Tag: Women Preachers

Christian women, Complementarianism, Ministry, Sin

Women Preaching: It’s Not a Secondary Doctrinal Issue

Michelle Lesley

Originally published August 3, 2018

When it comes to Christianity, are the specifics of what people believe important?

I think most of us would answer a resounding “yes” to that question. Of course, the various concepts we believe are important. You can’t just believe anything you like and still be a Christian. There are certain things you must believe in order to become a Christian at all, and there are certain things you will come to believe because you are a genuinely regenerated Christian. But what are those things, and how do we know which is which?

You can’t just believe anything you like and still be a Christian.

Maybe you’ve heard the terms “essential doctrines” or “primary, secondary, and tertiary theological issues” or “first, second, and third tier levels of doctrine”? For years, theologians have been attempting to organize beliefs of the Christian faith – all drawn from the Bible, naturally – into nice neat categories in order to make things a little simpler. As someone who thrives on organization and categories, I’m grateful for their efforts. But if you begin to study this categorization of beliefs, you’ll find that we haven’t reached an across the board consensus yet.

Generally speaking, “essential”, “primary”, or “first tier” doctrines are those which you, biblically, have to believe in order to become a Christian and/or be considered a Christian. For example:

✢ Sin is a thing, and I am a sinner.

✢ God exists and is the supreme authority of the universe.

✢ Jesus was God in human flesh.

✢ Jesus rose bodily from the grave.

See how this works? If you don’t believe you’re a sinner, you’re not saved. If you don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, you’re not saved. Here’s how our friend, Pastor Gabriel Hughes, briefly outlines essential doctrines:

(Gabe later tweaked the acrostic a little and added an “S”, which I think is helpful.)

The vast majority of brand new Christians have only the most basic understanding of most of these tenets at the moment of salvation. But it’s not an issue of fully understanding – or else we’d all have to be theologians in order to get saved – it’s an issue of believing. Someone who is genuinely regenerated may not completely understand how the Trinity works (honestly, no one does), but when she’s introduced to the biblical idea of the Trinity, she believes it, learns more about it, and does not reject it.

There is typically agreement among most reputable theologians regarding what constitutes first tier doctrine. Scripture is clear about these things, and several of these issues were settled long ago by the church fathers in assorted church councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.)

Secondary issues are routinely defined as non-salvific but still extremely biblically important, if not quite as biblically clear-cut as primary issues. Doctrines surrounding baptism (credo versus paedo, affusion versus immersion), for example, are usually cited as a secondary issue. A disagreement on a secondary issue doesn’t mean one person is saved and another isn’t, but it normally prevents close partnership in ministry activities involving these issues. For example, my Presbyterian friends and I can join together in pro-life ministry, but we would most likely not plant a church together.

Tertiary issues are non-salvific, less immediately urgent, biblical issues in which the Bible is even less clear-cut and open to wider (yet still biblical) interpretation. These are issues over which Christians can disagree and still maintain close doctrinal fellowship, even in the same church, if they’re in agreement on first and second tier doctrine. Eschatology – the order and timing of events at Jesus’ second coming – is a doctrine that’s often considered third tier. Someone can hold a different eschatological view than mine, yet, for the most part, it shouldn’t affect our ability to worship together, work together, or participate in the ordinances together in the same church.

Some theologians add a fourth category – issues of adiaphora, conscience, or Christian liberty. Usually these are issues of much less importance that the Bible either doesn’t specifically address, or doesn’t give commands about one way or the other. Individual Christians may use biblical principles to inform their consciences and decide for themselves. These would be things like whether or not to take your child trick-or-treating or deciding whether to dress formally or casually for church.

While theologians are largely in agreement about primary doctrines, there is wider spread disagreement on which doctrines are secondary and tertiary (many consider eschatology to be a second tier doctrine, for example) and whether or not there is a need for a category of adiaphora, since such issues are normally not considered to be “doctrinal” issues. In fact, there’s enough space for disagreement that pastors and theologians often wisely refrain from making concrete lists of secondary and tertiary doctrines.

But when we’re talking about the different levels of doctrine, what you won’t find is questions like these: Is murder a first, second, or third tier doctrine? What about gossip? Rape? Adultery? Lying? Gluttony? Pride?

