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: …
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. …
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.
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. …
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. …
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: …
In our continuing topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam’s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve.
In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr headship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes:
First, the issue is framed in terms of “equal rights.” That sounds noble, but does God really grant husbands and wives equal rights in an unqualified sense? Surely God confers upon them equal worth as His image-bearers. But does a wife possess under God all the rights that her husband has in an unqualified sense? As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. Under God, a wife may not compete for that primary responsibility. It is her husband’s just because he is the husband, by the wise decree of God. The ideal of “equal rights” in an unqualified sense is not Biblical.
According to Ortlund’s definition of head, women are not allowed by God to have any part in “competing” with men for the responsibility of leading. This is where the idea comes from that Eve sinned against Adam by taking a leading position. According to this complementarian thinking Eve usurped Adam’s authority and his responsibility to lead the relationship. But is this Biblical fact or complementarian fiction? The only way that we will know is to test this truth claim by the Scriptures.
Is there any Biblical text that gives rules and regulations for Eve regarding who she can talk to? Are there also any Biblical texts that show that Eve could not make any decisions on her own without consulting with her husband?
Paul’s use of “I am not allowing” in 1 Timothy 2:12 has caused a lot of speculation regarding his reasons for disallowing certain activities. In this post, we are going to look at this phrase very carefully.
The first thing that we can note is that Paul is not appealing to an existing law. Paul does not say “God’s law is not allowing” as if God had already set up a law that restrained women from using their spiritual gifts. Paul also does not say “God does not allow you to let a woman… ” as if Timothy is under a law that he may have been disobeying. What Paul clearly says is “I am not allowing…”
What is even more curious is that there is no other verse in the entire Scripture like this one. Nowhere does a man of God state that he doesn’t allow something. God’s prohibitions are never put in the personal will of the man of God. They are always by God’s authority. So why did Paul use his own authority in 1 Timothy 2:12? …
Today I read a blog post that really touched my heart because it showed the importance of mutual decision-making instead of unilateral decisions by the husband (the male trump card). I have asked and received permission from Michael Patton to post this on my blog. I think that this story puts a human face to the issues of a one-flesh union that we have talked much about on this blog. This testimony by Michael Patton and his willingness to listen to the wisdom of a godly woman really raised my respect for Michael. I think that you will be touched by his story as well. This is a fine example of how real complementary marriage works rather than a hierarchy model.
Wade Burleson has an interesting post about marital authority and the only time that the Bible uses the word authority in the context of marriage. Burleson writes:
The often quoted book complementarian book Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanwood (1991), devotes entire chapters to passages like Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Colossians 3:18-18, and 1 Peter 3:1-7. But the ONLY text in the Bible that actually uses the word “authority” in the context of marriage, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, is given no consideration. Likewise, in John Piper’s book What’s the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined by the Bible (2001) there are two lists of verses dealing with marriage provided, but 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 is not even included (see pages 21,66).
It is certainly interesting that the only place were the Bible gives the husband and wife authority over the other is missing in the sections dealing with authority and submission in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. …
Can complementarianism ever be considered spiritual abuse? Before we can discuss this, we need to know what spiritual abuse is. David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen have written a definition in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.
Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person’s spiritual empowerment (pg 20)
Spiritual authority can become spiritual abuse when leadership places a value on a “doctrine” (especially a secondary doctrine) over and above the value of the member of the body of Christ. Johnson and VanVonderen identify how subtle a matter of authority can become spiritual abuse.
It’s possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or doesn’t “behave” spiritually the way you want them to. (pg 23)
David Henke writes in the Watchman Fellowship’s Profile on Spiritual Abuse:
Thanks to one of the followers of my blog, I received a link to some excellent clips about Julie Pennington-Russell’s talks about the Georgian State Convention and issue of the church being kicked out of the GBC. The clips were recorded before the official word came announcing the removal of her church from the association.
The Pastor of First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia, talks about the moment she found out that her church was kicked out of the Georgia State Convention, and her face-to-face talk with the executive of the convention. There are several more clips available on the right side bar.
