Response to "Gender Perversion in the Home and the Church."

       Lori’s latest blog is an article written by Pastor Aaron Brummitt. It is over 3,300 words but could have been shortened dramatically, while retaining the exact same message, if he had simply said the following: “I know nothing about what I’m writing about but I think men are better than women and will do whatever I can to use the Bible to prove this.” But, since brevity was not his goal, I cannot hope to answer every point he makes. I will do my best to cover the highlights. 

Men and women were not created equal in every aspect and are distinctly different emotionally and biologically. Based upon these differences, God gave each of the two sexes well-defined roles in the home and the church. 

There are two things to note here. First, he makes the same old mistake of failing to understand the difference between “equal” and “same.” Always be on the lookout for the use of either of these words. When they say “equal,” they really mean “same”, but we don’t. Egalitarians don’t believe all people are the same; they simply believe we all have equal rights and should have equal opportunities. We must not allow complementarians to hide behind this dishonest misrepresentation. 

       Second, he says God commanded different roles for men and women based on these differences. There are two types of complementarians: those who believe men and women are equally capable of tasks such as leading, teaching, etc., but that God simply reserved these roles for men for the sake of maintaining order (it could just as easily have been blonds and brunettes); and those who believe there really are differences in the abilities of men and women, that women are not as good as men at tasks like these, and therefore should not be allowed to do them. Clearly he falls under the latter category. 

Beginning with the biological wiring of men and women, we find three distinctions. First and foremost, the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. The Apostle Peter writes, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7). According to the National Strength and Conditioning Association, “Women generally produce about two-thirds the amount of total strength and applied force that men produce.” Every study, to date, has concluded that muscular strength and physical stamina is higher, on average, in men as opposed to women.

Egalitarians don’t deny this; they simply deny that it’s a valid reason to tell women they can’t preach or make decisions for themselves. 

Second, the Lord created man and woman with different biological organs for reproduction.

Wow, I had no idea! 

Third, we find that the woman was created to be more emotional than the man.

Clearly this guy has never seen a group of men watching the Superbowl. 

Due to the distinct differences in physical strength, reproduction, and emotions, God has given men and women unique roles in the home and the church. The scripture teaches us, in the first two chapters of Genesis, the woman was made for the man, and not man for the woman. 

The word “helpmeet” in Hebrew is the word ezer neged, which literally means “worthy helper,” “proper helper,” or “well-equipped helper.” 

       He fails to mention, of course, the fact that “ezer” was used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself, and therefore does NOT mean subordinate or assistant. 

The first sin ever committed by humanity, was committed by the woman when she listened to the serpent and not her husband.

That’s funny, I thought Eve listened to the serpent and not God. Aaron is either severely mixed up or intentionally trying to deceive us. Of course, it’s not surprising; complementarians do generally confuse men with God. 

Christian author, Debi Pearl writes, “Satan could have tempted [Adam]. But Satan waited – waited for the creation of the weaker vessel.” She goes on to write, “Satan knew that the man could not be [easily] deceived, but the woman could.”

Let’s consider this for a moment. Eve is put down for sinning, while Adam is upheld as the standard of righteousness and resilience to temptation. And yet, for Eve to sin, it took all the serpent’s efforts to form an elaborate argument to convince her. What did it take to convince Adam to do the same? Eve simply said “here, eat this.” And Adam said “OKAY!” *Chomp* So maybe Debi Pearl ought to rethink this point a little? It could just as easily be argued that the serpent chose Eve because he knew if she was stronger, and if SHE fell, it would be easy for Adam to fall after her. 

After the Fall, God firmly and protectively set up the gender roles for humanity. In Genesis 3, God said to the woman: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he SHALL RULE over thee.”

The willful ignorance of complementarians on this point never ceases to amaze me. The biblical text literally says right here than men ruling over women was not part of God’s design, but actually part of the curse, the result of sin. It takes an extreme kind of desire to impose your own ideas on the Bible to miss this point. 

According to the scriptures, the woman is commanded by the Lord to obey her husband and be in subjection to him. As Christ is the head of the man, so also the man is the head of the woman in all things.

No, Paul uses a Greek word meaning “obey” when referring to children and parents, and slaves and masters, but he chose a different word for wives and husband specifically to AVOID implying that wives are to obey their husbands. 

In the Greek, the word “submit” is the word hupotasso, which literally means “to obey, to place yourself under another, to allow yourself to be subdued by another, to subject yourself unto another.” 

