As I am sure you have all heard, John MacArthur was asked what he thought about Beth Moore and he responded, “Go home.” Many were up in arms over this statement and especially that people laughed after he said it. I listened to it right after it was posted and before seeing how others responded to it. When he said, “Go home,” I laughed and clapped my hands. I thought it was a perfect answer!
I suppose it was inevitable that I, too, would address the John MacArthur/Beth Moore controversy. I am, of course, disappointed that someone in such a prominent teaching role in Christianity would be so disrespectful (and laugh about it). What always surprises me is how someone like him who isn't new to Christianity and does have a lot of biblical knowledge, can nevertheless be so simplistic in their beliefs regarding the role of women in the church. It doesn't take much reflection to notice that there are only a few verses that could even be used to keep women out of leadership roles, and it doesn't take a lot of research to discover that these verses are either specific to a certain church or situation, have nuances in the translation that distort the meaning in the original language, and are better understood to not really be placing such restrictions on women when understood in the context of the whole Bible. Many prominent Bible teachers have fairly sophisticated views of other matters and have no problem, for example, investigating the original Greek, but when it comes to this issue they suddenly prefer to dumb it down and not look beyond the "plain meaning" as if it were written in English. I suspect this is because they prefer to cling to their traditions (which, of course, are based on ancient culture rather than the Bible) rather than admit that perhaps they've been wrong all this time.
Having said that, I have a few comments on some things Lori says in the remainder of her blog.
If women are not to teach or be in authority over men because they are more easily deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), then what right do they have to teach any biblical doctrine other than what God has specifically commanded they teach (biblical womanhood – Titus 2:3-5)?
It is, of course, a ludicrous claim that women are more easily deceived by men. The verse Lori provides mentions the fact that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived in order to correct false doctrine in the Ephesian church based on local cults that exalted women over men and claimed that Eve was created first. But this is far from saying all women are more easily deceived by all men. Besides, which is better: to be tricked into eating the fruit? Or to do it deliberately (as the story implies Adam did?) Also, if women are more easily deceived and therefore more likely to teach what is false, why would they be given the responsibility of teaching children, who would be the most vulnerable to such wrong teaching? In reality, some people are more easily deceived than others, but it has nothing to do with gender.
The older I get, the more I see the wisdom in all of this. God gave men the ministry of teaching the Word of God (elders are to be the “husband of one wife”). He gave them the ministry of teaching the major doctrines of the Word.
If Lori were to actually study the Bible for herself rather than just take the word of men who interpret it for her, she may realize how little she actually understands it. We must study the Bible, not just skim it for the parts that allow us to bully women. Nowhere does the Bible say only men have been given the ministry of teaching the word of God. At the time the Bible was written, it was primarily men who were preachers (because of the low status of women in that culture), but the initially preachers were also unanimously Jewish; and we certainly don't hold modern preachers to that standard.
He gave men the strong, low voices to preach behind the pulpits in the churches.
Strong, low voices? Is Lori implying that men with high voices can't be preachers, or that women with strong, low voices can? How ridiculous.
He tells women that if they have a question to ask their husbands at home NOT learn the Word of God from other women.
The women who were told to ask their husbands questions at home were uneducated and disrupting the church service to ask the speaker questions (a common practice in public assembly at the time). Lori is missing the real point of this passage: Paul was concerned that the service not be disrupted (though the concern was lack of education, not gender), but more radical was his suggest that women ask questions at home in order to learn. The Jews of the time saw no reason for women to receive any religious instruction at all. Paul is emphasizing the fact that the women ought to have the opportunity to learn the things they don't know that are causing them to ask the questions in the first place. This matches up nicely with Jesus commending Mary for sitting at his feet and learning rather than Martha for being a keeper at home (Luke 10:38-42).
They can know biblical doctrine inside out and backwards but if they aren’t living in submission to their husband and aren’t being keepers at home, they are blaspheming the Word of God (Titus 2:5). Most female Bible teachers are blaspheming the Word of God.
Actually, it is Lori who is blaspheming the Word of God. This is evident if we try to understand what Paul meant in these verses. Paul is urging women to follow the customs of the time (being keepers at home and living according to cultural expectations). He wanted to make sure the Gospel wasn't mistaken as primarily a social movement, but rather had to do with internal change. He also didn't want people to be turned off by those preaching the Gospel because they were living in a way that would be considered socially subversive (which would "blaspheme" the Word). Paul is not commanding women to be keepers at home because there's anything spiritually significant in this. Rather, he is recognizing social customs and telling women to conform to them as much as possible. Therefore, in order to avoid blaspheming the Word today, women ought to consider the social customs of our time (not those of Rome 2,000 years ago as Lori suggests). Since Lori insists we reject social customs for no reason, she is causing the Gospel to fall into disrepute.
I won’t learn the Bible from any woman. I want to learn it from men of God. God gave this ministry to men and I don’t want to overstep the boundaries God has given to me. I will continue to teach biblical womanhood as long as the Lord gives me the ability to do so. There are few who teach this but many who try to teach the Bible. (It’s a lot easier to teach the Bible to women than it is to teach biblical womanhood, that’s for sure!).
Yes, we get it Lori. You want to make sure we all know how righteous you are. I just want to say, though, that the last sentence here seems rather silly. Easier to teach the Bible (which, if done well, requires comprehensive knowledge of the Bible itself, history, culture, translation, etc.), than merely to tell women to go home and how to cook and clean? I'm sure Lori wants to feel that what she teaches is advanced and difficult, but unfortunately that is not something about which she can boast.
She closes with the following verses (which I include with her commentary, which, I suspect, must be a form of teaching the Bible?):
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS [these verses are for ALL the churches of the saints! not just for those back then as many will try to convince you]. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
Lori would love to convince us that her opinion is correct, but I would respond with my comments above regarding the time- and culture-specific nature of this command. Yes, the command is for all the churches, but the command itself is to conform to the customs and laws of the present culture, and the 1st century Roman culture is not present for us. There is a hint in the verse itself that discredits Lori's view: it says the women are not permitted to speak, "as also saith the law." The law Paul refers to is not anything in the Bible (no such command exists in the Old Testament), but rather, the Jewish/Roman laws of the time. Which is exactly what I said above: Paul is urging believers to obey the law and customs to the extent possible. We ought to follow this command today as well, but it will look very different from how it looked then.
Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/male-preachers-calling-out-female-preachers/
No comments:
Post a Comment