In the moment, when our passions are aroused, we have a hard time seeing it. But there are always logical and historical implications when an organization (governmental, corporate, charitable, educational, religious, etc.) makes a momentous change. In 1215, When King John signed the Magna Carta , the trajectory of Western Civilization was dramatically altered, although none then could have imagined that it would one day lead to English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean declaring their independence of the British Crown. So it is with the sea change that is taking place in portions of the Church today. What we are now experiencing is a significant change from what was generally accepted as the Truth by the Christians who passed down their faith to us. There will be logical implications to these that we have not fully thought through, there will be unintended consequences, and there will be historical implications to this that we cannot yet see. Perhaps, as we continue to lob verbal grenades at each other, and continue to fight this theological war as a proxy in the political realm, we ought to try to take a step back and consider what some of those implications might be. What will we hand down to future generations in the faith?
Let us then posit the existence of a Church that by and large has become Pro-LGBTQI+ and/or Pro-Abortion. {Not a Church that considers how to show compassion toward and minister to those who embrace LGBTQI+ behavior, nor to those who have had abortions. Both of those things the Church should already be doing, although doing so is certainly difficult. Nor a Church that is neutral toward these issues, neither celebrating nor condemning them. The question at hand is this: What about a Church that has chosen to celebrate these things?} These are the two primary ideas that the Church is being asked to accept, that some within the Church have reluctantly tolerated, and some have enthusiastically embraced. With all of the yelling going on, perhaps looking toward the past and future will offer some perspective.
1. Our perspective of the past will change significantly
We are always reevaluating the past, appreciating things we hadn't noticed before and regretting things that were once commonplace. This is not new, not avoidable, and not necessarily a bad thing. Our ancestors once considered slavery to be something they could not rid the world of, until a Christian named William Wilberforce (among many others) spent his adult life convincing England to outlaw the practice. Now, when we consider that chattel slavery was once practiced by "fine Christian gentleman" it makes our skin crawl. So what will we think of (for example) Moses, Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham should the Church fully embrace these two moral positions? All of them will be viewed as much more flawed than they currently are. And while no man or woman called by God to serve his kingdom is free of flaws, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that these former stalwarts of the faith were either cowards (for failing to be a lone voice in their culture) or bigots (for actively opposing the behaviors in question). In other words, nearly all of our heroes of the faith, certainly almost all those who lived before the 20th century, will have to be reevaluated, and most will end up on the list of "enemies of God". Instead of good men and women who did their best by faith, they will be fools who were blind to the 'truth'. It will not be a stretch to then believe that if their hearts could be so closed to what now has been determined to be true, that the vast majority of the heroes, and regular folk, who proceeded us in the faith, are in fact in Hell {for those who retain a belief in Hell}. If one hates what God loves, and forbids what God celebrates, what other conclusion is left? Hebrews 11 offers Christians a "great cloud of witnesses", heroes in the faith from the past to inspire us to live faithfully today. What happens to that inspiration when the past has been rewritten and the heroes are now all villains?
In addition to the reevaluation of individuals, ancient Israel and the Church until the 21st century will also come under scrutiny for their 'unenlightened' viewpoints. And while there were dark periods for both Israel and the Church in their history, times when people claiming to follow God have acted in shameful ways that we rightly condemn, it has until now been accepted that orthodox belief and practice did in fact triumph, by and large, in the end. That when Israel embraced as canonical the writings of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and treated them as Holy Scripture, that they were correct to do so. That when the Church accepted the brilliance of St. Augustine's argumentation, that it was correct to do so. But if both Israel and the Church have been so egregiously in error, about so fundamental and issue as human sexuality or the sanctity of life, does it not follow that the entire contribution of these two would now become suspect? That our connection to both Ancient Israel (as the tree onto which the Church was grafted) and the Early to Modern Church is false? What they believed, will no longer be what we believe. What they condemned, we will celebrate. The connection to the 'faith of our fathers' will be lost.
