Here's a Question for your Pastor

Because 1 Timothy 2:8-12 is often used to make the argument that all women are barred from all preaching and teaching of men for all time, I made a few interesting and powerful observations of how the Apostle Paul speaks to and about women in I Timothy 2:8-12. Keep in mind that my observations are in no way comprehensive and I'm not listing all the observations I've made in this passage. I'm mainly making observations about Paul's mention of women in these verses.

⁸ I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; ⁹in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  

My observations:

1. From the first chapter, I already know the Apostle Paul is talking to Timothy and this is the first letter he wrote to him.

2. Verse 9 uses the plural of the word gyné for women. 

3. Verse 10 uses the plural of the word gyné for women.

4. Verse 11 uses the singular of the word gyné for woman.

5. Verse 12 uses the singular of the word gyné for woman.

These observations raised questions in my mind. Why did Paul switch from talking about women, plural, to woman, singular? Is Paul talking about one particular woman and not all women?

We cannot know the exact thought of the Apostle Paul here, but we do know God is very precise in His Word and that every letter and symbol is intentional.

We cannot change the meaning from singular to plural when God has written, through Paul, a singular word. We cannot use this as a proof text that all women are to be silent in all churches for all time. Certainly, if this was an admonition for all women to be quiet in all churches for all time, Paul, himself, violated this again and again as he approved and used women in ministry as deacons, church leaders, patrons, etc.

This requires more study on the part of anyone who teaches or preaches God's Word.
Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. If your pastor does not make this distinction when preaching this passage, ask him why.

~Tricia

Is this a Trick Question?

A met a young woman the other night. She was a guest in our home and, while friends with my two youngest sons, I hadn't met her until the other night. She reminded me of myself at her age. Petite, energetic, opinionated and outspoken. I liked her right away.

As I had off-and-on communication with her (they (she, another friend and my two sons) were watching a movie and grabbing snacks throughout), I noticed she used one phrase very frequently. She would often say, "Well, I'm a Baptist, so I don't do that..." or, "Oh, we're Baptists, we believe this or that," or, "Oh, you know us Baptists!" So, I was intrigued by this word usage and I asked her a few questions.

The next time she referred to being a Baptist in my presence, I said, "Oh, I see you're Baptist. Does that mean you ascribe to all the things your Baptist church teaches?"

She said, "Huh? I mean, um, is this a trick question?"

I said, "Certainly not. It's an honest question. I know what independent Baptist churches teach and I'm curious to know if you agree with and live your life by what they teach."

She said, "Well, I know women are supposed to submit to their husbands."

Now, before you think there were other words exchanged before she went straight to the topic of submission, let me assure you there were not. This was first and foremost on her mind. Her role is to submit. That's her main takeaway from her Baptist church.

I probed further, "Well, you're not married so that doesn't apply to you in that way, but don't miss the fact that men are also told to submit to their wives."

She looked at me curiously, but said, "Well, yeah......"

Then I asked my next question. I said, "Are you familiar with what is called the great commission?"

She said, "Well, I can't recall it word for word....."

I said, "It says something like, 'Go into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them....etc...basically a commandment to make disciples."

"Yeah!" she exclaimed, "That's it! Yeah."

I asked, "Who is Jesus talking to when he says that?"

She replied, "Ummm...hmmm...is this a trick question?"

"I promise, I'm not asking any trick questions."

"Ok, well, I think he's talking to his disciples."

"And," I said, "who are his disciples?"

"People who followed him at the time......and....us? Yes, us."

"So, he's talking to you?"

"Yes."

"Never forget that. He's talking to you. He's not talking to a husband who will then instruct or allow you to serve him. He's talking directly to you. I just wanted to plant that seed with you and make sure you follow Jesus, not a husband or church leader. He's talking to you."

"Yeah....." she said rather wistfully.

Statement analysis:

Had this delightful young woman answered me with anything other than submission, I likely  would not have gone down this path. Her first statement about her church was about submission in marriage. This speaks volumes to me. I suspect her church is out of balance because a young, single woman ought to be looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of her faith, and not what a future relationship with a human male might have to do with her relationship with Jesus or her church, or even with him, the human male. The fact that she thought, twice, that I was asking her trick questions could mean that she is being groomed to fit into a box that some man or male leadership created for her. I hope she smashes that box and never goes in there.

We are not doing our young people any favors by emphasizing a concept like submission which has been grossly misinterpreted and misapplied within the church. When we neglect to teach Jesus and emphasize a personal relationship with him, we are leading our young people astray, male and female.

I believe this is a conditioning or grooming tactic used by church leadership to ensure a woman knows her "place" and will follow their idea that submission should be a woman's focus. This is wrong. The Bible does not teach this. This is secular humanism wrapped in patriarchy, created to oppress and subdue women. Men and boys are groomed to think they are always the leaders and women and girls are groomed to think they are always subordinate. This is wrong. Absolutely wrong. It turns my stomach.

