202 comments on “Pastor Gabriel Hughes and His Rude Tweet

  1. He was such a joy on twitter I had to block him. His elders that agreed with his outrageous attitude sent an email to a concerned woman in his congregation stating this. Why would any unbeliever be drawn to the “church” today?!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Nice gaslighting attempt by this guy. Who is he anyway?

    The only reason this guy is a pastor is because there’s a bunch of women willing to go to his church. Why can’t he give them some credit?

    Like

  3. Oh, right…I spent four years in a ministry program in college because I didn’t really “want” to be a pastor. I minored in Bible and spent three summers in ministry internships (that I had to pay for and only received college credit for one experience) because I really didn’t “want” to be a pastor. During that time I volunteered at a local church’s youth program because I didn’t “want” to have ministry experience.

    The only reason why I didn’t become a pastor was because during my college time I learned quickly that while the college was behind women being pastors, the churches were not behind women being pastors. Fortunately, after that I found a focus that became more meaningful and fulfilling to me.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Thanks for the good laugh!!! And none of us will even mention your secret on line life. Hey, with that kind of deception gifting, have consider the pastorate?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I know a couple of women who are pastors, neither is what I would call feminist. I was raised in independent,fundamentalist baptist land where they were 1000% against women doing much of anything within the church. I believe that body of thought is directly correlated to the amazing shrink down of the IFB churches. In 1985 there was around 50,000 ifb churches and now they are down to less than 10,000 and squealing about like a bunch of stuck up pigs.

    You don’t believe in woman pastors ? Fine don’t go to a church with one. The world is ok with that. Just don’t make it your life mission to obstruct their ministry.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I suspect you’d get blocked quickly. The reason I say that is I do not personally attack. He blocked me because he didn’t agree with me. Can you imagine removing everyone from your world that you didn’t agree with? lol

    Liked by 3 people

  7. A lot of these patriarchal types are rude as can be! Can you imagine if your pastor talked like that?

    Aside from that, even if you don’t care anything about being a pastor the lack of respect for women rolls downhill in many of these places way beyond pastor…many restrict women from all other leadership as well, to the point where they become little all male groupthinky jerks.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The only reason why I didn’t become a pastor was because during my college time I learned quickly that while the college was behind women being pastors, the churches were not behind women being pastors.

    How sad.

    Another thing not factored in is how many little girls grew up know that was off limits, like NBA basketball player would have been off limits! Some, like a friend of mine from church, realized later in life that she could become a pastor. But not a pastor and a southern baptist. They act like these barriers to entry mean nothing.

    Like

  9. I was visiting with a missionary friend recently who is now retired. I was remeniscing about playing lincoln logs with her before she left for the the field. I was 4-almost 50 years ago. What she remembers was that I was serving communion using the lincoln logs. I used to “preach” into the metal contraption Mom hung the ironing on. I learned soon enough that pastoring was off limits due to my gender.

    Like

  10. Lea: “Can you imagine if your pastor talked like that?”

    In my husband’s church (my former church), the pastor does talk like that. I agreed with the pastor that I should probably worship somewhere else; I was a former leader and was on a pastoral track. That church seems to be having problems with their pastor, now.

    Like

  11. Instead of addressing the actual argument, he just lumps all the people who have a different opinion under one amorphous label, and then pretends he’s the expert on what motivates every single one of them. He’s lacking any credibility there, I’m afraid.

    Like

  12. Strawman argument. Or in this case, a feminist strawoman 😉

    I wouldn’t want to be a pastor, because that is not my gift (my gifts are more in the area of mercy and compassion), but I would love to go to a church that had a woman as the pastor or assistant pastor. I would definitely feel safer and more comfortable going to a woman pastor with theological questions and personal burdens and prayer requests.

    Some would say that is what the pastor’s wife is for. But not all pastors’ wives are trained, qualified, or gifted in these areas, nor should they be expected to be. Just because a woman happens marry a pastor doesn’t mean she is or should be capable of ministering to the women in the church. And even if the pastor’s wife is qualified for this sort of work, she is not in a very visible position; women may not feel comfortable talking to her because unlike the pastor, they are not used to hearing her preach, so they don’t know what she is like or whether or not she is likely to give good advice.

    On the other hand, if a woman were preaching and teaching in the church, she would be in a visible position where other women could get to know her — know what her personality and theological views are — so it would be easy for other women to talk to her.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Perhaps he IS God. No one else could say with such authority what each and every last feminist wants.

    It’s actually somewhat contradictory. I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant attraction of being a pastor is being in a position where you tell others what to do and very few hold any authority over you, especially if you’ve been in the position long enough to encourage ‘friends’ to join the board and ‘encourage’ people who would hold you accountable to leave.

    Like

  14. @AvidReader:

    Nice gaslighting attempt by this guy. Who is he anyway?

    GAWD’s Speshul Anointed, who else?

    “The Elders talk to Pastor
    and Pastor talks only to God”

    It’s actually somewhat contradictory. I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant attraction of being a pastor is being in a position where you tell others what to do and very few hold any authority over you, especially if…

    …you’re Head Pastor(TM) of a completely-independent “fellowship” like Westboro Baptist or Founding Pastor(TM) of a Mega/Giga with your face ten meters tall on all your Franchise Campus(TM) Telescreens.

    Like

  15. What ‘Pastor’ Gäbe is saying is that no feminist woman actually wants to be a religious salaried professional (his definition of a capital P professional Pastor).

    Pastor Gabe has no clue.

    God gifts men and women to love, guide and protect (shepherd) HIS sheep.

    My thoughts on Gabe.

    It’s possible he isn’t a shepherd gifted by God to love and protect his people.

    It’s highly likely he is a salaried religious professional who likes the title of ‘Pastor’ which makes him feel spiritually superior to those lesser believers who ar distinct from clergy men such as himself.

    If I, as a woman spend my life serving and loving and caring for God’s sheep then I AM functioning as a shepherd.

    One does not BECOME a shepherd (your word for this is Pastor). One simply IS or IS NOT one due to their behaviour and life example.

    Gabe doesn’t get it.

    He’s religious.

    Like

  16. He is gifted/can read our minds, He’s !00% spot on with what I think about it except for what must have been a typo/autocorrect issue. Rather than “no one, including,” he must have meant “no one playing.”

    Like

  17. How many women pastors are there that aren’t feminists and don’t believe in equal rights for women and are pro-discrimination based on sex? Hughes seems to think it’s pretty common.

    Like

  18. I went and read the post about “bad examples of women pastors.” That and the tweet together tell me the following:
    1. Gabe is assuming he knows what’s in the heart and is judging on that basis; a sin he is specifically forbidden to commit.
    2. Gabe is more concerned about WHO is doing the teaching rather than WHAT is being taught. This is getting the whole thing backward.
    3. Gabe is a poor exegete. I only bothered to read through his explanation of the stories of Deborah and Miriam, but in both cases he failed to deal with the texts honestly. Instead, he applied his framework instead of letting the Word speak for itself. I know Bible teachers who agree with Gabe that women should not be pastors, but who are not afraid to deal honestly with these passages: he does not. (Or, it’s possible it’s not a matter of not dealing honestly, but simple inability to do any better). For this reason above all, I’d never set foot in a church he taught at.

    Like

  19. If it is biblical for a women to pastor a church and have the title pastor, how come there are no women with the title pastor pastoring a church in the bible?

    Like

  20. Does he have a bio anywhere? I can’t seem to find one, even on the church website. Curious to know if he grew up in southwest Kansas.

    Like

  21. Dear Jimmy,

    Strictly speaking, no men have the title of pastor in the Bible, either. So are you saying that the whole concept of the professional pastor itself is unbiblical?

    Like

  22. Jimmy – Serving Kids is correct, the “title” of pastor is not in the Bible. Anywhere. However, we are told in I Corinthians 12 that the Spirit determines how gifts are bestowed. So, if the gift of teaching is bestowed upon a woman, are you denying the Spirit by not allowing her to teach for the common good?

    “Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

    “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

    “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”

    Like

  23. Jimmy, you’ll find it a challenging task to find a male ‘Pastor’ of a religious club called a ‘church’ in the bible.

    The ‘church’ is a reference to the people of God in a city not a religious organisation run by salaried religious charlatans.

    Nice challenge for you: find me a male Pastor in the New Testament.

    Like

  24. Serving Kids in Japan. You say no men have the title of pastor in the Bible. So are you saying the concept of the professional pastor itself is unbiblical?

    Like

  25. Kathi. You say the “title” of pastor is not in the Bible. So are you saying it’s okay for believers to take a “title” not in the Bible?

    Like

  26. Amos, was this supposed to be some kind of practical joke? Or were you trying, on the sly, to turn this conversation to “evils” of organized religion? There’s already a dedicated thread where you can talk about that to your heart’s content — this thread is on a different topic.

    I can’t speak for Julie Anne or Kathi, but I don’t find this tactic to be very gentlemanly.

    Like

  27. Serving Kids in Japan…

    You ask…
    “…was this supposed to be some kind of practical joke?”

    Yes… 🙂
    xxxxxxx

    Julie Anne mentioned her “top secret” male Twitter account.

    And I thought I’d use an alias.

