Tag: Women Preaching

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

The Mailbag: Questions about the role of women in the church

Michelle Lesley

A reader recently left a comment containing numerous questions on my article Rock Your Role: Jill in the Pulpit (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Her individual questions are in bold type below with my answers in regular type.

If you have questions about the role of women in the church, I recommend not only that article, but all of the articles in my Rock Your Role series. Jill, Rock Your Role FAQs, and The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism seem to answer the questions I’m asked the most, so you may want to start with those.

some honest questions here…

Thanks for asking. I hope my answers will help. I’d like to preface my answers with some biblical information I hope will be helpful to all of my readers when addressing questions and issues like this:

You did not say whether or not you are a genuinely regenerated Christian, nor was I able to infer from your questions whether or not you are. This is going to be crucial to your understanding and accepting the biblical answers I’m about to give you, because Scripture makes clear to us that people who aren’t saved do not embrace the things of God. They aren’t even able to understand them in any meaningful way.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14

Scripture is also clear that those who belong to Christ will obey His written Word, while those who do not belong to Christ -even if they claim to be Christians- don’t obey His written Word.

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:3-6

Sometimes when we read hard truths in the Bible, we initially struggle to accept them, but genuinely born again Christians are on a general trajectory of increasing in their love for, understanding of, and submission to God’s written Word. False converts (unsaved people who think they’re saved) and unsaved people are on the opposite trajectory and increasingly disdain, harden their hearts against, and rebel against God’s written Word.

If, in examining your own heart, you (or someone else reading this) find yourself on that second trajectory regarding this or any other biblical issue, let me offer you some resources that will help and that are much more urgent for you than the issue of the role of women in the church:

What must I do to be saved? (in the blue menu bar at the top of this page) You must repent and believe the biblical gospel.

Am I Really Saved? A First John Check-Up If you’re not really sure whether or not you’re saved, you may find it helpful to work through my Bible study on 1 John.

Searching for a new church? (in the blue menu bar at the top of this page) If you’re saved, you need to be a faithful, invested member of a doctrinally sound local church. Among many other things, that’s where you’ll learn the biblical answers to questions like the ones you’ve asked below.

As I said in the Jill article:

Godly women don’t look for ways to get around Scripture.
Godly women look for ways to obey Scripture.

If you already know Christ as Savior, awesome! It’s wonderful that you’re asking questions and learning more about Scripture so you can grow in Him.

Now, let’s tackle your specific questions…

—if the letter to Timothy was a letter to him and we are reading his mail, then what about the other NT letters written to the various churches? Are we also not reading their mail and what God was meaning for them to do?

I would encourage you to read that paragraph again carefully. I’ve bold-typed some of the more salient points:

First Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) is one of the pastoral epistles. It was written by Paul to young pastor Timothy as sort of a job description and operations manual for pastors, elders, and the church. So right off the bat, an important point we often miss about 1 Timothy is that it was written to a man, Timothy, a pastor, who would use this letter to train his elders (also men) and, subsequently, his congregation. That doesn’t mean that 1 Timothy doesn’t apply to women, or shouldn’t be studied by women, or that women aren’t required to obey 1 Timothy. It just means that when we open the letter of 1 Timothy, we need to understand that we, as women, are reading somebody else’s mail. Mail that pertains to us, yes, but mail that’s addressed to Timothy, and by extension, to pastors and elders today. That will help us better understand the tone and perspective of the passage.

So, you could think of it like this: the pastoral epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) have three “levels,” if you will, of who they’re addressed to: a) immediate: Timothy and Titus, b) by extension: all other / subsequent pastors and elders, c) with application to every church, Christian group, and individual Christian.

The other epistles, generally speaking, have two “levels” of who they’re addressed to: a) immediate: a specific church or people group of Christians (the church at Colossae, the church at Ephesus, etc.) b) by extension: all other / subsequent churches, groups of Christians, and Christian individuals.

There’s a sense in which, from Genesis through Revelation, we’re “reading somebody else’s mail,” because we were not alive when any of the books of the Bible were written, so we were not the original audience of any of Scripture. That being said, the Bible is still God’s word to us, through those original audiences. All of it, when correctly handled, applies to us in one or more ways, and we are required to obey God’s commands, instructions, laws, and teachings to New Testament Christians, no matter where in the Bible they are located.

—What about women who are called to preach? Like slave Sojourner Truth and 2 quaker women called to preach against slavery in the south USA civil war times. Were they wrong? sinning? going against scripture?

I don’t know who the Quaker women are that you’ve referred to, and I’m not overly familiar Sojourner Truth or any of her “sermons,” but I think you may be conflating and confusing a few things here. Let’s see if we can untangle them.

  1. As I mentioned in my preface remarks, just because someone claims to be a Christian (or history has led us to believe they were Christians) does not mean they have actually been born again. I don’t know whether or not any of these women were truly Believers, and neither do you. Sojourner said and did some things that might cause one to wonder, and, while there could be individuals who get saved while still in Quakerism, the Quaker belief system, generally speaking, is not biblical, and therefore, not Christian.
  2. Making civil speeches against slavery (or on any other topic) is not “preaching” even if the speech maker or others called it preaching. “Preaching” is defined by Scripture alone, not by culture or common parlance. Preaching is the proclamation of God’s rightly handled, written Word for the edification of the church.
  3. If any of these women were actually preaching – proclaiming God’s Word or exhorting people from God’s Word – in a co-ed gathering, then yes, they were “wrong, sinning, and going against Scripture” because God’s written Word prohibits women from doing that as I explained at length in the Jill article. And when God’s written Word says not to do something and we do it anyway, that’s called sin.
  4. God doesn’t call women to preach or pastor. God has never called a single, solitary woman to preach. Ever. First, because God doesn’t give extra-biblical revelation like that. He tells us exactly who He has called to preach (and who He hasn’t) in 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9. Second, because, even if He did give extra-biblical revelation, God is not a man that He should lie or change His mind, and He already told us in His Word that women aren’t to pastor, preach to, or teach men, or exercise authority over men in the gathering of the church body.

—Paul gives “commands” about operating under patriarchy and slavery, both part of Roman society. He does not talk against either yet today we Christians abhor slavery but still support patriarchy. Why?

Because patriarchy was God’s design and command and antebellum American slavery wasn’t. I’m not totally sure exactly what you mean by Roman “patriarchy” and the “commands” Paul gave about it, which passages you’re referring to, or what all you many have in mind about patriarchy and slavery as you asked this question, so I can only give you a very general answer.

  • Instructing Christians on how to behave in a godly way when they’re in the middle of ungodly circumstances is not the same thing as God condoning or approving of those ungodly circumstances. There were many Christians who obeyed Scripture’s instructions while in concentration camps during World War II. That doesn’t mean God was in favor of concentration camps.
  • Antebellum American slavery was “man stealing” (which was a different type of slavery than that practiced during New Testament times), and is prohibited by Scripture.
  • Male headship was established by God at Creation and is continually buttressed and re-established throughout the Bible:

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. – from: The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism

Anyone – including the Romans of Paul’s time – who stepped outside of God’s commands regarding patriarchy and slavery was in sin.

—-in Ephesians 5:21 and following verses Paul tells 4 different groups to submit. He uses 2 different forms. For people and spouses he uses the form that means to submit as to one another. For children/slaves he uses the form that means to submit to an authority. Why weren’t women included under the same one as children/slaves?

I’m sorry, but this question is impossible to answer because neither slaves nor children are mentioned in Ephesians 5:21-33 (or even in 5:1-20). If by “following verses” you meant elsewhere in Ephesians or in other places in the New Testament, you should have specified those passages so I could look at them, understand what you’re talking about, and explain them to you in context.

I also don’t know where you’re getting your information about “two different forms” (of the word “submit,” I’m assuming), so I have no way of knowing whether or not that’s accurate, and since I don’t read Greek, and I suspect you don’t either, I prefer to stick to reliable English translations rendered by experts in the biblical languages.

All I can say is, since I don’t know which passages you’re referring to, I don’t know why, allegedly, two different forms of the word submit were used. All I can tell you is – you know whether or not you’re a wife, and you know what the English word “submit” means, and if you’re married, Scripture’s instruction to you in Ephesians 5:22-33 (and elsewhere in Scripture) is to submit to your husband.

There is nowhere in Scripture where husbands are commanded to submit to their wives or that husbands and wives are to “mutually submit” to one another. Many egalitarians try to make Ephesians 5:21 say that, but that is a twisting of Scripture. Notice that verse 21 isn’t even a complete sentence. If you read verse 21 in context (i.e. – read verses 1-21) it should be obvious that Paul is addressing the church, not married couples, and that verse 21 is referring to being unselfish and putting others in the church first. (Check your cross-references on that verse. One of them is probably Philippians 2:3.) See why I keep harping on “rightly handled Scripture”?

—-why do churches send women who say they are called to preach to the mission field?

Because they’re in sin. Those churches are either ignorant of Scripture’s commands about women preaching, or they’re in rebellion against those commands. Both are shameful, and both are sin.

If it is wrong here in the US for a woman to preach/pastor why is it ok in a foreign land?

It isn’t. If it’s a sin in the United States, it’s a sin in Kenya, Croatia, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Australia, Antarctica, and everywhere else on the planet (and off the planet if God ever allows humans to live on the moon or something like that).

—-why did Jesus break the rules about women? He talked with them, obeyed his mom at the party, let them learn of spiritual things, defended them, the woman at the well was the first evangelist and women were the first to see the empty tomb (all these things broke rules/laws about women and their testimonies were outlawed in that time and place) What was the point of doing this if women were going to be told they could not preach/teach and their only purpose to be wife/mom/homebodies? It does not make sense to me.

Where does the Bible say any of those things, though? Most of the things you’ve listed aren’t God’s law, they were secular law, Pharisaical law, or cultural custom, not commands of God. Jesus never broke any of God’s laws that are spelled out in the Bible. That would be sin, and we know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t bound by man’s laws, and certainly not if they contradicted God’s Word. That’s why He and the Pharisees butted heads so often. They were trying to bind Him to their man-made laws (which often contradicted Scripture), which they sinfully equated to Scripture. By ignoring man-made laws and customs about women (while obeying God’s law about them) Jesus re-elevated the women He came into contact with to their rightful biblical place.

Let’s look:

  • “He talked with them…defended them” – There’s nothing in Scripture telling men they can’t talk to or defend women. Men talk to women all over the Bible and there are many places in Scripture where men are called upon to take up arms to defend women and children.
  • “Obeyed His mom at the party” – I assume you’re talking about the wedding at Cana. I just want to make sure we’re all understanding this correctly. From an earthly perspective, Jesus was obeying or acquiescing to His mother. However, Jesus, while fully man, was also fully God. He knew exactly what He was going to do next. Mary’s request was in line with His pre-ordained plan to turn the water into wine, and thus, in addition to the miracle, also gave Him an opportunity to set us an example of honoring His mother. Had she requested something that was not in line with His plan to turn the water into wine, He would have honored her in another way, but he would not have “obeyed” her request.
  • “Let them learn of spiritual things” – Not only does Scripture not prohibit women from learning spiritual things, women are commanded to “learn of spiritual things” from Genesis to Revelation. When Adam told Eve, “Hey, God said we can’t eat from this one tree right here,” that was a spiritual thing a woman learned. Deuteronomy 6:7 commanded the Israelites to teach God’s Word to their children, not just their sons. Ezra taught God’s law to “both men and women and all who could understand what they heard”. I also addressed this concept in the Jill article: First Timothy 2:11 (immediately before 2:12, which prohibits women from pastoring, preaching ,etc.) says “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” God (remember, Jesus is God) commanded pastors to make sure women had the opportunity to “learn of spiritual things”.
  • “the woman at the well was the first evangelist” – Welllll, technically, no. We don’t even know for sure if she was a Believer when she went back to town and told everyone to come see Jesus. But OK, let’s go with that for a minute. Again, Scripture doesn’t prohibit women from relaying the gospel to lost people they encounter, it commands it of all Christians. (If you’re not clear on the difference between evangelism and preaching/pastoring, listen here.)
  • “women were the first to see the empty tomb…their testimonies were outlawed in that time and place” – I know a woman’s testimony in court was considered unreliable, but I’m not positive it was actually “outlawed”. But even if it was, that would have been a secular law. God’s Word doesn’t outlaw it. Yes, perhaps Jesus allowed women to be the first eyewitnesses to His resurrection in part to honor these women who had followed Him so faithfully, and to demonstrate that the testimony of women isn’t unreliable just because they’re women.

What was the point of doing this if women were going to be told they could not preach/teach and their only purpose to be wife/mom/homebodies? It does not make sense to me.

Because, as I said, Jesus elevated women to their rightful biblical place. He didn’t lower them to the wrongful, unbiblical place of modern day feminism and its rebellion against Scripture.

But really listen to what you’re saying here. I hope you didn’t mean to do this, but you just dismissively swept aside God’s high, holy, good, and biblical calling on the lives of most Christian women to be godly wives and mothers and manage their households well for the glory of God.

“Their only purpose…” Seriously? I don’t mind telling you I’m personally offended that you just insulted what I’ve dedicated my heart, soul, and life to for the past 30 years. You’re saying it doesn’t matter because I wasn’t pastoring or preaching to men. Never mind that I continually poured God’s Word into the six beautiful children He blessed us with. Never mind that I’ve gotten up every day for three decades – with no pay or vacation time, mind you, 24/7/365 – and striven to be a godly example, encouragement, and helpmeet to my husband. Never mind that I’ve taught and discipled more women and children at my church than I can count. No, all of that is worthless because I wasn’t preaching to or teaching men. That women’s teaching is only valuable if they’re teaching men. You may not have meant that, but that’s the effect of what you said. I’m not trying to be unnecessarily harsh with you, I’m trying to give you just enough of a healthy, biblical sting that you’ll realize that you’ve been influenced more by what the world values for women than what God values for women.

Godly women 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 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. – from: The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism

I have so many more questions and seeking lots of help to find the answers. The scripture says to study to show yourself approved. I hope this applies to women too!

It absolutely does! I’m glad you’re asking questions and seeking to learn! And you’re right, as I’ve referred to throughout this article, 2 Timothy 2:15 says:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15

As I said at the beginning, the best place to get your questions answered and to learn how to rightly handle Scripture is in a doctrinally sound local church. Ask a godly older woman in your church to disciple you. (Not sure what that’s all about? Listen here and here.) “Pester” your pastor (he’ll love it!). And study, study, study, directly from the text of Scripture (listen here, and check out the Bible studies tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page).

Thanks for any insight you can give me.

You are most welcome. It is my pleasure to serve you in Christ.

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 (Teaching co-ed college Sunday School… “Losing it” with attackers… “Tough” vs. “fluff” Bible studies… Why “Bye Begg”?)

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’ve been asked to teach a college/career Sunday School class. It’s couples that are married, some engaged. I would probably be able to co-teach with a man. Should I as a woman not be teaching that class since it has men and not really youth?

It’s really great that you’re giving this some thought and asking that question!

You’re correct – college aged young men are men, even if they are young. You should not be teaching them, your church is wrong for asking you to teach them, and your pastor is wrong for allowing women to teach men in your church. It isn’t just wrong for you, individually because you would be violating Scripture, it’s also wrong because, if you did it, you would be leading these young men to think that it’s OK for women to teach men. You would be teaching them by your actions that it’s OK to ignore or disobey any command of God that’s inconvenient or that we don’t like. (This is one of the reasons I also discourage women from teaching youth/teen boys.)

As far as “co-teaching” goes, it depends on what you and your church mean by that term. What the term “co-teaching” actually means is that you and another teacher(s) take turns teaching the class the Bible lesson. If that’s how you and your church are using that term, then, no, you shouldn’t be co-teaching. It doesn’t matter whether you’re teaching every week or every other week or once a month or whatever. You’re still teaching men the Bible, and that’s still a sin.

However, some churches/Christians will say that, for example, a husband and wife are “co-teaching” a Sunday School class when what they really mean is that the husband is doing all of the actual teaching and the wife is taking care of the administrative duties of the class like making the coffee, taking attendance, organizing fellowships, contacting those who have been absent, etc., but not doing any of the actual teaching. That is absolutely fine, but they need to stop calling it “co-teaching” – a) because it’s not, and b) because it leads others to believe they and their church are sinning when they’re actually not.

I would encourage you to give some thought and study to my Rock Your Role series of articles, starting with Jill in the Pulpit and Rock Your Role FAQs (start with #13), then make an appointment with your pastor to politely and kindly ask him why he’s allowing women to teach men in your church. If he brushes you off or tries to make you feel like the bad guy, it’s time to find a new, doctrinally sound church. Churches that allow or encourage women to teach men are just as much in sin as if they were allowing or encouraging church members to steal from the offering, or remain in a homosexual lifestyle, or if they taught that abortion is OK. No one should be joined to a church that’s in active, unrepentant sin.

Curious- Do you ever lose it? As in raise your voice and yell at someone who attacks you over doctrinal issues?

I don’t personally recall ever having lost it quite like that, but that has nothing to do with my stellar level of self control or personal holiness or anything like that. It has more to do with the fact that when I’m attacked, it’s virtually always online – social media, email, or blog comments – and virtually always by strangers. That affords me ways of dealing with the person or comment that aren’t feasible when you’re dealing with a friend or loved one in person.

I have gotten into a few exchanges on social media in which I was convicted that I crossed the line of anger or I squandered time in an argument that I should have stewarded better. In those cases, I’ve repented and asked the person’s forgiveness. And I’ve tried, since then to have a much stricter Matthew 7:6 policy.

The handful of times I’ve been attacked in person by someone I know, I was usually prepared because the meetings were pre-arranged for the specific purpose of excoriating me for standing on the truth of Scripture and decrying false teachers and false doctrine. I had my notes and thoughts in order and was prepared beforehand not to lose it.

The one or two times I’ve been spontaneously attacked in person by someone I know were relatively brief in duration, and I pretty much stood there in stunned silence with my mouth agape at the shock of a professing Christian acting that way. Even after all these years, I don’t think that’s something I’ll ever get used to.

So, to my recollection, no, I’ve never lost it like that in a similar situation, but mainly because I haven’t been in a similar situation.

I’m a co-leader of a women’s group at our church.. at first the other leader and I were on the same page.. no fluff. We are currently doing J.I. Packer’s book, Knowing God, and all I hear is, “It’s too hard!”. They all want fluff but 3 of us..How do I change their minds?… I’ve been praying on how to handle this. I can’t do fluff! They want Beth Moore type stuff. That is a hard pass for me. What should I do?

Atta girl! Fluff is not the answer, and we should always take a hard pass on false doctrine.

What should you do? You do exactly what you do with a toddler who only wants to keep eating candy rather than healthy food: You keep feeding her healthy food. You don’t give in to unbiblical, unhealthy childish whims. There’s not a single biblical passage that teaches us to coddle Christians in their immaturity. Scripture always instructs us to grow up.

That being said, we start babies on baby food, not steak. I haven’t read that particular book by Packer. Perhaps it is a little too tough for them, and the reason they’re suggesting “fluff” type authors and studies is that that’s all they know to suggest as an alternative.

Can I make a couple of suggestions? When you finish the Packer book (or, if you think it’s wiser, just discontinue it now)…

  • Grab one of my Bible studies and take them through it. Maybe one of the shorter ones like Colossians or Ruth. All of my studies are free, so if it turns out not to be a fit, nobody has lost any money. Also, you know where your ladies are, maturity-wise, and you can simplify or skip any of the questions you think are too tough for them at this moment. You can tailor the study for the ladies of your particular church.
  • If you absolutely have to do a book study rather than a Bible study, I would recommend my friend Allen Nelson’s book From Death to Life: How Salvation Works for two reasons: a) It’s a lot shorter, and probably simpler, too, than Packer’s book, and b) Often the reason women clamor after false teachers is because they’re not genuinely saved (John 10). This book is a wonderful, simple exposition of the gospel.

“Tough” and “fluff” aren’t your only two options. The key is to meet your ladies where they are, set the bar a little higher, and help them grow to maturity.

Why is Alistair Begg no longer listed at your Recommended Bible Teachers tab?

I was disappointed to have to remove him, but if I’m going to be fair and consistent about who I recommend, it had to be done.

It has been brought to my attention that Alistair Begg endorses the idea of a woman preaching or teaching the Sunday morning message in church (in other words, preaching/teaching to men) as long as she has been invited and given permission to do so by the pastor and elders. He has invited and permitted at least one woman to do this at his own church. This is unbiblical.

Listen as Begg explains in his own words in this sermon (starting around 30:12) on 1 Timothy 2:9-15b. (I would encourage you to listen to the whole sermon – in which he says many good things – for context.)

Christian Women (2) – Alistair Begg | September 16, 2019

Some may also recall that in 2019, Begg shared the stage with Beth Moore (also Tony Evans and others) at Baylor University’s National Preaching Conference, much to the chagrin of and numerous protests from his followers. In response to a follower who expressed concern, a statement1 from Begg’s ministry indicated that he accepted the invitation to speak without knowing who any of the other speakers were. He kept the engagement, but has not appeared with any other false teachers since then that I know of.

I did not remove Begg from my recommends at that time because I was hoping it was (and, so far, seems to have been) a one time goof that would teach him to use greater wisdom and discernment in the future. We all do dumb things from time to time, and well known pastors are no exception.

Begg’s statements in the sermon video above, however, are not a one time lapse in judgment. They are the well thought out, planned, and implemented policy of the church he pastors.

I’m not saying Begg is a heretic on par with Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland. Far from it. I don’t even consider him a false teacher. I just no longer feel comfortable saying, “Hey, this is a great teacher. I recommend that you follow him,” (i.e. putting him on my list of recommended teachers) when there are others I decline to recommend who hold the same erroneous position.

Earlier in the sermon Begg humbly admits (as should every good pastor) that he and his church don’t claim to have everything right, but that they will continue to grow in Christ and make corrections. If and when he corrects this error (and any others that might come to light), I’ll be delighted to reconsider him for inclusion on the list.

1This is not a website I endorse. It is linked only as evidence of the statements in this paragraph.

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 (Breastfeeding videos…Women performing weddings…Only God is awesome?)

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.

For any men who might be reading – this question is about breastfeeding. If that’s a sensitive issue for you, please just scroll right on past this section.

I have searching for biblical content about breastfeeding and your post from 3 years ago “The Mailbag: Should Christian women cover up while breastfeeding? really did make think. I’m currently studying to become a pediatric dietitian if God allows it, and I have a debate in myself. I’m starting to create content in social media in order to teach about these topics: breastfeeding, nutrition, etc. But now I don’t know if it’ correct to share real videos that are educative to teach how to properly breastfeed, showing examples and different cases that help mothers to understand. Since it is shameful to show breast according to Bible, am I wrong if I am looking to share or record these types of videos? Just to clarify, these videos only shows the necessary.

I hope my email can reach you and have an advice for this, may the Lord continuing giving you wisdom and excuse me any grammatical error since english is not my first language.

Can I first just say – I have the utmost admiration for anyone who tackles English as a second language. Its intricacies and inconsistencies are often difficult even for us native speakers! When I get English messages from followers whose native language is not English, they almost always apologize for grammar and spelling errors. Please rest assured, when I read your messages, I’m not critiquing them, I’m wishing I were as proficient in a second language as you are!

Instructional videos for mothers about breastfeeding are not the same thing as a mother who is breastfeeding in public. For one thing, your videos are aimed specifically at women (new mothers), and for a legitimate purpose (teaching breastfeeding). If a man (assuming he’s not a health care worker who needs to view your videos for professional purposes) proactively clicks on and watches your videos in order to see women’s bare breasts, he is the one at fault, not you. His actions would be more similar to a man who peeks through the window of a woman’s bedroom to watch her breastfeed, not a man out in public, minding his own business, who’s suddenly confronted with a view of a woman’s breasts because she’s not making any effort to reasonably cover while nursing.

Additionally, aiming your videos at new mothers (women) is more similar to a woman breastfeeding her baby in a group meeting for new moms (all women), than out in public (random men and women present).

Here are a couple of things I would suggest:

  • Make sure the titles of your videos make it obvious in some way that they are educational, instructional videos on breastfeeding for new mothers and postpartum/neonatal healthcare workers.
  • Instead of, say, just posting these videos on your personal Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., pages, set up a separate professional social media page or group specifically for your videos and other breastfeeding materials. (I would suggest also setting up a website and YouTube channel specifically for your breastfeeding materials.) Not only will this help build your professional online platform, but your male friends and family members won’t be randomly running across your videos (which might make them uncomfortable) every time they scroll through social media.

I think that’s really as far as your responsibility goes. Men have to take responsibility for what they view at some point, too. It’s not all on you.

I have a question about women who are ordained. My cousin is ordained to perform marriages in the state of South Carolina. Would that be considered the same as an ordained preacher and against I Timothy 2 teaching? As far as I know all she does is perform marriage ceremonies and does not “preach” in the pulpit.

Great question!

I’m thinking there might be a little confusion about the term “ordained” here. “Ordaining” is what a church does when it sets someone apart for ministry. “Licensing” is what the government does that allows a person to legally perform marriages recognized by the state.

For example, pastors, elders, and (usually) deacons are ordained by the church to their respective offices, but they are not automatically licensed to legally perform marriages. For that, they have to go downtown to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork. By the same token, people can go to the courthouse, fill out the paperwork, and become licensed to perform marriages, and never have set foot in a church in their lives.

So, I think maybe you mean your cousin is licensed by the state to perform marriages, not that she is ordained by her church to do so. (I’ve never heard of a church that ordains someone just to perform marriages, but if that’s what’s going on here, the more pressing problem is the church’s ecclesiology, not your cousin officiating at weddings.)

So let’s go with your cousin being licensed by the state, not ordained by the church: No, that’s not technically a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12, assuming she’s not preaching a sermon as part of the marriage ceremony. The biblical prohibition is against women pastoring, preaching to men, instructing men in the Scriptures, and holding unbiblical authority over men in the context of the church gathering.

But there are all kinds of variables that play into whether or not it’s wise or appropriate for her to be officiating weddings. Does your cousin profess to be a Christian? Where do these weddings take place – in a church, park, reception hall, beach, etc.? Is she performing these weddings, or being viewed as performing these weddings as an official representative of her church? (In other words, would those not in the know confuse her performing weddings for her being a pastor of her church?) Do the bride and groom profess to be Christians? If so, why would they not want their pastor (or at least a pastor) to perform the ceremony in their own church?

I’m just saying I would need to know a lot more, probably on a case by case basis, to weigh in on whether or not it’s actually a good idea for her to perform any or all of these wedding ceremonies.

FIRST, I want to say thank you for your recent list of doctrinally sound men. My reason for writing comes from referring to them as “awesome” in your social media post about them:

“Today on the blog: Check out these awesome men to follow and learn from…”

I would just would ask you to consider the use of the word “awesome” when it applies to “mere” men (or women, for that matter.) Never mind the “world,” but Christians use that word so freely when talking about truly “good” things (and we also use it for things like movies and ice cream.)

Is it wrong to want there to be a word that is reserved for God and what he does? When something is clearly a work of God, even working through a person, there are times I can agree that it is something awesome. But largely, the things we call awesome are not.

It’s always good to evaluate our words to make sure we are representing Christ well, and, no, it’s not wrong to want there to be a word that is reserved for God and what He does. But let me challenge us to take this a bit deeper than just the surface level use of a particular word.

I’ve received this same basic question a handful of times over the years, and the question has always been about the word “awesome”. And I just have two questions about that:

First, why “awesome”? I think a much stronger biblical case could be made against using “good” or “holy”.

I’m betting that, like the reader who wrote in, we all use the word “good” in the same ways the word “awesome” is used – “truly good things,” movies, ice cream, saying “Good dog!” etc. – because they both mean the same thing, except that awesome is a little more intense. And yet, while Scripture doesn’t speak to our use of the descriptor “awesome,” Jesus Himself addressed the use of the word “good” in Mark and Luke:

And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Now, when we read this passage in context, we know that Jesus isn’t telling this guy (or us) that he shouldn’t call Him good, that he shouldn’t call anything good, that Jesus isn’t good, or that Jesus isn’t God. Quite the opposite of most of those, in fact.

He’s directing the rich young ruler’s attention to the fact that only God is completely good. That God is the only and perfect standard and embodiment of good. He was basically saying, “You’re calling me good in this context. Does that mean you’re prepared to call me God?”.

But what Jesus doesn’t say (here or anywhere else in Scripture) is, “Since only God is truly, completely, and perfectly good, you can’t use the word “good” to describe anything else.”. In fact God Himself uses the word “good” to describe other, lesser things besides Himself. He has prepared good works for us to do. God pronounced everything He created good. He gives us good gifts. He says good trees bear good fruit. And so on.

Personally, if I got to choose the word we were all going to consecrate to use only for describing God, it would be “holy”. I would be totally OK with us losing expressions like “holy cow,” “holy moly,” etc., forever. (And when my kids were little and would use one of those expressions, I would remind them, “Only God is holy.”.) First of all, there are far fewer people and things that could correctly be called “holy” than “awesome” or “good”.

“Only Thou art holy,” we sing. And it’s true. Though Christians are a holy nation, and we’re to strive for holiness, we are only positionally holy and set apart because Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us. Even our righteous deeds are as filthy rags. In a common grace sense, we might say someone is a “good” man for the job, or a store is having an “awesome” sale, but there is no common grace sense in which anyone but Christians – and we, only through Christ – could, in any way, properly be called holy.

My second question about reserving “awesome,” or any other adjective, strictly for God is: If you’re going to be consistent with your line of reasoning, how far are you going to take this? If you’re going to stop using “awesome” for anything but God, are you also going to stop using the word “good” for anything but God? What about “perfect”? Powerful? Just? Kind? Compassionate? Merciful? Are you going to stop saying, “I love you” to your family because God is love, and only He loves perfectly and completely?

I hope not. I hope you won’t stop using any of those words, because God doesn’t require you to. It would be self-imposed legalism. Remember when Jesus said to the Pharisees, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”? He was trying to teach them that the Sabbath was meant to be a blessing and a benefit of rest to God’s people, not a slave driver of legalism adding one more day of work (to earn God’s favor) to their week.

It’s kind of the same general idea with language in this case. Language is one of God’s good and awesome gifts to us. It gives us a way to express our reverence for Him, but also our delight in the work of His hands – like ice cream and dogs. Just as with the Sabbath, there’s a godly and appropriate way to use language, but, outside of those parameters, language was never meant to enslave us or hamstring our ability to communicate. When we use language to appreciate God’s good gifts, or to express delight or pleasure, knowing that every good gift and grace redounds to His glory, He is exalted.

When we use language to appreciate God’s good gifts, or to express delight or pleasure, knowing that every good gift and grace redounds to His glory, He is exalted.

If you’re convicted not to use the word “awesome” for anything but God, or you don’t want people calling you awesome as a matter of conscience, that’s totally fine. Don’t violate your conscience. But you must realize that it is a matter of your conscience, not everybody’s. And you can’t bind others to your conscience. Whether or not to use the word “awesome” is an issue of Christian liberty. It is not a biblical command.

Listen in to Christian Liberty on A Word Fitly Spoken

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 (Teaching hubby the Bible… Generational sin… Blood moons… God honors women preaching?… Remarriage forbidden)

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.

A comment left on my Rock Your Role FAQs article…

How would this apply within marriage? My husband does not read the Bible..he claims to believe in God, but I don’t actually see him seeking. Is it wrong for me to share with him what I learn or read in my Bible? Thank you for your advice!!

I know that having an unsaved or less spiritually mature husband can be really difficult. I’m sure this is a question many of my readers are struggling with.

When you say, “How would this apply within marriage?” I’m not really sure if “this” means a specific question and answer within that article or if “this” means the biblical prohibition against women teaching men, in general. I’m going to go with the latter since I can’t guess the former. :0)

The biblical prohibition against women teaching the Bible to men has a very specific context: the gathering of the church body. Your marriage is not the gathering of the church body.

It is perfectly fine and biblical for you to share what you’re learning from the Bible with your husband if he is open and receptive to it. But, and this is important, it is also perfectly fine and biblical for you not to share what you’re learning from the Bible with him if he is not open and receptive to it, if it makes him angry, or if he tells you to stop nagging or preaching at him.

A lot of women in the New Testament church were in the very same position. They were saved, and their husbands were not. First Peter 3:1-6 was written just for them, and for you. I would recommend studying that passage as well as 1 Corinthians 7:16, Ephesians 5:22-33, and Proverbs 31:10-31 to guide your own behavior as a godly wife. And, if you think it would be helpful, you may want to work through my Bible study on biblical womanhood.

My article The Mailbag: Can I share the gospel with my unsaved husband? is another good resource. If you need help presenting the gospel to your husband, check out the What must I do to be saved? tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page.

One more suggestion: Think about making an appointment with your pastor for some biblical counsel on being a gospel influence on your husband. You may want to also ask him to point you to (or you may already know) a godly older woman in your church who has walked faithfully through the situation of having an unsaved husband, and who can disciple you through this.

Do you have any information about the generational sin/curses teaching? I’d love to understand if this is a false teaching and if it is…understand what the Bible really says. I don’t buy into the fact my great great grandma was sinful and that is why someone in the family is messed up.

You’re correct, this idea is diametrically opposed to what Scripture teaches. Certainly our children can be hurt or negatively impacted by the sins we commit. They can learn sinful behavior from watching us sin. And we are all sinners by nature. But children don’t genetically inherit a particular sin(s) – say, for example, profanity or adultery – from their parents. And God doesn’t punish us for the sins of our parents or ancestors.

The absolute best resource for refuting this false idea is Ezekiel 18. It is so beautifully clear and such a wonderful picture of the gospel smack dab in the middle of the Old Testament. Give it a good study.

Additionally, we released a podcast episode a while back called What Do We Do with the Guilt of Generational Sin? that may help.

Does “The moon turning to blood” refer to what we consider a “blood moon”?

Not as it pertains to being a sign of Jesus’ return, no. I think you’ll find this article and this article to be helpful.

Do you think it’s possible for God to “honour” a women’s preaching that is bringing people to Christ?

This is really two separate questions about women preaching. Let’s break it down:

1. Can God graciously save someone, despite the fact that he’s sitting under a woman who’s sinning by pretending to be a pastor? Yes. He also saves people who are currently Mormons, currently being abused, etc. God can save anyone despite someone else’s sin.

2. Does the fact that God saves someone who’s under the influence or authority of someone who’s sinning mean that God approves of or honors the sin being committed? No. God doesn’t honor people for sinning.

God doesn’t honor or approve of Mormon false teachers just because someone happens to hear enough actual Bible to get saved while still in Mormonism. Mormonism is still idolatry, and that Mormon leader is still committing the sin of teaching false doctrine. Or, let’s say a pastor is secretly abusing his son. If the son gets saved during one of Dad’s sermons does that mean God honors or approves of the abuse? Of course not. It’s a display of God’s mercy and grace that God still saves people despite other people’s sin.

The same applies to someone who gets saved despite sitting under a woman who’s sinning by pretending to be a pastor.

Additionally, granting for argument’s sake that she’s actually preaching the biblical gospel, the fact that the woman “pastor” got that part right doesn’t excuse or make up for her sin of rebelling against God’s Word. If I work in a soup kitchen all week long, but every Saturday I go out and murder somebody, we know that my good works during the week don’t outweigh, excuse, or make up for the sin of murder. I still need to repent of being a murderer, and the woman “pastor” still has to repent from rebelling against God’s Word regarding her role in the church.

I was widowed a year ago, and a divorced man asked me to marry him but my pastor said it was absolutely forbidden. Can you please help me with this issue? The entire world is divorced!

Let me first offer my condolences for the loss of your husband. I can’t imagine how difficult that must be.

Have you asked your pastor to explain why* he said this? I’m not exactly sure of his reasoning, so let me just offer a few general thoughts.

One reason your pastor might have said this is that he holds to what’s called the permanence view of marriage. This view essentially says there are no biblical grounds for divorce (for anyone) and, thus, no biblical allowance for remarriage.

On the other hand, he may believe (as I, and many other Christians do) that, while reconciliation of a marriage is always the first and best goal, and that, in most cases, divorce is a sin, there are certain circumstances (chiefly adultery and abandonment) in which the Bible allows for divorce as a last resort. If that’s the case, depending on the circumstances of your gentleman friend’s divorce, your pastor may be saying that his divorce was not biblical, and, therefore, the two of you should not marry.

Finally, your pastor may have reasons aside from the divorce that would cause him to tell you not to marry this gentleman. Perhaps your pastor knows that he isn’t saved, that he is cheating on you, that he’s engaging in criminal activity, etc. I hope that’s not the case, but that’s the only other possibility I could think of.

I would suggest you talk to your pastor about this, hear him out on his reasoning, and compare his reasoning to rightly handled, in context Scripture. It could very well be that he’s offering you good, biblical counsel. Or…not.

*Readers, I’m not faulting anyone for asking me a question like this, but I often receive questions about why a certain person – whether it’s a false teacher, your husband, your pastor, a friend, whoever – did or said something, or what he meant by what he said or did. Generally speaking, I have no way of knowing why a particular person said or did a particular thing or what it meant. I can only speculate. If you want to know why someone did or said something, or what he meant, it’s best to go to that person and ask him or her directly.

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.

Complementarianism, Mailbag

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

Michelle Lesley

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.