Do not be fooled, girls. You belong to Jesus and he is to be your priority. He's talking to you, not through someone else to you. Your focus should not be submission; your focus should be Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith. Let no one teach you differently. Walk out if they try.

Galatians 1:8 & 9: "But though we or an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be cursed. As we said before, so say I again, if anyone preaches another gospel to you than that you have received, let him be cursed."

~Tricia

Satan Gotcha Good, Church, Real Good

My ebook, The Poverty of Patriarchy, takes a look at the poverty (and resulting chaos) created by patriarchy. Despite what you've been taught in your church, patriarchy is not a Biblically condoned system of operation. When Jesus came, He blew patriarchy out of the water, yet the vast majority of evangelical churches retain it as though it's some badge of godliness that we should never abandon. And, those same evangelicals, instead of listening to someone with an opposing view, condemn us, call us liberals and limit their contact with us. They show no compassion or willingness to listen to something different than what they have been brought up to believe.

Of all things I've observed through encounters with these evangelical leaders, their lack of compassion speaks the loudest to me. They are immediately defensive and seem to be desperate to share their view at the expense of silencing mine. This experience has taught me that a lack of compassion is a first indicator of a lack of fellowship with Christ. These evangelicals are not all they are cracked up to be if they display a lack of compassion. They need to re-examine their relationship with Jesus and that requires getting down off their high horse.

This was especially evident to me when I revealed how an upsetting encounter with a janitor in the ladies room at First Baptist Church, Laurel, MD happened. You can read what happened here. I was met with anger, denial, threats, all kinds of name calling and many other ungodly responses from so-called Christians. But, there was one exception....one young man, when he heard about it from one of my sons, immediately said, "Is your mom ok?" He was the sole person, outside my family and true friends, who showed compassion. Even church leadership said, "That doesn't sound like Fitz." (The current pastor of that church did apologize, but as soon as the apology came out of his mouth, his wife negated it, saying I was "hurting the church." Um, no, Fitz is hurting the church and you all are by allowing him to continue to burst into the ladies room unannounced.)

That being said, it occurred to me this weekend that my book already needs a revision and update because I saw another missing avenue caused by patriarchy and I need to add this to the book. Billy Graham's funeral was broadcast over Facebook Live (and I'm sure other venues), so I was able to watch a portion of it. I heard all his kids give their testimonies of their father and one of his daughters said her resolve to preach the gospel wherever she went was strengthened due to her father's death.

As soon as I heard her say that, I realized that no evangelical church would dare let her go in their midst and preach the gospel. This was a stunning thought. Here is someone obviously moved and changed by the power of Jesus Christ, yet she would be prevented from sharing that gospel for one reason and one reason only: she's a woman.

Has the evangelical church as a whole limited the spread of the gospel by silencing their women and only allowing them to serve in a secondary role? I would not want to be guilty of this when I meet my Maker. Oh, my, I shudder to think of it.

For this reason alone, evangelical churches might want to revisit the Scriptures and discover for themselves that patriarchy is not God's intended way. Most churches depend more on tradition than Scriptural teaching when it comes to this issue. But, I repeat, Jesus blew patriarchy out of the water and we'd be wise to do the same.

Is patriarchy hindering the spread of the gospel? I believe it is. To allow half the followers of Christ to remain silenced is to hinder the spread of the gospel and that is not something I'm willing to be guilty of.

Satan gotcha good on this one, church, real good.

~Tricia

John MacArthur Disagrees with Jesus

I recently heard a sermon by John MacArthur upon the suggestion of a friend.  This was the first sermon I'd ever heard John preach. There is no gentle way to say that it will be the last sermon of his I ever listen to. Some have wanted to know my specific problems with this sermon. I'll try out outline them here. I cannot, however, be as thorough and comprehensive as I'd like to be. Time restraints are preventative to that, but I trust that anyone who wants to search these things out to see if they are true, will certainly do so on their own.

I have a problem when a preacher uses a non-contextualized talk to springboard to a general topic, then promote his own agenda.  In this referenced sermon, John MacArthur made some sweeping, generalized and harmful comments about women that have nothing to do with the passage he said he was claiming to preach, nor with the overall teachings of Scripture.

He said, "The intent of what the Word is saying here is that women need protection." (Referring to Genesis 3:15&16)
And he also said, "She has a certain vulnerability. The need for protection. The need for a leader. She needs a strengthener."
He said that Eve was deceived only when she had gone out of the protection of her husband.
And he said, "A woman has a deceive-ability when out from under the headship of a man. Rulership was intended for man."

