Lessons from Noah

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son
of man be.” Matt. 24:37.

Every Bible student understands the plain and simple message of that text. In it the Word of God opens to us insight into the coming condition of the  earth and mankind prior to His return. But I think there’s more that we can  glean from the story of Noah. 

Much like today, the world was facing a climactic culmination of world events. God’s judgment was about to be unleashed. Man was about to pay for his actions, the hammer was poised to fall so to speak. In the midst of all of the rampant evil there remained the righteous, few though they were. What would God do to preserve and protect His people? 

Thankfully, for the sake of the future of mankind, Noah didn’t think as many modern Christian who say; “I will just trust God and He will provide and protect.” Or worse yet; “I don’t have to worry about it because we will all be raptured out of here before any of the real bad stuff happens anyway.” 

Here’s the question: why didn’t God just pluck Noah and his family out of town and plant them into some supernaturally protected oasis until the flood had subsided? Or float them on a cloud and feed them manna from heaven until he could replant them on earth and allow them to resume their lives?

Instead Noah spent 150 years of HARD LABOR and INTENSE PREPARATION for a day he probably couldn’t even picture in his mind. All he had to go on was a warning.

 A flood? Over the whole earth? Right!

 He got up every day and roused his lazy good for nothing sons out of bed (okay, I’m ad-libbing a bit) and went to work. And keep in mind; he didn’t have a Stihl chain saw, a Dewalt cordless drill, or even a Coleman generator. He had very primitive tools and a century and a half of back-breaking labor in order to prepare his family. It almost seems cruel that God would put him through all of that when it would have taken barely a thought to have saved Noah the trouble.

Why did God choose to make it so hard? Why didn’t he just wave a hand and allow ole Noah and family to soak up sunshine on a gorgeous Caribbean beach while He erased evil off of the earth? I don’t know. That will be a great question to ask once we meet our Savior face to face. Of course, when I think of the glory of heaven, I don’t think we’ll care at that time. 

Now, back to us. What can we glean from the story of Noah? A few tidbits.

God came to Noah. He didn’t go to Sister Noah. He didn’t go to the sons, or even the in-laws. He came to the man. The patriarch. In fact, there is no indication from Scripture that Mrs. Noah had anything at all to go on other than her faith in HER HUSBAND. It seems she was not privy to the popular teaching that if God calls the husband he will also call the wife. Such was not the case with: Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc…

Here’s the thing guys; God’s not going to give the warning to your wife or kids. It won’t be the woman of the house that lays awake at night and ponders how to build a cabin from scratch, put together an emergency first aid kit, or how to make a diesel replacement fuel out of coal dust. She likely won’t care about how many guns are in the house, how to sharpen a knife to a hairsplitting edge, or how deep to dig a root cellar.

It’s the men who He blessed with the rugged survival instinct and it’s the man who will be the one to “build the ark” and save his family in the coming days of trial. Am I saying that the wife has no place in the whole scheme of things? Of course not. She is as vitally important as the man but designed for a different purpose. It’s quite simple and hasn’t changed since the days of Adam and Eve: the man LEADS the woman HELPS.

Imagine we are sending our US military into a combat situation. Every man is trained to the hilt, equipped with the best that technology has to offer, and in tip top physical shape. He’s ready for battle. Right beside him are all the supply personnel, construction workers, cooks, and communications experts. As battle begins, all of these support personnel take up arms and join in on the skirmish leaving the behind the scenes roles unmanned. How long do you think it would take for all of the training, technology, and physical conditioning to become useless? The answer is: in a real life war scenario it would likely be no more than hours, maybe even minutes.

So, are the front line soldiers more important or vital to the mission than the support personnel? The answer is obvious. They are no more or less important. What is vital though is that they stay on mission. Women support, help, aid. Men lead, protect, guide.

Now, back to Noah. We know that HE was called and instructed. We also know that Mrs. Noah followed and supported. But there is something else we can’t afford to miss. It was Noah’s obedience to God and reaction to the warning that saved, not only he and his wife, but his sons and his daughters-in-law. The weight of facing the coming calamity rested primarily on Noah’s shoulders and it was his effort to guide his family to safety that saved them all.

