This letter was directed at a church in Toronto that I used to attend to with my bride. On September 22, 2019 the pastor took on the contentious subject of so-called 'women pastors.' While I admire(d) his courage in taking on this matter, his failure to adequately explain the validity of the subject in church, or to explain to me, in private (his response, and the church's, are at the bottom of the letter), why my view is wrong, Biblically, caused me to permanently cease attending.
As always, some words or phrases have since been edited for clarity and grammar. The name of the church and pastor is, out of respect, kept anonymous. If you wish to know who they are, please contact me in private Read on.
Dear Sir(s),
please express to Pastor B my respect for the courage he showed in taking on the now-contentious subject of so-called women pastors in the church. I genuinely respect COURAGE of any kind, whether in the battlefield fighting for one's country, the domestic field, fighting to protect lives and people from harm, or in the political and religious field, fighting for what is right and/or contending for the faith (Jude 1:3).
Indeed it is very rare, these days, to plunge into any subject deemed either politically incorrect or potentially 'offensive' to someone. The days when one could freely speak their mind, in most forums, has seemingly vanished in the crush to seemingly 'appease' the sensibilities and proclivities of whatever social trend is loudest at the moment, at the expense of one's beliefs and principles.
So, for what it's worth, I applaud Pastor B for attempting to take on the subject of so-called Women Pastors. I say 'so-called' because, despite his best efforts, I see serious flaws in his argument and remain unconvinced that even he, himself, truly believes what he said.
This is very problematic for me and I will tell you why; both my bride and her mom go to and even served in some capacity (my bride briefly) the church for some years. Since I married her almost seven years ago, I have also attended, mostly to keep the peace in the family and avoid any unnecessary rifts. Our biggest rift, apart from my dislike of what I see a lot of worldly music and worship creeping into your church body, is my stance on so-called "women pastors."
For the most part I've gotten around this issue by staying home whenever a so-called 'Woman pastor' was 'preaching' in order to keep my conscience clear and any taint of hypocrisy far from me. Now, after Pastor B's sermon, where he failed to convince me of the voracity of Scripture supporting so-called 'women pastors,' I do not believe I can do even that.
Whatever personal consequences that may cause me are secondary to the fact that the doctrine enunciated by Pastor B is FALSE and almost heretical to the teaching's of Scripture. The examples he used were very weak and do not address the central issue of 1 Timothy 2:12 which is not whether a woman can be a 'prophetess' (my bride is very spiritually gifted herself and is a source of strength in my studies) or teach other women (Titus 2:4) but of AUTHORITY AND ORDER.
This is PLAINLY and CLEARLY expounded in 2 Timothy 2:13-14 which Pastor B addressed but did not confront. Instead he went off on some tangent trying to justify an Un-Biblical position by citing the example of Aquila and Priscilla. These people, highly loved by Paul and mentioned at least six times in the New Testament, were a wonderful couple and brothers and sisters in the Lord indeed. In using these as examples to justify that the 'pastor role' was, indeed, given to a woman, Pastor B failed to mention that the man who was being taught (and taught by them BOTH, not Priscilla alone), Apollos was that he was not really a Christian, having, as the verse says "...knowing only the baptism of John." (Acts 18:25) MOREOVER this 'instruction' was not given IN the church but, apparently, in some kind of private moment (the Bible says "they took him unto them.") thus preserving the ORDER in the church and maintaining the rule set up by Paul for orderly worship.
This is a great Biblical principle and one must be mindful of it to avoid another heresy expounded by Pastor B, that the verses addressing so-called 'women pastors' are to be seen as only being addressed to the body of believers in Timothy's church and ministry. Entirely apart from the fact that it is entirely puzzling to imagine why Paul, or the writers of the Bible, would include a passage that was only specific to one body and not the entire body of the church, is the fact that Paul essentially says the same thing about women in 1 Timothy 2: 9-11 as he does about them in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35!