He based these comments solely on the fact that Eve first took of the forbidden fruit in the garden as she fell to Satan's deception.

Let's look at God's Words about this. Eve was not deceived while "out from under the protection" of her husband. The Bible says Adam was with her when she partook (Genesis 2:6). Their eyes were not opened, however, till Adam ate the fruit.

The sweeping comment about women having a "certain vulnerability" and" needing protection" seems to go against what God said when He created woman. It was the man who needed assistance. God created woman because man needed help and protection. The word for "helper" is ezer and means assistant, succour and often has military connotations throughout Scripture. The word is used 21 times in the Old Testament and is used to mean strength and power. (Deut 33:26, 29) He created woman as an equal to the man. He gave them equal dominion over the earth and everything in it. (Genesis 1:28)

Any rulership husbands had over wives was a result of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) That is not an overall intent of God for only men to be rulers or leaders. God had women rulers and leaders all throughout Scripture and they ruled over men. They told men what to do. They led the men and with God's blessing and appointment to do so.

Also, because the idea of rulership was a result of the fall, Jesus conquered all that on the cross. A church-age husband is completely out of line to announce his perceived "rulership" on any level because he is commanded in Scripture to love his wife "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her." Any abuse of this is just that - abuse - and an indication that the man has stepped out of his God-given role as sacrificial giver. (Also, Ephesians 5 calls for mutual submission between husbands and wives, eliminating the submission argument altogether. Besides, do husbands really want the kind of submission that comes from them demanding it? Submission indicates willingness by its very definition and Paul tells the Ephesians it will be mutually given in a proper marriage relationship.) John MacArthur disagrees.

Another general statement he made was, "Part of the curse is that she will desire to control men and he would have to rule over her." God did not say that. God did not say that women will desire to control men and that men, in turn would have to rule over her as though it's a reaction to that. Mr. MacArthur added his own words to God's Words here, changing the meaning of Scripture. (The Book of Revelation tells us what happens to people who add to God's Word.)

He started out saying that he was going to address the role of women in the church, but he branched out big time to include women everywhere. Clearly, women's roles in the church were very widespread in the NT church. Women led. Women taught men. Women served along side Paul, traveling with him and his missions team, were imprisoned with him, etc. Look up these women: Phoebe, Chloe, Junia, Priscilla, Anna, Lydia, Mary (who sat at Jesus' feet with the men), Eunice, Lois....and others. Priscilla went on a missions trip with Paul.  I can see why Mr. MacArthur had to avoid that.

Mr. MacArthur said that Paul was saying that a woman must embrace God's appointed role for her, which, according to John MacArthur, is motherhood. Even though he says that not all women are mothers, he also says that's God's appointed role for all women. Clearly, since men can't have babies without the intervention of modern science and misadventure, motherhood is ONE of the many roles of women. But, Mr. MacArthur's presentation doesn't really allow room for that idea. He wants to put all women in this neat, little box he's created and call it a day. This is spiritual abuse.

Toward the end, he said, "They [women] are delivered from the results of sin and are able to maintain a positive influence in society and in the church by accepting their role as a mother."

Why isn't the Christian world shouting blasphemy about this statement? Delivered from the results of sin by being a mother???? Seriously? The Mormons teach something very, very similar. Be careful, ears, what you hear.

When people of influence make sweeping comments, even on the heels of a disclaimer to the contrary, they are setting women up for abuse, pure and simple. What if a young Christian woman listened to this as a new babe in Christ? It would shape her thinking and it would cause her to stop thinking for herself and fall prey to men whom she perceives as "godly" and cases such as what ABWE, Bill Gothard and others allowed will continue to happen.

Women, do not be afraid to be strong in doctrine and stand up against this type of teaching. You don't have to make a scene when you stand up for it, all you have to do is stop listening to it. Stop reading it. Stop going to a church that teaches this nonsense. Blog about it if you have a blog.

A godly woman fears the Lord (Proverbs 31), not man. Jesus praised Mary for learning at his feet (as the men did in those days) and told her sister, Martha, that Mary had chosen that which could not be taken from her. (Luke 10:38-42)

Like Mary, all we as women have the opportunity to choose what cannot be taken away from us. The underlying tone of John MacArthur's sermon is one of abuse and an attempt to keep women out of sight. I know pastors who take his words to their pulpits and abuse their congregations with this very teaching. It's abusive to the women for obvious reasons, but it's also abusive to the men because such pastors are not strengthening their men in doctrine, they are filling their heads with lies, often turning them into bullies. It's so subtle that unless you've been exposed to it and its devastating effect, you might not realize the full implications it has. People like John MacArthur will answer to God for what they have done, but, in the meantime, we don't have to sit and take it....from anyone.

~Tricia