And it’s not because these issues aren’t important or because the Bible doesn’t address them. It’s because they’re in a different category from the other issues: the category of sin. They aren’t doctrines upon which salvation hinges, they aren’t open to interpretation, and the Bible is clear that we are absolutely not to do these things.

The category of doctrine deals with beliefs. The category of sin deals with behavior.

In 2005, Dr. Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article about the different levels of doctrine entitled A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity. He carefully explains the importance of each level of doctrine and what it covers in a plea to keep each level’s urgency in its proper place of significance during discussion, debate, and decision-making.

It was a helpful article to which I always refer people who have questions about tiers of doctrine, and I agree with Dr. Mohler’s thoughts in the article wholeheartedly1 …except on one point:

“In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue.”

Women serving as pastors, women preaching, women teaching men Scripture, and women exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body is not a secondary issue. Nor is it a primary or tertiary issue. It does not belong in the category of “doctrine” in the same way baptism and eschatology do. It belongs in the category of sin in the same way murder, gossip, and adultery do. Let’s take a look at the reasons for this.

Women serving as pastors, preaching, teaching men Scripture, and exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body is *not* a secondary issue. Nor is it a primary or tertiary issue. It is a sin.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

(The preponderance of Scripture supports and affirms this concept, so to keep things simple, we’ll use this verse as an exemplar.)

✢ The prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear command against a certain behavior. And when we behave in a way God has prohibited, that is called “sin”. All of the tenets in the three levels of doctrine are affirmative statements regarding beliefs (you must believe in the resurrection of Christ, we believe in baptism by immersion, etc.). None of them are commands, in the negative, against sinful behavior (Thou shalt not murder, I do not permit a woman to teach… etc.)

✢ Secondary and tertiary doctrines can be open – to varying degrees – to biblical interpretation. Every stripe of non-heretical eschatological thought can provide you with chapter and verse passages that can, depending on the angle from which you approach the subject, be biblically plausible and scripturally supported. There is no biblical support for anything God prohibits. No one can cite a properly handled, in context Bible verse in which God says, “It’s OK to commit adultery,” or “Women are allowed to preach.” There can be multiple views on a secondary or tertiary issue that can all be considered biblical, but there can only be one view of sin that is biblical.

✢ Differing beliefs on true secondary and tertiary issues are not sin. My Presbyterian friends have a different view of baptism than I do. That doesn’t mean either of us is sinning. I may think their interpretations of the verses they believe support paedo baptism are incorrect, but they are not breaking any of God’s commands. Differing behavior (again, we see the distinction between doctrinal belief and sinful behavior) on issues of sin is sin. If someone behaves differently from God’s command about lying, she is sinning. If a woman behaves differently from God’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12, she is sinning.

✢ Differing beliefs on secondary and tertiary issues are not born of disobedience and rebellion toward God. Usually, it’s quite the opposite. When someone has studied a theological issue enough to hold a particular position on it, it’s usually because she is striving to please God and to be biblical in her beliefs. Differing behavior on issues of sin is born out of disobedience and rebellion toward God. Someone who steals has already decided in her heart that her desires are better than God’s command. A woman who knowingly holds improper authority over men in her church is doing so because she has already decided to defy God’s clear command against such.

✢ Because different beliefs on secondary and tertiary issues are not born of rebellion and are not sin, they do not require church discipline. Sin does require church discipline. If someone in your church is openly dishonoring her parents, she is sinning and should be subject to church discipline. If a woman is pursuing a career as a pastor, she is sinning and should be subject to church discipline. 

Since the publication of Dr. Mohler’s article (and perhaps as a result of others teaching the same thing) the idea of the violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 being a “secondary doctrine” has spread in a most unhelpful way, leading many Christians to treat the issue in a c’est la vie, “We can just agree to disagree on this,” manner.

No, we cannot.

The idea of the violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 being a “secondary doctrine” has spread in a most unhelpful way, leading many Christians to think “We can just agree to disagree on this.”. No, we cannot.

We would not say, “We can agree to disagree,” on lying or adultery or homosexuality or abortion, and we cannot say it about women preaching, teaching men, or holding unbiblical authority, either. We disciple and teach a sister in Christ who is unaware of what the Bible says on these matters, and if she is committing any of these sins, we begin the process of church discipline. But it would not be loving toward her, or honoring God, to allow her to continue in biblical ignorance or in willful sin.