Nice try, but no. He has given the definition of “hupotasso” in a military application (and I do hope he doesn’t consider marriage to fall under this category). In a non-military application, it means “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.” It has been suggested that the best way to translate this word into English would be “be supportive of.” Paul did not have anything remotely like obedience in mind. He tells husbands to love their wives and wives to be supportive of their husbands - two sides of the same coin. Paul had equality in mind here, and yet there is no shortage of those who would try to twist it to say the opposite! 

From Genesis to Revelation, God’s word does not bend on this topic. God intends the husband to rule the home, and the wife and children to be in subjection to his leadership. This apparent gender inequality is not to degrade women, but exists rather to bring honor to each gender uniquely.

I’d really like someone to explain to me how subordinating women as a result of their very nature does not degrade them, but I digress. There is not a single verse in the Bible that tells men to rule their wives and home. Paul easily could have included this, but he didn’t. All he ever tells husbands to do is love and care for their wives, and to sacrifice for them. Sounds pretty submissive to me! 

       He then transitions to the supposed separate roles of men and women in the church. He cites the following familiar passages: 

I Corinthians 14:33-35: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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.

There are 30 different words in Greek that could be translated “speak.” Paul specifically chose the one that simply means “talk” or “converse.” Women in that time and culture were generally confined to the home and did not understand how to act in public. Counter to the culture, Paul insisted both men and women be present in church, but the women didn’t realize it was rude to have conversations during the service. Paul was simply telling them not to chat with their friends during the service. That’s it. There’s nothing here about something specific to women that makes it shameful for them to speak. 

I Timothy 2:10-14: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The same point can be made here, along with the fact that the word for “silence” Paul chose is the same he used when he told all believers in 1 Thes. 4:11 to live “quiet and peaceful lives.” So he’s referring to maintaining peace and order, not literal silence. Also, the word used for “authority” is not the one meaning legitimate authority, but a domineering, controlling authority (like the kind complementarians think men should have!). Timothy was dealing with a female-dominant cult in the Ephesian church, and Paul was simply telling him that women should not rule over men any more than men should rule over women.  

       But, of course, Aaron thinks the case is closed with the plain English reading: 

Based on these two passages, it is very clear that godly women should never usurp the authority of men or teach them in the church. Both of these passages speak directly to the heresy of adult women teaching adult men. 

Many Christians are far too quick to use the word “heresy” to refer merely to something with which they disagree. It’s a way to bully people and frighten them into giving in and not thinking critically. But two can play at this game: the way complementarians worship men and grant them roles and positions that belong to God alone is nothing short of IDOLATRY. 

Furthermore, we find zero instances where women prophesied the word of God to men, practiced street preaching, traveled as evangelists, or led church services. 

False. I’m beginning to think Aaron has never actually read the Bible. 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 says “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.” (don’t worry about the point about head coverings, this was a cultural issue - even John MacArthur admits this!). This passage is referring to church meetings, and therefore, this is an explicit reference to women leading the church in prayer and prophesying (which could mean teaching, exhorting, etc.). Aaron, you need to stop ignoring the portions of the Bible you don’t like and that don’t fit your agenda. 

God never designed a woman to be a preacher. The word “preach” in the Greek is the word kerusso, which means “to herald, as a public crier, especially divine truth – the gospel.” God designed men with a stronger voice to handle situations that require being heard at great distances. For example, military commanders, in war time, are required to be heard over the sound of battle and at great lengths.

Clearly this guy has never heard my Mom yell. I know many women with powerful voices and men with weak voices...what’s your point?!

I emphasize the importance of a single woman having a proper authority in her life. Without a husband, or a godly father, a single woman needs to submit to the protection of her church elders.

And why is God not enough for her? Why are you so desperate for women to be dependent on men? 

There is no scriptural allowance for a woman to override her meek and quiet spirit to win a soul. 

Yup, you heard him correctly: silencing women is more important to him than winning souls!

In conclusion, there is much confusion in the world today about gender roles. Satan has worked hard to raise up an army of feminists and counterfeit “christians” to blaspheme the word of God. The demon of divination and the spirit of Jezebel are both hard at work teaching women to follow many false doctrines. Tragically, these spirits are seducing the next generation of young ladies to usurp the authority of the man, cast off their God given role as keepers at home, and become street preachers, woman pastors, and New Age theologians.

