equality of male and female
in Galatians 3:28 pertains to salvation status, not role.] Corinthian
women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the
assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities,
i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a
direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in
chapter 14. In chapter 11, he focused on the propriety of females
removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an
authoritative act of leadership.
They recognized that to wear a symbol of submission to authority (the
veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative
fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence
that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to
an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a
directive stated explicitly in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law
(11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions
on women as
rooted in the created order—
not culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
Later in the same context (in chapter 14), Paul addresses further the
confusion over spiritual gifts and returns specifically to the
participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly.
He again emphasizes the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in
all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, “as in all
churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence.” Cf.
the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous
gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the
church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing
so was equivalent to (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word, and
(2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters 11 and 14 address a unique situation.
After all, spiritual gifts are no longer available to the church (1
Corinthians 13:8-11; see
Miller, 2003a), and veils, in Western society, are no longer a cultural symbol of female submission (see
Miller,
2003b; cf. Moore, 1998). Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the
clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination
in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying
submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of
the created order.
1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture
I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy
hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not
with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is
proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman
learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to
teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved
in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with
self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).
The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women
in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is proper
behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate
context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy
2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly,
but includes the general life of the church.
In this passage, Paul affirms that adult males (
andras) are to
lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands”
is a figure of speech, metonymy, in which a posture of prayer is put in
place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth from holy
lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus on appropriate
apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast framed in the
passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women
need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this
passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over
adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.
Authentein
should be translated “to have (or exercise) authority” (NKJV, ESV, NIV,
RSV, NASB). Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other
way to have authority over men in worship.
Why? Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian
women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul
merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment, stalling for
time and keeping prejudice to a minimum, until he could teach them the
Gospel? Absolutely not. The Holy Spirit gives the reason for the
limitations, and that reason transcends all culture and all locales.
Paul states that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men
because
Adam was created before Eve. Here we are given
the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to
function and interrelate. But what does the chronological priority of
Adam have to do with the interrelationship of male and female?
Grounded in Creation—Not Culture
Paul is saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male
first as an indication of
his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home.
He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the
church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was
specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a
subordinate—though not inferior—assistant. God could have created the
woman first, but He did not. He could have created both male and female
simultaneously,but
He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to
gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to
Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created
responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the
female is twice stated to have been created to be “an help meet
for him,”
i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This
explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that in a unique sense,
the woman was created
for the man—not vice versa. It
explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again,
as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this
understanding by stating “the woman whom You gave to be
with me”
(Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued in the
Corinthian letter on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was
the man created
for the woman; but the woman
for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of
naming
the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely
designed order, evidenced by the practice of primogeniture—the firstborn
male. God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to
communicate the authority/submission arrangement of the human race (cf. 1
Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborates on this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14
by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with
God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above
her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual
authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and
cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said
the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more
gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves
to their created function, but instead tamper with and act in violation
of divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally
follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He
spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His
subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to
yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather,
she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4).
When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your
wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam
had failed to exercise spiritual leadership, thereby circumventing the
divine arrangement of male-female relations.
Paul concludes his instructions by noting how women may be preserved
from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She
will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the
figure of speech known as synecdoche in which a part stands for the
whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility.
Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating
on the functions assigned to them by God, undertaken with faith, love,
and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives rather than to
men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the
home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural
with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11 suggests women in
general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul
was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict
wives from leadership roles in the church—but then permit single women
to lead?
Deaconesses
Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the
alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two
passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11.
In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek
word
diakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or
ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and
occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35;
10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2
Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21;
Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1
Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used
as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may
be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a
non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to.
Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and
non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be
rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those
conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of
deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred
to when the context plainly shows the office is under consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In
Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians
3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a
deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians
3:5. Obviously, these are all
non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul
was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. “Our
sister” designates her church membership and “servant” specifies the
special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an
active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a
formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul
is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2 translated “help” implies a technical usage. It is true that
prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that
diakonos
does in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse
explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical
usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul.
Even his fellow apostles did not do that since he exercised high
authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians
1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (
paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (
prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun
prostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun
prostatis
means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p.
718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.”
She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to
the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and
expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her
as an office holder in the church.
The second passage that some have appealed to in order to find sanction
for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a
listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What
women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he
referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the
underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since
gunaikas (from
gune)
also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife”
or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy:
“female” in 2:9-12,14 and “wife” in 3:2,12; 5:9.
