Ladies- did you read yesterday’s Mailbag article, Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism? If not, I would encourage you to read it before watching today’s movie. And if you’re new to the complementarian vs. egalitarian kerfuffle, I would encourage you to read, not only that article, but all of the articles in the “Additional Resources” section of that article as well.
Why?
Because today’s Movie Tuesday movie, Battle for the Minds, approaches the issue from the egalitarian perspective, and you need to be sure you’re firmly grounded in the biblical perspective so that “no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Also, today’s movie is kind of like a homework assignment. How would you apply the complementarian apologetics you learned in yesterday’s article as well as your knowledge of Scripture to the egalitarian arguments and pronouncements being made in this movie?
Battle for the Minds was released on PBS in 1997. It presents the egalitarian viewpoint on the stage of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s transition from theological liberalism to biblical theological conservatism under the then-new leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler, and delves into a bit of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention around that time as well. (As an aside, I am not familiar with any of the people in the film presented as being on the egalitarian side except for Ann Graham Lotz. I’m only familiar with a few of those on the complementarian side: Albert Mohler, David Miller, and Paige Patterson.)
If you are Southern Baptist, I strongly encourage you to watch and carefully consider these events from our history in light of the battle we are now facing in the SBC concerning the role of women in the church and in the Convention. Because what Nancy Ammerman says at the 37:04 mark is correct. Since all SBC churches are autonomous, many Southern Baptists only concern themselves with their own churches and don’t trouble themselves to worry about what’s going on at the national level. But when you do this, you fail to take into consideration that what’s going on at the national level trickles down to your local church in the form of what’s being taught to your next pastor or staff member at our seminaries; the authors, musicians, and other content creators being sold (and not being sold) at LifeWay; the theology in the Sunday School and VBS curriculum your church uses, etc. It also affects the theology and ecclesiology our IMB and NAMB missionaries and church planters use and teach. And finally, the leadership and issues at the national level are the face the Southern Baptist Convention presents to the world.
But even if you’re not Southern Baptist, you will probably still find this movie informative to the way your own church or denomination is responding to the issue of the biblical role of women in the church.
A couple of things to be on the lookout for, and give consideration to, as you watch Battle for the Minds:
•Notice the amount of Scripture presented in the movie. Is any Scripture presented that backs up the egalitarian view? Is egalitarianism vs. complementarianism presented as a biblical and spiritual issue or an “our position vs. their position” issue?
•Note the sex of each person on the egalitarian side and the sex of each person on the complementarian side. Are any complementarian women presented? Do you think there were absolutely no women on the complementarian side of the issue when these events were transpiring? Do you see how the exclusion of complementarian women in this film gives the subtle illusion that a) all women are egalitarian, and b) the reason men are complementarian is because they’re sexist and trying to protect their power and position – the same argument people like Beth Moore are attempting to make today?* Do you think it was sexist to exclude women from the complementarian side?
“What are some of your favorite counterarguments to egalitarian theology?” a reader of my blog once asked.
It’s such a great question for a plethora of reasons. One important reason is that it’s always a hot topic that needs to be dealt with biblically in order to silence the lies and to make onlookers aware that the Bible does address this issue with the correct answer. Another reason is that, when you think through an issue via an apologetics, “point-counterpoint” framework, it really helps solidify in your mind, and give you confidence in, what the Bible has to say about the issue.
Let’s start off with some basics…
If “egalitarian” is a new term for you, let’s nail down what egalitarianism is and what complementarianism is. Both have to do with the issue of women’s roles in the church and in the home.
Egalitarianism is the anti-biblical view that women can do anything men can do in the context of the church and home. Women can be pastors, elders, heads of denominations, preach and teach the Bible whenever, wherever, and to whomever they want, and they don’t have to submit to their husbands.
Complementarianism is the biblical view that women and men are of equal value and worth in salvation and in the imago dei, but have different, yet equally important roles in marriage and the church. Complementarians embrace the Bible’s teaching that women are privileged to portray the relationship of the church to Christ by graciously and joyfully submitting to our husbands. Complementarians honor and respect the high calling and unique gifting women have to disciple other women and to raise up the next generation of godly men and women by discipling our own, and other, children. Because this is such a weighty and arduous responsibility, we consider it a blessing that God has not also burdened us with the responsibility to pastor churches, preach, teach the Scriptures to men, or exercise authority over men in the context of the gathering of the church. Rather, we encourage the men who have been given this responsibility, leaving godly women free and unfettered to carry out the ministry God has given us.