Furthermore, the violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 brings with it dangers to the church that true secondary and tertiary issues, and even many sins, do not…

The violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 brings with it dangers to the church that true secondary and tertiary issues, and even many sins, do not…

She may not say it with her lips, but when a woman preaches to men in defiance of Scripture, she’s teaching false doctrine through her behavior. What is the false doctrine she’s teaching? “I don’t have to obey God’s Word, and neither do you. If there’s a part of the Bible you don’t like, you’re free to disregard it.” If your pastor stood up in the pulpit on Sunday morning and said that in words, you’d run him out of town on a rail, and rightly so. Neither should a woman be able to teach that same false doctrine via her actions.

Additionally, I have mentioned several times when dealing with this issue that women preaching to men is highly correlated with women teaching other forms of false doctrine. I have researched scores of women teachers. Every single one of them who unrepentantly teaches men also teaches false doctrine in some other aspect of her theology (usually progressivism, Word of Faith, or New Apostolic Reformation). In other words, if a woman teaches men, you can just about take it to the bank that she also teaches additional false doctrine. False doctrine and heresy are infecting the church – via female preachers – at an alarming rate.

We dare not simply “agree to disagree” on this.

The violation of God’s command that women are not to instruct men in the Scriptures nor hold improper authority over men is a sin like any other. It is not a doctrinal issue in the same sense that other second and third tier doctrines are. If left undisciplined, however, it can lead to first tier doctrinal issues infiltrating a church and eventually destroying it. It is detrimental to the church to label and treat any sin as a secondary doctrinal issue.

Additional Resources

Is Women Preaching a Secondary Issue? on A Word Fitly Spoken

What Are Essentials and Non-Essentials? on A Word Fitly Spoken

Christian Liberty on A Word Fitly Spoken

The importance of Primary and Secondary Doctrines on the Truth Be Known Podcast

1In the years since 2018, when this article was originally written, Dr. Mohler has said, done, and supported various biblically questionable things, leading some to question whether or not he has “gone woke”. While I don’t support his stance on those questionable things, I also don’t believe he has reached the point at which I need to warn against him (although I don’t proactively recommend him, either). To my knowledge, at this time, he is still generally doctrinally sound.

Podcast Appearances

Guest Appearance – The Plumb Line Radio Show

Michelle Lesley

Not long ago, I had the pleasure of appearing as a guest on The Plumb Line Radio Show with Jay Rudolph for a wonderful discussion about how to vet the teachers we listen to. What makes someone a false teacher? What are some ways to be more discerning about the teachers we listen to? And how about some practical tips to quickly weed out about 95% of the teachers you shouldn’t be following?

Listen in to these two brief interviews!

The Plumb Line, episode 717- How to Recognize False Teachers 1- Michelle Lesley

The Plumb Line, episode 718- How to Recognize False Teachers 2- Michelle Lesley

If you’re in the vicinity of Des Moines, Omaha/Lincoln, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Diego, New York City, Jacksonville, Chicago, or Kansas City, you can listen to The Plumb Line on your local Christian radio station. Click here to find out which radio stations carry The Plumb Line and when. If you don’t live near one of those markets, you can always follow and listen on Spotify.

Additional Resources:

Is She a False Teacher? 7 Steps to Figuring it Out on Your Own

Popular False Teachers & Unbiblical Trends

Joyce Meyer

Are Female Bloggers Violating Scripture by “Teaching” Men?

Leaving Lysa: Why You Shouldn’t Be Following Lysa TerKeurst or Proverbs 31 Ministries

Got a podcast of your own or have a podcasting friend who needs a guest? Need a speaker for a women’s conference or church event? Click the “Speaking Engagements” tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page, drop me an e-mail, and let’s chat!

Complementarianism

Cliffe’s No Good, Very Bad Handling of 1 Timothy 2:12

Michelle Lesley

I had no idea who “Cliffe” in this video is, until I reposted it on X (thanks to Jon Root for the original) with my comments, and followers informed me that this is Cliffe Knechtle, who (along with his son, Stuart) seems to be an open air apologist with a large following on YouTube.

