Women In Ministry

“…Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”  Luke 10:41-42

In the complementarian Christian community there is a lot of pressure to keep women away from a place that doesn’t belong to them.  Because of the teaching that there is a “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood”, and the way we follow Jesus depends on our gender, many have been focused on dividing and protecting the man’s portion as if something has been given to men alone.  Is this really biblical?  Is there really something that belongs to men alone that needs to be held back from women?

In Luke 10 the Lord Jesus encountered pressure to remove Mary from sitting at his feet as one of the disciples in order for her to take the place of a worker in the home.  His response to Martha is quite revealing about the Lord’s view of women.

Luke 10:41–42 (NASB)

41 But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things;

42 but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Regarding the place of a disciple, Jesus said that there is only one thing that is necessary. Please note that Jesus did not say that there are two things that are necessary - one for males and one for females. The one thing that is absolutely necessary is to sit as a disciple at His feet.  There was no division between what is necessary for males or females.

The next thing that we can see from Jesus’ words is that Mary herself had chosen the good part.  The Greek word used here is eklegomai which means chosen for oneself.  Mary had the opportunity to choose for herself and what she chose as a disciple at Jesus’ feet is the good portion. This is a share or part in the opportunity and responsibility to learn and then do the work of a disciple.  It was Mary’s own choice to be a disciple and to have her portion alongside the rest of the disciples.

Jesus then reveals something that is extremely important. He said that what she has received (her portion as a disciple) shall not be taken away from her. The Greek word for take away is aphaireo and it means to have something taken away by force. Jesus is saying that her portion as one of the disciples, which rightfully belongs to Mary and which is a good thing, shall not be removed from her by force.

Mary’s faith in Jesus caused her to understand the gospel and to do the work of preparing the body of Jesus for burial as an act of her faith.

Mark 14:6–9 (NASB)

6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.

7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.

9 “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

John tells us that this woman was Mary.

John 12:3 (NASB) Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

Mary the one who sat at the feet of Jesus and who received her share right alone with the men, is shown to have been prepared by the teachings of Jesus to accept and believe in his death when the other disciples did not yet understand. Jesus said that her work of preparing his body for burial would be linked to the gospel and its message throughout the world. This portion will not be taken from her.

Another Mary also received her portion of the gospel on resurrection day.

John 20:15–18 (NASB)

15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher).

17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’ ”

18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.

Mary Magdalene was the first one commissioned to give the gospel to the other disciples and the Lord specifically chose to appear to a woman first.

But there are those in the church who have made it their own business to take away what has been given to women. While women were given the place as disciples sitting and learning at the feet of Jesus, some in the body of Christ deny women the ability to learn the deep things of God.

John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary denies women the opportunity to learn. The deep things of God are taken away from women and no opportunity is given them to choose to follow the Lord Jesus in this deep learning as women are denied entrance into John MacArthur’s seminary.

Also complementarians such as Ray Ortlund deny that God gives a calling to women that entrusts them with the gospel. “There is a grandeur to every man’s ministry“, Ortlund says and the gospel ministry that men have been given shows that they “have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” No limitations on men at all as Ortlund says “I don’t minister for his approval; I minister with his approval.  I can go for it.” But for women, there is no such approval in Ortlund’s eyes.

Is it true that only men have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel? Or have men usurped by force what has also been given to women? The first disciples refused to believe a woman who obeyed the Lord and who declared the gospel to them and today men are tempted to take away a woman’s portion by closing the door in her face. There are many things that she is not allowed to learn and many places that she is not allowed to go. But is this the way of the Master?

Send article as PDF to

Another reason some complementarians claim for denying women opportunities to minister in the church is that it is said that women are more easily deceived than men so men alone are permitted to minister in the church.  A good example of this kind of rationale is found here with this excerpt:

But why should Eve’s being beguiled in the Garden of Eden cause Paul to say that women should be silent in church? The answer must be that women in general have a tendency to be more easily duped than men. Because of this tendency, they are not to be teachers, or preachers, or hold an office (which implies authority) in church. …

…we must remember that Paul clearly states that women are to remain silent in church because of the creation order and because Eve was deceived.

Is Paul really saying that women are more easily deceived than men?  Let’s examine the text:

1 Timothy 2:14 (NASB) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul clearly says that “Adam was not deceived” but in 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul specifically lists Eve by name as the one who was deceived:

2 Corinthians 11:3, 4 (NASB)

4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

So is Paul really saying that Eve was created with a “tendency” to be easily deceived? No, that would be reading into the text something that is not there. Rather than describing a flaw in God’s design of the woman that provided for a deceived Eve, the emphasis is on the cunning, craftiness and trickery of the one who deceived her. She was not created as one who was easily deceived.  She was deceived through the cunning, manipulative trickery that was a masterful job in deceiving the very first woman.

Instead of Paul warning that all women have a tendency to be easily deceived, Paul warns the entire church in 2 Corinthians 11 that all of them could encounter the same deception and be led astray by a counterfeit Jesus, a counterfeit spirit and a counterfeit gospel.  It would have been so easy for Paul to focus in on just the women, but he does not do that for it is not a fact that women are created with a flaw that makes them easily deceivable. Rather then focusing on any one gender, Paul said that it is “your minds” that may be led astray.  Paul is speaking to all of the Corinthians. So much for men not being able to be deceived!

It appears that the complementarians who believe that women are more prone to deception have not thought this one through. If women are more easily deceived and fall prey to the enemy’s deception easier than men, then why would the church allow women who are easily deceived to teach little children who by their childish nature are easily manipulated and deceived? Also why would the church allow women to teach other women who would supposedly also be ripe for deception? Wouldn’t the best ones for women to teach be men who would easily recognize deception and thus be able to correct them? Yet men are the only ones who are forbidden to have women teach them if we believe the complementarian understanding. It just doesn’t make sense. If the Bible really does teach that women by nature are more easily deceived, then the church has not gone far enough. Women should be stopped from teaching anyone if this line of reasoning is true, don’t you think? But complementarians don’t carry this reasoning through all the way to its natural and logical conclusion. There is a flaw in their reasoning.

But Paul isn’t reasoning that one gender has a flaw or that easily deceived women can teach only other easily deceived people. Paul is dealing with deception due to lack of sound doctrine. Paul first of all commands that “a woman” is to learn (1 Timothy 2:11). Why the command to learn? Because learning sound doctrine is the first thing that combats deception. The second thing that combats deception is self-control. Salvation from deception must also come with self-control.

1 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)…continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Paul isn’t setting up a universal prohibition to stop one gender from using their God-given gifts in their maturity for the common good. Paul isn’t attaching all women to Eve’s deception. Instead, in 2 Corinthians 11, Paul is warning all the Corinthians about deception and false doctrine. He isn’t warning the Corinthians about women teachers.

So why is it so easy for some to see all women as prone to deception? To be frank, I would suggest that it is easy for some to believe bad things about women because our world is so prone to prejudice especially toward women. So when Paul said that Eve was deceived, many people will read into this scripture that “all women” are easily deceived. But if all women are so easily deceived, then how come most cult leaders are men?

As we continue discussing common objections to women in ministry, we will be answering many more false interpretations on the hard passages of scripture on women in ministry.  In the meantime I would request that complementarians who are reading these posts to think these things through. There are many questions offered in this post. Are you able to answer these questions or are these questions too difficult to answer with your current view of women in ministry?

One last set of questions - are people deceived as a result of their God-given design or are they deceived because of their lack of knowledge and/or their failure to love and embrace the truth with self-control to stay away from error? If people are deceived because of their design, then who ultimately is to blame for their deception?

Send article as PDF to

One of the positions that complementarians commonly hold is that male and female were created with distinct roles so that one (the male) is said to have been given the authority over the other (the female) and the fact that Adam names Eve is used as proof of the man’s authority.  CMBW (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) records it this way:

Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.

CBMW’s statement of their position says that Genesis 2 as viewed in its own context will show Adam’s authority over Eve as God’s original design and this is borne out in the act of Adam naming Eve.  Let’s have a close look at the context of Genesis 1-3 to see where Adam could have been given authority over Eve.

In my post on February 17th on Common Objections to Women in Ministry: God’s Design in Genesis we saw that Adam and Eve were given equal authority over all of God’s creation in the land, air and the sea.  If God had wanted to add to Adam’s authority the responsibility to a rule over the woman, Genesis 1 would have been a perfect place to list that authority, but God never gives Adam an authority over his wife in the original design.  The authority of rulership for Adam is clearly over animals and the earth, not people.  So if God did not give authority for Adam to rule Eve in the original creation, when is God supposed to have given him that authority?  Let’s look to Genesis chapter 2 for any evidence  of an added authority given to Adam.

Genesis 2:22 (NASB)  The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

Adam’s exclamation of  joy in verse 23 when he first set eyes on the woman is a declaration that she is from him as flesh of his flesh, but where are there any words from God determining a “role” of authority for the man that would set him up as her ruler?  We do see Adam calling her “woman” but is this taking authority over her?  It can’t be.  For one thing, Adam was not the origin of the term woman.  God called her woman before Adam did.  Adam merely accepted her and affirmed her origin as being from him.  God did not give Adam authority over her and we cannot assign an authority without God first giving that authority.  To assume such an authority without God’s permission is a very dangerous thing to do.

Genesis 2:23 (NASB)  The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

Notice again that God never said that He gave the man an authority to rule the woman nor did God direct the man to “name” her as a way to take his authority over her.  The fact that God had already called her woman in verse 22 also reveals that God did not give any directive for Adam to exercise his own authority over her. She simply was identified as a woman already by God and she was accepted as such by Adam himself.

But what about after sin entered the world?  Did God give the man the authority to rule the woman then?  What did God say to the man after Adam admitted that he ate the fruit?

Genesis 3:17 (NASB)  Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

Notice that God doesn’t say that “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, I am giving you authority over her”.  Adam did not take authority over the serpent in the garden when the serpent was deceiving his wife and God certainly did not give an additional authority to Adam in his sinful state.  But Adam does name his wife “Eve” in verse 20. Is this proof that Adam had an authority given him by God that is never directly listed in the Scripture?

Genesis 3:20 (NASB)  Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

4) Adam’s naming of Eve indicates, in an OT cultural context, Adam’s right of authority over the one whom he named. And interestingly, Adam named his wife twice, first when she was formed from his flesh (2:23), and second after they had both sinned (3:20), indicating that his rightful authority over her continued after sin had come.

No, this is not true.  Naming someone does not prove the “rightful” authority over them.  Let complementarians prove Adam’s “rightful” authority over Eve in the words of God in Genesis.  Where did God give Adam this right?  Where is this authority determined by God as a design that He placed within man at his creation?

The fact is that this revision of the historical account is once again necessary to bolster the complementarians claim that only men are allowed to use their spiritual gifts in the church for the common good.  Once they can claim a non-existent authority in the beginning, they can claim anything they want because of that “authority”.

Are we going to accept another historical revision or are we going to challenge complementarians to prove their claim that Adam received authority to rule the woman?  Where is this authority given to Adam anywhere in the text?  If this claim cannot be pointed out in the text, then it is time to challenge complementarians to get back to the beginning and rethink their doctrine.

Thoughts?

Send article as PDF to

According to those who have been followed a trail left by our old friend Neopatriarch (who many of you may recall was the young complementarian who used to post challenges on this blog until he left in exasperation when his arguments didn’t make the grade),  he has apparently been presently himself recently on several discussion boards as the one who has refuted my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. How interesting that he has been refuted time and time again and is still claiming victory.  Also how interesting that he has picked me as the one who has the exegesis that has to be refuted.  Well, I am quite flattered by all of his attention, and even though he is undoubtedly a very intelligent young man, his attempts to refute my sound argument have only called attention to my argument.  I guess I should say thanks.