I am not a shipbuilder but I have read reports from experts that claim that the ark would have never been seaworthy. It was too long for such a wood structure and would have broken in half. They also claim that it would have leaked and sank because the pitch would not have made a sufficient sealant.

Now I have found over the years that the word of “experts” is often the one to be the most leery of but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that these claims are true. If so, I am even more encouraged. It tells me that if I do the best I can with what I have and obey God, He will make up the difference! What a great reality. I may forget something or not have enough time or money to fully prepare for what’s coming but even so, God is able and willing to bridge the gap.

One last point I want to bring out. In Genesis 6:21 the Word of God says: ^“And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.” The point? God told them to store up food, to prepare, to plan for survival in the face of the coming judgment. Just as he’s telling us and so many others.

What happens if you prepare and store up and, in the end, nothing significant happens?

On the other hand, what if you don’t prepare, and calamity falls?

Simple Approach To Biblical Interpretation, Unwinding The Egalitarian Myth

One of the very successful tactics used by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was to convince the common folk that the Word of God was too complicated for them to understand. Adherents were taught that only a priest could interpret Scripture correctly. The church so feared the power of the Word of God in the hands of the citizenry that, if it was found that Average Joe possessed a Bible, it would be confiscated by force. By use of such a blatant lie the priests effectively took the truth out of the hands of their unwary subjects and thereby eliminated any chance of the false doctrines of the church being uncovered and challenged.

Unfortunately the same lie is still alive and well today yet now it has become so widespread that it is the norm even within the ranks of Evangelical and some Fundamental churches. But instead of taking the Bible completely out of the modern home; preachers, theologians, scholars, and professors have buried average Christians under a burden of insecurity. So insidious is this error that the truth of God’s Word is often tamped down to oblivion despite the Child of God holding the Bible right in his hands and even reading from its pages. 

How is this accomplished? Often by use of phrases such as: in the original language, a better word would have been, that’s the same word that’s used in…, what that really means is, and the Bible is open to interpretation. And the list could go on and on. Because the average churchgoer is anything but an expert in Greek or Hebrew he is quickly intimidated into silence even when what he reads in plain English is completely opposite of what he hears from the pulpit. 

After all, the expert must be correct, right? 

Sadly nothing could be further from the truth. There is one thing that theologians and average folk have in common; both sides tend to interpret Scripture under the microscope of their own personal bias and agenda rather than by the standard of God’s truth and character. 

Please allow me to use an illustration. A man steps into his son’s room and says, “Junior, get off your duff, get away from that video game, and take out the trash.” Then just as he’s about to step out into the hallway he turns back and reiterates. “And don’t take an eternity to get it done!” 

Just like the vast majority of Scriptural text: straight to the point and without openings for interpretational questions. The basic premise is obvious; either Junior takes out the trash or a time of intense unpleasantness will follow. 

Two hours later the father returns and this time there’s fire in his eyes. Here’s where we pick up the story. 

“Junior I told you to take out the trash and I meant NOW. Why did you disobey me?” 

Thinking like an egalitarian Junior quickly responds. “But dad, you told me to get off my duff. A duff is not only a reference to a person’s posterior but can also mean a stiff flour pudding that has been steamed or boiled. An alternate meaning is to describe decaying leaves or branches covering a forest floor. By the context of the statement it was apparent to me that you mistakenly assumed that I’d sat on some rice pudding. After confirming that I actually had not planted my tail on my lunch I was confident in the fact that I had obeyed your instructions to the letter.” 

At this point the father’s face begins to flush as his jaw tightens. 

“Also father after pondering your phrase ‘get away from that video game’ it quickly became clear to me what you REALLY meant to say. The word get simply means to receive or come to have possession, use, or enjoyment of. By taking into context the use of the word away, coupled with MY UNDERSTANDING of the use of the word get, it became clear to me that a better translation would have substituted the word away with the phrase your way. So by deeper study I’ve learned that what you really meant to say was; “have your way with the video game.” And me, being ever diligent to abide by your every wish, eagerly complied!” 