I’m hoping Cliffe just had a no good, very bad day on the day this was recorded and that he goes back, examines the pertinent texts more carefully (and in context), repents, and publicly corrects his errors.

Because, for someone who – I’ve been told – is a respected apologist, this is embarrassingly bad, not to mention, deceptive, even if he didn’t mean it to be.

Let this be an example of how to critically evaluate teaching according to Scripture. And, in case any of your friends and loved ones hold some of these same errant beliefs, here’s how you can help them see the truth of Scripture.

So, ladies, let this be an example to you of how to critically evaluate teaching according to Scripture. And, in case any of your friends and loved ones follow Cliffe or hold some of these same errant beliefs, let me offer a biblical corrective you can use to help them see the truth of Scripture. Open your Bible and follow along with the video. Cliffe’s words below are in bold. (I’ve also interspersed some additional helpful resources.)

“Paul writes that women are not to be pastors.”

No, “God writes…”. Paul penned it, but 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 is God’s Word. God’s idea, not Paul’s. Paul wrote down what the Holy Spirit breathed out.

Now I’m guessing Cliffe would probably agree with me about that, and I, myself, use that kind of phraseology sometimes, too, but it’s important to remind ourselves – especially with passages of Scripture that broken, sinful human beings have made controversial, like this one – that this is God speaking, not Paul, the sinful human being dreaming this up and imposing it on the church.

“I don’t think that’s a fair translation.”

Then how come every single trustworthy translation of the Bible (and even a lot of the untrustworthy ones) translate it that way? Is Cliffe an expert in the biblical languages and knows better than all the expert Bible translation teams who translated it the way he disagrees with?

Furthermore, although it’s a true summary of what he did write, Paul didn’t write, “Women are not to be pastors.” It’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.

It’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.

“He does write, ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man.'”

No, He (God) writes, “I do not allow a woman to TEACH OR exercise authority over a man…”. Again, it’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.

It’s also important to incorporate the entire body of text that applies to the issue you’re dealing with. In this case, that would be not just 1 Timothy 2:12, but 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9. The pastoral qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are also crystal clear (“Husband of one wife,” and male pronouns throughout, anyone?) that pastors must be men.

“And yet Paul had a partner in ministry named Priscilla…”

Not in the sense that she was a pastor or taught or exercised authority over men in the gathering of the body, or he would have been the biggest hypocrite in the Bible, because that would have violated God’s breathed out Word – which Paul wrote – in 1 Timothy and Titus. Scripture nowhere characterizes Priscilla as a pastor or any sort of egalitarian “partner in ministry” to Paul that in any way violated clear, New Testament, didactic passages on the role of women in the church.

“…who taught the great preacher Apollos.”

Read the actual passage in Acts 18:24-28. It’s not like she was his seminary professor and she trained him for the pastorate. She and Aquila heard him preach an incomplete gospel and pulled him aside privately and corrected him. Once. Briefly. We have no idea how much of the correcting Priscilla herself did, but even if she did all of it, this does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 because that passage prohibits women from pastoring, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body.

In the Acts 18 passage, Priscilla was not a pastor, nor was she teaching or exercising authority in the gathering of the Body. This was a private meeting, possibly even led by her husband.

There isn’t a woman in Scripture whose actions prove that it’s biblically OK for women to pastor, preach to, or exercise authority over men in the church. Not a single one. Check out:
Oh No, She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate,
and Esthers Wasn’t an Egalitarian.

“So what on earth is he saying when he says, ‘I don’t allow a woman to have authority over a man’? I would argue…that he’s pointing out that in Ephesus… there was a goddess, Diana of the Ephesians, so there was massive confusion about sexual roles…”

Why would you argue that, brother? God plainly tells us His reason for prohibiting women from pastoring, teaching, or exercising authority over men in verse 12. It’s right there in verses 13-14…

For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass.

1 Timothy 2:13-14

…and it has nothing to do with Ephesus, Diana, confusion about sexual roles, women abusing their freedom in Christ, or education (which he mentions later in the video). God clearly and unequivocally tells us His reasons for this command: the Creative order and the woman’s deception.

And when you replace God’s reasons in verses 13-14 with any other reason or explanation, you’re calling God a liar. You’re saying His reasons are wrong and yours are right. That you know better than God. That is a very dangerous and blasphemous statement to make.

