Women In Ministry

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.

Send article as PDF to

Recently I had a woman write me who was troubled by some Bible texts that seemed to indicate that God preferred men.  I felt that the questions she posed and the answers I provided would be good to put on line in case there are other women out there who also have been troubled by these same questions.

Question: I have been struggling with a question for the past several weeks.  Do I as a woman, have less worth in God’s eyes than a man does?  Given that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law…I was (and still am) struggling with several scriptures where women are concerned and the seemingly “double-standard.”  I could not fathom why in Leviticus there is a law that states that women who give birth to male children would only be unclean for 33 days, but if they give birth to female children they would be unclean for 66 days.

Answer: Regarding the seemingly “double-standard” of the unclean period for a woman when she bears a girl which is double the period of the unclean period for a boy, it is not altogether clear why God created a different time period, but because of His character revealed throughout the Scriptures showing His love and justice, we can know that He will not be unjust towards women.  Romans 2:11 tells us this clearly.

Romans 2:11  For there is no partiality with God.

So why is there a difference with baby girls? The Bible isn’t clear why the extra time period for uncleanness for the mother after the birth of a daughter, but there have been some suggestions by commentaries:

The reason she was unclean for a longer period for a girl is not stated, but perhaps a postnatal discharge lasted longer in the case of a girl…

The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary.

(3) the fact that the blood discharges after the birth of a female last longer or have greater toxicity than they do after the birth of a male

Vol. 3A: Leviticus The New American Commentary (183). Rooker, M. F. (2001)

Why the more extended time of uncleanness after the birth of the female child? Given the obsession with seeking male offspring, the regulation may have been to protect the wife from an overzealous husband. He might be inclined to resume marital relations too soon after the birth of a female to the physical discomfort and possible jeopardy of the wife.

The Pentateuch (2nd ed.)  Smith, J. E. (1993)

The important thing that we should note is that the child was not considered unclean, it was only the mother.  So while we do not know the biological influences on the mother’s body that resulted in her needing extra time for healing and for being considered “clean” from her discharge, we do know that God has promised us that He is not partial with people.  Because of this promise we can know that He is not discriminating against female babies.

Question: Also, the issue of rape in the law.  If a woman was raped, all the man need do was pay her bride price and marry her.  What woman in what world would want to marry her rapist???

Answer: It is important to understand the culture of that day.  The culture was based on shame and honor just as the Muslim nations carry that same culture of shame and honor today. A woman was required to be a virgin at her marriage so if she had been raped no man would want her because she was no longer a virgin.  God’s law about rape protected the woman.  It required the man who raped her to take her as his wife and provide for her as well as for the child that may be a result from that rape.  The biggest stipulation was that although divorce was allowed in marriages, the man who was forced to marry the woman that he had violated was required to support her for the rest of his life because he could not divorce her.  This would have been a deterrent to rape and it provided for the woman who would not have been able to be married as a virgin bride.  The Bible Knowledge commentary puts it well by saying:

A man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce. This protected, to a degree, the girl’s honor and assured her (and her child if she became pregnant from the rape) permanent support. This stipulation may also have served as a deterrent against rape since the man would have to live with that woman for the rest of his life. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary

Question: Another issue that irks me: why was David silent when Tamar was raped by her brother?

Answer: Amnon was Davd’s first born son.  David favored his sons even though they did evil things but this was not the only issue.  The law said that Amnon was to be forced to marry Tamar and provide for her the rest of her life without any possibility of divorce but there is another law that conflicts with this one.  Tamar states that Amnon’s rejection of her after the rape is worse than the rape itself since his rejection means that she will never be able to be married.  The issue of David’s lack of forcing the issue is said to be a lack of responsibility:

David … was very angry. Fury and indignation were David’s reactions to the report of the rape (Gen. 34:7). Because he did not punish Amnon for his crime, he abdicated his responsibility both as king and as father. The lack of justice in the land would come back to haunt David in a future day (15:4).

The MacArthur Study Bible, MacArthur, J. J. (1997).

David somehow heard what had happened, and though he was furious he did not invoke the penalty prescribed by the Law. Perhaps this was because Amnon was his oldest son. But Absalom … hated Amnon.

The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary.

There is another serious issue that caused quite a dilemma. While the law was to be used to force the man who raped a woman to marry her, there was also a law that forbade a brother and sister to marry.

