General articles

House Church Error: a Plea for Biblical Fidelity!

by Beresford Job

Although I am known for being a house church advocate I am nonetheless frequently at pains to make clear that there is somewhat more to my burden from the Lord than simply that. Indeed, if I am known by those outside of the house church scene as an advocate of house churches, I am also known by house church folk as a somewhat vocal advocate of what I call ‘biblical’ churches. And of course this distinction is of vital importance for the simple reason that although a biblical church will, by virtual definition, be a house church, the converse, that a house church will therefore be biblical in every other way, is far from being the case. Indeed, a great many house churches are no more biblically based overall than the more traditional unbiblical churches they are purported to be distinct from.

 

No, the issue is not merely being biblical as far as church life and set up is concerned, it is rather obedience to the comprehensive teaching of scripture as our final authority in all matters. I adhere, therefore, to such understanding as I have concerning church life not because I don’t like traditional churches, or because I think meeting in homes is more fun, or better suited to modern western culture: No! I adhere to it simply because it is my honest and very best understanding of what the Bible actually teaches. And precisely because it is what scripture teaches, being therefore the Lord’s idea of church life as opposed to anyone else’s, it is obviously going to also be far better in every way than the unbiblical alternative; but I embrace it not because I think it is better, but because it is biblical. What the Bible teaches, regarding absolutely whatever, should be embraced and complied for that reason alone. It is, ultimately, a question of being obedient to the Lord, the teaching of scripture being the only actual way of knowing what He wants and what He requires of us.

 

When I became a believer I not only very quickly realised that scripture is the final authority in all matters, but I was also greatly convicted by the Lord that unless His people are standing on His Word in clear obedience specifically, definitely and purposefully at precisely the points where it is being ignored and disobeyed, then we are not actually standing on it in obedience at all. And of course this not only pertains to the surrounding secular culture but also to the Christian church, for it is sadly the case that it is not only unbelievers who appear to be averse to various aspects of what the Bible teaches. In fact, as the calling the Lord placed on me to teach His Word became clear, so also did the fact that He was quite specifically requiring me to not only ensure that I teach the whole of scripture, such as I was myself growing in an understanding of it - the whole counsel of God, as Paul the Apostle referred to it [1] - but to precisely emphasise those specific and particular parts that Christians were, by and large, either ignorant of, or just plain ignoring. This obviously includes the whole area of church life and set up, but it includes so much more as well.

 

So for me, this whole ‘house church’ thing is far more fundamental that just getting church right, and is to do with the foundational principle of obedience to the comprehensive teaching of scripture, as opposed to all the picking and choosing in scripture so common amongst believers today. Having realised that the Bible is the Lord’s revealed Word, what therefore mattered to me was to do whatever was necessary in order to help believers to the realisation that to say we love Him, yet without at the same time increasing in ongoing obedience to the comprehensive teaching of scripture, is actually a contradiction. Our love for the Lord is shown by our obedience to Him, but we can only obey Him if we know what His commands actually are. And of course thing to underline here three times in red ink is that the only way we can know what His commands, and I meaning here all of them, is through an ever-increasing understanding of the comprehensive teaching of the Bible.

 

But in case the reader is now thinking that I am one of those doctrinalist-types who think that being a Christian is just about having an intellectual understanding of the Bible and then trying to put it into practise, then let me assure you that I am most certainly not. I know the Lord personally and experience Him subjectively in an ongoing way, though obviously not as much as I would like to, and depend on His supernatural intervention in my life. I know His voice, as He said His sheep would, and He both speaks to me and leads me directly. For what it’s worth, I also speak in tongues and use the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but of course what needs to be realised in such regard is that although the Lord does indeed speak to us and lead us directly and personally, it is nevertheless scripture that is the ultimate bedrock of His revelation to us, and nothing He ever says or does will in any way lead us against it. Indeed, subjective revelation and guidance are safe only to the extent to which we realise that it is only through scripture we can know whether or not something is a revelation or leading from the Lord, or whether it is just us being deceived, either by our own wayward thinking and desires, or even actual demonic forces, being thus seduced into sin, deception and error. If it ever appears that the Lord is leading you in any way against the teaching of the Bible, then you can be fully assured that it isn’t Him leading you at all.

 

I therefore want to throw out both a challenge, and correction, concerning two things that have become increasingly accepted by Christians, but which are nonetheless blatant departures from the Word of God; and especially in regards to Christians in the house church arena. Precisely because I am so convicted about sticking as closely as possible to scripture, [2] I am therefore also keen to ensure that neither I, nor those with whom I stand, become knowingly associated with anything that goes seriously and directly against it. Yet the sad truth is that not only is there serious doctrinal error, and therefore wrong practice, amongst those associated with house churches, there is also blatant and inexcusable hypocrisy amongst some of the leaders who parade themselves under the banner of a so-called return to New Testament teaching and practice, yet who live in a complete denial of the clear teaching in scripture in regard to certain things that don’t clearly don’t personally suit them.

 

The serious doctrinal error to which I refer is what has come to be termed Evangelical Feminism, [3] and the leadership hypocrisy I will be dealing with and exposing is the existence and acceptance of church leaders who have been divorced whilst in leadership, yet who refuse to step down from public leadership and ministry because of it. And of course the reason I am homing in on these things is not just that they are unbiblical, and therefore wrong in themselves, but because they are such a terrible travesty and failure of the requirement for Christians to be living in blatant and visible obedience to scripture at precisely the points where the surrounding culture is increasingly denying it. These two things are not only completely contrary to that requirement, they are actually a wholesale compromise and sell-out of biblical truth in a completely wretched attempt to appease a godless culture that rejects, virtually wholesale, not only God’s order for family life but the very sanctity of marriage itself.

 

The Irrationality and Cultural Sell-Out of Evangelical Feminism

 

I call Evangelical Feminism a cultural sell-out because firstly, no one would have ever deduced it merely from scripture, and secondly, because it is as blatant an example of Christians being deceived by, and actually embracing, the philosophical and ‘politically correct’ thinking of a surrounding godless culture as I have ever seen. It is, despite the protestations of its adherents, far more to do with trying to make the Christian life acceptable to godless men and women, and to appeasing sinners, than it is with implementing the precepts of a holy God, and therefore of scripture. Indeed, it is precisely because the notion of modern-day feminism is so patently absent from scripture that it cannot be said, with any intellectual integrity, to be anything whatsoever to do with it, or in any way derived from it. Secular feminists hate the teachings of the Bible regarding gender precisely because, amongst other things, they see so clearly that it is Patriarchal in its outlook. Evangelical Feminists, however, who also hate what scripture teaches in regard to gender differences, but in complete contradistinction to the secularists, just try to make it look like the Bible teaches something that everybody knows, unbelievers included, that it doesn’t!