2. God will not have been active (or effective) in the past
If, as some within the larger Church are now contending, it was always God's intention to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-abortion, if these things are not merely permissible in a civil society (where we are now) but far beyond that, to be encouraged, celebrated, and embraced as glorifying to God, then it becomes readily apparent that God's effort to share this viewpoint with his people, and have them conform to it, was woefully inadequate in the past. There is not a plethora of writings from rabbis or church elders urging the acceptance of (let alone celebration of) these two activities, which either indicates that such voices were crushed by orthodox ones, revealing that God was powerless to promote and preserve them, or they did not in fact exist, in which case God was powerless to inspire those voices. Either way, for the past 4,000 years, God has done a woeful job of making this aspect of morality known to his people, and thus to the world.
As a corollary, if only orthodox voices were accepted, promoted, and preserved by Israel and the Church (reflected thus in the canonical scriptures), then immediate questions arise concerning the truthfulness and value of the scriptures that we do have. Because the Bible does not promote {Yes, I know a no-holds-barred battle is raging about whether or not the Bible condemns either homosexual behavior or abortion, this is the question beyond that one} homosexual behavior and abortion, as morally good and upright acts of righteousness (as is does, for example, repeatedly and strongly promote caring for widows and orphans, obeying your parents, or having a servant's heart), but those positions are now being declared to be such by the Church, the implication is that the Scriptures are corrupted in deep fundamental ways. As such, trust in the scriptures as a guide to life and morality will be, in a future Church which has chosen to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-Abortion, far less absolute, thus bringing to a final end Martin Luther's call for Sola Scriptura as well as the Catholic Church's reliance upon the traditions handed down from the Apostles.
3. Jesus will not be the Jesus of our ancestors in the faith
As much as we might admire the Apostle Peter or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the end, it all comes down to Jesus. To change our perspective regarding the hundreds of men and women who have walked in obedience before God as Jews or Christians is one thing, to take the traditional, orthodox, view of Jesus, and redefine it significantly is another. As is the case with the Bible as a whole, the Gospels do not make any sort of pro-LGBTQI+ or pro-abortion case. The Jesus that they relate to us, while full of compassion for the downtrodden of society, is at the same time extremely serious about the need for purity before God and the impact of sin upon the lives of people. That these two issues were settled matters within 1st century Judaism (thus largely explaining Jesus' lack of focus upon them), would thus not excuse Jesus from speaking out in favor of those with non-traditional sexual desires, or unwanted pregnancies. If Jesus is the champion of those in need that we all believe him to be, why did he leave the people in his midst who had these issues in the lurch? Jesus was willing to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'", it would have been even more scandalous, and thus made his point about self-righteousness even more poignantly had Jesus sought out an example from either of these two groups to embrace in front of the Pharisees.
And yet Jesus didn't do this (or at least the Gospels don't record it, which instead of lowering the view of Jesus, lowers that of the Scriptures, an equally untenable solution). He didn't take the opportunity to overturn the Jewish understanding of marriage and the sanctity of life. Judaism in the first century viewed marriage and children as highly admirable, as the ideal for all those who could enjoy its blessings, and yet Jesus didn't call them out for their, apparent, bigotry. The Jesus of the Gospels (the only one we know) is no hero to the LGBTQI+ movement, nor to pro-abortion champions, and thus he too will be reevaluated by a future Church that has embraced these ideas.
There are more implications for the future relating to the debates raging within the Church today than these three, but these three ought to be sufficient to give committed Christians a reason to think more deeply about these issues. Set aside the politics, set aside the cultural implications, ask the most important question: How will this change affect the Church/Gospel/Bible if it is fully embraced? The Church is a living thing, made up of flawed but redeemed people, and it needs to find a way to face the challenges of today without abandoning its historic and scriptural roots; to do so we need compassion, courage, and wisdom.
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Friday, November 8, 2019
Paula White: Charlatan, Heretic, and White House employee - terrifying in any administration
1. Paula White-Cain is a charlatan and a heretic.
2. Paula White-Cain is being heavily promoted as a leader of the Church in America.
3. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to President Trump, the elevation by the White House of Paula White is a threat to the purity and integrity of the Church and the Gospel.
For those who support President Trump, his embrace of Paula White, while not new, he has supported her for decades, should be a disturbing sign, a further reason to pray for him. For those who do not support the President, his embrace of Paula White will further confirm their low opinion of him. Either way, the Church is being placed in danger, and the Gospel message is being clouded by the ongoing and increasing placement of an unashamed Prosperity Gospel huckster as a representative of American Christians. I often hear about threats to the Church of persecution from the outside, whether or not such things are based in reality {some are, some are not}, this threat is real and it is already on the inside.