Absalom and Tamar were children of David by his wife Maacah. Polygamy was an accepted social arrangement in those days, but its evil consequences revealed it not to be the will of God for his people. Children of the same father were not supposed to marry (Lev. 18:9). This and other of God’s laws were often broken, always with serious consequences. The teacher’s Bible commentary, Paschall, F. H., & Hobbs, H. H. (1972)

So it seemed that the law conflicted here in this situation.  David would have been in a quandary because the law both required the marriage and forbade the marriage because they were sibblings. As you can see from the culture, the woman’s virginity was of great value and a rape changed a woman’s life forever.  In the middle east countries even now, if a Muslim girl is raped she may be killed by her family for the shame that this brought on them and some girls have been put into jail.

In the Old Testament law, God made sure that the woman who has been raped was taken care of which is a very kind thing to do for women.  God’s concern was for the welfare of the woman. How did the law treat the rapist?  The life of the rapist depended on the status and welfare of the woman.  The law was that if a man raped a woman who was a virgin but who was engaged to a man, the rapist had to die.  But if a man raped a woman who was a virgin but who not engaged (technically belonged to another man), the who who sinned against the woman must provide for her for the rest of her life.

It is obvious to me that God is looking out for the welfare of the woman who would be left without the possibility of a husband and without the ability to provide for herself.  The law made sure that rapists understood the seriousness of raping and knowing that they would be stuck with her for life would be a deterrent .  In this case the woman was always provided for because of God’s law.

Send article as PDF to

This post is the second part in a “first” for Women in Ministry blog.  I have never before taken the writing of a complementarian and posted it on my blog.   However in order to facilitate dialog, I have agreed to post Mark’s articles so that we can have a jolly good discussion/debate with those who care to participate on the issue of what “head” means.  The first part of Mark’s article dealing with the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is here.   These posts are actually a carry forward from a previous post that had a lot of good discussion regarding my youtube videos on the issue of women in ministry.  If you would like to get a good idea of where this discussion comes from, I refer you back to the post called Women on Trial.

Mark is a complementarian from Australia.  Mark believes that the meaning of kephale in the Greek used in Paul’s writings should always be defined as authority over or superiority.  While we debated with Mark on the context of 1 Corinthians 11 from his last post, this one will allow us to get into more detail about the Greek word usage.  Just remember when we discuss and debate with Mark that we are to treat him with respect and deal with the argument itself.  This is not the place for an attack on the person, but for a passionate debate on the issues.

I have purposely left this article of Mark’s to be the second one on line since I firmly believe that any issue of word meaning is always dependent on the particular context.  However it is good to talk about meanings and so this will be the discussion on this post.

The following is from Mark the complementarian from Australia and interaction with Mark will be in the comment section.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by Mark the complementarian from Australia

Preface: What I hope to address in this short post is the question of whether or not ‘kephale’ would have been used by Paul in the New Testament to denote a position of authority over another. If it was a possibility was it then Paul’s intended meaning in using this word in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. The interpretation of this word is vital for both the Egal and Comp position to ‘prove’ their theological standpoint.

1. Let’s first address the Lexicon. As helpful as dictionaries may be to give a meaning to a word, ultimately it is the context that plays the determining factor. The most accurate and helpful Lexicon which covers the New Testament period, both biblical and non-biblical works, is the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt and Gindrich. Let me again note that this is the most accurate Lexicon for the NT period, as its focus is on this specific period. I’m aware that other Lexicons have ‘source’ as a translation but no other Lexicon focuses primarily on the NT period. Let’s see its entry for ‘kephale’

“2.fig.-a. In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank…head of the husband in relation to his wife 1 Cor 11:3b; Eph 5:23a. Of Christ in relation to the church Eph 4:15; 5:23b. But Christ is not only of the church, but of the universe as a whole: Eph 1:21 and of every cosmic power: Col 2:10. The divine influence on the world results in the series: God the k. Of Christ, Christ the k. Of the man, the man the k. Of the woman 1 Cor 11:3 c, a, b.”

So convincingly the Lexicon that deals with NT texts and the NT period does see ‘kephale’ “to denote superior rank”. Interestingly it does not see ‘source’ as an acceptable translation for ‘kephale’ during this period of Greek literature. Also note although some other Lexicons (although not dealing exclusively with the NT period) do see ‘source’ as  a possible translation, not one of them has ever listed ‘source’ as a metaphorical meaning for kephale when applied to persons. When ‘kephale’ is used in relation to people, the accepted meaning is always one has superiority over another.