What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief abolish the faithfulness of God? May it never be! Rather, let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written,
“That You may be justified in Your words,
And overcome when You are judged.”

Romans 3:3-4

What does 1 Timothy 2:12 actually teach? Check out: Jill in the Pulpit?

“That’s [massive confusion about sexual roles due to the goddess, Diana of the Ephesians,]…” why he says in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, he says, ‘I don’t allow a woman to teach a man’.”

That’s not what 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 say, that’s what 1 Timothy 2:12 says. First Corinthians 11:1-16 is about male headship and authority. It makes no mention of women teaching men. First Corinthians 14:26-40 is about keeping order in the worship service. It makes no mention of women teaching men.

Furthermore, while God may have, indirectly, been addressing some sort of “confusion about sexual roles” in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, this sexual confusion had nothing to do with the “goddess, Diana of the Ephesians” because this is in Corinth, not Ephesus.

And again, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the verse that prohibits women from teaching men, and the reason for this prohibition is not “massive confusion about sexual roles due to the goddess, Diana of the Ephesians,” the reason is the Creative order and the woman’s deception, as verses 13-14 clearly tell us.

This kind of confusion and conflation is what happens when you depend on your memory instead of opening the Bible and reading the text, especially if it’s a passage you haven’t dealt with recently. (Trust me. I know. I’ve done it myself.)

“Some very strong Christians, whom I respect highly, disagree with me.”

That’s because what you’re saying is a completely unbiblical mangling of the text. Anyone with third grade reading comprehension skills should disagree with you.

“Paul had partners, who were women, in ministry.”

No he didn’t. Not in the egalitarian sense he’s trying to make these kids believe. (See above about Priscilla.) And if he’s referring to women besides Priscilla, there’s even less information about them in Scripture, so any pronouncement that these other women were pastors or egalitarian “partners” is not only pure conjecture, but also eisegesis of the highest order.

“If God gives a woman gifts, we’re to give women the opportunity to use those gifts.”

Certainly, within the parameters of Scripture. God, the giver of all gifts, has every right to place restrictions on how we may use those gifts. God has never gifted a woman to teach with the intent that she should use that gift to teach men in the church because that contradicts His written Word. If He did that, He would be a liar and a hypocrite and He would cease to be God. There are plenty of ways women can use the gifts of teaching and exhortation without violating God’s commands about the role of women in the church. Ask me how I know.🙂

My favorite apologetic responses to egalitarians?
The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism

In fairness, we can’t see most of the audience, but notice that, of the audience members we can see, no one seems to have a Bible in his or her hands in order to be a good Berean and check out what Cliffe is saying against Scripture. And it doesn’t look like anyone is raising a hand to ask him any questions, either. (Hopefully, those things happened after the end of the video.)

Don’t just believe what you’re told. Go to God’s Word, be a good Berean, and check it out. And help your friends and loved ones to do likewise.

Don’t just believe what you’re told. Go to God’s Word, be a good Berean, and check it out. And help your friends and loved ones to do likewise.

Complementarianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Women teaching men- Questions from a young reader

Michelle Lesley

Originally published March 14, 2022

I received this very astute line of questioning from a young lady who left a comment on one of my articles. The comment and questions were rather lengthy, so I’ve broken it up into portions in order to answer it in an organized way. If you need to read the entire comment, uninterrupted, for context or ease of understanding, scroll down, reading only the portions in bold.

Hi! Just to let you know, though it may seem, I have no intention of being rude in this question, and genuinely want to know your response to this. I am only in 9th grade, so I have a lot to learn, and want to know what you think about my comment...Thank you, and I am very curious to find out what you think about my questions and things that I might have misunderstood or missed.

That’s awesome! I wish I had been thinking as deeply about these things as you are when I was in the ninth grade. And, rest assured, your questions didn’t seem rude to me at all. I’m so glad you want to learn! I hope you’ll understand that my answers aren’t meant to be rude either, although they may not be quite what you’re expecting or wanting to hear.

You didn’t mention whether or not you’re a Christian or what your church background, if any, is, so let me just start off by saying, if you’ve never been genuinely born again, my answers might not make much sense. I would encourage you, even if you’re pretty sure you’re saved, to examine the materials at the What must I do to be saved? tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page before moving ahead.

