Tag: False Teachers

If you are considering commenting or sending me an e-mail objecting to the fact that I warn against certain teachers, please click here and read this article first. Your objection is most likely answered here. I won’t be publishing comments or answering emails that are answered by this article.

---

This article is kept continuously updated as needed.

I get lots of questions about particular authors, pastors, and Bible teachers, and whether or not I recommend them. Some of the best known can be found above at my Popular False Teachers tab. The teacher below is someone I’ve been asked about recently, so I’ve done a quick check (this is brief research, not exhaustive) on her.

Generally speaking, in order for me to recommend a teacher, speaker, or author, he or she has to meet three criteria:

a) A female teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly preach to or teach men in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. A male teacher or pastor cannot allow women to carry out this violation of Scripture in his ministry. The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be living in any other sin (for example, cohabiting with her boyfriend or living as a homosexual).

b) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be partnering with or frequently appearing with false teachers. This is a violation of Scripture.

c) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be teaching false doctrine.

I am not very familiar with most of the teachers I’m asked about (there are so many out there!) and have not had the opportunity to examine their writings or hear them speak, so most of the “quick checking” I do involves items a and b (although in order to partner with false teachers (b) it is reasonable to assume their doctrine is acceptable to the false teacher and that they are not teaching anything that would conflict with the false teacher’s doctrine). Partnering with false teachers and women preaching to men are each sufficient biblical reasons not to follow a pastor, teacher, or author, or use his/her materials.

Just to be clear, “not recommended” is a spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are people like Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth and Kay Arthur. These are people I would not label as false teachers because their doctrine is generally sound, but because of some red flags I’m seeing with them, you won’t find me proactively endorsing them or suggesting them as a good resource, either. There are better people you could be listening to. On the other end of the spectrum are people like Joyce Meyer and Rachel Held Evans- complete heretics whose teachings, if believed, might lead you to an eternity in Hell. Most of the teachers I review fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum (leaning toward the latter).

If you’d like to check out some pastors and teachers I heartily recommend, click the Recommended Bible Teachers tab at the top of this page.

---

Jen Wilkin
Not Recommended

Jen is a women’s Bible study author, blogger, and conference speaker, and until 2023, when she left to focus on her own ministry, was on staff at The Village Church as the Executive Director of Next Gen Ministries (TVC’s ministry to “children and students ages 0–18”).

Link / Screenshot

Jen’s older books and Bible study materials have a reputation for being generally doctrinally sound. I’ve published a review of Jen’s book, Women of the Word, and here is one reader’s take on her book 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ:

“…in the foreword Jen wrote, ‘a paraphrase, such as the NLT or The Message,* can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.’ However, aside from that, I have found no other problems with the book at all. It is an eight week long study of 1 Peter based on the method of Bible study that she writes about in Women of the Word. My favorite thing about this study is that it causes us to focus on what the text is telling us about God. I love how Jen Wilkin is teaching women to study the Bible properly. I wish she would be more discerning about who and what she endorses though. There are so few women who bring us solid teaching and discernment.”

*Please see “February 2026 Update” at the end of this article. Jen Wilkin herself brought to my attention that in later editions of this book, she removed her reference to the NLT from this sentence. She did not explain why, but my guess would be (and she has thus far not corrected me) that she removed “the NLT” because The New Living Translation is considered to be a translation, and Jen mistakenly referred to it as a “paraphrase”.

The reader’s concern (and mine, too) in mentioning this quote, however, is not that Jen mistakenly called the NLT a paraphrase, but that Jen recommended The Message as an acceptable paraphrase. You need only to click on the link above to see why this is concerning.

Also in the past, Jen limited her speaking engagements and teaching to audiences of women, which is the biblical parameter for Christian women teachers. And although her website speaking engagement request form says she is a “teacher who helps women…” she has been increasingly preaching to and instructing men in recent years.