2. One of the most helpful texts for determining Greek meanings is found in the Greek translation of the OT- LXX. But the question must be asked, does the LXX even have ‘kephale’ in it and if so, is it used to support either a translation for ‘source’ or of ‘superior rank’. Also note the LXX was translated somewhere in the 3rd Century BC. Many scholars on both sides of the debate have recognised that the LXX does use kephale to denote a position in superior rank, even if its usage is limited. For example-

2 Samuel 22:44- You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me.

Psalm 18:43- You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people whom I knew not served me.

Isaiah 7:9- The head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah

There are many others which are debated due to ‘variant readings’ (Judges 10:18, Judges 11:8, Judges 11:9, Judges 11:11, Isaiah 7:8) so I will not attach them to this post. But none the less it must be concluded that the translators for the LXX saw ‘kephale’ to denote some sort of authority. That means that Paul’s ‘bible’ used ‘kephale’ in this way. Please also note, not once is ‘kephale’ ever able to be translated as ‘source’ in the LXX.

3. Other ancient non-biblical literature-

Hermas Similitudes 7.3- “Cannot be punished in any other way than if you, the head of the house, be afflicted.”

Plutarch, Galba 4.3- “Vindex…wrote to Galba inviting him to assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous body in need of a head.”

Plutarch, Cicero 14.4- “ There are two bodies, one lean and wasted, but with a head, and the other headless but strong and large. What am I doing wrong if I myself become a head for this?”

Post script: Again there are many more which I could contribute here but the debates over these texts have stemmed for decades now and there is no point repeating them here. The fact is, ‘kephale’ was used and understood by other ancient Greek writers to denote an authority.

So whether one looks at Lexicons, The LXX or other ancient literature, it is evidently clear that “superior rank” was a possible meaning for ‘kephale’ in the New Testament. Not to mention the ease at which such a definition fits into the biblical framework. Paul was familiar with the LXX as a Jewish Rabbi and could easily have used ‘kephale’ in this context.

Let me finish with a challenge for everybody else. At this point I strongly agree with Mr Grudem

Where is even one clear example of kephale used of a person to mean ‘source’ in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?

Let’s be honest about things. One cannot say they are not closed to what the Bible teaches but yet ignore the bombardment of evidence to support ‘kephale’ authoritatively. If one chooses to be realistic about the evidence, they will see the error in attempting to understand 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 as ‘source’- it is not only wrong, but a distortion of the truth of the bible.

Send article as PDF to

This post is a first.  I have never before taken the writing of a complementarian and posted it on my blog.   However in order to facilitate dialog, I have agreed to post Mark’s article so that we can have a jolly good discussion/debate with those who care to participate on the issue of what “head” means in the context of 1 Corinthians 11.  This post is actually a carry forward from a previous post that had a lot of good discussion regarding my youtube videos on the issue of women in ministry.  If you would like to get a good idea of where this discussion comes from, I refer you back to the post called Women on Trial.

Mark is a complementarian from Australia.  Although Mark believes that women are allowed to teach the bible to men, he doesn’t accept that they may do so in the “formal” setting of the church.  Mark’s rendering of how “head” can mean one who has “authority over” or one who has a “superiority” to another, is clear, he believes in the context of 1 Corinthians 11.

Now I expect that there will be a great deal of discussion here regarding Mark’s article. That is a good thing! We are to be iron who sharpens another but we are never to be a saw who tears one another to pieces, so I ask that everyone keep this to the argument itself and not attack the person or question the motives. Mark’s piece is quite long and being that it is too long to post both his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 together with his article on what he believes to be the lexical meaning meaning of head, I will post both separately. In order to keep the discussion focused I won’t post the second part until later when discussion is well under way on this post.

I also believe that the issue of whether the context allows for a meaning of head as “authority over” or a “superiority” of one over another is the main issue because while there can be several meanings for one word, if the meaning is foreign to the text, then it matters not whether a lexicon shows that a word can have a particular meaning or not.

So the following is from my friend Mark and I welcome interaction with Mark in the comment section.  No doubt I will have a lot of refutation myself as I have time, but I will give my readers first shot at refuting Mark.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by Mark the complementarian from Australia

So here is how I read 1 Corinthians 11.