In the 20teens, there was a movement afoot to establish a formal, third-way position regarding this issue. It was called narrow or soft complementarianism – an attempt to straddle the fence, make everybody in both camps happy, and have your cake and eat it too. There are a variety of beliefs among those who choose this label, but for most, what it boils down to is the position that a woman may not hold the office of “senior pastor” (i.e. she can’t be on staff as the primary pastor of a church), but it’s perfectly OK for her to do anything and everything else in the church that men do.
She can preach the sermon to the assembled congregation on Sunday morning, whether that’s weekly or once a year on Mother’s Day. She can teach (or co-teach with her husband) co-ed adult Sunday School, Bible study classes, and small groups. She can hold any position of leadership or authority in the church, including positions such as head of the personnel committee, and make decisions about hiring, firing, evaluating, and directing the pastor. She can preach and teach the Bible to co-ed audiences at Christian conferences.
In the 2020’s, we saw a shift away from the push to make narrow/soft complementarianism an official third-way position. Those who held to this position dropped the “narrow/soft,” but kept the “complementarian”. Now the folks in this camp go about calling themselves “complementarian” – which confuses others into thinking they hold to the definition in the “Complementarianism” paragraph above – when they really hold to the narrow/soft complementarian definition. (If a real life example would help you understand this paradigm better, please see my article on Jen Wilkin.)
Let’s dispense with narrow/soft complementarianism – or the neo-complementarian iteration of it – once and for all. It is a position of compromise between the biblical and the anti-biblical. Compromising with sin has never been a biblical stance for God’s people to take. Ever. The Bible tells us “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” You don’t have to consider yourself a full-blown egalitarian to infect the church with ungodliness. Just a little compromise, a little leaven, a little dab’ll do ya. And that little dab never makes the church or individual Christians more godly, more biblical, or more Christlike. It always leads to more compromise and greater ungodliness.
Furthermore, we don’t treat other sin and rebellion this way. No one would dream of saying, “I hold to a soft view of adultery. Only actual extra-marital intercourse is off the table. Kissing, touching, dating other people – that’s all fine.”
Yes, women “pastoring,” preaching, teaching the Bible to men, and exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body is a sin. When God commands us not to do something and we do it anyway because we want to, that’s sin. Christianity is not a religion for people who want to do whatever they feel like doing. Christianity is a religion in which we obey our God’s commands in thought, word, and deed.
Egalitarianism is sin because it is rebellion against God’s Word. And it is extremely detrimental when high profile classic complementarians unhelpfully classify it as a “secondary issue”. I know all they mean when they say that is that it is not part of the ordo salutis or a linchpin doctrine of soteriology. But when Christians hear “secondary issue” what they think is, “Oh, this is an issue where both sides have genuine biblical support like many views of eschatology and baptism. We can just agree to disagree and both sides are biblical.” Nobody thinks that about adultery, murder, gossip, lying or any other sin, and we need to be more careful in our terminology lest we give people an opening to think that way about egalitarianism.
Rebelling against God’s commands regarding the role of women is either a sin or it is not. There is no middle ground, so narrow/soft complementarianism is not a biblically legitimate position to take. If you’re a “narrow/soft complementarian,” you’re a functional egalitarian. And if you’re a Christian who’s toying with this idea, I urge and encourage you to repent, love Christ and His Word more than you love the world and its ideals, and unashamedly embrace and promote what the Bible says about the role of women.
Who are we addressing when we make these apologetic arguments?
There are only two kinds of people in the world: saved people and unsaved people. Which means there are only two kinds of people who hold the egalitarian view: saved people and unsaved people.
The Bible is abundantly clear that saved people have the mind of Christ. That means we think the way Jesus thinks and we view the world and the church the way Jesus views the world and the church. We deny ourselves, putting aside whatever we might want or think, and we submit, as Jesus did, to “It is written…“. Additionally, obedience (or lack thereof) to the commands of Scripture is an indicator of whether or not someone actually belongs to Him. In fact, God says if you claim to be a Christian and you habitually and unrepentantly walk in disobedience to, and rebellion of heart against His commands, you’re a liar, and you don’t know Christ.
