I started this out
writing a response comment to a Facebook post, but it because increasingly clear that this is an
article all its own, so I have opted to form it that way instead. To often, I have resorted to pasting great
books into comments and often I've had to re-write large portions due to
accidentally refreshing the web-page while I was partway through my writing. It is probably more organized here anyway.
I am writing to
address the message contained within another article (http://www.norvillerogers.com/yes-seminaries-should-hire-women-professors/)
which is itself a response to an article by John Piper found here (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-there-a-place-for-female-professors-at-seminary). Just covering the bases. You may find the most value out of first
reading the John Piper article, then reading the Norville Rogers article,
followed by mine lastly, with Norville Rogers' article handy for comparison, as
I am making a roughly paragraph-by-paragraph correlation to the topics within.
I may get a bit off
the specific topic as it relates to the Seminary, but am going to tackle the
idea of women in pastoral/leadership roles in the church. So to be clear, I'm not directly addressing
the John Piper article, but what I do address is applicable to it.
Let's start with 1
Timothy 2:12, which says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence." And then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which says
"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."
These are the passages which demonstrate that women are not to be
pastors and leaders in the church. Now,
you may take offense to these passages, but they are straight out of the
Bible. They do NOT mean that women are
lesser than men in either capability or knowledge, but they DO mean that God
considers it out of order for them to be in these positions. For this reason - that "God says
so," - we must apply it to Biblical church doctrine.
Now I want to move
onto the article here - the one that is critiquing John Piper's article.
In the early
paragraphs, the author quickly brushes over John Piper's Bible reference, which
I had already noted above. Is this
passage not enough? It is very clear in
what it says, and the author of this article essentially says "He
referenced ONLY a single verse and that's not enough." So I will ask, in defense of John Piper and
of the Bible - how many times must it appear in God's word for it to be
valid? Because the author is saying that
this is not an adequate means of discussing the Bible. Multiple verses making the same statement are
helpful to stress a point, not to bring up a "majority in favor"
argument. Let's be clear here - THE
BIBLE CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS. So
when you have a crystal clear verse like this one, and you have others that
appear to state an opposing point, such as the ones the author brings up, you
must look at how they reconcile TOGETHER, because they will not contradict.
1.) The article goes
on to mention Priscilla and Aquila. The
author performs a similar trick as earlier on and dismisses the fact that
Aquila's presence makes this is not the same as a woman preacher as a cavalier "even
so…" point. This scripture does not
actually specify that Priscilla actually said anything doctrinal. I myself have referred to the action taken by
a couple in which only one party actually performed the "bulk" of
whatever action was performed as being done "by the couple" simply
because both were present. They act as a
team. It is extremely possible and
likely that Aquila handled all the doctrinal discussion and Priscilla was there
as a way to keep things more friendly during the conversation. So scripture is not actually so clear that
Priscilla taught Apollos. We must also
point out that EVEN IF Priscilla did engage in doctrinal discussion, this is
not an example of church leadership acting, but one-on-one conversation and she
WAS with Aquila.
2.) Moving onto
Seminary vs. Church. First off, you
don't find Seminaries in the Bible. You
find churches. Seminaries are a
post-Biblical structure we have developed to further Biblical teaching and
pastoring. However, I find it very
reasonable that to John Piper's point, this is an environment essentially like
a different type of church structure.
Sort of a "specialized church" if you will. We should hope that those participating in
seminary are still looking to God, to grow in a knowledge of Him, and seeking to
worship and honor Him, much like in church.
So yeah, it' basically church, but with a specialized focus. Kind of like going to a youth meeting where
the message is specifically oriented to cater to the understanding of younger
people. To address the concern of
"financial difference." Okay,
first off, here the author LIES. So
let's observe this breakdown in credibility and the lengths one has to go to in
order to defend the author's viewpoint.
Simon did NOT ask to be mentored.
He tried to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit. So dismiss this "evidence" as it is
untrue. Secondly, I'll agree that plenty
of Christians are not actually Christ-centered and are actually focused on
money. Can I say which ones? Nope.
A seminary does cost something to run however, and if held in an
expensive building, it may very well cost a lot to run. So the author is really questioning the
luxury of the Seminary and the motives of those running it for why they need so
much money. OK. Off topic.
I'm not talking about women in seminary, I'm talking about women in
roles of pastoral leadership. I will
talk to you about women in seminary AFTER you tell me that you agree that they
can't function in the pastoral role in church.
Until then, you're going to end up chasing me around the money thing
until we both run out of breath. Look at
it this way. If seminary is NOT church,
then it's supposed to train pastors. So
if women can't be pastors, then they shouldn't go to seminary. But if seminary is JUST CHURCH, then if women
can't be pastors, they can't pastor in seminary either. So it's an either-way point as long as we
address the lower-lying topic of "can women function in the church
leadership pastoral role?" first.
3.) Next up, Mary's
prayer. Okay, the author delves into
pretty dangerous ground by saying that Jesus learned the doctrine that he
preached from His mother, as opposed to being God enough to know what He was
talking about to begin with (I'm generalizing a bit, you get the idea). Mary's prayer is also inspired of the Holy
Spirit as is evident by the prophetical tones in it which speak of Jesus. Also, the mention of Mary's prayer speaking
to both men and women is not evidence of women being used in the pastoral
leadership role. It was a recorded
prayer. Mary Magdalene taking the
message of Christs' resurrection is also not evidence of any kind of pastoral
leadership ministry either. Nor are
Phillip's daughters pastoring a church by engaging in prophecy. These are all GREAT examples to illustrate
that women are not useless in the church and serve very important roles, and
that Christ can use them very effectively to further His will. They are NOT examples of women in leadership
and pastoring roles. Any example of a
woman speaking to a man is not an example of a woman in a teaching or pastoral
position exercising authority over a man.
We do not have such examples. We
only have examples of women engaging in other ministry activities which are
permissible by God for them. Going back
to where I started for a moment - if you deny this, you must somehow reconcile
it with the verses I mentioned starting out, which make it clear that it is not
in God's order for women to fill these kinds of roles.
4.) The question of
"How can a man pastor a woman when he has not himself been a middle-aged
woman?" Glad you asked. Firstly, what's the topic? Many topics do not require a pastor to have
experienced the role in order to give Biblical guidance. They may help the pastor to have empathy and
to share his experiences, but our experiences do not shape what the Bible has
to say on a topic. They only help
clarify it. Secondly, God did provide a
mechanism for the church in which topics pertaining specifically to women can
be discussed…by women. See Titus 2:3-5
for this. For this reason, it is not
wrong to have women-oriented ministries in the church. However, these are not the appropriate forums
for a large congregation of men to also be present. Now, I say "large congregation of
men" because perhaps here or there, a man may take it upon himself to
observe the service to ensure that the teaching is sound. But I want to point out that it's not even
explicitly Biblical to have whole services for women. Titus is describing what seems more like a
one-on-one or few-on-few group, and less of a full-blown women's church
ministry. I'm just conceding that it's
not unBiblical that there can be women-oriented ministries in the church. Yes, it's possible that a man may actually be
out of order to attend such a service.
The women will have to determine in such a case whether they should
cancel the service and perhaps get the authority of the church pastor (a man…)
involved to handle the troublesome man who is attending the women's ministry
when it is not appropriate to do so.
5.) Absolutely,
women have valuable insight to share.
Absolutely they can minister in gifts in the church. NO, this is not a good argument for women to
pastor a church. This reasoning is not
based on the Bible, but on the author's own reasoning processes, which
conflicts with the scriptures I opened with.
6.)
The author illogically deduces that John Piper's statement that "Just to be clear,
the issue is not whether women should attend seminary in one of its programs
and get the best biblical grounding possible.” is a statement saying he is okay
with women attending seminary. He may have
meant that sure. But what he is doing is
clarifying the specific issue, not making a statement for or against women in
seminary. And then the author becomes
upset that John Piper did not make a distinction about what to do for those
(women presumably) who are unable to attend seminary for pastoral reasons. This is off-topic and has nothing to do in
regards to defending the role of women in the church and is a fluff point to
further rile up the readers against John's defense.
I do not write this
article in anger or as a means of expressing some kind of dominance over
women. I have written it to counter the
points that this author has made in an
effort to defend women pastors/leaders in the church. I have demonstrated that not only is it
unbiblical to support this position, based on the opening verses, but that the
points this author makes to state the opposite are in fact taken out of context
or are not actually addressing the lower-lying topic which is the basis for
John Piper's doctrinal stance on this.
An no, ultimately I'm not even speaking for John Piper. He is a man who is subject to falsehood or
misunderstanding himself (as I most definetely am also). I am speaking only to what I can see in
scripture myself.
So to you falls the
responsibility of knowing that if you find yourself reaching for straws in
order to continue supporting a point which is not Biblical, you are in danger
of rejecting Christ by virtue of rejecting His word. I say this to make you question your motives
and not as an empty "threat" (as if I have the authority to threaten
you with God's judgement…). Look to the
scriptures. What do they REALLY
say? Have you pre-determined what you
want and have sought out scriptures to support such a point while ignoring
those which deny it? Consider in your
heart what such says of yourself. Pray
to God to reveal His truth to you. I
pray that God will reveal His truth to me to avoid error myself. If you refuse to do so, how can you be sure
that you are not falling to the lies of the great deceptor, Satan himself?