Let’s have a look at Neopatriarch’s latest edition of his “refutation” of my exegesis.  Neopatriarch’s latest revision says:

Since the presumptive evidence favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.

Neopatriarch has made it “presumptive evidence” now, but in his previous edition he called it  plain old “presumption”.  Here is his wording from his fall 2009 edition:

Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.

So what used to be “presumption” has now taken on a new life and has been transformed into the “presumptive evidence” category yet he has nothing new to add.  Sadly for Neopatriarch, he has no new evidence and his presumptions are still the same old presumptions.  Also sadly for Neopatriarch, he has so far refused to address my answer to his “refutation” and so his imaginery presumptions have come no closer to refuting my exegesis then he attained during his first and second try during 2009.  To see my refutation of Neopatriarch’s position and his second attempt to refute me see my post here.

Send article as PDF to

How is it that there are millions of Christians who all look to the same Genesis account yet find themselves with different and contradictory truth claims from the same account?  While many conclude that man was designed in a special way that sets him above the woman with special God-given privileges, there are still many others who conclude that God created both man and woman as equal rulers over creation. We all need to be careful that we don’t just see what we want to see because there is a tendency for each one of us to read our own position into the account. But as Christians we should desire to value truth above all else  for it is God’s design that we want to discover, not mankind’s aberration of God’s design.

As we search diligently in the creation account in Genesis, we look for how God conveyed His design differences to the attention of the first man and woman. Did the man know that he had been designed differently? Did he know that his design gave him special privileges that were withheld from his wife because she did not have the same design? And was it conveyed to Eve that she was not on the same level as Adam?  According to Ray Ortlund, God gave the man a special mission and a special “call” to accomplish and the woman had a special mission to please him.

God made Adam first and put him in the Garden with a job to do, a mission to fulfill.  In the heart of every fallen man is the self-doubt that wonders, “Am I man enough to climb this mountain God has called me to?  Can I fulfill my destiny?”  A wise wife will understand that question at the center of her husband’s heart.  And she will spend her life answering it, communicating to him in various ways, “Honey, I believe in your call.  I know you can do this, by God’s power.  Go for it.”  In this way, she will breathe life into her man.

God made Eve from Adam, for Adam, to help him follow the call.  In the heart of every fallen woman is the self-doubt that wonders, “Do I please you?  Am I what you wanted?”  A wise husband will understand that question at the center of his wife’s heart.  And he will spend his life answering it, communicating to her in various ways, “Darling, you are the one I need.  I cherish you.  Let me hold you close.”  In this way, he will breathe life into his wife.

So according to Orlund there is one call - for the man alone, but did you notice that he gave no scripture to support his view?  Let’s now view what God Himself has revealed.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

God said that both of them were made in His image. He said that both were designed according to His likeness. Then God reveals that the design is for them to rule.  Would this not be the perfect place for God to say that He made the male to rule and the female to support the man’s rule? Why is it that this alternate design pattern of one that is called and the other who is to please the one who is called, is never mentioned? Why is it that the first mention of God’s design is equality in creation in God’s likeness and an equal design of rulership? Did God make a mistake and forget to show the design difference to the first pair? If we believe the Bible to be God’s inspired inerrant word, we can be assured that God did not make a mistake. There has been no difference in God’s design for their likeness or in their design that mandates their rule.

The next thing that we notice is that both were designed to rule the fish and the birds and the cattle and the earth as well as everything that creeps on the earth. Now isn’t this odd? If there was a design difference, shouldn’t we see something like a design that keeps a woman to the water world kingdom while the man gets rule over all three kingdoms - the air and the land and the sea? How come with so many levels of rule that they both get it all? How come there isn’t even a breath of difference between their rule? Those who say that man has a different mission to fill have a lot of explaining to do regarding why God’s design is not different for the woman.  There is no divided kingdom.

The next thing that we notice is the coveted blessing that was held out to the first born is given to both of them:

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them;…

God didn’t hold out the special first born blessing to just the man. Instead He gave the same special blessing to both:

…and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The blessing involved their fruitfulness on the earth, their freedom to rule and the full extent of their rule. Both of them were given the whole earth to fill and subdue it and rule over every living creature and rule over the land. Where is the difference in design here? There is no difference at all. There is only equality.

Notice another thing that is highly important.  In the issuing of the rule, God doesn’t call out the man to speak to him first as if his calling was special or different than the woman’s calling. God spoke to them both.  Then God gives them the food that they have permission to eat and God does not divide the two of them into a gatherer and a cook.

Genesis 1: 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

The word “you” is plural in this verse. God speaks to both Adam and Eve and gives them both the mandate to be fruit and plant inspectors as they both need to know which plants have seeds. Again there is no design difference between Adam and Eve regarding their mission or their work.  Note also that God doesn’t give Adam the mandate to teach Eve about which foods they can eat. God gives her His word Himself. Both are treated as responsible and equally designed rulers.

Now that we observed what God said, let’s look to see what Adam said that would define any special design that he may have known that he had.

When Eve was talking to the serpent, did Adam claim that talking to the animals was his part of the rule?  No, Adam did not claim that there was a special animal rule that belonged to him alone because of the way that he was designed.

Did Eve understand that Adam had a special rule that she was to support him in that did not belong to her? No, there is not a single word from Eve to show she believed that Adam had a special rule. Well, what about the “helper” words of God? When God said that it was not good for man to be alone and He would create a helper comparable to him, does the term “helper” mean a lesser rule? Absolutely not. God is called our helper but He does not have a lesser rule than we do. Eve did not miss out on an equal rule with Adam because she was his helper. In fact the only way that she could be Adam’s helper is for her to be competent in the work. She is never said to need to wait for Adam’s instructions. She had her instructions from God Himself. She was a co-laborer with Adam.

Many will bring up an objection by saying that Adam’s first creation showed his special position.  The timing of his creation was necessary for Adam since God’s design was that the woman was to be made from his body. How could she be created from his body if she was made at the same time? The fact that God gave them both the first born blessing should remove any doubt that her creation from his body was meant to signal a secondary rule for the woman and a special first place rule for the man.

With no facts about a unique design of man that makes him the sole ruler or a special design that would include the rule over the woman, it appears that the documented account of the creation of man and woman has been rewritten and retold in such a way as to conform to fallen man’s way.  The question we must ask is why are complementarians allowed to rewrite history?  When the very foundation of the complementarian position is based on a recreated account of the origin of humankind, how is that a faithful way to view truth?

It has been said that changing the historical context changes the way we view the present. This is the power of historical revisionism. The very first attempt at rewriting history came out of the mouth of the serpent. Did God really say…, he asked as he challenged the historical account of God’s words. The rewriting of history was the foundation point for the very first lie. Today we are being told that the woman was not designed to rule but instead she has been designed to support the man in such a way that she does not do what he does. Can we actually change woman’s design by denying that she was created as a ruler and one who would give powerful aid to the man? How did the design of the woman get turned around so that complementarians are being taught that the woman was designed to be ruled by the man? It appears that it is true that if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will believe it. But a lie is never changed into the truth by repetition.

The next event that has been subject to historical revision is the fall. The consequence of man’s sin is downplayed in the fall so that the ruling of the man over the woman in Genesis 3 is made to be God’s original design even though God never mentioned it before the fall. History has also been rewritten when the words of God’s warning told to Eve about her husband’s after-sin way of relating to her is reinterpreted as God’s original design, not her husband’s new sin nature. But the truth unravels the revision when we study the context.  For if the context of the fall can be stripped away, then one can argue that God’s original design was weeds, a cursed earth and the necessary death of mankind.

I feel for my brothers and sisters in Christ who have had their “truth” molded by historical revisionism.  But I would encourage all of us not to forget the lessons of the past.  We are to remember what God has done for us.  God made woman to rule alongside the man.  When God originally created the man alone He stated that it was “not good”.  It is “not good” for man to fulfill his rule over creation alone. God made both the man and the woman to rule and the original rule was to be over God’s world and His animals, not over each other.

I also feel for my dear sisters in Christ who have been taught the revision of the creation account so that they have become afraid to go through the open doors that God has held open for them.  I would like quote a few words from a Women in Ministry blog from the First Baptist Church, St. Simons Island, Georgia.  This church has recently made a bold move to include women in a position of service in their church. Celeste writes some very thoughtful words about the open doors that God has for women.  I encourage you to read the whole post as I was very touched by it.

I see what you’ve done. Now see what I’ve done. I’ve opened a door before you that no one can slam shut. You don’t have much strength; I know that; you used what you had to keep my Word. You didn’t deny me when times were rough. Revelation 3:8 (The Message)

I wonder how many times in our lives we’ve prayed and asked the Lord to just “open a door” for us and told Him all that we would try to do to obey Him and to honor Him as we’d enter through it.

Open doors are a wonderful thing…
and the visual effect for us is very provocative and encouraging.

Then a door opens…
now what?

Indeed…now what?  How will we go through these open doors when we have fallen captive to the lie for so long?  Celeste gives words of advice in the finish of her post.

Send article as PDF to

Another common objection to women in ministry is the claim that when women speak and lead publicly it dishonors men.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) speaks of this as dishonoring the “calling” of men:

We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary repsonsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God’s will that only men bear the responsibility for this office. (pg 64 online version)

One thing that we can notice from the quote above is that CBMW says “we think it is God’s will…”.  The fact that they don’t know for sure is telling. The fact is that God has not revealed in the Scriptures that it is His will that only men can teach and lead in their gifts. God has also not revealed that women can never teach and lead with their gifts in the body of Christ.  Instead of a sure word from God, “inappropriateness” of the public use of women’s gifts is a position based on what some surmise is God’s will.  It is result of the teaching that men alone bear the God-ordained responsibility for teaching.

CBMW continues with the thought that it isn’t about competency:

The issue is not whether women are competent or intelligent or wise or well-taught. The issue is how they relate to the men of the church. … So the issue of shamefulness is at root an issue of doing something that would dishonor the role of the men as leaders of the congregation. (pg 65 online version, my emphasis)

So, according to CBMW, the issue is not about whether God gifts women or about women’s intelligence or their wisdom or how well-taught they are. The focus is solely on men’s dishonor. Where does this issue of shame and dishonor come from?  Is it a Biblical teaching or does it come from shame-based cultural “laws”?  There is no doubt that the worldly system is based on honor and shame.  In worldly Islamic societies if a woman does something that is considered a shame to the man she may suffer punishment even to the extent of  losing her own life.  In ancient Jewish culture recorded in the Talmud, a man may suffer shame by his wife exposing the hair on her head in public or by exposing a bare ankle or her forearm.  A man was encouraged to deal with this shame by divorcing his wife.  It was his right to punish her for his dishonor.  This was the world’s way of handling men’s dishonor, but is it Biblical to accuse women of shaming and dishonoring men by using their God-given gifts?

If we do a Biblical search for the issue of shame or dishonor coming upon godly Christian men merely because of  a woman using her spiritual gifts, we find no verse that teaches such a thing.  No woman is ever charged with dishonoring a man by giving her gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.  So where does CBMW get such an idea that women teaching the truth of God’s Word shames and dishonors men?  I suggest that issues of shame and dishonor follow quite naturally with the issue of pride.  Proverbs 11:2 speaks about pride that brings dishonor:

Proverbs 11:2  When pride comes, then comes dishonor,  But with the humble is wisdom. (NASB)

When one has a coveted “position” or “office” to defend, the pride that follows will set up boundaries to hold others outside. Then when women dare to function in the gifting that these men believe they alone have received from God, their pride is hurt and shame and dishonor follows.

Paul did not experience this shame. Instead of experiencing any kind of competition and thus dishonor, Paul gave his personal commendation on behalf of a woman to the Romans. This woman who received Paul’s personal recommendation was a servant or minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea.  Depending on the translation, Phoebe is called “a deacon of the church”, “who serves the church”,  ”our sister, who is a minister of the assembly”.