Now blood vessels begin to pop inside the father’s eyes. 

“Oh, and then you said to ‘take out’ the trash. Now a close look at the culture of the day will tell you that to use the phrase ‘take out’ actually means to go out on a date with. Now you stumped me with that one dad, but by fervent study I realized what you meant. Also using modern vernacular the term trash can be preceded by words such as white or even trailer. Now since we live in a mobile home park, it was safe to assume that you meant the latter term therefore is quite obvious to me that your wish was that I strike up a dating relationship with trailer trash. Guided by clearly definable criterion such as social status, clothing, and hygiene I am forced to believe that you would like me to start a relationship with Becky from two doors down. I’m not sure I understand your reasoning as she’s lacking any front teeth and therefore not what I would picture as my dream girl, but since I am VERY concerned about OBEYING YOUR EVERY WORD. I will immediately attempt to set up a date for this weekend.”

At this point the father is thumbing the buckle of his belt.

“Then there’s the problem of time frame. Now we know that the term eternity means time without beginning or end, infinite time. Now you can be sure father, that I certainly won’t be taking an ‘eternity’ to do what you ask. Wink wink…” 

As the belt snaps through the loops in a series of ominous pops the dad firmly states; “Basically what you are saying is, you simply didn’t want to take out the trash.”

 The purpose of this blog is to help people understand that the Bible is sure and true and you can safely trust in what you read. As in the story above, it’s not that egalitarians don’t know what the Word of God says concerning women’s roles, or even what it means. It simply doesn’t tickle their sensibilities and they are therfore unwilling to obey it. No matter how much contorting, twisting, cajoling, and outright deceiving that is done, the Bible still says what it says and means what it means. 

There is no room for Private Interpretation! 2 Peter 1:20 

Safe and easy Biblical interpretation:

 Start by confidently taking it at face value. Leonard Ravenhill once said:  “Many pastors criticize me for taking the Gospel so seriously. But do they really think that on Judgment Day, Christ will chastise me, saying, ‘Leonard, you took Me too seriously’?” 

I think Brother Ravenhill hit the nail right on the head. Any rational person would be forced to conclude that if you, in good faith, follow the obvious meaning of a text, you can’t go wrong. The Achilles Heel of Egalitarians is they look at a text and instantly reject what it says and then go about studying to validate their fraudulent conclusions.

How about an example. When the average modern American Christian man reads 1 Cor. 11:14 “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” there is typically one of two outcomes. If he normally wears his hair short he glosses over the text with little thought after all, he’s got that one down pat. But on the other hand, if he likes to wear his hair long, he summarily rejects the text (just as he’s been taught to do by his preacher) and decides that the lesson isn’t relevant to him. He then dips into his tool-chest of excuses such as: that was only cultural for that day, it wasn’t a command but was only a social trend, it was a shame for them of that day but not today, or maybe; how long is long anyway?

So what would have been the safest, most reasonalble course of action for this Bible student? It’s pretty obvious, simply get a haircut!

Using Ravenhill’s philosophy lets reason this out. The long-haired male is standing before God and the question of his hair comes into play. What side of the fence would you rather be on? “I was studying Your Word and I saw where long hair on a man is a shame so I got a haircut.” Or, “I was studying Your World and I saw where long hair on a man is a shame but I decided that passage didn’t apply to me?”

Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that this is another of the apparent many places that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. The man stands before God with nicely kempt short hair. Do you figure that the Lord would judge him for having hair too short? Now let’s turn it around and assume that God actually meant what he said. When the shaggy-dude approaches the throne, how do you think that scene may play out?

The moral is simple; it is much safer to obey than to make silly attempts to skirt the clear text.

Just do what the Bible says! What I would say to an Egalitarian is: if you are truly a child of the Living God, quit trying to inject your own will to his Word!

The true test of obedience is not when you follow the rules you like but rather when you submit to the ones you hate!

No amount of study is going to make the Biblical passages mean exactly opposite of what they say. Yet, that’s exactly what Egalitarians would have us believe.

Egalitarian Biblical Interpretation 101:

1). When the Bible says, “Women are to keep silence in the church.” What it really means is that women are to be in the forefront and outspoken.

2). When the Word says, “Women are not to teach nor usurp authority over the man.” Actually every church should have programs in place to encourage women to seek leadership roles and welcome them to preach in church pulpits.

3). Yes, there are passages that state that women are to remain in subjection but if you study it out, you will find that in reality they are to be in all kinds of leadership positions.

4). When the Word dictates that the woman be submissive to her husband that is just a misunderstanding. What that actually means is that the husband and wife are to be mutually submissive.

Its really quite silly isn’t it. Those of the Egalitarian persuasion would have us believe that God Himself as well as the men he raised up to write and translate the Word of God are all fools. They were completely inadequate to clearly write what they meant. But thankfully, in these last generations, God has FINALLY raised up a new breed of Biblical interpreters that understand what Men Of God throughout the ages didn’t. We are so blessed to have such new and special insight. (healthy dose of sacrasm added)

In reality what we have is no different than the dynamic that was at play in the Garden of Eden. Man’s will overriding God’s clear commands.

Part II coming soon!

Women Preachers-Joyce Meyer Sermon

James Knox is a bit harsh and delivers the message much differently than I would but still a great treasure on the subject of Women Preachers.Click here

Egalitarian Tactics

When it comes to the dissemination of error there tends to be a few commonalities in the chosen battle plans. These are most often employed by the side with the weakest (or nonexistent) position. The homosexual community is a shining example. Through carefully crafted methods of persuasion they have successfully swayed the popular mores of a whole society, even much of the world. All the while obscuring readily observable facts concerning the dangers inherent in that lifestyle. Only a cursory glance at the rates of clinical depression, suicide, alcoholism, murder, and drug addiction, not to mention child molestation will show the misery associated with that sin. Yet, by something as simple as the hijacking of the word gay many of the less critical thinkers in society have been persuaded that the truth is, in fact, the opposite of reality.

 Egalitarians were great students.

 Through the careful use of phrases such as studied it out, or in the Greek/in the Hebrew, egals have successfully duped people unsure of their own Biblical knowledge. By this con they have been led to believe a dogma that is directly opposed to what they read when in study of the Holy Scriptures. Because of their own insecurity they fall headlong into the trap of believing that the teacher must be far more intelligent than they. In reality that is often not the case.

 They reason that since the man behind the podium holds a Doctor of Divinity, or a college professorship, or is maybe an expert in Greek and Hebrew, that the teaching is therefore infallible. They fail to take into account that more times than not; human bias trumps education.

 Quoting from a thirty-year college professor I spoke to recently, “Some of the most short-sighted, stupid, and utterly ignorant people I have ever known are college professors”.

In light of that, let’s look at some examples of egal tactics.

 Adoption of unrelated passages:

Talk to an egal for very long and you will undoubtedly hear reference to the idea that Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, were the first resurrection evangelists. They reason that since the women left the grave site and ran to tell the disciples about Christ’s resurrection, they were evangelists. (Matt. 28:1-10)

 Any honest person has to cringe at the utter lunacy of such an argument. While the fact that these women were at the tomb while the men were off licking their wounds is admirable, it of course has nothing to do with women in pulpit ministry or authority positions in the church. Nor does it have anything to do with pulpit evangelism. Were these women evangelists? Of a sort, yes. As any child of God should be. An evangelist is simply a publisher of glad tidings (Easton’s Bible Dictionary). We all, male or female, should be diligent in that task. But again, this argument is far removed from the subject at hand.

 And if that wasn’t absurd enough here’s another egal favorite. Any Bible student knows that God used a donkey to speak to Balaam (II Peter 2: 15-16). Egal logic dictates that if God can use a donkey, He can certainly use a woman right? At this point the cringe would evolve into a groan. Of course honesty and reason requires us to ask: what does this story have to do with the discussion in question? The obvious answer is nothing. God spoke through a donkey, a fact that is amazing and quite entertaining, but completely irrelevant to the subject of women preachers. Was the donkey a preacher or Biblical teacher? Was it a church leader? Now I’ve known a few mule headed pastors in my day but this particular donkey was not in pastoral ministry.

