Instead of responding to every shot fired, here is a compilation of the standard arguments for Christo-feminism and why the bible says they are wrong.

::::::::

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. -- 1Timothy 2:11-14 (ESV)

I saw another article today regarding the MacArthur-Moore bruhaha and was ready to do a line by line refutation because the Christo-feminists all use the same arguments and debunking them is becoming easier each time. Instead, I feel led to simply state the case for what the bible does say and present the truth about every woman that is leveraged by Christi-feminists to try and defend their unbiblical position. I say unbiblical for a reason. What they advocate for violates scripture. Specifically, the key verses above. These are the primary scriptures on this subject. There are supporting scriptures in Corinthians but the Christo-feminists crowd is better at attacking those. They have no lucid argument against the key verses in Timothy. These are clear, directive and unambiguous. I DO NOT PERMIT. As if knowing so many would try and be disobedient to this, God even gives us His reasoning! Yet still the spirit of feminism that has so corrupted the word continues to try and seep into the church as well.

Let me first deal with why we argue for biblical truth. The subject at hand is not near and dear to my heart. I know excellent sisters in Christ who can preach the paint off the walls. It brings me no joy to point out to them that because they can do something, even do it well, does not mean they should. All things are permissible but not all are beneficial, or in this case allowed. This is not trying to hold women back but rather to have them be obedient, as we would want for all of our brothers and sisters. The role of a discernment ministry is to correct biblical abuses and lead people out of false teaching to the real Gospel of Jesus Christ. One compromise leads to another. Jesus taught that a little leaven eventually works its way through the entire batch.

Secondly, let's deal with what is actually in dispute because the feminist forces always like to muddy the waters and bring up things that are not in dispute. Women play a crucial role in the church just like men. God however has designated one area that women are forbidden from. That is within church structure, women are not to serve in teaching or preaching capacities in authority over men. So when you see arguments like Phillip's daughters, who had the gift of prophecy, you know that is being offered only to confuse and muddy the waters because no one is saying women cannot prophesy.

Thirdly, let us deal with the faux outrage at John MacArthur for daring to say, "go home." What is lost in this discussion is that Beth Moore is a false teacher. This is widely documented and easy to discern. Her affection for eastern mysticism and contemplative prayer alone disqualifies her. As does her affinity for pretending to receive direct revelation. Her exegesis is terrible and her position on many social issues is squishy at best. So forgive me when I say that I simply do not buy all of this angst about the two simple words -- go home. I have written thousands of devotionals for over a decade now and I can say unequivocally that the people who cry outrage the loudest about the method of the message delivery do so because they know they have no arguments on the merits of the message itself. Christo-feminists have a cause and they are using the outrage to further that cause. God's word however, remains unchanged on this subject no matter how many times Beth Moore stamps her feet and declares otherwise.

Fourth, let us recognize the strategies employed to argue against the clear and directive scriptures above. They have tried to use cultural arguments. That means that the scriptures only applied to the church at Corinth because they must have had a problem with outspoken women. This of course does not explain why it is in the Timothy letter nor the fact that Paul specifically says this policy belongs in "all the churches." The larger point is God does not respect time or culture. In order for this argument to be correct or the arguments about Paul hating women, we must abandon the notion of divine inspiration. We believe that God wrote the above scriptures, not Paul. If not cultural arguments, Christ-feminists scour the bible for any female involvement and then read into that involvement as a logical conclusion that the key scripture must not be correct or interpreted correctly. Except we do not need to interpret the key scriptures -- we just need to read them. I read an article from J. Lee Grady today that referred to focusing on the clear, directive scripture as "narrow" because it ignores all of the scripture regarding women who served. That is a backwards argument. You do not dismiss clear directive scriptures for vague references to people where you get to fill in the gaps with your imagination. So, let us reason together through all of the women mentioned in the bible, that Christo-feminists use to try and ignore the key verses.

Miriam -- yes it is true that one verse in Exodus refers to Miriam as "prophetess." What can we glean from this? That she was considered a prophetess. That is it. In the Old Testament, the role of Prophet was much different than today. They did not hold authority either. They served God and the king (although in Miriam's case she was the sister of Aaron and served Moses). Does this one verse mean that women should hold leadership positions? No. It does however lend weight to the role of prophesying for women, which I have never heard anyone disagree about besides cessationists.

Huldah -- during the days of King Josiah, Huldah was indeed a prophetess of the Lord, as well as the "keeper of the wardrobe." The same points remain as we saw with Miriam and in addition, women are permitted to keep the wardrobe I suppose.