Paul describes this woman as one who actively served the entire church at Cenchrea. Because she was one who served in this way, she was to be received favorably by the Romans and because she had been the benefactor, protector, helper of many people, including Paul himself.

Romans 16:2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.  (TNIV)

Paul was not dishonored that a woman had been his benefactor. Nor did Paul indicate that the church at Cenchrea was dishonored by having a woman minister to the entire church. She is not said to be a deacon of the women but a deacon, minister, or servant of the church.  ’She is not said to bring dishonor, but Paul’s extended his commendation in honoring her. Phoebe used her gifts to benefit many people including men because she used her gifts to benefit Paul.

Paul also was not dishonored by the ministry of Priscilla who was a “fellow worker” of Paul’s (Romans 16:3). Priscilla was one of the teachers who taught Apollos the way of God more accurately. Apollos did not experience shame or dishonor by being taught and corrected by a woman.

Yet some are so dishonored by a woman’s using her gifts for the benefit of the entire church that they have kept some of the best of men’s teaching away from women. Just in case that a woman might dishonor them, they will not allow her to learn about anything that has been held in high regard for the use of men alone. They will not allow her into their seminaries or take pastoral courses even though the Scriptures never hold back learning from women and Paul himself commands that a woman should be allowed learn. A man’s  protection of his “office” from suffering “dishonor” causes him to disobey the Bible’s clear injunction to allow a woman to learn.

Rather than holding to a position of boasting in an “office”, the Bible turns men away from such a boastful way and it commands all who desire to be the greatest in the kingdom to be the servants of all. The servant then must equip the saints for the work of service.  (Eph 4:12)  The true servant of God will equip all for service for the express purpose of building up the entire body. There can be no dishonor in equipping women to serve the body.

Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13  until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. NASB

True servants of God should never suffer dishonor through their position of equipping the saints when these godly women saints take that equipping and use it to build up the body of Christ.  When a Christian man turns aside from both protecting the flock and preparing them for ministry, pride will cause them to feel a need for protection from the flock especially from the gifts of godly Christian women. Any Christian leader who is dishonored and fearful of equipped Christian women is short sighted and has taken his eyes off of Jesus as the giver of the gifts and the One who has empowered us with the Holy Spirit for body service. When men’s shame and dishonor comes before the work of God it is time for men to repent and seek His forgiveness.  I believe that when godly men turn from their pride in an “office” and turn back to the Lord Jesus in humility and start practicing the equipping of the entire body of Christ for service, God will be honored and the Church will go out triumphant in all her glory to win the lost for Christ.

Send article as PDF to

One of the first objections to women in ministry is the fact that Jesus chose only males as his twelve apostles. If Jesus only chose men for this special “class” of people who were to be His witnesses of the resurrection, then didn’t Jesus show by this act that He does not allow women to minister in the church as men alone are to have a special position of authority?

I would like to suggest that Jesus deliberately chose men as part of the group of 12 who were to be witnesses to the resurrection since these men were to be witnesses to the world while Jesus assigned women to be the first witnesses to the church.

In the culture of that day only men were considered to be credible witnesses. So a witness to the world would be most effective with the witness of those who could legally give testimony. It was the men who would establish a legal testimony to the world and go on to establish the integrity of their own witness by laying down their lives.

But Jesus considered the brethren to be different than the world as they were to accept the word and the witness of women without the world’s prejudice.

The angels at the tomb gave the gospel first of all to the women who spread the word by promptly giving the gospel to the men:

Luke 24:6  ”He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

Luke 24:7  saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

Luke 24:8  And they remembered His words,

Luke 24:9  and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

In the book of Matthew, the angel commands the women to give the good news of the gospel to the Lord Jesus’ disciples:

Matthew 28:5  The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

Matthew 28:6  ”He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

Matthew 28:7  ”Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Matthew 28:8  And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

While the women were on their way to report the good news to the disciples, Jesus Himself met them and it was Jesus who commissioned them as witnesses:

Matthew 28:9  And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

Matthew 28:10  Then Jesus *said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

In the book of John, Mary was also given the privilege of seeing the resurrected Christ and she too was commissioned by Jesus to give a message of hope to the disciples:

John 20:15  Jesus *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she *said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”

John 20:16  Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher).

John 20:17  Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”

In Mark’s account an angel commands the women to take word to Jesus’ disciples telling them that what happened to Jesus and the resurrection was “just as He told you”.

Mark 16:5  Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.

Mark 16:6  And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

Mark 16:7  ”But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

But the men would not believe the gospel given by the testimony of the women:

Luke 24:10  Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

Luke 24:11  But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.

These disciples were acting like the world in that they would not receive the testimony of the women. Jesus Himself came to some of these male disciples on the road to Emmaus and keeping their eyes from recognizing Him, he questioned them about what had happened. The men answered:

Luke 24:18  One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?”

Luke 24:19  And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

Luke 24:20  and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him.

Luke 24:21  ”But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.

Luke 24:22  ”But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning,

Luke 24:23  and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive.

Luke 24:24  ”Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.”

Even with the testimony of all these women saying that Jesus was alive, they did not believe the women. Jesus chided them because they had not believed the testimony of the women nor had they believed the testimony of the prophets of old who had prophesied about His death and resurrection:

Luke 24:25  And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:26  ”Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”

The undeniable testimony of the women and their belief in the resurrection was designed by God to be the very first witness to the early Christians.  The command for women to testify was from angels and from the Lord Jesus Himself.  By this act, Jesus removed the stigma of women as unreliable witnesses and He prepared the heart of his own brethren to receive women with full acceptance of their gifts through the coming in-filling and commission of the Holy Spirit which would shortly come to pass.

We should be able to see that it was the unbelieving world that needed the witness of 12 men. In contrast it was Jesus’ disciples who were given the witness of the women. God’s people were to accept the witness and gifting of godly women.

While the world is prejudiced against women, it is not to be that way among you.  The world’s way is prejudice against women.  That is why Jesus sent 12 male witnesses to be the commissioned witnesses of the resurrection to the world.  Jesus was not prejudiced against women - the world was!  But Jesus completely changed things with the church by sending women to the unbelieving brethren, because the church is to learn from Jesus a better way that is love without prejudice.

Jesus desired to teach his male disciples that they could accept the testimony of a woman sent by God.  She was just as worthy a witness as they were. Today Jesus is still sending a message to the church.  We are to be different from the world.  We are to be salt and light showing a different way.

I believe that when we love God enough, we will accept His gifts through female vessels without prejudice.  We as the church need to humble ourselves to embrace and encourage God’s commissioned witnesses and God’s commissioned gifts even from women whom God calls and gifts.  When we stop acting with prejudice as the world acts, the world will take notice that we have been with Jesus and we are changed.  Truly they will know that we are His disciples by our love for one another.  Let no man grieve the Holy Spirit by rejecting God’s gifts that flow through his sister in Christ.

Send article as PDF to

The bride of Christ has been given gifts but are teacher and pastor two gifts or one?

God has given many gifts to the church and the main purpose of the gifts is to edify the body of Christ so that God will ultimately be glorified.  Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 14:12 that we are to strive to excel in the gifts that will build up the church.

1 Cor 14:12  So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. ESV

While Paul encourages Christians to excel in building up the church, most complementarians do not believe that women are allowed to build up the church by being gifted as teachers.  How can they disallow the Holy Spirit’s ability to Sovereignly decide who receives the gifts? Ephesians 4:11 says:

Eph 4:11  And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, NASB

Here we see separate gifts that God has given to the church but the list in Ephesians is interpreted by some with “pastors and teachers” as one “office”.  John MacArthur says it this way:

pastors and teachers. This phrase is best understood in context as a single office of leadership in the church. The Gr. word translated “and” can mean “in particular” (see 1 Tim. 5:17). The normal meaning of pastor is “shepherd,” so the two functions together define the teaching shepherd. The MacArthur Study Bible

MacArthur is identifying “and” as not a conjunction between two separate gifts, but a “particular” emphasis on the gift.  In other words in MacArthur’s world a pastor is the teacher.

Others point out that there is a singular definite article before pastor and no definite article before teacher.  The one definite article they say, connects the two together in such a way that the one gift should be called singular as pastor-teacher.

However the exact same grammar is also in Matthew 5:20 where “scribes” and “Pharisees” have a singular definite article before two nouns joined together by the Greek “kai” or “and”.

Matthew 5:20  ”For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus has connected the scribes and Pharisees as having a common type of “righteousness”, however is Jesus here saying that the scribes and Pharisees are one united thing?  Would it be proper to call them scribe-Pharisees as a singular unit?  No, not at all.  While most scribes were Pharisees, certainly not all Pharisees could be called scribes.  The Pharisees and scribes are related, as they have a common self-righteousness, but they are not the same. Here is another example:

Matthew 2:4  Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.

Again we find in Matthew 2:4 that there is one article for the two nouns which are joined together by “kai”.  So we need to ask, are the chief priests all scribes?  Should the chief priests be called chief priest-scribes?  Again we have to say no.  Although the chief priests and scribes are placed in a related function in the verse, they are not the same and one can be a chief priest without being a scribe. John MacArthur admits that the chief priests were mostly Sadducees while the scribes were mostly Pharisees.  The fact that they are listed together with only one definite article does not make them completely tied together so they must be listed as a hyphenated noun or as referring to a united “one”.

So does the fact that pastors and teachers share a common definite article in Ephesians 4:11 mean that they are so interrelated that there is actually only one gift and only one function?  Should they be listed as a hyphenated noun as if they are only one gift?  No it cannot mean that as comparing Scripture to Scripture shows us clearly that teacher is a gift of its own.

Many complementarians state that only pastors are allowed to be teachers because of the common definite article, but the grammar of Ephesians 4:11 cannot remove the singular gift of teacher and attach it inseparably with the gift of pastor.  Paul lists teachers by themselves in 1 Corinthians 12:28 without any attachment to the gift of pastor.

1 Cor 12:28  And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

Paul also states that the distinct gifts are to be utilized with the grace given to each of us.  We can note that the one who teaches is to use it in proportion of his/her faith in their act of “teaching” not in “pastoring”.

Romans 12:6  Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith;

Romans 12:7  if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching;

While the gifts can operate together they are distinct and the portion of faith for each gift is distinct.  Why is it so important for complementarians to try to remove teachers as a separate category of gift apart from pastor?  It is because teachers were historically listed as the kind of the gifts that were very clearly done by people who were ministering to the whole church.  The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Valvoord states:

Gifted apostles, prophets, and teachers characteristically ministered to a whole church, and so would engender unity and mutual edification.  Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.

I would like to suggest that we as the church would do well to embrace all of God’s gifts that resides in whomever God desires to gift.  If it pleases God to gift women as teachers, we need to allow them to fulfill their gifting so that it benefits the church and to that their gifts can be rightly used to grow the church into maturity.

Send article as PDF to

The following article was sent to me this morning by Mabel, a follower of this blog.  The pastor of the church that had its charity status removed in Canada also contacted our ministry as we went through the same kind of persecution from the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) regarding their disallowing as “charitable” the work of ministering Jesus to the cults.  They allow people to preach Jesus in their own congregations, but if one is persuasively bringing Jesus to those who are lost in the world of the cults, the government of Canada see this as an “uncharitable” work and will actively move to withdraw one’s charitable status. The consequences of the removal of charitable status means that all ministry money and equipment must be given away or the government taxes it at 100% rate. It was a very difficult time for us as we had to purchase back our own equipment and stock just to continue in ministry. Our ministry is now based out of the USA as a charitable organization.  It is a very sad time when Christian ministries face restrictions when Christians speak up about the things that God intends to make us salt and light to this world.  There is no doubt to me that the time is short and we must continue to live our Christian lives fearlessly speaking the truth with love no matter what the cost.