On July 27th, 2009 Mike Seaver and I started a ten session debate on Women in Ministry where I was able to ask Mike questions on his position, he answered my questions and then we each had one response. Mike is still considering whether he will continue with another ten sessions where Mike will ask me questions, and I get the privilege to answer his questions on women in ministry.
Today I would like to summarize the ten sessions that I had with Mike. …
Sign up to receive blog conference email updates at www.achurchinryde.com/blog This should be an interesting conference as participants have different views and will be interacting with anyone wanting to dialog and question the presenter on their view. You will see from the conference promotion that I am a participant. I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions and interacting with people from a world away down under in Australia. I do not yet know which day I will be presenting my thesis. I am sure that it will be announced on the web site so if you sign up for email updates you should be able to get that information.
I hope that many of you will interact with this unique venue so that it is a successful venture for Pastor Dave and the Presbyterian church in Australia.
In the last blog post, Cheryl Schatz posed her 4th set of questions to Mike Seaver regarding their discussion/debate on women in ministry. Links to all the previous questions and responses is at the end of this post. This discussion will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answers on question #4 and Mike’s rejoinder.
Cheryl Schatz responds: …
This is question #4 of a 10 question discussion/debate between Mike Seaverand Cheryl Schatz on the issue of women in ministry. The discussion will take the form of five questions posed by Cheryl Schatz with answers by Mike Seaver and then five questions posed by Mike Seaver with answers by Cheryl Schatz. Each question and answer session will be followed up in the next post by one response each from both Mike and Cheryl. Links to the questions and the responses will be at the bottom of this post. Mike’s corresponding post on his blog is here.
#4 Question by Cheryl Schatz: …
On August 19, 2009, John Piper tackles a question on an abusive husband, and Piper’s answer directs women on how they should take abuse from their husbands. The answer is typical of a complementarian who sees the husband as king and priest and the wife as the follower of her priest-king.
My comments will be below the transcript. I recommend you listen carefully to what Piper says. I think there is a lot to discuss especially his Freudian slip calling the husband “lord.” An edited transcript of the audio is below. …
In the last blog post Cheryl Schatz posed her third set of questions to Mike Seaver regarding their debate on women in ministry. Links to all the previous questions and responses is at the end of this post. This discussion will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answers on question #3 and Mike’s rejoinder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the eighth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian will be questioning Paul on his own strong hold today. The issue will be women pastors. Let’s listen in. (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.) …
This post will be a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day. We are interested in asking Paul his reasons for what he wrote about women and what he thinks about the present day church regarding women’s ministries. However the interviewer that gets first “crack” at Paul will be a complementarian Christian who strongly believes that women are restricted from teaching men in the church. The interviewer’s name will be “Doug”. …
The picture above represents not only the “bride” of Christ held back and controlled, but women in the “bride” of Christ held back and controlled. It is a great concern to me that there are many in the body who think that authoritarian control is needed to keep people in line and to keep the unity of the faith. But is the removal of the ability to question those in leadership or to question secondary doctrine a necessary thing to keep the unity of the faith? Some apparently believe that questionable tactics are allowed if the end result is unity but I would like to propose that unity based on an abuse of authority produces artificial unity.
Wade Burleson has been doing a series of posts on authoritarian control in the church and within non-profit groups and I believe that this issue is a major problem in the church today. Those who use intimidation tactics to prevent people from asking legitimate questions have risen up in our churches at an alarming rate. Where is this all coming from? There appears to be an emphases in many seminaries that sways impressionable young graduates to the belief that pastoral authority must be defended at all costs. Wade Burleson comments on the results of such teaching that creates an elite group of “the Lord’s anointed”. While Wade’s comments are specifically about the Southern Baptist Convention, the application can be made throughout all denominations. …
In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured. Ortlund writes on page 102:
God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)
Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter. God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-
…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden. The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so. Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”. They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver. They write:
If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”
Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? …
The story of Deborah and Barak in the book of Judges has caused many hierarchists to assign the God-given work of judge delivering the people of Israel to Barak while denying that God raised up Deborah as a deliverer. By assigning a calling to Barak that scripture never assigns, it appears that the example of Deborah and Barak is a clear example of reading into the text the tradition of men and failing to identify in the text God’s own inspired words which give the calling to Deborah. In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) Journal article, Barbara K. Mouser writes concerning Barak:
Barak is a weak man who does the will of God when paired with a righteous and wise woman. He does the job of deliverer-judge, makes the roll call of faith, but suffers a loss of glory because of his lack of zeal and obedience.