For example, Jen’s former staff position as TVC’s “Executive Director” of children’s and student ministries, depending on the exact nature of her job responsibilities, probably (I am making a reasonable inference, as TVC’s website does not explicitly say) required her to teach Scripture to, or exercise improper authority over young men in the student ministry (which includes students through age 18) and men who teach or volunteer in the student ministry. The title “Executive Director” makes it sound as though she was over the entire ministry and everyone in that ministry was under her purview.

A more recent example demonstrating Jen’s increasing rebellion against Scripture regarding the role of women in the church is the Gospel Centered Discipleship “Preaching Cohort” in which Jen is a “Coach”. She (along with the other coaches) is described as a “seasoned Bible preacher and teacher,” and will be coaching pastors “on the calling and craft of preaching”.

In the past, there have also been questions about exactly where Jen stood on the biblical role of women in the church. She presented herself -and still does- as a complementarian, stating clearly that women are not to hold the office of pastor. What she did not make clear in the past, but what has become abundantly clear in recent years, is that she is (or has developed into) what’s often called a “soft” or “narrow” complementarian. This is the belief that women can do anything men can do in the gathering of the church body except hold the office of “senior pastor” – women can preach the Sunday sermon, hold any other office in the church (for many that includes the office of elder, “associate pastor,” etc.), exercise authority over men in the church, and so on. This is unbiblical. And what’s dangerous here is that Jen doesn’t call herself a “soft/narrow” complementarian, she just calls herself a complementarian, leading Christians who haven’t kept up with her to think she holds a biblical position and practice of the role of women, when she, in fact, does not.

As an example of Jen’s murkiness on the role of women, in the video* below (~32:05), she says:

“We need [women’s] visible leadership. How visible? As visible as your church’s complementarianism allows.”

This remark is at best, unhelpful, and at worst, opens the door for women and pastors to rebel against Scripture. The biblical answer to this question (aside from the fact that the church should be far more focused on servanthood than leadership) is: Women may serve in any position in the church that does not require them to preach to, teach Scripture to, or exercise authority over men, and which does not violate any other principles of Scripture.

Whatever position on the role of women Jen may have held in the past, she is now a “soft/narrow complementarian,” which is, in reality, a functional egalitarian.

In addition to the aforementioned preaching cohort in which Jen instructs pastors, she has spoken at several co-ed conferences in recent years. Give the first 15 minutes of the video below a listen*. Despite the fact that Jen’s very first remark is that she is not teaching the Bible in this session for pastors and church planters, she almost immediately goes on to quote and allude to the opening chapters of Genesis (and later in the video, other passages) and teach on them. I would challenge you to listen to what she says and ask yourself, “If I heard a pastor give this type of instruction, would I consider it a sermon/Bible lesson?” I think most of us could easily answer, “yes”. *(Unfortunately, the full length video of Jen’s complete teaching session has been removed from the internet. The video below is an excerpt of the full length video.)

(This is also the teaching session in which Jen made her infamous remarks about menstruation helping women to understand the gospel differently from men, which is not only a private and potentially uncomfortable subject to address in public – especially for an audience of men – it’s a patently ridiculous teaching. Menstruation teaches us nothing about the gospel. The two subjects are completely unrelated. Also, aside from Jen, I’ve never heard a single woman say her period helped her better understand the shedding of Christ’s blood.)

In another instance of preaching to a co-ed audience, Jen has been featured as a speaker multiple times at The Gospel Coalition’s national conference* at least as far back as 2017. (In the opening seconds of this 2017 TGC conference session, Why It’s Good that God Is Different from Us, Jen acknowledges and welcomes the men in her audience.) TGC, as many have noted, has been on a woke / social justice trajectory for years. Jen has been featured on TGC’s site numerous times.

*Jen has also been a featured speaker at TGC’s women’s conference (TGCW), not to be confused with TGC’s national conference, which is co-ed.