    I figured you guys and gals would recognize the avatar. 🙂
    xxxxxxx

    I’m sad that I offended you… Sorry…

    Like

  28. I would love to go to a church that had a woman as the pastor or assistant pastor. I would definitely feel safer and more comfortable going to a woman pastor with theological questions and personal burdens

    The wary witness, I have done just that! I think the simple knowledge that women are everywhere and respected and this isn’t even an issue gives me peace.

    Like

  29. I have not read the comment thread yet, so please bear with me here. Since Mr. Gabriel Hughes chose to use the word “feminist” in his tweet, then use the “persecution” scripture card when disagreement occurs, I still am left wondering;

    “Can anyone please give me a clear and concise definition of the word “feminist?” I am having a difficult time wrapping twine string around this one. I once heard a male leader from my former legalistic Baptist c’hurch cult say, “Our country wouldn’t be in the sorry state it is in today, if women weren’t allowed the right to vote.” Wow! What a statement coming from a church board elder man, and a perfect Baptist no less!

    So I would ask this Gabriel Hughes, whoever he is within the religious industrial complex, “What is a feminist…..what say you?” Would I be considered a feminist for giving a drunkard, begging for food and money, a Bible and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in the front of a gas station, as both male and females passed by this man all the while looking at him as if he were the scum of the earth?

    Like

  30. Jimmy – Personally, I don’t have a problem with the title of pastor. My problem is when people use the argument that women cannot be pastors because of scripture. The Bible speaks of gifts bestowed upon believers regardless of gender.

    Like

  31. Good point Kathi.

    The argument that ‘Jimmy’ and I both make is that the modern day ‘Pastor’ is not the same as the word Poimen used in the NT to describe a shepherd of God’s people.

    This IS the issue/problem.

    I don’t believe women cannot ‘BE’ pastors as it’s God who enables his people to be spiritually mature enough over time to guide and oversee his people.

    I just disagree that this shepherding goes on in the Christian Industrial Complex with self ordained ‘Pastors’ who deliver eloquent sermons (consider Paul’s words on eloquent words) who command salaries to serve.

    I’ve no doubt women function as shepherds amongst God’s people. It’s GOD who gifts such people to do his work.

    I’m just sure they’re not the ones going around calling themselves Pastor Susan, Senior Bishop of the local club house.

    Amos’ point is valid.

    I’m surprised more believers can’t see it.

    Like

  32. Kathi – there are people who argue that scripture limits women from being teachers and overseers. It also limits the number of men who can be teachers.

    I happen to think 1 Tim 2 still applies today. I have at least given women pastors a try, both in listening on tape and attending churches which have women teachers in a mixed gathering despite my scruples about this being ‘out of order’. I reasonably regularly attend such a church to provide music and am on perfectly amicable terms with Mrs Pastor.

    I’m afraid my experience in this regard has done nothing but confirm that Paul’s specific instructions are applicable universally and today, although scripture must be the deciding factor in this rather than experience.

    Like

  33. KAS,

    If you want to hear a lady that was called and anointed by God to preach, listen to Corrie Ten Boom. That’s one really powerful female preacher.

    God is still raising up more Gladys Alywards and Amy Carmicahels even though there’s a lot of people trying to resist the call of God on their lives.

    It takes the whole body of Christ and a lot of resources to do the work of the ministry. Trying to attack the call of God on their lives with this silliness that throws half the NT out the window to pretend that God doesn’t want pastors is just another way that the devil tries to stop the preaching of the Gospel. The devil is the one trying to stop resources from going to the work of the ministry with all this false doctrine that keeps deceiving people.

    Why is there’s still so much resistance to one of the most precious things to God’s heart—-the preaching of the Gospel?

    Now we have a dedicated thread for this topic so if anyone wants to continue the discussion let’s move to that thread.

    Like

  34. KAS,

    This is how the Devils strategy works:
    Block #1) He gets half the body of Christ to shut down the call of God on women’s lives by saying women can’t preach. That alone silences half the spiritual gifts.

    Block #2) Then he gets the other big part of the Body of Christ to shut down resources from going to the Gospel by getting them to come up with all kinds of excuses for why we should spend our money on everything else but heaven forbid that we should contribute towards the spread of the Gospel.

    No one gets offended if you buy a new car. But people scream in anger at the very suggestion that it takes the whole body of Christ to provide resources for obeying Christ’s command of the Great Commission.

    When will the church open their eyes to obeying the commands of Christ? Why do we always have an excuse for why we should do nothing?

    Ok, Amos and Salty both got to do two off topic comments on this thread, Now that that Ive had equal time to post the rebuttal, I’m moving to the other thread.

    Like

  35. Hi Serving Kids in Japan

    You write @ JANUARY 14, 2018 @ 9:56 AM
    “Or were you trying, on the sly,
    to turn this conversation to “evils” of organized religion?
    There’s already a dedicated thread
    where you can talk about that to your heart’s content —
    this thread is on a different topic.

    Well, I never mentioned the “evils” of organized religion… 🙂

    I asked, as Jimmy, ”…how come there are no women
    with the title pastor pastoring a church in the bible?”

    So then – What is the “The Topic of This Thread?”
    If it is NOT about a “Titled” Male pastor, Pastor Gabe, saying…
    “Hardly any feminists who argue that women can be pastors
    actually want to be pastors themselves.”

    Would this thread exist, or anyone care, if it wasn’t about ”pastors?”

    “Hardly any feminists who argue that women can be ”Bakers”
    actually want to be ”Bakers” themselves.” 🙂

    It seems at least some of “This Topic” is about “pastors.”
    And “Feminists who argue women can be pastors…”
    And, Pastor Gabe, saying on his site…
    “Only a man can be a pastor.”

    That Julie Anne gave the address of @ JANUARY 13, 2018 @ 2:25 PM…
    http://pastorgabehughes.blogspot.com/2018/01/bad-examples-of-women-pastors-but-great.html

    Can you exlpain what is NOT on Topic?
    When reporting there are NO Male “Titled” pastors in the Bible?
    When reporting there are NO Fe-Male “Titled” pastors in the Bible?

    I could have missed it…
    What is the “The Topic of This Thread?”

    Like

  36. Amos,

    I’d love to have that debate with you for as long as you want on the Church Discussion page where it belongs. This thread is about the double standards in the church where the same people who say all women are unqualified to pastor will turn around and argue for an abuser to be in the pulpit. That’s the part about the Highpoint Memphis situation that really puzzles me.

    Watching the full Sunday service video with Andy and Chris Conlee, I kept wondering why they believe that all women ever born are totally unqualified from holding the office of pastor, but they spent the entire service arguing that someone who just admitted to abuse is perfectly qualified to lead the flock. Let’s talk about those kinds of double standards.

    This thread is not about whether the office of pastor itself is biblical. We have a designated thread for that which I’m inviting you to move over to.

    Like

  37. Avid, last time I was over at the Church Discussion thread it was hijacked by Frank Viola’s bedtime antics.

    I’m pretty sure what Frank Viola gets up to in his spare time has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘church discussion’ thread which was started to discuss the Christian Industrial Complex slash Institutional Church System.

    Perhaps you could take the same advice you just offered to Amos? Because your Frank Viola posts quickly shut down what was otherwise a great discussion.

    Like

  38. Salty,

    With all the time that we devote to discussing spiritual abuse and wolves in the church. Why would you get so upset at that? That thread was started for the purpose of allowing more discussion right when Mwcamp and I were talking about Viola.

    We understand that Frank Viola is one of your favorite authors. But why would you suggest that we discuss a book then issue a gag order forbidding anyone from discussing the author of that book?

    Like

  39. Note: I’m asking Amos and Salty to move this off topic discussion to the right page. If they continue going off topic here, then I will request equal time to respond here.

    Like

  40. On second thought, I’m going to retract my 6:21AM comment.

    Salty and Amos are welcome to continue the Church Discussion here for as long as they wish. I’m not going to request that they move it to a different thread because they don’t seem to want to.

    Go ahead for as long as you wish………

    Like

  41. Avid, I have no idea why you think Frank Viola is my ‘favourite’ author. I simply referred to Pagan Christianity and its content about the history of the ‘Christian Church’ System.

    I haven’t read any of Frank Viola’s other books nor am I interested in adopting him as my teacher, guru or guide.

    Jesus is my teacher.

    Like

  42. Salty,

    We all agree with you that Christ needs to be the focus of our lives.

    What puzzles me is that we’ve spent months discussing all kinds of issues in the church that needed to be addressed. Everything was fine. Then we started discussing Frank Viola’s book and I started finding out who he really was, then you started trying to silence me.

    What puzzles me is why you would try so hard to shut down the info on Viola? I’ve never seen you try to shut down any other discussion.

    You are welcome to disagree with me all you want. I’m just saying that this has felt like you were trying to silence my voice because you liked that book.

    Like

  43. Sounds like a lot of complementarían evangelical pastors that think they don’t answer to anyone other than God….. and then maybe not even to God . 😳

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Avid Reader – I do not, and never have, had a problem with women having a ministry, and preaching the gospel. Co-workers.

    Paul’s limitation is very specific, and I believe it still applies today. But it does not silence half the church, and I personally would not want to associate with anybody who tried to do this. There is no justification for adding to what Paul actually wrote, but I know some do this.

    I’m afraid at the bottom of this issue is the question of obedience rather than difficulty in interpreting what the text actually says to us today, and unless there is a prior commitment to obedience then discussion of this – which is unending – usually consists in attempted justification for disobedience. It’s fruitless, especially when it generates more heat than light!

    Like

  45. Avid,

    I don’t care about any author of any book. Every single believer (self professed leader or not) has sins they’re working through. Plenty of believers struggle with porn and cheat on their partners. It doesn’t mean they’re not saved it just means they’re working through sin. I know enough about my own walk with the Lord and my own sin struggles to know I’m not perfect and I’m a work in progress.

    Your focus was on the author of the book.

    I was trying to discuss the book.

    Who cares about Frank Viola?

    Not me.

    He’s simply written about the history of the thing we ‘do’ called ‘church’.

    I’m not trying to ‘silence’ you. That’s ridiculous. If you want you could write about a hundred ‘pastors’ dirty secret sins and it just doesn’t interest me.

    Why? Because I haven’t heaped up teachers to the point where I’m surprised they get caught up in sexual sin scandals.

    The fact you’re more interested in Frank Viola’s personal life and sin history than the content of the book I mentioned tells me you’re not so interested in the ‘church discussion’ but more interested in discussing some dudes sin problems.

    I couldn’t care less.

    If any believer actually looks at the history of the Christian Religion and Institutional ‘church’ history and compares THAT THING to the first couple of centuries of simple faith… then we can talk.

    But it seems more people here are interested in picking apart self proclaimed gurus ‘pastors’ than actually looking hard at the religious system which elevated them to a position God never intended them to be in.

    Like

  46. KAS,

    Pull your Strong’s Concordance off the shelf and look at all the verses on church leadership. There’s no male pronouns because the NT never limited it to men.

    And Paul actually encouraged women to speak in church. 1Cor 14

    Then Paul commended Junia the lady apostle and told the church to accept the ministry of Phoebe.

    Like

  47. Salty,

    After all the time we’ve spent exposing wolves in the church to protect others, how could you say that we should cover up this guy’s pattern of deceit because we’re all just as bad sinners?

    No we are NOT. That’s sin leveling.

    The people reading this blog are good people who work hard and take care of their families. Not like Viola who allegedly refused to work a real job and demanded that his wife pay him alimony because he got caught with a teen girl and couldn’t go back to his high school teaching career.

    Then Viola wrote that book claiming that the whole church is wrong but he has all the answers. Selling books is hard so Viola had to find a slick gimmick to make easy money to get people to buy his book.

    I’d love to discuss that book with you but every time I do—-you try to shut me down. The truth is that you actually don’t want to have an honest discussion of that book, you just want to hear people that share your opinion.

    Discussing a book requires that we look at the full context. Researching a book involves understanding the heart of the author that wrote that book.

    According to Violas own logic in that book, in order to understand something you have to understand the “womb that birthed” it. Then by Violas own logic—-understanding that book requires that we know more about his background.

    How can we discuss a book but issue a gag order silencing anyone from discussing the author of that book? Once again you are trying to control the flow of the discussion by silencing us from discussing the full context of that book.

    I’d love to have an honest discussion with you about that book. But only if you allow us to discuss the full context and stop issuing gag orders.

    Like

  48. When Jesus warned us to be on our guard for Wolves infiltrating the church, He said that we would recognize the wolves by their fruit.

    What type of fruit has Viola produced?

    Like

  49. Sin leveling reasoning usually goes something like this:

    Because no one is perfect (we’re all sinners), therefore no one can hold the wolves in the church responsible for their bad behavior.

    Like

  50. Having been delivered out of an abusive Baptist church by God, the Holy Spirit, I strongly believe that both the male and female leadership within that cult, would absolutely love this posting from Gabriel Hughes (whoever he is.) Women have been brainwashed and manipulated into thinking that their service to our LORD Jesus, is literally pouring up coffee for everyone before the Sunday morning church service, oh yes, and serving up a pile of donuts to overweight men.

    Sitting with its fanciful constructed building made with human hands, Sunday after Sunday, listening to an arrogant Assembly of God trained pastor man, go on and on and on about himself, his family, his faith, his works, his everything, and then being caught (finally), pursuing women on the side for sexual favors (married women), actually leads one to believe that the only titled and entitled pastor ruling in our lives is Jesus Christ.

    Evangelical foolishness, evangelical blindness, evangelical power and control mongers seek to lord it over others, for we have been brainwashed into believing that the hierarchy of the visible church is everything. Church power and control is highly sought after by those who deem themselves more spiritual, more intelligent, and more in tune with the god of their own understanding. I have literally watched people within the church system, politicking for positions of power, and it made and still makes me sick to my stomach! They pull out their sappy, happy “christian” voices from the depths of their hearts, kissing up to the leadership and those with whom are considered “important” with the ecclesiastical system.

    The church political scene is no different than what we visibly see played out within our secular politics on a national level. In the churches that I have attended over the years of various denominations, I have not met one soul who has said, “For I am the least of all of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.” 1 Corinthians 15:9 Paul speaking via God, the Holy Spirit.

    To date, how many of those holding any form of “leadership” position within the visible church have said such a statement? And how many of those titled leadership lords actually HAVE hated and persecuted the sheep of Jesus Christ? And how many of Jesus’ precious sheep have been verbally attacked from the pulpit systems of our churches, or have been slandered and lied about at their secret meetings (church board, deacon and deaconess board, elder board, or any other “board” the institutional church comes up with), and how many of Jesus’ precious sheep have been called “feminists or jezebels” because they choose to make Jesus the “Head and the Cornerstone” of their faith, instead of some pastor man who believes he knows a jesus better than someone else and secretly seeks to indoctrinate folks into believing that he is their mediator between God and man?

    I am totally amazed and in wonderment, when I see garbage like this, coming out of the mouth of a pastor man, for I seek is more frequently these days, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has now become the “gospel of gender.” While the theocracy of church leadership debates the details of “replacement theology” in their churches and over the air waves, I am personally concerned with the Gabriel Hughes types replacing the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, with their gospel replacement theology. And an even sicker phenomenon within the c’hurch is how all of these “men of god” hate, hate, hate the fact that women can minister to folks as well!

    I often ponder the thought of Jesus meeting that “sinful” women at the well, she recognizing the fact the her Messiah was in front of her. And in her excitement, she went back to her people, which consisted of both men and women, and shared with them whom she had met. What an amazing truth she had encountered on that day, her LORD and Savior, and she knew! She knew Him! But here’s the deal, in this present day, if this were to miraculously occur by some divine appointment, would the religious men of this day, listen to, hear, and accept what a women of this nature would have to say? Or would the Pharisees of our day, call her a feminist, call her unsubmissive, call her a trouble maker, call her a rebel, call her out as destroying our LORD’s ekklesia, or call her any other derogatory name that church folks/leadership use when they desire to the destroy someone…,,including their credibility and their faith in Jesus Christ?

    I hope and pray at the end of the day, those whom call themselves pastors, do NOT use the persecution Scriptures against Jesus’ sheep when they themselves, are using Scriptures to encourage and build up the true Body of Jesus Christ.

    They too, will one day have to give an answer, as all of us will have to do.

    I still would love to have an answer to the question, “What is a feminist?”

    Like

  51. Avid, I honestly don’t believe you have read my comments properly because you seem to think I’m trying to divert attention from ‘pastors’ who ought not to be so.

    My entire argument… MY WHOLE purpose is to point out the very fact that no man, woman or child ought to be placed into the position of ‘leadership’ over God’s people with a title called Pastor which usurps the authority and leadership of the Holy Spirit, who IS God and Jesus Christ our Lord who is THE Great Shepherd of the One Fold we see in scripture.

    You completely miss my point.

    You could spend your entire life pointing out the sins of men who call themselves leaders and shepherds and pastors of God’s flock.

    Or you could expose the system which elevates them to such a status.

    I choose the latter.

    You’ll spend your entire life picking at men who want to be King when we really should be dismantling the religious systems which allow them to be there in the first place.

    If every professing believer burned their favourite teachers’ books and spent more time learning from God directly… via the Spirit he gave us for this very reason, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Frank Viola is not the content of the book he and George Barna wrote.

    And the facts presented in his book are quite to the point and aren’t up for disputing. They’re simple facts.

    Who cares what men who call themselves pastors get up to?

    Jesus is the only pastor we need to be concerned with.

    That’s my whole point.

    Like

  52. Salty,

    When we were discussing Tullian and Doug Phillips and all the others, why’d didn’t you protest then? Why didn’t you complain then that you didn’t want to hear about their “bedroom antics?”

    What is it about Frank Viola that makes you want to silence any discussion on his background but you want to discuss his book?

    Like

  53. Several times I’ve requested to move this discussion to the thread for it but no one seemed interested in doing that.

    However, I will respect your request and let this be my last comment on this thread.

    Like

  54. @Jimmy Justice: “If it is biblical for a women to pastor a church and have the title pastor, how come there are no women with the title pastor pastoring a church in the bible?”

    This is on it’s face a fallacious argument, and it begins a circular argument.

    For example, you might say there are no women prophets in the Bible. Then you are faced with Hulda, Deborah and Phillip’s daughters. Of course you can either say that disproves my point, or you can do what fundagelical churches do and argue that these women weren’t REALLY prophets.

    You can argue that there are no women deacons in the Bible, but then you see Phoebe, who is called a diakonos. So, you can either say it disproves the argument or you say that “diakonos” is really a generic word, and whenever it describes women, it means simply “servant”, but when it describes MEN, of course, it means DEACON!

    That’s the circular argument.

    In terms of the rest of the fallacy:

    How do fundagelicals deal with the fact there are no “youth pastors” in the Bible?
    How do fundagelicals deal with the fact that there are no “associate pastors” in the Bible?
    How do fundagelicals deal with the fact that there are no “church secretaries” in the Bible?
    How do fundagelicals deal with the fact that there are no “seminaries” in the Bible?
    How do fundagelicals deal with the fact there there is no “church membership” in the Bible?

    So, what we really see here is that fundagelicals use the Bible to prove their point when it suits their purposes, but when the VERY SAME ARGUMENT is opposed to what they want to do, they completely ignore it.

    Like

  55. or you can do what fundagelical churches do and argue that these women weren’t REALLY prophets.

    Maybe this is why my old church/school was so insistent that prophecy has ceased!

    You can argue that there are no women deacons in the Bible, but then you see Phoebe, who is called a diakonos. So, you can either say it disproves the argument or you say that “diakonos” is really a generic word, and whenever it describes women, it means simply “servant”, but when it describes MEN, of course, it means DEACON!

    I am so mad that I only learned this a few years ago. Growing up, no one mentioned it. Convenient, that!

    Like

  56. Hi Mark

    Great comment… Well written…

    But – Your comment is “fallacious.” . 🙂

    Fallacious = based on a mistaken belief.

    It might help if you read ALL the comments. 🙂

    Your friend A. Amos Love. 😉

    Like

  57. Hmmm. I see a different definition of fallacious:

    1 : embodying a fallacy, a fallacious conclusion, a fallacious argument
    2 : tending to deceive or mislead : delusive

    I think my statement quite appropriate. I tied it to “circular reason” which is a recognized fallacy. I tied it to “equivocation” where one word is redefined based on the desired argumental outcome. I also pointed to “argument from silence” that the Bible precludes women pastors simply because they are never mentioned.

    Like

  58. And, since you posted under a pseudonym, I think the second definition “tending to deceive or mislead” is probably appropriate as well.

    Like

  59. Mark

    I like this…
    “I also pointed to “argument from silence”
    that the Bible precludes women pastors
    simply because they are never mentioned.”

    So I can be a POPE? The Vicar of Christ?
    Because those “Titles” are NOT in the Bible?

    NO, NO, Those “Titles” are already taken… 🙂

    Let’s see, I Gots a Polish uncle… Who taught me everything I know…
    And he became a pastor… A Polish Pastor…

    He was a Polish Pastor, oF the First Church, oF…
    The Pleasant Parables of the Presence oF God…

    And he believed that…
    Proper Preperation Precededs Powerful Performance Pray
    And Precededs the Power oF God…
    So he Prayed a lot.

    He became succesful – Made lots of Money…
    And started his own denomination.

    He always wanted me to come on board as second in command…
    You know – Keep it all in the family…

    He even offered me a great “Title.”

    He said I could have people know me as, and call me…

    “His Holeeiness, The Most Holy Right Reverend, Father Amos”

    But… I always said NO.
    That “Title” is NOT in the Bible.

    But now, thanks to you, I can have a cool “Title,”
    That NO one else has…

    Thanks

    Like

  60. Amos,

    Women in the church already face so much resistance in developing our spiritual gifts, the last thing we need is you putting more obstacles in our pathway. Underneath all those endless questions, Amos is directly attacking the call of God on women’s lives. God didn’t put all the limitations on our spiritual gifts that Amos is trying to put.

    Like

  61. Amos, ‘argument from silence’ is only one fallacy.

    What you’ve just posited is called “Appeal to ridicule” in it, you misrepresent what I’m saying in a way that makes it seem preposterous so that you don’t have to actually answer the argument.

    I’m not saying that “everything not mentioned in the Bible is okay” as you misrepresent. I’m saying that there are some subset of things, for which the Bible does not directly authorize or prohibit, but must be understood in light of other things that the Bible says.

    For example, a group of people can buy millions of stocks in a company where the stock value is $0.01. Then they spam millions of people, saying that the company is a hidden gem, and worth their investment. Enough of those people invest in the stock so that the value goes up – maybe 5 cents, maybe 10 cents, at which the group sells their stock having made 500% or 1000% profit. If a Christian brother were part of a scheme like that, would you tell him, “good job, the Bible nowhere prohibits it”, or would you say there was something wrong?

    In the same way, since there is no explicit verse stating women can have official roles in the church, that must be derived from other passages that either encourage it or prohibit it, and from general wisdom of seeing what has happened in the church when the church has forbidden women from those sorts of positions.

    Like

  62. Mark

    NOPE…

    NOT an “Appeal to ridicule”
    xxxxx

    I’m-a-thinkn – “Reductio ad Absurdum.”

    Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin term that means
    “to reduce something to absurdity.”
    It is a figure of speech that is defined as
    a manner of arguing something for one’s own position
    by showing the absurdity of the position of his opponent.
    In simple words, it means to reduce an argument to absurdity,
    by drawing conclusions with logical limits,
    or by showing ridiculous consequences.
    xxxxxx

    And I’m-a-thinkin it is “Absurd.”

    For one of His Disciples to take a “Title”

    NOT in the Bible.
    xxxxxxx

    I’m-a-havin a tuff enough time trying to figure out…

    What is okay, correct, biblical, path to follow, in the Bible…

    Much less try to figure out what is okay…

    That is NOT in the Bible. Oy Vey!!!
    xxxxxxx

    “Absurd”
    wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate…
    preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, laughable, risible, idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly, inane, imbecilic, insane, harebrained, cockamamie; unreasonable, irrational, illogical, nonsensical, incongruous, pointless, senseless;

    Like

  63. Paul says:

    The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

    Now, last time I checked an elder is not an “OX”, so Paul is asking us to apply something that is IN the Bible to an analogous situation that is NOT IN the Bible.

    In other words, God expects us to use our brains to apply areas where scripture speaks to areas where scripture appears to be silent. So, it seems even the apostle Paul can’t escape your “Reductio ad Absurdum”. I’ll throw my lot in with Paul.

    Like

  64. Avid Reader – I couldn’t resist; Paul actually told the women to be silent in 1 Cor 14!

    It is actually possible to try to get women to use their spiritual gifts, including praying and prophesying, and simultaneously abide by the restriction in 1 Tim 2. I’ve tried it, but it is very difficult to break the stranglehold of the traditional expectation of one man ‘at the front’ doing the ministry, rather than every member participation.

    None of the women in the fellowship iirc was minded to fight against Paul in 1 Tim probably because Paul in 1 Cor was being followed. I don’t see why this has to be such a big issue. No-one, male or female, has any enforcible rights to some sort of ministry from God. It’s when ministry is seen as conferring status, or even worse, fullfillment that the problems begin, whether his or her ‘ministry’.

    Like

  65. KAS,

    To respect Julie Anne’s request, I’m going to post my response on the Church Discussion page. Right now I’m cooking dinner and thinking so this will take a while.

    Like

  66. Mr Hughes – why not elaborate on your comment? !

    I’ve read enough egalitarian literature and comment to know that a) some of it is indeed motivated by rebellion and attempts to justify disobedience to NT apostolic instructions, and b) some of it is a reaction against abusive, sometimes bullying men who want to lord it over the flock or have added to what the NT actually says, taken it to an extreme.

    Your tweet imo is right as far as it goes, but JA’s emphasis is on b) above, where things have gone wrong. Some of the criticism of you in the comments here might be from those who see you, rightly or wrongly, as in the ‘camp’ of authoritarian men who have harmed them.

    Some communication – rather than blocking – between you two would be nice, not least to ensure you are not talking at cross-purposes.

    Like

  67. Hey Mark, about half a chapter above this it says widows are to receive the same honour.

    Same Greek word for “honour”.

    So if honour equals a salary for Elder religious service it would make sense then for widows to receive half of this salary, wouldn’t it?

    Or would we be scripture twisting here?

    Makes you wonder what honour really means here huh.

    Respect perhaps?

    Elders didn’t operate from a temple building. This is why they needed to be “given to hospitality”. That is, opening up their homes for counsel of younger believers.

    There is no clergy/laity System in the bible endorsed by God.

    There are old mature believers and there are babies.

    That’s it.

    Like

  68. Hey, Gabe, I would have gladly conversed with you about this on Twitter …….but you have blocked me.

    Ha. Twitter is so weird.

    Like

  69. I’ve read enough egalitarian literature and comment to know that a) some of it is indeed motivated by rebellion and attempts to justify disobedience to NT apostolic instructions

    LOl. Oh KAS…

    Like

  70. KAS,

    Are you saying that someone like Corrie Ten Boom was just a rebellious woman because she (gasp) didn’t keep quiet in church and even taught men from the pulpit?

    Like

  71. KAS wrote:
    “No-one, male or female, has any enforcible rights to some sort of ministry from God.”

    Does that mean that Corrie Ten Boom had no right to travel and minister to heal the deep wounds after the war as the Holy Spirit had led her to do? Was she not hearing the Holy Spirit? Or should she have just gotten a full time job and supported herself in her late fifties after walking out of that prison camp? That’s where that line of reasoning is going—saying that Corrie should have figured out how to hold down a full time job while simultaneously traveling the world to minister—fulfilling the call of God on her life.

    God is still calling women into the ministry regardless of whether we accept the call of God on their life or not.

    Like

  72. Does that mean that Corrie Ten Boom had no right to travel and minister to heal the deep wounds after the war as the Holy Spirit had led her to do?

    People in that camp would probably call her a ‘speaker’ and not a ‘preacher’. Things like that is what made me, ultimately, reject all of it as semantic nonsense.

    Like

  73. Dear KAS, (and Gabriel Hughes),

    Exactly, “What is a feminist?”

    and….

    “Are all women considered “rebellious, troublemakers, and revilers in your eyes, according to your standards?”

    and…..

    “Does it bother you that I have the right to vote in elections here in the U.S.A.?”

    and

    “Could you ever receive “wise counsel” from a woman believer and follower of Jesus, the Christ?”

    Just a wonderin’.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. Lea,

    Exactly. I remember reading an eyewitness account of a gal that was attending a Christian college. She believed firmly in what they had taught her that women weren’t allowed to preach. Until the day that Elizabeth Elliott came to speak at that college.

    Then they moved the pulpit to let her speak. The whole time that gal was thinking about the double standards. How come Mrs Elliott is allowed to teach but none of us? Why does moving the pulpit make it ok?

    Did the Apostle Paul have to drag a pulpit around with him or else it wasn’t real teaching?

    The real answer is that they let her do it because Mrs Elliott was teaching what they wanted to hear.

    Like

  75. Wondering if Gabriel got these ideas from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. That’s the book where they let Elizabeth Elliott teach a whole chapter while they are insisting that women can’t teach!!!

    Like

  76. Salty, not sure exactly what your point is…

    I think it is quite possible that widows received income. 1 Tim. 5 has a lot of instructions about widows, and it appears on a surface reading that Paul is saying that these widows were either providing some service to the church that was compensated, or they were unable to support themselves and received church support.

    Calvin’s view was that widows were some sort of deaconess class of women who had taken a vow of celibacy and were paid for their service to the church. The real question hinges on vs. 11-12 “But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.”

    But, I don’t get your system. At the same time you’re talking about some sort of organized assistance program where widows are on a list and are provided for by the “church”, which is no cheap thing. Let’s say 5% of a church of 100 people were widows. At a subsistence level of $20k, that’s $100k of church funds going to assist widows. If each of the 100 people made average income of $45k and tithed, that would be about 25% of the church’s income supporting these widows.

    I don’t think your unorganized church system could possibly support a model like Paul’s widow assistance program. I doubt it could “honor” a widow or “double honor” an elder.

    Like

  77. This sure sounds financial to me: “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.”

    Also, if you recall, the issue in Acts 6 that arose was that the Greek widows were being ignored in the daily (presumably food) distribution while the Jewish widows were not.

    “Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.”

    Again, this all sounds pretty organized, especially since there were potentially 10,000 converts at this point in Jerusalem and the apostles felt that they only needed seven men to oversee the solution to the problem.

    Also, part of Paul’s ministry was raising contributions for the church in Jerusalem, that was under intense persecution by the non-Christian Jews.

    Like

  78. Katy – there are two sorts of feminists: the first want to be treated fairly, equal pay for equal work etc. No problem with that. The second are the more secular ideologues, basically revolving around the idea that whatever men can do, women should also be able to. The whole thing is centered on removing any distinction between men and women. Career rather than family, motherhood is even denigrated. When Christians start following this line of thinking, they start going into error.

    Are all women considered “rebellious, troublemakers, and revilers in your eyes, according to your standards?”

    I’ve not mentioned women being troublemakers or revilers, where are you getting this from? I’m not arguing for my standards, rather adherence to apostolic instructions, in particular Paul. The instructions in 1 Tim on ministry, male and female, are for the church – I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Since this concerns the will of God for his church, we ought to be very careful before consigning it to the past, irrespective of what modern, not exactly godly, culture embraces, let alone be in outright rebellion against it as is the habit of some.

    In answer to your third question about receiving counsel from women in the church, the answer is an unqualified yes! I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent – providing that specific restriction is kept in the gathered church, everything else is allowed and should be encouraged. I’ve already said I don’t have a problem with women having a ministry. (Avid Reader – hope this answers your points as well.)

    Like

  79. Mark,

    Widows are the responsibility of their immediate family. If they don’t have any family then the people of God are asked to meet their needs.

    Not a religious organisation. The people of God.

    So if you have a neighbour who has no family and is elderly… would you palm them off to the local religious club OR would you serve them as that member of the Body who are called to help them?

    I have heard of no religious organisation called a church that pays widows in its midst.

    I’ve heard of plenty of pay ridiculous salaries to religious professionals though.

    And we all know widows are a little more important that religious professionals in the heart and mind of God.

    Like

  80. I have heard of no religious organisation called a church that pays widows in its midst

    I know we reserve some portion of the budget for church members in need – who is receiving it is not public knowledge.

    Now, as then, many widows are actually wealthy women, comparatively speaking, and would not need help from church.

    Like

  81. KAS,

    God standards are over 100 hundred verses in the Bible telling women to speak up. That verse you keep referencing in 1Tim—Paul was dealing with false doctrine in Ephesus. What Paul actually wrote was:

    “I don’t allow a woman to teach that women are the originator of man. For Adam was created first then Eve.”

    Then Paul deals with the false doctrine that says Eve received some great revelation from the serpent. That’s why Paul mentions Eve being deceived.

    So why do people keep making sweeping generalizations from one verse while ignoring whole passages that describe how God gives spiritual gifts to women?

    By the way, that book Recovering Biblical Manhood—-that book is considered a reference manual by many pastors for proving Comp theology. If you ask them questions, they’ll tell you to read that book for the answers.

    That’s why it’s so funny that they spend the whole book saying women can’t teach only to give Elizabeth Elliott a whole chapter to teach all these male pastors!

    Like

  82. KAS,

    And while we’re on the subject, it’s really insulting for Gabriel and you to minimize Our years of research by saying that we’re just a bunch of rebellious women.

    The truth is that no matter how they try to slice it—Comp theology always takes away the ability of women to make their own choices. You can’t obey God if someone is making all your choices for you.

    The whole reason why we spend all these hours in heavy research is because the women here really do have a heart for following the Lord. Comp theology was getting in the way of that.

    Remember the devil is the rebellious one. No surprise that he’s behind all of this—always trying to blame women for being rebellious.

    Take a step back and look at the Bible as a whole. How many times does the Bible tell us to do something? To fear not. To stand strong in the Lord. Etc. Etc.

    Not once did the Bible ever tell us to allow someone else to make all our choices for us. That’s what Comp theology is after.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. In answer to your third question about receiving counsel from women in the church, the answer is an unqualified yes!

    Not to nitpick, KAS, but your ‘yes’ was not unqualified. In fact, you followed it up immediately with a caveat. And I quote, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silentproviding that specific restriction is kept in the gathered church…”

    So yours is actually a “qualified yes”, am I right? Or am I missing something?

    Like

  84. Hi, Gabriel,
    There’s much discussion which could be profitable if you wanted to say more than Wow. And there are things in your Jan 2 article with which I agree, such as that men and women should be complimenting one another.
    But when you use the term “help-meet” hyphenated as if it’s one word and not “help meet” like the King James says, I think you may be un-meet to be a bishop– because you seem un-meet to teach. Then later you describe women as “helps” rather than “helpers”. Are you saying they all have the spiritual gift of “helps”?

    Like

  85. The irony is that Gabriel, KAS, and Amos are all making the same Comp argument that denies the reality that God actually does give these spiritual gifts to women.

    Like

  86. Salty, interesting that you don’t try to argue from scripture.

    When you say “religious organization”, what do you mean? When the Bible says 5000 were added “to their number”, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit simply gave Peter a running count of the number of believers, or do you think Peter was well aware of the number because those people needed discipling and they needed to figure out how to disciple ~10,000 believers.

    Keep in mind, 10,000 believers who were participating in an illegal religion who could not meet in public.

    In the same way you know of no religious organization that pays its widows, I know of no amorphous group of 10,000 believers living in a city that are being discipled, having their needs taken care of by rich benefactors and their poor and widows provided with daily sustenance without some form of organization, all the while contributing to explosive growth.

    In fact, there was an organization. The apostles. When gifts were brought to the church, they were given to the apostles. The apostles then were in charge of the distribution of the gifts, and, in Acts 6, they realized that the church was too big for them to manage themselves, so what did they do? They created another layer of management – church leaders that were chosen to be responsible for the distribution of food to the widows.

    Like

  87. KAS, “Katy – there are two sorts of feminists:”

    This is a fallacy, called false dichotomy. There are more than two sorts of feminists. At a minimum, there is a third kind of “feminist” who believes that women should be allowed to enter fields that they are qualified for. That is a subtle difference from the “anything a man can do a woman can do”, and I believe that is much more typical of the ordinary feminist than what you are claiming.

    I do believe there are feminists like that. They want women to serve on the front lines of battle, even though military exercises have demonstrated that mixed units are far less capable in these combat situations, mostly due to the heavy packs and the need to carry wounded soldiers out. So these feminists want to create different standards for men and women in the name of leveling the playing field.

    But, I don’t think that is the story about women who feel called to ministry, for example. I think these women read and believe the scripture and they feel that the patriarchal translation and interpretation of scripture is in error and they are proposing that there are valid ways of interpreting the same scripture that lead to different conclusions.

    This wouldn’t be the first time. Martin Luther had a different interpretation of scripture that led him to write the 95 theses. He was at odds with about 900 years of church interpretation of certain passages. Supposedly it was Pope Gregory I d. 604, who first formulated the salvation = faith + works.

    Like

  88. Mark, the early believers in Acts met “from house to house”.

    I’m no member of some religious organisation called ‘Church’ and somehow I managed to gather with other believers (which included older mature ‘elders’) for satisfying to ‘one another’ verses.

    Somehow, without being a part of a religious organisation my other half and I were able to contribute financially to support a widow (unrelated) who will actually be living with us very shortly (through an incredible turn of events).

    All of this without a club house.

    Amazing eh?

    How can we possible manage to fellowship with believers without a club house and a salaried religious facilitator with a Receptionist?

    Amazing eh?

    And yet here we are.

    Like

  89. My argument isn’t that women should become ordained preachers, but the tweet is ridiculous as well as rude. Would Pastor Hughes be happy if a bunch of “feminist” women became preachers? I don’t think so. Egalitarianism and feminism are different belief systems too.

    HUG, about your comment that Pastor Hughes is the king of a tiny church like the Westboro Baptist cult or a mega church, I’d guess it’s the former. Not a Joel Osteen feel good pop guru. More like he specializes in a niche catering to husbands anxious to enforce God’s will of wifely submission upon their spouses while conveniently ignoring anything He says to them!

    Like

  90. I wish people would stop dragging this church/no church argument into every thread.

    My argument isn’t that women should become ordained preachers

    I absolutely think they can and should if they feel called. Women at all levels of church leadership is best for the church. I’ve seen too many bad examples to think otherwise.

    Like

  91. Avid

    For your information I am neither Comp nor Egal. 🙂

    Where I fellowship in the Body of Christ…

    There is neither Male nor Female…

    Male and Female are “ONE.”

    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.
    Galatians 3:28
    xxxxxxx

    Does this verse say male and female are equal?

    NOPE…

    Or does this verse say that male and female
    have put down their “titles” and “identity”
    with this world system and in Christ
    male and female do NOT exist?

    For as the body is “ONE”, and hath many members,
    and all the members of that “ONE” body, being many,
    are “ONE” body: so also is Christ.
    1 Corinthians 12:12

    That they all may be “ONE”; as thou, Father,
    art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be “ONE” in us:
    that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    John 17:21

    If you’re In Christ; is there male and female?

    Or is there “ONE”?

    And – Is “ONE” always a number?

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Liked by 1 person

  92. Avid

    I’m NO longer part of “Today’s Abusive Religious System.”

    It is “Today’s Corrupt Religious System” that restricts women.

    NOT “The Church of God,” His Ekklesia, His Body, His Church.

    When you see a “Religious System,” that restricts women…
    Do NOT give them money – Do NOT go there…

    Where I live, and move, and have my being, in the Body of Christ…

    When WE, His Sheep, His Kings and Priests, His Ambassadors…
    His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Body, His Church…
    His Friends, His Bride, His Servants, His Redeemed…
    His Followers, His sons…
    His Disciples…

    When WE, His Sheep, His Body, Comes together…
    ALL can, and are expected to “Participate.”

    1 Cor 14:26 KJV
    How is it then, brethren?
    when ye come together,
    every one of you
    hath a psalm,
    hath a doctrine,
    hath a tongue,
    hath a revelation,
    hath an interpretation.

    Let all things be done unto edifying.

    Where I fellowship – Gender is NOT the issue…

    Who has Jesus – Who has a revelation – Who has a teaching…

    Christ in us the HOPE of Glory…

    Like

  93. Salty, I think your experience is an amazing testament to the fact that we have this treasure in earthen vessels. God is able to use us to accomplish his purposes of bringing light and justice in the world.

    I don’t think your amazing testimony is proof that God is approving of every area of your theology.

    Lea, people are bringing the church/no church argument into this because the “no churchers” are saying that women can minister in the non-church to the extent of their gifting without the need for others to approve or disapprove of their work.

    Whether women can minister is really a question for the organized church, where these women are recognized, chosen and appointed to positions where they have a specific relationship to the congregation as a whole, and that is, I think, what you’re debating.

    Like

  94. Amos,

    The truth is that underneath all those endless questions that you keep repeating over and over, you’re still trying to put women’s spiritual giftings into the same box that Gabriel and KAS do.

    God doesn’t need your permission to decide whether God’s going to keep giving these spiritual giftings to women. God’s not going to suddenly decide—oops, guess I can’t keep giving these spiritual giftings to women because Gabriel, Amos and KAS don’t think they should have them!!!

    Like

  95. Avid

    You mention a few times…
    “women’s spiritual giftings”

    Since that term is NOT in the Bible…
    Can you be a little more specific?

    Can you explain what you mean by “spiritual giftings?”
    “spiritual giftings” to do what?

    Can you list, name, these “spiritual giftings?”

    And who in the Bible, has these, operated in, these “spiritual giftings?
    xxxxxxx

    And do you have any of these “spiritual giftings?”
    Which ones?

    Is there anyone today, here, or where you fellowship…
    Who is restricting your use of these “spiritual giftings?”

    Like

  96. Serving Kids – I am happy to receive ministry from women, and the caveat I gave, namely the 1 Tim 2 verse was merely to make clear that I draw the line where i believe Paul speaking with apostolic authority would do the same.

    Avid Reader – I added the sentence everything else is allowed and should be encouraged regarding my attitude to women using any spiritual gifts given to them. In what way is this deciding what women are allowed to do, or how is it making their choices for them? I’m intrigued by this ‘all or nothing’ approach, meaning either you have no restrictions or you impose silence on women (for all practical purposes in a gathering of the church), as the stricter MacArthur complementarianism appears to do.

    May I also clarify what I have in mind by rebellious women. Two examples of this would be Rachel Held Evans, who I think is dangerously close to walking away from the faith, and Jory Micah. Both are claiming 1 Tim 2 and 3 do not restrict women from teaching and having authority over men, and both are going into gross religious error and deception, mixing paganism or idolatry with Christianity. I have in mind worshipping a female deity as mother amongst other things. Exactly what 1 Tim 2 was designed to prevent. Feminism is becoming their religion.

    Now there may also be believers who genuinely think that Paul’s restriction was local and temporary, and in their case I still think they are from my perspective being disobedient, but I wouldn’t necessarily catagorise this a deliberate high-handed rebellion. I don’t particularly have a desire to concentrate on others’ disobedience anyway, nor judge their motives, since this is a general problem amongst evangelicals, we all have areas to work on. It’s still not right not to exercise discernment though, especially in this area. Scripture must override supposed subjective personal calls to a ministry.

    Like

  97. KAS, “I have in mind worshipping a female deity as mother amongst other things.”

    Do you think the Bible errs in portraying God as a woman?

    Like

  98. Prov. 1:20-: “Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.
    She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city …”

    Prov. 9:1-: “Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars; She has prepared her food, she has mixed her wine; She has also set her table…”

    Luke 7:33-35: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by all her children.”

    Also, if you look at the etymology of “El Shaddai” one of the primary theories for that description of God is “The God with Breasts” – El, meaning god and Shaddai being the plural of Shad, meaning breast.

    God transcends gender, and has been personified in the Bible using both male and female language, so I don’t think it’s inappropriate for people to highlight that fact.

    Remember that Adam was created “good” in the garden without Eve. That very well might mean that Adam was genderless with the ability to procreate, forming, in a sense, one image of God. But, God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God took, part of Adam’s nature, symbolically the rib, to create woman, and introduced a concept of gender.

    To place a single gender on God, and insist on that gender as being an immutable part of his nature is to, I think fall into the warning of Paul: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” I think God is more masculine than man, and simultaneously more feminine than women, to the extent that both masculinity and femininity in their truest sense are reflections of the true nature of God.

    It’s interesting that it is somehow taken as heretical to place femininity on God. Interesting because it lays bare the thinking of those who do so, that women are somehow, by nature, inferior to men, and I think that is the fundamental issue of complementarians.

    Like

  99. Amos,

    That’s the whole point. God gives women many different types of spiritual gifts. Yet women face years of resistance from many people denying, questioning, and shutting down their spiritual gifts.

    The last thing we need is more resistance from more people denying and questioning our spiritual gifts. Remember God is still gifting women with those spiritual gifts whether we choose to accept that reality or not.

    Like

  100. KAS,

    Watching how powerful it was when Rachael Denhollander spoke in the courtroom— imparting wisdom to a wide audience of both men and women—makes you wonder why people are still questioning and silencing women’s spiritual gifts.

    Comp theology allows women to teach men as long as its a mother teaching her sons. So how can it be right for a mother to teach tiny children too young to know the difference between right and wrong—but its forbidden for women to teach mature men who can easily discern faulty doctrine?

    KAS, take some time to do some more reading on this issue. The more you read the more you’ll begin to see the same patterns of faulty reasoning repeating over and over in different Comp books. They reject God’s commands to keep their own tradition.

    After reading most of the leading Comp theology books, I learned something. It all boils down to one simple thing—they don’t want to accept the spiritual giftings that God gives women so they just keep denying and questioning it. Same line of reasoning as Amos.

    Like

  101. Avid Reader – I appreciate this theme can go on for ever, so after this perhaps time for a break!

    You may find it difficult to believe but I actually argued against a complementarian who made the statement to the effect ‘women should not teach men because they are more easily deceived’. If that were the case, why did Paul commend Timothy’s mother and grandmother, what about women teaching other women, what about Priscilla? Needs a bit more thought than just that.

    I came to the conclusion it is the teaching of doctrine combined with authority in the local church that is the problem, which is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Tim 2. It is something God has not placed on women – indeed going by James not very men either.

    I understand from reading in say the MacArthur camp, commenters in particular, that some complementarians have an attitude towards women (imo quite awful) I would want to distance myself from, at best looking down on them, but women who react to this by embracing egalitarianism are going a stage to far, and as discussed before liable to end up being disobedient.

    Like

  102. KAS, I used to be there. One of the things I’ve struggled with is, how do we deal with the call on one’s live.

    What I mean is that Joe shows up at church one day and he says, “I believe the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor”. The church gives Joe big pats on the back and sends him off to Seminary to be a pastor. Throughout the interview process, as long as Joe checks all the boxes and jumps through all the hoops, there is never any doubt that the Holy Spirit has called Joe to be a pastor.

    However, Mary shows up at church one day, and she says, “I believe the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor”. The church says, “you don’t have a penis, so you are lying!” But, you look at the qualifications of this person. She is able to teach, she is hospitable, she is not hot-headed, her children are living godly lives, she has a good reputation. She has everything but the penis.

    So, why based on a chromosome or an appendage do we arbitrarily accept or deny someone’s spiritual gifts?

    In fact, it’s intriguing to me that we retroactively redefine the Bible to match our patriarchal misconceptions. For example, Deborah was a (p)rophetess, not a (P)rophetess, because her gifting in the spirit was somehow less than someone like Nathan. Even though there is nothing in scripture that even hints to that effect.

    In fact, in comparison to our modern fundagelical interpretation the Israelites were downright feminist! They let a woman talk with Joab and negotiate a peace settlement for their city. Joab sent a woman to advise a king!

    Like

  103. Mark – you raise a good point. I am a great believer in the body of Christ. I don’t think anyone should simply claim ‘the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor’, this is too subjective, but rather they should emerge as one by ‘ministering’ amongst fellow believers. This will be recognised by the body of believers – a bit more objective. Only then should they consider formal training for a ministry, which may or may not be appropriate. I for one do not regard it as essential, and many a keen evangelical has had the fire in them doused by too much academic theology.

    Pastoring is never a job you can simply train to do. It’s a mixture of doing and being recognised by the body, a confirmation of the Holy Spirit’s enabling.

    I have read egalitarian women claiming ‘the Holy Spirit has given them gifts of leadership’, but not one I have read has ever claimed this was recognised by the body of believers they were in.

    Liked by 1 person

  104. Mark and KAS,

    I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where a person claims to be gifted by God with overseeing the flock of Christ.

    If Paul is telling the truth and God gives a person a gift to oversee another believer (in a servant like manner not lording it over them) then I would imagine this gift would be clear and obvious.

    I find it suspect when people claim to be ‘called’ to be a Pastor when that really means a leader in an institutional religious setting.

    If they were ‘called’ to do ‘it’ then surely they would already be overseeing others as God enables the person gift wise.

    I can think of few other people (men and women) who are older and godly and guide younger believers in a servant like manner. They have no title called Pastor. No building etc. They are simply believers who walk with the Lord and reach out to younger believers who need exhortation and encouragement.

    Surely these are ‘those pastors’ Paul was referring to.

    I agree with KAS’ comment.

    But I wouldn’t go as far as to elevate such a person to ‘leader of the flock’ status.

    Jesus was pretty clear about servant hood. None are above another.

    Surely a ‘pastor’ or overseer would be the humblest person in the room. Man or woman.

    As elder simply refers to age and pastor/Poimen is an entirely different word I can’t imagine why women would be excluded from ‘overseeing’ another (Titus 2 woman style).

    There’s plenty of older women who shepherd/encourage/exhort male brethren ‘unofficially’ through daily life. Are these not gifted women?

    I think the whole establishment makes a lot more of this ‘role’ than what God intended.

    There are mature believers and there are not.

    Mature ones who have a servant heart and who guide by example are highly likely those ‘pastors’.

    Not the seminary trained salary hunters who feel ‘called’ to Leadership.

    Just some thoughts

    Like

  105. Salty,

    Just a few thoughts.

    That’s the exact argument almost verbatim that Frank Viola makes when he tries to say that the existence of the clergy automatically proves that the whole church is doing it wrong—-but of course Viola has all the answers to straighten us out.

    Funny thing—Viola actually does believe in the clergy. He turns around and contradicts himself by saying that most people aren’t qualified to set up their own house church. If they do it themselves they will fail because they need one of the few people God has called to be apostolic workers. And he argues that point from Ephesians 4:11!!!

    He’s just trying to get rid of his competition and setting himself up to be seen as a clergy/honored speaker, etc. Viola still travels to churches and preaches from the pulpit—the exact thing that he says is wrong. It’s wrong for everyone else but right for him because it makes him money.

    Like

  106. Lea, doing things just because of how you FEEL is not good. If a woman can intellectually reconcile her desire to preach with the pastoral epistles that would be better. Even then, humans frequently twist scripture to rationalize doing what’s wrong.
    Both our intellect and emotions are corrupt and fallen, but Satan usually employs the latter when he tempts me to sin.

    That said, it’s easy to see from the Pauline epistles themselves that women played an active role in the early church. In 1 Corinthians after speaking against unisex hairdos, Paul talks about women keeping their heads covered when praying or prophecying. So it seems safe to say women weren’t supposed to be mute doormats or chew toys in the 1st century church.

    Like

  107. Lea, doing things just because of how you FEEL is not good. If a woman can intellectually reconcile her desire to preach with the pastoral epistles that would be better.

    I said nothing about ‘feelings’ that I can see. I said ‘think’. Many have examined the bible and found the ‘no girls allowed’ interpretation to be lacking. I find it intellectually inconsistent with the rest of the bible. I find it inconsistent within the church and I find the fruit of eliminating women from positions of leadership in church to be poor. We see it every day. I also decided that the director/pastor divide seemed like semantics and that ultimately drove me away from the SBC entirely.

    This was not ‘feelings’ it was thought. I do not have a pastoral call. I don’t knwo what that means for an individual, but when a church tells you you can never be a pastor, many women just put aside that urge. Sometimes until much later in life when they realize that it’s still there, it wasn’t a passing thought and that they wish to serve in this way. And then they change to denomination that doesn’t stop them. This I have seen.

    Although there is nothing wrong with feelings. They tell you things, if you listen. What motivates a person to go to seminary, to be a pastor? That is another question, but that is an individual question. There are doubtless feelings involved in all such motivations. How can there not? We are human. We feel. This is not a bad thing.

    Like

  108. Avid, Frank and I define the meaning of the word Ekklesia differently. He seems to want to recreate ‘church’ as meetings of believers in houses. I don’t believe the word Ekklesia is a reference to meetings of believers. Jesus is building his people, not meetings of his believers.

    I believe we (God’s people) are the Ekklesia (one body, one Shepherd) and the Ekklesia is not a religious meeting. That means we are the Ekklesia whether or not we are in an ‘organised fellowship meeting’ or not.

    I understand the point you are making about what Frank believes but I do not believe the same thing as Frank Viola (I would know if I did).

    I’m not advocating for a return to ‘house meetings’. I believe God’s people (those who love him and are passionate about the gospel) will naturally meet with others (whether two or ten) and exhort and encourage on another.

    I do not believe elders must be present every time Christians gather to encourage one another. Elders are simply mature believers who are there to guide and encourage younger believers. They were ‘appointed to every city’. Not ‘to every meeting’.

    I don’t know Frank’s motives but the fact that you had to purchase a whole lot more books after Pagan Christianity in order to get a solution (his) to the problem (the Institution) suggested he was profiting from books sales in the process.

    There are plenty of website with good information (truth for free is one) where men aren’t making money of exposing issues with Institutional Christianity.

    Avid, it’s entirely possible that there are men and women amongst the people of God who are untitled, unsalaried members of the Body who are gifted as evangelists, teachers and ‘pastors’ with a little p.

    I believe this to be the case as it’s GOD who gives the gifts for HIS work and purpose.

    I also believe there’s a whole lot of play acting going on amongst Christian folk where people are role playing out these spiritual gift/ body functions where no gifting exists and people are being charged money for the ‘service’.