Barbara Mouser also denies that Deborah is a God-given judge who is raised up by God to deliver Israel:
Deborah is Not a Judge
She is not a judge in the sense that the book of Judges defines a judge; she is not a military deliverer.17 Rather she is a prophetess, and as a prophetess, she commands and exhorts Barak with God’s own words and authority.
The amount of “reading into” the text is astounding in this article. For example, where is Barak said in scripture to be “raised up” by God as a judge? Barak is never called a judge but Deborah is and Judges chapter 2 makes it very clear that all the judges were raised up by God.
Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.
The raising up must include all of the judges and in this account of deliverance it is only Deborah that is identified as a judge, not Barak.
Next the CBMW article identifies women as a sign of degeneracy:
Isaiah tells us that the rule of women is a sign of degeneracy, not liberation (Isa 3:12).
The issue of women in ministry allows us to the opportunity to ask questions about the hard passages of scripture and to work through these passages to discover God’s intended meaning through the inspired context. But in many quarters, questioning is a “sin” that will get a reprimand from a strong authoritarian leader. Is it really a sin to ask questions? The New York Times has produced an article by Molly Worthen called Who Would Jesus Smack Down? In a surprising view of “the cussing pastor”, Mark Driscoll is not only against women pastors and what is called the feminization of the church, but he also refuses to tolerate any opposition to his views. In The New York Times article Molly Worthen writes:
Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.
Sinning through questioning – this attitude of leadership has become an epidemic in the hypermasculinity movement. See Cynthia Kunsman’s articles on surviving the Sheperding Movement and All about Authority: the Popularity of Submission Doctrine. …
When the issue of women in ministry is brought up, one of the scripture passages that is used as a slam-dunk women-must-stay-in-the-home passage is Titus 2:3-5. Is this passage really about women restricted to the area of the home with cooking, cleaning and raising children, or are women allowed by God to use their spiritual gifts outside the home as well? Let’s have a close look at the passage to see if we have been influenced by modern myths.
Titus 2:3-5 Older women (literally women elders) likewise are to be reverent (literally meaning such as becomes sacred persons, venerable) in their behavior (literally meaning to make or ordain, position or state), not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine (same qualifications as to the venerable, reverend, reputable, dignified women from 1 Timothy 3:11), teaching what is good, so that they may encourage (literally meaning to disciple, admonish, exhort earnestly) the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home (literally meaning watchers or watchmen of the home taking oversight of household affairs), kind, being subject to their own husbands (literally to subject oneself to one’s admonition or advice – doing good for the other and putting their good first place), so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Myth #1 The woman is not the head of the home so she does not have authority but is under authority in her home.
Scripture tells us that the woman has a great deal of authority in how she rules her home and she is indeed a ruler. In 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul says: …
In my last post called 1 Timothy 2, authority and the magical pulpit, I was waiting for someone to bring up Hebrew 13:17. Since no one brought up this verse in the comments, but I did receive an email that asked me to respond to how this scripture fits in with my last post, I thought my response should make a separate post of its own.
Let’s first take a look at Hebrews 13:17 in the NIV, the version which was quoted to me:
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Does this passage teach that the Christian leaders have authority over the sheep? Let’s have a look at this passage in a more literal translation:
Hebrews 13:17 (LITV) Yield to those taking the lead of you, and submit, for they watch for your souls, giving an account, that they may do this with joy, and not with grieving; for this would be unprofitable to you.
The first thing that we can notice about a literal reading of the passage is that the word “authority” is missing in the Greek. Now let’s go through this passage piece by piece to pull out the intended meaning. …
Many people feel that the pulpit is a place for authoritative proclamation. However many people also believe that the pulpit gives a man that authority and allowing someone into the “pulpit” who isn’t allowed to exercise authority over the sheep, an authority that the pulpit gives them, is seen as a great sin.
