Update: All of my Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? DVDs are available for downloading or viewing online here.
The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.
The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows: …
In 2006 my DVD Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free came out and since that time I have seen my share of scarecrows who are intent on destroying the message of women in ministry. One such scarecrow refuses to go away and it is time to create a blog post where others who have been hurt by the issue of women in ministry can share their pain. If you are a woman in ministry or a woman teacher and you have been hurt, abused or silenced and you would like to share a short story, this is the post for you to share with us. I will moderate the comments so that any scarecrow/troll who would like to sound off against women in ministry will either have their comments moderated or removed. This is a safe place where others who are like minded can encourage you as there are many who come to this community of loving Christians who value the worth and ministry of women.
The reason I named this post Stubble, Straw and Scarecrows is because those who are vehemently opposed to women’s gifts used for the common good are planting chaff and their words are nothing more than stubble and straw. Stubble, straw, and scarecrows are not God’s tools nor are they things to be afraid of. We are to fear God and allow Him to decide what gifts we receive for the fact is that the gift we receive from God comes with His permission to use His gift for God’s glory and the common good (1 Peter 4:11). No man can give us spiritual gifts and no man may kill God’s gifts within us. We are accountable to God and we must be faithful with what God has given us rather than holding back because of the fear of man.
I will start with my story. …
This is part 2 of What God intended at creation and it is inspired by a recent lecture given by John Piper where he states that God’s intention for Christianity is for it to have a “masculine feel“. After discussing John Piper’s Masculine Christianity, I will give my critique of his masculine arguments. Part 1 is here.
Here is John Piper’s summary of his belief in God’s intention of a masculine Christianity:
God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33).
God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. (JP)
Is God male? …
It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man. They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention. This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.
Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule: …
In my last post, I presented one of the best sermons that I have ever heard on Ephesians 5, regarding the evidence of Spirit-filled lives for both men and women. This post is on the opposite of the Spirit-filled life which is an influx of worldly infection through male-centered pride. The outgrowth of this infection is the teaching that encourages men to focus their efforts on taking the “lead” over women, putting them under their authority and control. They are taught that women were made to be led and when men don’t take leadership over women’s lives, women will not be able to fulfill their “role” in Christ. Recently I heard a teaching where young Christian men were rebuked for taking the authority over their girlfriend’s by deciding for them what university courses they would register for. The speaker chastised the young men and told them that they were “not yet” responsible for making their girlfriend’s decisions. They needed to wait until they actually became their husbands and then they had this authority. It is no wonder that many women are surprised with an entirely different man on their wedding day than who they thought they were marrying. The teaching that men are responsible for the entire home including their wife and her spirituality has caused many young men to subjugate their women in order to fulfill their calling and for the wife’s “own good”. The spiritual harm that has resulted from the teaching that the man has the mandate to rule his wife for God, has caused untold pain and suffering and a stifling of the woman’s ability to seek after God for her own life. She is no longer in control of the exercise of her own gifts and calling – he is. …
This post is the essence of the sermon Spirit-Filled Living part 1 by Pastor Darrell Johnson of First Baptist Church, Vancouver, BC, Canada. If you would like to listen to the entire sermon, you can listen to the sermon here.
The revolutionary and alternate understanding of human relationships in Ephesians 5 & 6 are contrary to deeply engrained patterns of behavior. Even after 2,000 years, the Church has yet to work out the implications. …
MM Outreach News & Views #98 features our story of adversity through God’s grace. This will help many of you to understand why I am not always fast in answering or posting here on the Women in Ministry blog. I do want to go back to regular posting articles here through 2012, the Lord willing. I am posting our testimony here to make it public.
It is a joy for Richard and I to be in ministry with MM Outreach and I would like to share the behind-the-scenes story that few have heard. Our testimony is to the amazing grace of God that has kept us standing when it seemed like the enemy was doing everything he could to shut down the work of this ministry.
In the late 1980’s when I was a stay-at-home Mom, God called me to minister to Jehovah’s Witnesses. For a year and a half, I dreamed about witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses every night and every morning I would remember my dreams. This was an amazing thing for a shy young woman who feared talking to strangers, but God did such a transformation in my heart that I lived to bring the gospel to JWs.
…
A very Merry Christmas to all who visit my blog!
Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has struck up some heat on a post that he titles “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of the Discernment Divas”. In this post and in his subsequent comments he makes his position plain that women are not allowed to publicly point out an error of a “duly ordained pastor”. Phil classifies many “housewives and homeschool moms” as bad discerners who are discernment divas. These “divas” believe that God has called them into a ministry of discernment but their abilities are not in rational understanding of doctrinal truth but an ability “to use a really sharp tongue” which Phil says is counter productive and embarrassing. Phil doesn’t seem to mind that this may offend a lot of women as he tells Friel that he is a descendent of the John Knox clan. It was John Knox who offended more than a few when he wrote the book The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in 1558. In this book, Knox wrote that women compared to men were blind, weak, sick, impotent, mad, frenetic and their counsel is foolish. …
This post is the second part of an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context. The first points 1 – 4 are discussed here. This post will deal with points 5 – 8 and an additional question about why the particular woman might not have been lumped together with the other false teachers in chapter 1.
5. Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve in verse in 1 Timothy 2: 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman.
In July 2011, I was privileged to be a special speaker at the IMF MORE conference in Lakeville, MN. It has been an extremely busy time for me as we are still in construction of our new office and video studio, but God blessed the time we took away from our project to serve at the conference. The General Secretary of IMF saw that my work in the DVDs was unique and he had the DVD set critiqued by two seminary professors. Below is the recommendation sent to me from Pastor Frank Masserano:
It was a blessing to have you present “Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” at IMF’s recent MORE Conference. I reviewed the four DVDs carefully prior to the conference and had two New Testament and Biblical Language professors at two separate ATS accredited seminaries review your research.
While both differed a bit on some textual issues, they both overwhelmingly recognize the excellence of your research and the general conclusions you reached.
Many of our people (men and women) were greatly blessed by your presentations and the humble and Christ-like spirit you and Richard exhibited in our midst.
Thank you again and congratulations on your excellent research and well prepared presentation on DVDs. I would recommend the set to any pastor for presentation to his or her church leadership, congregation or women’s groups.
In Christ,
Pastor Frank Masserano
General Secretary IMF
This post will be an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context. I will also consider the challenge to my view from the new verbal aspect theory. To start I will summarize my reasons from the text for believing that Paul had a specific woman in mind. After that, I will expand on each point trying hard to bring it down to a general level of understanding.
1. There is a grammar change along with a topic change starting with 1 Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12 that points to a single woman rather than a group. …
My original 2010 post crashed because there were too many comments for my blog to handle, so I am putting up this post again so that people can read the article which is no longer available because of the crash. Thanks to one of my readers who asked me to repost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email. One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past. He is a complementarian who has commented on authority in marriage, one of a handful of complementarians who have been willing to give their views on women on this blog in a respectful manner. In NN’s email he sent me a link to his view on submission in marriage which he says is not to be mutual. In the other email my son Ryan gave me his conclusions after a time of researching on his own the issue of authority and submission in marriage in order to present a biblical answer to his pastor. I am going to refer to both views in this article for us to consider. …
Some egalitarians suggest that the object “a man” in 1 Timothy 2:12 should rightfully be connected to only one verb “authentein” and that the infinitive form of the verb “to teach” was not meant to be connected to the object “man”.
Let me first state that I am an egalitarian and I appreciate men who passionately contend for women in ministry. At the same time, I am more interested in knowing what God intended in the text rather than hold to a particular party line so I am free to disagree if I believe that a view is not correct. In this post I would like to examine the view that denies that two verbs are connected to the same object in 1 Timothy 2:12. The view that I will be examining is presented by Philip B. Payne in his book Man and Woman, One in Christ An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. …
The body of Christ is a body ministry where each of us are needed and each gift that God has distributed among us is needed. So why is it that many men say that they do not need for a woman teacher when this personal rejection of their own need is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 12:21?
1 Corinthians 12:21 (NASB95)
21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
Why does the Bible say that the eye cannot say to the hand that others may need you, but I have no need of you? In other words, why is it that some say what the Bible says they cannot say? …
I started a post months ago and then life became so complicated I had to set my blog aside to cope. This post will now be the new “home” on the discussion on whether 1 Timothy 2:12 has two prohibitions or one. As a review here is what I originally wrote:
Complementarians typically say that Paul is prohibiting two things (teaching and exercising authority over a man) while many egalitarians are taking the position that there is only one thing that Paul has prohibited. The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men. This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.
I do not agree with complementarians that there are two entirely separate prohibitions that are not connected. But I do not agree with Philip Payne either that there is only one prohibition and that this prohibition is to be defined as the forbidding of women to assume authority for themselves to teach men without a properly delegated authority from men.
As I have been reading through Philip B. Payne’s book, I have been paying special attention to his process of reasoning. …
In 1 Timothy 2:12 is there one prohibition or two? Complementarians typically say that Paul is prohibiting two things (teaching and exercising authority over a man) while many egalitarians are taking the position that there is only one thing that Paul has prohibited. The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men. This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.
I do not agree with complementarians that there are two entirely separate prohibitions that are not connected. But I do not agree with Philip Payne either that there is only one prohibition and that this prohibition is to be defined as the forbidding of women to assume authority for themselves to teach men without a properly delegated authority from men.