What this means in practical terms when dealing with any biblical issue – egalitarianism, evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. – is that a sizable portion of the people on the unbiblical side of the issue are unsaved. Because a saved person has the mind of Christ, she will embrace, believe, and obey God’s Word regarding these issues and come out of these unbiblical camps, and an unsaved person will continue to fight for the unbiblical position. A new or previously poorly discipled Christian may need to be taught what Scripture says about these things, and it may take some time for her to come to grips with God’s commands, but her nature is to fight her flesh to submit to God’s Word, not to make provision for her flesh to fight against God’s Word.
Why do we need to understand this crucial foundational concept in debating this issue? Because people who are unsaved regard the things of God as foolishness and they cannotaccept them no matter how much you explain Scripture to them or how much sense you make. This is a spiritual issue that requires a spiritual solution – the Holy Spirit must save the person and open her eyes to the truth of His Word. Often, what the person you’re arguing with needs most is the gospel, not an argument about a theological issue. And you will need to be careful and wise to discern when your apologetics are helpful and effective with someone who truly wants to learn and accept the biblical view, and when it’s time to gather up your pearls, step out of the pigpen, and go home until the Holy Spirit does His good work in her heart.
All of this would be my primary apologetic argument against egalitarianism (or any other position that defies Scripture): If you’re truly saved, the fruit of your new nature in Christ will be to forsake and repent of any opinions or positions you hold that conflict with Scripture and submit to, love, and obey God’s commands. If you’re not saved, your opinion doesn’t really matter when it comes to how the church is run because the church is the body of Christ – Believers – not the house of unbelief.
Let’s take a stroll through the Bible…
The “let’s take a stroll through the Bible” counterargument is a handy starting point, because it demonstrates the baseline position, consistent through the entirety of Scripture, regarding male headship. Additionally, it addresses so many arguments about 1 Timothy 2:12 that it’s almost a “one size fits all” argument:
But the Bible only says one timethat women can’t preach to men!
God didn’t prohibit women from teaching men. That was Paul, the human being’s, idea.
That passage is about wives taking authority over their husbands, not about women preaching to or exercising authority over men in the church.
That instruction only applied to the women of the Ephesian church at that particular time in church history.
Look at the overall general pattern of male headship and leadership in Scripture.
First human created? A man.
The Patriarchs? As the word implies – all men.
Priests, Levites, Scribes? Men.
Heads of the twelve tribes of Israel? Men.
Major and minor prophets? Men.
All kings of Israel and Judah? Men.
Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants? All established between God and men.
Authors of Scripture? Men.
The forerunner of Christ? John the Baptist – a man.
Messiah? A man.
All of the apostles? Men.
All of the pastors, elders, and deacons of churches in the New Testament? Men.
Founder and head of the church? Christ – a man.
Leader and head of the family? Men.
Now which fits better with this pattern, women preaching to, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the church, or women not preaching to, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the church?
It’s not just one verse. The entirety of Scripture backs up 1 Timothy 2:12. Which means it wasn’t just Paul’s human idea, just for the women of Ephesus, or just about wives and husbands. Male headship and leadership in God’s foundational institutions – family and church – has been God’s idea, God’s plan since the dawn of Creation (as 1 Timothy 2:13-14 clearly explains). It’s much harder for someone claiming to be a Christian to throw out the whole Bible than to sweep one verse aside.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Scripture
Another argument that often needs to be made is explaining the difference between descriptive and prescriptive passages of Scripture, because one of the most common arguments egalitarians will make is, “Look at Deborah! Look at Priscilla! Look at the women at Jesus’ tomb! Look at the women Paul commends in Romans 16! They were all in some sort of leadership or teaching position, so that means women can do anything in the church that men can do!” No. No it doesn’t.
Broadly speaking, there are two main types of Scripture: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive passages describe something that happened: Noah built an ark. Esther became queen. Paul got shipwrecked. These passages simply tell us what happened to somebody. Prescriptive passages are commands or statements to obey. Don’t lie. Share the gospel. Forgive others.
If we wanted to know how to have a godly marriage, for example, we would look at passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7, and Exodus 20:14,17. These are all passages that clearly tell us what to do and what not to do in order to have a godly marriage.
What we would not do is look at David’s and Solomon’s lives and conclude that polygamy is God’s design for marriage. We would not read about Hosea and assume that God wants Christian men to marry prostitutes or adulteresses. We would not read the story of the woman at the well and think that being married five times and then shacking up with number six is OK with Jesus.
And when looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible. Descriptive passages may support, but never trump, the clear instruction of prescriptive passages.