There are a few key things I want to put forward first of all.

1. Is this passage dealing with men and women or husband and wife? The Greek ‘aner’ can refer to both ‘man’ and ‘husband’. Similarly ‘gyne’ can refer to both ‘female’ and ‘wife’. My view tends to lean toward husband and wife. The reason I see this is as follows. The ‘marriage’ scenario of Gen 2 is clearly behind what Paul is addressing here. “Man is not of woman, but woman is of man” (verse 8 ) reflects God’s forming of Eve from Adam’s rib (Gen 2:22). Paul adds “man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (verse 9) pointing to Eve as Adam’s ‘helpmeet’ (Gen 2: 21-22). Paul’s later qualifier “Yet in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor man from woman” seems to echo the ‘one flesh’ unity in Gen 2:23. Note also that “woman is for man (verse 9) and “man is for the woman” repeats exactly the reciprocal husband- wife obligations of 7:3-5.

2. ‘kephale- as I’m sure we are all aware we disagree on this word. If we take this to mean ‘source’ we naturally have to read the passage as man-woman relationships, not husband and wife? After all the husband is not the source of his wife. Perhaps another problem arises when we get to the God-Christ analogy. To understand this as ‘source’ one must only be able to then understand it in relation to Christ’s incarnation; otherwise we fall into the heretical trap of seeing Jesus as a created being. And since there is nothing else in this text dealing with Christ’s incarnation it seems unlikely. Therefore since the theme of Paul’s argument revolves around the veiling/unveiling issue which was the identification of a marriage in Corinth at the time, it seems most natural to see this in relation to husband/wife. One might object to me saying what about “woman is FROM man…but all things are FROM God (verses 12, 8). But I do not think this supports the ‘source’ hypothesis over hierarchy, rather it gives ‘source’ as the basis for the authoritative teaching. Now my view of how it fits into the passage will follow below.

Exegesis: I will use the ESV translation

Verse 2-“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as a delivered them to you.”

Paul uses a very good pastoral technique, “I commend you (or praise you)… but we are introduced to a big ‘But’ in verse 3. They are praised for remembering him and holding onto his ‘traditions’ but yet these traditions now seem to be a matter of ‘contention’ (verse 16). His language here is very reminiscent of a rabbi to his disciples. There is a ‘yes, but’ logic to his introduction.

Verse 3- “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God”.

Before Paul addresses the present pastoral problem in Corinth Paul, reminds them of the tradition he has passed down to them (verse 3). Therefore we need not get too caught up in the God/Christ analogy because this is not Paul’s argument. He is using this hierarchy to bolster his pastoral problem, namely the issue between the husbands/wives. So Paul puts the critical statement for his argument in the middle “the head of a wife is her husband” and frames it around a larger theological context- the Christ/man, God/Christ analogy.

Paul does not expand on the Christ/man analogy (note it is aner, not anthropos) as he has done in other places- that is Christ is the head of the church (Eph 1:22; 4:15; Col 1:18; 2:19) nor does he talk about Christ being the head over everything (Eph 1:22), or the ultimate governor (Rev 5:5).

Likewise since Paul’s argument is on the husband/wife he does not expand on the God/Christ analogy. But none the less what does Paul mean by “God (the Father) is the head of Christ”. This language is consistent with the Father and Son language used by Jesus and the rest of the New Testament. These words imply what early theologians called the ‘eternal generation’ of the Son. The Son is and always will be equal in ‘homoousios’ (same substance). Yet he was and always will be under the headship of the Father (John 17, 1 Cor 15:24-28). Jesus was sent by the Father and obeyed because He is equally God, yet his ‘persona’ or role was to be subject to the Father and eventually place all things under his feet. Now please don’t confuse ontological homoousios with functional as many have tried and failed in the past. It is an argument with no weight or biblical or theological support.

Verse 4- 6 “Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.”

Paul is now using a play on the word ‘kephale’ here. He is transitioning between the literal head and the metaphorical head. If a man covers his (literal) head, it dishonours Christ (metaphorical head). Likewise if a wife uncovers her literal head it dishonours her husband. Note that Christianity has given women freedom from that which they were previously restricted, this here is consistent  with Pentecost (Acts 2 :17) where Joel’s prophecy of men and women prophesying will abound. However we should not understand the prophecy here as the same as the ‘presbyters’ teaching whose ministry was a matter of ‘office’ and regularity. The Spirit had indeed enabled women to pray and prophecy as ‘gifted’ but we must look at this prophecy in light of how it is expressed throughout chapters 12-14. It is spontaneous as the need arose or was led by the spirit. It was not and is not the gift of ‘teaching’ given to those who are the overseers. Also it appears that although women were now allowed to participate along with the men with this gift, they had thus rejected the creation order of male headship. Yes women could now prophecy, but no they should not be dishonouring their husbands with an uncovered head. This is now the root problem Paul is addressing, women who were not being respectful to their ‘head’. It is again another picture of the Corinthians over-realised eschatology. The inauguration of the Kingdom and the gifting of the Spirit did not override God’s creational order and men’s headship. Only in the new heavens and earth are marriages abolished.

Verses 7-10 “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Note the creational order Paul uses to support his argument. Eve was made out of Adam and for Adam, not the other way around. Verse 7 is the reason Paul gives for why a man (aner) should not cover his head- he is the image and glory of God. Again I think Genesis helps us understand Paul’s teaching here. Adam was made from the dust and given life (Gen 2:7) and he bore the image of God (1:27). But note Paul’s addition of ‘glory’. This is not found in Gen and seems to be Pauls more interested theme since he applies it to Eve- she is the ‘glory’ of man. So what does glory mean here. I think simplistically without going into  great  depth,  it is about happiness or joy. God created man and it was good- God was happy with his creation. Likewise when God created Eve and brought her to him, Adam  was happy- she was his glory. The grammar of verse 8-9 contrasts this by using the ‘for’ with the ‘but’. The wife’s physical head here in Corinth needs to reflect her submission to her husband (Eph 5:22)- her metaphorical head whose ‘glory’ she is. Likewise the husband’s uncovered head ought to point to Christ whose image and glory he is.

Verse 10 is often another hot topic. Since many translations insert ‘sign’ or symbol’ which is not in the Greek, a new perspective on this passage seems to be that the woman’s head covering indicates her own authority to pray and prophecy, yet this does not fit with the rest of the passage neatly. Yes she does have authority to use her gift, but the whole argument around the head coverings is to show that while doing this, she does not dishonour her head,ie her husband. Also note, every other three-word construction of this in the NT means “to have authority over” (Matt 9:6, Rev 11:5; 14:18; 16:19; 20:6, Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24) so I would be more inclined to render it like this “ For this reason a wife should exercise control(authority) OVER her head.” Basically keep the appropriate covering on it to show her submission to her husband, thus I agree with the ESV inserting ‘symbol’- it reflects the flow of the argument. The reference to the angels in my opinion is not referring to us equally judging with them, since this does not fit the context at all, nor do I think it is reference to angels who are attracted to women with uncovered heads (Gen 6). Simply I think it is referring to God’s angels who watch over creation and want to see men and women acting appropriately and with dignity.

Verse 11-12- “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”

Paul is careful not to leave his instruction on that note. Here in verse 11 we see the qualifier ‘Nevertheless’ (plen) which I think is used to stop those who read the first 10 verses and attempt to assert some kind of male oppressiveness. Again the interdependence of husband and wife is closely knitted to the ‘one flesh’ union at creation. She is his glory and bears his authority, yet they are inseparabley one, and the man must never abuse his wife. Christ never does such things but instead lays down his life for his sheep. These verses imply the deep spiritual, emotional and sexual union shared by husband and wife- everything is from God. Also note that although the woman is under the authority of her husband, both are under the authority of God. Therefore however a husband sees his authority should be reflective of what he knows about God’s authority- that is he killed his own Son for his people. A husband’s authority should never be intimidation or abuse or lording.

Verses 13-16 “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”

Paul now concludes his argument with two more reasons.

1. He asks them to judge for themselves if it is appropriate. From his discussion earlier it is obviously a rhetoric question with the answer already implied- it is not appropriate for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Rather than re-affirming his previous argument Paul draws back to nature (physis) to conclude that nature even teaches that a woman is given long hair for her glory- hence why she should not have short hair as it is a disgrace. Parallel to this is the reverse for men. Long hair was seemingly a disgrace for men and dishonouring to God when a man prayed with long hair i.e. covering. The question may be asked, how therefore can this be in relation to husband/wife if Paul is using nature for an argument. My answer to that is the two are totally intertwined. A woman’s long hair (femininity) and a man’s non-long hair point to both femaleness and maleness, as well as a husband and a wife.

