Why is it that over 99 percent of those sitting in the congregation are not leading or preaching and half of them are men? Are these men oppressed too?
Don't be silly, Ken. You know the difference. The men who are not in leadership positions are not forbidden from those positions because of their gender, something we can't say of the women. No one suggested everyone should be a pastor and that anyone who isn't is being oppressed. But if you're told that you're unfit for a position because of who you are fundamentally, that's quite a bit different.
I find it all a bit comical, yet alarmingly biblically ignorant when someone teaches that women are oppressed in the churches because they cannot lead or teach men.
Yes, I'm sure you find it comical, since it's happening to you. Would you still find it comical if it were you being discriminated against because of your unchangeable nature?
Kris's article makes the point that throughout the entire Bible, it is only a few verses written by Paul that seem to argue for restrictions for women. Ken responds in this way:
This is simply blatantly false! God created Adam first and then made Eve his Helper. From the very beginning, woman was made for man, not man made for woman. Then throughout the Bible, God regularly instituted men as the leaders. They were kings, prophets, patriarchs, and the entire cast of priests were all men. By any account, overwhelmingly male leadership is in every book of the Bible, not just coming from one author. There is no true biblical leadership position held by women in the Old Testament except for Deborah, and she arrives on the scene in the messed up time of Judges where “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”
I've made many similar rebuttals before so let's just breeze through it. The fact that Adam was created first says nothing about leadership; if it did, the animals (who were created before Adam) would be leaders over him. Some people merely assume men are leaders and then twist Genesis to support this. The Hebrew word for "helper", "ezer", does not mean "assistant" or "subordinate." This word was used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself, so I really hope Ken figures this out soon and stops calling God his assistant. Yes, most of the leaders in the Bible were men; if Ken were to study history, he would realize that this was true everywhere, not just regarding those appointed by God. Practically every culture was patriarchal; this was simply reality. Many of them were shepherds too...does Ken think there's significance in this as well? Many of them had multiple wives too, and owned slaves. If Ken is going to argue that if the Bible records it, it must endorse it, then he'll have serious problems. Finally, he cannot avoid bringing up Deborah, but he tries to explain away her leadership (rather unconvincingly of course!). In fact, there were far more women in such positions than Deborah. For example: Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus. 15:20). Huldah was a prophetess (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:11-33). Noadiah was a prophetess (Nehemiah. 6:14). Isaiah’s wife was a prophetess (Isaiah 8:3). Try reading the whole Bible, Ken, not just the verses that help you justify your supposed superior status over women.
The minor exceptions only serve to prove the rule of almost 100 percent male leadership in the Bible.
They say this a lot, but why? If exceptions are recorded, I would think that would be devastating to the idea that a rule is all-encompassing and comprehensive. But, of course, they'll bend whatever they need to protect their precious opinions.
How about all of the authors of the Bible being men, the forerunner of Christ a man, Christ Himself, His twelve disciples/apostles, and all the elders of the Church throughout history until now, all men. Even when a disciple’s spot was open, the choice was only between two men.
Again, Ken finds significance where none exists. All of this took place in highly patriarchal societies. The Bible simply recognizes this; it doesn't endorse it. At a time when any message from women would be ignored, is it any surprise that God would have spoken through men? I wonder what Ken would think of the fact that portions of the Bible (such as Proverbs 31) were written by women?
Also, Jesus and the disciples and Jesus were also unanimously Jewish. Would Ken make a similar argument that this means all pastors must be Jewish? No, I have a feeling suddenly Ken would become much more interested in context.
How can anyone in their right mind overlook all of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that the Bible speaks almost exclusively of male leadership?
The answer is contained in your question, Ken! Precisely because they are in their right mind! And what "mountain" of evidence are you talking about? A few proof-texts? If you had a mountain of evidence, I think you would just present it, rather alluding to it vaguely and hoping your readers are too dumb to check into it for themselves. How typical of those who try to harness God and the Bible for their own ends.
Okay, we can name a number of very important women in the Bible but assigning leadership to any but Deborah is nebulous. Yet not one was King over Israel or High Priest or any type of priest. Do you recall a woman prophet recognized as a leader in the major and minor prophets?