Some try to make the argument that it’s OK for a woman to preach or teach Scripture to men if she’s doing it “under her husband’s/pastor’s authority”. Excerpted from my article Fencing off the Forbidden Fruit Tree:
When God tells us (in context, rightly handled, correct covenant, etc., of course) not to do something and we do it anyway, that is sin, right? Only God has the authority to say what is sin and what is not. No one – not your pastor, your husband, your parents, your best friend, the Pope, nobody – has the authority to tell you that it’s OK to do something God has said is sin. That authority belongs to God alone.
Try inserting any other sin into that situation. Does your husband, pastor, etc., have the authority to tell you it’s OK to lie? Cuss? Covet? Of course not. And why would they even consider doing such a thing?
If you were to ask your husband and pastor to show you from Scripture where God says it’s OK for them to allow you to teach men, they would quickly realize that they are not basing their decision on Scripture (because there is no Scripture that allows them to do this), but on their own opinion that it’s OK.
When God says “no,” no man has the right to say, “yes.”
[Word] games people play…
Recently, a couple of “word game” arguments have started popping up in this ongoing tussle:
“The Bible never says that women can’t preach!”
No, there’s not a Bible verse that says, verbatim, “Women can’t preach.”. Somehow egalitarians think this is a “gotcha,” but this is really one of their weakest and most embarrassing arguments.
First Timothy 2:12 clearly says, “I do not allow a woman to teach…”. Their argument here is that the verse says “teach,” not “preach,” so they think they’ve found a loophole. But what is preaching? Think about what’s transpiring during preaching – it’s teaching! Whoever is preaching is imparting knowledge and explaining concepts to the hearers and encouraging them to understand, believe, and act on said knowledge and concepts. Preaching is teaching.
Furthermore, the passage that governs this issue isn’t just 1 Timothy 2:12. It’s 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7, Titus 1:5-9, and 2 Timothy 4:1-2. First Timothy 2:11-15 tell us who is not qualified to pastor, preach to and teach the congregation, and exercise authority in the gathering of the church body, and why. First Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and 2 Timothy 4:1-2 tell us who is qualified to do those things, and why and how.
First Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:1-9 are the qualifications for pastors, elders, and overseers. Not only do these passages exclude women from this office (“husband of one wife,” male referents {“he,” etc.} throughout), they also exclude all men who do not meet these qualifications.
Both of these passages require that a pastor/elder/overseer be “able to teach” the congregation. This is juxtaposed against the word “teach” (teach men, so, not teaching the congregation) in 1 Timothy 2:12. The primary function of a pastor/elder/overseer is to teach the congregation. Since God prohibits women from teaching the congregation in 2:12, women are disqualified from the office of pastor in 3:1-7, because they are not able to teach (according to God’s definition of teaching in this context {i.e. instructing the whole congregation}). Conversely, since God excludes women from being pastors/elders/overseers in 3:1-7 (“husband of one wife,” male referents {“he,” etc.} throughout), women are prohibited from the primary function of that office, teaching the congregation, in 2:12.
Second Timothy 4:1-2 then steps up to the plate and specifies the primary type of teaching a pastor/elder/overseer is to do: preaching. Remember, 1-2 Timothy and Titus are the pastoral epistles. They are God’s instructions to pastors/elders/overseers about how they’re to do their jobs and how God wants His church to be structured and to operate. These three epistles are God’s “policy and procedure” manual, if you will, for pastors and the church.
I do not permit a woman to teach… 1 Timothy 2:12 Therefore an overseer must be…able to teach, 1 Timothy 3:2 He must…be able to give instruction in sound doctrine Titus 1:9 I charge you [pastors]…preach the word 2 Timothy 4:1-2
And the second “word game” argument is like unto the first:
“The Bible never says women can’t be pastors!”
Again, the Bible does not say, verbatim, “Women cannot be pastors.”. That’s the first alleged “loophole”. The second alleged loophole* is that the Bible uses the terms “elder” and “overseer,” rather than “pastor,” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. So – follow this carefully – even if women can’t be elders and overseers, the argument goes, women can still be pastors.
*It bears noting here that if you’re looking for “loopholes,” “technicalities,” and ways to bypass or circumvent the plain teaching of Scripture so you can indulge your fleshly desires, you’re already sinning. You never have to step behind a pulpit or preach a single word. Your heart is in rebellion against God, and you need to repent.
