Simple Approach to Biblical Interpretation-Unwinding the myth Part II

As I have repeatedly stated; one of the goals of this blog is to show those who may be a bit timid, that Biblical interpretation is normally quite simple. You don’t need a doctorate or even a theological degree. But what you do need is an obedient attitude. You must be willing to follow Scripture regardless of your own personal sensibilities and ideals. You must have the faith to believe that the Lord knows what is best and that His plan is better than yours.

When it comes to egalitarianism and the belief in women preachers/pastors, there really isn’t an alternative interpretation. Scripture says what Scripture says.

And it’s really just that simple.

Differing “interpretations” concerning women in ministry are really not that at all. They are twists, contortions, snubs, and slanders, of Scripture, but they most certainly are not interpretations. When you were a child and your mother ordered you to turn off the TV and do your homework. There simply was no possible alternate meaning of her words. She said it, you knew what she meant, and you likely knew the consequences for disobedience. Any argument you may have tried was nothing more than an excuse for defiance and hopefully your poor behavior was dealt with appropriately.

Allow me to show you just how hard egalitarians work in order to deny the truth of Scripture. I was perusing a web page called Circle of Christian Women at circleofchristianwomen.com here are some observations I made.

In one area of text at the site the statement is offered: “This is not about having dominance or power over you.”

Now it’s very easy to see what the purpose of that statement is; to infer that those who stand against women preachers simply wish to exercise dominion and power over women. But is that an accurate assumption? While it’s obvious that most  people could cite examples of just such men. Possibly quite a number of men down through history but in reality for a man to operate in such a spirit is diametrically opposite of what Scripture teaches on the subject. Just because
some individuals are apt to use the Bible as a club does not nullify the truth  of God’s Holy Word. So, in all reality, Circle of Christian Women and true biblical
traditionalists are in agreement on that subject; it isn’t about dominion or  power over women!

Even before that statement we find the following: “Christian women,  do not permit yourself to be silenced by gender prejudice in the Christian  church.”

By that phrase we see that the folks who accept the clear teaching of Scripture and are willing to obey it, are actually the ones who are flawed. In fact, if you abide  by what the Bible openly proclaims, then you are full of gender prejudice. Frankly, you are a bigot!

Artificially claiming the higher ground while, while at the same time, debasing an adversary who holds the superior argument, is a tactic straight out of the radical left. Pro-abortionists, race-baiters, and homosexual advocates have honed this tactic to perfection. It’s also a favorite battle plan of anti-spanking groups. For  example, from that corner you will often hear statements such as; “we just  don’t believe in hitting our child.” Well guess what: neither do parent who advocate  spanking. Every reasonable person, even small children, fully understand the vast  difference  between “hitting” and spanking. But in an attempt to villainize and debase those of the traditional and stronger argument, they artificially claim  the high ground.

“Knowledge of the scriptures is imperative so that no person can silence your anointing, gifts and talents given to you by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

They make this statement despite the fact that the very same Scripture of which they speak, commands women to be silent in church and forbids them to lead or teach men? 1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:12

We see in this statement another example of reaching for artificial high ground. They might say: “Well since my anointing came from the Blood of Jesus Christ, how can you fight against it?”

Quite simply; it didn’t. A woman can be “anointed” or more accurately called  to do a great many things but God has never called or anointed a woman to be a pastor or a preacher. If he had, that fact would make him in conflict with his own commands. Therefore anyone claiming that the Holy Spirit has anointed a woman to preach is of necessity calling the Lord a hypocrite.

Women preachers have this odd idea that if they publically claim a calling to preach and demonstrate some ability or apparent success in that area, then they are validated. Scripture not withstanding, their calling must have come from God.

But they forget a simple fact: God never changes his commands to accommodate anyone. Even if the woman seems to be the best preacher that the world has ever seen, it is irrelevant; she is still in sin. There’s no way around that fact. A lowly seaman can excel in leadership ability above and beyond the Admiral under whom he serves but, until he legitimately ascends to the office and rank, he still has no authority.

On the subject of women in ministry, it boils down to obedience or rebellion. Those are the only options and there is no middle ground.

Next on the web site an article is referenced from the Trumpet Wind List at TrumpetWindList@TrumpetWind written by Pastor Keith A. Smith.

Notice how far Scripture must be stretched in order to advocate the egalitarian viewpoint. Space does not permit a complete rendering of the errors made in the article but I will work on a few in the list to help you see the tactics used:

“There is not one Scripture in the Bible that forbids women from preaching, but on the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel.”

Response:  Really? How about: 1 Cor. 14:34: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.”

Or maybe 1 Tim. 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

There are two examples which are very clear concerning the matter. Now, when someone decides to debate this, please read closely what they say. You will find that the argument won’t be clear and honest interpretation of Scripture but rather a shaky attempt to explain it away. Expect statements such as: “The chauvinistic bigots always repeat the same arguments and harp on the same passages.”

Yes we do. Because they happen to be the correct arguments!

Isn’t it funny that Pastor Smith stated; “but on the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel.”  Yet oddly, he failed to mention one. Here’s the facts: there is not even a single example of a women preacher, pastor, Scriptural writer, or apostle anywhere in the Bible. Neither did any women hold the office of a Prophet. Some prophesied, meaning they told people about the Lord or as the Strong’s Concordance brings out:

1)
to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict

a)
to prophesy

b)
with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp. to the kingdom of
God

c)
to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation

d)
to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine
counsels

1)
under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others

e)
to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

As we can see, preach is not in the definition anywhere.

So, is there a problem with Strong’s definition of prophesy? Of course not. God’s Word clearly states that women will prophecy. According to Acts 2:17-18 God  promises that in the last days both men and women will prophecy. Yes, they will  be used of God to speak of the kingdom of God. In Luke chapter 2 we learn of a  wonderful woman of God named Anna. She was a widow who lived in and never  left the temple. The text tells us that she served God with fasting and prayer.  nowhere does it mention her preaching.

Verse 38 even tells us that she: spake of him to all them that looked for  redemption in Jerusalem.  What that means is simple; she told people  about Jesus. That’s it. Noteworthy is the fact that in verses 34-35, Simon, prophesied  over the Christ child. Yet Anna remained in subjection and gave thanks. Why  didn’t the prophesy come from Anna? The answer is simple: it was the man’s role, not hers.

In fact there is nothing in the Strong’s definition that conflicts with the  traditional view against women preachers. An amazing fact is that Scripture  explains Scripture. We know that 1 Cor. 14:34 commands women to be silent in church while 1 Tim. 2:12 forbids them to teach or exercise authority over men.  Of course teaching and preaching is inherently leadership/authority roles.  Therefore women cannot perform those actions when men are among the hearers. So, how do we reconcile the fact that the  Bible says that women will prophesy but at the same time they must remain in subjection, be in silence, and not be in authority over men. It’s really  quite simple and is explained in Titus 2:3-5

³The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

⁴That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

⁵To be  discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own  husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

“2. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex.”

“Galatians 3:28 – “…neither male nor female…for ye are all one in  Christ Jesus.”

“Acts 10:34 – “…God is no respecter of persons….”

“Moses said in Numbers 11:29, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were  prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!”

The crying need of the hour is for more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to  try to down rate thousands of our faithful laborers just because they were born females.”

Did you catch the myriad of glaring errors? Let’s look at what Scripture actually says in Gal. 3:26-29 (I have included the passages before and after in order to provide context).

²⁶For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 ²⁷For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

 ²⁸There 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.

 ²⁹And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now the subject with which we are dealing is authority structure in the church, gender roles in ministry, calling, and ministerial office. Honestly, do those  Galatian passages deal with any of those matters? No, obviously not. We clearly see that the subject of the Apostle Paul was summed up in verse 29; our (male and female) position in the body of Christ as it pertains to our eternal reward (as joint heirs 1 Peter 3:7). This passage simply has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of women preachers or pastors.

Acts 10:34 is equally apparent. Again I will include the context; “34, Then Peter
opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35, But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Emphasis added.

Again, is that passage dealing at all with authority in the church or home, roles in
ministry, or any other matter of the subject at hand? No, it is speaking clearly of our acceptance by Christ and thereby our salvation.

Here’s the problem with the egalitarian’s logic. If you twist passages such as these to make them about authority, roles, and position, then anyone who is under any type of authority could freely do the same. In that case there would be no authority anywhere. A child could just as easily quote Acts 10:34 whenever a parent told him to do something. How well do you think it would work out to quote the Scriptures to your boss at work when he gives you a command? And what about all the passages in the Bible that deal directly with authority and submission?

Why didn’t Paul instruct Onesimus to tell Philemon to go take a hike, after all, there is no bond or free…right? But instead we see Paul sending Onesimus back to his slave master and requesting Philemon to receive him as more than just a slave but also as a brother. In fact in verse 16 of Philemon he says: “…but  how much more to you, both in the flesh (as a servant) and in the Lord (as a fellow believer).”(Amplified)

Basically Paul is acknowledging Philemon’s authority over Onesimus while requesting that he be freed of that slavery.

This same Bible says in Hebrews 13:17 “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls…” and Col. 3:22, “Servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh…” 1 Peter 3:6, “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…” And the list could go on and on. Question: why didn’t Sarah simply remind Abraham that in the Lord there is no male or female?

The answer is obvious.

Is there authority roles in Christ? Yes. Are they to be obeyed? Again, yes. Do the passages quoted by Pastor Smith negate that authority? No, they deal with an entirely different subject.

How about the passage in Numbers 11:29 referred to by Pastor Smith. Let’s look at the context:

²⁴And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about
the tabernacle.

²⁵And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

²⁶But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

²⁷And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

²⁸And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

²⁹And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

³⁰And Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.

Notice the subject of the context? Moses wasn’t speaking of women anywhere in the text. He referred to the elders who were men, Eldad and Medad who were also men, Joshua-a man, and the young man. The obvious context of Moses’ statement was that he wished that all MEN were prophets.

But then again, this story is thousands of years before the church while the subject at hand is the church. Although a study of the Old Testament temple and office of Prophet perfectly lines up with the commands of the New Testament concerning the subject.

More to come:

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.