If Satan has done anything, it is to convince so many in the church that somehow silencing half its members was a good idea. 

       And for crying out loud, there is no such thing as a Jezebel spirit in the Bible! This was made-up simply as an attack on women whenever no legitimate arguments could be made against them.

       Beware anyone who adds so much of his own ideas to the Bible and calls them divine revelation, especially when those ideas so conveniently elevate him at the expense of others. 

Response to "How Young Should Women Marry?"

       Well, this is quite a weird blog from Lori. I’ve never heard her views on this topic, but I have to say I’m not surprised!

       This is a follow-up to her recent post in which she tried to find a servant- I mean, wife- for a young man who follows her. She included a comment from him that mentioned a young woman he is interested in. The only problem is that he’s 24, and she just turned 17. He wanted to know Lori’s thoughts on this potential obstacle.

       Lori’s own advice is that he get to know her better and then, if she’s the one, marry her when she turns 18. But, as she does whenever she needs the input of a diverse, objective, wise group of people (heavy sarcasm!), she consulted the women in her chat room. One woman wrote the following:

“By the way, a few decades ago or more, nobody would have thought twice about these ages. In fact, a young woman was actively encouraged to marry around 17 or 18 and to marry a man several years older so that he could provide for her. A young man of her own age would not be prepared yet to provide for a family. Plus, a slightly older man would inspire respect for his leadership more naturally. Most women expected to marry right out of high school to a man in his mid-twenties. That was completely normal. I think we have gotten too peer-oriented and expected men and women to marry within their very narrow peer group. Yet if they wait until the man is established enough to provide for a family before they settle down, they have dated for years and not been chaste in the process.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. First, the fact that something was considered normal in the past does not prove that it is good. Nobody thought twice about owning people as slaves for most of recorded history either. Second, I suspect the lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rate were major factors in encouraging women to marry young and have children as soon as possible, and of course these are no longer the concerns they used to be. 

       Also, am I the only one slightly creeped out by her comment that “a slightly older man would inspire respect for his leadership more naturally”? Is it just me, or do those who follow patriarchy/complementarianism seem a little confused about the distinction between husbands and fathers? Don’t get me wrong, there’s certainly nothing wrong with marrying someone somewhat older or younger than you are (as long as you have chosen to do so freely), but it’s odd to push for it as an ideal, and it’s definitely chilling to do so because it facilitates the authority/subordinate dynamic. Yet again, this shows that such people really don’t understand what a marriage relationship can and should be: a partnership of two equals who both respect each other. Instead, they are obsessed with creating a dynamic in which the wife is intentionally kept as juvenile as possible while the husband plays a role more like an overbearing father than a husband. They are obsessed with respect, but feel it should only go in one direction. 

       One more thought regarding the woman’s comment above: she reveals that the real reason they push for marriage at such a young age: they are obsessed with maintaining virginity above all else. The earlier you get married, they reason, the more likely you are to stay “pure.” But this is a clear case of the chronic internal inconsistency we see in patriarchal ideas. They push young women to marry as quickly as possible, or else they won’t be able to control themselves, but they recommend men wait until they’re older to get married and feel it’s entirely safe for them to do so. At the same time, they push the idea that it is men who have an uncontrollable sexual nature, and that women don’t really even have such desires! Which is it???

       How old should women wait to get married? Our culture encourages women to go to college/university, gain a lot of debt, and then find a job/career so they can pay the debt off and “find themselves.” (Instead of finding themselves, they need to be finding who they are in Christ; for this has rewards on this earth and for eternity!)

       Lori seems reluctant to come out and say it, but clearly she includes herself in the camp of those who believe women should get married as young as possible. Indeed, if there is no reason for women to get an education, have a career, develop a personality, or have goals and pursuits of her own, why wait? If a woman’s entire purpose is to clean a house and pop out babies for a man, might as well get started as early as the law allows! Of course, this only perpetuates the problem; people like Lori push women to be this way, essentially preventing them from developing into adults, and then point to these women as examples of the fact that women are in need of protection and guidance from a man. It’s no different from putting some bread dough in a box to rise and remarking at the fact that it came out as a loaf in the shape of the box, and concluding that it must be the nature of bread to be square. 