I rarely mention this, but anyone wishing to contribute financially to our on-going ministry needs may do so on line here.

Calgary Church Loses Charity Status: Opposition to Abortion, Homosexuality Cited as Reasons

By Patrick B. Craine

CALGARY, Alberta, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has revoked the charitable status of Kings Glory Fellowship (KGF), a Christian church in Calgary.  CRA cites a number of issues with KGF’s application, but the decision is based, in part, on the ground that certain KGF Board members have spoken out strongly against abortion, and other moral issues.

“The members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc.,” wrote CRA agent Dian Prodanov in an October 29th letter.

These “political” views make the church ineligible because, according to the agent, a registered charity “may only engage in non-partisan political activities as long as it devotes substantially all (usually 90% or more) of its resources to charitable activities.”

KGF’s pastor, Artur Pawlowski, is also the founder and pastor of Street Church Ministries, which has made headlines because of its battle with the city of Calgary to uphold its right to preach to and serve the city’s poor.

In December, a provincial court judge sided with Pawlowski and SCM, striking down several city infractions against them.  Further, the judge found that “the City’s attempts … to limit the scope of the efforts by the accused to minister to his congregants, fall precariously close to being excessive and, to any reasonable observer, an abuse of power.”

Prodanov cited numerous problems with KGF’s application, such as a lack of detail about various expenditures, but Pawlowski called these other reasons “smoke screens.”

“The main point is that they don’t like my opinions about different controversial issues, and I speak about them openly on radio, in paper, and on TV,” he said.  “So that’s what happens when you express your views as a pastor.”

“If they take the charity status away from a church, they are hoping that they are going to starve us to death in Canada, and therefore we will not be able to influence anyone,” he continued.  “That’s basically what happens.  That’s what they want to accomplish.  They want to muzzle us up.”

Send article as PDF to

Last year I blogged about Dr. Barb Orlowski’s research on spiritual abuse.  Barb contacted me during a time when I was going through a very difficult period in my own life and she was very helpful to me in both her active listening and in her own decision to contact the District church leaders that she knew personally to act on our behalf.  Her intervention resulted in an investigation that dealt with the abusive situation.  While the cause of the abuse was ultimately removed, I had to privately go through my own grief and deep sorrow. I was raised as a preacher’s kid and had always seen the church as a place of safety. As a result of the spiritual abuse, the idea of church as a safe place was no longer that same place of safety to me.  Time does a great job of helping us heal, but I am not yet sure when I will come full circle and be back to where I started. Spiritual abuse is that devastating. I have never made any of the details public although I am currently working on a DVD project that is a result of the things I have learned as a direct result of the abusive situation I endured.  God certainly is able to work all things out for good to them that love Him and are called according to His purpose. What seemed like evil to us can and will be used for good by God who holds us in His hands.

Although I personally spent 16 years helping others who had been abused in various cults, mostly dealing with the hurt of Jehovah’s Witnesses who had lost family relationships as a result of their exiting the Watchtower organization, and their struggle with unlearning the cult doctrine and relearning the basics of Christianity to enable them to experience a real relationship with Christ, I had never before experienced spiritual abuse myself. I can now say by personal experience that it is devastating both physically and emotionally and I know many who experience spiritual abuse find themselves suffering spiritual devastation as well. Last year I was completely covered with red welts from the stress of the situation and the diagnosis for me was that the welts would be a permanent affliction that I would have to suffer due to the stress of the spiritual abuse. But praise God He knows how to heal and after months of suffering I was given a medication that really helped and I no longer have any marks on my body from what I went through.

The issue of spiritual abuse has come up once again as Barb Orlowski has recently contacted me that her book on this subject called “Spiritual Abuse Recovery Dynamic Research on Finding a Place of Wholeness” is complete and can be obtained through her by emailling her at info@churchexiters.com. I understand that she has access to the sale of these books right now if anyone contacts her directly. Barb’s web site is churchexiters.com and people can also request an autographed copy from Barb.  Below is a description of Barb’s book and the endorsements that she has received:

Book Description

What factors contribute to active Christians in ministry leaving their church and becoming exiting statistics? Every year dedicated Christian people leave churches because of spiritual abuse. The stories of people who left their home church because of a negative and hurtful experience paint a picture of a widespread occurrence which beckons consideration by church leaders and church congregants alike.

Spiritual abuse, the misuse of spiritual authority to maltreat followers in the Christian Church, is a complex issue. This book shows how people processed their grief after experiencing spiritual abuse in their local church and how they rediscovered spiritual harmony. Theirspiritual journey shows how one may grow through this devastating experience.

This book offers a thoughtful look at the topic of spiritual recovery from clergy abuse through the eyes of those who have experienced it. It invites church leaders to consider this very real dysfunction in the Church today and aims to demonstrate a path forward to greater freedom in Christ after a season of disillusionment with church leadership.

Endorsements for Back Cover

“In an age of increasing calls for strong church leadership, this book is a gift to church leaders and those who have been severely hurt and abused in our churches. Through careful research and an insider’s perspective, Barb has opened up both pathways for healing from church abuse and insights for leadership to ensure that potential future abuse is stopped.”

—Alan Jamieson, author of A Churchless Faith

“What we refer to as spiritual abuse was a concern for Jesus in his earthly ministry and it is a common problem today. It is, therefore, surprising that more attention is not given to it by today’s Christian community. Barb Orlowski, however, does take it seriously as she offers insight into the causes of bad church experiences and how to recover from them. Her counsel alerts people to the dangers ofspiritual abuse, and if leaders hear her, they will be less likely to become part of the problem . . . I encourage you to read it.”

—Ken Blue, author of Healing Spiritual Abuse

“Dr. Orlowski’s research has provided a balance for various perspectives on the experience of woundedness. She listens to the voices of the wounded and lets them inform us of their reality of feeling disappointment and disenfranchisement, tragedy and turbulence in the Church . . . For recovery, Dr. Orlowski gives an excellent starting point—the voice of the wounded—and follows that with the grace of God demonstrated through hearing the voice of God and basing recovery on the Word of God.”

—Kirk E. Farnsworth, author of Wounded Workers

Send article as PDF to

I have been notified that my Women in Ministry blog has been picked as one of the top 55 pastor bloggers on the online Christian Colleges web site here.  My blog is listed up women pastors.  Also my blog has been picked up as a bibiloblog by biblioblogtop50.wordpress.com and this biblio blog site.  It is nice to see that the issue of women in ministry has received notice.

Send article as PDF to

I have a great concern tonight for my Pastor. Pastor Jim Reimer and two of our worship team along with a group of teens from our local high school flew into Haiti around noon today.  They were intending a two week ministry trip. The devastating earthquake struck Haiti around 5 pm.

We are praying for pastor Jim and the team not knowing what has happened to them and whether they are safe or not.  Please join with me to pray for God’s protection on these members of the body of Christ during this very difficult time.

**Update Jan 13th 2010**The news media has reported that the team made it two hours away from the airport before the earthquake hit and everyone is safe.  We will continue to pray for our pastor and the team that they will be greatly used in their mission and will make it home safely.

**Update January 15, 2010** An email from Pastor Jim came through.

From Pastor Jim:

Today is January 15
We started the day with a large tremor at 4 am. It shook our shelter and sent the kids running. To be awakened in this manner was quite scary. It is now 8:40 am and as I was typing that sentence, another good quake came. It suddenly struck me as funny, I never even moved from my seat. It is amazing how quickly one adapts to the situation. We have been experiencing these tremors about one every 90 minutes. Each one is lesser or greater intensity. None though, with the force of the first one.

We are camped out under a tin roof, Poll barn type structure, which serves as their church building. It has no walls and is about 48 x100 feet in area. It has a ground floor. Kids are all sleeping in a row on the ground. We used sheets of plywood for ground cover. We risked entering the main house to retrieve mattresses and all our supplies on Wednesday.

They are asking no one to go back into the houses until the tremors stop. Each day since Wednesday they say “tomorrow” it will be safe. People are sleeping everywhere. Last night we had about a hundred stay on our compound. Not as many are here as in other places as this place has many trees and the locals are afraid of the trees falling on them in the event of another quake.

We went on a walk about today. Saw home after home levelled. The people had nothing, now they have even less. The proposed goat farm wall that was half built is all down. The wall around the compound is mostly down, and that what is standing has to be taken down and started over again. It would cost 50,000 dollars to rebuild the compound wall. The rebuilding of these walls is necessary to continue the mission here for safety and security reasons.

To see the devastation is one thing, to hear of the loss of life compounds the sense of loss exponentially. One can hardly imagine how these folks will have hope and courage to move forward.  There is no employment to go out and make money. The little food they had is now gone as well. The kids were moved by the situation and immediately emptied their pockets to buy rice. We raised 2500 dollars with the group. It will purchase 4000 pounds of rice. We are going to distribute it to the families this afternoon.

The goat farm is only two acres, which mistakenly thought was 10 acres. This plot of land will house about fifty goats. It has its own well and will be irrigated from it. There is another plot of land adjacent to this plot for sale. It would be prudent to purchase it, but Marc did not know the cost.

There is a ten acre lot in another location dedicated for an orphanage. The need for an orphanage has increased dramatically now. The last report we heard that 700,000 people have died. We can not substantiate this amount, but constantly we hear of someone who lost a family member or a friend.

Carla Jadue and Veronica Bocca both from Chile arrived on Jan 10 to holiday here. They were rescued by the Chilean government on January 15 by helicopter. It was emotional to see them go.

We know have just returned from distributing food. One of the students said, “each day it is getting better for me, this experience has changed my life for ever. When I get home I am going to fund raise for these people.” This was said, as we were leaving from distributing rice, riding in the back of a police truck with fourteen of us piled in there. The line never ended; when the rice did, it broke our heart.

When we got back to Haiti Arise, we got more bad news. During the confusion of Tuesday night’s earthquake someone came into the unsecured house and stole 10,000 US. This was money set aside for food for our team and their staff.

It is hard to come to terms with the depravity of human nature in the light of a disaster. Suddenly the price of rice increased, diesel prices jump, the Haitian dollar is worth less, and neighbours loot neighbours houses. One man reported that people were stepping over his dead wife while they looted his house.

But then, we see the other side. In the community of Grand Goave people lives are being changed and impacted through the generosity of people like Marc and Lisa Honorat, founders of Haiti Arise and people all around the world supporting their ministry.

Information is so sketchy here. One of the individuals John Louis Meloche was in touch with is daughter who works for Air Canada. She contacted Mrs. L’heureux who is a Minster of Foreign Affairs in Quebec. She reported that Foreign Affairs did not know about us.  We thought the information was out that we need to be evacuated.

Everyone is still healthy here, except for Sue. She is still in a lot of pain and should be seen by a doctor

Jim Reimer, Pastor of Kootenay Christian Fellowship.

**Update January 17th, 2010**  The team has now been rescued from the mission’s compound and is in the Canadian Embassy in Port-au-Prince Haiti.  Latest news reported by Jorge Barrera, Canwest News Service on Canada.Com

**Update January 17, 2010** The team is now on their way to Montreal and should arrive tonight.  They will be flown back to BC on Monday.

What a wonderful ending for all their loved ones here.  We will be very happy to get back our pastor and several of our worship team.  Thank you LORD!

**Update January 18** The Kootenay team was unable to all get on the same plan leaving Haiti so Pastor Jim and worship team will take a plane home to BC tomorrow with all the team together.

**Update January 19th** Pastor Jim and the team are on a flight from Montreal.

As of 9 pm BC time they are all home safe.  Praise the Lord!