I was just wondering, if women are not allowed to teach men, and you are a woman and this blog is public to men and women, then aren’t you technically providing biblical insight and evangelizing to whatever gender is reading this to inform them of the Bible?

Nope. I’ve answered that question in detail in my article Are Female Bloggers Violating Scripture by “Teaching” Men?

Additionally, “evangelism” and “teaching” (“providing insight” isn’t really a biblical category) are two different, separate things. You might find our podcast episode Women Preaching the Gospel? helpful for understanding the distinction.

Also, the book of Timothy, like you said, was a letter written from Paul to Timothy, so this was just the teachings that Paul gave to Timothy as instructions for the churches, and not necessarily coming from God.

I’m afraid that’s one of the things you’ve misunderstood. This wasn’t just a letter from one human being to another. The words in 1 Timothy, just like every word of every book of the Bible are from the very lips of God Himself. Second Timothy 3:16 tells us that “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” There aren’t some parts of Scripture that are from God and others that aren’t. It all comes from God, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

First and second Timothy and Titus are what we call the pastoral epistles (“epistle” means “letter”). That means they are God’s instructions, written through His human instrument, Paul, to Timothy and Titus and every pastor who came after them, about how to run the church.

I know Paul was a prophet and one argument could be that he got this information from God,

No, Paul was not a prophet, he was an apostle. And, as I discussed above, the Bible says that all Scripture is breathed out by God, so “Paul got his information from God” is the only argument that can be made, especially for Christians. Because, for Christians, the Bible is our authority on what to believe, not human arguments, opinions, and ideas.

but even prophets (besides Christ) make mistakes in their instructions to others,

I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. There’s not a single prophet in the Bible who, when speaking as a prophet to people on God’s behalf ever made one iota of a mistake about what He said. There were false prophets (who received the death penalty for saying they spoke for God when God had not really spoken to them), but none of God’s true prophets – like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Habakkuk, etc. – ever got anything wrong or “made mistakes in their instructions to others” when speaking on behalf of God.

such as Abraham, who instructed people to be stoned for certain sins,

I think you mean “Moses” here. Abraham wasn’t a prophet, and I don’t recall any instance in Scripture in which Abraham “instructed people to be stoned for certain sins”. Moses didn’t either. God did. God gave Moses the law on Mt. Sinai, and Moses wrote it down and taught it to the people.

and you can see that it was unlawful in God’s eyes

I’m sorry, but that’s incorrect as well. Since God is the One who gave the laws about stoning people for certain sins, He would never have said that someone properly obeying His law was doing something unlawful. That would be like God saying He was wrong when He made that law. And, of course we know that God is never wrong.

and you can see that it was unlawful in God’s eyes when Jesus told the priests about to stone Mary of Magdala that they should not stone her because they have sinned as well and God sees all sins as the same.

I think you’re talking about the story of the adulterous woman in Luke 7-8, right? Again, I’m sorry, but there are many things that need to be corrected here:

  • Stoning a woman caught in adultery was not “unlawful in God’s eyes”. It was lawful. God is the one who gave this law. The scribes and Pharisees correctly cited the law in 8:5.
  • Jesus wasn’t speaking to the priests, He was speaking to the scribes – experts in the law (which was an important point of this passage) – and Pharisees.
  • The text does not say the unnamed woman was Mary Magdalene.
  • Look carefully at the passage. In which verse does Jesus say “they should not stone her”? Answer: He didn’t say, “Don’t stone her.”. On the contrary, He said that they could commence with the stoning as long as whichever one of them was without sin cast the first stone.
  • He also didn’t say they couldn’t stone her because “they have sinned as well”. Every lawful stoning that has ever taken place on planet earth was carried out by sinners, because (except for Jesus) every human being is a sinner.
  • The Bible doesn’t say that God “sees all sins as the same” (In fact, we can see in the way that God deals with various sins in various ways throughout Scripture that this isn’t true.), so Jesus would never have said this nor given it as a reason that these men should not have stoned this woman.