       So when should women marry? Whenever they want to and feel ready, which will be different for everyone. Needless to say, no one should be pushed to marry if they’re not ready, especially not by the use of scare tactics such as reminding them daily that their fertility is supposedly diminishing rapidly. I myself got married at 25 and felt that if I had married any younger, I would not have been ready. I changed very much between the ages of 23 and 25, and I suspect a lot of people do the same. While some have gotten married as young as 18 and have happy marriages, there is still so much development most of us have left at that age. Also, there is great value in having a spouse with some experience taking care of themselves and living in the real world prior to being married, so they can be a more capable and equal partner. Of course, it’s the word “partner” to which Lori is so opposed in the first place. Lori and her type need to stop treating wives like cattle whose usefulness must be taken advantage of during their most productive years but have little to no purpose once past their prime. 



Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/how-young-should-women-marry/

Response to "Preaching and Teaching Are Different."

       As much as Lori claims she simply ignores those who disagree with her and doesn’t allow herself to be bothered, she certainly spends a lot of time getting defensive. In this blog, she tries once again to convince us that she is a teacher, not a preacher, and therefore is not a hypocrite. Let’s see how well her arguments hold up! 

Last week, I made a YouTube video called God Has NEVER Called Women to Preach. Many have responded to me and told me that I preach, which I do not, and that preaching and teaching are the same things. They are not!

Here she lists a bunch of verses that use the word “preach” in some cases and “teach” in others. But eventually she comes to her main argument: 

So we see that Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and His disciples preached. How do we know that preach and teach are different? We know by this verse in His Word: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to TEACH and to PREACH in their cities” (Matthew 11:1). God clearly distinguishes between teaching and preaching in His Word and so should we!

As far as arguments go, this is certainly rather weak. The Bible is full of parallelism, a method of writing in which two words or phrases meaning essentially the same thing are written consecutively for emphasis. Instances of this are especially common in the Psalms. For example:

Psalm 11:4:

“The Lord is in his holy temple;
    the Lord is on his heavenly throne.”

Psalm 32:1:

“Blessed is the one
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.”

So Lori bases the legitimacy of her entire ministry on yet another instance of parallelism in the Bible? If she were to judge herself by her own standards, I think she would be on pretty shaky ground! 

       Lori seems to recognize this is not enough evidence, however, so she also presents two definitions from a nearly 100-year-old dictionary: 

The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines “preaching” this way: “To discourse on the gospel way of salvation and exhort to repentance; to discourse on evangelical truths and exhort to a belief on them and acceptance of the terms of salvation. This was the extemporaneous manner of preaching pursued by Christ and His Apostles. (Matthew 4, 10 and Acts 10, 14).”

The same dictionary defines “teaching” in this way: “To instruct; to inform, to communicate to another the knowledge of that of which he was before ignorant.”

Of course, one of the problems is that the definition of “teach” is not assumed to be in a religious context in the dictionary, so of course it will appear different. But it sure seems to me that what Lori does falls nicely under the category of “to discourse on evangelical truths.” 

God has given men the command to preach.

No, He hasn’t. There’s no one verse in the Bible stating the command to preach was given specifically to men. There are specific instances of a particular man being commanded to preach, but not “men” generally. So to follow Lori’s logic to its natural conclusion, we must assume only the specific people told to preach in the Bible are allowed to do so, which excludes every preacher today (both men and women)! 

There’s not one place in the Bible where women were given the ministry of preaching since they are to be silent in the churches and they are forbidden from teaching men. 

This is really an argument from silence: unless the Bible specifically says women should preach, Lori assumes they shouldn’t. Of course, she herself doesn’t apply this standard elsewhere. For example, I don’t remember the Bible commanding women to make blogs or Youtube videos. 

       And the word for “silence” here doesn’t mean to be totally quiet, but rather to be orderly (all believers are commanded to live “quiet lives” with the exact same word in 1 Thes.4:11). Additionally, the word for “authority” when women are told not to have authority over a man is “authentein”, which meant an overbearing, dominating authority, instead of “exousia”, the word for legitimate authority. Paul is not prohibiting women from having any authority, but from trying to rule over men. This was a problem in the Ephesian church because it was being influenced by a cult that taught female-dominance over men. Of course, what both that cult and Lori fail to understand is that Paul taught against any dominance of ANYONE over another, whether based on gender or any other factor. 