    My thoughts anyway

    Like

  109. The word “assembly” itself describes believers meeting together. There’s a lot of ways that happens. I’m in favor of all of them.

    Like

  110. Salty, “If Paul is telling the truth and God gives a person a gift to oversee another believer (in a servant like manner not lording it over them) then I would imagine this gift would be clear and obvious.”

    Think about this. Jesus was the Messiah. His birth, life and death were foretold by hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, yet when he came, it was not “clear and obvious”. I think partly, he came into the same humanity we see today where leaders are the ones who prop themselves up and get others to kiss their feet, rather than leaders humbly serving and pointing others to a holy and fulfilling life.

    Even when Paul says this is what a leader looks like, the typical church twists it back into “servant leadership” back to the world of self-propping and feet kissing. I’m disgusted enough with how this works that I’ve pretty much decided to have no part in it. Why, in most churches do the leaders have to shove our faces in their new lap dogs so that we “recognize” their gifts? Is that because they think we’re too stupid, or is it because they think we might be too smart? I don’t know.

    Like

  111. Hey Mark, good thoughts.

    When I consider the purpose of an overseer/guide/shepherd/elder it’s to protect and encourage and exhort. It’s never to exert control or to extract money “filthy lucre”.

    Regarding the elders being clear and obvious to us… I’m not talking about believers who heap up teachers. I believe that the Lord leaves these people to get what they desire. If you want a King and his name isn’t Jesus then you’ll certainly find them in Christendom.

    I’ve been walking with the Lord for a while and by God’s grace, he’s always brought godly mature believers into my life (usually met through the local clubhouse where the ‘Pastor’ was simply a sermoniser and not much of an encourager).

    These overseers are to me, folk whose hearts are fixed on Christ and they get the difference between servant hood and ‘servant Leadership’.

    I’ve experienced it for myself so it exists.

    I imagine that it you are deeply immersed in the Sunday club systems then it’s a lot harder to experience this as many and most sit to hear and receive then go home.

    Are there godly mature believers within the institutions who are not salaried religious professionals? Who are these genuine elders? They exist and for the most part are likely doing God’s work under the radar (ie: off the program) and for free. This is my experience.

    Spending multiple hours in the presence of a mature godly believer (the definition of an elder) to discuss life and the Lord IS to me, the function of an overseer.

    It’s not the deliver polished sermons week in week out and facilitate religious programs.

    I haven’t heard a ‘sermon’ for years… and the Lord is still on the throne.

    Mark, is your family involved in a ‘church’? Do you think it’s possible to fellowship with believers outside the clubs?

    Like

  112. Sometimes it helps to diagram reasoning so we can understand it better. So here goes:

    1) All pastors try to be king therefore all pastors are wrong. Therefore its impossible to be a pastor without trying to be king.

    Nope—the Bible never lists trying to be king as a pastor qualification.

    2) All pastors are controlling therefore no one can pastor without trying to control. Thus we must flee all pastors to escape being controlled.

    Nope—manipulation and control are never listed by the Bible in the qualifications for ministry.

    3) Believers do fellowship outside of church therefore all churches are wrong.

    Nope—Bible says not to forsake the “assembly” of believers. That “assembly” comes in a lot of shapes and sizes. Let’s not try to put it in the box that says anything involving four walls must be wrong because only assembling outside four walls is real NT. Funny thing, even home fellowships still involve four walls.

    These are all the same points that Viola makes in his books. We can’t just believe everything that we read but we need to put it all to the test.

    Salty, we’re not saying that you have to attend some mega church. All we’re asking you to do is stop attacking other parts of the Body of Christ.

    And Gabriel, we know you’re reading this right now. So feel free to steal all our points and preach them on Sunday. That’s ok as long as you admit that you learned this from women! 🙂

    Like

  113. 4) Because ancient Greek orators existed, therefore all sermons come from these Greek orators, thus all sermons are wrong because they come from pagan Greek origins.

    That’s diagramming the reasoning that Viola makes for throwing the whole concept of the sermon right out the window. He’s ignoring all the verses about Jesus teaching sermons to crowds both inside and outside the brick and mortar church of His time.

    Jesus said, “Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts….”
    Mark 14:49 (NIV)

    “Jesus was teaching at the temple every day……”
    Luke 19:47

    This reasoning ignores the example of Jesus teaching daily in the temple. If all brick and mortar churches are wrong, Jesus would have said so. Instead He made a point of teaching sermons where the people gathered.

    Jesus is the real source of where the idea of the sermon comes from. Not from pagan origins as Viola has taught in his own sermons.

    Like

  114. Avid, what an accusation. Who exactly in the Body of Christ and I attacking?

    If a believer follows a harlot and sometimes calls it out, it’s not an attack it’s a warning.

    Read the prophets please.

    Paul and Jesus also called out idolatry of the spiritual kind. Christendom is full of it.

    Some questions Christians need to ask and don’t:

    How many times does the bible use the word pastor (Greek: Poimen) and of those times it is mentioned how many describe a modern day ‘Pastor’?

    Considering questions 1’s answer:

    Who, where and when did this concept of a ‘Church’ building with pews, sermons and clergy/laity distinction come from?

    Once you’ve done some solid research into the history of the Harlot Church System, done some God seeking on your knees and repented of teacher healing, you can thank me profusely for bothering to point it all out.

    It should be master of the obvious stuff.

    Unfortunately. It’s not.

    Because nothing has changed.

    Like

  115. Avid, I would love for you or anyone to use the NT scriptures to prove to me that I need to have a man (or woman) called a Pastor to ‘minister’ to me for a financial cost, in a purpose built facility where I must attend meetings.

    You won’t find it anywhere in the New Testament.

    Regarding “not neglecting the assembling together of yourselves”.

    That verse has absolutely nothing to do with your Church meetings.

    It has to do with not neglecting meeting together with other believers.

    Don’t insert the beloved harlot Church System into that verse.

    It’s scripture twisting at best.

    Like

  116. Salty,

    All we are asking you to do is stop labeling good people as the “harlot” of Babylon just because they gather with other believers on Sunday morning.

    Like

  117. Who, where and when did this concept of a ‘Church’ building with pews, sermons and clergy/laity distinction come from?

    My understanding is early Christian met in house churches, which is a building. I suspect that had chairs, and pews are just fancy chairs.

    A church building is a practical solution to a group of people not fitting into someone’s house. Go to one or not, I don’t care and I don’t think either is more or less spiritual than the other.

    Like

  118. Lea,

    Funny fact:

    Viola goes so far off the deeep end of silliness that he even says the use of rugs and chairs come from pagan origins. Guess that means we all better start sitting on the floor or we aren’t following NT guidelines!

    Like

  119. Salty, it takes a lot of energy to establish and maintain friendships and especially since I feel I have a lot of baggage that I bring to relationships. Also, my personal history is that my emotional needs were rarely met, so I had to figure out how to function in essentially complete isolation. My friendships have primarily been work or church.

    What I read in the Old Testament prophecy is not “your leaders are evil, I’m going to get rid of leadership”, but “your leaders are evil, I’m going to bring a new spiritual economy”. I think there is a lot of half truth. God pours out the Holy Spirit on all believers, which is different than the OT where the Spirit was poured out on select few. But yet, even then, the apostles preach that some will get different gifts.

    So, on one hand, we have an authoritarian and oppressive leadership that wants to go back to the OT economy and claim that they are somehow uniquely gifted where the rest of us knuckle-draggers are not (that is the rise of the clergy/laity distinction). However, I think there is an equal and opposite issue where people want to cast off any sort of church structure or authority and instead want to be ‘me and Jesus’.

    I’m not upset with where you are – recognizing that you have spiritual mentors and mentor others, but I think that system hasn’t worked for me because I have yet to find anyone willing to help me wade through my spiritual baggage. Very few have even offered some sort of mentorship role, and one informal discipleship group I attended, I was essentially asked to leave, not in that sense exactly, but more, here’s what you need to look like to continue here, and I realized I wasn’t going to look like that.

    Like

  120. Also, we know that our experience in this life is going to be a huge struggle against the enemy. God hasn’t put an invisible sin force field around the church, so when we walk in the doors we are still in a world where there are all sorts of abuse.

    In the same way, there is no guarantee that you will find a spiritual mentor who is actually a narcissistic abuser. Perhaps God has been gracious so far, but I’ve run into those sorts of people inside and outside the church.

    Like

  121. Lea,

    Yes. It’s the correlation vs causation fallacy. Viola keeps saying that because two random events happened—therefore the existence of two random events automatically proves one caused the other. That’s how he argues that the existence of pagan Greek orators automatically proves the sermon comes from pagan origins. And even rugs and chairs come from pagan origins too! Then he pressures people to run fleeing from brick and mortar churches for fear of supposedly pagan practices like preaching the Gospel. Exactly how is preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus—pagan anyway?

    That would be like me saying that since ancient people ate rice, that proves eating rice comes from pagan origins. The only way for us to be real believers is to eat fish, barley and lentils!!

    Apparently no one told Jesus that it was a sin for Him to give sermons, especially inside four walls, since any ministry done inside four walls must be pagan!

    Like

  122. Avid Reader – how does Viola cope with the etymologies of the names of the days of the week and many of the names of the months? 🙂

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s