**One final update on January 21, 2010 - below is Pastor Jim’s letter regarding his time in Haiti during the earthquake:

I want to express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the many calls, emails, prayers and expressions of love towards me and my family while the team was in Haiti. I am humbled and give praise to God that our team of 24 people was spared death and serious injury in light of the earthquake we experienced.

It is good to be home, but I feel undeserving considering how much I have and how little so many people in the world have, especially in Haiti right now.

As you know, Kootenay Christian Fellowship (KCF) initiated a mission to Haiti which was supported by the Nelson Daybreak Rotary Club and Mount Sentinel School. Our Haiti team was made up of two groups.  One was from the school, directed by Don Warthe, teacher at Mount Sentinel, two adult chaperones, and seventeen students from the Quest for Community. The second group was made up of one couple from KCF and two Pastors; Doug Middlebrook from Kootenay Lake Community Church and Jim Reimer from KCF.  Together we formed the group of 24.

We went to Haiti with the intention to drill a well for the community, build a goat farm, to teach in the technical school, participate in the graduating ceremonies of this year’s graduates, and to be a blessing generally to the Haitian people by giving out clothes, school and dental supplies. With great anticipation of what we were going to accomplish, we arrived at Haiti Arise on Tuesday, January 12, at 4 pm. We eagerly filed into the house with our 20 containers of gifts, materials and luggage. Then just 53 minutes later we experienced the most life changing event of our lives; a 7.0 earthquake. The building rocked, sending all of us to the floor. Miraculously the house did not collapse like every other home in the area. Not only were we spared death, but despite falling articles in the house only one of us experienced injury. Sue, one of the adult chaperones, suffered a cracked rib from a falling mirror.

We escaped the mission house and sought higher ground. Just imagine the trauma the students and adults felt – strange land, no orientation to our surroundings, can’t understand the language, hundreds of people streaming into the field, with darkness closing in on us. We spent the night in that open field with aftershocks of various degrees rocking the earth every twenty minutes. Adding to our misery, a light rain descending upon us.  The Haitian people sharing our space sent up a chorus of prayers, shouts of praise, and cries of anguish with each aftershock experienced. They would sing, clap and shout their petitions to the God of heaven until the sun broke through. It was both comforting and disquieting.

When morning finally came, we were comforted somewhat by the warmth of the sun. We decided to go back to the compound of Haiti Arise. There we set up our refuge camp and lived until our rescue by the Canadian Army. As the days continued, more and more people joined our makeshift camp. We were happy to share our food and water supplies with our new guests.

Communication was difficult and accurate information was hard to obtain. But eyewitness evidence was clear – almost every house in the rural area we occupied was flattened. Many locals reported deaths in the family. Devastation was everywhere.

The timing of the earthquake (4:53 pm) was fortunate in that most people in the rural area where not in their homes. Had it happened in the middle of the night, the death toll could easily have been tripled.

While in Haiti, the students helped clear roads, bought rice and distributed it to over 500 families, and assisted in the refuge camp with various chores. In addition, our group offered prayers of comfort and a listening ear to those suffering human and physical loss.

Haiti Arise is to be commended. As a mission they have a commitment to excellence. The mission house we were in withstood the quake and thus we were all spared death. This is a testimony to the quality of work Haiti Arise is committed to. They have a goal to help Haitians become self-sufficient and a spiritually and physically healthy community of people.  Haiti Arise supports students in their quest for education by operating a technical school for 400 students and a Bible school.  They also provide medical and dental help for locals. Their recent project to create a goat farm was just one more example of their programs to offer sustainability for locals. Future goals included an orphanage and elementary school. The latter goal is even more urgent now than ever before.

Haiti Arise is a registered charity in Canada and thus donations to this ministry are eligible for the matched dollars by the Canadian Government. Donations to local groups, like Haiti Arise, will be an efficient method to bring immediate help to the locals. Immediate needs are to develop security, distribute food and water to the locals, and then the creation of a plan to help the locals achieve suitable housing again. We need to have a qualified engineer to ascertain the damage to the buildings at Haiti Arise to see if they have been compromised.

Contributions can be made directly to Haiti Arise by going to their website at www.haitiarise.org or by going to www.kootenaychristianfellowship.com.

Tomorrow, Friday, January 22, Marc and Lisa, founders of Haiti Arise, will be interviewed on the CTV morning show at 7:15am across Canada in every province.

Once again to all those who have donated to KCF to help Haitians, offered prayers, and called our home to offer support, a heartfelt, huge and thunderous thanks. We love you all.

Pastor Jim, humbled and grateful earthquake survivor.

Send article as PDF to

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?

In 1 Timothy Paul tells Timothy ‘you do it’ a number of times.  In chapter 1 verse 3 Paul tells Timothy to instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.  In chapter 5 verse 11 Paul commands Timothy to refuse to put younger widows on the widows list lest they later desire to marry and in chapter 5 verse 19 Paul commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an elder except for the required two or three witnesses.  In chapter 5 verse 20 Timothy is commanded to rebuke an elder who continues to sin and in chapter 6 verse 17 Paul commands Timothy to instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited.

So why doesn’t Paul continue his pattern of commanding Timothy to “do” things and instead Paul lifts up his own authority in 1 Timothy 2:12 saying “I am not allowing”?  May I suggest that Paul is giving his own apostolic authority to Timothy to act in a very sensitive situation.

Timothy was a young man who in his youthfulness would have had a difficult time going past another man’s wife in order to stop her from teaching. In that culture a man’s home and family was his own responsibility alone. If you were going to deal with a man’s wife, you needed to go through the husband. But if the man of verse 12 was another “Adam” character who was saying and doing nothing about his wife’s deception, who could interfere? Paul could.

In the church Paul had the apostolic authority to go around the husband to stop the deception and false teaching of the wife.  By Paul saying “I am not allowing” Paul is giving his authority to Timothy to act on his behalf in one of the most uncomfortable tasks that Timothy had to accomplish. It was one thing to command the false teachers to cease and desist and to publicly rebuke elders who will not stop sinning, but how does this single young man rebuke another man’s wife? Paul takes the heat off of Timothy by making this one task a little easier by providing Timothy with the use of Paul’s authority. Paul is not allowing…

Send article as PDF to

While there are many who say that women cannot receive from God that which will benefit men as they believe that all wisdom that God has for mankind must come through the agency of a man, may I remind us today that the Wisdom of God - God Himself came into the world through a woman. The vessel that He used that was meant to bring benefit to all of mankind through the good news of the gospel in the face of the Savior, was a lowly servant who was a woman.

There are some today who refuse to accept God’s gift that comes through a woman. Their pride will not allow them to benefit from anything that they believe is beneath them.  They practice hardening their hearts because they do not want to see and do not want to hear what originates from a woman. God cannot use a woman to preach and teach the gospel to the church, they say, because God is pleased to limit Himself to only men who by virtue of their maleness are fit to receive God’s special gifts that equip only males as teachers and gentle shepherds of God’s people. To them God’s best is always a man. God’s best is the wisdom of a man. God’s best is the strength of a man. To them God cannot and will not use what is foolish or weak or insignificant, inferior, common or despised.   God limits His work through the chosen gender who are the physically and spiritually “strong” ones and God surely sanctions male pride because He created them as first class citizens of the kingdom.  Is it not the complementarian message that it is through males alone that God can fully express Himself in wisdom, power and leadership?

But God has a surprise. God does not work that way.

1 Cor 1:27  but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

1 Cor 1:28  and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

1 Cor 1:29  so that no man may boast before God.

God has selected for Himself the rejected. He has chosen to represent Himself by those who are despised and who are looked down on as insignificant and inferior. God is pleased to use them for His glory.

Those who harbor a pride because of their gender are set up for shame. God will bypass them and use the ones who are considered weak and who have suffered disdain, scorn, contempt and rejection.

Where will you stand this Christmas? Will you lift up the male gender as the privileged ones? Or will you look past what is on the outside and see the precious gift of God that lives within many apparently weak vessels?

God has a gift this season which is available to those who will humbly receive. Will you accept God’s best gift as it is offered to you from those who has been rejected and despised by men? Or will you turn your back on God’s way and follow the way of the proud and the strong by saying that you do not need such a despised vessel to teach you anything?

May the outworking of God’s gifts through His Holy Spirit within all of us be used for the benefit of the body of Christ.  May also the joy of this Christmas season find a place in your heart as you grow to love and accept all of the body parts, even the ones who are the least presentable in the body of Christ.

Merry Christmas to everyone who has been such a wonderful support for this Women in Ministry blog. You are much appreciated for the gifts that you bring me through your support and your wonderful comments.

Send article as PDF to

One of the problems with complementarian definitions is that they aren’t complete enough on the surface to reveal the underlying nature of their hierarchical disposition.  However when one pushes to get the answers to some difficult questions, the picture becomes a lot clearer that actually shows the complementarian stand to be male bias in the pretty package of complementarian wording.  However when the veil is pulled back, a contradictory view is shown which reviews an inequality in God’s design of humanity, but also a man-made restriction placed on God Himself in how He is allowed to express Himself through half of humanity.  Let me give a few of examples of the pretty package and then we will dissect the statements.  The examples are all from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).

Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons… (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement )

God never viewed women as second-class citizens. His Word clearly states that we are all equally His children and are of equal value and worth before Him.  (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/What-Should-Be-the-Husband-s-Role-in-Marriage )

And lastly 1 A. under the Summary of the Complementarian Position:

Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature … (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions )

These statements do seem to be a pretty package, affirming women as equal, however I would like to point out something that many people miss when they read these statements.  The complementarian position says that the male and female are equal before God in value and worth but note that they do not say that women are equal before mankind in value or worth.  They are only equal before God. However even in their equality before God there is a serious issue.

In what way are men and women equal in dignity and worth before God?  According to CBMW, it is only in salvation that men and women are equal before God.

…In sum, this verse explains the new status of believers as sons of God and the means by which every believer attains that status, through faith in Christ….Cottrell points out that the question is not whether any of these can be saved, but how they receive salvation… Simply put, the pattern for inheritance under the law was Jewish free males. In the New Covenant, however, something far better than an earthly estate is in view; “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).  Paul’s point in (Gal 3:28) is that everyone who receives the inheritance of salvation receives it the same way and experiences the same justifying results-union with Christ.  (from http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/Galatians-3-28-Prooftext-or-Context )

According to CBMW, it is our adoption as sons of God with the inheritance = our salvation. Our equality starts and ends with the CBMW understanding of Galatians 3:28.  However CBMW fails to give the full view of inheritance found in Galatians 4:1 where the inheritance of God’s adopted “sons” is defined as “owner of everything”.

Galatians 4:1  Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,

By equating  salvation as ending with sonship, and thus restricting sonship to our salvation, CBMW fails to recognize that the inheritance includes the rights to all that God has (owner of everything) with the restriction only in the age of the “son”, not the “gender”. Therefore the inheritance goes far past salvation and into the issue of ownership.  Does God’s women “sons” have a right to the ownership of God’s spiritual gifts too?  Of course because the inheritance goes beyond salvation to the ownership of everything!  If CBMW wants to withhold ownership of God’s estate from women, then they are saying that women have to stay as children while only men are allowed to be mature sons.  An interpretation of the separation of God’s “sons” by gender cannot be established from the text.

The next restriction that CBMW establishes is for God’s Holy Spirit as the gifts that God gives are now gender based through the classification of roles. In their understanding, roles are assigned as gifts to one gender alone. Spiritual equality then is limited to access to God and an equal standing before God, not an equal ability to receive God’s gifts or to receive an understanding of God’s word.