 

I call it irrational, therefore, not because I think Evangelical Feminists are less intelligent than anyone else, indeed, some of their thinkers are of the highest intellectual calibre, but because it represents a non-rational approach to biblical interpretation - and therefore an actually irrational approach to it - that has never before, in two thousand years of church history, been embraced by evangelical Bible-believing Christians. It is, quite literally, nonsense! [4] Theological liberals, who don’t claim to believe the Bible in any literal or historic sense, and who maintain it to be full of myth and symbolism, yet nevertheless ‘containing’ the Word of God in some way, and who therefore reject any idea of it being infallible, obviously throw out anything in its pages they don’t like on the simple basis that they think it to be wrong. Precisely because it is a predominantly human book, so they argue, and not a fully divine one, it is full of errors, both historical and moral, which must be filtered out in the light of modern understanding. This is itself irrational in ways that are beyond my remit to here go into detail about [5] , but at least they reject what the Bible teaches concerning various things on the clear understanding that it does at least say what it says and that they simply consider what it says in such regards to be wrong. The irrationality of Evangelical Feminists, however, is that they disagree, as do most theological liberals, with the idea of God ordained differences in gender roles, but then, quite unlike theological liberals, and because they say they believe in the infallibility of scripture, have to try to assert that the Bible doesn’t actually teach such differences in gender roles in the first place. In other words, rather than just having the courage, as do the theological liberals, to just be honest come straight out and say they think Jesus, Paul, Peter, plus all the other New Testament writers, were wrong about gender issues and male headship, they instead twist and distort what they wrote in order to try and make out that they were saying the opposite of what they actually did say. For example:

 

  • “Wives submit to your husbands…” (Ephesians 5v22, Colossians 3v18) becomes Paul merely saying that there is no need for a wife to submit to her husband except in so far as her husband ought to mutually submit to her.

 

  • Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 11v3 that the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the husband, and that the Father is the head of Christ - a clear and, for two thousand years, unquestioned, reference to authority - becomes instead that a husband is merely the ‘source’ of his wife in the same way in which one might talk about the ‘head’ of a river.

 

  • Paul’s clear directive to Timothy (1 Timothy 2v12) that he didn’t permit women to teach or to have authority over a man turns into an assertion that there were particular women in Timothy’s situation who were, exceptionally, though for unstated reasons, not to be allowed to teach, but women in all other church situations were.

 

Let me give a brief response to illustrate how non-rational, how nonsensical, these assertions actually are:

 

  • Whatever reasoning is employed in order to conclude that, “Wives submit to your husbands…” (Ephesians 5v22, Colossians 3v18) really means that wives don’t have to submit to their husbands, can also, by definition, be used to make any command in scripture come out the opposite to how it is actually written. For example, having told the church in Ephesus (Ephesians 5v2) that wives should submit to their husbands, Paul then goes on to say, “Children, obey your parents…” (Ephesians 6v1) Likewise, having instructed the church in Colossae that wives should submit to their husbands (Colossians 3v18), he then goes on to say, “Children, obey your parents…” (Colossians 3v20.) But of course if the command for wives to submit to their husbands can be interpreted so as to mean that wives don’t, in fact, have to submit to their husbands, then whatever logic or process of deduction one uses in order to reach that conclusion can equally be applied to the issue of authority as pertaining to children and parents. One could equally, therefore, using the same reasoning, conclude that, although the Bible clearly says that children ought to obey their parents, just as wives ought to submit to their husbands, it actually means that children don’t have to obey their parents. Yet it will doubtless come as no surprise that I have yet to meet an Evangelical Feminist who teaches that children should not have to obey their parents or be under their authority. It would appear, therefore, that for Evangelical Feminists, the undeniable and clear biblical assertion that children ought to obey their parents means exactly what it says, whereas the equally undeniable and clear assertion that wives ought to submit to their husbands means that wives don’t have to submit to their husbands. I am merely pointing out how irrational this is. It truly is non-sense! That is, it makes no sense whatever!

 

  • The Evangelical Feminists assertion that Paul’s teaching that a man is the head of his wife (1 Corinthians 11v3) means merely that he is her ‘source,’ the headship to which he refers being nothing to do with authority, brings with it a related problem which those who teach this are all too keen to avoid. And of course the problem is that Paul doesn’t just say that a husband is the head of his wife, he also says, indeed, bases his very argument on the fact, that the husband is the head of the wife in the same way in which Christ is the head of the husband, and in which the Father is the head of Christ. What we must ask, therefore, is this. In what possible way is the Father, the first Person of the Trinity, the ‘source’ of the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself being the second Person of the Trinity, and therefore equally God from all eternity? The idea that one thing is said to be the ‘source’ of another is that it is in some way the originator of it, having brought it into being. Therefore, short of concluding, as logic would dictate, that the Father was Jesus’ ‘source’ in the sense of bringing Him into being, in much the same way that Eve came out of Adam, yet didn’t exist prior to that point; that is, the Father actually creating Him and bringing Him into actual existence, something no Evangelical Feminist, precisely because they are still evangelical and, therefore, Trinitarian, would assert, they rather leave the whole thing unexplained and just duck the issue completely. The husband is said to be the head of the wife in the sense of being her ‘source,’ yet quite what this means, apart from an attempt to try and demonstrate that Paul’s statement doesn’t actually mean what the words he used actually say, or why he should therefore even have bothered to say it in the first place, is left unexplained, as is his parallel statement that the Father is the head of Christ. Again, I maintain that this is irrational non-sense! That is, it makes no sense!

 

  • If Paul’s instruction in his letter to Timothy about women not being permitted to teach (1 Timothy 2v12) is merely a one-off, localised, situation-limited affair and not, as it clearly comes across in the text, the statement of a general rule to be universally applied, then the Evangelical Feminists must overcome the following problem. Firstly, as we have already noted regarding Paul’s teaching concerning wives submitting to their husbands, such an approach can be equally used to nullify just about any other verse in the Bible one doesn’t like. After all, if what Paul says there just applied to that situation back then, perhaps other verses do as well. Are the verses in Ephesians and Colossians concerning children obeying their parents perhaps merely alluding to some uniquely bad children in those churches, and therefore not universally applicable to, or binding on, children in other churches? Indeed, can any passage in scripture remain safe once such an interpretative method is employed on verses merely because they teach Patriarchy? Secondly, Paul specifically states in the following two verses that the reason for his rule that women mustn’t teach or have authority over a man is to do with what happened at the beginning of human history in the Garden of Eden. If there was ever a verse in the Bible that was precisely not a matter of cultural, historical or unique immediate context then, ironically, here it is. Paul states as clearly as it is possible to state, and as unambiguously as he reasonably could, that the reason women aren’t to be permitted to teach or have authority over men in church life is because, “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (I Timothy 2v13-14) The rule he lays down has nothing whatsoever to do with the culture of the day, or with some specific or unique situation that had arisen amongst those to whom he wrote it. Paul’s teaching in the New Testament that women are not to teach men in the church is because of what happened some four millennia prior to him writing in the garden of Eden. It is therefore, quite unarguably, universal in scope.