 Pretty silly rationalization isn’t it. Of course if egals choose to stick to this line of thinking, it can be sarcastically pointed out that donkeys were never Scripturally forbidden to teach or usurp authority over the man, women were! (I Tim. 2:12)

 As a general rule; the more absurd the argument the weaker the position. The fact that egals would even postulate such nonsense reveals the desperation of their stance.

 Another example of twisted definitions is the egalitarian use of Gal. 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Although I will get into this passage in greater depth in the Nuts and Bolts section a brief summery is in order. Even a scant review of the context of this passage will show that the message revealed here has nothing in common with the message of the egalitarianism. Any student of Scripture would do well to read the whole chapter of Galatians 3. After doing so it will become abundantly clear that the context of the passage is vastly distinct from the subject of authority roles in the church or home. Nor is it honest to insert the idea of pulpit ministry into the text. The passage is clearly speaking of our position in Christ as it relates to salvation and the Kingdom of God, not roles or authority positions. Again, I will deal with this verse in further detail in a later article.

 Most Christian people understand the plight of women in the days of the early church. Females were considered nothing more than property and under many restrictions as such. It is thankfully apparent through the New Testament writers, that the social inequities were strongly addressed and corrected by Jesus. He certainly held women in the highest of esteem. But what He didn’t do is abolish the authority structure within the home or the church. In fact, the Bible specifically reaffirms these roles through clear, concise, and inspired directions.

 Egalitarians choose to contort Christ’s high regard for women as a basis of reordering authority positions and established roles in the church. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that Jesus held children in the highest of esteem as well but that didn’t negate the Biblical requirement to obey their parents or elders. I use that example to highlight a principle, not to equate women with children. It was necessary to point that fact, as I’ve learned from bitter experience, how quickly my words would be contorted into something far from their obvious or intended meaning.

 So what was the principle? Quite simply; regard doesn’t equal equality.

Now it’s personal

 No weak and wavering affront of the facts would be complete without the personal attacks. We see this tactic utilized every day by aggressive race baiters as it’s played out on the evening news. It has become increasingly predictable for a particular group to resort to attacks on personal character for the purpose of silencing the opposing view.

 The so-called minority groups have used this tactic with overwhelming success. Scarcely a day goes by that we don’t see the flippant tag of the label racist used to quickly shut down all clear and honest discussion on the subject. Again, the homosexual groups have followed suit. Through the disingenuous use of monikers such as bigot, homophobe, and hatemonger, any and all opposing truth is summarily squelched. This has left the door open to inject society with the homosexual viewpoint while facing limited roadblocks. Because no one wants to be labeled a racist or homophobe, they choose to play it safe and remain silent.

 Once again the egals soaked up the rhetoric with gusto. Now an honest and upright adherent of Scriptural truth is quickly assaulted with terms such as; chauvinist, woman-hater, or control freak. And this doesn’t come from the “world” it comes from those professing Christianity! Despite clear warnings in Scripture against ungodly and unrighteous judgment egals have no problem with hanging horrible labels on individuals whom they have never met. Such brutal attacks are prompted by nothing more than a difference in Biblical interpretation.

 This might prove eye-opening to some but just because a person stands for the Biblical guidelines on gender roles, does not mean that this person hates women. In fact, almost without exception the traditionalists that I have known personally do endeavor to hold to the Scriptural mandate against women in inappropriate roles, but they are just as fervent to maintain the Biblical regard for women.

 Egals, on the other hand, tend to default to venomous attacks on traditionalist, and often toward men in general. I was in an e-mail discussion with an egalitarian who often referred to my letters as hate-male. It is truly unfortunate that I have since lost the discourse through some computer problem or another as it would prove truly enlightening to the readers. The woman I was debating was one of the most well-known in the Egalitarian movement and a name that would be readily recognized by many. What proved to be most shocking and unexpected to me was the sheer angst that came through in each sentence of her letters. I was called names, berated, attacked, and demeaned; the likes I have never seen come from the traditionalist camp.