There are several problems with this view. The first problem is an obvious one, in that there is no such thing as a pulpit in the Scriptures. Christianity Today says this about the pulpit:
Pulpits, which are associated with traditional churches today, haven’t always been included in churches. In the earliest days of the church, Christians met in homes. In the Middle Ages, pulpits were installed in churches, but sermons rarely were preached out of them…The pulpit became more prominent during the Protestant Reformation, when the preaching of God’s Word became the primary ingredient of worship. The pulpit became more than a place to stand or a structure on which to place notes and a Bible. It became a symbol of the authority of the Bible, the church, and the preacher.
So the pulpit as a symbol of authority is a modern invention not found in the Bible at all. Many years into the church age what originally was just a piece of furniture convenient to hold one’s notes, has become the symbol of the authority of the speaker. Somewhere along the way, it appears that the authority of the Word of God which held preeminence during the Protestant Reformation, has been transferred to the messenger. In our day the word “pulpit” is synonymous for church authority: …
CBMW relates a story told by Anne Graham Lotz in the Washington Post where Mrs Lotz writes:
What legitimate, Biblical role do women have within the church? That question demanded an answer early in my ministry when I accepted an invitation to address a large convention of pastors.
When I stood in the lectern at the convention center, many of the 800 church leaders present turned their chairs around and put their backs to me. When I concluded my message, I was shaking. I was hurt and surprised that godly men would find what I was doing so offensive that they would stage such a demonstration, especially when I was an invited guest. And I was confused. Had I stepped out of the Biblical role for a woman? While all agree that women are free to help in the kitchen, or in the nursery, or in a secretary’s chair, is it unacceptable for a woman to take a leadership or teaching position?
While CBMW writer Brent Nelson writes about the en masse action of many of the 800 pastors in a negative fashion…
Such a shameful event should have never happened.
…what action does he say should have happened?
I grieve that someone in a decision-making role, did not wisely preclude a woman from speaking to a large group of pastors who chose to express their biblically sound concerns in such a shameful fashion. The commands to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), are equally as important to obey as the command for a woman not take spiritual authority over men. (emphasis added by WIM)
While CBMW’s article says that women are not to be elders or pastors and this is apparently the “clear” prohibition that CBMW espouses, Anne Graham Lotz doesn’t appear to be either an elder or a pastor. What Mrs. Lotz does in her ministry is preach the good news to whoever the Lord Jesus brings in her pathway. She writes:
Mary Magdalene was actually the very first evangelist! Since Jesus had obviously been present when Peter and John were there, why did He withhold Himself from them, but reveal Himself to Mary? He could so easily have given the task of announcing His resurrection to Peter and John, but instead He had given it to Mary. I believe He was making an undeniable, obvious statement that reverberates through the centuries, right up until our own day. Women are commanded and commissioned to serve Jesus Christ in whatever capacity He calls them, within or without the organized church, in word or in deed.
CBMW writer Brent Nelson agrees that Mary was commissioned to preach the gospel of the resurrection to the Lord’s disciples, but this doesn’t support Anne Graham Lotz.
Mary seeing Jesus and being commissioned to tell the disciples of his rising is indeed an honor, but certainly does not qualify her to take the role of an Elder or Pastor to men.
While I will not be discussing women elders or pastors in this article, CBMW’s article appears to be a sleight of hand bringing confusion regarding official positions of ordination with the call to preach and teach outside of ordination. This confusion is precisely what CBMW itself seeks to avoid when they state that women can minister but not have a “pastorate”.
Imprecision is the handmaid of confusion, and confusion the prelude to bondage (John 8:32). We would do well to make a distinction between women in ministry (which the Bible affirms) and women in the pastorate (which the Bible forbids – 1 Timothy 2:12).