Again, one of the reasons it’s especially problematic for Jen to be teaching men, or to even to seem to be teaching men, is that she openly and unashamedly wears the label of complementarian. Boldly proclaiming complementarianism while teaching men muddies the waters and confuses the women who follow her as to what the Bible truly teaches about the role of women in the church. Are there times when it is technically not a violation of Scripture for a woman to speak with men in the audience? Yes (see #7 here). But weigh the impact Jen has on the church by speaking to men against the counter-evangelicultural impact someone of her stature could have by flagrantly refusing to teach men. Which would cause more people to sit up and take notice, set a better example for Christian women, and have a more biblical influence on the church?

Another concern about Jen is that she seems to be increasingly associating and appearing with false or problematic teachers.

In 2013, Jen wrote a blog post entitled, The Next Beth Moore in which she spoke glowingly of Beth Moore, her teaching, and one of her books. She has also had several friendly and/or affirming interactions with Beth on X, and has pointed women to Beth’s writing. Jen has appeared on the IF: Gathering podcast with Jennie Allen (to discuss and promote Women of the Word), and has written a devotional for Lysa TerKeurst’s Proverbs 31 blog.

(Screenshots: 1, 2, 3 {page 1}, 4 {page 2})

During LifeWay’s 2018 Abundance conferences, Jen appeared alongside Lisa Harper, Raechel Myers, Amanda Bible Williams, Christine Caine, Jennie Allen, Kelly Minter, Whitney Capps (of Lysa TerKeurst’s Proverbs 31 Ministries), and others.

L-R: Christine Caine, Lisa Harper, Raechel Myers, Whitney Capps, Amanda Bible Williams, Jen Wilkin, Jamie Ivey

In August 2020, Jen appeared at LifeWay Women Live with Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Jackie Hill Perry, Kelly Minter, Angie Smith, Jennifer Rothschild and Kristi McLelland.

LifeWay Women Live 2020 Speakers

Several years ago, Jen was added to LifeWay Women’s stable of Women’s “Bible” study authors including many of the aforementioned teachers and others. In addition to my normal concerns about someone yoking with false teachers (i.e. the Bible says not to, and disobeying God’s Word is a sin), I’m guessing LifeWay Women may have initially signed Jen in order to use her – that is, her reputation for being a doctrinally sound teacher and a complementarian – to lend credibility to the false teachers they promote. And, of course, Jen’s previously perceived good reputation has suffered by being associated with these false teachers.

In March 2021, when Beth Moore cut ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, Jen offered this glowing farewell…

In a strange irony, in the midst of unbiblically partnering with these false teachers, in her session, The Gospel and The Future of Bible-Centered Discipleship at the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention Pre-Conference (also to a co-ed audience), Jen teaches the following…

[Biblical literacy] guards against false teaching…Basic comprehension-level mastery of the text guards against false teaching. (~30:12)

You know what our [discipleship] formula has been for the last 20 years? [We’ve said], ‘We’re going to keep making [the level of biblical teaching] lower and lower’…It is our high calling, in the face of a biblical literacy crisis, to raise the bar in an age of low expectations. (~43:40…44:39)

And yet, Jen’s level of “mastery of the text” – to the point that she is instructing people in the text and teaching them how to improve discipleship – has not sufficiently guarded her against partnering with women who are largely responsible for the bulk of false teaching aimed at women today, who don’t teach “basic comprehension-level mastery of the text,” and who have continued to lower the bar and perpetuate low expectations for biblical literacy. Jen has associated with, talked to, and listened to the teaching of these women far more than I have, I’m certain. How does she not see this?

(February 2026 UPDATE- I’ve removed a small section of this article {unrelated to the paragraph above or below} that previously appeared here. Please scroll down for an explanation, and for additional extra information.)

Finally, in the same way that the influence Steven Furtick has on Lysa TerKeurst as her pastor is worrisome, I’ve seen some things over the years with Jen’s pastor, Matt Chandler, and his wife, Lauren Chandler (with whom Jen has appeared at conferences; screenshot), that have given me pause.