I don’t preach. I TEACH women biblical womanhood as God commands in Titus 2:3. I have never stood in front of a crowd and exhorted them to repentance and belief. I teach women to become godly woman as God has commanded that I do. Yes, I share the Gospel at times but I don’t preach it. I’m not standing in front of a crowd of people preaching and I never will. Feel free to share the Gospel with your neighbors, friends, strangers, and family, but this isn’t preaching. Women aren’t called to preach.

So this is interesting. She seems to be implying she isn’t preaching because she isn’t standing in front of a crowd, but that sharing the Gospel one-on-one is okay. In that case, my question is this: what qualifies as a crowd? Can you share the Gospel with two people instead of one? Three? Ten? She must believe there’s a particular cut-off, after which you must hush up. The whole idea disintegrates into ridiculousness. 

Why do I care about this so much and why have I made such a big deal about this topic? Why do I want you to know the difference between preaching and teaching? Because I want to warn you about the many female preachers and try to explain to you that what they are doing is wrong. 

Sorry, Lori, but I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’re fooling anyone. You’re only making a big deal about this because you can’t stand criticism. If you were only concerned with alleged false teachers, there would be no reason to bring yourself into the discussion at all (and yet it’s your video and the responses to it that you’re writing about!). 

They are not to teach nor have authority over men because Adam was created first, proving that men are the ones that God has ordained to be in authority, and Eve was deceived, proving that women are more easily deceived (1 Timothy 2:12-14).

There could not be weaker arguments than these. If Adam has authority because he was created first, then the cows and squirrels and giant squid have authority over him because they were created even earlier!

       And if the story in Genesis proves that all women are more easily deceived, I suppose it also should prove that ALL men tend to blame their own sin on their wives? I seriously doubt Lori would take it that far. Can’t damage men’s fragile egos! 

       Besides, this kind of implies that Adam was not deceived, in which case his sin was more deliberate than Eve’s. How exactly is this better? 

       Sorry, Lori, but you’re a preacher. You have a very large audience containing both men and women. You wrote your own Bible-study guide. You teach from the Bible, and attempt to correct the theology of both men and women on your Facebook page. But guess what! There’s nothing wrong with you preaching! I believe you have far more freedom than you do. We just wish you would stop making excuses for yourself while trying to place man-made chains on all your fellow women. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/preaching-and-teaching-are-different/

Response to "Are Most Men Oppressed in the Churches?"

       I am responding today to a blog guest-written by Ken Alexander. He wrote this post in response to an article (by Kris Vallotton) he and Lori read arguing that women are oppressed in the churches because they are forbidden from leadership positions. He asks the following question: 

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/

Response to "Gender Has Little to Do With Someone's Capacity to Lead?"

       In this episode of “What Offends Lori Alexander Today?”, the winner is an Instagram post by Lisa Bevere: 

“GENDER is NOT the PROBLEM in LEADERSHIP; our challenge is a posture of PRIDE and a tendency toward PREJUDICE and judging others. These will BLIND SOMEONE who is otherwise a good leader. HUMILITY, EXPERIENCE, FAITHFULNESS, EDUCATION, and VIRTUE are just SOME of the qualities that QUALIFY LEADERS, but gender alone does not a leader make. Gender alone doesn’t QUALIFY a leader, so gender alone can’t DISQUALIFY one. 

For the record, I do not pastor, nor am I an elder or deacon, but I do often speak on Sunday mornings as a mother in the House of God, and ministering does not equal exercising authority over anyone; it is giving witness to what God is done. It’s sad that anyone one would imagine that I think that being a leader usurps our marriage roles. John and I have been married 37 years and raised a family together.”

Clearly Lisa believes in some level of gender roles, though obviously she is much less extreme than Lori. But, of course, this does not stop Lori from becoming outraged and unable to keep her opinions to herself: 

We have a problem here, women. I pray that it’s obvious to most of you. Gender is a problem in leadership. God has made it very clear that it’s men who are to be in leadership positions in the churches. God ordained men to be in all leadership positions all throughout the Bible with the exception of Deborah. 

No, God has not made it clear at all. To use Lori’s own standard, there is not a single verse that explicitly states that only men should be in leadership positions in the church. It’s interesting that even Lori must admit that Deborah is an “exception” to this supposed rule (though she isn’t the only one as Lori claims), and yet she brushes right past this as if hoping we won’t notice and think about it too hard. 

Women are nowhere called to preach on any Sunday as “a mother in the House of God” as Lisa does. It seems most female preachers want to leave out these verses: “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 anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) and “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:11, 12).