Is Anne Graham Lotz called by God to ordination? She says no:
This space is not long enough to address the issue of ordination which carries with it the right to marry, bury, baptize, and have authority over church members. I do not believe God has called me to be ordained, but I know many women who believe He has called them. Some of these women pastor in countries where the male leadership has been decimated by persecution and imprisonment, and out of necessity they have stepped up to fill the void. (emphasis added by WIM)
What is Anne Graham Lotz called to do? She writes about what the Lord’s commission means to her:
For me, it means going wherever God sends and giving out His Word to whomever He puts in front of me.
So if Anne Graham Lotz is not called to be ordained as a pastor and she is not ordained as an elder, then why would 800 pastors have “biblical sound concerns” to have her speak to them as an invited guest speaker? Again CBMW’s Brent Nelson writes:
I grieve that someone in a decision-making role, did not wisely preclude a woman from speaking to a large group of pastors who chose to express their biblically sound concerns in such a shameful fashion. The commands to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), are equally as important to obey as the command for a woman not take spiritual authority over men. (emphasis added by WIM)
The mindset of CBMW is that women are not allowed to preach the gospel to Christian men because this constitutes taking “spiritual authority” over men. It is only a smokescreen in this case when they say that the Bible forbids women to be pastors and elders, because this has nothing to do with Mrs. Lotz. Anne Graham Lotz is an evangelist not a pastor or an elder, yet she is forbidden according to CBMW, to preach the good news to pastors while they can at the very same time agree that Mary was commissioned by Jesus to preach the good news to the disciples. CBMW affirms that Jesus’ commission for Mary was a godly thing for a woman to obey. This sleight of hand and confusing talk brings great harm to the body of Christ when women are hindered from speaking the truth of God’s word to the body of Christ.
CBMW’s answer to a woman’s preaching the gospel to Christian men is that she should be hindered, stopped and forbidden from speaking in the first place. According to this CBMW article it would be a wise male leader who should have stood in the way of Anne Graham Lotz and prevented her from speaking the gospel to these Christian men. CBMW lifts up the pastors who turned their backs on Mrs. Lotz as godly men who showed their biblical concern in the wrong way. By turning their backs on Mrs. Lotz, these pastors were not preventing her from speaking to them, they were only showing a shameful action of contempt. Would CBMW’s counsel to these pastors have them walk out en masse instead of merely turning their backs?
Apparently CBMW believes that there were two shameful actions that happened the day Anne Graham Lotz spoke to those 800 pastors. The first shameful action was the men who turned their backs toward a godly sister in Christ. The other “shameful” action was apparently the mere fact that Mrs. Lotz would dare to speak the gospel in the presence of Christian men and that a Christian leader would dare to allow her to speak. CMBW’s Brent Nelson writes:
At the end of the day, it is the role of pastors and men to lead their congregations and families in understanding God’s design for the home and the church. When this kind of biblical leadership is lacking, sadly shameful things can happen. (emphasis is added by WIM)
CBMW through sleight of hand has now added to the scriptures that only men may lead Christians in the church and in the family towards understanding God’s design. Shame on CBMW for spiritually turning their back on God’s gifted women, and thus God himself by adding to God’s word things that God never said.
Listen to what CBMW believes Christian men shouldn’t be able to hear Anne Graham Lotz preach and apparently use their CBMW-based conscience to walk out:
It is very common for hierarchists to explain away Deborah’s position as Judge in the nation of Israel as merely a judgment by God.
The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; yea, the woman had to go with him!
Obviously it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak.
In general the leaders are weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children and women rule over them (compare Is. 3:12). This is God’s judgment because of the apostate condition of professing Christians.
Is it really true that women ruling the nation represent God’s judgment? The only way that we can know for sure is to see what God had to say. Several nations were used by God as a judgment against Israel and their sin. The thing that we can notice in all of the cases of judgment is that the nation who was used as a judgment by God against Israel always hurt and destroyed Israel. Israel was taken captive many times and this was God’s judgment. But what about Deborah? Was she used by God to punish Israel and hurt Israel or was she one of the many godly Judges that God raised up and sent to deliver Israel?
Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.
Judges 2:18 When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them.
The Judges were all sent to deliver Israel from their enemies. This means that it was impossible for Deborah to be a judgment against Israel when she was sent to deliver Israel. …