Were I to take the what Pastor B said at face value, it would not be hard to assume I could apply the same method of inquiry into the idea that homosexuals need not repent to be saved because, as the world says, 'God loves them as they are.' I could, likewise, begin to omit and/or create pathways around other contentious subjects simply by gently bending or twisting other passages of the Bible, as he did, in order to avoid upsetting the world or those who worship before the God of 'equality' and 'equal right's' and 'feminism' rather than the God the Bible.
I am, as Pastor B said, a biblical literalist but I'm not a Biblical 'stupidist;" in other words I do not necessarily believe that when the Bible says something it is always meant as it is written or meant without context. Take Pastor B's example (really, challenge) in Mathew 5:29, where Jesus tells us that "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." The word "offend" means "to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall." By this you can see that the Lord was being both literal and figurative; in other words if your eye TRULY causes you to stumble, YES you SHOULD pluck it out; better to avoid temptation that can cause you to fall or remain in sin and go to hell. Likewise you should also cause your right to be cut off if it leads you to sin (Mathew 5:30).
But is it just your EYE or Hand that causes you to stumble in sin? Or is it something else? Indeed your whole sin-nature is constantly at WAR with your spirit (Galatians 5:17), fighting every day against the Rebirth you experienced at the moment of Salvation. A pastor once said that it is basically the 'dying' old man of flesh fighting the living NEW man born of the Spirit and this battle continues on until we do die.
Does that mean we should cut off more body parts? What particular part of our flesh can we truly remove to prevent us from stumbling back into sin? Perhaps we should just go the whole hog, get saved and kill ourselves to avoid this battle? Of course that would pretty much end the ministry and go against he commandment to share the gospel (we don't have 'Force ghosts' the way Luke Skywalker did vis-a-vie Ben Kenobi and later Yoda) that can do the work of us.
Taken literally, therefore, yes, I fully agree; whatever causes you to stumble, remove it. But the principle behind what Jesus said goes beyond the literal verse much as He didn't mean we have a limit on the many times we should forgive those who offend us (70 x 7 = 490) - Matthew 18:22. In other words, I sincerely believe that the Lord did mean not only include a limb but your TV, your internet, your phone, your photographs, indeed, any personal belonging that stands between you and God you must remove. This also includes people in your life. Or perhaps churches too.
In my personal life I've had or had others 'remove' things that caused me pain, my appendix being one. But I've also removed myself from people, people I care about, because they were walking down a path I know was wrong and would not repent of it. The most recent case being the man who married my bride and I, because he attended (and tried to justify his attending of) the so-called 'wedding' of his gay brother.
Now I love my friend and his family. Indeed his father, also a pastor, was a significant factor in my young and growing faith. I also babysat his gay-brother too. This was painful and difficult for both my bride and I. But we did so because by going to this church we felt we were endorsing a man who did not see the error of his ways and, as a result, was likely to cause his church to stumble; many of whom saw photos of him attending this so-called 'wedding.'
The Bible says "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 8:6). This is the burden, primarily, of leaders.
We can see this in our current political election where by the current Prime Minister has shown great hypocrisy and has outright lied to the public during his tenure. Had he applied to himself the same standard as he did to others, he would have resigned. Had he, likewise, been forgiving to others, I would, likewise, have respect for him. But he has done neither; instead acting as if the rules that he set out for others do not apply to him. Beyond that his support of so-called 'gay marriage' and the evident pandering to every unChristian idea or doctrine (despite supposedly being a Christian) reveals him to be both a fraud, a hypocrite, and, beyond that, a person totally unsuited to the role for which he aspires and hopes others will still give him a chance at.
This same thing must also apply to ministers in churches. Indeed I believe that it is far MORE important that it should for while leaders come and go and affect us for the time, however brief, they rule our lives, those things which are taught us in church have a profound and lasting effect upon the body. It is for this reason that James 1:3 says "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
The word MASTERS equals teacher. It is, therefore, incumbent upon teachers/pastors/leaders of all kinds but especially those in the church (for the Bible was written, in part, for those who are in the church rather than for secular authorities) to be right with their doctrines lest they 'offend' not to the world but to 'one of these little ones who believe in me.'