This is NOT about politics, the elevation of Paula White would be endangering the Church no matter which party she had chosen to support. As I have warned repeatedly, the marriage of Church and politics is an uneven one, resulting in stains upon the reputation of the Bride of Christ, this is a prime example. Do you want political power at any cost? The bill is now due. If the Church gains political power by embracing the Prosperity Gospel, it will have forfeited its soul.
The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.
Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Sermon Video: The Day of Woe - Joel 1:1-2:11
The prophet Joel wrote to his people, the descendants of Abraham who were heirs to the Covenant, during a time of extreme woe. In Joel's day it was a massive swarm of locusts that threatened the very lives of the people and even brought an end to the daily sacrifices at the temple because no grain or wine could be procured for the morning and evening offering. In this dark day the prophet calls upon his people to declare a fast, gather together, and "cry out to the LORD." The misery they faced reminds us that we too may undergo a severe trial, whether it be a natural disaster or a manifestation of the wrath of God, and our response should be the same: gather together, and cry out to the LORD.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Sermon Video: God's Word, not our word - 1 Corinthians 14:36-40
Bringing his instructions about propriety and order within the church to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the Christians at the Church of Corinth that they were not the ones who created the Scriptures, nor were they the only ones to whom it was given. Paul is reminding them of the authority of Scripture over them, and of their need to conform to the Word of God. The principle behind this is easily applied to churches in any time or place, as we too must respect the authority of God's Word and not attempt to substitute what God has said through the Spirit for our own judgment. What of those who ignore this warning, who teach/preach against what the Word declares? Paul declares that they will be ignored, and three examples of this are given in the message: Arius' false 4th century doctrine regarding Jesus (which the Church properly denounced through the Council of Nicaea), the dualist belief of the Cathars in 11th century France (which the Church immorally dealt with through a genocidal war and mass burning of people at the stake), and the contemporary example of the Prosperity Gospel of Paula White-Cain (which the Church has not yet rejected). The point is, heretics and charlatans have always been with us and our need to remain on our guard, and judge those who speak/write by the Word of God, will remain.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'?
During a conference held at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley CA, Pastor John MacArthur responded to a word-association game when the host gave him the name: Beth Moore, with a simple answer, 'Go home'. The crowd erupted in laughter with John MacArthur continuing his comment by disparagingly linking Beth Moore to feminism, female politicians, the MeToo movement, Paula White-Cain, and comparing her to a TV jewelry salesperson. It was designed to make headlines, and it did, before considering my observations below, take a moment to read some of the news articles about it:
John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers by Leonardo Blair of The Christian Post
John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore ‘Go Home’: 3 Ways to Disagree Better by Ryan Denison of Christian Headlines
John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore to 'Go Home,' Says Bible Doesn't Support Female Preachers by Jenny Rose Spaudo of Charisma News
1. The question asked by Tom Friel was intended to draw the response it received.
When Tom Friel prefaced his question by asking for a 'pithy' response, and then said, 'Beth Moore' to that panel, at that conference, he knew that whatever the answer was the crowd would hoot and howl with laughter. The question was asked so as to humiliate Beth Moore, and belittle those who do not agree with a complimentarian view of the role of men and women. There are God-honoring men and women who hold a complimentarian view, and God-honoring men and women who hold an egalitarian view (and those in between). Mockery is not debate, derision is not enlightening, such behavior is expected from a late-night comic, disappointing from a politician, and unbecoming of a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ.
2. The sustained and loud laughter of the audience, aimed at another human being, especially one who claims Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a poor testimony to the many who will hear it.
What exactly is funny about 'Go home'? It seems that the vast majority of the audience has an extremely low opinion of Beth Moore, and while it is their right as Americans to express their opinion, even in derisive laughter, having the legal right does not make an action morally right. If this is how we treat each other, and sadly we do much worse than this too, what are we telling non-Christians about our unity in Christ? {I know, some are reading this and thinking, "Beth Moore is a heretic! She has defied the Word of God by teaching men, she deserves what she gets!" There are two flaws in that line of thought: (1) To invalidate a person's salvation in Jesus Christ based primarily, if not solely, upon a differing interpretation of the role of women in the Church is a prime example of Majoring in the Minors, that is dangerously elevating a secondary theological position over and above the Gospel, thus in essence making that particular position more important than whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins. (2) Does God delight in the destruction of sinners? Even the vilest among us began life as a child of God, made in the image of our Creator; our glee at the downfall of even those who richly deserve it does not reflect well upon our own appreciation for how we are entirely dependent upon the grace of God for our own salvation.
3. The answer, 'Go home', reflects a cultural position, not a theological one.
John MacArthur doesn't believe that culture should be used to interpret the Bible (As an aside, we are all products of our culture, we don't live in a vacuum, so no interpretation can be entirely devoid of cultural influence. Our goal should be awareness of our own culturally inherited presuppositions and biases, thus allowing us to counter-act them when necessary), but in this case his view that "a woman's place is in the home" isn't a Biblical one, certainly not one that would be understood in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world where both men and women worked primarily from home, but rather is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution's sharp divide between employment and family life. In other words, the idea that a man is supposed to earn a living, and a woman is supposed to raise the children and take care of the house, is the by-product of modern culture, hardly the definitive basis for a sound biblical doctrine of what a God-honoring society ought to look like. {For more on this idea, read the article from Christianity Today by Jen Pollock Michel: A Message to John MacArthur: The Bible Calls Both Men and Women to ‘Go Home’ } Had John MacArthur responded, 'Shut up', it would have also been crass, but at least it would have reflected his complimentarian theology, and not his modern conservative cultural viewpoint. If the egalitarians are wrong to view the NT passages regarding the role of women in the Church with a post-modern cultural lens, so too must the complimentarians be wrong when they view those same NT passages through a modern one.
4. 'Go home' reflects a deeper distrust/dislike of female leadership, beyond discussion of biblical standards for pastors/elders, and a desire to deny them that in America.
Again, had John MacArthur confined his answer to the question of whether or not Beth Moore ought to hold a position of leadership within the Church, even those who disagree with him regarding the interpretation of the relevant scriptural passages would have been having a discussion about an age old, and worthy issue in the realm of biblical interpretation: timeless vs. time-bound commandments. This very question is central to much of the book of Acts as Peter and Paul must come to grips with how to apply the Mosaic Law to the new gentile converts to Christianity. However, as John MacArthur further explained his answer he said this, “The primary effort in feminism is not equality. They don’t want equality. That’s why 99 percent of plumbers are men. They don’t want equal power to be a plumber. They want to be senators, preachers, congressmen, president. The power structure in a university, they want power, not equality and this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural, so I think this is feminism gone to church. This is why we can’t let the culture exegete the Bible.” {For that last sentence, see #3 above} Are we supposed to be fearful that women want to be senators, congressmen, even president? How is this any business of the Church? Should the Church oppose the election of godly women? We ought to judge any would-be leader of our country by the same standard, regardless of whether that candidate is a man or a woman. Let me give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt here, and assume his fear is of women with a non-biblical worldview gaining power in society, but again the point must be made, what has this to do with Beth Moore? By connecting Beth Moore to the female politicians whom his audience strongly dislikes, (Hilary Clinton for example) it makes the actual teaching of Beth Moore, her actual goals and attitudes, irrelevant, she becomes one of 'them'. If on the other hand, John MacArthur does want to extend the complimentary theological viewpoint from its current turf, the home/marriage and the Church, to a general crusade against female politicians, in any form, that would be extremely troubling; let us hope this was simply a poor attempt at guilt-by-association. A woman holding a position of power is no more or less moral or immoral than a man; we must judge people based upon the content of their character, nothing else.
5. The jewelry insult by John MacArthur was demeaning and sexist: “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn't mean you should be preaching.”
There doesn't seem to be much explanation needed.
6. Paula White-Cain is not a legitimate comparison to Beth Moore.
To lump his objections to Beth Moore, based upon complimentary theology, to those that many have toward Paul White-Cain, based upon objections to her Prosperity Gospel message and willingness to promise blessings/miracles to those who give her money, is to unjustly smear Beth Moore with guilt by association. If Beth Moore has made mistakes in what she has said or written (as have we all), then refute those, don't connect her with a dangerous charlatan/heretic and say, "see, this is what happens when women are allowed to preach." After all, the Prosperity Gospel's who's who is primarily populated by men, not women, and I wouldn't lump John MacArthur in with Joel Osteen just because they're both American men who preach.
7. To attack 'MeToo' as solely a guise of feminism, and not a legitimate concern, is allowing political concerns to distract the Church from a moral imperative.
Modern American feminism has issues when it comes to biblical morality, in particular regarding abortion, on this many within the Church would agree {Even if we can't agree on what those concerns are, nor the extent to which we should be concerned}. However, to pretend that there is not a long overdue reckoning of sexual predators and sexists within the Church (as well as society as a whole) is massively short-sighted. The Church must rid itself of a culture that protects sexual predators, that blames rape victims, and that is willing to treat men and women as anything other than equal before God. The Church, as a whole, has committed grave sins in failing to police itself, in hiding its sins from law enforcement, and in treating the sexual/physical/verbal abuse of women and children as a secondary issue. Unfortunately, this is not the first sign of a dismissive attitude toward the reality-check of the MeToo movement: Founders Ministries released a trailer for an upcoming documentary that showed images of rape survivor and victim's advocate Rachel Denhollander, lumping her in with those who, in the words of the producers of the film, were advocating a 'godless ideology'. {This despite the fact that Rachel's testimony about how God has helped her overcome the abuse she suffered is entirely orthodox; her 'crime' was to be associated with the MeToo movement. To read my rebuttal to the Founders Ministry trailer click here: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}.
8. 'Go home' doesn't reflect the Biblical narrative.
The inclusion of the stories of prominent, and influential God-fearing women in the Bible are not a fluke. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended that we hear the story of the prophetess Deborah whose courage exceeded that of Barak, of Mordecai's utilization of Esther to effect God's salvation of the Jews, of the crucial and amazing role of Mary in the birth and life of Jesus, of Jesus' commendation of Martha's willingness to sit with the men and learn from him while Mary worried about 'woman's work', and of the women who came to the tomb and first heard the glorious news of the resurrection while Jesus' hand-picked 11 male apostles were in hiding. The bible certainly celebrates the role of wife and mother, but at the same time demonstrates a repeated emphasis on God's willingness to utilize women, along with men, to accomplish his will. If God had wanted women confined to the home, caring solely for chores and children, he would have made that clear, but the biblical narrative itself hints at no such call for the sequestering of women.
9. Is the Great Commission only for men, or should everyone saved by Jesus share the Good News?
I've never heard anyone take the position that only men can share the Good News, so there must be some role for women in the various ministries of the Church. Even if one accepts the strict complimentarianism of John MacArthur, that does not exclude women from having a vital role in the health of a local church and its outreach to the world.
10. The focus on the work of ordained ministers (and other public leadership roles) is forgetting the crucial role of the laity.
While the focus of this controversy is the very public role of Beth Moore, and John MacArthur's role as a pastor in rebuking her, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Church needs far more help than what is given by those whose job/vocation is ministry. The Church needs the laity: men, women, and children, to support its ministry and help it accomplish the mission given to us by Jesus. If a church reserves the specific role of pastor/elder to men only, it still needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation, and if a church open the role of pastor/elder to both men and women, that church also needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation. The leadership of a church is very important, but let's not let a controversy like this distract our attention away from the need to develop disciples of Jesus Christ within the church.
The response of Max Lucado: Max Lucado responds to John MacArthur's women preacher comments: 'Bride of Christ is sighing' by Sheryl Lynn of The Christian Post
John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers by Leonardo Blair of The Christian Post
John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore ‘Go Home’: 3 Ways to Disagree Better by Ryan Denison of Christian Headlines
John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore to 'Go Home,' Says Bible Doesn't Support Female Preachers by Jenny Rose Spaudo of Charisma News
1. The question asked by Tom Friel was intended to draw the response it received.
When Tom Friel prefaced his question by asking for a 'pithy' response, and then said, 'Beth Moore' to that panel, at that conference, he knew that whatever the answer was the crowd would hoot and howl with laughter. The question was asked so as to humiliate Beth Moore, and belittle those who do not agree with a complimentarian view of the role of men and women. There are God-honoring men and women who hold a complimentarian view, and God-honoring men and women who hold an egalitarian view (and those in between). Mockery is not debate, derision is not enlightening, such behavior is expected from a late-night comic, disappointing from a politician, and unbecoming of a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ.
