Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this post risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear, this is about after we're Saved.  He's saying these distinctions don't exist within in the Church, not that they're irrelevant to getting in.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.  But plenty in both of those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

Likewise with "Bond nor Free", when Christians are pointing out how many of the Abolitionists were driven by their Faith, this is among the Bible Verses they cited to support abolishing Slavery.  And yet the same modern Christians who think those Abolitionists were so right about Slavery will go 'how dare you think we should abolish gender'.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they (and us still) were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham (which was always the plan in Genesis 12), so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Bride of Christ doctrine, using an Old Testament custom as an illustration of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is still patriarchal.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambiguous statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there were no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.  The context of the verses around it, 26-29, are basically saying we've not any of these other classes because we are now all in Christ and thus all Sons of God like Christ.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.  And I read this interesting post on naming conventions.

Update October 2018: I have written this follow up post going more into passages not addressed here.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html

The Libertarian Party seems to be the only third party making any effort to do more then just Presidential election

That is something I've noticed as I try to look into state and local elections.

The Green Party seems to naturally want the President to solve everything on their own.  But it's funny that the Constitution Party is the one that most preaches the value of states rights, based on their Paleo-Conservative interpretation of the 10th Amendment, but they are making no no effort to win State elections.

I happen to live in Paul Ryan's congressional district,  So this November I'll have the opportunity to vote for Jason Lebeck for Ryan's Congressional seat, and Phil Anderson for Senate.

August 9th (this Tuesday) will be the Primary for those elections.  And I'm considering voting for Paul Nehlen just to further stick it to Ryan.  If by some chance Ryan lost the primary, the chaos that would create would further open the door for Lebeck.  Wisconsin is an open Primary, so if you're going to vote for a not Republican no mater what, take the opportunity to stick it to Ryan.

For the Senate primary however, Ron Johnson has no Republican opposition, and the not establishment pick Democrat is Scott Harbach, who is frankly what I call a Trump Democrat.  So don't vote for him, make your Protest vote a write in, Incitatus always works for Senate.

Returning to Third Parties.  When Third Parties became major parties in the 1800s, it was from gaining ground up success and support in Congress first.  The desire to put all efforts into just the Presidency is part of what current ones are doing wrong.  Even the Libertarian Party to an extent.

Vote Third Party for President, but support any Third Party running locally too.  We need to break this system.

In places where the Libertarians are the only Third Option.  I know my Liberal friends despise the Economic and Gun policy of Libertarians, but they are the true Pacifists on Foreign Policy, and do not compromise on individual Liberty, things like LGBT rights and ending the Drug War, and they can be trusted more on those issues then Democrats.  So yes vote Green Party if you're a progressive and it's an option, but if not vote Libertarian, you have much to gain and nothing to lose.

Immigration and Abortion are the two most notable issues Libertarians are divided on.  And sadly it seems the above mentioned Wisconsin candidates seem to lean to the right on those (while Gary Johnson and Weld themselves are Liberals on those issues).  But they will still be much more reasonable on those issues then a Republican party lead by Trump.