Third, even if one grants that equality is in the text implicitly, in the sense that if we are all “in Christ” we are all equal, then it can be understood properly only as a “spiritual equality” that describes equal access to God and an equal standing before God, not an equality of (gifts). (Found at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/Galatians-3-28-Prooftext-or-Context )

In this understanding of “equality”, God is restricted in the work that He can do through women.  His Holy Spirit cannot operate through women in the same way that He operates through men.  He cannot gift women equally nor can He give an understanding of God’s Word to a woman without going through a man first. In the complementarian understanding, God has great limitations on what He can and cannot do through women.

I find this limitation of God incredible! In communication with CBMW several years ago, I was told that God does not give break-through understanding of His Word to a woman. If a woman teaches or writes something that has not been first taught by a man, her insight into the Scriptures cannot be correct. Think about that!  God cannot connect with a woman like He connects with a man because God’s understanding in His Word comes only through man.

So while women can reach up to God in an equal way with men, CBMW’s understanding is that God cannot reach down to his female “sons” in an equal way as He does with men.  In essence God is limited in reaching others through men alone.   Men then take the insight in God’s word to women and women may act as an “echo” to repeat the insight from the men to others who also cannot have direct communication from God.

God is no longer Sovereign except through the agency of men. Women then must receive their instruction through men because they have no permission to receive from God directly.  God simply cannot come directly to a woman and provide her with a unique and insightful understanding of the Scriptures that has not been first delivered to a man.  The complementarian view gives an extremely restricted view of God’s ability to communicate with women.

CBMW may say that women have equal value and worth in the eyes of God, however in reality their actions disprove this claim as they believe that God cannot communicate insights from his Word directly to a woman without going through a man.  Women then are not of equal value as men in God’s eyes if we are to believe the complementarian view espoused by CBMW. The understanding hidden behind their words make their claim that women are equal in value and worth to God is a hollow claim.

The next issue is whether women are equal in value and worth in the eyes of men and women (humanity). While claiming that God doesn’t see women as second-class citizens, CBMW’s restrictions on women definitely set women up as second-class citizens regarding their value on this earth in the eyes of both men and other women.

In the complementarian view, women teachers must have less value and worth to other women than the value of men teachers,  since only men receive from God directly:

While women teachers have less worth then male teachers to other women, it is a whole different ball game when compared to men teachers in the eyes of men as students:

Since men believe that women are forbidden to teach them, the value of women teachers  does not just have “less value” to them as men teachers.   In reality women teachers end up with “no value” to the men themselves when men believe the complementarian position that they have no personal need for women teachers at all.

On the CBMW web site where they have answered questions on the Danver’s Statement (the statement which defines complementarianism), Wayne Grudem makes some claims that I believe in time will produce a sense of shame instead of the arrogant claims that he makes:

I think it is an indication of God’s favor that the statement has had no change of wording, nor have we felt the need to change the wording, for the entire twenty years it has been in existence. It has served as a “standard” by which people could evaluate their faithfulness to the biblical teaching on this matter…

If CBMW had not published the Danvers Statement in 1988, there would be not one “complementarian position” in the evangelical world, but hundreds, resulting in much confusion, and enabling evangelical feminists to criticize the most offensive expressions rather than having to deal with a responsible, biblically balanced statement that affirms the equal value of both men and women and their differences in roles ac­cording to Scripture. (Found at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-12-No-2/JBMW-Forum-Q-and-A-on-Danvers-Statement )

Apparently the Word of God is not “clear” on the issue of the “roles” of men alone since there is only confusion when the Bible is used alone and only with the help of CBMW and its “Danvers Statement” can the understanding of the role of men and women be clarified in an understandable way.  This height of arrogance rivals that of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have stated in the past that reading the Bible alone will take men into darkness but reading their Watchtower literature will take men into the light of God’s word!

The world has long held that women are valued far less than men. Does complementarianism bring men and women to a place of equal value? Absolutely not! Women cannot be equal in value to God when He cannot equally communicate His truth to them.  Also women cannot be equal in value to men who are taught to see women teachers as unnecessary “echoes” totally unneeded for the edification of men.  Women then are a secondary class of Christians relegated to “helping” men teach other women who also cannot hear from God directly but must follow men into the kingdom.

Send article as PDF to

The November 17, 2009 CBMW blog post by John Starke that we started to evaluate last post, is an amazing “piece of work” that exalts the 17th century writings of a Puritan named Richard Baxter who attempts to put women in their place.  Starke continues to summarize Baxter’s writings:

2. Discontentment. There is something about the sinful heart that is always wanting something other than the place in which God has placed him or her. When something other than God is the desire of the heart, it begins to desire more than the portion granted. The sinful cravings of the heart are deceitful and can justify sin or can explain away divine instruction. Baxter’s appeal to wives is to find your contentment and treasure in Christ and you will recognize the joy in resting in his purposes. (emphasis is mine).

Here Baxter concludes that there is a “portion granted” to women by God Himself.  As seen in the last post, this “portion” is not an equal hearing of wisdom from God, but a “portion granted” as a follower of the man who follows Christ.  Yet in the very nature of giving the woman the “place” of being the follower of a man, CBMW along with Baxter, perhaps unwittingly, identifies the husband in essence as the mediator between God and the woman as she follows God only through following under the leadership of the man.  The “sinful cravings of the heart” are identified not as the man’s fleshly need to be the boss and have the woman subjugated under his will, but the sinful cravings are identified as the nature of a woman outside of her “place”.

According to the CBMW blog article, outside of the “leadership” of a man, the wife finds a “deceitful” way of serving God directly and her actions of serving God without going through the authority of the man is said to be the “sinful cravings of the heart” of a woman who apparently cannot know divine instruction properly without her place under the authority of a mere human.  Starke’s summary rings hollow by saying “Baxter’s appeal to wives is to find your contentment and treasure in Christ…”  While this may sound right, what is really being said is for women to find their contentment and treasure under the man while giving him full access on their behalf to Christ’s wisdom and instruction.  This smacks of an OT priesthood arrangement where only a select few had access to the Holy of Holies.

In the last point, John Starke summarizes the need to “trust” in the leadership of the husband even if he is a “failure” because there is no provision by God for a woman to step outside of her “place” no matter what a husband does with his leadership:

3. Distrust in the leadership of your husband. Following the leadership your husband is not first and foremost based upon his merits, but upon the design of God’s intentions. Baxter recognizes the failures of husbands, since he was one himself, and there is no biblical expectations for women to follow their husbands in sin or submit to abuse. Yet, many may see the husband’s imperfections as an opportunity to exchange roles, as if he has lost his chance to lead. Baxter encourages wives to put away their fears of following their husbands, for it is not in him that you place your trust, but in the Lord who has given you good and perfect instruction for your joy. Rebelling against God’s instruction for the home will never bring peace or contentment. (emphasis is mine).

While CBMW’s John Starke (and Baxter) make it clear that there is no “expectation” for women to follow their husbands into sin, it is also very clear that any distrust of the husband’s “leadership” even if he is demanding her to sin, would be going against the design of God’s intentions for the woman.  The message is clear - even an imperfect rule of the man is protected by God as the husband’s right to rule is kept for him alone and the “place” that God has designed for women is under the rulership of the husband.

The hidden message is that even godly women cannot be trusted to lead in righteousness because God has decided that a husband who is acting in an ungodly manner and who is  enmeshed in sin is still entrusted to “lead” his wife.  He has not lost his “chance” to lead and women are to set aside their fears of following a sinful husband as it is still God’s way to work in her.   Apparently God still instructs her through the sinful man.  It is also clear from Starke’s conclusions that a woman who rebells against following the leadership of a sinful man is actually rebelling against God Himself and she will lack peace and contentment if she fails to be led in whatever direction the man choses to go.

Is this really what God has said?  Are women instructed to obey any “leading” of the husband even if she senses danger and her wisdom convicts her that his way is folly and a less-than-perfect lead?  Is it true that the wife is given no ability to follow God directly but must follow Him through her husband?  Let’s test this by God’s word concerning a godly woman’s rebellion against her husband’s “folly”. The husband’s name was Nabal and his wife’s name was Abigail.

In 1 Samuel 25 the story is told of the kindness that David’s men had shown to Nabal’s shepherds by protecting them and acting as a “wall” of protection both day and night while the shepherds were looking after Nabal’s  sheep.  When David turned to Nabal to get a favor, David’s men were turned away and instead of receiving good back from Nabal, David’s men were met with insults to David. David’s anger was aroused and David decided to kill Nabal.  When Abigail, Nabel’s wife was told about what Nabal had done and the trouble that was on its way to her house because of Nabal’s insults, she made a decision to act independently of her husband.  The young man who informed Abigail had come to her for action since he knew that Nabal would not listen.  The young man said to Abigail:

1 Samuel 25:17-19  ”Now therefore, know and consider what you should do, for evil is plotted against our master and against all his household; and he is such a worthless man that no one can speak to him.” Then Abigail hurried and took two hundred loaves of bread and two jugs of wine and five sheep already prepared and five measures of roasted grain and a hundred clusters of raisins and two hundred cakes of figs, and loaded them on donkeys.  She said to her young men, “Go on before me; behold, I am coming after you.” But she did not tell her husband Nabal.

Notice that Nabal was being bypassed by his wife and she did not take a position of staying under his “leadership”.  Instead of trusting in a sinful man as God’s design of rulership over her, she acted in wisdom to avert disaster. Was Abigail in sin for stepping outside of the “leadership” of Nabal? The account shows that she was not in sin. Yet we should notice that she was not asked by Nabal to sin, so according to CBMW, John Starke and the Puritan Richard Baxter’s rules of marriage, she was not to “exchange roles, as if he has lost his chance to lead.” Let’s continue to follow the account to see what God has to say that may be in direct contradiction to the “wisdom” of CBMW.

Abagail boldy took the lead and went out to meet David and his men:

1 Samuel 25:20-28   It came about as she was riding on her donkey and coming down by the hidden part of the mountain, that behold, David and his men were coming down toward her; so she met them.

Now David had said, “Surely in vain I have guarded all that this man has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that belonged to him; and he has returned me evil for good. May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him.”

When Abigail saw David, she hurried and dismounted from her donkey, and fell on her face before David and bowed herself to the ground. She fell at his feet and said, “On me alone, my lord, be the blame. And please let your maidservant speak to you, and listen to the words of your maidservant. Please do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is with him; but I your maidservant did not see the young men of my lord whom you sent. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, since the LORD has restrained you from shedding blood, and from avenging yourself by your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek evil against my lord, be as Nabal. Now let this gift which your maidservant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who accompany my lord. Please forgive the transgression of your maidservant; for the LORD will certainly make for my lord an enduring house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the LORD, and evil will not be found in you all your days.

Abigail was willing to take the blame for her husband upon herself and she spoke in faith to David telling him that she believed God would appoint him ruler over Israel and she wisely appealed to him to not to avenge himself with the blood of a fool along with the blood of others without cause. Abigail said:

1 Samuel 25:30-31 ”And when the LORD does for my lord according to all the good that He has spoken concerning you, and appoints you ruler over Israel, this will not cause grief or a troubled heart to my lord, both by having shed blood without cause and by my lord having avenged himself. When the LORD deals well with my lord, then remember your maidservant.”

In complete opposition to CBMW’s position, David acknowledges that Abigail’s actions (which were stepping outside of her husband’s will) was an act of the leading of God Himself:

1 Samuel 25:32-35  Then David said to Abigail, “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me, and blessed be your discernment, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodshed and from avenging myself by my own hand. Nevertheless, as the LORD God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from harming you, unless you had come quickly to meet me, surely there would not have been left to Nabal until the morning light as much as one male.” So David received from her hand what she had brought him and said to her, “Go up to your house in peace. See, I have listened to you and granted your request.”