This is another painfully cringe-worthy “argument”. Scripture uses the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor,” synonymously and interchangeably. That’s why you often see Christians use the phraseology “pastor/elder/overseer” – because these terms mean the same thing. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000:
This particular argument that “the Bible doesn’t prohibit women from being pastors” is tantamount to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 teaching that the church fellowship hall may not contain a couch, and Titus 1:5-9 teaching that church fellowship halls are not to have davenports, and egalitarians saying, “It’s perfectly fine for church fellowship halls to contain sofas. The Bible nowhere says that church fellowship halls can’t have sofas.”.
Sometimes egalitarians will try to argue that the terms “pastor” and “shepherd” indicate a different office and function from elder/overseer. They then argue that the Bible doesn’t say women can’t be “pastors” and “shepherds”. This is an attempt to bypass the passages which clearly address the issue of women leading and preaching to the church, 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9, and instead, kidnaping and pressing into service passages which do not address this issue.
However the wheels immediately – almost comically – fall off this argument when you come to 1 Peter 5:1-2:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder …shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight…
1 Peter 5:1-2
Shepherding is the way that elders and overseers exercise oversight over the church, or “flock”. Pastors, overseers, shepherds, and elders are all the same person, position, office, and function.
If you’d like to read more, I highly recommend thes articles:
Sometimes appended to the aforementioned “The Bible doesn’t say women can’t be pastors!” argument is the argument that pastoring and shepherding are a spiritual gift rather than an office. Even if that were true in the way egalitarians seem to mean it (it’s not – God doesn’t “gift” people to do what He has clearly forbidden.), God has every right to dictate how we may and may not use any gift He chooses to give us. What loving parent would give her child the gift of a bicycle and not tell her how she may and may not use that bicycle for her own good and safety, and the good and safety of others?
If God gives someone the gift of generous giving, that person may notembezzle money from his employer so that he will have more to give.
Whatever “shepherding” means to any woman who thinks she has that gift, God does not allow her to use the gift of “shepherding” to hold the office or perform the function of an elder or overseer, including preaching, teaching men the Bible, or holding authority over men in the gathering of the church.
Christians are never allowed to exercise any spiritual gift in any way that violates the clear commands of Scripture.
It’s all Greek to you…
And there’s the “You don’t know Greek, so you don’t know what that passage really means. I do.” fallacy.
Lost in translation?
Some have tried to make the argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 is mistranslated – that “woman” and “man” should be translated as “wife” and “husband” – and that this passage isn’t prohibiting women from teaching men at all, it’s really about marriage. The short answer to that is: hogwash. If you’d like to read the longer version, check out my article The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Mistranslating 1 Tim. 2:12…) (second question).
Bigger fish to fry?
And then, there’s the “bigger fish to fry” argument, otherwise known as pitching a hissy fit. It goes something like this:
I am so sick and tired of this argument over whether or not women can preach or be pastors! There are people starving in Africa! Christians are being killed all over the world! There are Christian wedding vendors who are being persecuted for refusing to service homosexual “weddings”! Islam is making dangerous inroads in the United States! And you people want to argue that women can’t be pastors and preach?
You’re the one arguing, my egalitarian friend. Those of us on the biblical side of things are simply stating what Scripture has always said. There wouldn’t be an argument without you egalitarians arguing against what God has plainly decreed. And by the way, what are you doing to stop the starvation in Africa, the martyrdom, the persecution, Islam, and all the other “more important” issues in the world? Why don’t you simply stop arguing that women can be pastors, preach, etc., submit to and obey Scripture, and instead devote your time to getting to work on all those other problems?
Additionally, God never presents spewing emotional vomit everywhere as any sort of spiritually mature, godly, logical way to present an argument. Nor does the fact that “There are bigger problems in the world!” ever excuse sin or ever cause God to instruct us to deal with all the “big problems” in the world first before we can ever confront, address, and correct “little” sins. Even Jesus said, “The poor, you will always have with you.”.
“There are bigger problems in the world!” is never a reason to refrain from doing the right thing. And not only that, but there are Christians all over the place addressing all of these “more important problems”. It’s not like God gave us only enough bandwidth or personnel to address one problem at a time. We’re made in His image. We can multi-task.
But let’s try to apply this “argument” to some other scenarios in order to demonstrate how silly it is:
“What, God? You’re telling them to stone me for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Don’t You know there are about a dozen pagan nations out here just waiting to attack us any day? And this is what You want to spend Your time on?”