The word 'offend' in Matthew 18:6 is the same word used by Jesus in Matthew 5:8, the principle being that if you cause someone to stumble, in this case in their faith, you need to cast out. I don't have any spare millstones around so I'm not suggesting that Pastor B wear one or be tossed into the sea for his mistakes any more than I would wish someone to do that to me for mine (Do unto others...Luke 6:31) But I do wish him to re-examine his teaching on Sept 22 2019 and understand that it is simply NOT BIBLICALLY SUPPORTED, despite his (weak) attempts to make it appear so.
I worry about this, especially, since it can and likely will create rifts in my family and in others. That is not to say that I am upset he brought it up. Indeed, as I said at the beginning, I respect Pastor B for the courage of doing so. But I am equally grieved that his justification for so-called 'women pastors' does not meet the criterion of either a literal interpretation, or even a principle that can extend beyond it. Indeed by opening up the discussion to the notion that Paul was only directly speaking to this church and not to all churches he risks asking others to apply this to all other doctrines espoused not only by Paul but of other Apostles and Prophets, indeed of Jesus Christ Himself!
These are very dangerous waters to wade into and I tremble in my heart for him, indeed, for other ministers who seem willing to shoehorn doctrines that are Biblical but not popular into the Bible and expound them throughout the church. Would, I ask you, the founder of the church, O.S., have accepted such teachings?
Even if you do not accept my views, can you at least consider his? If this man did not accept women 'pastors' why would you now? Would you repudiate his words (and the Bible's) to make them 'more relevant' or more 'modern?' Are you suggesting that the God of your church is, likewise, changing his mind much as the faux 'god' of the Mormon Church who frequently changes his mind on such things as blacks in the church and plural marriage? These things must be considered on any issue but more so on contentious issues such as so-called 'women pastors' where the verses are especially clear and not for private interpretation as Pastor B attempted to do (2 Peter 1:20).
At any rate, for now and until I am convinced that this false doctrine has been repudiated and this church is set on a sound Biblical foundation, I will refuse, any more, to sit among you. Before this day I could wink and nudge at the notion of so-called 'women pastors' in your church as long as I stayed away when they are present. But since your senior pastor not only endorses this UNBIBLICAL policy but attempted to deceive people as to its rectitude, I must walk away until it is repudiated.
Again I expect conflict in my marriage and family as a result but this is natural since Jesus did NOT come to bring 'peace' but a sword and set people against each other ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34-35). That, too, is also a hard doctrine, people having grown used to the idea that God is love and Jesus is the Prince of Peace, but it is true and does not diminish the other wonderful characteristics of God. Indeed it is an affirmation of God, whose first step after crating light was DIVISION between light and darkness (Genesis 1:4).
That said I will not prohibit my bride from attending. I will simply trust that God shows her the truth of what I believe on rather than the half-truths and misguidance provided by Pastor B today; and which I am not entirely certain he believes in fully himself (he kept saying 'I think" which is very telling and also shows he is going more on opinion rather than conviction).
Be that as it may I wish no one at the church any ill will. Rather I pray that God will kindly reveal the truth of Scripture to Pastor B and that he will embrace it fully. Should he do so, and should the church come to this understanding, I will gladly resume attending. Until then I will seek another body whose leadership is fully prepared to sacrifice their unbiblical and perhaps worldly notions for God rather than God for their unbiblcial and worldly notions.
In Christ,
I.M. Ulysses
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE From Pastor B (Oct. 28 2019)
Thank you for you comments about my message on September 22nd, I appreciate the careful thought you put into crafting your feedback. As I mentioned in my message, I recognize that there are different interpretations of the passage I spoke on. It was my desire to help people understand why The Peoples Church has always welcomed women to serve in ministry.
I respect your decision to follow your convictions, and trust God will lead you to the appropriate Church.
In Christ,
Pastor B.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE From the Board of Directors of the church (Oct. 26 2019)
No comments:
Post a Comment