2. The sustained and loud laughter of the audience, aimed at another human being, especially one who claims Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a poor testimony to the many who will hear it.
What exactly is funny about 'Go home'? It seems that the vast majority of the audience has an extremely low opinion of Beth Moore, and while it is their right as Americans to express their opinion, even in derisive laughter, having the legal right does not make an action morally right. If this is how we treat each other, and sadly we do much worse than this too, what are we telling non-Christians about our unity in Christ? {I know, some are reading this and thinking, "Beth Moore is a heretic! She has defied the Word of God by teaching men, she deserves what she gets!" There are two flaws in that line of thought: (1) To invalidate a person's salvation in Jesus Christ based primarily, if not solely, upon a differing interpretation of the role of women in the Church is a prime example of Majoring in the Minors, that is dangerously elevating a secondary theological position over and above the Gospel, thus in essence making that particular position more important than whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins. (2) Does God delight in the destruction of sinners? Even the vilest among us began life as a child of God, made in the image of our Creator; our glee at the downfall of even those who richly deserve it does not reflect well upon our own appreciation for how we are entirely dependent upon the grace of God for our own salvation.
3. The answer, 'Go home', reflects a cultural position, not a theological one.
John MacArthur doesn't believe that culture should be used to interpret the Bible (As an aside, we are all products of our culture, we don't live in a vacuum, so no interpretation can be entirely devoid of cultural influence. Our goal should be awareness of our own culturally inherited presuppositions and biases, thus allowing us to counter-act them when necessary), but in this case his view that "a woman's place is in the home" isn't a Biblical one, certainly not one that would be understood in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world where both men and women worked primarily from home, but rather is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution's sharp divide between employment and family life. In other words, the idea that a man is supposed to earn a living, and a woman is supposed to raise the children and take care of the house, is the by-product of modern culture, hardly the definitive basis for a sound biblical doctrine of what a God-honoring society ought to look like. {For more on this idea, read the article from Christianity Today by Jen Pollock Michel: A Message to John MacArthur: The Bible Calls Both Men and Women to ‘Go Home’ } Had John MacArthur responded, 'Shut up', it would have also been crass, but at least it would have reflected his complimentarian theology, and not his modern conservative cultural viewpoint. If the egalitarians are wrong to view the NT passages regarding the role of women in the Church with a post-modern cultural lens, so too must the complimentarians be wrong when they view those same NT passages through a modern one.
4. 'Go home' reflects a deeper distrust/dislike of female leadership, beyond discussion of biblical standards for pastors/elders, and a desire to deny them that in America.
Again, had John MacArthur confined his answer to the question of whether or not Beth Moore ought to hold a position of leadership within the Church, even those who disagree with him regarding the interpretation of the relevant scriptural passages would have been having a discussion about an age old, and worthy issue in the realm of biblical interpretation: timeless vs. time-bound commandments. This very question is central to much of the book of Acts as Peter and Paul must come to grips with how to apply the Mosaic Law to the new gentile converts to Christianity. However, as John MacArthur further explained his answer he said this, “The primary effort in feminism is not equality. They don’t want equality. That’s why 99 percent of plumbers are men. They don’t want equal power to be a plumber. They want to be senators, preachers, congressmen, president. The power structure in a university, they want power, not equality and this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural, so I think this is feminism gone to church. This is why we can’t let the culture exegete the Bible.” {For that last sentence, see #3 above} Are we supposed to be fearful that women want to be senators, congressmen, even president? How is this any business of the Church? Should the Church oppose the election of godly women? We ought to judge any would-be leader of our country by the same standard, regardless of whether that candidate is a man or a woman. Let me give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt here, and assume his fear is of women with a non-biblical worldview gaining power in society, but again the point must be made, what has this to do with Beth Moore? By connecting Beth Moore to the female politicians whom his audience strongly dislikes, (Hilary Clinton for example) it makes the actual teaching of Beth Moore, her actual goals and attitudes, irrelevant, she becomes one of 'them'. If on the other hand, John MacArthur does want to extend the complimentary theological viewpoint from its current turf, the home/marriage and the Church, to a general crusade against female politicians, in any form, that would be extremely troubling; let us hope this was simply a poor attempt at guilt-by-association. A woman holding a position of power is no more or less moral or immoral than a man; we must judge people based upon the content of their character, nothing else.