Here is Lori’s typical double standard. Sometimes we are permitted to do anything as long as the Bible doesn’t directly forbid it, but other times we are not allowed to do a particular thing unless the Bible specifically says we can. She chooses which standard to enforce based on her own whim (and probably whether the verse in question applies to men or women). The Bible never forbids women to teach in church because of their gender or due to any man-made gender roles. 

       To briefly comment on the above verses: in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, the key phrase to notice is “as also saith the law.” Paul is not referring to any biblical law here (none exist), so he is referring to the Jewish and/or Roman laws of the time. It could not be more obvious that he is simply telling the Christians to obey the laws and customs of that time and place in order to avoid distracting people from the Gospel message. The takeaway for us is that we should do the same (within reason) according to our own time and place. According to Lori’s understanding, God is commanding us to obey the laws and customs of ancient Rome as if they had some sort of spiritual significance. 

       Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11-12, the same argument could be made. But it is also worth noting that the Greek word for “silence” is the same used in regards to the whole church (in the same chapter) telling them to live “quiet” lives. So this is not a literal silence (indeed, at other times Paul mentions women prophesying in church, which is difficult to do without speaking), but a reverent demeanor and avoiding calling attention to oneself. Additionally, when Paul says women must not have authority over men, he does not use the typical Greek word for authority (exousia), but rather “authentein,” which does not mean legitimate authority but dominating, even violent control of another. Paul is not forbidding all authority positions, but responding to a specific situation with which Timothy was dealing. In the Ephesian church, there was a female-led cult that taught that women were better than men. Paul’s point here is that men and women are EQUAL, not that men should be in authority over women. 

       In a reply to his wife’s tweet, Lisa’s husband mentioned how the daughters of Phillip in the book of Acts prophesied and proclaimed God’s word even though they were female. In reply, Lori has this to say: 

Concerning what Lisa’s husband said about the Evangelist Philip and his four daughters, this is what Gill’s Exposition of the Bible had to say about it: “which did prophesy (Acts 21:9); not explain and interpret Scripture, or preach in public assemblies; for these were not allowed women, neither in the Jewish synagogues, nor in Christian assemblies; but they were endowed with a gift of foretelling future events, as was promised such should have in Gospel times.” Women, it’s a dangerous but common practice to try to defend your choices by finding examples in the Bible while ignoring God’s clear commands to us in the Church Age.

It’s interesting how quick Lori is to elevate the words of a mere writer of a commentary over the simple words of the Bible itself whenever it helps support her own opinions. I have no idea of the quality of this particular commentary, but the author is wrong on the definition of prophecy (and the distinction is significant). He claims prophecy is “foretelling future events.” Prophecy CAN include messages concerning the future, but does not always. Prophecy, ultimately, is simply delivering a message to someone from God. And this is significant because Lori, the author of the commentary, and anyone else who tries so desperately to find justification for their sexism, somehow claim that prophesying (delivering a message from God Himself) is LESS authoritative than simply preaching a sermon! I would argue that it is far more authoritative. They simply decide from the beginning that women must not do anything authoritative, and then shape their reality according to this assumption; since women prophesy, prophecy must not be authoritative. This is completely backwards when it comes to understanding the Bible. 

       Also, doesn't Lori realize she's correcting a man? Isn't that forbidden in her view? 

In the homes, the husbands are to lead their families. Wives are to submit to and obey their husbands, yes, in everything, since God made the husband the head over the wife. God has called men to be the leaders all throughout His Word. Yes, Lisa, gender does matter greatly to God when it comes to leading.

What an interesting conclusion considering the fact that the Bible never appoints husbands leaders over their wives! Again, to use Lori’s mantra, there is not a single verse that commands this. The word for “head” in Greek did not mean “leader” at all, but “source.” Every time the Bible calls men the “head” of their wives, this is actually part of the command to husbands to love their wives. In that time and place, men enjoyed greater privilege and status, and the point was that men should elevate their wives to the level of equals and share that privilege with them, rather than using it to their own advantage and dominating their wives. You know, exactly what Lori thinks they should do. There is literally nothing in the Bible that says husbands are to lead their wives or establishing a chain of command. This is a made-up idea based on an assumption that Paul had the metaphors of 21st century English in mind while he wrote his letters. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/gender-has-little-to-do-with-someones-capacity-to-lead/

Response to "Male Preachers Calling Out Female Preachers."

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/