Tabitha (Dorcas) -- I have read people twist these tiny verses to pretend she ran a "benevolence ministry." All the text says is that she was full of good works and acts of charity. Only when you are approaching the Bible with an agenda can you turn the story of raising Dorcas from the dead into a validation of women in ministry.

Phillip's four unmarried daughters -- yes, the Bible does say that they prophesied, clearly supporting everything we have already agreed to. It should be noted that the insistence of using the "unmarried" notation (virgin in other translations) is to show that these four had fully committed themselves to the service of the Lord forgoing marriage, as Paul speaks about later on.

Euodia and Syntyche -- in Philippians 4, Paul refers to these two as co-laborers. So what can we glean from this text? That they were co-laborers. No one has ever suggested that women have no role in the church.

Priscilla -- in Romans 16 she is referred to by Paul as a fellow worker in Christ. Same point as with Euodia and Syntyche. This is what is deceptive about these arguments. We are having a discussion about women teaching and preaching with authority over men in the church, not whether women can be considered co-laborers. I have heard them argue that because she taught Apollos in Acts 18 that women can teach. They ignore that she did this with her husband Aquila and not within a church service. I have even heard it argued that because Paul mentions Priscila first, he must value her more than her husband. Nonsense. Two of the six times they are referenced it is Aquila mentioned first, indicating there was probably no rhyme nor reason for who was listed first. This again just highlights how desperate they are to disobey God.

Phoebe -- I have heard Phoebe portrayed as a "leader in the church at Cenchrea." To say this is a leap is an understatement. The word used in these verses is essentially "help." Phoebe had been a tremendous help to many, including Paul. Not a leader at the church. She may have been involved in many charitable acts as well. There is zero scriptural support that she was a leader in the church. The height of deceitfulness here is when they insist she was a deaconess in the church. She most certainly was not. Now the word used to describe her is diakonos, which is translated deacon -- today. The church did not create or use the office or word deacon however, for a thousand more years! At the time of the writing, the word simply meant helper. In fact, the exact word is used earlier in the letter; twice during chapter 13. When speaking about rulers, Paul says the following:

For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. -- Romans 13: 4 (ESV)

Paul is speaking about rulers who hold authority here and refers to them as servants of the Lord twice. In both instances it is the exact same word used in Chapter 16 to refer to Phoebe. No one in their right mind infers that in Chapter 13 Paul is calling rulers deaconesses, yet that is the argument being made for its usage in Chapter 16 and it is simply inaccurate. Phoebe is beyond question a very important person to Paul. He entrusted her with delivering this letter to the Church at Rome, which in those days was no small task. She was probably wealthy and a great benefactor to the cause of Christ. She deserves our admiration and respect for these things but that does not make her a leader in the church or give us any reason to dismiss the key verses.

Junia -- In their desperation, Christo-feminists turn to a man named Junias, change his gender to female and then misinterpret the one verse that exists about him in the entire bible. I do not need to get into the gender confusion/debate because he/she was not an apostle either way:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. -- Romans 16: 7 (ESV)

Those who want the Bible to say something it does not prefer the translations that say these two individuals were "outstanding among the apostles." Biblical scholars who are experts in syntax and grammar however agree that the ESV translation above is probably the most accurate. When other translations state that they were "outstanding" it simple meant that they would stand out" to the apostles. It is also of interesting note that Paul uses the male collective term kinsmen to describe both. As stated however, the gender does not matter as these two individuals were not apostles. They were simply well-known to the apostles.

I have saved one name for last and that is the judge, Deborah. She is the single representation of female leadership in the 6,000 + years of recorded biblical history. There is no question that Scripture states she was a judge and a prophetess. But beloved we must reason together. She is the outlier in Scripture, not the normative. Many have speculated that her rise to be a judge, the only female judge in the 400 years of judges, was a testimony against the men of Israel. That God had to turn to a woman to lead. I see no value in devaluing her role and her contribution to the people of God. The larger point is that in the entire canon of Scripture she is the only example of a woman in a leadership position, exercising authority over men. You cannot build doctrine upon that, especially in light of the very clear instructions that are in Scripture regarding the role of women.

I first wrote on this subject a few years ago and will close with the same closing from that devotional because nothing has really changed:

Beloved, God sets the standards; not man. While the world spins out of control in the change it thinks is progressive and positive, God does not change. The world might view this line of thinking as sexist but God's ways are so much higher than ours. We are not to think like the world. There have been plenty of women God has used through the millennia to further His cause and kingdom. There are plenty of roles women are allowed to pursue. Essentially there is only one they are asked to be submissive in and that is leadership within the body of Christ. Just like there was one tree that Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of. Yet no matter how much God says no, our flesh cries out, "surely God did not say"

Without apology my dear sisters in Christ. Yes, He did.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- October 24, 2019

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.