“Are you kidding me, God? All I did was tell a little white lie about the selling price of my land and You’re going to strike me dead for that? Don’t You know the Romans are out here crucifying Christians -even Jesus!- and feeding Christians to the lions? Why aren’t You doing something about that?”
Yeah. You really don’t want to be arguing against God and His commands.
A “real world” warning…
And finally, if a Christian struggles with the biblical argument against egalitarianism, God has graciously given us a real-time, tangible, visible argument against it. Take a look at all the once doctrinally sound Christian churches and denominations that are now apostate – the ones that embrace homosexuality, New Apostolic Reformation heresy, preach moralism or liberal politics instead of the gospel, etc. They all followed the same pattern.
The very first step they took on the road to apostasy was “soft complementarianism”: letting women teach co-ed Sunday School classes, preach on Mother’s Day, hold committee positions that placed them in biblically improper authority over men, and so on. The next step was full blown egalitarianism: allowing women to be elders, ordaining women as pastors, placing women in unbiblical denominational leadership positions. Next came embracing homosexuality: extending church membership to unrepentant, practicing homosexuals (and now, transgender people), ordaining them, and allowing them to serve in any and every position of church and denominational leadership, including the pastorate. And the final step is abandoning the gospel and the authority and sufficiency of God’s Word altogether.
It happened to the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, scores of non-denominational churches, and now it’s happening to Southern Baptists. Not a single church or denomination that has embraced egalitarianism has become holier, truer to God’s Word, or more spiritually healthy. They have all ended up dead eventually, and the true Christians in those churches and denominations have left to form biblical churches and denominations.
Egalitarianism is anti-biblical, harmful to men, women, and the church, and dishonoring to God. We may not be able to convince every egalitarian to repent and embrace what God’s Word says about the role of women, but it’s important to think through this issue in a biblical way, and using an apologetic framework is a great way to do that.
Death comes for us all, including false teachers and heretics.
And how do we find out, and express our feelings about, the deaths of evangelical celebrities? It used to be via the newspaper and around the water cooler. Now it’s on social media.
There are three typical social media responses when a false teacher dies: Her fans laud her and turn her into a virtual saint. A few who claim to be Christians dance on her grave in celebration. And doctrinally sound Christians are kind of left groping for how to respond, biblically. There’s a feeling of wanting to have compassion for the family who has lost a loved one while not appearing to endorse or approve of the deceased’s false teaching and sin merely because she has died.
So how can we respond biblically to the death of a false teacher?
1. Distinguish the Biblical Response
from the Cultural Response
“Don’t speak ill of the dead.” Where is this idea taught in Scripture? I can’t find it anywhere, can you? Does that mean we should speak ill of the dead? Of course not, because we don’t find a command to do that in Scripture either. I’m just trying to point out that a lot of the notions we have about death and other issues in life don’t come from the Bible, they come from our culture, etiquette, tradition, etc. If we truly want to respond to a false teacher’s death – or do anything else, really – in a biblical way, we need to be able to separate what the Bible tells us to do from what culture and society tell us is the right thing to do. In all aspects of life, that ability has never been more crucial than it is now.
2. To Respond or Not to Respond; That Is the Question
There’s absolutely no biblical requirement for anyone to proffer an unsolicited public comment on the death of a false teacher. Or anyone else for that matter. Other than mentioning her name in this article, I have not publicly commented on the death of Rachel Held Evans for several reasons, though I found out about her passing shortly after it happened. My friends Gabe and Elizabethdid decide to comment on her death, and, in my opinion, both did a lovely job. Commenting or deciding not to comment can both be perfectly biblical.
The only time it’s really incumbent upon a Christian to speak to the issue of a false teacher’s death is when someone you know asks you about it directly. And even then, if the person seems to be overwrought with emotion, it might be wisest to simply postpone your comment until after a “cooling off” period has taken place.
3. How to Respond
Briefly. Because the longer your comment, the greater chance you will either slip into eulogizing the false teacher or, conversely, making unnecessarily inflammatory remarks that will only serve to stir the ire of her family and followers and will make you look like a jerk.
Gently. Because even the gentlest remark is going to pour salt into the wound of someone who’s grieving if you’re not outright praising the deceased. And though “Don’t speak ill of the dead” isn’t a biblical concept, if you’re addressing the followers of a false teacher, you’re probably not dealing with people who are going to split that biblical/cultural hair. If they were overly concerned about distinguishing biblical concepts from worldly concepts, they wouldn’t be following a false teacher in the first place. Be sensitive to their cultural mores of gentle speech in this instance or you surely won’t get a hearing.
Non-speculatively. Because you do not have God’s omniscience, and speculation can serve no helpful purpose. Is it possible God ended the false teacher’s life as judgment for her unbiblical teachings? Yes. It is also possible He ended her life for a completely different reason known only to Him. Is it likely she will be spending an eternity in Hell? Yes. But unless you were at her bedside listening to her blaspheme the name of the Lord with her final breath, you don’t know that for certain.
Evangelistically. Because the greatest thing that could come out of the false teacher’s death, or anyone’s really, is for someone whose ultimate hope was in the hopelessness of false doctrine to find her ultimate hope in Christ.
4. Prepare for Backlash
One of the reasons I intentionally chose not to comment on Rachel Held Evans’ death is that I knew I would receive tons of vitriolic, possibly even threatening, backlash from her disciples if I said anything about Rachel that wasn’t pure praise of her. At that moment in my week, due to various things going on in my life, I had neither the time nor the spiritual strength to deal with an onslaught like that. It’s not that I was afraid or didn’t know how to answer the barbs I’m sure I would have received, it’s just that it would have been a distraction from other things that were a higher priority in my life than responding to strangers about the death of another stranger.
If you choose to make a non-laudatory statement about the death of a false teacher, even if it’s gentle, compassionate, completely biblical, and annotated with Scripture, you must be prepared to be attacked by her followers. No matter how much the teacher claimed to be a Christian or how much her followers claim she helped them grow in the Lord, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who steadfastly follow, love, and defend false teachers over a long period of time are very likely not saved and will respond to your biblical remarks in the angry, emotional, often abusive way that can be characteristic of lost people.
This, in fact, happened to a Facebook friend of mine who has a growing platform. She made just such a gentle, compassionate, completely biblical statement on Facebook about Rachel Held Evans’ death. I would link to it except that she had to delete the statement because some of Rachel’s followers found pictures my friend had posted of her child and proceeded to make vile remarks and threats against her child.
This is the kind of thing you can expect if you comment with anything but praise for the deceased, so keep it in mind when you’re deciding whether or not to say anything.
5. Weep
Romans 12:15b tells us to “weep with those who weep.” It is absolutely good and kind to be compassionate toward someone – anyone – who has lost a loved one, whether it’s your brother or sister in Christ, the widow of your atheist nephew, or even the family of a false teacher. Take a look at what Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-45:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Christians showing compassion to the “evil” and the “unjust” is part of God’s common grace to the world. It is an opportunity to reflect the kindness of God that led us to repentance.
But another reason to be grieved by the death of a false teacher is that she is most likely beginning her eternity of death in Hell. Because people who continually and unrepentantly harden their hearts against God’s Word and godly rebuke and correction are displaying the fruit of an unsaved soul. And that is no reason to celebrate. As Ezekiel tells us:
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? Ezekiel 18:23
God does not giddily damn people. His heart is for all to come to repentance and faith in Christ. And that should be our heart as well. Could it be that, in His infinite mercy and grace, God gave that false teacher a final opportunity to repent and trust Him moments before her death? It could, and that is what we should hope for, not only for the false teacher and her eternity, but for the glory it brings to God every time He washes a sinner in the blood of Christ.
6. Rejoice
But while we demonstrate compassion for the family and grieve the likely condemnation of the false teacher, there is also a righteous, Kingdom-focused, and biblical reason to rejoice: one more voice of blasphemy, lies, and deception has been silenced. At least in the sphere of influence of that particular teacher, no one will be led astray from Christ any longer.
But the wicked will perish; the enemies of the Lord are like the glory of the pastures; they vanish—like smoke they vanish away. Psalm 37:20
God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him! Psalm 68:1
Will another false teacher step up to take her place? Almost certainly. Where there are those who clamor to have their itching ears scratched, a wicked confidence man will arise to peddle his ungodly snake oil. But for today, for a short time, perhaps, no wares will be sold to this crowd of customers. And that is reason enough to rejoice.
Commenting on the death of a false teacher can be a tricky needle to thread. When we choose to do so, let us exercise the common grace of compassion, reflect the kindness of a merciful God, and always be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within us with gentleness and respect.
1. Study verses 1-5. In what ways does this passage contrast truth with falsehood? List the individual words in these verses that convey the idea of falsehood or dishonesty. List the words that convey the idea of truthfulness. Who is the origin of all falsehood and deception? Compare “deceitful spirits” and “demons” (1) with John 8:44. Who is the origin of truth? Compare the statements about truth in 2b-5 with John 14:6, 17:17.
Recalling that 1 Timothy is a letter breathed out by the Holy Spirit to a pastor about the church, explain why it is important to God, to pastors, and to the church body that the church be a place of truth rather than a place of deception, false teaching, and lies.
3. Look closely at the way false doctrine and false teaching are described in verses 1-2. Is Paul wrongly using a “harsh tone” or being “unloving” toward false teachers as some Christians might accuse him of today? (Again, Whobreathed out these Scriptures?)
4. Compare 4-5 with 2:9. Is there anything inherently sinful about braided hair, gold, pearls, or an expensive garment – these objects themselves, and/or owning/wearing them? Explain the primacy of the attitude of our hearts when it comes to these objects, marriage, and food (3). What does verse 5 mean when it says that these things are made holy “by the word of God and prayer”? How does this apply to your “relationship” with the things you own, wear, or participate in?
5. What is Paul instructing Timothy to do when he says, “If you put these things before the brothers,” (6)?
6. Examine 6-16. In chapter 3, the Holy Spirit gives a list of character qualifications for pastors – what they are to be. In 4:6-16 the Holy Spirit gives a list of instructions for pastors – what they are to __. Work your way through these verses and make a list of the things the Holy Spirit wants pastors to do. Circle or highlight any of these instructions and principles that do not apply to the laity (Christians who are not pastors). If pastors are supposed to “set the Believers an example” (12) what does that tell us about the need for us to follow the instructions in 6-16 that apply to both pastors and non-pastors? How does 2:11-15 apply to the way women are to follow these instructions? Is there any way in which the qualifications for pastors and deacons in chapter 3 should inform the way in which men follow these instructions? (For example: compare 3:2’s “able to teach” with 4:11’s “teach these things”. If a man is not “able to teach”, should he be in a teaching role in the church?)
7. What metaphor does Paul employ in 6-10 to describe training for godliness? How is spiritual training like physical training? How are they different?
8. Look closely at verse 9. We see this same phraseology four times in 1-2 Timothy. What does this statement mean, and why do you think Paul says it so often?
9. Compare the way Paul again inserts the gospel smack dab into the middle of his instructions to Timothy (10) to the way he has already done this in chapters 1, 2, and 3. How does this motif help us to see that everything we do in the church and in our own lives should revolve around and point back to the gospel?
Homework
Can you think of any churches, denominations, religions, cults, or movements today that “forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods” (3) for its leaders and/or members? Do some research, find out what is forbidden for whom, and examine the major points of the organization’s doctrine (ex: the nature of God, how people can be made right with God, etc.). Does it match up with biblical doctrine?
Here are a few of my favorite recent online finds…
“Complementarian interpretation of Scripture holds that God’s creation purpose for man and woman entails equality of individual value but also distinct roles.” Our friends over at Crossway give us 5 Myths about Complementarianism.
“You’ve heard it repeatedly on radio, podcasts, and TV. You’ve read it in various books and articles. You’ve even heard it in your pastor’s sermon. The problem: it’s a lie: 50% of all marriages end in divorce.” The Cripplegate helpfully explains why everything you know about American divorce statistics, including the divorce rate among Christians, is probably wrong in The 50% Lie.
“‘No’ to a husband’s advances is a big deal in a marriage. A godly wife can certainly say “no” but she will also be alert to the way her response might be taken by her husband. Understanding and compassion can go a long way at these moments.” CCEF explores the sensitive subject of marital intimacy in “Not tonight dear”… men rejected.
On his most recent episode of Ask Anything, Dr. Albert Mohlertackles a number of interesting questions, not the least of which is (from a Southern Baptist perspective) Should women preach the Sunday sermon in church? (8:58).
“Complementarian interpretation of Scripture holds that God’s creation purpose for man and woman entails equality of individual value but also distinct roles.” Our friends over at Crossway give us 
How about a free book? Here’s the PDF of 
“You’ve heard it repeatedly on radio, podcasts, and TV. You’ve read it in various books and articles. You’ve even heard it in your pastor’s sermon. The problem: it’s a lie: 50% of all marriages end in divorce.” 
‘No’ to a husband’s advances is a big deal in a marriage. A godly wife can certainly say “no” but she will also be alert to the way her response might be taken by her husband. Understanding and compassion can go a long way at these moments.” 