This is unbelievable. He's doing it again? He's literally arguing that what the Bible records is what the Bible endorses! Okay, Ken, find me an Old Testament patriarch who had one wife. There, I just argued that polygamy is okay! The disturbing part is that Ken is not this ignorant. He must know the frailty of his arguments. He simply isn't putting out much effort because he believes the women he's trying to oppress won't see through what he's doing. He's using manipulation rather than an honest appeal to facts and argument.
It is so frustrating having to waste time talking about minor exceptions when the clear rule is so clearly stated, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12).
Well, of course it's frustrating! He simply wants people to listen to him because he's a man and not pester him with all these questions! Sorry, Ken, you're not God. If you say something (and especially if it sounds this dumb), we're going to check it out.
Again, I've dealt with 1 Timothy 2 before, so I'll briefly mention here: the Greek word for "quiet" does not mean absolute silence, but orderliness. Elsewhere Paul refers to women speaking and prophecying in church, so clearly he didn't mean to tell them not to speak at all. And the Greek word for "authority" does not refer to legitimate authority, but rather a dominating, overbearing authority (kind of like what Ken thinks men should have over women). Timothy was dealing with a pagan cult that believed women should be dominant over men, so Paul was countering this and emphasizing that men and women should be equal. Ken would prefer to ignore all this, however. It would burst his bubble.
And one should acknowledge that the apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, has given us more than half of the Church’s doctrinal theology. So if you want to throw Paul out, you are left with very little understanding of what Christ has done for us or who we are in Christ Jesus.
No one is throwing Paul out Ken. Some of us simply want to study to understand what he really meant instead of twisting his words to defend ideas that would make him turn over in his grave! Those who refuse to look into context and translational ambiguities disrespect the Bible and use it for their own ends.
Are all who are not gifted with the gift of teaching oppressed? Why is it only “empowerment” to be leading and teaching men? This is feminist brainwashing at its best.
Once again, I'm not convinced Ken is this clueless. I suspect he does really understand, but hopes the rest of us don't. Which is the criteria for excluding someone from a teaching role? Here, he claims it is whether an individual has a teaching gift. I think that's a great criterion, but that isn't what Ken really thinks. Ken's criterion is whether a person is male or female. He believes women who have a teaching gift should not use it (or perhaps he believes none have it at all). He is being dishonest here, using a straw-man and a false analogy. Does he really think no one will notice?
The “cultural” argument is an argument from silence as there is zero proof for such an opinion, and that is all it is. One’s guess or hypothesis on a matter that the scriptures are not just silent but speak directly against. It’s a convenient opinion when the Word of God does not give you the answer you are looking for to call it “cultural.”
Forgive me for repeating myself, but once again, Ken is either lying or inexcusably ignorant. There are plenty of books and articles that provide compelling evidence that the cultural context must be taken into account in order to understand what Paul meant. The truth is that Ken simply doesn't like the conclusion such further study leads to, so he instead chooses what evidence he likes and ignores the rest (even lying to others and telling them it doesn't exist!). This is exactly how you twist the Bible to support your own opinions rather than allowing it to speak for itself.
Beyond this, whenever I hear of another Christian leader or teacher teaching this false doctrine I cringe, knowing that within a few years the hole they have now opened in their views of the inerrancy of the Bible will soon be larger and larger until there is little left for them to trust or believe in God’s perfect instruction manual. It almost always begins with, “That apostle Paul!” and ends with accepting a myriad of sins as acceptable, particularly their own sins. One cannot throw out the apostle Paul’s writings as cultural and stay true to the inerrancy of the Word.
Ken is on a roll with argumentative fallacies, so there's no reason to stop now. Here we have the slippery-slope fallacy, which, besides being a fallacy, also doesn't apply in this case. Many egalitarians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They simply respect the Bible more than complementarians because they study it beyond just reading it in one version and then assuming whatever it sounds like in English must have been what the original author intended. Basically, Ken is trying to scare us into thinking too hard. Sorry, Ken, it didn't work.
Is there anything that could wake Ken up to the fact that he is defending not the Bible, but 1st century Greek and Roman culture? Unfortunately, I doubt there is much chance. After all, Ken's ideas conveniently work very strongly in his favor. That is, after all, why they are so important to him. As a result, he has put forth an unconvincing attempt to protect his delusions of supremacy that will fail to convince any besides those who already agree with him. I would suggest that Ken consider how he might apply the following verses to his own life:
Matthew 20:25-28: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’”
Philippians 2:3: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…”
Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/are-most-men-oppressed-in-the-churches/
No comments:
Post a Comment