 Let me clarify. Are there Traditionalist who resort to vicious name calling, rude insults, and baseless attacks? Of course. But you’d be hard pressed to find the level of vitriol that is common among the Egalitarians. 

 Now there is no denying the fact that some have ransacked the Word of God for the purpose of controlling, demeaning, and oppressing women. To claim otherwise would be foolish but by whatever chosen means human ambition has been used to contort the Bible can not and should not be used against God or His Holy Word. Truth is still truth, regardless of how man has attempted to twist it for his own devises.

 The overall goal of personal attacks is to play a swap game, again modeled after the homosexual play book. By labeling normal, moral people as homophobes, haters, and the like, the homosexual community has been successful at changing the public’s perception. Because of this tactic more and more Americans see the perverted as normal and normal as morally base. This is only exacerbated by the re-labeling of a vile lifestyle as gay.

 In the United States of America, the exceptionally high morals of the Word of God have always set the standard for our society. That is until the last several decades. In the church world the egalitarians have hung their hat on the same bait and switch tactic and with great success. Male leadership within the church, home, and society had been the accepted norm for generations. Now, through the perversion of God’s plan, Egalitarians have succeeded in convincing good meaning church people that the traditional role is bad and the new Egalitarian model is good. This misconception has become eagerly accepted despite the overwhelming and readily observable facts that show the opposite. Examples of this will be forthcoming in a later edition.

 Note for consideration: Egalitarians will call foul when labeled as rebellious by a Traditionalist. They will quickly claim that their opponent is guilty of judgment and thereby wrong. It should be obvious to any Bible student that to label an Egalitarian as rebellious is in no way comparable to referring to a Traditionalist as a woman-hater. Here’s why.

 Scripture has no qualms with inspecting fruit and judging accordingly (Matt. 7:14) Just as you would see a person in a blue uniform carrying a gun and badge and come to the conclusion that he is a police officer. That would be a righteous judgment and fully endorsed by the Bible (John 7:24). Now if you were to say that the police officer hated women just because he arrested a woman, that would be unrighteous judgment and forbidden by God’s Word (Matt. 7:1). Yet some on both sides of this issue are guilty of exactly that. But again, the vast majority of the examples will come from the Egalitarian camp.

 Egalitarians stand in direct opposition to the clear teachings of the Bible and therefore ARE in rebellion. That’s inspection of the fruit. If I were to say that an Egalitarian simply hates all men based on his beliefs in regard to this subject that would be an unrighteous judgment. In exactly the same way it is improper for an Egalitarian to call a person of the opposing view a woman-hater. Only God knows a person’s heart and for a man to assume that position is sin. On the other hand, when one is unwilling to accept clear Biblical teaching or when he stands in direct defiance of God’s Word and plan; that is the very definition of rebellion.

Women Preachers, The Clear Biblical Truth.

Note: Egalitarianism: the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality. (Wordnet.Princeton.edu) 

Among the church community Egalitarian is more specifically used to express equality in ministry roles and position. For the sake of this study the church definition will be assumed. 

Intro 

Those persons experienced in public speaking or writing will likely be familiar with an odd phenomenon. Select individuals in the audience, usually those who don’t care for the speaker personally, or the views expressed, will later relate what was said much differently than it was actually stated or intended. This often stems from a strong desire to fit the message to their mold rather than an honest rendering of the content. The disparity is often so extreme that it seems the receiver genuinely heard words and phrases that were never actually spoken.

 Another equally disturbing phenomenon is the tendency to interpret the expressions in the absolute most sinister way possible. Typically far removed from the view and/or beliefs of the speaker.

 Countless times throughout my decades of pulpit ministry, some well-meaning individual would berate me for the horrific statements made during a course of a sermon. The encounter would invariably leave me scratching my head in wonder while I endeavored to explain that I never said anything of the sort, nor have I ever held such a belief.

 Worse yet, despite my assurances, a perusing of my notes, or even a careful review of the audio recording, my accuser was seldom swayed.

