Response to "Does Female Rebellion Weaken Men?"

Most of you heard about the fiasco between John MacArthur and Beth Moore. He told her to “Go home” which is biblical and I applauded him for doing so. However, many Christians were outraged over it. This past Sunday, he preached a sermon in response called Does the Bible Permit a Woman to Preach? I encourage you ALL to listen to it. It is fantastic! 

I just did finish listening to it, and no, it was not fantastic. To be clear, I have listened to John MacArthur’s sermons before and generally enjoyed them. He comes across as very intelligent and learned, and has an easy and humorous way of making his points that I usually enjoy. But this sermon was far below what I expect of someone in a position like his. The arguments were lazy, the scholarship was poor and inconsistent (why was he happy to take the culture into consideration regarding head coverings, but not regarding other issues!?), and as much as he may not even have intended it, his tone dripped of disrespect to women. 

       Lori followed her introduction with a few of her favorite quotes from the sermon. I have to say, even though I generally was disappointed in the sermon, there were certainly better portions than the ones she calls her favorites. It seems she simply looked for those that were the most outrageous and contemptuous toward women. 

Women are collectively moving to take control over the Church as they are in the political arena. 

I will never not be shocked by this kind of claim. Men can declare themselves to be in complete control and dominant over the church and women, and there’s no problem. But if women merely have equal opportunity and the same rights as men, they are trying to take over? 

You don’t want children ruling over you and you don’t want women ruling you. 

John (and Lori), women are not children, not matter how desperately you want to view them that way. 

When the weaker take power, the strong grow weak. Men are being replaced by crazy women. We’re being dominated by women.

Like I said, dripping contempt for women. You couldn’t do better than this, John? And I don’t think you understand what it means to be strong. Let’s let Jesus help you: 

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.”

That is strength, John. Not your desperate attempt to prove that you’re macho by declaring yourself better than others because of your gender. True strength empowers others. It is not threatened by their empowerment, as you clearly are. Oh, and by the way, until you give birth, I wouldn’t be so quick to call women “weak.” 

Women aren’t even called to lead their families.

Neither are men. Why don’t you actually study the Bible, John? The Greek word Paul used for “head” does not imply leadership of any sort. You and others who share your view impose your own ideas when you add the concept of leadership. And all believers are told to submit to each other, so submission clearly does not imply subservience. Husbands and wives should lead their family together, as a team. This is not difficult. 

 Women are vulnerable when they come out from under the protection of a man, as Eve was when she came out from under the protection of Adam. God designed women to be cared for, protected, and led by men. They’re vulnerable when they’re not.

This idea appears nowhere in the Bible. It is the invention of insecure men who have to be needed and have superhero complexes. The idea that Eve was deceived by the snake because she was alone and didn’t consult Adam before eating the fruit isn’t even hinted at in Genesis. It is simply based on presuppositions. Women are not any more in need of being cared for, protected, or led than men. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest this; in fact, this sort of idea originated with the Greek philosophers that predated Paul by several centuries. John has the audacity to present Aristotle’s negative view of women as if it appeared somewhere in the Bible! 

Wherever you have a woman preacher, you have a weak husband. Wherever you had women pastors, you have weak men.

If a woman preaching is enough to elicit this reaction, believe me, you already had a weak man. Only an already weak person could be weakened by someone else being strong. A truly strong person does not feel threatened by others having rights. 

 Where you have strong families with strong men and submissive women who are raising godly children, you have a healthy society.

This is a subtle tactic used to manipulate people into the patriarchal view. They exploit the fact that so many Christians believe our society is deteriorating rapidly, in order to stir up their fear; then they blame this deterioration on the fact that we are moving towards equality between men and women. Of course, they have no evidence that these two phenomena have anything to do with each other. Nevertheless, once they have made this alleged association, many who would otherwise see through the tactic become preoccupied with the state of our society and find themselves agreeing with the entire statement. 

       Of course, I would argue that equality and mutual respect between men and women can only improve society. I don’t understand how someone could believe that a master/servant dynamic that treats women as children, prevents them from reaching their full potential, and places many individuals in positions of authority for which they aren’t qualified simply because they’re men, could possibly be better than simply allowing everyone to function according to their individual strengths and recognizing the full equality of all people. 

       One chilling realization I had while listening to MacArthur’s sermon was that, if his words were modified to refer not to women and submission, but to colored people and slavery, I could easily imagine him delivering a nearly identical sermon in the 1800s. And that’s the point that John, Lori, and others need to realize. The Bible could be used to justify slavery, polygamy, and other terrible things if we insist on what they refer to as the “plain meaning.” Of course, John himself recognizes that verses about these other issues are not as straightforward as they seem. I just wish he would stop clinging to his precious traditions and realize the same about the equality of women. 

       John doesn’t realize that what he is arguing for is not as counter-cultural as he thinks (or maybe he does and is simply too arrogant to admit it). It was the norm in the Greco-Roman culture during the time Paul wrote. Careful study reveals that Paul actually taught a very counter-cultural equality for men and women. John makes the same mistake so many make: approaching the Bible as if it were written yesterday, in America, in English.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/?s=Does+female+rebellion