As a member of The Village Church, Jen is pastored by Matt, and as a ministry leader there (though no longer a staff member), she works under his direction and influence. Over the past few years, Matt has publicly praised or affirmed false teachers like Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, and Jesus Culture. He has raised some questions about the extent of his continuationism with His notorious “pirate ship prophecy“. He allows Bethel and Israel Houghton (Joel Osteen’s former worship leader) music to be used for worship at his church. Matt allows his wife, a worship leader at TVC, to select this music, and to yoke with and be influenced by numerous false teachers. Matt and Lauren and their associations with false teachers have undoubtedly influenced Jen. Additionally, Matt’s character and personal integrity were sullied in 2022 when he had to take a leave of absence after admitting to an “inappropriate” texting relationship with another woman.

(Screenshots: 1, 2, 3. 4)

In addition to the issues of Jen’s unbiblical views and teachings on the role of women in the church, and the fact that she yokes with false teachers, more information is beginning to come to light about the content of Jen’s books, her poor handling of Scripture, and some of her teachings that conflict with Scripture:

Two of my followers who have participated in Jen’s studies (which included her teaching videos) have informed me that if you only use her books, and not the videos, you may not have encountered some of her troubling teachings.

One follower said: “A few months ago I asked my Facebook friends if they have noticed any recent changes in Jen Wilkin’s teaching. Many of them are Christians.

My church’s Women’s Bible Study group recently finished 3 of her latest Lifeway publications. After this last study of “Joshua” I have firmly decided I will never again do one of her studies. While the workbooks are apparently edited, her videos are not. It is in her videos (over the last few studies) where she gives false teachings and LOTS of conjecture and assumptions.

Perhaps you’ve heard about her “mythological backstory” of Rahab. In Jen’s drama style presentation, Rahab is displeased with the Israelites because she has been waiting for so long for them to come to save her from her vocation. It was like she was forced into prostitution because the Israelites were disobedient and thus were made to wander in the wilderness for all those years while she was made to live in sin.

I asked my class “Were the Israelites LATE getting to Jericho? Was God late in getting to Jericho? I rejoice at God’s mercy to Rahab and her family. Her testimony about Him is stunning!!! There’s sooo much more that is less dramatic but equally fictitious…bordering on heresy. They really need to take a hard look at her videos.”

Another follower agreed: “If you are only doing her workbooks you are not getting a full picture. My first red flag for Jen was in her 1 Peter study which was many years ago when I was a young mom. (2016) The workbooks were fine but the videos was where she offered every single excuse in the book as to why women should not submit to their husbands. And her Genesis study leaves the welcome mat out for evolution and not upholding the authority of Scripture.”

(More info still coming in on this. I’ll update this section as I receive it.)

In summary, I would urge you not to follow Jen Wilkin, attend her conferences, or use her materials due to her trajectory of increasingly unbiblical teaching and behavior.

---

February 2026 UPDATE

Prior to February 14, 2026, this small section appeared in the above indicated area of this article:

On February 13-14 Jen Wilkin and I had an exchange on X in which she said, “I have never said the Bible whispers about sexual sin.” (see image 2 below)

I looked into it, and Jen appears to be correct. Here’s what J.D. said:

The first part of J.D.’s statement, “We ought to whisper about what the Bible whispers about and we ought to shout about what it shouts about,” was a quote of Jen. J.D. then added his own opinion, “…and the Bible appears more to whisper when it comes to sexual sin…” to the end of the quote of Jen, making it sound like the entire quote was something she said.

I apologize – to Jen and to my readers – for making this mistake, and ask your forgiveness. I hope my character speaks for itself when I assure you that this was simply a misunderstanding of an unclear statement. It was not a fabrication, nor was it done maliciously. But I am still sorry for making the mistake and for any negative consequences it resulted in for Jen or anyone else.