Abigail’s discernment in acting of her own accord and in opposition to her husband’s revealed will was an act worthy of praise. Her wisdom commanded the respect of David and he acknowledges that God used her to bless David and to keep him from taking revenge into his own hand.  God blessed Abigail with further wisdom as she kept her actions as a secret from her own husband when she returned home and found out that he was drunk. According to CBMW’s outline of putting women in their place, the pattern would show that it was wrong for Abigail to have distrusted the leadership of her husband and chosen from her own will to act as a leader. How did Nabal, Abigail’s “appointed leader” act when he found out that his own wife had saved him from certain death?

1 Samuel 25:37-38  But in the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him so that he became as a stone.  About ten days later, the LORD struck Nabal and he died.

The fool Nabal had no leadership gift for his wife. It is folly to think that Abigail should have done anything other than the courageous actions that she took outside of her husband’s control. According to CBMW, the only right a woman has to disobey a husband’s leadership is if he is telling her to sin, but Nabal did not instruct Abigail to sin so her actions would be listed as “sinful cravings of the heart” which are “deceitful and can justify sin or can explain away divine instruction”. According to the hierarchists “role” distinctions, she was to find her “joyful place of submission” even to a sinful male because failing to keep under his leadership is “rebelling against God’s instruction for the home” and such an action “will never bring peace or contentment”.

Did Abigail have peace and contentment in acting from her own God-given wisdom? Yes, absolutely as she was given a place of honor as David’s wife.

1 Samuel 25:40-42  When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, they spoke to her, saying, “David has sent us to you to take you as his wife.” She arose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your maidservant is a maid to wash the feet of my lord’s servants.” Then Abigail quickly arose, and rode on a donkey, with her five maidens who attended her; and she followed the messengers of David and became his wife.

Remember that CBMW is affirming that the woman is to be under the authority of her husband even if the husband has “imperfections”.  The woman is never to take the lead even though her husband may be acting with his “imperfections”.  She is not to distrust him but must follow him in his leadership because according to CBMW the man’s leadership of his wife is not based on his merits, but upon the specific design that comes from the very intention of God.

Are we being told the Biblical truth by these hierarchists? Or is this divine leadership of the man over the woman a deception happening in the name of God? No Biblical passage says that the husband has been given a leadership role over his wife. God’s blessing comes to us when we obey God rather than men.  Jesus words ring true when He said that the tradition of men sets aside the commandments of God.

Mark 7:7-9  ’BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’  ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”

As wives, we are to honor our husbands by doing good for them, but it is a tradition of men, not a command of God that says women are to be under the leadership of the husband.  We have one Lord and one Master. That one Master is the Lord Jesus and not our fleshly husband.

If you are a wife who has received godly wisdom in the face of her husband’s folly, let me encourage you from the Bible to be an Abigail.  If you serve God from godly fear and from the wisdom that He has given you, you need not fear.   God does not consider a refusal to follow your husband’s “leadership” into folly as a sin. God’s word trumps the tradition of men that may have caused you to feel false guilt and shame for stepping out in the wisdom of the Lord. You are not alone. If we may help to encourage you, we are at your service.

Send article as PDF to

In a recent CBMW blog article, John Starke recounts Richard Baxter’s instructions for the Christian family.  (Richard Baxter was a 17th century Puritan).  Starke writes:

It is important to realize, when reading Baxter and the Puritans, that there was no guarded language when speaking of how the Christian household ought to look like. They simply assumed the clear, biblical teaching of a husband’s authority in the family and a wife’s joyful submission. So then, at one level, Baxter?s direction for women wouldn’t sound too different than John Piper’s or Wayne Grudem’s.

However, Baxter, in a way that Puritans are known for, approaches the heart of the wife. What would cause a wife to rebel against the biblical mandate to follow the leadership of the husband? Baxter gives a few reasons:

1. Failure to believe God’s will is best. God’s design for the Christian family, which includes the structure of authority and submission, is best! God is wise and we, as sinners, need divine wisdom. He writes, “Who are you to assess God’s Word in a way different than his own qualifications.” What Baxter means is, we are to allow God?s Word to explain itself in its own terms. We must not explain away difficult, but clear, instruction. As Christians, we must trust God’s counsel for the home. Failure to trust God’s will can only bring turmoil and unrest.

According to Baxter, we as sinners need divine wisdom.  And where does that wisdom reside?  The wisdom for the wife and for the home apparently resides in the husband who exercises God’s will through the man’s own authority.  Is this really the “clear” teaching of God’s word?  Let’s test this by the Word of God in Proverbs 31.  In verse 10 we see what is defined as an “excellent wife”.  Let’s consider verses 10-12:

Prov 31:10  An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.

Prov 31:11  The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain.

Prov 31:12  She does him good and not evil All the days of her life.

Instead of setting the wife up as one who finds divine wisdom alone in the man, these verses show that it is her husband’s heart that finds trust in her.  Notice that it doesn’t say that her husband takes authority over her or that she has no wisdom from God on her own.  Proverbs lists her as a woman who is wise and who uses her wisdom to do good for him.

The meaning of the word trust that her husband puts in his wife is a confidence and belief to the point of having a reliance upon her  (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains).

Far from being ruled by a man and finding divine wisdom in him alone she is industrious and makes decisions about what to do with her own earnings:

Prov 31:13  She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight.

Prov 31:14  She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar.

Pro 31:15  She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens.

Prov 31:16  She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.

This Proverbs 31 woman not only has wisdom but also strength:

Prov 31:17  She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong.

She “perceives” (senses) what is good:

Prov 31:18  She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night.

This means to perceive mentally [or spiritually], Prov. 31:18. ( Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures) so her wisdom is also from above.  She has the ability and the power to give generously to the poor:

Prov 31:19  She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle.

Prvo 31:20  She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy.

She takes care of the details of the home and both her husband and herself are known in the gates.  (The gates of the city are where business is done).

Prov 31:21  She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet.

Prov 31:22  She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Prov 31:23  Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land.  (see also verse 31 for the wife)

She is a source of supply for others in the city:

Prov 31:24  She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.

Prov 31:25  Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future.

She is said to have wisdom.  The verb is used twenty-six times in the OT and most of the passages appear in the Qal stem meaning “be wise,”  (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) She is said to have teaching which means instruction and doctrine, on her tongue:

Prov 31:26  She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

Not only does her husband trust in her but he praises her:

Prov 31:27  She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness.

Prov 31:28  Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:

Prov 31:29  ”Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.”

Prov 31:30  Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.

Prov 31:31  Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Does this sound like a woman who is a follower?  Does this sound like a wife who has to rely on her husband for “divine wisdom”?

It seems to me that we have accepted a faulty view of women.  So many have forced upon women a restrained and restricted view because of the teaching that the wife is to be a follower without a clear will of her own and without the wisdom and plan of her own to accomplish good for her husband and family.  In essence, we have accepted the wife as a woman who is an appendage of the man deliberately ignoring the clear mandate of the original creation for her to rule and reign with him.  If we fail to live out our joint mandate together as heirs of God, I believe that we will grow “little women” who are never given the tools to fulfill their full calling as “sons” of God. It is time that we get back to the solid foundation of the Proverbs 31 woman instead of the faulty model of the woman who must be led by the man with God’s wisdom filtered down to her through her husband.

Send article as PDF to

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.

Send article as PDF to

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. RBMW is produced by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).  In CBMW’s book there is only one short reference to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 in the overview section under question #46.   Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says:

Neither husband nor wife is given more rights over the body of the other.  And when some suspension of sexual activity is contemplated, Paul repudiates unilaterial decision making by the wife or the husband.  ”Do not deprive each other except  by mutual consent and for a time” (v. 5)

What are the implications of this text for the leadership of the husband?  Do the call for mutual yielding to sexual need and the renunciation of unilateral planning nullify the husband’s responsibility for general leadership  in the marriage?  We don’t think so.  But this text definitely shapes that leadership and gives added Biblical guidance for how to work it out.  It makes it clear that leadership will not involve selfish unilateral choices.  He will always strive for the ideal of agreement.  He will take into the account the truth that her sexual needs and desires carry the same weight as his own in developing the pattern of their intimacy.

So while neither the husband nor the wife has “more rights” over the body of their spouse, apparently 1 Cor. 7:5 still includes the husband’s leadership by “shaping” that leadership, according to CBMW.  The door is apparently not closed to the husband’s unilateral choice as long as it is not “selfish unilateral choices”.  It is apparent that CBMW allows the husband’s “leadership” that is “shaped” in 1 Cor. 7:5 to still override his wife’s will as he considers her needs but takes his leadership “responsibility” to take out his male trump card out if there is a disagreement.  The question should be asked whether 1 Cor. 7:5 mentions any leadership responsibilities at all for the man?  It is an amazing thing for CBMW to be able to pull out a “leadership” role even in a passage that is clear that the decision must be made by both in agreement.  No pulling out the male entitlement card is even hinted at in this passage.

Wade Burleson then quotes from Jon Zens regarding the rule for times of temporary separation that forbids the husband from overruling his wife:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek,symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husbandcannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in“symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

I appreciate Jon Zen’s words about the husband’s obligation not to overrule his wife’s will in this important passage.  Dr. Zens has been very supportive to my own ministry and he recommends and sells my DVD set Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?

What do you think?  Is there a “leadership role” for the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 as CBMW claims?

Send article as PDF to

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:

The most distinctive characteristic of a spiritually abusive religious system, or leader, is the over-emphasis on authority. Because a group claims to have been established by God Himself the leaders in this system claim the right to command their followers.

This authority supposedly comes from the position they occupy. In Matthew 23:1-2 Jesus said the Scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat,” a position of spiritual authority. Many names are used but in the abusive system this is a position of power, not moral authority. The assumption is that God operates among His people through a hierarchy, or “chain of command.” In this abusive system unconditional submission is often called a “covering,” or “umbrella of protection” which will provide some spiritual blessing to those who fully submit. Followers may be told that God will bless their submission even if the leadship is wrong. It is not their place to judge or correct the leadership - God will see to that.

Does any of this sound familiar?  David Henke continues:

Because the religious system is not based on the truth it cannot allow questions, dissent, or open discussions about issues. The person who dissents becomes the problem rather than the issue he raised. The truth about any issue is settled and handed down from the top of the hierarchy. Questioning anything is considered a challenge to authority. Thinking for oneself is suppressed by pointing out that it leads to doubts. This is portrayed as unbelief in God and His anointed leaders. Thus the follower controls his own thoughts by fear of doubting God.

A Biblical system that is set up as a hierarchy with apparently God-ordained men at the top and women set “in their place” underneath the authority and control of  men,  can be a set up for spiritual abuse.

Henke states that authoritarian leadership can wound so deep that it can rob a person of trust.

Spiritual abuse has a devastating effect on people. A very high level of trust is often placed in spiritual leaders. It is, and ought to be, expected that the trust will be honored and guarded. When such trust is violated the wound is very deep. Sometimes the wound is so deep that the wounded person cannot trust even a legitimate spiritual authority again.

David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen give helpful advice in the final pages of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.

…find relationships in which it is safe to heal from the wounds of the abuse.

Second, listen to God and do what He tells you. If you are a victim of spiritual abuse, this may be very hard. You have been taught to let everyone else speak for God, and you have been punished for trying to hear from God yourself. He may tell you to stay, when all of the evidence of abuse says to leave. He may even tell you to leave, when everything is going great. On the other hand, it may have been Him, not you, telling you to leave the abuse all along. And He will never leave you or forsake you. Listen to God.

We would like to close by referring you to the way the disciples responded to oppression. Acts 4:23 says, “And when they had been released, they went to their own companions, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them.”

When you experience spiritual abuse, find your own friends who understand and tell them about it. Get some support.

Consider their prayer in Acts 4:29-30:

And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence, while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy Servant Jesus.

This is our prayer for you, too:

God, please pay attention to how those who have given their lives to serve you are getting intimidated and abused. And even in the middle of that, authorize and empower them to keep telling the truth. And keep moving your hand over your people to bring healing and rest, in the name of Jesus.