2. Paul finally concludes by saying that no other church of God has any other practice other than that which he has passed down as that ‘tradition’ (verse 2). It is first of all important to note that Paul does not blur gender distinctions. He highly values and supports those which are both masculine and feminine. All the churches adopted such cultural practices that supported both women using their gifts but not neglecting their husband as their head. We would do well to learn from this.

To conclude- Paul differentiates between what is masculine and what is feminine of his day and rightly applies that the husband and wife relationship. WE should not see the head coverings as something eternally binding but rather as a cultural distinction. Paul uses this distinction to emphasise the importance of the husband as the head of the wife within the community of believers. We should  not push male headship to a level that abuses the wife, nor should we abandon male headship and blur gender distinctions.

I’m sure this will stir up many responses. I ask that when commenting your refer your comment to a particular verse or comment I made, that way it will be easier for me to respond to you and we stick to the biblical text. I hope you can see how my view of kephale is supported contextually in 1 Corinthians 11 even if you don’t agree with me. Cheryl, thank you for being willing to post my paper.

I pray that God will use this to correct you or likewise use you to correct me, in order that his name may be glorified.

Send article as PDF to

The following is a very eye opening article by Lee Grady.  From Fire in My Bones online, November, 2009. Copyright 2009 Strang Communications; all rights reserved. Used with permission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christian teaching on male headship is often used as a weapon against women. This abuse must be confronted.

Last week during a ministry trip to Hungary I heard a painfully familiar story. Through a translator, a tearful young woman living near Budapest explained that her Christian husband was angrily demanding her absolute submission. This included, among other things, that she clean their house according to his strict standards and that she engage in sexual acts with him that made her feel uncomfortable and dirty.

This lady was not demanding her rights or trying to be disrespectful. She was a godly, humble woman who obviously wanted to please the Lord. But she had been beaten to a pulp emotionally, and she was receiving little help from her pastor—who was either unwilling or unprepared to confront wife abuse.

“Traditionalists assume that a Christian marriage is defined as a dominant husband who makes all family decisions while the wife graciously obeys without input. Yet Scripture actually portrays marriage as a loving partnership.”

I’ve heard so many sickening versions of this scenario. In Kenya recently, several women told me their AIDS-infected husbands often raped them—and then their pastors told them they must submit to this treatment. In some parts of India, even some pastors believe it is acceptable to beat their wives if they argue with them or show any form of disrespect. And in some conservative churches in the United States, women are told that obedience to God is measured by their wifely submission—even if their husbands are addicted to alcohol or pornography, or if they are involved in adulterous affairs.

This distortion of biblical teaching has plunged countless Christian women into depression and emotional trauma. I’m not sure which is worse: The harsh words they hear from their husbands, or the perverse way the Bible is wielded as a leather belt to justify domestic abuse. Here are three truths we must uncover in order to solve this problem:

1.  Marriage is not a hierarchy. Traditionalists assume that a Christian marriage is defined as a dominant husband who makes all family decisions while the wife graciously obeys without input. Yet Scripture actually portrays marriage as a loving partnership and refers to the wife as a “fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7, NASB). And the apostle Paul taught that in the realm of sexuality, husbands and wives share equal authority over each other’s bodies (see 1 Cor. 7:4). In other words, submission in this most intimate part of a marriage covenant is mutual, and this same mutuality is the key to any happy marriage; it fosters respect, communication and an enduring bond.

2.  Headship is not a license to control. Traditionalists also cite Ephesians 5:23 to remind wives that their husbands are their “heads”—and they believe this term requires some type of dictatorial control in marriage. Yet the Greek word used in this passage, kephale, does not have anything to do with heavy-handed authority and it cannot be used to enforce male domination. Neither does it imply male superiority. The word can either mean “source” (as in the source of a river) or “one who leads into battle” (as a protector).

Neither original definition of this word gives room for abuse. Headship, in its essence, is not about “who’s the boss.” Rather it refers to the Genesis account of Eve being taken from Adam’s side. The husband is the “source” of the wife because she originated from him, and she is intimately connected to him in a mystical union that is unlike any other human relationship.