Jesus didn’t say the law against stoning an adulteress was wrong. That would have been equal to saying God was wrong for giving that law. He didn’t tell the men not to obey the law, either. The key to understanding this story is in verses 4-7:

4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

They didn’t care about this woman or what happened to her. They didn’t care about the man who was sinning right along with her. They didn’t care that this sin wrecked the man’s and woman’s lives. They didn’t care that God’s law had been broken. They didn’t care that adultery grieves the heart of God. They didn’t care.

All of those things were just a means to an end for them. All they cared about was trying to get the advantage over Jesus. To trick Him into saying something they could use against Him so they could discredit Him or bring Him up on charges with the Sanhedrin (Jewish court). And they were using God’s precious and holy Word as a tool to accomplish this evil goal. They were blasphemously using God’s own Word against Him.

That is the entire point of this story. God’s Word is His representation of Himself to us. It is our lifeline to Him, because it is how we come to know Christ as Savior. It should be revered as high and holy, not twisted and abused for wicked purposes.

This is just one example of many things that God’s prophets have taught wrongly.

No, none of the things you’ve mentioned, nor the corrections I’ve given, have demonstrated that any true prophet of God has ever taught anything wrong when it comes to prophecy or commands of Scripture. Second Peter 1:20-21 tells us:

…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So, since times were different in the first century and women were not seen as important to men, couldn’t this have been something Paul told Timothy to do based off of his own understandings culturally?

No. Again, 1 Timothy is a passage of God-breathed Scripture, not Paul’s personal human opinion. It was not based on Paul’s human understanding (see 2 Peter 1:20-21, above), culturally, or in any other way. This is God’s command to pastors, based solely on God’s reasons.

And God kindly shares those reasons with us in verses 13 and 14 of 1 Timothy 2:

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

God gives us two reasons for His command that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the gathering of the church body: the creation order and pattern of male headship (13), and the fact that the woman was the one who was deceived into sin (14).

That’s why. Not culture, not Paul’s personal opinions, not because men didn’t value women at the time, not because the women in that particular church at that particular time were unruly or false teachers, not for any of the man-made theories that people have come up with. God tells us exactly why He made this rule for the church in verses 13-14. I’ve discussed this in greater detail in my articles Rock Your Role: Jill in the Pulpit and The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism. Here are a few of the pertinent excerpts:

You’ve asked some really great questions here, and your reasoning skills are sharp. It was my pleasure to serve you by answering your comment. Keep asking questions, studying, and learning all God has to teach us through His authoritative, inspired, all-sufficient written Word.

If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Book reviews, statues, and conscience issues… Women giving pro-life talks in church)

Michelle Lesley

Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question.

I like to take the opportunity in these potpourri editions to let new readers know about my comments/e-mail/messages policy. I’m not able to respond individually to most e-mails and messages, so here are some helpful hints for getting your questions answered more quickly. Remember, the search bar (at the very bottom of each page) can be a helpful tool!

Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.

I occasionally help launch books by Christian authors. I recently signed on to promote a Christian historical fiction book, and I’m supposed to write an Amazon review about it. But I am in a dilemma. At the end of the book, one of the characters is miraculously healed from a gunshot wound and claims he heard god tell him that he [“god”] did it for the main character, who doesn’t believe in god. (Notice I’m not capitalizing “god” because I don’t believe God speaks to us audibly or in dreams.)

When I agreed to promote this book I had no idea this would be in it. Now I am feeling really conflicted. I can’t in good conscience recommend this book but I don’t want to write a negative review on Amazon. Thoughts?

(For readers who may not understand this sister’s dilemma, she is referring to the unbiblical idea of extra-biblical revelation.)

This is a great question, and it’s really awesome that you’re trying to think this through biblically.

What jumps out at me from your comment is that this is bothering your conscience to the point that: a) you’ve used the phrase, “I can’t, in good conscience…” and b) you purposefully didn’t capitalize “God”*. If you think this book is promoting a false god, it’s no wonder it’s bothering your conscience.

* The word “god,” uncapitalized, means “false god” or “idol”.

Romans 14:22b-23 says: Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

and James 4:17 says: So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

You should not sin against your conscience by reviewing and promoting this book as though there’s nothing wrong with it, and I think you would agree that option is off the table.