This point, however, was not the only thing Jen took issue with about this article, as you can see from the images in the slideshow above. Here is the original exchange. My response to Jen’s allegations is below in article format for ease of reading:

Hi Jen- I’m the author of the article, and I’m happy to correct any factual or biblical mistakes. For others reading this who’d like to follow along, Jen is saying my article on her contains “basic factual errors in it … To say nothing of something that misrepresents a fellow believer’s character and actions”.

I apologize for the length of this answer, but I wanted to address all of your concerns clearly, accurately, biblically, and citing sources:

“Comment re: the NLT is inaccurate. I have said that in ref to earlier versions (pre-2004), but haven’t said it in years.”

First, this is a quote from an email I received from a reader commenting on your book 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ. I introduced the quote by saying, “Jen’s older books and Bible study materials have a reputation for being generally doctrinally sound.” (I also linked to a positive review on my blog of your book Women of the Word in which I actually recommended [at that time] that my readers buy themselves a copy of it. The reader’s quote begins:

“…in the foreword Jen wrote, ‘a paraphrase, such as the NLT or The Message, can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.’…”

I checked the most recent version of your book (2024 edition; sample on Amazon), of 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ, and you’re correct, you’ve removed the part about the NLT. The quote now says, “a paraphrase, such as The Message, can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.”. 

My guess is that you removed “the NLT [New Living Translation]” because it’s considered a translation, not a paraphrase. Is that correct? If not, please feel free to explain. I’m glad to add a note to the article saying that you’ve removed the phrase “the NLT” from that sentence in later editions, and if you have a link to an article or other material that explains why you removed it, I’ll be happy to add that link as well.

So just to clarify here, the quote from your book (in which you mistakenly called the NLT a “paraphrase”) actually is accurate. You are the one who changed it in later editions, presumably to correct your error. So this is not, in fact, a “factual error”. The reader’s quote was accurate.

However, the primary concern here is not that you mistakenly called the NLT a “paraphrase” instead of a translation (if that’s why you removed the part about the NLT), or even that you recommended the NLT. The primary concern is that you recommended – and, apparently, STILL recommend- The Message, one of the worst, most grossly inaccurate “paraphrases” out there, written by Eugene Peterson, who, along with mangling the text of Scripture, wrote a cover endorsement for the heresy-laden book, “The Shack,” and said he would officiate a same sex wedding.

But you still cite The Message as an acceptable paraphrase to use. So that part is factually correct.

---

Your next concern was: “I am not described as a preacher on the GCD website.”

Here, you’re misquoting me and either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the article actually says (so you’re the one guilty of a “basic factual error” in this case).

The article contains a screenshot of the GCD (Gospel Centered Discipleship) web page picturing you and describing the event, and quotes directly from that web page. This is the actual quote from my article:

“…the Gospel Centered Discipleship “Preaching Cohort” in which Jen is a “Coach”. She (along with the other coaches) is described as a “seasoned Bible preacher and teacher,” and will be coaching pastors “on the calling and craft of preaching”.

The point of these two sentences is that you will be instructing pastors on how to be better pastors/preachers, when this is unbiblical and you have no place doing so. Neither of these sentences says that GCD called you, specifically, a “preacher”. (Additionally, albeit tangentially: just from a logical perspective, why would GCD engage someone who isn’t a pastor and isn’t qualified to be a pastor to instruct pastors about being better pastors? That’s like a hospital hiring someone who isn’t a doctor and isn’t qualified to be a doctor to instruct doctors about being better doctors.)

---

Finally, you said, “I have never said the Bible whispers about sexual sin.”