Men who abuse their wives are out of fellowship with God. 1 Peter 3:7 is clear: “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so your prayers will not be hindered.” Wife abuse is no trivial sin. Any man who berates his wife, treats her as inferior or engages in abusive behavior (including hitting, kicking, raping, cursing at or threatening punishment) will jeopardize his fellowship with the Lord. He will feel frustrated and convicted until he repents.

(And in the same way, I believe, pastors who silently support abusive husbands by refusing to confront the behavior—or by telling women to submit to the pain—participate in this sin and could find their own prayers hindered.)

Truly Christian marriages, according to the apostle Paul, involve a tender, servant-hearted and unselfish husband who (1) loves his wife “just as Christ also loved the church;” (2) loves her as his own body; and (3) loves her as himself (see Eph. 5:25, 28 33). He stands alongside his wife in faithfulness, and she joyfully respects her husband because he can be trusted. And the two become one.

If we are to uphold this golden standard, we must confront abuse, shelter its victims and provide the tough love and counseling necessary to heal troubled relationships. And we have no business telling women to stay in marriages that actually could put them or their children in danger.

Send article as PDF to

Could complementarians be wrong?

Send article as PDF to

I have just uploaded onto youtube 6 approximately 10 minute clips from my 2006 talk in Pennsylvania at the Witnesses Now for Jesus Conference.   The first clip includes the testimony of Lorri MacGregor (pictured below) who is a former Jehovah’s Witness who God called into ministry after she left the Watchtower.  She had a huge struggle with God because of her belief that women could not be teachers.  The talk is called Jehovah’s Women on Trial - are you ready to be challenged?  It is a simulated court case against two Biblical women using the charges against them by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  You will likely see a lot of similarities in the charges because they can also be found in complementarian churches.  I trust that many people will be challenged to start to think outside of the box because of these clips.  This will be the post where we can discuss the clips.

Send article as PDF to

The Associated Baptist Press reports that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted a policy statement October 21, 2009, that asserts that men and women are equal before God but created for specific roles of either headship (authority) or submission in both the home and in the church.

Paige Patterson, the president of Southwestern, was among those who drafted the Danvers Statement in 1987.  He will use the new policy to serve as a guide in both the hiring and evaluation processes according to the ABP report.  His wife Dorothy is a professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern which offers a bachelor’s degree with focus on homemaking.  Southwestern has made a complete dive into the female submission program by showing the difference between male and female Biblical studies.  The B.A. in humanities revolves around 20% of the instruction hours in homemaking with a fully equipped teaching kitchen, clothing and textiles lab, formal dining room and parlor along with Bible teaching in the classrooms.  Will there be a male version of the B.A. in humanities?  There has not been any announcement yet of hunting classes for the men but since Patterson is an avid hunter, we expect that announcement will come sooner than later to help teach young males true “male headship”.

The Associated Baptist Press also reports that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has offices on the campus of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  Perhaps CBMW can help Southwestern draft a brand new Christian Talmud that can help answer all the black, white and grey areas about what Christian women can and cannot do in the presence of men.  It is not certain whether Southwestern has forbidden men from attending Dorothy Patterson’s cooking classes, but if they did attend would Mrs. Patterson be in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 or would it be the men who would be charged with sin?  After all the passage doesn’t specifically mention “Bible teaching” but merely “teaching”.

The Danvers statement affirms “distinctions in masculine and feminine roles” as ordained by God as part of the created order and not as a result of sin.  No one yet has been able to answer the question about whether Eve’s “role” was in ruling over the female animals, while Adam got all the manly ones.  Or perhaps there was a male section of the garden and a female section.  Rumor is that although Adam and Eve didn’t wear any clothes, that Eve at least wore a hat mandated by God to show her in-the-beginning-creation-ordained “role” of submission.

Mrs. Patterson is very happy to show her “role” by her stylish hats.  If only Sheri Klouda would have worn her creation-ordained hat, perhaps she could have kept her job as an  Old Testament professor at Southwestern.  Sheri had been hired by Paige Patterson’s predecessor in 2002 and then relieved of her duties when Paige found out that Sheri was a woman.  Apparently teaching Hebrew to men is not allowed by 1 Timothy 2:12-14.  Rumor has it that Patterson was not willing to offer Sheri a job in the cooking department because it would have made the seminary look bad to have a Hebrew speaking cook on staff.

Send article as PDF to