I will be developing this post in the next few days as I have time, and I may add to it as the discussion continues. The original discussion that promoted this post was from an ongoing discussion here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2010/08/10/1-timothy-215-going-deeper/ I will be shutting down the comments there as the posts tend to have problems when the comments reach a very high number and/or when the comments reach a certain length. At that time the comments usually just disappear. So while I get this article together, comments are open here to continue the discussion and I will flesh out my own view in the next few days.
Thanks to Kristen for suggesting this topic as one for discussion and I trust that hashing out different views and finding holes and/or support for the different views will be very educational for us all.
1 Timothy 2:15 has been one of the most puzzling verses to decipher throughout church history. One of the difficult things in interpreting this verse is the translator’s rendering of some difficult grammar. Some translations leave out some of the grammar that is necessary to come to a correct interpretation. How can we claim to know what Paul meant in this passage if we leave out some of the key inspired grammar?
Here are some of the particular grammar issues that Paul presents in 1 Timothy 2:15 – …
In a recent blog post, there has been some discussion on 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 in the comment section, and the question of whether “a woman” is generic woman or a specific woman. I always appreciate questions and challenges on my position as it continually pushes me to continue to do research in order to answer the questions that are posed to me.
The question that was posed to me was regarding “a woman” and whether there is any proof that she is a particular woman that Timothy was aware of. The reason the question was asked is because in 1 Timothy 2:14 “the woman” is referenced and it is clear from the grammar that this is not Eve because “the woman” is still in the after effects of her transgression and her deception and since Eve is dead, her transgression is not on-going. A similar situation is in 1 Timothy 2:15 where “she” will be saved…if… The grammar is future tense and again it is impossible for this to be Eve as Eve is dead and gone and her salvation cannot be in the future and conditional. …
The Bible records a law that requires men to take the place of sole master in the home. We find this law in the book of Esther chapter 1 verse 22.
Let me first give a little background. King Ahasuerus was a very wealthy and powerful king who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces. In the third year of his reign, he made a huge banquet for his nobles and officials as well as military leaders. Then for 180 days he displayed his great riches and all that went with the majesty of his position. At the end of all this exhibition of the king’s splendor, he threw a seven-day banquet for all the people who were present in his capital city, both the greatest of them to the least of them. It was at that time, after seven days of partying, that the king became joyful from the wine that was served at the banquet, and in a hasty decision to showcase all that he owned that was magnificent beauty, he ordered that queen Vashti be called to appear before the king wearing her crown in order to parade her beauty before the crowd. Vashti refused to have her person put on display and this caused the king to feel great wrath and he called his wise men to find out what could be done by law to punish queen Vashti for refusing to obey his command. In verses 16 to 19 Memucan, one of the wise men said, …
Newsflash July 24, 2010
Today I was emailed a letter that was just FedExed to Dr. Randy Stinson and Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III on behalf of the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition which is demanding an apology for harm done to Christian women because of the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. …
In our past discussions on Ephesians 5:21-22, we have been discussing the issues of mutual submission and whether there is authority in marriage. In this post, we will discuss the foundation of humility.
One very important part of the nature of God that is rarely talked about is God’s nature of humility. In fact, God as the humble One is revealed in the Old Testament and also through the revelation of Jesus Christ. …
Our discussions on Ephesians 5:22 has sparked a flurry of comments with literally hundreds of comments later and seemingly no end to the “iron sharpening iron” discussion between egalitarians as well as complementarians. This is the place where the discussion will continue as my blog has a habit of blanking out all of the comments if I let too many accumulate under one post. So, continue discussion with this post and thanks all for your lively and irenic comments on a very hotly debated topic of authority and submission in marriage.
For those who haven’t been following all along, here are links to the previous parts of the discussion on Ephesians 5:22.
Part #2 http://mmoutreach.org/wim/2010/06/01/authority-vs-submission-ephesians-522-continuing-comments
Part #1 http://mmoutreach.org/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/ Part 1 has problems because of the great amount of comments, but at least the original post can be read if the link doesn’t work. Just scroll down to the bottom until you read the post of May 23, 2010 called Authority vs Submission a Biblical View.