This is one reason why this blog is set up - to help men and women alike to see that restricting women from using their God-given gifts and placing them in a position of having to obey either God or man is abusive and men and women should have a safe place to discuss the gender issue.

For women who have had men “pull rank” on them and hold them down to restrict their ability to serve their only Master, the Lord Jesus, the pain is very real.  Hierarchy can bring great harm to a woman inside her very soul and cause her to lose her sense of trust.  Sadly a woman may even transfer the actions of these men who are practicing hierarchy, to the nature of God, the very One that they are said to represent.  God now can become “like” the men to her and this can harm her trust in God.  The spiritual pain that a woman suffers can take a long time in healing.  The body of Christ also suffers when women suffers this way for the body is missing the gifts of these needed members who are being restricted.

Recommended Resources from Watchman Fellowship Inc

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, Bethany House Publishers. Dynamite! Excellent help for recognizing and escaping spiritual manipulation and false spiritual authority within the Church. 235 pages

Faith That Hurts, Faith That Heals, by Stephen Arterburn, and Jack Felton, Thomas Nelson Publishers. Very thorough treatment, analyzes beliefs that make harmful faith, religious addiction, etc. as well as treatment and recovery, and the characteristics of healthy faith. 320 pages

Breaking Free, by David R. Miller, Baker Book House. Speaking first-hand from the experiences of his own family, Miller penetrates virtually every nuance of legalism and its insidious effects on individual and family life. 176 pages-

Wisdom Hunter, be Randall Arthur, Multnomah Press. Taut, fast-paced thriller presents a powerful message about the damage caused by Christian legalism. 323 pages

Churches That Abuse, by Ronald Enroth, Zondervan. Providing real-life examples throughout, Enroth probes every corner of the abusive church. He also provides help to find the way out, and back to God’s healing. 253 pages, endnotes.

Youtube clips on Spiritual abuse:

Human Coverings Submit to God’s Delegated Authority

Toxic Faith Surviving Spiritual Abuse part 1.

Toxic Faith Surviving Spiritual Abuse part 2.

Send article as PDF to

Was it Adam alone who brought sin into the world?  Was it Adam alone who was kicked out of the garden?  These are some of the issues about “Adam alone” that have brought some lively discussion on another post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/ and since the comments are now at 446, I am going to move our discussion over to this post so that we can continue with what will likely be many more passionate arguments and comments here.  For those want to follow the original source of the discussion that pertains to this new post, the comments from #238 and on at the above link start the movement towards questions and comments about “only Adam” and these thoughts are important for what will continue here on this post.

Send article as PDF to

There is a hot debate in the church today regarding whether a woman is in “sin” for teaching the Bible to men.  While some say that a godly woman’s teaching of the Bible is okay for use with women and children, but all teaching by women to men is considered sinful.  Others state that a woman may teach the Bible to men as long as it is in her home or perhaps outside on the lawn, but if she were to teach men inside a church building, she would immediately be involved in committing a sin.

The issue of a “special sin” that is only applicable for one gender becomes complicated by the understanding that the church originally met only in people’s homes.  There were no designated church buildings during the early years of New Testament Christianity, so how could the “place” where she taught be a source of sin for the godly Christian woman?

Yet there is an issue much deeper than just the issue of what building men allow women to teach in.  The issue is whether God taunts and torments a woman with gifts that she cannot use.  If God gifts a woman with the spiritual gifts of pastor or teacher is He tempting her to sin when she freely uses her God-given gifts for His glory and for the benefit of His body?

Let’s think this one through.  First of all it is God’s Sovereign choice regarding whom He choses to gift.  Many complementarians will freely admit that God has gifted women with the gift of pastor and the gift of teacher.   If only a man is allowed to be a pastor, surely God would not gift a woman with a forbidden gift, would He?

Secondly a spiritual gift is not passed on to a woman through the sin nature of her father so her “gift” cannot be the result of her sin nature.   Logically the only source for a godly woman’s spiritual gifts can be God Himself.  Does God gift a woman as a pastor and then take away the gift because she is a woman?  This doesn’t seem reasonable.  God surely knew that she was a woman when he gifted her in the first place.

Why would God gift a woman and then charge her with sin for using her gift? Is it in the nature of our God to be delighted to torment people with temptations to sin through what He alone provides?  That can’t be right since the Bible says that God cannot tempt anyone.

James 1:13  Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

The problem extends further because God not only gifts us with His spiritual gifts, but He commands us to use these gifts for the common good.

1 Peter 4:10  As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

1 Peter 4:11  Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.<

I am not sure if complementarian men even understand the questions I am asking.  Has a man ever been gifted by God and then forbidden to use his gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ?  What would that feel like?  Would there be tension between his passion to serve the Lord Jesus and then a holding back of his spirit while he is forbidden to fulfill his God-given desire?  This kind of thing actually does happen in parts of the world where God has gifted and called men to serve Him but they are forbidden by ungodly governments who want to destroy the church and prevent the gospel of Jesus from going forth.  But can we say that God joins these ungodly governments by restricting some from using their gifts for the benefit of the church?

So where is the nature of God in this debate?  What does the Scripture say about God giving gifts on one hand and then apparently mocking women by charging them with sin for daring to use their gifts for the common good?  Doesn’t the Bible say that He will not withhold any good thing from those who walk righteously with Him?

Psalm 84:11  For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly.

Is not being a part of the giving out of the gospel a good thing?  Is God going to go back on His promise and withhold women’s ministry to half of the body of Christ?

How about this scripture:

Galatians 6:7  Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

Is the act of a woman sowing godly Christian doctrine into the lives of  men an act that will reap eternal punishment in hell?  How dare we say such a thing?

And what about these scriptures:

1 Cor 6:9  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1 Cor 6:10  nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:11  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Is it also true that godly women who teach the Bible to men will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Shall we add “women pastors” to the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God because they dared to love their brothers in Christ enough to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of men?  In 1 Cor. 6:11 are we to add that “Women pastors or Bible teachers to men - such were some of you but you have been washed from being a woman pastor and you have been sanctified from being a godly woman Bible teacher to men?  Is this really how the Scripture reads?

Jesus described what defiles a man or a woman.

Matthew 15:10  After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand.
Matthew 15:11  ”It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

Does godly Bible teaching coming out of the mouth of a woman defile her?

Is it possible that some who restrict women from preaching the gospel to men are so in love with their own unlimited freedom in the body of Christ that they are unwilling to even think through this issue to release God’s women for service?  Is it possible that some are more than willing to portray God as One who tempts women to sin by gifting them with gifts that they dare not use for the common good?

Is it possible that some have a hardened heart which is quick to attribute sin to a God’s wonderful gifts?

Matthew 15:7  ”You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
Matthew 15:8  ’THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
Matthew 15:9  ’BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”

Send article as PDF to

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 record before the official word came through about the removal of her church from 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.

http://vimeo.com/6768503

Send article as PDF to

On November 11, 2009 the Georgia Baptist Convention adopted a policy that ended its 148 year relationship with First Baptist Church of Decatur, Georgia.  According to the Associated Baptist News,

Pastor Julie Pennington-Russell read a letter at the end of both worship services Nov. 15 from Robert White, executive director of the 1.3 million-member state convention. It informed her that messengers to the group’s recent annual meeting took action to declare them “not a cooperating church,” because “a woman is serving as senior pastor.”

The policy that declared the First Baptist Church in Decatur as officially disfellowshipped, resulted from a strict enforcement of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message (BFM 2000) which made the issues of women pastors as a cause for dividing the church.  No longer is there room for personal conscience as far as women leaders in the church.  Wade Burleson writes that it is dangerous thinking to make the Baptist Faith & Message tier 1 primary doctrine so that “if a Southern Baptist expresses any disagreement with any portion of the BFM 2000, he is not a true Southern Baptist and is not worthy of leadership in the SBC. “

Burleson goes on to explain why this thinking is so dangerous.

It is more ‘cultic’ than it is Baptist. If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to ‘question’ that Southern Baptist’s conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called ‘liberal’ when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it — in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call ‘a liberal’ someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!

Burleson warned that the BFM 2000 used as a tool to force creedal interpretations of secondary doctrines beyond the intention of the BFM 2000 could tear about the Southern Baptist Convention.  Burleson writes:

Even worse, we now have people in the SBC who are attempting to move the entire convention to an acceptance of interpretations of tertiary doctrines that go far BEYOND those contained in the BFM 2000. Those who are demanding conformity to policies and guidelines that are based upon specific interpretations of tertiary doctrines, without giving room for disagreement, will ultimately destroy our cooperating convention.

The ABP reports Julie Pennington-Russell’s reaction to the disfellowshipping of her church.

“Obviously the severing of relationship after so many years is unfortunate and gives the world-at-large another reason to conclude that Baptists care more about putting people out than gathering them in,” Pennington-Russell said in an e-mail Nov. 16. “At the same time, I don’t think this came as a surprise to many in our congregation and to be honest, having a Southern Baptist affiliation has not been especially helpful when it comes to connecting with our largely unchurched community.”

The Southern Baptist Convention amended their doctrinal statement in 2000 to include the following statement about women pastors:

While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

Some who have taken this statement as a means to break fellowship with fellow Christians and sister Churches have also seen fit to remove women from teaching in Bible Colleges.  Apparently women’s gifts are not welcome in the area of Biblical languages either as the policy of restricting women’s gifts spreads to the seminaries and beyond.  Dr. Sheri Klouda found out that her credentials in Hebrew and her exemplary work as a teacher were not enough to stop her from being removed from Southwestern Theological Seminary for being a woman teacher.  In a turn-about after Paige Patterson became president of Southwestern, the issue of women teachers was made a doctrinal issue even though the BFM 2000 did not forbid women from teaching nor was Southwestern Seminary considered a Church.

Paige Patterson apparently is one who believes that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is far too weak to be effective on the issue of women in ministry.  Recently he adopted a new policy at Southwestern Theological Seminary making the Danver’s statement mandatory in the hiring and evaluation processes of the seminary.  It appears that women need no longer apply for teaching jobs at Southwestern unless they are willing to teach cooking, cleaning, sewing or dining etiquette.

Is the Holy Spirit no longer allowed to do His work in churches, seminaries, homes and marriages?   Apparently there is a groundswell movement to restrict women to certain “roles” and there is even a teaching that unless women stay in their God-ordained “roles” as wives and mothers and refrain from teaching men, God will remove His hand of protection from them and allow them to be deceived by satan.

Did God really create a threat that He will open women up to deception if they don’t accept that there is a God-ordained office in the church that can make pope-like decisions on what a woman is or isn’t allowed to do that will qualify as staying within her “role”?  CBMW has made a black, white and grey list of things that may or may not be restricted to woman.  It appeared necessary to them since no such list could be found in the Bible.  The one thing that we do find in the Scriptures in regard to spiritual gifts and the authorized use of these gifts is found in 1 Peter 4:10, 11.

1 Peter 4:10  As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

1 Peter4:11  Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The Holy Spirit who gifts us as members of the church also authorizes our use of the gifts for the common good of the body of Christ. What God has authorized and gifted let no man call unnecessary or restricted from common use  (1 Cor. 12:21).

It is time to wake up and see what is happening to the body of Christ.   When men interpret the Scriptures out of its context in order to restrict God’s Holy Spirit when He is working within women, it is time to speak up.  It is not necessary to divide over this issue or to disfellowship Christians and churches for allowing the Holy Spirit to use godly Christian women in the gifts and authority to use those gifts that He has given them.  If we fight against our sisters in Christ, we are fighting the Holy Spirit and grieving Him.  We are not restricting our sisters in Christ half as much as we are restricting the Holy Spirit who desires to work in and through these women.