So what are your other options? I’m not sure exactly how this works, so I’m just throwing out a couple of ideas here:

  • Write an honest review praising the good parts of the book but explaining the biblical problems with the scene you mentioned, and agree to promote the book with that caveat included.
  • Write the aforementioned honest review but don’t promote the book at all.
  • Explain the problems with the scene to the author, tell her you’re willing (if you are) to do either of the above, and let her decide what she wants you to do.
  • Explain the problems to the author and tell her you can’t write a review or promote the book.

Personally, I think one of the first two options would make a greater impact for biblical truth on a larger number of people if you feel you can do it without sinning against your conscience. But you have to decide what’s right for your own walk with the Lord first.

I understand your concern about wanting to keep your word when you agreed to do something, but you have to keep in mind that – whether she realizes it or not – this was an unfair agreement on the author’s part. It’s like buying a car. She sold you a car giving you the impression it worked right and when you got it home you discovered it didn’t have a carburetor or whatever (I don’t know – I’m not good with car stuff). That nullifies your end of the agreement to buy the car.

Use biblical wisdom, pray about it, and don’t sin against your conscience.

In case it might help, here’s a critical review I wrote a while back: Redeeming Love: Rants, Raves, and Reviews

I have a statue of Joseph and Mary holding baby Jesus. It’s in a corner year round in my living room. As a former Catholic, I’m questioning myself if I should even have it at all??

As with the reader above, I think the fact that you’re starting to question this is an indication that it’s bothering your conscience. I would point you to the same Scriptures and counsel you not to sin against your conscience as I counseled the reader in the question above.

Some Christians consider any material representation of Christ to be a violation of the second Commandment. Personally, I don’t believe the context or cross-references of the second Commandment support this view. I’ve explained why, here. However, this is an issue you’ll want to study for yourself and be convinced of, one way or the other, by rightly handled, in context Scripture.

But, assuming there’s no second Commandment issue for you, and you’re not worshiping, venerating, or praying to the statue, or using it as some sort of “aid” to help you worship God – all of which all Christians would agree violate the first two Commandments against idolatry – and it’s just sitting there gathering dust in the corner like an umbrella stand or a fern, this is an issue of conscience.

I would suggest praying about it and discussing it with your husband (if you’re married) and then your pastor. You may also want to prayerfully consider…

Why do I still have the statue?

How do I feel about getting rid of it, and why?

What is the proactively good, biblical reason to keep this statue? (You might want to think of it like this: Would you recommend to your best friend that she buy and display a statue like yours? Why or why not?)

If it bothers your conscience and you can’t think of any good, biblical reason to keep it, get rid of it.

And get an umbrella stand or a fern.

Is it against 1 Timothy 2 for a woman to speak, not teach, during a Sunday morning worship service? She is not speaking as to teach or preach or pastor, but simply speaking on a topic to a congregation of men and women about her experiences as the head of a pregnancy resource center on Sanctity of Life Sunday. You say that this is unbiblical?

If she’s just giving a brief, personal testimony as a small part of the worship service, and the pastor will go on to preach his full sermon later in the service, that’s probably OK. (I’ve addressed women giving personal testimonies during the worship service here, #14.)

If her “testimony” is taking the place of the sermon, yes, it’s unbiblical, but not in the way you’re thinking. Someone giving a talk on an informational topic or her personal experiences that takes the place of the sermon is not so much a 1 Timothy 2:12, “women preaching/teaching to men” issue as it is a 2 Timothy 4:1-2 “pastors, preach the Word” issue.

Personal testimonies, speeches on non-biblical topics, panel discussions, interviews, etc. (from anyone, male or female), should not take the place of the preaching of the Word in the worship gathering. Additionally, due to the ignorance of the world and the majority of professing Christians who fail to distinguish between personal testimonies, TED talks, and preaching, a woman giving a personal testimony that takes the place of the sermon appears to most people as though she is preaching the sermon. We’re to avoid even the appearance of evil, so that’s another biblical reason not to do it.

May I make a suggestion? If your church is in need of someone to teach about the wickedness of abortion, contact an abolitionist organization such as Abolitionists Rising or Free the States. Because the abolition movement is church-based, they can put you in touch with a biblically qualified, doctrinally sound man (usually a pastor or elder) to come to your church and preach on the biblical reasons we should fight for the total eradication of abortion. We need to be convicted by Scripture on this issue, not swayed by an emotional response to someone’s subjective personal experiences.

If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.