When is authority given and when can it be rightfully assumed? These are questions that have divided egalitarians and complementarians in the area of marriage. While egalitarians generally will agree that submission is a characteristic of Spirit-filled Christians who love and respect the body of Christ, and who serve each other with love, complementarians say that husbands are never commanded to submit to their wives because husbands maintain a God-given sphere of authority that requires sacrifice and not submission. To a complementarian, submission is always something given to an authority. Since they don’t believe that a wife has authority over a husband they refuse to submit to their wives. Is this Biblical? …
Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email. One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past. He is a complementarian who has commented on authority in marriage, one of a handful of complementarians who have been willing to give their views on women on this blog in a respectful manner. …
While God is Sovereign, some men believe that they can set a limit on God’s gifts. In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s doctrinal stand, they believe that God is allowed to distribute gifts to men and women alike with the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12:4-26 but that He does not gift women with the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 or 1 Peter 4:10, 11 for those gifts are for men alone. Randy Stinson and Christopher Cowan writing an article for the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a work of CBMW write that: …
The comments on the original post have gone over 400 comments and for some reason the original page is not properly loading just by the link so I will need to find out what the problem is. It does look fine when one goes to http://mmoutreach.org/wim and then scroll down to the March 26, 2010 post called “Adam and Eve and the sin nature that comes through the man – how does this affect the issue of women in ministry?” It is loading okay that way so that one can read the post but when one tries to read the comments that page won’t load. **update – It looks like the 175 pages of comments was just too much for the blog post and there is nothing I can do to get the comments to show up. In future I will try to start a second page sooner so that this doesn’t happen again** (Note – Dec 2012: I have updated the blog and I think all the comments are now back.)
The dialog has been lively and Mark our regular complementarian blog visitor has been going through his Calvinist proof texts with me as we dialog on John 6 verse by verse discussing sin and free will. Future comments should continue on this new part 2 post.
CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has set itself up as a go-to organization for those complementarians who have not been able to figure out from the Bible which things are allowable for women and which things are not. But does their counsel exceed the Bible? I would like to present the evidence and then let you decide.
In a sermon preached by J Ligon Duncan III and reproduced on CBMW’s website, Ligon Duncan writes that the “teaching office” of the Church is restricted to men. But what is the “teaching office” of the church? According to Ligon, the “teaching office” is the ministry of preaching and teaching in the church that is undeniably “vested in the men who serve as the elders of the church.” So the on-going preaching and teaching to the body of Christ is to be done by men. The problem really gets sticky for complementarians when it comes to women teaching other women. …
It has been awhile since my Women in Ministry blog has taken a humor break. This one is going to test whether men and women can share a common sense of humor about the blessings of motherhood – i.e. mothering a talkative three year old.
So are you ready to test your funny bone? Click here to watch Potty Break a 4-minute clip about a Christian mother’s real life experience. This animated true story had me in stitches. It so much reminded me of my oldest son who was the talkative one in my family. Here is the description: …
In our continuing topic of common objections to women in ministry, the objection is raised that women cannot have authority in the church since wives are under their husband’s authority. The concern is that if women had leadership roles in the church, then their leadership role would be in submission to their own husbands. So instead of women making individual decisions, their husbands would be the ones making the decisions for them and the wives would be obligated to obey.
The objection comes from the theory that the husband is the ruler of the wife so that any decision she would make in a leadership role outside the home would come under his control. In essence, it is believed that women’s leadership in the church would result in their own husbands leading through their wives and how would that look if he was an unbeliever? …
The 2010 Together for the Gospel conference is on right now as I write this article. The conference this year is called The Unadjusted Gospel and according to J. Ligon Duncan III’s blog post on CBMW’s blog, complementarianism is a necessary testimony of the Gospel that cannot be denied or the witness of the Gospel is damaged. While the T4G conference is affirming The Unadjusted Gospel, at the same time they are continuing in their pattern to adjust the Gospel to add in complementarianism.
Instead of seeing Christians united on the Gospel while having charity and grace on the non-essentials, the T4G conference has once again chosen to separate from other Christians over non-essentials and made complementarianism such a necessity that it is introduced as the fulfillment of Biblical teachings that make this doctrine essential as a witness to the Gospel. …
The path of the last Adam was a path that took Him from Heaven to earth, from the earth to the grave and from the grave to resurrection power on display as our Lord, Savior and King. But a study in contrast with the first Adam shows us the stark contrast to the faithfulness that the last Adam offers us in the place of the failure that we have experienced with our first earthly father.
1. Sinner vs Sinless …
On March 28, 2010, complementarian John Piper announced that he is leaving ministry for a time because of several issues of pride that were affecting his soul and had taken a toll on his relationship with his wife Noël . Below is what Piper has written about his issues and his next steps. It would be a good time to pray for John Piper. It appears that being a rock solid complementarian is not a guarantee that a happy and fulfilling marriage will ensue. …
On Sunday, March 21, 2010, a meeting was held to determine the fate of principal John Hartwig who had been suspended earlier for engaging in conduct “unbecoming a called worker”. The Baraboo News Republic in Baraboo, Wisconsin documents the letter that was sent to school parents that announced Hartwig’s suspension: …