 I am convinced that these same phenomena is responsible for the rise and acceptance of the erroneous teachings of Mutual Submission and gender equality as it pertains to roles and authority structure within the church. Neither concept can be found anywhere within the pages of the Bible whether in direct doctrine, context, or the spirit of the message. It’s actually quite astounding to watch as Egals (Egalitarians) read clear Scripture and then interpret it in complete opposition to the obvious context and meaning.

 It is noteworthy to state that from the days of the earliest church fathers until the first third of the nineteenth century any notion of what we would today call egalitarianism was summarily rejected. With very few isolated exceptions there was eighteen centuries of near complete consensus on the subject.

 In fact, it was the great reformist, John Wesley who first opened the door to women preachers. A mighty man of God indeed and used immeasurably of the Lord to advance the truth of the genuine Gospel, yet on this subject his reasoning is amazingly emotional, not Biblical. According to his writings he saw that the Holy Spirit called women as well as men into ministry and that the ministry of women was being greatly blessed. Therefore he was forced to conclude that it was of God.

 The obvious error of such rationale should immediately spring into the mind of any reader. If relative success and popularity proves to be the criterion for acceptance of doctrine, then we are forced to conclude that Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witness are authentic Christian movements as well. In the same vein we must accept the utter fallacy of the Prosperity Message touted by preachers with followings numbering in the tens and even hundreds of thousands. These false teachers fill coliseums and spout their heresy to millions over the airwaves of a dedicated television station. And they believe, or at the very least attest, that they are called of the Holy Spirit to preach. Does that make them legitimate? Is their testimony of a subjective feeling and seeming success a basis for accepting them as true ministers of the Gospel? Of course not. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our foundation of faith must be based on Scripture and Scripture alone.

 Another of the great reformists that fell into this error was Charles Finney and again his reasoning is terribly and obviously flawed. Through a very unfortunate but undeniable misinterpretation of Gal. 3:28 he helped open the door to the rise of the modern egalitarian movement. I will deal at length with this particular passage of Scripture later in the Nuts and Bolts section.

 Let me make this clear. My regard and appreciation to great men of God such as Finney and Wesley can not be overstated. These men shaped and molded what we know as the church today and were used mightily of the Lord to bring rise to a spiritual revolution. The scope of such we still enjoy today. No, far from critical of these notable men, I hold them in the highest of admiration. But we must always remember; they were still men and therefore, fallible. Frankly, on the subject of egalitarianism, they erred.

 From this humble start the egalitarian movement began to take tentative wings. In 1837 Oberlin College, a Presbyterian institution, was the first to accept women as students destined to field of pulpit ministry. As its second president they enjoyed none other than Charles Finney.

 From that point in history progress was slow as the traditionalists, some for commendable reasons of maintaining Scriptural purity, others due to less admirable and self serving motives, fought against the fledgling separatists. It is truly unfortunate that, with all of Scriptural authority behind them, some men rose up in a spirit of jealousy. Forgetting the very basis of the position-the Word of God-they fell into the trap of selfish bickering, hateful rhetoric, and venomous debate. These things only served to bring shame to the truth of the Lord and His church. 

 Building on small and isolated victories it wasn’t until the 1970’s that the push for women in pulpit ministry picked up steam. With the sudden rise of the Charismatic wing of the Pentecostal Movements came a push for “equality” in church leadership and ministry. The Egalitarian Movement fit nicely with the Charismatic worshipers as sound Biblical doctrine nearly always took a back seat to experiential and emotional leanings. Because it “felt right” to them, the equality position was mistaken as direction from the Holy Spirit, regardless of its direct conflict with Scripture.

 With 27 years in a Pentecostal denomination under my belt, I am often amazed at how seldom the subject of women in ministry arises. But, when it does, the same pattern is nearly always followed. The peacher will read clear and undeniable Scripture on the subject and then spend an hour explaining every nuance of it away until we are left to believe that it actually means exactly opposite of what it says.

 The cancer of the Egalitarian movement is not limited to Pentecostal/Charismatic organizations. Many mainline denominations have abandoned their earlier positions and thereby the Word of God, in deference to a socially accepted doctrine rather than a Biblical one.

 In the next section I will deal with some of the tactics often used, unfortunately quite successfully, by the Egalitarian Movement.