In this instance, you’re correct. Here’s what I said in the article: “And remember when J.D. Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, got himself into all kinds of hot water for saying in a sermon, “The Bible whispers about sexual sin.“? He was quoting Jen Wilkin…” 

My statement was based on a misunderstanding of JD’s quote in the video of his sermon. He was quoting you when he said, “We ought to whisper about what the Bible whispers about and we ought to shout about what it shouts about,” but then added HIS OWN thought to the end of that quote, and HE stated his opinion that “the Bible appears more to whisper when it comes to sexual sin compared to it shouts about materialism and religious Pride”.

I apologize for getting that wrong. I’ll be glad to remove that small section entirely. I’ll make a note in the article, and explain publicly on social media, how I got that wrong, along with a public apology to you, both in the article and on my other social media platforms. I’m very sorry for my mistake there.

---

“I’ve also been clear about my complementarianism on more podcasts than I can count.”

Yes, you’ve said you’re a complementarian, but as I accurately explained in the article, you’re not using the original definition of “complementarian”. You’re using the current, twisted definition of complementarian, i.e. women can do anything in the church that men can do except hold the office of pastor. That’s what used to be called “soft complementarianism” or “narrow complementarianism” and it is functional egalitarianism. I’m not the one in “factual error” here.

Calling yourself a “complementarian” and using that twisted definition is -whether you intend it to be or not, and I’m assuming “not”- deceptive and misleading. It’s similar (I’m using this strictly as an analogy, not accusing you of heresy) to Mormons saying, “We believe in Jesus,” when the Mormon version of Jesus is very different from what Scripture says about Jesus.

Furthermore, as a Southern Baptist, I’m sure you’ve heard (as have I), our leadership say regarding women preaching to men, “The function IS the office,” meaning that a woman functioning in the role of pastor -i.e. preaching- is usurping the office of pastor, as Dr. Albert Molher explains here in refutation of the definition of “complementarianism” you espouse, namely, that “a woman ought to be able to do…or authorized to do everything a non-ordained man can do.”

---

“There’s an assumption of motive in several places, a tendency to sensationalize…”

This is your personal, subjective opinion, not a “factual error”. 

You’ll need to specifically quote at least one of these “several places”. And I would remind you that what you characterize as “assumption of motive” the Bible would likely characterize as, “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45) and/or “You will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16, 20). But until you cite a specific “assumption of motive/tendency to sensationalize” we can’t know for sure, I can’t apologize if something is, in fact, an unbiblical “assumption of motive,” or “sensationalism,” and this is an unsubstantiated accusation. 

---

“an extremely broad use of the term “preach”

No broader than the Bible’s definition. The actual prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, as I’m sure you know, is against women “teaching” men. Preaching is just one form of teaching. 

---

“I don’t expect that we would agree on the definition of preaching, but I do have one that falls well within comp boundaries.”

As evidenced by the fact that you preach to men, your definition of preaching falls well within the aforementioned current twisting of “complementarian” boundaries: functional egalitarianism, which unbiblically allows women to preach to men. 

There is no definition of women preaching to men that falls within traditional complementarian boundaries because traditional complementarianism – which simply describes what the Bible says about the role of women in the church- does not allow women to preach to men.

---

“Rather than engage with those differing definitions,”

I did “engage with those differing definitions”. I compared your so-called “complementarian” definition of preaching to men – i.e. “it’s OK for women to preach to men” – to Scripture. Scripture forbids this. Engagement over.

---

“she simply characterizes me as ‘preaching to men’” 

I didn’t “characterize” you as preaching to men, I flat out stated a fact: You preach to men. There’s plenty of evidence of it in the article. If you’re going to preach to men why not just proudly and unashamedly say so and clearly enumerate your reasons for doing so, rather than preaching to men and then going around and saying, “I’m not really preaching to men, I’m really a complementarian.”? If it’s OK for you to preach to men, you should be able to easily back up that assertion with clear, rightly handled (2 Timothy 2:15), in context Scripture.

---

“and a ‘functional egalitarian’” 

You are. When you function like an egalitarian by preaching to men, you’re a functional egalitarian.

---

“in an effort to discredit my ministry to women.”

Your “ministry to women” should be discredited because you’re teaching them to disobey Scripture. Every time you stand up and preach to men, your behavior is teaching women (and men) that if they come to a command of Scripture they don’t like (like 1 Timothy 2:12), they’re free to ignore it and disobey it. That teaching is false doctrine and a defiance of Scripture, and should, therefore, be discredited (and that’s only one of the points in the article – I’ve cited many other reasons why your ministry should be discredited).

---

“This is, at best, a shallow engagement with my position.”

No it isn’t. Your position is in direct conflict with the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. Concisely demonstrating that (and linking to two other articles refuting your position and explaining at length what the Bible says about the role of women in the church) is not “shallow engagement”.

---

“Preaching is done by a particular person in a particular context, that is, by the pastor/elder/qualified man in the Sunday gathering.”

Where does the Bible specifically say that, rightly handled and in context? Chapter and verse, please.

---

“My perspective is that I should be in glad submission to my elders. Here is the position paper that informs their approach:”

Christians are first and foremost to be in glad submission to Scripture, because Scripture is infallible and perfect, and elders – as your pastor, Matt Chandler, has amply demonstrated over the last several years – are not.

So if your elders are not upholding what Scripture teaches, and you are submitting to them, both you and your elders are in disobedience to Scripture, which is the standard for Christians.

Nevertheless, in the document you cited, your own elders say this:

So your own elders say that publicly preaching the Word to the gathering of the church is restricted to men.

We often have to clarify to Believers and unbelievers alike that the “church” is not the building we meet in, it’s the people – Christians. So whenever Christians are gathered for the purpose of worship, instruction in the Scriptures, etc., it is a gathering of the church, and the prohibition of women teaching men applies.

But, in any event, the document makes clear on p. 55 that this is the position of “the role of women at The Village Church.” My article doesn’t deal with you preaching at TVC, but at other gatherings of the church outside TVC, so TVC’s policy for TVC is irrelevant to those events.

---

“The short version [of the TVC document] is that any gathering that is not the Sunday gathering does not require to be taught by an elder.”

I didn’t see that statement or any statement similar to that in the document, but I may have missed it. What page is that on? 

---

“That being said, my ministry is primarily to women, so mixed gatherings are pretty rare.”

1. “Rare” does not equal “not sinful”. You still need to repent of preaching to men and stop doing it.

2. It doesn’t look “rare” considering all of the instances I’ve cited in the article (and including any instances I may have missed and haven’t included).

3. It isn’t “rare,” as though you used to preach to men and no longer do. This is something you’re continuing to do and currently doing. The GCD Cohort in which you’ll be unbiblically instructing pastors started less than three weeks ago.

---

So, to summarize, you found one actual error of fact in this entire, lengthy article (which I apologized for and will gladly delete and explain to my audience). The remainder of the article – dealing with far more than you’ve brought up here – is correct and is not “basic factual errors” or a “misrepresentation” of your “character and actions”.

And by implying that the article, overall, consists of “basic factual errors” and “misrepresents [your] character and actions,” you have actually misrepresented my character and actions.

But all of that aside, what’s more important here is you. I care about you, and I hate to see you going down the same road that so many of your Lifeway Women compatriots – like Beth Moore, Lysa TerKeurst, Priscilla Shirer, etc. – have gone. 

I have taken a moment to pray for you, and, in love, I urge you to repent of the sins of preaching to men, yoking with false teachers, and the other things I’ve cited in the article, for the glory of God, for the good of your own soul before Christ, and for the biblical discipleship of your followers.

---

Additional Resources:

The Troubling Trajectory of Jen Wilkin at Center for Baptist Leadership

Talk Back: Jen Wilkin and The Gospel Coalition at A Word Fitly Spoken

TGCW24- Mark and Avoid

Articles on Jen Wilkin by Elizabeth Prata

Lifeway Women