 

So hey, disagree with Paul if you think he is in error on this. Conclude, by all means, that he was wrong in what he wrote. (But of course now we are hitting straight up against the irrationality of theological liberalism in general, because on what basis, therefore, would you then be able to know what else he may or may not have been right or wrong about? After all, if some parts of scripture are wrong, and others right, how could you ever know for sure which is which?) And yes, say by all means that Paul and the other Bible writers were misled and misguided concerning gender issues, and that you disagree with them and believe yourself to know better; but let’s not have any silly nonsense about them not actually teaching what they patently, blatantly and obviously did. To try to do so is both arbitrary and irrational. Indeed, it is a completely non-sensical redefinition of what the words being used actually mean, and what the phrases being penned actually state as being the case. It is what Frances Schaeffer, referring to theological liberalism, defined as semantic mysticism, that is, the spiritual and religious use of words in order to make them mean something they clearly don’t. (For instance, the position of liberal theology which states that Jesus rose from the dead but that His bones were buried somewhere in Israel.) But now we have evangelical Bible-believing Christians doing likewise; and it is, historically speaking, a somewhat new and novel development. Think of it like this: If I were to write a letter in which I said that Star Trek is intellectually more satisfying than Star Wars, then by all means take both myself, and my statement, to task. Disagree all you like!  But semantic mysticism would be to take those words and try to make out that what I really meant was that ‘House on Pooh Corner’ is a weightier piece of literature than ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ Alternatively, if I were to say that I think socialism to be a political disaster, then I can be either agreed or disagreed with on the basis of my statement. Semantic mysticism, though, would be if a socialist, who had a vested interest in debunking my opinion, rather misrepresenting it and tried to make out that what I was really saying is that socialism was a good thing. And this is precisely what the Evangelical Feminists are trying to do. They are taking the writings of men who were no more Evangelical Feminists than President Obama is a Republican, or Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, and trying to make out that they somehow meant the exact opposite of what they actually taught and wrote. If, therefore, I were to write that Star Trek is more intellectually satisfying than Star Wars, then that would be exactly what I meant, as would it be exactly what I meant were I to state that socialism is a bad thing. In exactly the same way the Apostle Paul, as with all the other Bible writers, not only wrote what he wrote, he meant what he wrote, whether concerning gender issues or anything else.

 

Words mean what they mean, and properly worded phrases convey precisely what they are designed to convey, and especially when it comes to the Bible as God’s inspired and infallible written Word. The problem with Evangelical Feminists, much as with theological liberals, is precisely this semantic mysticism. In such regard they are like a certain character Alice met having gone through the looking glass: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” This is, of course, the very philosophic and semantic irrational non-sense that Lewis Carroll fully intended Humpty-Dumpty to represent, but it is also the basis for the similarly irrational non-sense that is referred to as Evangelical Feminism.

 

I obviously accept that there are biblical issues that can be legitimately considered to be somewhat open-ended, just as I would maintain that there are passages in scripture which good men and true might legitimately, and honorably, differ on, by way of both interpretation and application. Calvinists, for instance, as with their Arminian counterparts on the opposite wing of that particular doctrinal divide, think they have certain biblical truths concerning the relationship between election and free-will all sown up, whilst others would maintain that neither does, each being both right and wrong at the same time, but just in opposite ways. In other words, there are issues which are not as ‘cut-and-dried’ as some would like to think. Yet who would presume to think someone a fool simply because they held a view that differs from one’s own concerning such ultimately incomprehensible matters? Equally, does scripture teach in 1 Corinthians 14 that women are to be completely silent during the whole worship and sharing time when a church comes together on the Lord’s day, or does it teach a much more limited silence that is merely for the duration of the testing of prophecy? I have my own personal understanding, of course, but dare I, given the exegetical difficulties involved, think badly of those who practice differently? I think not! Likewise, that scripture teaches that women should have a head covering during the gathering of the church is as clear as day (I Corinthians 11), as is the purpose for such a covering (to show the angels that they are under their husbands’ authority), but whether Paul is referring merely to long hair, or to something actually worn on the head, is textually obscure, and I for one, even though believing the covering to be long hair, would not want to make an issue of it.

 

Evangelical Feminism, however, does not fall into any such category. There is nothing obscure, paradoxical, or even semantically or exegetically difficult concerning whether or not the Bible teaches Patriarchy; that is, the authority of a man over his family as being the head of his wife and household. Two thousand years of Church History has no more settled the predestination/freewill debate than it has either the women’s silence or head covering thing, and I would further add that if (Heaven forbid) there is another two thousand years of Church History yet to come (though I am thankful that I won’t be around to see it if there is) then such issues will remain as firmly unresolved as they are now. Why? Because millions of godly men women have always reached genuinely differing understandings from the self-same scriptures! Conclusion: As already noted, some things in the Bible just aren’t as clear-cut as we would like them to be!

 

But when it comes to Evangelical Feminism what we have is a generation of Christians - the first ever, in fact - who have apparently ‘seen’ in scripture what two thousand years worth of Christians have completely and utterly missed. Further, not only are we to suppose that they alone have come to understand what everyone else has been blind to in the pages of scripture for millennia, we are also meant to swallow the idea that the historically accepted Christian orthodoxy, that a man is the head of his house and that church leadership is male, is actually the sinful oppression of women, of which the Lord God is demanding that the Christian Church come to wholesale repentance. [6] Further, this position, though historically novel, as well as being both radical and revolutionary, is being maintained by believers who are completely unable to either demonstrate or explain their position clearly and unequivocally from scripture, and who have to rather concentrate their efforts on desperately trying to explain away the myriad of passages and verses in scripture which prove their case false. (Such passages and verses being, of course, precisely why, for two thousand years, Christians have rejected what I am referring in this article to as Evangelical Feminism.)

 

When I became a believer, thus quickly embracing the Patriarchy so clearly taught in scripture, I had to withstand a lot of pressure, and even bad treatment, from fellow Christians whose only argument was, “I can’t actually show you from the Bible how wrong you are, and neither am I going to debate with you concerning the particular scriptures you keep referring to. I’m just telling you that God is raising up women be to Bible teachers and church leaders, and that your objections to it reveal you to be a chauvinist who needs to repent.”

 

That’s what I got from the vast majority of Christians in England throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, becoming even more pronounced in the 00’s and 10’s, for not being an Evangelical Feminist. For years I was literally the only Christian I knew of who didn’t believe that women should be in church leadership, and who taught that wives ought to submit to their husbands; and even then, those I did eventually get to know were mostly in the church Belinda and I helped to start back in the 80’s. It can be lonely indeed being comprehensively biblical in the modern day Church of Jesus Christ!

 

Some years ago I had the privilege of accompanying a house church leader and his wife and son from Atlanta to a conference in South Carolina at which both he and I were speakers. I had met him briefly before on a couple of occasions, liked him immensely and was looking forward to several hours of fellowship in the car on the way. However, not only did I discover, somewhat to my dismay, that he was an extremely proactive Evangelical Feminist, but also that both he and his wife considered her to be a Bible teacher and elder. We talked a lot, and I was eventually told that I was an oppressor of women who needed to repent of the sin of chauvinism. I assured them that neither my wife nor the other women-folk in the church I am part of felt themselves to be in any way oppressed, only to be told, “Well, they would say that when you’re around, wouldn’t they? They’re just fearful to say anything different. But when we speak with wives when they are away from their husbands, that’s when they feel free to tell us how unhappy they are in their marriages and how oppressed they feel by their husbands.”

 

I can only say that my blood ran cold at the thought of this well-known husband and wife team travelling to various parts of the world teaching believers about house church whilst also trying to get women away from their husbands so they can talk freely with them about how sinful and oppressive all these horrible non-Evangelical Feminist Christian husbands are. I am not prone to having nightmares, but were I to ever become so, then I think they would have started that night.

 

But because the drive was long, and because I have always considered it to be a good thing to help people to take what they say to its logical conclusion - and because I can sometimes just be a bit on the mischievous side for no other reason than having a bit of fun - I pushed this husband, father and house church leader to explain to me the meaning of the specific verses in the New Testament I was so annoying him with, and which he just kept ignoring, that teach that leadership, whether in family or church, is for men. He eventually (I can be quite persuasive when I want to be) admitted that he had neither rational explanation nor answer regarding them, but maintained nonetheless that I was wrong in not believing that women should teach, or lead in church gatherings, and for believing that husbands should be the heads of their households, and needed to repent. I eventually pressed him to condense his position concerning what we had talked about (he was, after all, stridently urging me to repent of my chauvinism and sinful oppression of women), and to do so specifically in the light of the verses on which I was basing my thinking, and he did so brilliantly. Indeed, I remember his words to this day. “It is obvious,” he said “that God is raising up women into leadership in the kingdom of God. I admit that there are difficult verses in the Bible concerning this, but I believe that in time the Holy Spirit will show us what they mean.” What we have here is the following argument:

 

There are verses in the Bible that clearly state that wives should submit to their husbands as the head of the family, and that church leadership is for men, women thereby being precluded from doing teaching in the church. However, we don’t agree with this, and although we have no rationally satisfactory alternative way in which to understand these clear biblical statements, we are nevertheless not only going to teach the exact opposite of what they say, we are going to condemn and declare sinful those Christians who do understand and teach them just as they are written, and who therefore believe and practice Patriarchy, and call them to repentance. We are further just going to trust the Holy Spirit to eventually show what these ‘difficult’ verses actually mean.

 

So there you have it: the utter non-rationality and semantic mysticism of Evangelical Feminism. Here is a husband and wife team, acknowledged house church leaders with an international ministry, who are willing to accuse both myself and others like me of oppressing women, and of therefore being both a bad husband and church leader, yet without the slightest biblical rationale or justification for so doing. Those who, like myself, maintain the orthodox Christian stance of two thousand years regarding God’s differing gender roles, and His order for family, are summarily condemned as oppressors of women and urged to repent, even though, as this brother was forced to acknowledge, Christian Feminism has no rational explanation for the verses and passages in the Bible that not only agree with the traditional historic Christian understanding that I represent, but which totally disagree with every word they say. But of course therein lies the problem: the basis of their authority and teaching is actually merely their own subjective opinion, and not the Bible at all. But of course the moment you buy into such thinking you lose your freedom of thought and conscience before the Lord as appeals to scripture become irrelevant in the face of the spiritual and doctrinal fascism of the extra biblical beliefs, practices and convictions with which one is required by so many Christians today to just agree, or be labeled as something unpleasant - in this instance, a chauvinistic oppressor of women! It’s like the politicians who avoid talking about issues surrounding immigration by just labeling anyone who thinks differently to them as being racists. Rational argument is avoided through the tactic of the completely irrational smearing and casting of aspersions on those who disagree.

 

I sometimes end up surrounded at conferences I speak at by groups of women challenging me to be more open-minded about them being in leadership and doing teaching, and imploring me to ‘seek God’s heart’ about it, and to be willing to study more about it, and to spend more time in prayer concerning it. My world-weary response never changes: “Ladies, just show me what you are arguing for from scripture. Show me from the Bible that women ought to be in church leadership and to be teachers of God’s Word, and on that basis I will gladly accept it as being the Lord’s will and act accordingly.” But of course what the Bible says concerning it is the very thing they are so desperately trying to avoid, and they want to discuss, argue and debate the issue on just about any and every basis except the actual verses in scripture that pertain to it, and which they just can’t get around on any rational basis. These confrontations invariably end with those who have challenged me shaking their heads in despair and wringing their hands in bewilderment and sadness at this closed-minded and deceived fellow, for that is what they believe those of us who go by scripture regarding this matter to be, who refuses to accept that God wants women to lead churches as well as men, and who is, according to them, a hopeless and deceived legalist who is only willing to discuss the matter on the basis of what the Bible says concerning it, and therefore closed to actually ‘knowing’ the heart of the Lord.

 

As already noted regarding the South Carolina conference it is not just women who argue thus, and often times Christian men-folk are even worse. And just to illustrate where we have actually come to in God’s kingdom as a result of all this, during a series of seminars I did in Norway a while back an extremely disgruntled gentlemen, clearly a genuine believer, made it as clear as he possibly could to all assembled that he considered me to be in serious error for teaching that church leadership was for men, and proceeded to publicly inform the audience that nowhere does the Bible teach that wives should submit to their husbands.

 

Such is the tragedy, and the complete non-sense, of Evangelical Feminism. Christians who are going blatantly against what the Bible so clearly teaches concerning gender differences nowadays feel absolutely free to accuse other Christians, who are living consistently with what it teaches, of being close-minded, chauvinistic bigots, whose agenda, apparently, is the continued and wholesale oppression of women. I suggest that such is a very serious and onerous accusation. Indeed, it is downright slander! Yet Evangelical Feminists feel free to bandy such smears and accusations around without the slightest accountability for so doing, and without providing the slightest evidence, biblical or otherwise, that such is actually the case. Is someone a racist merely for having questions concerning the extent of immigration? Of course not! Yet as far as these folk are concerned, only chauvinists and bigots would dare to question what they teach concerning gender roles.

 

Has it not occurred to these folk though that the single most pertinent point concerning the whole Patriarchy versus Evangelical Feminism debate is that the eternal personal holy and almighty God just happens to be…male? The one true God is a ‘He’ and not a ‘She’…or an ‘It?’ Does it not occur to them that the very foundation of the created order is therefore that of male headship? That the Lord stands in relationship to everything there is precisely as that of a Patriarch? Yet Patriarchy is the very thing these Bible-believing folk are so desperately trying to deny! Further, is it not of the most crucial significance that, when the Uncreated One and, therefore, the Creator of all, the very Prime Mover behind everything that is and the First Cause of all things is revealed in human form, that He becomes a man and not a woman? But of course He did! He’s male! God is a male who is the head of all things! So when Evangelical Feminists try to make out that the idea of male headship is merely a cultural oddity, politely musing almost as to where such a quaint but erroneous notion comes from, then here is their answer. It came from the Lord God Almighty, Who is precisely the male head of life, the universe and everything, and therefore the ultimate Patriarch! Where, then, does this strange idea of male headship/Patriarchy come from? It’s built into the very fabric of existence; and as far as humanity is concerned being created in the image of this Patriarchal God means that, just as marriage and family life is the foundational building block of human existence, so Patriarchy, male headship, is it’s methodology.

 

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named…” (Ephesians3v14-15)

 

The very basis of family life is that it comes from the Father. From the Lord God Almighty Himself, Who is precisely the ultimate Patriarch in Whose image we are created, and the ultimate example of the male headship that is as foundational to family life as family life is itself foundational to human existence. Is it not interesting that throughout scripture the definition of an orphan is not a child whose parents have died, but a child who is without a father? But of course! God is our Father and not our Mother! Jesus could never have been Jemima, and the Holy Spirit is quite clearly revealed in God’s Word to be solely of male gender. Even the slightest notion that the Lord God Almighty could have revealed Himself equally as a woman instead of a man would, I trust, be considered a heresy of the highest order in the mind of even the most ardent Evangelical Feminist.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that, far from being something that has merely been wrongly practiced by various cultures throughout history, and which should be rejected by a supposedly ‘more enlightened’ one, Patriarchy is at the very heart of God’s creation, being part of its actual nature. It’s not just some arbitrary cultural choice - though just as a man can be operated on and made to look physically like a women, so can Patriarchy, equally perversely, be replaced by something else, be it gender egalitarianism or Matriarchy - it’s the very essence of God’s order for mankind that is actually built into us, just as is the fact of gender itself.

 

Just as there are those who wish to make gender and, therefore, sexuality arbitrary, as opposed to being the fixed point that it is; that is, the so-called homosexual, lesbian and trans-gender lobby, so are there those, Christians included, who wish to make arbitrary not gender itself, but its nature, thereby denying any fundamental difference between male and female beyond mere biology. If there were no God (but then, what would anything matter at all?), or if the Prime Mover and Creator were genderless, a cosmic ‘it’, so to speak, then such could indeed be argued; but when scripture reveals, as part of the very fundamental nature of the Lord God Almighty that, as well as stuff like being holy, loving, just, omnipotent, omniscient etc, He is also just happens to be male, then that cannot just be ignored or dismissed a being irrelevant to the question of gender roles. And its relevance, as we are seeing here so powerfully that it cannot be scripturally gainsaid, is precisely that male headship is at the very heart, and is the very foundation of, the universe itself. Indeed, it is its very nature, and especially in the realm of marriage, parenthood and family life.

 

This is, indeed, evangelical Feminism’s ultimate, and biblically completely insurmountable nemesis and deathblow! The Bible teaches, beyond any possible doubt or reservation, that God is male, and that He therefore became a man! End of story! When it can be shown from the Word of God that the Creator is no more male than female, and no more our Father than our Mother, and that the Incarnation could have resulted equally in a baby girl as a baby boy, and that a God-woman could have died on the Cross and taken away the sins of the world, and the Paul the Apostle wrote, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the woman Christ Jemima…” (1 Timothy 2v5) then I shall be ready to embrace Evangelical Feminism. In the meantime, however, not only does scripture presuppose, teach and assume Patriarchy and male headship from beginning to end, we would actually be utterly amazed if it did not, such being totally inconsistent with the fact that Divine Creator, and First Cause of all things, is male!

 

I want to return to a point made earlier. Are Evangelical Feminists, as they seem to suggest is the case with non-Evangelical Feminists in relation to their wives, closed-minded bigots whose agenda is the continued wholesale oppression of children merely because they agree with, and practice, what the Bible teaches concerning the need for them to obey their parents? And of course the answer is: Of course not! It is not narrow-minded bigotry to merely stick with what the Bible says about something, be it the authority of a husband over his wife and family, or the authority of parents over their children. That there are bad husbands who selfishly abuse their headship goes without saying, just as there are bad parents who don’t care for, or love their children as they should; but of course that doesn’t mean the answer is to try and change what the Bible says concerning these things. The answer to bad parenting is good parenting, and the answer to bad Patriarchy is good Patriarchy. Husbands should be the loving and self-sacrificial heads of their families, laying down their lives for their wives, just as together with their wives they should be equally loving and self-sacrificial parents.

 

Am I saying, though, that Evangelical Feminists are bad people? No! I’m not saying that at all! Any given Evangelical Feminist may be a wonderful, or a woeful, Christian. They may be the godliest, or un-godliest, believer you’ve ever met. But such is true of any Christian of whatever biblical persuasion concerning just about anything and everything. Indeed, some of the most unpleasant, unloving and (even) downright malicious Christians I have ever met would be doctrinally close to my own doctrinal stances. What I am saying, though, is that Evangelical Feminists have been taken in by a very subtle and powerful demonic deception, and that they do appear to be resistant beyond all reason when it comes to applying the same standards of biblical interpretation to that aspect of the teaching of scripture as they do to others.

 

Evangelical Feminism, though I do not say its adherents are doing so intentionally, undermines family life by messing with - indeed, by virtually reversing - God’s order for it, and the notion of a biblical church having women leaders is, biblically speaking, a complete oxymoron. There is more to being a biblical church than merely getting church structure and set up right, and to claim to be biblical regarding church life when an aspect of that life is having women in leadership, thereby undermining the headship of the husbands in the church, is not only a contradiction, it is both a counter-productive and spiritually dangerous one. If a church is not honoring the absolute and fundamental sanctity of marriage and family life in every way, then it is actually doing damage beyond measure. I could therefore never be part of a church, however biblically based it might otherwise be, that recognized and embraced women as church leaders and teachers. My conscience just wouldn’t allow it. I will gladly fellowship on a personal level with Evangelical Feminists anytime, and even take great joy in so doing, and not to just be trying to change their minds about this subject either. I am, in that regard, happy to just agree to differ. But I draw the line at ever actually being part of a church that has women leaders, or even ‘officially’ relating to such as an outside itinerant ministry. Such could only be seen as me condoning the very error I am committed to both exposing and refuting. [7]

 

The Scandal of Divorced Church Leaders

 

Irrespective of my disapproval of Evangelical Feminism I quite readily accept that, however biblically erroneous it is, it can nevertheless be embraced with a genuine innocence. With a certain naiveté even! But the issue to which we now turn is an entirely different animal and I write, without apology, from the viewpoint that those to whom it applies are scurrilous and in actual sin. Christians can embrace Evangelical Feminism and still be godly husbands and wives and faithful and obedient believers, but when we come to consider church leaders who continue in ministry and leadership after their marriages have failed, we find ourselves in an altogether different ball park. There is nothing to be found here of innocence or naiveté, but rather a cocktail of hypocrisy, arrogance and disobedience to scripture that is quite beyond the pale.

 

Let me make clear, however, that what I am going to be addressing here is the problem of Christian leaders, whether in unbiblical or biblical churches, and whether in local church leadership or wider itinerant ministry, whose marriages have failed, for whatever reason, yet who continue in leadership and ministry even though they are no longer biblically qualified to do so. I am not, therefore, dealing with the subject of divorce and remarriage in general. When a Christian leader experiences marriage breakdown it must be absolutely clear that there is compassion, forgiveness and personal restoration through the grace of the Lord, just as there is for any other believer. Neither am I here dealing with the subject of appropriate post-divorce pastoral care, but purely with the issue as to whether or not a Christian leader should continue in leadership having been divorced. That there is forgiveness and grace for any such one goes without saying. Indeed, I would go further and say that even when believers have illegitimately divorced and remarried, it is only right and proper to honor such marriages as if they are indeed God’s will. You can’t, as it were, unscramble eggs, and to try to do so just makes an even bigger mess than already exists. But the question as to whether or not a man should step down from ministry having divorced is an entirely different thing, and one which scripture covers with great clarity. [8]

 

The essence of the qualifications for biblical church leadership is not merely that someone who is being considered as such be able to practically fulfill whatever functional duties are entailed - Bible teaching, the giving of good and wise personal counsel etc - but that they have a long and proven track record of personal godliness and maturity. They must, in every way, be an actual living personal example of what they will be seeking to lead others into through their leadership function, and not merely a purveyor of doctrinal theory. And nothing is emphasized more in scripture in such regard than the absolute necessity for anyone in leadership to have proven and exampled their Christian walk, integrity and faithfulness by being the head of a happy, loving, peaceful and godly marriage and family that any sensible person looking on would desire to emulate.

 

“To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them - not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5v1-3)

 

“Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” (1 Timothy 3v1-5)

 

“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.” (Titus 1v5-8)

 

Just how clear could anyone want this to be? Let’s take just two verses out of that lot in order to make sure we really are getting this:

 

“To the elders among you…Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them…being examples to the flock.”(1 Peter 5)

 

“If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (1 Tim 3v5)

 

The biblical concept of Christian leadership, whether that of local elders or those with a wider itinerant ministry is, first and foremost, that they be clear personal examples of mature and stable godliness to those who look to them for leadership, and especially in the area of family life. If a man divorces his wife, or is divorced by her, irrespective of whose fault it might be said to be, he is patently no longer such an example. He is therefore obviously no longer biblically qualified for leadership, quite irrespective of how good at talking, teaching, or performing in public he remains. Such a one should, quite simply, step down and resign from whatever leadership functions they are performing.

 

The tragedy of what we are considering here though is that, however sad it is that a Christian leader should have his marriage fail in the first place, the resulting failure to step down from their leadership function merely compounds the problem by leading them into further sin. Think about it! Firstly, a leader with a failed marriage, who nonetheless remains a leader, is in direct disobedience to the clear teaching of the New Testament that he is no longer morally and spiritually qualified for the task. Though he obviously retains the necessary functional skills, he no longer - and this is of far more importance than the mere ability to ‘perform’ - has the personal and spiritual authority to be considered to be such. In complete contradistinction to what the Bible teaches about church leaders needing to be examples to the flock, he is now, by definition, no longer able to be such to those who look to him for leadership. Indeed, by continuing in leadership such a one actually weakens other marriages by becoming instead an example of the increasingly prevalent view amongst Christians that marriage is not as sacred as the Bible teaches, it being perfectly acceptable to have one break down and then carry on pretty much as though nothing of any great importance had happened. When those who look to such people for leadership go through difficulties in their marriages, they are obviously far more likely to be tempted to cut and run, as happened in their leaders’ marriages, than to instead go through the necessary self-sacrifice in order to stay with their spouses and make things work come what may. ‘For better or for worse!’ is not part of the traditional marriage vows just for fun. Even more terrible, such leaders, having messed up one marriage, often feel free to go ahead and find someone else with whom they can have another crack of the whip. Not for them the rigors of a single life. Oh no, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

Secondly, and this is truly sickening to anyone who thinks biblically, the reason such people often give for not stepping down from leadership and ministry, even though they have a broken marriage behind them and are therefore no longer biblically qualified, is pretty much always because they consider their ministries to be so important, and themselves so indispensable, that they feel it their duty to the wider body of Christ, irrespective of what the Bible says, to continue in their calling. Not thinking of themselves at all - or so they always claim - they continue in ministry purely for the benefit of the wider body of Christ. Or, to put it another way, not only do they have failed marriages, they go on to show themselves to be hypocrites too.

 

When Charles Stanley, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, and one of America’s most influential evangelical Christian leaders, was divorced by his wife at the turn of the century, having previously publicly taught that he would step down should such ever happen, he stayed on as Pastor saying that he felt he had to continue in order to be ‘faithful to God’s call.’ Further, the church’s administrative Pastor, Rev. Gearl Spicer, said at the time, "It is my biblical, spiritual and personal conviction that God has positioned Dr. Stanley in a place where his personal pain has validated his ability to minister to all of us." [9] Or, to put it another way, irrespective of the fact that scripture makes clear that church leaders should be examples of successful marriage and family life, we are now told that the opposite is equally the case, and that someone with a failed marriage is just as able to help the rest of us to follow the Lord, and to have a better, more godly and successful one; a viewpoint clearly not shared by the divinely inspired writers of the New Testament. It is like hiring a thief to teach people honesty, or paying a bent cop to lecture on the ethics of policing. Not only is it bizarre and irrational, it is Orwellian doublespeak worthy of the very worst of the dishonest, self-serving, non-transparent and disingenuous politicians we have become so used to today. And just like those same politicians who themselves break the laws they make for others to obey, the teaching of the Bible, it would appear, applies to non-leaders, but not to the church leaders whose function it supposedly is, through teaching and personal example, to lead the non-leaders into holiness and godly living through obedience to it. This is not only morally wrong; it is also a complete farce! As with Evangelical Feminism, it’s like stepping through the looking glass into a world where nothing makes sense any more. But whereas going through it with Alice is fun, with these guys it’s a complete spiritual and moral nightmare.

 

So when it comes to having men in church leadership who have divorced since being in ministry, to the problem of their failed marriages we must further add direct disobedience to God’s Word concerning who is, and who is not, qualified to function as a church leader in the first place; to say nothing of the spiritual arrogance involved in this most appalling hypocrisy and lack of personal integrity. It should be said, however, in defense of Charles Stanley, that at least he has had the decency not to remarry, something that sadly cannot be said for a great many other divorced church leaders, house church ones included. I am not saying that I would refuse to have personal fellowship with a believer who was a church leader who had been divorced since their ministry commenced, but I would certainly not publicly co-minister with them or relate to them on a personal basis as being in leadership! Again, it could only be seen as condoning something I believe from scripture to be completely and utterly wrong.

 

I can only hope and pray that my reader grasps just how serious, and how linked, these two things we are here addressing are. Anyone who fails to see the historic connection between the rise of feminism and the increase in family breakdown and divorce, even amongst believers, must be truly blind. And any Christian who fails to further see the connection between the Christian Church’s acceptance of feminism and the fact that in America the divorce rate is actually higher amongst professing Christians than amongst unbelievers, must be blinder still. What will then follow, as a direct result, will be an increasing acceptance amongst Christians of the legitimacy of, for instance, a gay life style, and even the acceptance of the concept of gay marriage. After all, if practicing heterosexual Christians are seen to consider themselves free to go against what the Bible teaches concerning gender differences and the sanctity of marriage, then why shouldn’t homosexual and lesbian ones be free to do the same? On what possible basis can Christians who twist and disobey scripture regarding heterosexual marriage and sexuality challenge those who claim that the Lord approves of them practicing a gay lifestyle? At the time of writing both the American President, Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister, David Cameron, endorse gay marriage, and if the prophetic significance of that is lost on anyone reading this then I fear it can only be because they are for some reason incapable of thinking perceiving things biblically!

 

I cannot emphasize enough the need for there to be clear blue water established between those Christians who want to live fully and comprehensively biblically, and those who want to rather compromise with the world and just water down what scripture teaches in order to make sin easier to embrace and get away with. Indeed, it is to want more to be popular and well thought of by the surrounding sinful culture than it is to want to be faithful to the Lord God and obedient to His Word. And nowhere is that clear blue water needed more than amongst house churches where, sadly, some of the very worst of the compromised morally bankrupt Christianity on offer today can be found.

 

For six thousand years Satan has been attacking family life in an effort to destroy it, and he is now recruiting evangelical, Bible-believing Christians to his cause. We would expect to see the cultural liberals helping him, as we would the theological ones, but now even genuine believers are piling on the bandwagon, armed to the teeth with their Evangelical Feminism, easy divorce and remarriage and church leaders and teachers who pander to both. When even genuine Christian church leaders can get away with such hypocrisy, one really does have to say that the gullible and compromising Christians who look up to, follow and support them really are getting the leaders they deserve. Whether it be Charles Stanley from the traditional historic wing of the church, or someone like Frank Viola from the house church arena, the arrogance and hypocrisy is the same. When it comes to what churches ought to be like in their set up, functioning and practice, the issue should never be merely that of embracing a biblical ecclesiology as opposed to an unbiblical one. It should be about something far more fundamental and important; that is, honesty as opposed to dishonesty, integrity as opposed to hypocrisy, truth as opposed to falsehood, and faithfulness as opposed to betrayal. It should be about being comprehensively biblical as opposed to just picking and choosing according to which aspects of the Bible’s teaching one happens to like and which one doesn’t, and therefore simply ignoring and disobeying them. As someone on the house church wing of things I desire to make every possible effort in order to ensure that people know the difference between those who really are serious about godliness, and therefore about comprehensive obedience to God’s Word – and especially regarding the sanctity of marriage and family life - and those who merely pay it lip service. In such regard it is especially tragic that, whereas Charles Stanley at least had the decency not to remarry, Frank Viola went on to marry for a second time.

 

We are forced, then, to make a choice, and it is this. One of my favorite books is, ironically, ‘Mere Christianity’ by C S Lewis. I say ironically because although borrowing his terminology, I am going to use it in a completely different way from him. Because what we face today as believers is nothing less than the decision as to whether we are going to be mere Christians, by which I mean those who follow the Lord to a certain extent, but who bend to the opinions of the world and surrounding culture, and who therefore twist what the Bible says about certain things unbelievers don’t like to hear; or whether we are going to be full-blooded, genuinely Spirit-filled Christians, who not only don’t bend when worldly winds of doctrine try so hard to make us do so, but who rather strengthen up, straighten up and emphasize all the more whatever it is Satan is getting the ‘mere’ Christians to compromise over. And if we have leaders, even house church ones, who aren’t on that page, be they Evangelical Feminists, or those who have failed marriages behind them since being in leadership, or maybe even a mixture of both, then let’s just stop following them and supporting them. Let’s stop buying their books, attending their conferences and, of course, giving them money, and get on with the task of following the Lord, fully and biblically, without them.

 

I know from long experience that there will be those who will write to me objecting to what I am saying here. From that same long experience I also know that some of them will be rude and quite intentionally nasty, seeking merely to demean and humiliate, rather than simply answering what I have written on the basis of biblical reasoning. It is sad indeed that there are so many rude and nasty Christians around. Therefore, before you do write - though if you are planning to write and say, ‘Well done Beresford! Bravo!’ then please don’t wait a moment longer - whether you are intending to be rude or not, please take time to just pause and reflect on the simple fact that all I have done here is to plead that Christians adhere consistently and faithfully to a morality and standard of behavior that has not been called into question throughout two millennia of church history…until now! Yet not only do some Christians want to call it into question, becoming thereby one of the tiniest of minorities throughout Christian history that there has probably ever been, they want to do so in such a way as to infer that those of us who do stand in the orthodox faith regarding these matters, and who stand by what the Bible has always been instinctively known by Christians everywhere to teach, are narrow-minded and judgmental bigots. Yet though strictly the new kids on the block, they nonetheless seek to defend what Christian history has always considered indefensible; that is, feminism, illegitimate divorce and remarriage and the legitimacy of divorced church leadership. In so doing they boldly claim to be the self-evidently true, righteous, genuine and unmistakable voice of God. Indeed, the restorers of a divine truth and the heroes of a movement up there with the abolition of the slave trade! We have a saying here in England, “Go on! Pull the other one! It’s got bells on!”

 

So if you want to write and tell me that you think I am in the wrong regarding what I have written, then at least be honest enough to accept that you will be writing because you want to justify and defend easier divorce and remarriage, along with the weakening of family life that such inevitably entails, and that your objection is to my belief in marriage’s absolute sanctity. Perhaps you could also explain to me why my beliefs concerning the sanctity of marriage and family life make me in some way a bad Christian, whilst your beliefs, which clearly, and however unintentionally, make the ongoing weakening and breakdown of family life far more likely, make you a good one.

 

Further, if you want to suggest that I am in some way undesirable because you want to defend leaders who betray their marriage vows and families, yet who nonetheless feel their ministries to be so important that the Church of Jesus Christ simply can’t be expected to get by without them, than please be honest enough to admit that such is your position. But again, please explain to me from scripture why such a viewpoint is a good one to have, and why it makes you a desirable Christian, whilst those who hold the same convictions on the matter that I do, are to be considered in some way undesirable and bigoted. Also, if you want to correct, or even actually rebuke me, for speaking up for the notion of holding to standards that have been considered by Christians to be the biblical norm for two thousand years, but which you have decided no longer apply, then please make it clear that that is why you wish to take me to task, and that it is not for any other reason. And then please explain to me from scripture, and I do mean from scripture and not any other sources, why it is folk like me who need to be corrected and not you. Finally, if you want to set me straight because I believe that personal holiness, integrity and obedience to the Lord matter more than being a good Bible teacher, or a good evangelist - or a good anything else for that matter - then please, just say that; but please, please, please don’t dress it up so as to make it sound like something else. Just make it clear that such is your objection. But make it clear too in what way scripture backs your position, as opposed to the position I have outlined, and why it is me, and not you, who needs to be put straight concerning it!

 

So yes, please feel absolutely free to write to me and disagree with what I say, and to take me to task all you like. I have no objection whatever to honest and open debate, and welcome it from all sides. Just make it clear though that your objection is that I am holding to things in the Bible which you want to get round because they are in some way offensive to you. But please, don’t let’s have the standard stuff Evangelical Feminists throw at those who believe as I do about us being unloving, judgmental, ‘out of step with what the Holy Spirit is doing’ and ‘not knowing what the mind of the Lord is concerning women in leadership.’ If your objection is that I am teaching things from the Bible that you don’t like, then fair enough, just bite the bullet, be honest and say that. Indeed, it would be honorable to do so precisely because it is so honest, and I would greatly respect you for it even whilst disagreeing. Just don’t disguise it as being something else though, or try to confuse the issue with the false spirituality and reasoning that maintains that God leads His people contrary to His Word, and which then attacks those who hold to the biblical positions you don’t like on that basis.

 

And don’t try to get round what I am saying either by putting me down to being one of those puritanical, legalistic types who thrive on any possible opportunity for self-denial or the opportunity to spoil other people’s fun. I am, for one, a massive Star Trek fan. Neither am I, for instance, teetotal. Further, I like going to the beach and just love having fun in any way, shape or form that my conscience is clear the Lord wouldn’t object to. No! These are not just some secondary issues over which I am trying to be a killjoy! We are here talking about things that are absolutely basic to Christian discipleship and which are biblically totally fundamental. My plea is not to be equated with that of a spiritual party-pooper who objects to people enjoying themselves, or them going to the cinema, or playing games, or hunting, or enjoying sport. I am not here objecting to such things as dancing, playing cards or listening to music. No! I am objecting to the denigration of established Christian standards at their most fundamental level, and to the increasing and wholesale compromise and sell-out of what the Bible teaches concerning God’s order for family life. Indeed, of the very sanctity of marriage itself. I am simply asserting that Christians are wrong to disagree with what the Bible clearly teaches, whether it be concerning marriage, family life, church leadership or anything else. I am saying that to divorce, outside of being the innocent victim of unrepentant adultery, or being deserted by an unbelieving spouse, is wrong, and that to then compound it by illegitimately remarrying makes it even worse. I am saying too that Christian leaders are wrong to continue in ministry if their marriages have failed, and that they should rather show integrity and humility and stand down. These are things in scripture that are both crystal clear and foundational, and which should be therefore non-negotiable.

 

Let me sum up! God is for family and loves it with His whole heart! Satan hates whatever the Lord loves and is therefore completely against it! So, hey! Guess who’s inspiring the thinking of those Christians who want to downplay the sanctity of marriage and who contradict God’s order for family life? Guess who’s behind the thinking of Christians who want to make divorce and remarriage easier and more acceptable? And guess too who’s behind the idea of having church leaders who have divorced since being in ministry, or who have, even worse, divorced and then actually remarried? Then, finally, guess who’s backing those Christians who are gullible enough to keep on following and supporting them?

[1] Acts 20v27

[2] The fact that I try so hard doesn’t, of course, mean that I always get it right. Quite the contrary! In fact, one of my definitions of my Christian life is ‘the ongoing process of discovering what I am wrong about.’

[3] The assertion that scripture doesn’t teach any difference in function between men and women, outside of pure biology, and that the husband is not in authority over his wife or the head of the family, the marriage relationship being fully egalitarian.

[4] I use this word not as an insult, but merely in the sense that Evangelical Feminists are adhering to a position that makes no sense. It is, quite literally, non-sense.

[5] For instance, if the Bible isn’t God’s revealed infallible Word, then who cares what it says anyway? Further, if scripture merely ‘contains’ the Word of God, as opposed to actually ‘being’ it, then on what possible basis can anyone say where it is right or wrong? If the Bible writers were wrong about certain things they teach, then on what basis can we know that they were wrong, and on what basis can someone say that they, in contradistinction to the Bible writers, are correct? Moreover, if one of the contentions of theological liberalism is that the Bible writers were misled about certain things because of their cultural conditioning, then on what basis do these Bible critics assume they are not likewise merely being conditioned by the culture in which they live? This really is as irrational as it gets. Indeed, it is a prime example of intellectually capable thinkers thinking incapably, and for the simple reason that they don’t actually want certain things in God’s Word to be true because it doesn’t suit their sinfulness. For a more detailed treatment of the philosophical and theological background to theological liberalism see my book, ‘Learning to Whistle!’ which is available through the Amazon Kindle store.

[6] I obviously reject the equally unbiblical notion of chauvinism, as I do the historic twisting of scripture in such regard that has so sadly featured throughout church history, and which has been used to justify the denigration of women in general. Sadly, the Early Church Fathers, as well as the Reformers, contributed to this denigration, believing women to be inferior to men. They were, in their own way, as unbiblical on the subject of women as Evangelical Feminists are, only on the opposite wing of the argument.

[7] For a definitive treatment of the error of Evangelical Feminism, as well as the comprehensively biblical deathblow to it, see ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’, Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books. See too the equally devastating ‘Evangelical Feminism: a New Path to Liberalism?’ by Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books. If this article can be said to have hurled a few hand grenades at Evangelical Feminism, then Grudem’s book is Hiroshima and Nagasaki rolled into one.

[8] For a full treatment of my own personal understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning divorce and remarriage, an audio talk entitled, ‘Divorce and Remarriage’ is available through our church website. (General Teaching Series, GT 29) - http://www.house-church.org/studies_main.htm

 

Top of page

© 2014 Chigwell Christian Fellowship. All rights reserved.