5. The jewelry insult by John MacArthur was demeaning and sexist: “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn't mean you should be preaching.”
There doesn't seem to be much explanation needed.
6. Paula White-Cain is not a legitimate comparison to Beth Moore.
To lump his objections to Beth Moore, based upon complimentary theology, to those that many have toward Paul White-Cain, based upon objections to her Prosperity Gospel message and willingness to promise blessings/miracles to those who give her money, is to unjustly smear Beth Moore with guilt by association. If Beth Moore has made mistakes in what she has said or written (as have we all), then refute those, don't connect her with a dangerous charlatan/heretic and say, "see, this is what happens when women are allowed to preach." After all, the Prosperity Gospel's who's who is primarily populated by men, not women, and I wouldn't lump John MacArthur in with Joel Osteen just because they're both American men who preach.
7. To attack 'MeToo' as solely a guise of feminism, and not a legitimate concern, is allowing political concerns to distract the Church from a moral imperative.
Modern American feminism has issues when it comes to biblical morality, in particular regarding abortion, on this many within the Church would agree {Even if we can't agree on what those concerns are, nor the extent to which we should be concerned}. However, to pretend that there is not a long overdue reckoning of sexual predators and sexists within the Church (as well as society as a whole) is massively short-sighted. The Church must rid itself of a culture that protects sexual predators, that blames rape victims, and that is willing to treat men and women as anything other than equal before God. The Church, as a whole, has committed grave sins in failing to police itself, in hiding its sins from law enforcement, and in treating the sexual/physical/verbal abuse of women and children as a secondary issue. Unfortunately, this is not the first sign of a dismissive attitude toward the reality-check of the MeToo movement: Founders Ministries released a trailer for an upcoming documentary that showed images of rape survivor and victim's advocate Rachel Denhollander, lumping her in with those who, in the words of the producers of the film, were advocating a 'godless ideology'. {This despite the fact that Rachel's testimony about how God has helped her overcome the abuse she suffered is entirely orthodox; her 'crime' was to be associated with the MeToo movement. To read my rebuttal to the Founders Ministry trailer click here: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}.
8. 'Go home' doesn't reflect the Biblical narrative.
The inclusion of the stories of prominent, and influential God-fearing women in the Bible are not a fluke. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended that we hear the story of the prophetess Deborah whose courage exceeded that of Barak, of Mordecai's utilization of Esther to effect God's salvation of the Jews, of the crucial and amazing role of Mary in the birth and life of Jesus, of Jesus' commendation of Martha's willingness to sit with the men and learn from him while Mary worried about 'woman's work', and of the women who came to the tomb and first heard the glorious news of the resurrection while Jesus' hand-picked 11 male apostles were in hiding. The bible certainly celebrates the role of wife and mother, but at the same time demonstrates a repeated emphasis on God's willingness to utilize women, along with men, to accomplish his will. If God had wanted women confined to the home, caring solely for chores and children, he would have made that clear, but the biblical narrative itself hints at no such call for the sequestering of women.
9. Is the Great Commission only for men, or should everyone saved by Jesus share the Good News?
I've never heard anyone take the position that only men can share the Good News, so there must be some role for women in the various ministries of the Church. Even if one accepts the strict complimentarianism of John MacArthur, that does not exclude women from having a vital role in the health of a local church and its outreach to the world.
10. The focus on the work of ordained ministers (and other public leadership roles) is forgetting the crucial role of the laity.
While the focus of this controversy is the very public role of Beth Moore, and John MacArthur's role as a pastor in rebuking her, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Church needs far more help than what is given by those whose job/vocation is ministry. The Church needs the laity: men, women, and children, to support its ministry and help it accomplish the mission given to us by Jesus. If a church reserves the specific role of pastor/elder to men only, it still needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation, and if a church open the role of pastor/elder to both men and women, that church also needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation. The leadership of a church is very important, but let's not let a controversy like this distract our attention away from the need to develop disciples of Jesus Christ within the church.
The response of Max Lucado: Max Lucado responds to John MacArthur's women preacher comments: 'Bride of Christ is sighing' by Sheryl Lynn of The Christian Post
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)