Women Preachers in Church: A Response to John Piper

[[Instead they should have called the man on the carpet and given HIM Scriptural instruction on how to treat his wife]]

Actually many churches do that- not all but many do- I grew up baptist- and the advice was never for hte woman to go and shut her mouth and submit to a man that was physically or emotionally harming her- The Christian counselors of course tried to help them both work things out- but when it became obvious that things were not working out, or the man (or woman) was not willing to participate- and the woman (or man) was in a dangerous situation- they were advised to separate for the safety of the victim- male or female-

[[I know many men who are VERY controlling of their wives.]]

There are bad people everywhere- in the church as well- but to label all churches as being hostile to women, like these women are trying to do, is unfair- You know of a woman who was killed- I know of women who were told to get out because it was too dangerous for them to remain-

The ‘church’ for the most part hasn’t ‘abused women’- Some churches perhaps- but good aND Godly churches no- Even in Godly churches, bad preachers and teachers can take over- but that shouldn’t mean ‘the church’ is responsible for ‘harming women’

What these women are upset about is not being able to preach and told they must submit- that doesn’t sit well with them- regardless of what the bible states- The abuse issue is something altogether different and valid- however- they hurt their cause by claiming the church is ‘abusing them’ because they aren’t allowed to preach

[[objectified women by ungodly comments and ungodly acts,]]

Really? Examples? That sounds spurious- Women in any church I’ve ever attended were treated with respect-

[[left women unprotected,]]

If that is talking about the advice to stay in abusive relationship- then yes, some churches perhaps- but not all- I’d wager not even the majority

[[failed to report injustices and evils committed against women to civil authorities]]

Examples? From the SBC? Do these women have cases they’d like to cite? Or is it an unjustified accusation? If evils are truly being perpetrated against them as they claim, by the SBC- then these women have the law to turn to and justice will be handed out- I don’t recall there being a rash of women going to the police against the SBC for ‘evils committed against them’- I’m not suggesting evil never happens- but they make it sound like it was practiced often and the women were prevented from going to the law by a wholly corrupt organization of preachers and teachers who silenced them via force-

Surely if these women are going to make these serious allegations, they have plenty of evidence to back up their claim? I find it very very hard to believe that the whole SBC and history of ‘the church’ is rife with criminal activities against women and the law was not wise to it? These women would have us believe the whole religious system was as corrupt as the catholic church covering up massive homosexual abuses for centuries while everyone was so frightened of religious leaders that they couldn’t go to the police?

Please don’t misunderstand- there are, as I said- bad eggs even in religion- And I’m sure in soem select cases there were issues that were covered up by UNGODLY preachers and teachers- and even in some churches associated with the SBC perhaps- however- these women are painting ALL religion- ALL denominations etc as having this vast criminal enterprise that apprentice hates women and abuses them gleefully- and has somehow hidden it all for centuries-

For the most part- The SBC and baptist religion in general appreciate and respect women- however, most of those churches take God’s word against women preaching seriously, and that just doesn’t sit well with liberal women who then try to paint all of religion as some hideous criminal organization that hates aND physically abuses women and won’t allow them to leave abusive relationships- and that is wholly unfair to do- not to mention demonically driven in an effort to change the church by ignoring God’s word and placating a liberal ideology-

[[Many men let it happen and are equally culpable.]]

What should men have done to stop it? Remember- this is Satan’s realm- Feminism was created to destroy what God had created and ordained- It was a Satanically driven movement to undermine the spiritual head of the household and church- Men that DO take a stand against it are immediately branded as misogynistic, Hateful- Abusive- Out of touch- criminals even, etc and the world condemns them just as the women are trying to do the SBC for their stance against women preaching in churches

So what could men have done to thwart The Satanically empowered movement of feminism? Prevented women from becoming preachers? Insisted that the bible’s view of the spiritual head of the household is the man? Because that is exactly what was done- and we see now the results as these women try to tear apart the SBC by forcing them to declare something they aren’t guilty of (apart from isolated cases of actual abuse- physical, mental sexual etc)

[[Women are so often told they have to be in submission to their husbands and in the past, they have been instructed to go back into abusive situations, where they are getting beat, and *submit* to their husbands and pray for them.]]

You must understand that some churches believed, not out of a sense of hatred towards women, but out of belief, that God hates divorce, and that if God put them together, then They were to try to do everything possible to keep the marriage going-

This isn’t just about women being abused and getting bad advice- men were also abused and told the same thing as the women were- go back to the abusive situations and work it out and pray-

I am not defending this- nor am i condemning this- but some churches did believe that God brought the two together, and no man has a right to separate them- including the spouses themselves-

They honestly- rightly or wrongly- believed the following verse meant that the abused victim male or female, was to stay and be an example to the unsaved abusive partner

1st Peter 3:1-4, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

While that verse is spoken to women- churches also gave that advice the men who were abused- so it was universal advice that these churches believed was biblical- They didn’t believe this out of some nefarious hatred of women and some evil desire to dominate women- They believed it because the word of God seemed to indicate every effort must be made to keep the marriage together because it is the will of God

Again- I am not condemning nor condoning - I personally believe the bible does allow for divorce, and that victims, male or female, should leave an abusive and dangerous situations- However, I’m also torn by the fact that God allows ‘all things for His Glory’- meaning bad situations as well as good- The question is, how far does that Go? Do we have the right walk out on our vows we took before God and on the marriage that God allowed? This is a very difficult situation biblically- On the one hand, Paul fled when his life was in danger- then on the other- He allowed himself to be taken without incident, and beaten near to death accepting it as the will of God and for His glory- Paul faced death at the hands of man many times- and yet rejoiced through all of it- He honestly felt he was going to die several times- and even when he had a chance to escape when the doors flew open- He didn’t

I don’t know that the answer is- I lean towards God allowing for divorce- Yet I could be wrong biblically- I do believe that those few churches that did instruct women (and in soem cases men) to go back to abusive relationships did so out of sincere belief that it was God’s will- Not out of a hatred towards women (or towards the abused man) and desire to subjugate them as not much higher than slaves- the important point is that men were also told to go back into abusive relationships as well- and I believe that these churches that did say these things honestly felt it was Gods’ will, and that God hate divorce- and that walking out was breaking one’s vow Before God ‘for better or for worse’, and that they saw breaking a vow said before God as a very serious thing to do-

By aND LArge- I don’t think churches that advocated couples stay together did so out of desire to ‘keep women in their place’- I’m sure some corrupt churches may have- but for the most part- I do think most churches that did advocate couples remain together were doing so because of a sincere belief that what God put together, no man (this includes the spouses themselves) should tear apart.

[[Godly men have not stepped up to the plate and stopped other men from abusing their wives.]]

That’s not fair- many good and Godly men of God have tried to do so in church counseling sessions- and when situations like that are known by the church, the abusers do get confronted as the bible instructs the church to do- While it’s true not all churches are Godly and some, out of cowardice, turn a blind eye to such things- many good and Godly churches do indeed actually confront abusers, and sinners in general, as instructed by the bible- And many churches today DO instruct women to separate from abusive dangerous situations- whether right or wrong, I don’t know- i do know it’s a very difficult issue for reasons cited above- but I know how i lean- don’t know if I’m right or not-

I’m sorry- just one more thought- Baptists also preach that we are to all submit one to another- that means men to women as well as women to men- Feminists would have the world believe that religion teaches that the man is Lord of the relationship, and that women are to be cowering silent subjects- this is simply not true-

While it is true that the husband is biblically supposed to be head of the household, this doesn’t mean that women have no say- feminists would have you believe they don’t- feminists would have you believe that a husband’s role of head of household is abusive and controlling- Women often and rightfully so, should have input to make decisions and help keep the partnership working smoothly- And men, rightfully so, often take the wise advice of women and come to a final mutual conclusion-

Ephesians 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Sorry- one more point which explains more why i, and many churches today, lean towards getting out of abusive/dangerous relationships

Marriage is a covenant- God made covenants, but when Israel broke those covenants, they forfeited their relationship with God

When a man or woman breaks their covenant with their spouse by not loving them, but rather abusing them, or not loving them by having an affair- they forfeit their relationship IF they refuse to repent and make the situation right- They vowed- before God- to ‘love and honor’ their spouse- but when they began the abuse- they broke their vow to God and to their spouse- and the victim is in my opinion, no longer bound by the covenant

As I said- the issue is a tough one- I believe an abuser breaks the covenant- breaks their word to God and to their spouse, and the victim is no longer under any obligation to remain in that marriage. I do believe that every opportunity for the abuser should be given (BUT that the couple should separate while the abuser is given that chance), but if the abuser refuses- or becomes clear they will not change then they have demonstrated they have walked out on their covenant with their spouse- and the marriage is over-

Again- sorry for the long replies- but These women demanding do this that or the other thing are i believe trying to paint religion a group of abusive men hell bent on suppressing women and lording over them in abusive manners- They evilly are trying to declare that churches want women to remain in abusive relationships because the3y secretly like the idea of dominating women- and As I pointed out I don’t believe the vast majority of the churches that taught staying together did so out of contempt for women- but rather out of an honest belief that God hates divorce and that God ‘works together for good’ in everything, and becauswe4 they aren’t aware of the fact that the abuser breaks the covenant- and nullifies the marriage IF this is indeed true regarding marriage (i believe it’s true- that a spouse can forfeit their marriage by their sin)- Some churches are just unaware of this concept- or have different biblical beliefs on it-0

As i said- I don’t know if I’m right on this- IO think I am- but may not be- maybe God doesn’t allow divorce for anything other than an unsaved person walking out or adultery- I don’t know- but i strongly suspect He allows divorce when the spouse breaks the covenant and refuses to repent- and i know a good many churches believe and teach this as well

That’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding there. While some individuals in some churches may have acted in such a manner, that in no way excuses such libelous accusations of an entire denomination or religion as a whole. While many people have been harmed by churches that acted in defiance of Scripture, that has never been the norm. None are perfect, but most attempt to serve God despite our human frailty. The (universal) church has been a force for good by any rational measure.

Christianity led the world out of the pagan worldview of chattel relationships—both familial and societal. To suggest otherwise is deny both history and the truth. It is telling that the Left constantly slanders Christianity regarding traditional sexual teaching while never addressing the destructive ends of their own perverse ideology—it’s hard to imagine tribalism and nihilism forming the basis of a successful society, but maybe someone can enlighten this old Christian man.

[[objectified women by ungodly comments and ungodly acts,]]

I never said that.

My friend committed suicide.

It's good to know that there are churches out there which do the counseling correctly.

I have a problem with much of the feminist movement myself even though I can see why it started.

And I do have issue with women pastors myself. The only reason I can see for ordaining a woman is for hospital visitation purposes where a woman would be more effective in visitation with other women than a man would be.

[[failed to report injustices and evils committed against women to civil authorities]]

Didn't say that either.

And I was not specifying the SBC convention either. I am not sure of the denominational affiliation of those who have made the comments that a woman should go back and continue to submit to an abusive husband.

[[[[objectified women by ungodly comments and ungodly acts,]]

I never said that.

[[failed to report injustices and evils committed against women to civil authorities]]

Didn’t say that either.]]

No- that was what the women who are making charges against SBC said- I didn’t mean ot imply you said it- sorry-

[[And I was not specifying the SBC convention either.]]

Well one of the SBC leaders did make comments that women should be silent, and go back to abusive relationships- however, He did later apologize (likely when He later was convinced that it was wrong advice- as stated- this is a difficult issue and one prone to error unfortunately- but it must be pointed out that this was just the beliefs of one man at that time, not the whole baptist or religious community— These women bringing the false accusations however are trying to make it seem as though all religion espoused sending women back into dangerous situations- and that simply isn’t true- Here is their statement again ““The resolution asks the convention to confess that throughout the church’s history, men have “wronged women,”

I would ask the women to confess that a great many churches and men did no such thing- and confess that only a minority of churches may have, from time to time, as leadership roles changed hands, as teachers came and went, done so- The women apparently wish to paint all of church history as abusive and criminal- and that is Satanically inspired accusations in nature-

Third: there are several places in which Paul talks about “teaching” without restricting it to men and/or accredited leaders, and in fact encourages the whole church to do it, as Tom Schreiner points out. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom ...” (Colossians 3:16). “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in serving; if a teacher, in teaching ...” (Romans 12:6-7). “When you come together, everyone has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a language, an interpretation: let all be done for building up” (1 Corinthians 14:26).

This section's argument is typical egalitarian tripe. A general exhortation does not contradict or define how detailed instructions are to be understood and applied. Yes, all Christians are to teach, just as all are to submit to each other, (Ephesians 5:21) but just as the details of this latter exhortation do not contradict the instructions male headship, (1Co. 11:3) and that of positional authority, so that all Christians are to teach is to be understood in the order God details, in which the women is not to occupy the authoritative office of a teacher, with women "preaching in the weekly gathering of the local church, under the authority of the elders."

And this was the historic position of the church

Likewise the author invokes 1 Corinthians 14:26 (, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine..) as supporting women "preaching in the weekly gathering of the local church, under the authority of the elders," as if that defined "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

One can debate whether "silence" excludes singing or giving a testimony under male headship, which i do not think it disallows.

And the issue is not that women are not capable of teaching, but of male headship, and being given an office of authority in the church in which people look up to one giving exegesis of texts as an authority.

Outside the church and the position and ordination it gives which denotes authority, women can obviously evangelize, give testimonies, and exercise supernatural gifts, though not as being over male headship. I am of the opinion that even in conversation the women is to give deference to the man, and otherwise force him to take the position of leadership. Yet despite from positional. functional distinctions, spiritually there are not gender distinctions, and the prayers and works of a women (which likely predominate) can be regarded more highly by God than that of a man.

And lest some people think i am some domineering male chauvinist, i actually have had no real problem with women telling me what to do because they are women, and seek to serve others in general, not dominate them, and if Scripture taught that women are to be in leadership then i would defend it, but that is not what i see, and that women "preaching in the weekly gathering of the local church, under the authority of the elders" is not sound. That said, if men will not do the job then there is a place for a Deborah.

And men are to overall treat women with reverence as true gentlemen, from opening the door of the car for them and carrying the groceries to loving their wives as Christ gave Himself for the church. And so treat her as the "weaker vessel," like gold is to iron.

And men and women go together like toast and butter (though sometimes the toast is burnt and the butter is frozen).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.