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in
ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the
husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in a discussion of male deacons
from 3:8-13, it would be unusual to switch in the middle to female
deacons for one verse without some clarification. Third, referring to
the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct
is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could
simply mean that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons
without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus
2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with
gunaikas (“of
deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons since neither
is used in other cases where men/women are being described as
wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians
7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the
office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the
New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor
Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two
ministrae (female ministers). This term has the same ambiguity within it that
diakonos
has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as
easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a
passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy
evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not
refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss
church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian
Didascalia do
we find reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at
the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women
lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A
full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the
fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of
keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with
women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are
pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women would hardly be
content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not
have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over
men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to
the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem
church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males and their specific
task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate
within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon
establishing such an office do so without the authority of the
Scriptures behind them.
unequal or inferior?
A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and
women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way
implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28
(“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1
Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males
and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is
concerned. Women are often superior to men in talent, intellect, and
ability. Women are not inferior to men anymore than Christ is inferior
to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are
inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of
control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part
of
all human beings to the will of God (Ephesians
5:21). It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures,
male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement
regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of
function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for
us is: “How willing am I to fit myself into God’s arrangement?”
Conclusion
The role of gender, like most of the values of Western civilization, is
in the throes of confusion and redefinition. Those who resist
unbiblical redefinitions are considered tradition-bound, narrow-minded,
chauvinistic misogynists, as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased,
studied convictions on such matters; as if the Bible has been
misunderstood all these years. If the Bible authorized it, no man should
have any personal aversion to women having complete access to
leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women
possess abilities and talents that would enable them to
surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today.
Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible will remain
unaffected by and disinterested in the teaching of the Bible regarding
gender. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration
of God’s will on the matter. By those words we will be judged (John
12:48). For those who respect the Bible as the Word of God, Bible
teaching is fatal to the notion of female leadership in the church and
home. May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of Heaven.
References
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
“Believe It Or Not” (2006),
Christianity: Then and Now, ed. John Waddey, 5[11], July,
http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com/PDF/CTN%20July%2006.pdf.
Cottrell, Jack (1992),
Feminism and the Bible (Joplin, MO: College Press).
“Gender Inclusive and Egalitarian Churches in the Church of Christ Heritage” (2013),
http://www.wherethespiritleads.org/gender_inclusive_churches.htm.
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does
kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”
Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Hicks, John, and Bruce Morton (1978),
Woman’s Role in the Church (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).
Highers, Alan, ed., (1991), “Role of Women in the Church,”
The Spiritual Sword, 22[2], January.
Laws, Jim, ed. (1994),
Women To The Glory of God (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ).
Lewis, Jack (1988),
Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (1994), “An Exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (Part 1) & (Part 2),”
The Restorer, 14[3]:12-16 & 14[4]:9-14, March & April.
Miller, Dave (1996), “Feminist Attitudes Toward the Bible,”
The Spiritual Sword, 27[2]:3-6, January.
Miller, Dave (2003a), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0303b.htm.
Miller, Dave (2003b), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1275&topic=379.
Moore, Kevin (1998), We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui, NZ: Kevin Moore).
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),
Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994),
Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Pauls, Dale (2013), “Good news!: Naomi Walters Named Minister in
Residence at Stamford Church of Christ,” Reflections on Announcement,
July 7,
http://gal328.org/category/good-news/.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. (1991),
Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books).
“The Role of Women in the Church” (2006), Cole Mill Road Church of Christ,
http://www.colemillroad.org/.
Stirman, Sarah (2010), “Women in the Church: Moving Toward Equality,”
Abilene Report-News, February 25,
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/25/women-in-the-church-moving-toward-equality/
Wallace, William Ross (1865), “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World,” Poets’ Corner,
http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/wallace1.html.
Warren, Thomas, ed. (1975), “Woman—In the View of God,”
The Spiritual Sword, 6[4], July.
West, Thomas (1997),
Vindicating the Founders (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).
Woods, Guy N. (1986),
Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Renowned
atheist Carl Sagan speculated that humans may very well “remember”
dinosaurs. He recognized the ubiquity of dragon legends and indicated
that the “pervasiveness” of these stories “is probably no accident”
(1977, p. 149). Interestingly, Sagan hypothesized that “dragons posed a
problem for our protohuman ancestors of a few million years ago, and
that the terror they evoked and the deaths they caused helped bring
about the evolution of human intelligence” (p. 150). Sagan then
specifically addressed dinosaurs and dragons. He wrote:
