John MacArthur Demonstrates Why It’s Time for Him to Stay Home


NASA

“Why ya gotta be so mean?” Taylor Swift


I had planned a lengthy post today. However a victim who was covered  on this blog received some disturbing news today. For the moment, I can’t discuss what is going on but that should change in the near future. I think our readers will be upset to learn what is happening. But this victim is strong and is telling the truth and she will prevail.

(Before I begin this post, let me say that I am no fan of Paula White.That’s just to stave off any discussions on that matter.)

John MacArthur wants Beth Moore to “Go home.”

The Christian Post published John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers.

MacArthur’s comments on White and women in ministry, however, were sparked during a panel discussion in which he was asked to give a pithy response to “Beth Moore,” who is a prominent evangelical Bible teacher, author and founder of Living Proof Ministries.

The veteran Bible teacher bluntly replied: “Go home.”

He then followed that up with: “There is no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion.”

He later added, “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn’t mean you should be preaching. There are people who have certain hawking skills, natural abilities to sell, they have energy and personality and all of that. That doesn’t qualify you to preach.”

Here is the video.

He compared women preachers to jewelry salespeople on TV.

Religion News Service posted: Accusing SBC of ‘caving,’ John MacArthur says of Beth Moore: ‘Go home’

The pastor went on to say that the #MeToo movement was a sign the culture was taking over the church and accused feminists of wanting power rather than equality. He also seemed to compare women preachers to salespeople who hawk jewelry on TV.

When asked if the Southern Baptists were now moving toward “soft complementarianism,” Mac

The audience laughed and cheered with each of these pronouncement.

Who are these rude people? Is this a demonstration of Christian gatherings that are headed by MacArthur.

According to RNS:

Sounds of laughter and applause could be heard in response during a recording of the session, which was posted online.

Women in Scripture

Scot McKnight posted:Go Home or At Home? He said: “I hear that statement as “a woman’s place is in the home” and “women aren’t to teach” because a man’s place is in the pulpit and behind the teaching lectern.”

McKnight goes open to give us examples of women in Scripture who did more than sell jewelry on TV. Here are some he mentioned.

Miriam, who interpreted the exodus itself in glowing poetic terms.

Deborah, who ran the whole of Israel in all its branches, and not a little of it was speaking and exhorting and teaching and prophesying.

Esther, who saved the nation as a leader who in some sense redeemed the nation from disaster.

…Huldah, who was chosen above other (male) prophets.

Mary, who handed to us a prophecy-shaped song about her Son and what he would accomplish.

Priscilla, who taught Apollos.

Wade Burleson takes MacArthur to school.

Wade posted Frenemies of the Faith and Misogynistic Ministers

MacArthur believes that Beth Moore or any other Christian woman who teaches God’s Word to others should go home and be the wife, mother, and person God intends for them to be and leave it to the men to give spiritual direction. MacArthur believes Christian men are to be the leaders and Christian women are to be the receivers.

To MacArthur and other male misogynistic ministers, qualification for Christian ministry revolves around one’s sexual genitalia rather than one’s spiritual giftings.

Some might object that my language is too harsh. However, it’s high time for people who believe in the infallible and inspired Scriptures to speak out in defense of our Christian sisters and what the Bible says about their freedom to teach, preach, and lead. Christian male leaders who regularly debilitate, denigrate, and dismiss Christian women doing Kingdom work should be confronted.

The viper known as ‘the doctrine of male authority’ has bitten the  Christian church. The toxin emitted by this errant teaching affects the females within our Christian assemblies. Ministers within infected churches will do three things:
1. They will debilitate females with God-given gifts,
2. They will denigrate females in their Spirit-led ministries,
3. They will downplay females as New Covenant priests.
Some evangelical conservative churches have misconstrued and misinterpreted Paul’s writings on this subject while at the same time ignoring Jesus’ words and life example on the same subject. Misogyny is a real problem in American conservative evangelicalism.

Misogyny is defined as “a hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls, manifesting in social exclusion, patriarchy, male privilege, or belittling of the female sex.”

The evangelical Christian church is filled with pastors who say publicly that they love women but are actually filled with misogyny toward Christian women.  They’re “friends” to Christian females with their words, but they are “enemies” to Christian females by their actions.

Wade Burleson’s final point

My friend, Dr. Todd Still, Dean and Professor at Baylor University and Truett Seminary, not to mention one of the great New Testament scholars of our day, has also spoken out against MacArthur’s remark toward Beth Moore.

Dr. Still writes:
“George W. Truett Theological Seminary will host a National Preaching Conference at the historic First Baptist Church of Waco. In addition to the likes of Alistair Begg, Tony Evans, Joel Gregory, Jimmy Mellado, and Ralph West, Mary Hulst and yes, Beth Moore will be preaching. Then and there, Beth will be warmly welcomed into our hearts and home as we listen to her expound upon God’s Word. John MacArthur is also welcome, but he will need to remain silent.”

I concur. I think that the evnagleicl world would be best served by silence on the part of John MacArthur. His day has come and gone.

 


Comments

John MacArthur Demonstrates Why It’s Time for Him to Stay Home — 296 Comments

  1. The tenor of the discussion, both from the stage and from the audience is contempt.

    In Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink”, he describes research that says that the one thing a healthy relationship cannot abide is contempt. It is a predictor of a doomed relationship.

    Psalm 1 alludes to this: “Blessed are those who walk not in the counsel of the wicked nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.”

    Scoffing. Contempt. Disdain for women who teach/preach in this case, which is disdain for the freedom in Christ bestowed on these women by God Himself.

    Walk away; keep self & loved ones safe; pocketbook in hand.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  2. So John MacArthur told Beth Moore to “go home.” Then why did he permit Joni Eareckson Tada to speak at the “Strange Fire Conference” he sponsored six years ago? Isn’t MacArthur being a hypocrite, or is it OK for a woman to speak when it suits his agenda?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  3. Three good things that came out of this are:

    1) All the MacArthur worshipers were flushed out to defend their idol.
    2) All the He Man Woman Haters (see “Calvin and Hobbes”) came out of their clubhouse to defend the notion that women are pathetic, second-class afterthoughts in the eyes of God.
    3) There were a lot of people defending Beth Moore.

    I have to admit I am on the bleeding edge of the discussion. I don’t believe in the inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration of Scripture any more, because I have seen in my study of history how the biblical texts have been used to oppress the powerless. I can’t give credence to documents that are used in such a fashion. And I really do believe that the people who support MacArthur want to gag women and are using the Bible to do so. If they could literally stuff a Bible down our throats to prove their point, they’d do it.

    Yeah, I’m a radical, but I have said for a very long time that I am outside the charmed circle of the household of faith. This is another way.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  4. The SBC and Neo-Cals are more interested in shutting women up than ridding their churches of pedophiles. Power and control are more important to them than the safety and dignity of those “beneath” them. I hope women will wake up and leave these types of churches.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  5. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

    I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and I think that the writings of Paul on “woman” are mistranslated or taken out of context. The Junia Project has some interesting articles on the subject, and Wade has written extensively on the subject.

    The Holy Spirit bestows gifts for spiritual work. “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess. (5:19-22). There are fine, gifted men and women) teachers in the church of Jesus Christ. There are also false teachers, both men and women.

    I look to a day when people will not be judged by their gender, but by the content of their character.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  6. I think the archbishop of Sydney Glen Davies May have a simple solution to secondary and tertiary disagreements.
    I also think he is sincere in his oppinion

    If you don’t agree with a denomination’s interpretation Of scripture than find one that you share, and then go to work spreading the gospel

    Although he was speaking on SSM, the underlying principal is basically the same
    Find like mined believers, plug in, then serve

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  7. He then followed that up with: “There is no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion.”

    These guys just think that if they say something like this, everyone should just accept it. IF they say Beth Moore is a heretic (which is nonsense!), people should just accept it.

    ‘End of Discussion’ is not a reasonable response to a question like this. What is reasonable to me is that I will not accept a church that treats women like MacArthur and his ilk. End of Discussion on that for me.

    It says something to me that churches where women are accepted at all levels are the least likely to treat them like MacArthur treats Beth Moore. I see nothing but the continuing bad fruit of misogyny out of these men.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  8. An interesting tension is taking place in SBC ranks between “Old” and “New” Calvinists. After they linked arms to successfully take over the SBC, they are now at each other’s throats over what to do with the wimmenfolk. It’s a battle between the Founders and the Greearites for the SBC throne and all of a sudden the women have got in the way! Mohler is stuck between a rock and a hard place – while he’s been the champion for New Calvinism in SBC, he’s more akin to MacArthur than Greear, but probably regrets inviting JMac into the TGC fold.

    Beth Moore is one of only a few women teachers who have been endorsed by the new reformers. They willingly send ‘our girls’ (that’s what Chandler calls TVC female members) on buses to Moore’s conferences and simulcasts … her grace-grace-grace message has not been a challenge to them to date and she has profited from her sweet deal with LifeWay. It appears that SBC’s New Calvinist elite (e.g., J.D. Greear) are willing to dump reformed icon MacArthur to appear more female-friendly. All a smokescreen, IMO – the whole bunch, both Old and New, are misogynists in their heart of hearts. I prophesied a few years ago that after they swallowed traditional (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists, they would consume each other. Millions of Southern Baptist female believers are now caught in the crossfire; they will get tired of this after a while and drag their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of the mess. Sad to see the SBC end this way. Oh, and MacArthur is done – he just hasn’t quit yet.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  9. Lea: I see nothing but the continuing bad fruit of misogyny out of these men.

    They are not going to change. And the Southern Baptist Convention is not going to change the 2000 B F & M and change their position on Women in Ministry. There position is baked in and the boys like it the way it is.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  10. AVA: The tenor of the discussion, both from the stage and from the audience is contempt. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink”, he describes research that says that the one thing a healthy relationship cannot abide is contempt. It is a predictor of a doomed relationship.

    Yes. I’ve seen people trying defend MacArthur by saying ‘but he was right, forget his tone’. No. He wasn’t right, but even if he was the tone is the point. Women cannot have a relationship with a church that has contempt for them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  11. mot: the Southern Baptist Convention is not going to change the 2000 B F & M and change their position on Women in Ministry. There position is baked in and the boys like it the way it is.

    If they did (they won’t), they would have to apologize to a great multitude of former Southern Baptists they ran off during the Conservative Resurgence (which was really a Calvinist Resurgence in disguise). Nah, they will never admit to making a mistake on the role of women in the Kingdom of God … they prefer the SBC Kingdom just the way it is.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  12. Lea: These guys just think that if they say something like this, everyone should just accept it. IF they say Beth Moore is a heretic (which is nonsense!), people should just accept it.

    Especially since a lot of their “interpretation” is due to poor Greek exegesis. Macarthur and men like him are on translation committees to make sure their interpretation is shown in translations instead of the text when they have little knowledge of the original texts. So their interpretation ends up being a circular argument.

    Lots of examples. Make a female apostle male. Add “submit” to Ephesians 5:22 and use it to beat women over the head when it’s not in the original text. Change “female elders” to “older women” even though the passage is perfectly parallel to “male elders”.

    Of course it’s hard to interpret the Bible another way when you’ve lied and bullied a translation into hiding the content of the original text.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  13. ishy: Change “female elders” to “older women” even though the passage is perfectly parallel to “male elders”.

    This is the one that sold me that the translation stuff was a crock. Hey look there are women presbyters, being given their instructions and requirements right along side the passage about male presbyters. Might that not mean they’re all elders?

    And when I found out Pheobe was a deacon. The NT is FULL of women serving and leading churches. There is more proof of that than MacArthur’s interpretation. They can all stuff it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  14. ishy: Macarthur and men like him are on translation committees to make sure their interpretation is shown in translations instead of the text when they have little knowledge of the original texts. So their interpretation ends up being a circular argument.

    Exactly. The MacArthur Study Bible is the most theologically biased, slanted eisegesis of Scripture on the planet. The ESV Study Bible runs a close second.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  15. Lea: And when I found out Pheobe was a deacon. The NT is FULL of women serving and leading churches. There is more proof of that than MacArthur’s interpretation. They can all stuff it.

    Even the first evangelist of Jesus’ resurrection was a woman who went to preach to a bunch of men. Jesus intentionally and radically changed the paradigm as His first act of risen Lord.

    I noticed in evangelical churches that instead of acknowledge things like that, they just don’t talk about it, like it never happened. Great way to be “biblical”.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  16. Lea: This is the one that sold me that the translation stuff was a crock. Hey look there are women presbyters, being given their instructions and requirements right along side the passage about male presbyters. Might that not mean they’re all elders?

    This was also the passage I brought to my Greek professor the day my entire paradigm changed. And he was a bastion of conservative Greek scholarship, but he admitted that it was all due to politics, not the truth.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  17. Lea: The NT is FULL of women serving and leading churches.

    And I have to believe those churches were blessed by allowing God’s chosen vessels to teach, preach and lead them. We miss so much in the Body of Christ when we cut off the members we were supposed to have; we are stunted spiritually by stopping the flow of God’s attempt to speak to us. God’s anointing knows no boundary of race, class or gender.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  18. He then followed that up with: “There is no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion.”

    Translation: “GAWD HATH SAID!!!!!”

    (Which God — Priapus? The Lingam of Shiva?)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  19. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: And I really do believe that the people who support MacArthur want to gag women and are using the Bible to do so. If they could literally stuff a Bible down our throats to prove their point, they’d do it.

    Google the (X-rated) slang phrase “Break My Choker” sometime…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  20. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: I really do believe that the people who support MacArthur want to gag women and are using the Bible to do so.

    “According to RNS: Sounds of laughter and applause could be heard in response during a recording of the session …”

    Dee asks “Who are these rude people?”

    MacArthurites, of course … the meanest, most legalistic, authoritarian, misogynist Calvinists on the planet.

    The sounds of laughter and applause over the oppression of Christians (regardless of gender) come from a demonic realm, not the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  21. ishy: Even the first evangelist of Jesus’ resurrection was a woman who went to preach to a bunch of men. Jesus intentionally and radically changed the paradigm as His first act of risen Lord.

    That Rabbi from Nazareth pulled off more 180 twist endings than an M Night Shaymalan filmography.
    “Expect the Unexpected” whenever you’re around Him.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  22. Max: “According to RNS: Sounds of laughter and applause could be heard in response during a recording of the session …”
    Dee asks “Who are these rude people?”

    The same claque group who laughed and cheered The Great One when James MacDonald talked of uploading kiddie porn onto the CT editor’s system?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  23. I don’t have a problem with what he said (since it is a debated area of Biblical interpretation, but not one where all Christians must agree), but how he said it. It came across as condescending, and of a view that you must agree with him if you are a Christian. Again, this is not an area where all Christians must agree.

    Then again this is a man who now claims that if you hold to ANY Pentecostal or charismatic views, you are serving Satan. (Previously he only opposed the extreme views in that camp, along with the wackiness of TBN.)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  24. Yup, full of love that tape… i grew up/trained in fundamentalist world that pushed us to go to schools such as LABC ( LABC became The Masters College… Johny Mac’s “school”) and I can say first hand that love, as defined in the NT is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of them..
    This tape “nails” my memory of them…. take extremes, and demonize your opponents ….

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  25. ishy: Of course it’s hard to interpret the Bible another way when you’ve lied and bullied a translation into hiding the content of the original text.

    So much for ‘inerrancy’ and ‘infallibility’, which mean by the way, what we (the sad old men up on the stage) say they mean.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  26. Good grief! MacArthur sounds like a terribly desperate man! What’s he so worried about? Is it really going that badly for him that he has to lash out at other folks in order to prop himself up? Is Beth Moore eating into his bottom-line to the point where he has to resort to this kind of character assassination? He looks like someone on their last leg playing the “I’m-not-as-bad-as-they-are” game. It’s really pathetic.

    One of my biggest gripes with MacArthur is that he seems so pompously confident that he is the theological end-all and has this whole “god thing” all neatly figured out. His “…end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of discussion” comment just really rubs me the wrong way. He sounds like an arrogant old bag of wind using an 11th-hour tactic in order to rescue his own brand.

    It’s interesting to note that Christ admonished His disciples when they wanted other people to stop casting out demons in His name. He said, “…whoever is not against us is for us.” Maybe MacArthur should check that out!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  27. Root 66,

    Coming “out of that world”, Johny Mac’s approach is not new….. types like him have always acted like they have the “pure/true way”, and any one that disagrees is “really bad”. Johny Mac is a “young earthier”, just from reading Genesis…. what science says is irrelevant…. I have heard tapes by him years ago saying it…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  28. “Who are these rude people?”
    +++++++++++++

    some are on twitter. it is truly astonishing. they don’t care that women were denigrated and mocked in the name of God, and that pastors laughed in response. they have nothing to say about it.

    they are only concerned about women keeping quiet & not preaching.

    it’s amazing how they are attracted to rules, rules, and more rules. it’s like they can’t deal with the abstract.

    like, simply how to love someone. how to be kind. how to treat someone the way you would want to be treated.

    (“ohhhh, those are sooooo abstract! so difficult to grasp. let’s just stick with rudimentary things, like ‘the rules say you can do this, but you can’t do that'”.)

    nope — it’s black & white only for them. maybe advancing to primary colors, red yellow and blue. but mixing them? blue and yellow making green…. just too much to handle.

    the grayscale is out of the question.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  29. Jeffrey Chalmers:
    Root 66,

    Coming “out of that world”, Johny Mac’s approach is not new…..types like him have always acted like they have the “pure/true way”, and any one that disagrees is “really bad”.Johny Mac is a “young earthier”, just from reading Genesis….what science says is irrelevant…. I have heard tapes by him years ago saying it…

    Yep, they’re a dime-a-dozen. We survived too many years of listening to Bill Gothard’s “pure/true way” too! They seem to be cut from the same cloth!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  30. JH: There is a pretty strong scriptural argument for this, even if you don’t like the pithy way it was delivered.

    And there are more and better scriptural arguments argainst this, even if you don’t like the nuanced way it is delivered.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  31. elastigirl: some are on twitter. it is truly astonishing. they don’t care that women were denigrated and mocked in the name of God, and that pastors laughed in response.

    I have been legitimately blown away by how positively *awful* SO MANY MEN who claim to be pastors are. They are legitimately terrible people. People I would never respect. People I would never be friends. It is legitimately shocking to me. They don’t even pretend to be good people.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  32. JMac is just another self-serving religious hypocrite selling a go$pel that has made him millions. This is not the one Jesus Christ created as no one can serve both God and Money. These are competing exclusive gods. Jesus plainly states that you must choose whom you love and whom you despise. None of these men who made millions off of selling go$pel to sheep are serving the real Jesus Christ by Jesus’ own words. They are all serving a false god and preaching a distorted definition of go$pel.

    This is further proved by his own nepotism and using his influence to make other family members rich on money he raised for “charity.” That is not what charity is for. It is for the needy and poor, not for men who act exactly like Judas like this snake does. Beyond that he also has blasphemed the Holy Spirit by teaching that He does not own all the gifts that are clearly His by the scriptures. And there is a good reason for that, because any true prophecy given that comes from God condemns his practices and some of his specific teachings. JMac has gone on the offensive to paint the real with a black paint and call it a work of the Devil.

    Treating men like these as brothers is to offend those of us who actually are. Men like these are the neo-Pharisees Jesus so harshly criticized in His own day and they are still with us. The true Gospel will never make you rich or popular. It will do just the opposite. It will cost you much potential temporary earthly gain and it will make you a target for speaking truth to evil powers and people whom do not want to hear it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  33. Lea: I have been legitimately blown away by how positively *awful* SO MANY MEN who claim to be pastors are. They are legitimately terrible people. People I would never respect. People I would never be friends. It is legitimately shocking to me. They don’t even pretend to be good people.

    The SBC is full of these guys. You must be against women to be an SBC pastor unless you know your congregation will not fire you. It has much to do with the 2000 BF&M.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  34. Root 66:
    Good grief! MacArthur sounds like a terribly desperate man!What’s he so worried about?Is it really going that badly for him that he has to lash out at other folks in order to prop himself up?Is Beth Moore eating into his bottom-line to the point where he has to resort to this kind of character assassination?He looks like someone on their last leg playing the “I’m-not-as-bad-as-they-are” game.It’s really pathetic.

    One of my biggest gripes with MacArthur is that he seems so pompously confident that he is the theological end-all and has this whole “god thing” all neatly figured out.His “…end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of discussion” comment just really rubs me the wrong way.He sounds like an arrogant old bag of wind using an 11th-hour tactic in order to rescue his own brand.

    It’s interesting to note that Christ admonished His disciples when they wanted other people to stop casting out demons in His name.He said, “…whoever is not against us is for us.”Maybe MacArthur should check that out!

    The whole of Reformed theology fits that last paragraph quite well.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  35. singleman: So John MacArthur told Beth Moore to “go home.” Then why did he permit Joni Eareckson Tada to speak at the “Strange Fire Conference” he sponsored six years ago? Isn’t MacArthur being a hypocrite, or is it OK for a woman to speak when it suits his agenda?

    Great point! I wonder how the women with Ph.D. degrees who teach at Master’s University feel about his diatribe?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  36. I have a family member who has been in the MacArthur camp for over a decade now, and I keep rough tabs on MacArthur because of that. What I can tell you for sure from my experience is that the atmosphere and tone of contempt that was apparent among both the panel members and the audience is not unusual. Once you are labeled an outsider by folks in the MacArthur camp, generally the restraints come off and you will often see contempt, scorn, dismissiveness and derision. Love your neighbor? Not so much. I’ve seen this with my own eyes.

    I also predict there will be no walking back of any of this in the wake of criticism. That is just not a thing you will see the JMac camp do.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  37. John: I also predict there will be no walking back of any of this in the wake of criticism. That is just not a thing you will see the JMac camp do.

    He won’t even walk back of his support of convicted child molester David Gray, declaring Gray has to be innocent because Gray himself said so. Even Phil Johnson is clearly nervous at tackling that one when called out.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  38. Also, the one-word response format is artificial and a game. It’s almost tailor-made for crass and unfeeling responses. Why in the world would a group of allegedly serious spiritual leaders and theologians every consent such a format? The more I think about this the more I find it disturbing..

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  39. ishy,

    I know I should stop being surprised at these people but…

    They tried to control his wife (of course they did *grrr*) because she wanted to get real counseling for their children instead of “church counseling” and just pretending nothing happened????????? So she left the church and they shunned her?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  40. Lea: So she left the church and they shunned her?

    And they continue to publicly defend Gray as being innocent and that his wife is a liar about it despite three molestation convictions. Gray was also convicted for “dissuading a witness”.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  41. John:

    I also predict there will be no walking back of any of this in the wake of criticism. That is just not a thing you will see the JMac camp do.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/08/24/john-macarthurs-son-in-laws-alleged-compensation-for-video-production-and-macarthurs-alleged-comments-during-a-meeting-with-seminary-students/

    From the recording: “ someone said to me, “why did we have to find out about this probationary status on Facebook?’ I’m going to be real honest with you., You didn’t have any right to find out about anything. That’s not your responsibility”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  42. ishy,

    This is when I wish we could do gif’s here, because words can’t possibly express my thoughts here.

    This is also why ‘I will only believe something ‘really happened’ if it has been proven in a court of law’ as applied to rape or abuse is always proven to be a lie. They defend these people into the grave, convicted or not.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  43. I’m not defending John McArthur. But I don’t think he’s going by the wayside yet. All his sermons are downloadable for free, both print and audio. He will also give away the books, using his name, for free. And, instead of 30 minute sermons that could be given in five minutes, he goes in depth, whether he’s right or wrong.

    So if your a brand new Christian, and tired of cotton candy sermons, you end up liking him.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  44. Lea,

    “I have been legitimately blown away by how positively *awful* SO MANY MEN who claim to be pastors are. They are legitimately terrible people. ”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    “He’s a good man,” many will say. “A godly man.”

    to which i reply, “Awful is as awful does. Terrible is as terrible does. Hateful as hateful does. misogynistic is and misogynistic does.”

    “Biblical” mitigateth not awful, terrible, hateful, misogynistic, arrogant d|p$h|t, entitled emotional 7-year old….

    with John MacArthur and friends around, who needs ‘biblical’? I’d rather be good, kind, and responsible.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  45. Brian:
    I’m not defending John McArthur. But I don’t think he’s going by the wayside yet. All his sermons are downloadable for free, both print and audio. He will also give away the books, using his name, for free. And, instead of 30 minute sermons that could be given in five minutes, he goes in depth, whether he’s right or wrong.

    So if your a brand new Christian, and tired of cotton candy sermons, you end up liking him.

    The good with JMac is the depth, as opposed to sermons which are timed to fit into TV slots. Unfortunately they come from a wrong theological standpoint which makes God into a cold, sadistic bully, and those of “the elect” into arrogance personified.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  46. Mark R,
    There is always a sub-group of humans that want to be told what to believe/do by a well spoken, seemingly well informed, authoritarian speaker. Just listen to the first 5 minutes of the You tube video I linked above. If one is not a trained scientist, they might JMac is such an authority, just a godly authority.
    But the more I think about what and how he says it, the more it turns my stomach! I could go on and on, but, let me just state that I fundamentally disagree with it, we all not what JMAC would think of me!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  47. Jeffrey Chalmers: Coming “out of that world”, Johny Mac’s approach is not new….. types like him have always acted like they have the “pure/true way”, and any one that disagrees is “really bad”.

    So did the Communists of the last century.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  48. JH: There is a pretty strong scriptural argument for this, even if you don’t like the pithy way it was delivered.

    I don’t think “pithy” is the right word for JM’s words. Dee was right on when she called it “rude”. The Bible tells us very clearly that even if JM has “all knowledge” (which he doesn’t) then he is still just a resounding gong and clanging symbol without love. Love is NOT rude. According to 1 Corinthians 13 JM is “nothing”. Unfortunately, even though he is nothing in God’s eyes, he is still setting an example of unloving rudeness for the young pastors following in his steps. They exhibit the same attitudes and as a result people like my daughter are so harmed by their harsh treatment that they leave the faith.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  49. Jeffrey Chalmers: There is always a sub-group of humans that want to be told what to believe/do by a well spoken, seemingly well informed, authoritarian speaker.

    You can go a long way as a pastor in the American church with good communication skills and a working knowledge of the Bible. You can even pull off mega-church if you are good enough; the average churchgoer will fall for it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  50. Re:

    MacArthur believes that Beth Moore or any other Christian woman who teaches God’s Word to others should go home and be the wife, mother, and person God intends for them to be and leave it to the men to give spiritual direction.

    Your friendly reminder that some adult women never marry and/or never have children, whether by choice or by circumstance, and that’s okay.

    The Bible does not teach that a woman’s only or highest calling or purpose or design is to marry and/or have children -that is a cultural view, not a biblical teaching, taken by advocates of traditional gender roles.

    God is fine with women (and men) remaining single and/or childless, see 1 Corinthians 7.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  51. TS00: It’s about time for a new ‘Hell no, we won’t go!’ movement.

    It’s already started. Its participants are called “Dones” … a great multitude of believers who have reached the conclusion that they are better off spiritually without organized religion in its current state. Some of these folks are Wartburgers who are done with the wayward institutional church and its assorted expressions of aberrant faith, but not done with Jesus. They are waiting in the wings for the genuine to supplant the counterfeit before they would ever venture back to a church building again.

    I fully expect the Done movement to penetrate New Calvinism, with female believers oppressed by the “beauty of complementarity” rising en masse to shout “Enough is enough!” They will they then pull their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of the mess by their ears to wait and pray for a real move of God.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  52. Lea: Yes. I’ve seen people trying defend MacArthur by saying ‘but he was right, forget his tone’. No. He wasn’t right, but even if he was the tone is the point. Women cannot have a relationship with a church that has contempt for them.

    In the abusive church I left, I heard something similar: that if you were upset with the way someone spoke to you when they were rebuking you, YOU were the problem. People could be as harsh as they wanted when they corrected you. A person who left the group I was part of gave their reasoning: They’d ask, has your discipler ever called you ‘Satan’? after turning to the place where Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’. So since even Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’, anything less than that is perfectly okay for a discipler to call a disciplee.

    The tone IS the point. “Love is not rude.”

    My church just recently (as in, the first Sunday of this month) decided to allow women to preach, teach mixed classes, etc. It was not a decision reached lightly. While there has been positive reaction from people I know, there’s also been people who have left over this decision. One thing our elders were clear on was that faithful Christians could come to differing conclusions on certain matters. JMac does not seem to have that conviction.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  53. Tina: The tone IS the point. “Love is not rude.”

    The MacArthurites I have known fail the love test on several counts:

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.” (1 Corinthians 13)

    They are not kind, they are proud, mean-spirited and angry … everybody but them are wrong.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  54. Circa 2000, we were friends with a couple and the husband got a pretty prestigious job at Grace Community Church. Our church here in Silicon Valley had a team of youth and adults going gown to Tiajuana to build houses over Easter break. As was the normal practice our church lined up churches on the way down so the kids could spend the night. We asked our newly employed friend if he could request our youth group spend the next get at GCC. The answer was an unequivocal NO. GCC was there for the glory of God and didn’t want the facilities muddied.

    Also our friends wife wanted to join the choir. She was told no, because GCC wanted only the best to be able to glorify God. Obviously she didn’t make the cut. To this day I feel a stirring of anger about how my friends wife was treated.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  55. Max,

    It is more than just rude…. I can/do interact with other scientist that one can consider rude; but, they intellectually engage me, and consider what I am saying…. in many cases these “types” discussed above will not even do that… it is more than arrogance….. They will discount the other…. basically you are “not worthy to be listened to you….
    i remember one years ago.. I tried to engage, and he started quoting old testament verses of not “arguing with fools”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  56. There is so much arguing over whether or not God wants Beth Moore to instruct males, but perhaps the most important question that hasn’t been asked is what Beth Moore thinks God wants her to teach her Christian brothers.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  57. JH,

    “There is a pretty strong scriptural argument for this, even if you don’t like the pithy way it was delivered.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    John MacArthur was cruel, disrespectful, denigrating. You simply call it pithy.

    Imagine a symposium of high profile influential individuals you would know. One of the speakers insults the pants off you. Gets into territory that would be deeply personally hurtful. Imagine this group chuckling. Laughing at you.

    Then, imagine that in discussion afterward you are told, “eh, it was just pithy, get over it.”

    if you have the capacity for empathy and if you haven’t turned it off, please re-evaluate your response here.
    ———————-

    Is this the argument you’re referring to?

    “There is no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion.”

    Is this the position you take, by chance?

    If so, i’m interested to know why (since there are other conclusions which also have strong scriptural arguments).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  58. It truly makes me thankful for the good men and women pastors I’ve known. Last Sunday, I heard from the pulpit that God chose women to be the first evangelists! At Jesus’ empty tomb, the women were told to “Go tell the disciples (the men)!” I have known this story for decades, and yet, this perspective of women being chosen to declare as evangelists, to the men what they had seen, was wonderful. Sunday’s pastor/preacher was a male, but my home church pastor/preacher is a female. I am thankful for both.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  59. Lea: And when I found out Pheobe was a deacon. The NT is FULL of women serving and leading churches.

    My mind was blown when I found out about Phoebe. So empowering!

    But don’t worry, some will still find a way around women leading churches/households. The pastor of our (now former) church was doing a series through Acts about 3 years ago. When describing Lydia and her business and household, he made the aside comment that her household was all women. Groundskeepers, teamsters, steward/butler, etc. Yup, had to have all been women.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  60. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

    While I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I hold just as tightly to a belief in the tendency of man(kind) to errancy in the translation/application of said scripture (myself included).

    I think a trap that those of us who support inerrancy can fall into, is in using certain verses as a litmus test to determine if someone else’s view of scripture is the “right” one and that this person is therefore “Christian.” I think evolution, for example, is such a hot-button topic because people use Genesis 1 as a litmus test. “Don’t believe in a 7-day creation? You must not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. You’re a heretic!” (PS, I pick evolution because it’s not a particularly hot button topic for myself.)

    The problem is, nowhere in scripture does it say that a literal view of such and such a verse should be used as a litmus test for the rest of scripture. We inerrancy-proponents can’t forget that various descriptions of “the ends of the earth” in the Bible were once used to support the idea of a flat earth. But somehow, we no longer fear the influence of round-earthers in public schools. Maybe if we inerrancy-proponents remembered that God is big and we are small, God is inerrant and we are not, there could be a little more civility and, yes, grace in theological discussions. (If you happen to be reading, Mr. MacArthur…)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  61. John McArthur isn’t a stupid man in the following regard:

    1. No multi campus, global locations.

    2. His university requires all instructors sign a contract/statement of faith to keep everyone on the same page.

    3. His making a donkey of himself publicly gained him a bunch of free far reaching publicity.

    He’s keeping a “tight reign” on all of GCC’s operations. For everyone on the internet that is condemning him, there is on person that’s going to start listening to him.

    James MacDonald lost control because HBC was so huge an organization, after just one over reach. TVC’s lead pastor is in the same boat.

    I’m not a fan of John McArthur. But he seams to keep tight oversight by keeping the GCC organization at a manageable size.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  62. ishy: Even the first evangelist of Jesus’ resurrection was a woman who went to preach to a bunch of men. Jesus intentionally and radically changed the paradigm as His first act of risen Lord.

    I noticed in evangelical churches that instead of acknowledge things like that, they just don’t talk about it, like it never happened. Great way to be “biblical”.

    Oops, just saw that you beat me to it, Ishy! #MaryMagdalene #ApostleToTheApostles

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  63. Pingback: Wednesday Connect | Thinking Out Loud

  64. Brian: I’m not a fan of John McArthur. But he seams to keep tight oversight by keeping the GCC organization at a manageable size.

    Now, I know they just refuse to accept a lot of people into membership to maintain that size, but I know the “tight oversight” is failing now. Masters is a perfect example of that, as is a lot of the things coming out that Macarthur has said that have been found to be total lies. There are more things going on behind the scenes, too. I know members who are seriously questioning him and Grace.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  65. elastigirl: Imagine a symposium of high profile influential individuals you would know. One of the speakers insults the pants off you. Gets into territory that would be deeply personally hurtful. Imagine this group chuckling. Laughing at you.

    Then, imagine that in discussion afterward you are told, “eh, it was just pithy, get over it.”

    “WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM? YOU’RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM! CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?????

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  66. There’s no question John Macarthur’s remarks and tone were not the way Jesus would’ve handled the, intentionally, provocative question, but the belief behind the response is Biblical and here’s a clear explanation… https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

    Still..if I was John right now, my conscience/heart/soul/mind would bother me until I went to Beth and asked forgiveness for that glaring, hurtful and, now, viral comment!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  67. Lea,

    Ishy and Leah

    The texts you refer to relate to”aged men (episkopos)” and “aged women (presbutis). Note two different words are used and they are not equivalent. Also what is said is said in relation to function, not authority. The function is to care for the flock until they reach the finish line.(Strong’s Concordance). Episkopos is further described as “ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπισκόπου, ὁ (ἐπισκέπτομαι), an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent; the Sept. for פָּקִיד, Judges 9:28; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; 2 Kings 11:15, etc.; 1 Macc. 1:51. The word has the same comprehensive sense in Greek writings from Homer Odys. 8, 163; Iliad 22, 255 down; hence, in the N. T. ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν, guardian of souls, one who watches over their welfare: 1 Peter 2:25 ((τόν παντός πνεύματος κτίστην καί ἐπίσκοπον. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Presbutis according to Thayer means “4247 presbýtis – properly, older woman, referring to the scriptural resposibility older women (especially over 50) have to disciple younger Christian women (used only in Tit 2:3).”
    The context outlines their respective responsibilities. And this is also borne out by Paul when he tells Timothy not to let anyone put him off because of his youthfulness.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  68. Cindy Meyers: There’s no question John Macarthur’s remarks and tone were not the way Jesus would’ve handled the, intentionally, provocative question, but the belief behind the response is Biblical

    Have you personally done the work of studying the NT passages on women, taking into account the original languages and the cultural context?

    If you haven’t, then I wouldn’t insist to others what is biblical and what is not and just link or name-dropping for proof.

    I’m tired of people telling me “because Bible” when it’s clear they haven’t even studied it themselves.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  69. Oh, ishy, I HAVE studied the NT passages on women as you asked and, honestly, to say that the cultural context would change the plain, bold-faced reading to not mean what the words, obviously, say is messing with the Creator’s right to order His world according to HIS Will. If the culture of that time had the power to influence how we interpret certain passages of Scripture, why wouldn’t Paul have added that foot-note? I believe this whole thing has been fueled by a wrong interpretation of the motives of God AND man with regard to the differing roles of male and female. The bestowed giftings have more to do with WHERE God has allowed them to be used (pulpit vs. home) and just because He says, in Titus, for women to be keepers at home and be obedient to husbands, does not diminish the value of the one submitting herself to those commands. I believe God is pleased with the woman who says, “yes, Lord”, pursuing a meek and quiet spirit and who is at peace to serve wherever and whomever God commands her to. John MacArthur hurt his ministry by an uncontrolled tongue but, I believe there are women operating outside of the boundaries God has set for them (us!) and it is hurting the core message and mission of the church. I believe that the sin of pride is at the root of all of this confusion!! And, we know God is not the author of that!!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  70. Lea: And when I found out Pheobe was a deacon. The NT is FULL of women serving and leading churches. There is more proof of that than MacArthur’s interpretation. They can all stuff it.

    You might enjoy reading Pricilla’s Letter by Ruth Hoppin.
    In it she lays out a convincing case that Priscilla (mentioned in Romans 16:3) may have very well been the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    Hoppin’s research and scholarship like Katharine Bushnell before her is impeccable, and not easily dismissed as liberal piffle by sad old men like MacArthur.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  71. Cindy Meyers: I HAVE studied the NT passages on women as you asked and, honestly, to say that the cultural context would change the plain, bold-faced reading to not mean what the words, obviously, say is messing with the Creator’s right to order His world according to HIS Will.

    I am frankly more concerned about the original languages. What the Bible says in the NT in English translations is not what is says in the original languages, as was discussed above. John Macarthur is not a scholar of the original languages. I question whether the people at Got Questions refer to the original languages.

    Perhaps you should go back and read the previous discussion, because we already discussed the problems with NT passages on women as translated in the English translations. And they are big.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  72. Cindy Meyers: to say that the cultural context would change the plain, bold-faced reading to not mean what the words, obviously, say…

    Cindy,

    None of the egalitarians I have read are saying this at all. They base their beliefs on a strong stance on Biblical authority and solid hermeneutics. You appear to have a kind spirit and I am sure that you would not want to misrepresent those that disagree with you.

    Here is an article where Wade Burleson draws different conclusions than you do:

    https://www.wadeburleson.org/2019/10/frenemies-of-faith-and-misogynistic.html

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  73. Benn,

    This is about more than “interpretation of Scripture”, Benn. It’s also about the blatant, public contempt that MacArthur showed for a woman and a fellow Christian. (And Christians too, in the same clip, but I don’t want to get sidetracked.)

    If he’s doing that to a nationally-known Christian woman in public, how likely is it that he’s doing the same to believing women close to him (at his church, at his schools), secretly?

    And if he is treating them that horribly — as multiple reports seem to indicate — are you saying other believers should simply ignore that?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  74. Cindy Meyers: If the culture of that time had the power to influence how we interpret certain passages of Scripture, why wouldn’t Paul have added that foot-note?

    Probably because he didn’t have to, at least not for his intended audience. The recipient of his letter knew what kind of situation they were in, and what Paul was referring to. In fact, they had likely asked him about these very issues. Why would Paul waste ink and papyrus rehashing a situation which they’d already described to him?

    Sure, that makes it a puzzle for us to figure out, but I also take it as a sign that God trusted us to be capable of doing so.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  75. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
    Three good things that came out of this are:

    1) All the MacArthur worshipers were flushed out to defend their idol.
    2) All the He Man Woman Haters (see “Calvin and Hobbes”) came out of their clubhouse to defend the notion that women are pathetic, second-class afterthoughts in the eyes of God.
    3) There were a lot of people defending Beth Moore.

    I have to admit I am on the bleeding edge of the discussion. I don’t believe in the inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration of Scripture any more, because I have seen in my study of history how the biblical texts have been used to oppress the powerless. I can’t give credence to documents that are used in such a fashion. And I really do believe that the people who support MacArthur want to gag women and are using the Bible to do so. If they could literally stuff a Bible down our throats to prove their point, they’d do it.

    Yeah, I’m a radical, but I have said for a very long time that I am outside the charmed circle of the household of faith. This is another way.

    Hey, thanks for stating your feelings forthrightly about your belief about the scriptures.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  76. Lea: These guys just think that if they say something like this, everyone should just accept it. IF they say Beth Moore is a heretic (which is nonsense!), people should just accept it.

    ‘End of Discussion’ is not a reasonable response to a question like this. What is reasonable to me is that I will not accept a church that treats women like MacArthur and his ilk. End of Discussion on that for me.

    It says something to me that churches where women are accepted at all levels are the least likely to treat them like MacArthur treats Beth Moore. I see nothing but the continuing bad fruit of misogyny out of these men.

    Sounds a lot like what is said by people who believe women should preach.

    “There is no legitimate argument to be made that women should also not preach. Period.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  77. Max: If they did (they won’t), they would have to apologize to a great multitude of former Southern Baptists they ran off during the Conservative Resurgence (which was really a Calvinist Resurgence in disguise).Nah, they will never admit to making a mistake on the role of women in the Kingdom of God … they prefer the SBC Kingdom just the way it is.

    I agree with much you have said. This is PR oriented.

    I believe, however, that they are so PR focused that they have set the stage for huge changes in the next few years.

    The PR has caused them to be pro Social Justice and Pro Egalitarian – sort of.

    They have hired Profs in many of the seminaries that espouse these positions already. It’s just a matter of time. It will be a slow change.

    As for apologizing to moderates that left. They’re not that many of them to begin with. The CBF never attracted a significant amount of churches. Their dying. Their Budget’s down to nothing. They’ve closed down their crown jewel seminary. And their positions on lots of issues have move much farther away from SBC positions.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  78. Wild Honey,

    “I think a trap that those of us who support inerrancy can fall into, is in using certain verses as a litmus test to determine if someone else’s view of scripture is the “right” one and that this person is therefore “Christian.””
    +++++++++++++++

    hi, wild honey.

    i appreciated your comment.

    as you see it, what is the dividing line between christian and not christian?

    what are the non-negotiables?

    a similar question – what is the dividing line between christian and unbiblical?

    (of course, ‘biblical’ is sort of like looking at cloud formations. some see a dog, some see a frog. some see a cruise ship, some see the queen in a hat.)

    so…perhaps the question is, at what point do you see ‘unbiblical’ reducing one’s christian status to nil?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  79. Lea,

    I think you identified the most troubling aspect of MacArthur’s response.

    His followers will hear this statement and believe there is no need for them to examine the issue themselves. They will also understand that to examine the issue is to risk the displeasure of their local church leaders and possible expulsion from their group.

    Of course there is a case for women leadership in the church. Church leaders and congregants can examine this case and decide for themselves whether or not it is convincing, hopefully extending grace to people who believe differently than they do.

    MacArthur is creating an environment where mere examination is discouraged and risky. This is spiritually abusive because he’s using his followers’ commitment to scriptural inerrancy as the basis for his appeal.

    All that said, there’s a case to made for exclusive male leadership (pastors, elders) in the church as well. Extend grace to those who find this case convincing while also seeing male-female relationships through a bigger lens than authority and submission. Rachel Miller Green’s book “Beyond Authority and Submission” is a good resource for anyone committed to male leadership in the church and sick of misogyny at the same time.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  80. elastigirl: as you see it, what is the dividing line between christian and not christian?
    what are the non-negotiables?
    a similar question – what is the dividing line between christian and unbiblical?

    Simple.
    “Whatever *I* Do/Believe THAT YOU DON’T!”
    (Admit it – that’s the de facto definition you’ve run into…)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  81. Oracle at Delphi,

    “It says something to me that churches where women are accepted at all levels are the least likely to treat them like MacArthur treats Beth Moore. I see nothing but the continuing bad fruit of misogyny out of these men.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well, who wants kindness and respect of dignity when you can have RULES, RULES, AND MORE RULES! Rules that say “I win.” “I get to be on top, always and in every place.”

    (i’m speaking in the voice of all the regressive entitled dweebs who i read on twitter, of course)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  82. Lowlandseer:
    Lea,

    The texts you refer to relate to”aged men (episkopos)” and “aged women (presbutis). Note two different words are used and they are not equivalent.

    May I ask, are you aware of a verse or section of verses where episkopos and presbutis are both used? Or are they generally seen in different areas?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  83. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    ““Whatever *I* Do/Believe THAT YOU DON’T!”
    (Admit it – that’s the de facto definition you’ve run into…”
    +++++++++++++

    why, yes. you have to really try not to take stupid pills when you’re in christian culture. they’re everywhere… pumped into the air at church, laced in coffee, sprinkled in the salads at the pot lucks, books are powdered with it…

    i think i’ll get an intelligent response from wild honey, though.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  84. Cindy Meyers,

    “The bestowed giftings have more to do with WHERE God has allowed them to be used (pulpit vs. home) and just because He says, in Titus, for women to be keepers at home and be obedient to husbands, does not diminish the value of the one submitting herself to those commands.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    to say that duct tape on her mouth and cute shackles on her wrists is not diminishing her value requires a wharped sense of the value of human life.

    faith does not require exchanging the sensible for the impractical and harmful.

    goodness, it forces the same duct tape and shackles on God himself. no longer can God speak, operate, and move through the mind, voice, and hands of half of the world.

    it silences half the world. squashes discovery and invention to solve problems of all kinds. eliminates wisdom and confrontation to keep a ruling party in check.

    it’s hard for me to think of an action more counterproductive, destructive; or, to speak plainly, stupid.
    —————-

    “… I believe there are women operating outside of the boundaries God has set for them (us!) and it is hurting the core message and mission of the church.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    how is this hurting the core message and mission of the church?

    (or perhaps first we have to determine what is the core message and mission of the church)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  85. Serving Kids In Japan,

    “Cindy Meyers: If the culture of that time had the power to influence how we interpret certain passages of Scripture, why wouldn’t Paul have added that foot-note?

    Serving Kids in Japan: “Probably because he didn’t have to, at least not for his intended audience. The recipient of his letter knew what kind of situation they were in, and what Paul was referring to.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    ‘tcha…. Paul wasn’t writing to us.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  86. elastigirl: as you see it, what is the dividing line between christian and not christian?

    These are thought-provoking questions, thank you. If I had to answer in one word, I’d say, “It’s complicated.”

    In medicine, there are some diseases or disorders that are diagnosed by the symptoms that present. There’s not a blood test or brain scan that can definitively pinpoint irritable bowel syndrome or bi-polar disorder, for example. I think being a Christian is like that. You can start with, “Does the person identify themselves as a follower of Jesus” and then ask if their life and relationships tend more toward the fruits of the spirit and Micah 6:7-8 (for example) or not, and form an opinion from there. But at the end of the day, Jesus is the one who makes the call, not me, not John MacArthur, not even perhaps the individual in question.

    I think it’s easier to answer the question of whether someone is ACTING like a Christian than whether someone actually IS a Christian.

    elastigirl: what are the non-negotiables?

    Jesus. I mean, I admit, I get nervous when someone starts messing around with one of the Biblical canons recognized by the three main branches (Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Protestant), but Jesus would be my short answer.

    elastigirl: a similar question – what is the dividing line between christian and unbiblical?

    I’m not sure I understand this question, sorry. Are you asking if I think someone can be both Christian and unbiblical at the same time? Probably. Paul admonished Peter in Galations 2 for trying to make Gentiles follow Jewish traditions, but I don’t see Paul telling Peter that he’s not a believer because of that.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  87. Wild Honey,

    “But don’t worry, some will still find a way around women leading churches/households. The pastor of our (now former) church was doing a series through Acts about 3 years ago. When describing Lydia and her business and household, he made the aside comment that her household was all women.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    some will still find a way…

    ha… when my kids were in sunday school, they brought home a handout. they were going through the book of Acts. the lesson was about priscilla and acquilla.

    the simple cartoonish picture showed 2 people at a table: acquilla in one chair, talking with very animated face and gestures, apollos in the other chair looking at him and listening with rapt attention.

    priscilla was standing off to the side of the room, body in a compact & closed position, looking down, arranging flowers.

    she didn’t even have a seat at the table, much less a voice of any kind.

    talk about propaganda. for little kids??? what a ficked up subliminal message for little girls, for little boys.

    that was the end of that sunday school class for my kids.

    no stupid pills for my kids!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  88. Paul K,

    “All that said, there’s a case to made for exclusive male leadership (pastors, elders) in the church as well. Extend grace to those who find this case convincing”
    ++++++++++++++

    does that mean not speaking directly?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  89. elastigirl: how is this hurting the core message and mission of the church?

    Right!

    I went to a church once that was very good, except for their stand on women pastors. Women could teach, and I taught adult Sunday School. But I was never allowed near the pulpit. I could lead worship, even, but not preach from the pulpit

    Me being disallowed this hurt the message for my son who saw how well I taught vs some of the men. That, and a few other situations he saw where men were favored and valued over women in certain places really turned him away from the church. So, personally, I’ve seen the opposite of what Cindy is concerned about. The message and the view of God as loving and fair is diminished by male dominance doctrine.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  90. “Me being disallowed this hurt the message for my son who saw how well I taught vs some of the men. That, and a few other situations he saw where men were favored and valued over women in certain places really turned him away from the church. So, personally, I’ve seen the opposite of what Cindy is concerned about. The message and the view of God as loving and fair is diminished by male dominance doctrine.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    it is so counter-common sense.

    the kind of common sense that has enabled the human race to survive for aeons, and to learn how to survive better (nutrition, medicine, etc. — not to say there isn’t wisdom in looking backward at old ways of doing things).

    given worldwide egalitarian traction, and the speed with which the younger generation processes information, subjugation of females will mutate away. except for totalitarian groups tucked away here and there.

    and i sincerely pity them.

    it is life-taking, not life-giving, for all.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  91. ishy: Have you personally done the work of studying the NT passages on women, taking into account the original languages and the cultural context?

    If you haven’t, then I wouldn’t insist to others what is biblical and what is not and just link or name-dropping for proof.

    I’m tired of people telling me “because Bible” when it’s clear they haven’t even studied it themselves.

    Ishy, I believe you studied Greek at SEBTS ( if I remember correctly),
    Do you mind if I ask you with your Greek background have you ever collated a Greek text?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  92. elastigirl,

    Absolutely not. Engaging in gracious debate requires speaking directly (if, by speaking directly, you mean honest, open confrontation).

    By gracious, I mean something along the lines of the statement from the authors found in the foreword of Zondervan’s “Two Views of Women in Ministry”:

    We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  93. Back in the 80’s I attended an Assembly of God church. The pastor’s wife was an excellent Bible teacher and her Sunday School class drew people of all ages, including both men and women. There are some very good female Bible teachers out there including Kay Arthur and Anne Graham Lotz among others. It seems to me that it’s a shame that men aren’t allowed to be taught by such excellent teachers. Johnny and his friends think it’s OK for women to learn from male and female Bible teachers, but men are only allowed to learn from other men. Seems to me that they’re missing out.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  94. Benn: Do you mind if I ask you with your Greek background have you ever collated a Greek text?

    You mean like a harmony of the gospels? I have done some of that on my own and have some books on it. I don’t believe we ever did anything like that in class in any advanced way, though I think Dr. Black had some beginner exercises like that from the gospels in his book (I took first year Greek from NOBTS extension, but we used his book). I don’t even think we even did any of the passages on women in class.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  95. Serving Kids In Japan:
    Benn,

    This is about more than “interpretation of Scripture”, Benn.It’s also about the blatant, public contempt that MacArthur showed for a woman and a fellow Christian.(And Christians too, in the same clip, but I don’t want to get sidetracked.)

    If he’s doing that to a nationally-known Christian woman in public, how likely is it that he’s doing the same to believing women close to him (at his church, at his schools), secretly?

    And if he is treating them that horribly — as multiple reports seem to indicate — are you saying other believers should simply ignore that?

    I get your point.
    But, let me give you my take on this mess.
    I think Jmac was using the old technique of you can get away with a dig, IF you say it in a joking manner ( imho)
    Although I think he totally meant what he said. To all the egalitarian non SBC folk on this blog, let me remind you, that Beth publicly still says she is a complementarian member of the SBC, ( I’ll take her at her word) also Max I know she doesn’t want to give up her Lifeway revenue stream )
    But she also never misses a chance to dig at the SBC about preaching at a Church ( my view of that, with Local church autonomy, if any SBC church invites her to : speak, teach, or preach, its fine by me, that’s the local church decision.

    But I think it is fair game to try to flesh out her position, I truly believe that Beth will be nominated for president of the SBC in June in Orlando, ( maybe even by Wade)
    Even though she is a Christian Woman, she should have to answer the tough questions and harsh criticism that goes with the upper echelon of leadership in the SBC.

    I am trying to personally try to figure where Beth is coming from, she is a very smart person, and tremendous speaker.
    But when she edited her book this past Summer to soften her position on homosexuality, she had to know this was coming ( and I don’t say this as a put down or to sign on to all the heat she is taking over it.
    Most of the SBC holds to the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, and Beth made some questionable comments about her position change

    This dust up will only get more and more severe come the first of the year ( the combatants will have somewhat of a ceasefire through Christmas…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  96. Julie: There are some very good female Bible teachers out there including Kay Arthur and Anne Graham Lotz among others.

    Yes, both are excellent teacher/preachers. Anne Graham Lotz was once invited to speak at a pastors conference. When she took the stage, many pastors literally stood with their backs to her. They were essentially saying, as MacArthur did to Beth Moore, “Go Home.” Do you think God was pleased with them? Who will be first in the Kingdom of Heaven; who will be last?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  97. ishy: Have you personally done the work of studying the NT passages on women, taking into account the original languages and the cultural context?
    If you haven’t, then I wouldn’t insist to others what is biblical and what is not and just link or name-dropping for proof.
    I’m tired of people telling me “because Bible” when it’s clear they haven’t even studied it themselves.

    We at the Wartburg Watch are fortunate to have you, ishy, as the final authority on the issue of women in the ministry. Your expert knowledge of ancient Greek clearly gives your position more weight than anyone, period, paragraph, end of discussion.*

    Is it not possible that someone that has Greek expertise has come to a different conclusion that you? Also, how can any of us Christians with no ancient language training interpret anything in the Bible?**

    * Sarcasm
    ** Not Sarcasm

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  98. Lea: I see nothing but the continuing bad fruit of misogyny out of these men.

    MacArthur’s mocking of Moore at a “Truth Matters” conference, combined with the echoes of other men on the panel, is disturbing and grievous. Truth does matter, but it must be revealed truth … not every doctrine of man is truth.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  99. Paul K,

    “speaking directly”

    “Absolutely not. Engaging in gracious debate requires speaking directly (if, by speaking directly, you mean honest, open confrontation).”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    so then you wouldn’t mind if I looked (you?) or group of generic-gender-roles-men dead straight in the eyes and said, “You are wrong. Let me explain to you.”?

    and when said group of generic-gender-roles-men ignore my presence, dominate the conversation, shift in their seats & look away & begin chatting with their pals when I try to speak,….

    …you wouldn’t mind, then, if I raise my voice and say, “GENTLEMEN. You are speaking from ignorance. You have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll spell it out for you….”

    ??

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  100. Having attended a church where the pastor was ordained by JMac and half the congregation TMU graduates, I can certainly say that even if he said in a joking delivery, he meant what he said. Beth is a topic of disdain in his circles.

    He is such an irony to me. His sermons contain depth but his ideology doesn’t allow for any questioning, any wrestling with truth. So in an opposite way, he dumbs down The Bible through absolute certainty. There is only one right way, even in less important issues.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  101. Benn,

    “But when she edited her book this past Summer to soften her position on homosexuality, she had to know this was coming ( and I don’t say this as a put down or to sign on to all the heat she is taking over it.
    Most of the SBC holds to the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, and Beth made some questionable comments about her position change”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Ben.

    perhaps her conscience doesn’t permit her to endorse cruelty in any name, even ‘biblical’

    i marvel at christians who champion cruelty to fellow human beings, perhaps too far removed to be of much concern, because it fits their favored paradigm.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  102. elastigirl,

    “i marvel at christians who champion cruelty to fellow human beings, perhaps too far removed to be of much concern, because it fits their favored paradigm.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i marvel, because it seems to me that christian culture turns off imagination due to to fear of God-given intuition and common sense. (an unfathomable thing to do)

    without imagination, how can one possibly access empathy for others (assuming one has the potential for it)?

    it all has to sacrifice itself and turn itself off for the sake of ‘biblical’. only ‘biblical’ matters.

    (but this is by design — subconsciously by some, calculated by many others. to foster control. control of thought. control of power and $.)

    i know this to be true because true artistic inspiration does not exist in christian culture — all we are treated to are plastic products run through the party-line-editing mill many times over, so sanitized they harken back to the dentist office, or trips to the hospital. imagination is suspect and not to be trusted. only the grid of biblical rules matters.

    “On biblical-ideology the so-lid rock I stand, all imaginative-&-intuitive-powers are sinking sand…”

    i know this to be true because it is the only possible explanation for multitudes of people who righteously say “for the glory of God” if not “for Jesus and for his fame” yet are utterly clueless to how their ‘sucks-to-be-you’ gospel consigns entire populations of people to lives of solitude, exclusion, being invisible, being silent, to abuse and maltreatment.

    i know this to be true because the kindest, most generous-of-heart people i know are expressly not christians. their empathy is intact. they are free to act on it. they have not sacrificed this most basic and precious gift on the altar of ideology. what a silly thing to do.

    pardon me.

    i’m just revved up today. and my patience for cruelty and stupidity in the name of God is far spent.

    God is better than that. quite frankly, i am better than that.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  103. elastigirl:
    Benn,

    “But when she edited her book this past Summer to soften her position on homosexuality, she had to know this was coming ( and I don’t say this as a put down or to sign on to all the heat she is taking over it.
    Most of the SBC holds to the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, and Beth made some questionable comments about her position change”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Ben.

    perhaps her conscience doesn’t permit her to endorse cruelty in any name, even ‘biblical’

    i marvel at christians who champion cruelty to fellow human beings, perhaps too far removed to be of much concern, because it fits their favored paradigm.

    Elastigirl— It May be as simple as that, as to her evolution on homosexuality, I have tweeked my personal views on certain biblical issues through research and prayer .
    Beth is no different, and she is not obligated to explain her change,
    But I think what has some people in the SBC scratching their heads is she doesn’t seem to have a problem critiquing other peoples views, and at the same time not be willing to dialogue about her own.
    But it is her choice.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  104. Bunsen Honeydew,

    Very good analysis…. except I would call JMAC approach pseudo deep. Just listening to the beginnings of a couple of videoS of his preaching, he has an excellent delivery method…. if you are not concentrating at what he says, it goes right over you…. but, after listening several times I fundamentally disagree with basic assumptions of what he is saying.. so, it is not really deep, just excellent rhetoric..
    For example, some of the “most deep” work I know of was some of the work of Albert Einstein …. He just looked at basic things, like gravity, and riding in an elevator, etc, and asked basic questions….

    PS… some Jesus Christ’s greatest teaching was done in parables….. you have to listen, and walk away and wrestle with what was said…. not “told to you” in a authoritarian way…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  105. Bunsen Honeydew: Having attended a church where the pastor was ordained by JMac and half the congregation TMU graduates, I can certainly say that even if he said in a joking delivery, he meant what he said. Beth is a topic of disdain in his circles.

    MacArthur is an apostle of faith in the legalistic religious circles which follow him. His words come forth as the final authority on Scripture. He is darn near worshiped.

    Imagine if Apostle Paul appeared at a first century conference and addressed his followers in the same way:

    “Go home, Junia!”
    “Go home, Phoebe!”
    “Go home, Priscilla!”

    Would the audience laugh and applaud? Would Paul’s words be repeated in their churches when they returned home after the conference? Would they turn up the heat to disdain and subordinate women? Or would they embrace all believers to fulfill their individual calling in Christ, regardless of race, class or gender?

    Whether you agree with his theology or not, John MacArthur and the cheering crowd which adores him have a heart problem.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  106. Cindy Meyers,

    I think the author was a bit shallow. Scripture clearly states that *To everything there is a season… a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them together.”

    The SBC is facing an enormous crisis over their terrible history of sex abuse. Beth Moore was abused and she is a member of the SBC. MacArthur has a right to believe what he wants. As a Christian, he has any obligation to consider what is gong on. MacArthur comes across as a weak old man, reduced to imitating John Piper with clever little zingers.

    This is a man who apparently lied about his involvement during the time of the assassination of Martin Luther King jr. He did so, apparently, to show how down he was with the civil right movement. His institutions of higher learning have a bad history regarding their dealing with sex abuse.

    He shows he is no longer ready for prime time.The only thing keeping him afloat are his attack dogs.

    In the end, he does not appear to understand the necessity of keeping the main thing, the main thing. His timing was awful.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  107. dee: he does not appear to understand the necessity of keeping the main thing, the main thing

    Debating is not preaching the Gospel. Delivering the Great Commission is taking a back seat to wrangling over the doctrines of mere men.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  108. Bunsen Honeydew,

    Christianity Today (“Quick to Listen”) just released a podcast about MacArthur’s theology. It really helps explain that mystery between his insightful and helpful sermons on one hand and comments like his most recent about Moore on the other hand.

    Because he marries a commitment to inerrancy with a fundamentalist hermeneutic (“literal, grammatical, historical”), he truly believes that what the Bible teaches on subjects such as women in ministry (or creation) are somewhat easy to understand and should not be doubted or examined. I think MacArthur goes beyond this dynamic and strays into abusive territory when he creates an environment in which examination and inquiry are strongly discouraged, but the foundation of inerrancy and hermeneutic remains.

    What’s puzzling is that a commitment to inerrancy coupled with his hermeneutic does, many times, lead him in the right direction in his sermons. I think he could right the ship and still hold to his convictions if he simply allowed room for examination.

    What usually happens in environments led by men like him is that despite his personal character (which is repeatedly reported to be kind and genuinely caring), his followers latch onto the strength of his convictions without doing the necessary study to arrive at the convictions themselves and don’t pair those convictions with any sense of humility (because they haven’t been allowed to seriously consider different opinions).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  109. elastigirl,

    I don’t think anyone appreciates a blanket statement like, “You’re wrong. Let me explain.” That’s how MacArthur might address you.

    Personally, I’d probably be a little put-off by someone coming in hot like that, but if we knew each other and trusted each other I’d like to think I’d be receptive to an opening statement like that. I also grew up in a family where we could express our opinions strongly and openly without fear of rejection; that helps.

    I’ve been wrong about major areas of my life that have affected me very negatively. Some of these experiences have led me to be more open to direct confrontation, I’d like to believe. You might be right though – I might not want that kind of confrontation as much as I think.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  110. Shadowfax:
    elastigirl,

    Amen! Well said! Couldn’t agree more. They truly operate in a parallel universe. Devoid of humanity. Sad thing is they don’t even realize it. They are blind to their own folly.

    Parallel universe, more or less spot on.
    I think the great divide is in each individual’s view of scripture.
    Inerrancy vs. vs. what’s left.
    It’s a theological version of inerrantist are from Mars and errantist are from Venus.

    A lot of people that don’t hold to inerrancy, yet still quote scripture to people, can’t understand what inerantist think when they hear that play out.

    How would someone that holds to a view that the Bible isn’t inerrant know that the scripture they are quoting or using for their position is in fact real, that God intended to have that verse in sacred scripture?

    ( the above is not for Max, I know what his response will be, the spirit will guide us in all truth, got it Max)

    But the Bible says test the spirits, and the inerantist says yes, but you have to have scripture to test the spirits

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  111. Paul K: insightful and helpful sermons on one hand and comments like his most recent about Moore on the other hand

    Reminds me of a curious little verse in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul says “This is me talking, not the Lord.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  112. Max: Reminds me of a curious little verse in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul says “This is me talking, not the Lord.”

    Max, I take that as Paul saying this is NEW revelation I received from the Lord, he gave it to me to speak it to you you crazy gentiles at Corinth…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  113. Paul K,

    I was trained in an environment like JMAC world ( my IFB high school endorsed Los Angles Baptst College, which became The Master College, JMAC’s school). The problem is, these “types” can not take direct challenge back…. I know, I have done it, and it was not pretty….. when “they sense a threat”, they immediately attack the person, not the thought/concept. For example, in the YouTube video of JMAC that I liked above ( in the link, you need to back it up to the beginning) there are two distinct fundamental concepts that I would challenge…. and I have done it before with people like him, and they rapidly go after me as a person, not my concept.. PS. They trained me to do it, and it is taking me a lifetime to break it..

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  114. Shadowfax: They are blind to their own folly.

    And they will make the counter claim that those who don’t believe as they do are blind to their own folly and are in open rebellion to what God has revealed in Scripture.

    Religion can be as divisive and volatile as discussions of secular politics.

    It’s always been this way, but we can still agree to be civil, and disagree in such a way that doesn’t lead to animosity and rancor toward ‘the other’.

    In Judaism, different Rabbinical schools of thought argue vigorously over this, that, and the other, and they welcome it as a challenge to thinking. But at day’s end, they never lose sight of the fact that they’re still Jews and bound together by more things in common, than stuff that divides.

    There’s much that Christianity can learn from the Jews.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  115. elastigirl,
    Don’t make yourself scarce. I cannot tell you how much your words resonate with me. Some days I wish I could move into your neighborhood and spend a year in your fresh air. I spent so many in the suffocating cloister of churchianity. Thank you for sharing your wonderful thoughts.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  116. Max,

    Max, I was thinking along the same lines this morning.

    What if Jesus, Peter and John had been patriarchal authoritarians? Things might have gone quite differently than we read in John 20:

    “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes.

    But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.”

    How interesting that, after first hearing Mary’s report and checking out the tomb for themselves, scripture tells us: ‘Then the disciples went back to their homes.’ How’s that for irony, Mr. MacArthur?

    But guess who didn’t ‘Go home’? That’s right, Mary, and instead of being judged and condemned, Mary was rewarded by being visited by not only angels, but the risen Jesus himself, who explained what had happened and instructed her to go tell the disciples. That’s right, instead of telling her to ‘go home’, Jesus told her to go instruct the disciples concerning the things that had happened.

    Of course, not being patriarchal authoritarians who believed that the woman’s place was in the home, the apostles did not greet her words with an arrogant, ‘Go home, Mary’ or an exchange of knowing looks at how easily deceived emotional women were. Instead, they listened to the words she had been given by Jesus. That’s right, she was tasked with spreading the good news of the risen Lord to the very apostles who would then spread this news far and wide.

    Thankfully, they did not disbelieve, mock or scorn her. They did not firmly insist she ‘Go home’ and busy herself with the children. They did not appear stunned or outraged that Jesus saw fit to show himself to a mere woman, and gave to her his words to share with the others, including the oh so important men. Those who are so certain of the misogynistic, patriarchal, headship teaching we have so long been told is ‘biblical’ might want to spend a little more time with their bibles and a little less time with their bible teachers.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  117. Benn: ( the above is not for Max, I know what his response will be, the spirit will guide us in all truth, got it Max)

    But the Bible says test the spirits, and the inerrantist says yes, but you have to have scripture to test the spirits

    We need to remember that that the early Christians were being led by the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) and testing the spirits by the Spirit ‘before’ there was a Bible as we know it. But, we also need to know:

    The Word + The Spirit of Truth = Revealed Truth

    If we don’t seek and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to Truth, then we might find ourselves substituting man’s interpretation of truth for Truth … which is not Revealed Truth to us as individuals. While we can benefit from listening to anointed teachers/preachers (and I emphasize “anointed”), it is critical that every believer study the Scriptures relying on the Holy Spirit to teach them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  118. TS00: guess who didn’t ‘Go home’? That’s right, Mary, and instead of being judged and condemned, Mary was rewarded by being visited by not only angels, but the risen Jesus himself … the apostles did not greet her words with an arrogant, ‘Go home, Mary’ … they listened to the words she had been given by Jesus …

    Whew! Now, that’ll preach!!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  119. Benn,

    “How would someone that holds to a view that the Bible isn’t inerrant know that the scripture they are quoting or using for their position is in fact real, that God intended to have that verse in sacred scripture?”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    if by real you mean ‘true’, what does it mean for something to be true?

    here’s a true statement: do 50 push-ups throughout the day to get in shape.

    the idea or principle is that getting in shape requires moving more.

    yes, someone who does 50 push-ups a day will build muscle and be on the path to getting in shape.

    now here’s a totally untrue statement: “you must do 50 push-ups throughout the day to get in shape.”

    i, myself, refuse to do 50 push-ups a day because i can see there are other effective ways to get in shape.

    i do some planks and walk some hills. (well, not really, but in the fantasyland of my best intentions that’s what i’m doing.)

    really, isn’t the general principle what matters?
    ———————-

    working backwards now, here are general principles:

    head lice is bad and we need to get rid of it.

    teething is painful for a baby and we need to sooth the pain.

    Here’s the early 20th century solution for each:

    *gasoline to cure head lice
    *morphine to sooth teething pain

    there are better ways to accomplish these things.

    it is ‘errant’ to cure head lice with gasoline. it is ‘errant’ to give a baby morphine to sooth their pain.

    but i reckon every human being ever born agrees on the general principle that we want to get rid of head lice and teething pain.

    and in the future, we in the advanced civilization of the 21st century with our iphones will look so folksy and antiquated, who did the silliest and sometimes harmful things to solve problems. the general principles will be the same, though.
    .
    .
    (and that, class, is the end of the lecture stating the obvious)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  120. Muff Potter,

    Agreed. They absolutely would think the same is true of those who disagree. I have encountered that personally. We absolutely need to remain civil. We should use wisdom in feeling out whether people are open to true dialogue. If someone shows they are not open to that its best to keep waking rather than cause a blow up. I will say though that just because someone isn’t open doesn’t mean I would lose my own convictions nor would I demand them to abandon theirs. Everyone has a journey they are on in making sense of this world and what it means to be human and if there is a God and that needs to be respected.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  121. Max,

    They do not need to submit to me because I am “obviously” not a Christian, OR a very carnel/weak/liberal Christain BECAUSE I do not believe in the errancy of scripture! It actually makes some “sense” from their World View….. I am actually doing “the devils” work by undermining the authority of scripture, so attacking me personally is fair game.
    That is how I view JMAC and the “boys” that laughed/supported him in the video Dee posted. JMAC and “the boys” are defending the “gospel” fror attacks from satan..

    I am not making this stuff up… I have experienced just what I outlined above first hand, many times, both over 40 years ago, and more recently..

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  122. Shadowfax,

    I see it that way too.

    It’s a very human thing to want others to agree with the way we as individuals see things and to persuade them to adopt our views too.

    And if not? So? So what?

    I have oceans of respect for Pastor Wade Burleson even though we are parsecs apart on political and even some theological issues.

    I couldn’t care less what his politics are and who he voted for, he’s a kind and good man, and I enjoy reading his blog posts, and the common ground we do have.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  123. Off topic: prayers please for those affected by the Kincade fire in Sonoma , California and for the smoke that will be blanketing the Bay Area affecting those with respiratory issues. My 21 year old grandson, Brandon, a brand new graduate and fire intern has been recruited for 2 weeks to fight the fire. If the smoke gets really bad I will be heading for Chicago to hang out with grandkids.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  124. Wild Honey,

    Hi, Wild Honey.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. i wanted to make sure i acknowledged it.
    ————-

    “what are the non-negotiables?”

    you said: “Jesus. I mean, I admit, I get nervous when someone starts messing around with one of the Biblical canons recognized by the three main branches (Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Protestant), but Jesus would be my short answer.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    concerning Jesus, what are the non-negotiables?

    –what about differences of opinion on his humanity versus his deity?

    –difference of opinion on the meaning of things he said?

    –differences of opinion on things he did and their significance?

    –differences of opinion on atonement theories?

    how would one mess around with one of the biblical canons?

    (i’m sure i’m wearing you out)
    —————

    “a similar question – what is the dividing line between christian and unbiblical?

    you said, “I’m not sure I understand this question, sorry. Are you asking if I think someone can be both Christian and unbiblical at the same time? Probably. Paul admonished Peter in Galations 2 for trying to make Gentiles follow Jewish traditions, but I don’t see Paul telling Peter that he’s not a believer because of that.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i like your answer.

    …all the grave, grave accusations in christian culture of “that’s not biblical”.

    christians destroy other christians over “unbiblical”.

    –getting them fired,
    blackballing them,
    celebrity powerbrokers making ominous threats to a fellow christian that they will destroy their career,
    throwing explosives at their house,
    destroying one’s professional reputation,
    destroying one’s personal reputation,
    destroying one’s social life,
    insinuations rumours and buzz that people should be fearful of person X,
    shunning,
    ostracizing,
    taking it out on their children,
    malicious passive aggression galore for which there is always plausible deniability…

    …ENOUGH!

    i swear, christians are the most petty, most childish, nastiest people on earth at times.

    in light of the fact that for every accusation of ‘unbiblical’ there is an equal and opposite affirmation of “biblical”…

    what do we actually think is going to happen to someone deemed ‘unbiblical’?

    they’re going to hell? no, they’re not going to hell?

    i guess that leaves things like… they’ll break out in a purple and green pox? or the sky will fall, but only on them?

    the fear tactics loaded with empty ominous threats employed by christians are pathetic.

    it’s just like ‘going on a snipe hunt’.

    like, that night on a youth group camping trip when the entire group was either cowering in their tents or valiantly trudging through the woods hunting the terrifying and dangerous ‘snipe’ that was out to get us.

    (…all while a youth leader relaxed by the fire with his hot drink, smiling and snickering in satisfaction at what he started)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  125. Paul K,

    “I don’t think anyone appreciates a blanket statement like, “You’re wrong. Let me explain.” That’s how MacArthur might address you.”
    +++++++++++++

    the substance behind MacArthur’s statements is purity of ideology. that is his context.

    here is my context:

    an entire lifetime in church, experiencing and observing christian girls and women sidelined,
    -ignored,
    -ridiculed,
    -treated as invisible,
    -either ogled or denied all eye contact whatsoever,
    -viewed with suspicion,
    -viewed as an adulteress waiting to happen,
    -required to look her best yet it is held against her as a temptress
    -required to give up her dreams and desires and potential so that men can pursue their dreams and desires and potential,
    -treated like a slave, worthy of fetching coffee and making copies
    -treated like children who have to be supervised
    -told that they must submit to their husbands if not men in general with the unspoken threat that they are not christians thus in danger of hellfire if they do not
    -beaten by their husbands
    -told they must remain in such marriages
    -usually framed as the one at fault
    -subject to double standards – one set of rules and restrictions for her, no rules and restrictions for him
    -not allowed a voice
    -not allowed a seat at the table
    -doing all the work while the men do little to nothing yet get all the credit
    -being an ornament
    -forced in the background
    -having no practical worth or identity except as how her relationship to a man defines her
    -denied participation in her own life

    …this is a partial list.

    everything on this list is the result of pat answers offered up by pastors and those who emulate them, whether spoken or published in media, loosely based on some recently produced doctrine which they heard about at some conference or read about on some blog.

    these pastors are oblivious to how their glib remarks impact the lives of human beings. they are egregiously irresponsible.

    this is the substance behind my statement to said pastors, “You are wrong. Let me explain.”

    and they are morally obliged to receive it with the sobriety it deserves, with eye contact.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  126. TS00,

    let’s make a roulade cake, all rolled up with buttercream (which i’m watching on The Great British Baking Show right now), and we could enjoy it with with the world’s best coffee and a candle and leisurely conversation.

    (…chocolate and more chocolate? some toasted cashews and bittersweet chocolate bits? vanilla and merinque buttercream? some crushed pistachios and brittle bits?)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  127. Jeffrey Chalmers,

    IOW, believing in ‘the inerrancy of scripture’ is almost always code for ‘believing what we say scripture means’.

    If one has a lick of sense they see how meaningless ‘inerrancy’ truly is, for it ignores the reality that it is the process of interpretation that leads to most confusion, disagreement and, potentially, error.

    Even if we had the original manuscripts in pristine condition – which we do not – we still would have to translate and interpret them, which leaves enormous opportunity for error or mischief.

    The Pharisees knew The Law forwards and backwards, and taught it well. Yet extreme head knowledge did not lead to them properly applying what they knew. Jesus recommended that his followers ‘Do what they [the religious rulers] say, not what they do’. This still often applies, and today’s ‘rulers’ have a lot more material to ‘mess with’.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  128. WildHoney: The pastor of our (now former) church was doing a series through Acts about 3 years ago. When describing Lydia and her business and household, he made the aside comment that her household was all women. Groundskeepers, teamsters, steward/butler, etc. Yup, had to have all been women.

    HA! What nonsense.

    What they usually say is that there are ‘offices’ and just regular people, so Phoebe was just a ‘servant’ not a ‘deacon’ OFFICER because…reasons. I don’t speak greek, but my understanding is that deacon means servant and presbyter is basically older person so they just translate as suits them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  129. Cindy Meyers: I believe there are women operating outside of the boundaries God has set for them (us!) and it is hurting the core message and mission of the church.

    How could limiting to their literal houses possibly ‘hurt the core mission of the church’. Listen to yourself.

    I feel like people who say this stuff are very busy with husbands and kids and don’t actually want to do anything else or feel any call. Your link was ONE passage in Timothy, basically, to limit women for all time, and a bunch of dismissing what the numerous women involved in early christian ministry were doing. Paul commended them. Why can’t we? Why can’t we follow in their footsteps, but with even more freedom because we’ve won rights we didn’t have 2k years go and that’s a good thing.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  130. elastigirl: concerning Jesus, what are the non-negotiables?
    –what about differences of opinion on his humanity versus his deity?

    Personally, I ascribe to Jesus being fully human and fully God at the same time. I honestly can’t explain how it would work out in the nitty gritty of details, but there’s a lot about physics and biology I can’t explain, either. I’d be interested in hearing reasons why he might be only human or only God, and how someone responds to the counter-arguments, but so far this is what I’m sticking to. I would wonder, if he’s not God, is he really someone you’d want to devote your life to? But it’s his humanness that makes him, well, human and approachable and relation-able. In my opinion.

    elastigirl: –difference of opinion on the meaning of things he said?

    –differences of opinion on things he did and their significance?

    I think there is a lot of room for (gracious) differences of opinion here. Even his own followers back in the day didn’t always understand what he was trying to communicate. Sitting here 2,000 years in the future, I think there’s even more room for confusion. I read “Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus” a few years ago, trying to flesh out the context of Jesus as a Jew specifically in the 1st century, and it was fascinating. Gave me a new perspective on a lot of things.

    elastigirl: –differences of opinion on atonement theories?

    I don’t even pretend to have an educated opinion on this. (Nor do I particularly care about the different opinions. Am I allowed to say that out loud?)

    elastigirl: how would one mess around with one of the biblical canons?

    I would be skeptical of any “lost Gospel” that suddenly came to light. I am wary of “special revelations” that don’t line up with what has already been written. In Biblical translation, I think going from ancient Hebrew and 1st century Greek to modern-day English is more of an art and less of a science, BUT I am also suspicious of intentional translation bias.

    elastigirl: i swear, christians are the most petty, most childish, nastiest people on earth at times.

    I know. I’m sorry.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  131. PaulK: All that said, there’s a case to made for exclusive male leadership (pastors, elders) in the church as well. Extend grace to those who find this case convincing

    I would, except they all seem to be pretty terrible and as a woman it’s pretty hard to interact with people who think less of you and treat you poorly without deciding it’s not worth it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  132. Max: MacArthur’s mocking of Moore at a “Truth Matters” conference, combined with the echoes of other men on the panel, is disturbing and grievous.

    Christine Blasey Ford: “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter.”

    The mocking is recognizable to many. It’s not ok. It was never ok.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  133. CindyMeyers: I’m sure my post of this article will generate some lively comments but I have to say that I agree, largely, with its perspective.

    Really????

    “I can understand why some might not like how he approached it, the uproarious laughter from many among the crowd, and how Beth Moore was mocked in the process. However, I earnestly believe more people are needlessly offended in what I would dub the “perpetual outrage machine” than anything else.”

    THIS IS ABSURD. The author knows they were mocking beth but he’s using this as an example of ‘needlessly offended’ people??? How can you take this seriously? There is gaslighting in the first paragraph.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  134. Lea,

    The tragedy is that a large part of christendom has been hoodwinked by so-called ‘leaders’ into accepting whatever they are told scripture means. To challenge it is not only to risk discipline and excommunication for rebelling against your God-given authority, but eternal punishment in the lake of fire for rejecting ‘the Word of God’.

    I am not joking. This is a huge, huge issue, and it has countless well-meaning, intelligent people locked into the manipulating control of institutions whose agenda can vary greatly, depending upon their leadership.

    Authoritative teaching was an easy sell in earlier days, when people often did not have the education or means to study God’s Word for themselves, and relied upon the teaching of the educated few. But it soon turned into authoritarian tyranny, as creeds, traditions and doctrines were set forth and the masses were expected to submit to them unquestioningly.

    If one has done any study of church history they know that this led to the merciless slaughter of innocent men, women and children, simply for dissenting from the appropriate view of baptism or the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The slaughter of personhood never ended.

    As long as authoritarian hierarchy reigns within the church, spiritual abuse inevitably takes place. There is no genuine place for the leading of the Spirit of God in an institution that demands membership covenants and the authority to expel or discipline based on beliefs. It is one thing to banish someone for murder – quite another for having the ‘wrong’ view on homosexuality.

    My former pastor stated outright that when he stood in the pulpit he ‘speaks for God’. When one member, certain he didn’t mean what it sounded like, was stunned to be told that any dissent from the pastor’s public teaching was rebellion against God. Unfortunately, I did not hear of this until years after it happened, and was lied to about why half the church members up and left.

    Most pastors will not be so forthright. They will encourage members to read and study for themselves. They will claim to welcome input and correction. Few mean what they say; very few.

    These same pastors will then complain that the people expect them to do it all. With one breath they establish a despotic authority, and with the next they want to know why everyone looks to them for every little thing. What most churchianity creates is an unthinking, submissive herd of sheep who believe whatever they are taught, do whatever they are told (like tithe), wear what they are expected and most of all, surrender all rights and ability to seek or verify the truth about anything on their own.

    As irritating as these close-minded ideologues are, they are even more to be pitied. They do not know they have been essentially brainwashed into complete slavery. They do not know that they have replaced the guidance of the Holy Spirit with the teachings, traditions and expectations of mere men. They honestly believe they are following God and embracing his ‘Word’ when they obediently adopt whatever teaching is presented.

    This kind of mind control is what every despot longs for, and we have seen it in action far too many times. The political despot uses the same authoritarian, emotionally manipulative fear tactics and enticements as most false religious leaders. People are drawn willingly into his ‘cult of personality’ and endless promises until it is too late to escape.

    It initially does not even require force, as people invest so much into a belief system and the community built around it that they voluntarily submit, even when abuses pile up around them. The one thing more dangerous than surrendering your weapons to a tyrant is surrendering your mind.

    The endless exposure of sexual abuse within the church is simply the natural extension of spiritual abuse. When church leaders become mini-gods to their followers, their demands will often exceed morally acceptable boundaries and turn into feeding their narcissistic desires. Abuse by church leaders always begins as spiritual abuse, as it originates with an inappropriate definition and use of ‘authority’.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  135. TS00,

    The Pharisees knew The Law forwards and backwards, and taught it well. Yet extreme head knowledge did not lead to them properly applying what they knew. Jesus recommended that his followers ‘Do what they [the religious rulers] say, not what they do’. This still often applies, and today’s ‘rulers’ have a lot more material to ‘mess with’.

    Praise God the Spirit of Truth is present!

    A meditation on Proverbs 26:4-5 would do both sides of this debate some good.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  136. elastigirl:
    this is the substance behind my statement to said pastors, “You are wrong. Let me explain.”

    I hear you elastigirl. I add the context of switching to the terrible ‘liberals’ as an adult and it being a huge breath of fresh air when I didn’t even know I was breathing in exhaust before. I’m not going back.

    Not for nothing, but more context is men like to not hear women when they soften their responses. Sometimes a direct ‘you are wrong’ is the only thing they’ll hear. How they respond is up to them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  137. The still of this video reveals not a single woman, nary a ponytail or man bun, not a sign of a tattoo or brightly tinted hair. These men are the sort who conform and submit to authority, and have been well-trained to mock and scorn those who claim to be ‘victims’ or ‘oppressed’. One is unlikely to find many wisps of genuine love or compassion in this crowd – it is all about authority and control.

    We must stop and ask ourselves how countless men, the bastions of their communities and churches, were once persuaded that it was perfectly acceptable to ‘own’ other men. Even today we are convinced how necessary and just we are taking up weapons against others who we have been persuaded are our enemies, often with very little real understanding of the facts. What a trivial thing it is, in comparison, to kindly oppress an entire gender in the name of ‘scriptural authority’.

    ‘Just doin’ what God commands’, said the perpetrators of countless crimes throughout history. Mass mind control and manipulation is very real and very powerful, the most clever tool of our Enemy.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  138. elastigirl:
    Lea,

    “Not for nothing, but more context is men like to not hear women when they soften their responses.
    +++++++++++++

    maybe they were chewing gum…

    My husband, when I was singled out by (male) leadership for “aggressive” [direct quote] feedback: “I don’t get it. I’ve said the same thing to [name redacted] that was a lot more direct.”

    Me: Wordless expression of “Welcome to my world.”

    [I think he gets it, now.]

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  139. TS00: One is unlikely to find many wisps of genuine love or compassion in this crowd – it is all about authority and control.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  140. Muff Potter: Religion can be as divisive and volatile as discussions of secular politics.

    These days, is there any difference?
    They’re conjoined twins.

    In Judaism, different Rabbinical schools of thought argue vigorously over this, that, and the other, and they welcome it as a challenge to thinking.

    Source of the proverb “Two Jews, Three Opinions.”

    But at day’s end, they never lose sight of the fact that they’re still Jews and bound together by more things in common, than stuff that divides.

    There’s much that Christianity can learn from the Jews.

    Don’t forget Respect for Learning, Respect for the Arts, a Sense of Humor, and emphasis on Living Your Life in the Here and Now instead of in the Hereafter.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  141. Max: Muff Potter: There’s much that Christianity can learn from the Jews.

    Amen, particularly Messianic Jews.

    Depends on the “Messianic Jew”, Max.

    Out here (Muff Potter Country), all too often “Messianic Jews” are Calvary Chapel with Hebrew Buzzwords (“HAVE YOU ACCEPTED YESHUA HA-MOSHIYAH AS YOUR PERSONAL ADONAI AND SAVIOR?????”) Nothing Jewish about their attitudes or behavior at all (see above). Just Fundagelicals with a Jewish coat of paint.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  142. Benn: (the above is not for Max, I know what his response will be, the spirit will guide us in all truth, got it Max)

    I can recite a couple horror stories of how “the Spirit DID guide us”. A lot of somebodies along the telephone line have gotten their signals crossed, BAD.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  143. elastigirl: i know this to be true because true artistic inspiration does not exist in christian culture — all we are treated to are plastic products run through the party-line-editing mill many times over, so sanitized they harken back to the dentist office, or trips to the hospital. imagination is suspect and not to be trusted. only the grid of biblical rules matters.

    As a compulsive creative who got That Treatment, don’t get me started on that.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  144. Benn: I think Jmac was using the old technique of you can get away with a dig, IF you say it in a joking manner ( imho)

    This was not simply a “dig”, Benn. He was cruel, demeaning and openly disdainful — and not just of Beth Moore. MacArthur had quite a few people and groups of people in his sights, whom he considered unworthy of anything resembling respect.

    And even if your interpretation is correct, the notion that this attitude of MacArthur’s can be excused by “saying it in a joking manner” does not build my confidence in him at all. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote through his Screwtape character:

    “Cruelty is shameful — unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of this fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  145. ServingKidsInJapan: Benn: I think Jmac was using the old technique of you can get away with a dig, IF you say it in a joking manner ( imho)

    This was not simply a “dig”, Benn.

    Right but also? ‘I’m just joking’ is not a good excuse to be terrible, just because people use it that way.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  146. Lea: Sometimes a direct ‘you are wrong’ is the only thing they’ll hear. How they respond is up to them.

    Yes. This true.
    Saying, “Stop, you are hurting me,” or “You are hurting people,” won’t be taken seriously. Especially from a woman. Because women are considered to be too sensitive (of their own pain) or have misplaced or overabundance of empathy for others. They aren’t considered objective enough.

    “You are wrong and I will show you how,” is better because it is not laced with feelings and is more difficult to dismiss as emotionalism. Even still, it most likely won’t be taken seriously.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  147. elastigirl,

    Thanks for explaining your context. Yes, in your case people need to be confronted with, “You’re wrong.”

    I’m sorry you had to go through that. Was this at a church influenced by MacArthur? Or was there another influential leader the group adhered to? I’m starting to understand that sinful mistreatment of women is much, much bigger than any one influential person, but I’m interested to know who the most obvious influence was.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  148. elastigirl,

    “everything on this list is the result of pat answers offered up by pastors and those who emulate them, whether spoken or published in media, loosely based on some recently produced doctrine which they heard about at some conference or read about on some blog.”

    Ugh – I’m truly sorry you had to go through that. Thanks for explaining your context – you have every right to tell them they were wrong.

    I understand that sinful mistreatment of women in the church is much bigger than any one influential person, but was your church influenced by MacArthur? If not, is there another influential leader outside that church that contributed?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  149. Paul K,

    “We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling.”
    +++++++++++++++

    thank you for the interaction and the previous reply (which i’ll get to).

    on this one, since both views are credible, it seems to me that the deciding factors in determining which is the “stronger and more compelling” position would ethically need to be is it destructive? is it cruel? is it fair and just?

    let me put it this way: do you (generic you) really want to be biblical if it means callous and inhumane? (to put it mildly)

    if it turns you into an autocrat with a sweet smile? if it requires treatment of others that you would not want for yourself?

    is your (generic) faith in an ideology, where the evidence of things unseen means words and concepts can be redefined so your conscience isn’t too bothered? where oppression is redefined as love?

    does your (generic) conscience even work anymore?

    or is that another thing that we just can’t trust? one of those sinking sand things.

    so, the thesis question (assuming one’s conscience is functioning on all cylinders): why be biblical when your conscience won’t permit it?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  150. elastigirl: let me put it this way: do you (generic you) really want to be biblical if it means callous and inhumane? (to put it mildly)

    Isn’t this the problem with the church at Ephesus addressed in the book of Revelation?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  151. Here’s questioner Todd Friel with MacArthur at the Herb’s Coffee House get-together last year in Dallas where the manifesto against social justice was cooked up:

    https://twitter.com/toddfriel/status/1010189424364343296

    Yes, that’s Tom Ascol on the patio with them, also in the background is featured manifesto signer Scott Aniol.

    Snapshot of MacArthur and Phil Johnson inside Herb’s House:

    https://twitter.com/Phil_Johnson_/status/1009139036118757377

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  152. elastigirl,

    I don’t necessarily think that an ecclesiology that includes male leadership in the church (pastors, elders, deacons) HAS to be destructive, cruel, unfair or unjust. At the same time, I think I understand how a person who views leadership in the church as open to both men and women would view the a doctrine of exclusive male leadership as, at best, sinfully restrictive of women and, at worst, an outworking of patriarchy at its most vile.

    At the moment, I am a member of a church that holds to exclusive male leadership. I am not entirely sure what I think about this issue, but I haven’t witnessed men being condescending of women or other forms of mistreatment. I understand if simply the act of restricting women to leaders of women’s or children’s ministry is seen by some as mistreatment. There have been many instances where female-led events far exceed male-led events in organization and overall excellence, and I do wonder if, because of our ecclesiology, we are woefully neglecting the abilities and passion of the women in our church.

    What I think is really at the heart of the problem is what Rachel Miller Green identifies in “Beyond Authority and Submission”: looking at male-female relationships exclusively through the lens of authority and submission or “who’s in charge”. She believes the complementarian movement is an overreaction to 70s feminism and that it adopted, as dogma, unbiblical ideas from Greek and Victorian societies concerning men and women. She makes a strong case while at the same time affirming male leadership in the church.

    What is also even more troubling is, as I’ve mentioned, the environment created by leaders like MacArthur that doesn’t even allow for examination concerning these issues. This creates cloistered, isolated churches (with little to no real relationship with the leaders that influence them) where like-mindedness is far, far more important than Christian virtues like love and gentleness.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  153. Serving Kids In Japan: This was not simply a “dig”, Benn. He was cruel, demeaning and openly disdainful — and not just of Beth Moore. MacArthur had quite a few people and groups of people in his sights, whom he considered unworthy of anything resembling respect.

    Agreed. MacArthur knows exactly what he is doing when he says things like that. He is mean-spirited when it comes to his views about the role of women in ministry … nothing Christlike about his words and behavior in this regard.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  154. Paul K,

    “I don’t necessarily think that an ecclesiology that includes male leadership in the church (pastors, elders, deacons) HAS to be destructive, cruel, unfair or unjust. …

    At the moment, I am a member of a church that holds to exclusive male leadership. I am not entirely sure what I think about this issue, but I haven’t witnessed men being condescending of women or other forms of mistreatment.”
    +++++++++++++

    a cursory response, here.

    i admire your church for apparently being thoughtful in interpersonal interactions. although i can say that condescension, intentional or unintentional, can be extremely subtle. the radar of the one being condescended to definitely picks it up (with some sting).

    as far as cruel, etc. goes, let’s tune out images of clubs, chains, emotional abuse, emperor palpatine, president snow (hunger games)…

    a story. as a teen ager i bought some magazines that i thought were pretty fun. ‘Teen, Bride (hoping and dreaming),… they were the main magazines on offer.

    all the models resembled me (in coloring, at least). northern european.

    not one teen-ager or young woman had brown skin. Not one was of any other race.

    thinking back further, not one Disney princess in all the ubiquitous Disney movies was anything other than northern european.

    at Toys R Us, not one baby doll or barbie doll was anything other than northern european.

    i imagine what little girls and teens of dark complexion might have felt, from demographics with a history of being on the receiving end of prejudice. and all i can do is imagine how deeply hurtful. like chewing glass… not valid enough to be anything but invisible.

    actually, what aids in my ability to imagine is looking at just about any church website in America.

    a full frontal assault of large-scale photos of men’s faces. (likely men with good hearts, who would never dream of being cruel)

    humans who look like me are excluded. not valid enough, not desireable enough, not wanted enough….. not human being enough.

    it stings, let me tell you.

    it is a big deal to be excluded from the visual and narrative representation of something which in theory is intended for everyone.

    especially…..especially the kingdom of God.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  155. Master’s University & Seminary presidential search underway, they want ‘winsome’

    https://www.masters.edu/uploads/PresidentialSearch.pdf

    PRESIDENTIAL JOB DESCRIPTION

    “The Master’s University and Seminary has [been for] the last 35 years under the leadership of world-renowned Bible teacher, Dr. John F. MacArthur. The Master’s University and Seminary now seeks a new president…”

    “The next president…will be the face of the institution to both the local community and the broader evangelical world. He must be an articulate and winsome spokesman for the school.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  156. Cindy Meyers: There’s no question John Macarthur’s remarks and tone were not the way Jesus would’ve handled the, intentionally, provocative question, but the belief behind the response is Biblical and here’s a clear explanation… https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

    Still..if I was John right now, my conscience/heart/soul/mind would bother me until I went to Beth and asked forgiveness for that glaring, hurtful and, now, viral comment!

    Actually, there are scholars who definitely disagree with this teaching that women cannot be pastors. I’d just remind people that pastor just means shepherd, and women were shepherds in Old Testament times. Rebekah watered the camels and Rachel was a shepherd. Being a shepherd wasn’t an easy task, you had to protect your sheep, your family’s property, from predators. And, then, of course, the fact that Jesus called Mary Magdalene to announce the Resurrection I think is a strong argument against the notion that women cannot preach. I am sure Jesus could have worked it out that a man could have wandered along and been the first witness to the resurrection.

    That said, MacArthur’s command to “GO HOME” struck a chill in my heart. It’s an existential threat to my very existence. It’s not merely about women preachers, it’s about women stepping outside the roles that men like MacArthur expect women to take. I can be for sure that he’d look very disapproving on my life choices, as I’m single, never married, childless and middle-aged. I don’t have a man over me. I support myself. And I am one of MILLIONS of women just in this country who do the same thing. When MacArthur said “GO HOME,” all I could think was that if he got his way, he’d push women out of public life, regular jobs, anything where a woman might have even a tiny bit of authority over a man.

    So it wasn’t merely that MacArthur was rude to Beth Moore. He was telling all of us how he really does feel about women, and it’s disgusting.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  157. Oracle at Delphi: Hey, thanks for stating your feelings forthrightly about your belief about the scriptures.

    I believe in God.

    I think the biblical texts are human attempts to explain God.

    If I wanted a book that came straight from heaven, I could believe in the Qur’an, which does have an origin story that indicates people believe it came straight from heaven. In fact, there are discussions among some Muslims about whether the Qur’an itself is as ever-existing as God, since it is literally God’s word.

    I can’t help but wonder (but have no proof and do not have the languages to even begin investigating this) whether somewhere along the way, as translations of the Qur’an began appearing in western Europe during the Reformation, if some of the beliefs about the inerrancy of the Bible somehow were borrowed from beliefs about the divine origin of the Qur’an. Again, this is huge speculation on my part; I’d need to know Latin and Arabic for starters to even look at this.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  158. Headless Unicorn Guy: Depends on the “Messianic Jew”, Max.

    Out here (Muff Potter Country), all too often “Messianic Jews” are Calvary Chapel with Hebrew Buzzwords (“HAVE YOU ACCEPTED YESHUA HA-MOSHIYAH AS YOUR PERSONAL ADONAI AND SAVIOR?????”) Nothing Jewish about their attitudes or behavior at all (see above). Just Fundagelicals with a Jewish coat of paint.

    My Jewish friends do not see Messianic Jews as Jews. They see them as Christians. I remember a friend of mine, otherwise very mild-mannered, come stark staring unglued at a Jew for Jesus passing out a tract that had the Kosher U symbol on it. Ron was *furious*. He saw it as appropriation of something Jewish to convert people. Thing about Ron is that he’d call himself an atheist, but he went to shul every Simchat Torah and danced with the Torah. (He went at other times too.)

    I think Jews have some right to be selective about who they’ll acknowledge as part of their tribe, particularly given how far too many Christians have persecuted Jews for centuries.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  159. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “Isn’t this the problem with the church at Ephesus addressed in the book of Revelation?”
    +++++++++++

    could be. i wonder what ‘removing your lampstand from its place’ means exactly. a metaphor for what… what would be the effects in the natural?

    (i see God speaking, doing,… and then things happen in the natural. sometimes it’s instant, sometimes there’s a delay, sometimes things materialize [or dematerialize and rematerialize] over time… but it had its ‘genesis’ with God speaking, doing something. sometimes we partner with God in the speaking & doing)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  160. Jerome: Master’s University & Seminary presidential search underway, they want ‘winsome’

    ‘Winsome’ … attractive or appealing in appearance

    “He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.” (Isaiah 53:2)

    Of course, they aren’t looking for Jesus … but it would be good to recruit someone with Christlikeness.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  161. Max: We need to remember that that the early Christians were being led by the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) and testing the spirits by the Spirit ‘before’ there was a Bible as we know it.But, we also need to know:

    The Word + The Spirit of Truth = Revealed Truth

    If we don’t seek and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to Truth, then we might find ourselves substituting man’s interpretation of truth for Truth … which is not Revealed Truth to us as individuals.While we can benefit from listening to anointed teachers/preachers (and I emphasize “anointed”), it is critical that every believer study the Scriptures relying on the Holy Spirit to teach them.

    max, I agree with you, now a question for you.
    as the spirit guides you (Max), will it ever guide you in a direction that is at odds with what the scripture says?
    and if you have a differing view on a particular thought ( spirit vs. scripture, I take it you go with what you feel the spirit is guiding you toward)?

    I read a lot of different thoughts on this blog, many I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who share their views.

    Seems to me the rub most always come back to how one views scripture

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  162. Paul K: At the moment, I am a member of a church that holds to exclusive male leadership. I am not entirely sure what I think about this issue, but I haven’t witnessed men being condescending of women or other forms of mistreatment.

    Respectfully, realize that you as a man are unlikely to see it.

    It’s there. I don’t think there is a church that restricts in such a way that doesn’t have this at some level. Even if it is the nicest possible version, ‘unjust, unfairness and simply disrespect for women, treating them as less? It’s there. It’s baked into the cake and you can’t get away unless you bake a new cake.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  163. Benn: as the spirit guides you (Max), will it ever guide you in a direction that is at odds with what the scripture says?

    Never. The Scripture is a repository of Truth; the Holy Spirit is ‘the’ teacher of that Truth. If I (or anyone) truly seeks the Holy Spirit to guide me to truth as I read Scripture, the Spirit will always lead me in the right direction. If I (or anyone) substitutes only a man’s interpretation of truth, you might be led down another road. That approach has sometimes caused me to run contrary to how another views the same Scripture, but I have to go with what is in my “knower” … what I know, I can’t un-know; what I see, I can’t un-see. Sometimes, I’ve had to un-learn what I thought I knew was truth as I became a more committed follower of Christ.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  164. Benn: Seems to me the rub most always come back to how one views scripture

    Yes, that is the rub. We simply must get out of the way if we are to hear God clearly. My view of Scripture must be superseded by His view of Scripture. “Religion” has done a fine job separating us from that connection. It’s about relationship, not religion. Jesus warned us that the teachings and traditions of men would get us off track.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  165. Max: Fascinating. Young essentially destroyed the doctrine of female subordination, clarifying how Scripture was distorted in various translations to build a case for submission which was not the intent of the original Greek. I’m sure MacArthur would call him a heretic.

    All the New-Calvinists call him a heretic, but his theology is actually quite old and orthodox. A few years ago, based on a tip from a TWW comment, I read Katherine Bushnell’s book “God’s Word to Women.” Not long after that I read Paul Young’s “Eve” and was surprised by the overlap – wondering if his intent was to put her theology into an allegorical novel. Last year I had an opportunity to talk with Paul Young face-to-face, and he confirmed my suspicion. I recommend reading both books.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  166. Wild Honey,

    –differences of opinion on atonement theories?

    Wild Honey: “I don’t even pretend to have an educated opinion on this. (Nor do I particularly care about the different opinions. Am I allowed to say that out loud?)”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    of course you are.

    and if fellow christians don a startled look, start slowly walking backwards, making the sign of the cross with 2 fingers to protect themselves from your scariness, just blow a quick little puff of air to flatten them, then turn and casually walk away in peace of mind.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  167. Paul K,

    “So I went to our church website homepage. One picture of a white women; ten pictures of white men. Point taken!”
    ++++++++++++++

    better packaging is a start. but that’s only packaging. will it be a false & dishonest veneer?

    a revolution is needed. a complete overhaul, a dismantling.

    influence…. it’s like cold germs.

    John MacArthur wipes his nose with his bare hand then starts touching things. Sneezes a big on into the air, his cold germs are aerated everywhere. people touch and breath his influence and bring it back to their locales.

    as i see it, the primary origins of pathogenic misogyny influence are John MacArthur, John Piper, CBMW, TGC, T4G, and Southern Baptist publishing. They’re spraying the world, leaking into water supplies, distributing everywhere, 24 hours a day.

    (mind you, misogyny hides in gospel-sounding rhetoric and sweet smiley faces, and plays out in unintended consequences. well, maybe a few are very much intended.)

    even my former AOG church was not immune. completely distorted and reversed their historic championing of women. it was so deeply disappointing and hurtful.

    my direct experience as well as observation of that of my female peers in a lifetime of church is death by a thousand cuts.

    well, ‘i’m not dead yet’. but it’s not ‘merely a flesh wound’, either.

    it’s my life. with the audacity to speak for half the world, it’s our lives. i want more for my life, and that of my female peers.

    can’t imagine God thinks being required to run the gauntlet of paper cuts (for no good reason at all, other than the ideology says so) is anything but a wretched idea. so i choose not to.

    i want the freedom to exercise the right to be fully human — not human under wraps. not ability, skill, expertise under wraps. not potential and dreams under wraps.

    i don’t want the last day of my life to be one of “i could have – but they said i couldn’t.
    i didn’t – because it would have rocked the boat.”

    you’ve been very gracious, paul k. thank you for the kind, honest, and sincere interaction.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  168. elastigirl: John MacArthur wipes his nose with his bare hand then starts touching things. Sneezes a big on into the air, his cold germs are aerated everywhere. people touch and breath his influence and bring it back to their locales.

    His type (in Medieval times) used to blame the Jews for poisoned wells when it was their own repudiation of Roman water and sewage engineering that was the cause.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  169. Articles like this, sadly and pathetically, acting under the guise of “discernment” are in blatant, outright disobedience towards Scripture and you know it. I had a semblance of respect for Biblical authority from articles and postings this website had but this sinks to a new bottom and shame on you for that. Heres a couple simple legitimate questions for all of you “sexist” and “misogynist” labelers out there. Remind me of one book in Scripture that was written by a woman? How about priests in the Old Testament? What about apostles? Oh…none? What about the description of what pastors need to be in 1st and 2nd Timothy as well as Titus? All of your garbage left wing, cultural Marxist labels, mutilating or complete ignoring of Scripture mean literally nothing. All your showing if your ignorance and outright disobedience for Scripture (I wont even get into the fact Beth Moore is an open heretic and eisegets Scripture instead of exegeting it but I doubt her or you know what that even is).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  170. Lea,

    I think you’re right – I wouldn’t be able to see it as clearly since it doesn’t affect me as explicitly as it affects the women in the church.

    I think it’s going to be almost impossible to completely wipe out the doctrine of exclusive male leadership in the church, so how do churches who hold to that doctrine still conduct their affairs in the most God-honoring way possible? It’s similar, in some ways, to holding to traditional views on marriage being between one and one woman. How does a church hold to that while at the same time being a place that a gay married couple could walk into and not feel immediately as if they’re the victim of a hate crime?

    I still don’t know what I think about exclusive male leadership, but there’s got to be a way forward where each side doesn’t see the eradication of the other as the only solution.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  171. Mark Christian,

    Wowza! You demon start that your learned well at the feet of John MacArthur. Obviously, you have not searched the Scripture diligently. Junia was an apostle. God chose to be incarnate through the body of a woman and chose to be raised by her for years and years. Mary was saved by her Son and yet taught and raised her Son.

    Why don’t you read this post. It was written by a man and I hope that assuages your sensibilities, in which he discusses MacArthur’s ridiculous statement.
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2019/10/21/go-home-or-at-home/

    Finally, MacArthur’s true nature is finally being outed. he has hidden behind his bulldogs for years. It worked 20 years ago. No more.

    One day you will be called on your words here. You need to go home and repent and learn how to share the faith. You do so horribly. This comes across as a rant by a man who is upset his chosen celeb screwed up. You stamp your feet like a third grade bully who will whimper when confronted.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  172. Mark Christian: All of your garbage left wing, cultural Marxist labels, mutilating or complete ignoring of Scripture mean literally nothing.

    This is probably the most humble, Christlike, and edifying expression I have ever seen on TWW.

    Or not…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  173. Mark Christian,

    You do not demonstrate the love of Christ whatsoever. You also do not know my politics which I do not discuss on this blog. But, my dad’s family fled Russia to come to the freedom in America. Marxism is obviously not something I respect. You are ridiculous.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  174. Mark Christian: shame on you

    Sorry. Your shaming means nothing to me.

    I don’t ignore scripture. But if I did, I still wouldn’t be under near the amount of judgement that MacArthur is who actively adds to scripture and promotes warped translations that prop up his particular prejudices.

    You and your corrupt mentors ought to read up gender bias in the Bible.

    https://www.amazon.com/Valiant-Virtuous-Gender-Bible-Translation/dp/1532676638

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  175. Brian,

    This link uses the ESV translation to answer the question. The ESV is a translation that is known for huge gender bias and is promoted by CBMW and other groups that strongly believe that women can’t be leaders or pastors. So it is not an objective version for answering this question.

    Take a look at this verse in the NASB.

    Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A7&version=NASB

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  176. Mark ChristianRemind me of one book in Scripture that was written by a woman?

    Perhaps not an entire book, but Meriam, Hulda, Deborah, and Mary the mother of Jesus all “wrote” prophecy or psalms of praise and thanksgiving that made it into Scripture. And authorship for the book of Hebrews is openly debated; one contender (albeit minor) is Priscilla.

    As for this being “proof” of anything… please take a step back and look at authorship in general of that time period. Are you aware of ANY female authors of ANYTHING whose work has survived? Even Sappho’s work only survives in fragments. I think this is simply proof that patriarchy has dominated Western and Middle Eastern civilization for a really long time.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  177. dee: Marxism is obviously not something I respect. You are ridiculous.

    They make huge assumptions about us don’t they. If we disagree it must be because we’re feminist or marxist, or humanist, or our parents were divorced when we were young and a whole host of other things. It couldn’t possibly be because we have been observing, studying, learning, etc. And it definitely can’t be because we might be right on onto something. So they slander. And their slander is so far out in left field you can’t take them seriously.

    Here is my response to someone who assumed a bunch of wrong things about me because I dared to call Voddie Baucham sexist.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2019/06/ship-wreck-really-loves-voddie.html

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  178. Brian,

    The article mentions that Junia is not mentioned in extrabiblical writings of her time. Just to provide some context for this statement, neither is Mary Magdalene. Nor Priscilla. Nor Lydia. Nor Barnabas. Nor Luke. Nor most of the twelve disciples. So… this statement doesn’t really mean much, other than that we don’t know anything about Junia other than the one sentance that made it into scripture.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  179. LOL: I found an old newspaper account of MacArthur’s minister grandfather and his congregation sitting under the teaching of prominent lady evangelist Christabel Pankhurst!

    from articles the La Habra (Calif.) Star, February 1932:

    “East Whittier Friends Church…Miss Christabel Pankhurst to be at our Sunday evening service…Since her conversion she has devoted her time to the spread of the gospel throughout the world. She is a dynamic speaker and one you cannot afford to miss hearing.”

    “In spite of inclement weather, a full house greeted the speaker Miss Christabel Pankhurst, LLB, of London, England, at the East Whittier Friends church Sunday evening. Rev. Harry MacArthur, pastor of the Pico community church, was present, with a large number of his congregation; also, several from Whittier and other places”

    https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/john-macarthur-and-beth-moore.113784/page-7#post-2540203

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  180. Lily Rose:
    Jerome,

    Christabel Pankhurst was active in the women’s suffrage movement too. MacArthur’s grandfather and his congregation were listening to an early feminist and a female evangelist!

    So MacArthur is a ManaGawd Unto the Third Generation?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  181. Pingback: Why Most Evangelical Blogs | Chamblee54

  182. Pingback: Go Home? | Mixed Ministries

  183. I am not a fan of MacArthur. I believe, however, that he is right on the order of things. It is very clear. We must not confuse Biblical theological truths with our American right to do as we choose. I think the church as a whole has just begun to understand the order of things and it will continue to be a struggle for as long as man fights against it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  184. Wild Honey: Priests calls had to be Levite, middle aged, and free from any physical disability. By this standard, any 75 year old with eyeglasses who’s not Hebrew is disqualified.

    Good point.

    Even the most ardent believer in Sola Scriptura has a work around for this.

    Can you imagine how quickly even the most devoutly fundamantalist church would empty out if they tried to enforce 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9 as absolute New Testament commands with no work arounds?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  185. elastigirl,

    Why do you think these reformed-baptist-evangelicals became so influential? The church I go to rarely, if ever, ventures outside of the influence of these organizations and people when choosing books for small group study, sermon prep, etc… It’s a large conglomeration, so there’s no shortage of materials. How did this branch of Christianity gain so much popularity?

    I wonder what the best way would be to include and value women and the abilities different woman bring to the table even in a church that will probably never change their stance on exclusive male leadership?

    I wonder if the need to exercise control over a congregation fuels doctrines like exclusive male leadership? Doing so automatically excludes half the church population from even a chance at influence. The rest can be excluded through various other doctrines. That’s painting a pretty bleak and hyperbolic picture but there may be some truth to it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  186. Jerome,

    That’s such an interesting piece of history to help give the present situation some context! Even though some have argued that there’s a difference between a female speaker and a female pastor, I can’t imagine John M. sitting and listening to Beth’s Moore speak because she’s a “female speaker” and not a “female pastor”. I wonder what John’s grandfather(?) might say to him today regarding John’s view of Moore? How does John view Joni and what’s the difference between Joni and Beth Moore?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  187. Muff Potter,

    There are many examples of how fundamentalist either ignore, or have pretty sketchy “work arounds” for verses, that if taken literally, are “objectionable “….
    but boy, are you “in the dog house” if You point it out…. I have learned first hand…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  188. Paul K,

    Why do you think these reformed-baptist-evangelicals became so influential? The church I go to rarely, if ever, ventures outside of the influence of these organizations and people when choosing books for small group study, sermon prep, etc… It’s a large conglomeration, so there’s no shortage of materials. How did this branch of Christianity gain so much popularity?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    bring out the historians. the sociologists. the forensic theologist-pathologists!

    Brad Sargent futuristguy? jerome? others here?

    seems to me there are discernible factors that play into it. like, the conservative resurgence. perhaps TGC is its grandchild or stepchild, having come into its inheritance.

    i’m sure there are other factors to create this seemingly perfect storm of a monopoly on influence.

    Al Mohler putting all his ideologue pals in high places. Sort of like Queen Victoria and her children/grandchildren ending up on many European thrones.

    TGC has certainly been very aggressive with publicity. creating celebrities themselves. and creating a presence on other continents. seems to me they’ve been actively trying to take over the world.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  189. elastigirl,

    just watched a documentary about Saddham Hussein.

    the last line of the program:

    “His legacy lives on. That’s one of the remarkable things about dictatorships: we always tend to underestimate the impact they have on future generations.”

    –i liken this to the conservative resurgence.

    the monopoly on influence as seen in the likes of TGC, T4G, SBC publishing, John MacArthur, John Piper = the impact of the total society created by the CR.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  190. Paul K: Why do you think these reformed-baptist-evangelicals became so influential? The church I go to rarely, if ever, ventures outside of the influence of these organizations and people when choosing books for small group study, sermon prep, etc… It’s a large conglomeration, so there’s no shortage of materials. How did this branch of Christianity gain so much popularity?

    The internet? I mean, a charismatic speaker used to only be limited to whoever sat in the pews (which used to be limited only to people within walking/horseback-ride distance of the church. Then came television, which was still limited by whoever happened to be sitting on their couch and tuning in at a particular day and time. But now with the internet, you can live stream to multiple campuses (did satellite campuses exist before live streaming? I simply don’t know), record and share with millions via YouTube and social media around the world in a relatively short span of time. And thus, the sphere of influence of a cult of personality has ballooned exponentially.

    Just a theory.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  191. elastigirl: the monopoly on influence as seen in the likes of TGC, T4G, SBC publishing, John MacArthur, John Piper = the impact of the total society created by the CR.

    Nor was this accidental. Some persons, somewhere, have been working overtime behind the scenes, for a very long time, to get to this place. Who are they? From whence did their money and influence arise? What is their agenda? Were we to ask these questions concerning so many who rise almost mystically to fame and influence, we might have a very different picture of reality.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  192. TS00,

    I just started reading “Young, Restless, and Reformed” by Collin Hansen. So far, it seems like the current rise of Calvinism is due, in part, to a reaction against Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, the prevailing lens through which younger Christians view God. Younger Christians wanted something “deeper” than the Christianity they found in many churches and Calvinism was waiting (through the likes of Piper, Harris, Mahaney, etc…) to embrace them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  193. Mark Christian,

    Consider picking up a book like “Two Views on Women in Ministry”. You have every right to hold the views you hold, but a book like that will help you see a different side of the issue. Even the authors of that book who hold to a “complementarian” view and argue for it state that the other view is within the bounds of orthodoxy. Even if it doesn’t convince you to change your mind (it hasn’t convinced me yet), you’ll have a deeper appreciation for Christians who hold a different view than your own.

    Also, you might be just trolling everyone on this blog…if so, well played 😉

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  194. Paul K,

    The best tool in the devil’s belt is well-spoken people who feel they have enough figured out that everyone else would do well to match them and shouldn’t attempt to go beyond them. They stand in the way between others and God, drawing them away to their own doctrine’s with condescending, but well stated, speeches. The time I’ve spent researching much of TVC’s messages (my former church) shows they place a heavy emphasis on approaching bible study through the “correct interpretive lenses” or you’ll end up a heretic. This mirrors the same messaging I grew up with for the first 18 years of my life as a Jehovah’s Witness, and turns out it’s been the same tactic used since the days of the Pharisees. There was a long time that the Bible was kept away from the masses by the church “for their protection”, and it’s this spirit that was behind it.

    It’s much more difficult to listen to everyone and prove the truth to yourself from Scripture, and people are busy and they want shortcuts. God seldom blesses that, which is how we end up with majority “Christian” societies that are as broken in so many ways as they are today. The path is still narrow, the gospel is still mysterious in many ways. Reformed theology offers a simplification, just complicated and thorough enough that someone could devote a good chunk of their life to studying it and feel they’ve got everything figured out, yet taking more than a lifetime to combat in totality with all the nuance of actual truth. A perfect-sized deception to proliferate.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  195. I’ve been trying to remember where Anne Graham Lotz was when a group of pastors stood with their backs to her when she took the stage to speak – essentially telling her to “Go Home.” Was it at a former MacArthur conference? Does anyone know?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  196. Paul K: I wonder if the need to exercise control over a congregation fuels doctrines like exclusive male leadership? Doing so automatically excludes half the church population from even a chance at influence.

    The smaller the pond, the bigger the fish can be.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  197. Jerome,

    Yep, the SBC has missed a great opportunity to promote one of its own, a great preacher/teacher of the Gospel, Anne Graham Lotz. In recent years, Lotz’s ministry has been blessed (even through hardships in her life); the SBC has been cursed. I would rather listen to Anne preach than any man I know.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  198. MacArthur’s bark is coming from the dark
    All the salt and light keeps flowing out!
    Calvin put a stake right thru his brain
    I don’t think that he can take us
    Or we’ll end up like Servetus
    And we’ll never get to share God’s word again
    Go Home!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  199. Jerome,

    Thank you for this link. I listened to a few of these short talks and found them authentic and with spiritual depth. Maybe it will be helpful to some people (men and women) here who have been wounded by the church.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  200. Ray Wickham:
    MacArthur’s bark is coming from the dark
    All the salt and light keeps flowing out!
    Calvin put a stake right thru his brain
    I don’t think that he can take us
    Or we’ll end up like Servetus
    And we’ll never get to share God’s word again
    Go Home!

    *applause*

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  201. Paul K: Why do you think these reformed-baptist-evangelicals became so influential? The church I go to rarely, if ever, ventures outside of the influence of these organizations and people when choosing books for small group study, sermon prep, etc… It’s a large conglomeration, so there’s no shortage of materials. How did this branch of Christianity gain so much popularity?

    They turned to marketing techniques, became experts in the world’s methods.s

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  202. James T Romanski: I am not a fan of MacArthur. I believe, however, that he is right on the order of things. It is very clear. We must not confuse Biblical theological truths with our American right to do as we choose. I think the church as a whole has just begun to understand the order of things and it will continue to be a struggle for as long as man fights against it.

    I want to suggest that you do some more research. It is not so “very clear” as you may think. We have a tendency to pick up an English translation of the scriptures, read what has been translated by human beings with their own biases and preconceptions, and imagine we have the exact wording, straight from God. Well, we don’t. A little research shows that bias has crept in from the beginning.

    I also disagree with the mindset of an “order of things” and man “fighting against it.” I think this misses the whole point. Go back and read the gospels. Jesus does not present this mindset. He models compassion. He calls out hypocrisy. His harshest words are for those religious persons who were given over to an “order of things” worldview. Jesus preached love and tolerance. He said that the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love your neighbor, and he made it clear that your neighbor is every fellow human being, regardless of birthplace or creed. We tend to skip right past that and start looking for rules to follow.

    Forcing ourselves into an “order of things” is the way of every false religion- hierarchies, power, control. Jesus said we are not to do it that way. The least among you is the greatest (in complimentarian terms, would that be the women? hmm) He said they will know you are my disciples by your love- not by the order you follow.

    Jesus sets us free from enslavement to “orders of things”. He goes way beyond these things that are of the earth, earthy.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  203. Mark Christian: All of your garbage left wing, cultural Marxist labels, mutilating or complete ignoring of Scripture mean literally nothing.

    I find it interesting that you have mixed political concepts in with spiritual ideas. Are these the same in your mind?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  204. Benn: Seems to me the rub most always come back to how one views scripture

    Have you ever noticed that the people who hold the scripture as THE most important thing do the least actual study on it? Aside from reading the text that is approved by their church, how many really research the history of the Bible, how it came to be as it is, who has translated it when and with what mindset? I don’t know about you, but I’ve found that the most vocal and staunch Bible supporters I know do not want to even think about or discuss any of these things, like they are afraid to know, afraid it will rock their faith to know.

    Personally, when I saw how easy it was for Wayne Grudem to change the meaning of Genesis 3:16 to the opposite of what it was actually saying, and how quickly his new meaning was accepted and championed by those with his same bias, my eyes were opened. Groups and kings much more powerful than Wayne Grudem have been behind Bible translations through the ages, those with their own biases and societal and political reasons to present certain mindsets. Word translation allows an amount of leeway, especially when those who will be reading it don’t know the original language, have never read it in the original language, and won’t be comparing.

    If the Bible is as important as people think it is, it deserves to be studied much more thoroughly.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  205. SiteSeer: Have you ever noticed that the people who hold the scripture as THE most important thing do the least actual study on it? Aside from reading the text that is approved by their church, how many really research the history of the Bible, how it came to be as it is, who has translated it when and with what mindset? I don’t know about you, but I’ve found that the most vocal and staunch Bible supporters I know do not want to even think about or discuss any of these things, like they are afraid to know, afraid it will rock their faith to know.

    Personally, when I saw how easy it was for Wayne Grudem to change the meaning of Genesis 3:16 to the opposite of what it was actually saying, and how quickly his new meaning was accepted and championed by those with his same bias, my eyes were opened. Groups and kings much more powerful than Wayne Grudem have been behind Bible translations through the ages, those with their own biases and societal and political reasons to present certain mindsets. Word translation allows an amount of leeway, especially when those who will be reading it don’t know the original language, have never read it in the original language, and won’t be comparing.

    If the Bible is as important as people think it is, it deserves to be studied much more thoroughly.

    Sadly, you are spot on.
    I think that’s how pride takes over,I know I’m correct, ( not through prayer, or rigorous study of the sacred text,but through tradition, tradition says I’m right ,so I don’t need to even try to verify what I believe).
    It has been said best,the sin of pride, “ it’s hard to know you are in a prison, when the walls are made of glass”.

    I think pride has a lot to do with these male leaders pride that they are the chosen gender to lead believers.
    But back to your great point, yes people that cling to their bible translation of choice, most all of them have no idea, none, where that translation came from, the history of the Bible, to me it is not as much which translation you hold dear, but the actual Greek autographs that the translation was taken from.

    Sadly KJV only thumpers are some of the worst ( no offense Beth 74)
    The SBC’s pride ( a large part anyway) has been not teaching church history, which would always require a deep dive into the history of the Bible.. great, great comment

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

Leave a comment - Click here for our commenting rules

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *