Women are not equal in the church: Michelle Lesley P/5

Read Part One HERE

In this blog I continue to focus on popular blogger Michelle Lesley.

She has made the following statement with regards Galatians 3:28

Michelle Lesley

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Michelle Lesley: "Anyone can come to Christ in repentance and faith - Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, all are welcome. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. No one is more important than anybody else. We are all equally saved, equally loved, equally forgiven of our sin, equally precious in God's eyes. But equality in salvation does not translate to equality in church roles. A king and a pauper might have worshipped side by side in the Galatian church, but when it came to the role of giving, the church would not have expected the same offering from the pauper as from the king. This didn't make the king more important than the pauper, it just gave him a different area of responsibility because of who he was. Likewise, men and women are equally saved and forgiven in God's eyes, but still fulfill different roles in the body of Christ of who they are."

My Comment

Michelle Lesley is correct when she states that anyone can come to Christ in repentance and faith for we are all equally precious in God's eyes.But her next statements are not correct as far as Scripture is concerned.

Let's first of all look at her example of a king and a pauper. It is true, that as for financial giving the king will be able to give more than the pauper. However as far as the spiritual gift of financial giving is concerned, the requirement does not state that it has to be a large amount to be acceptable, it simply states that it is to be done generously and a pauper can give as generously as a king and might even do so sacrificially while  a king  might just give generously even though he may well give much more than the pauper. The story of the widow who gave what she could is such an example. She was praised by Jesus for, though she only gave two small copper coins, she gave more than any other for they gave out of their wealth and she gave out of her poverty (Mark 12:41-44).

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is the One who gives gifts as He determines as we know from

Romans 12:4-8
"Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, then do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully."

P.S. Please note that no gender is mentioned in Romans 12:4-8 in the original text so it is best to use "you" when speaking of a particular gift.

And in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working but the same God works all of them in all people. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the messaged of knowledge by means of the same 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 gives them to each one just as He determines."

And in Ephesians 4:11
It was He (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...."

We learn from the above passages that the Holy Spirit does not have a special list of gifts for Jews, a special list of gifts for Greeks, a special list of gifts for slaves, a special list of gifts for free, a special list of gifts for males or a special list of gifts for females. He, apparently is "blind" as far as nationality, position in life, or gender is concerned.
Therefore, believers are to function in the church in accordance with their spiritual gifts, regardless what their nationality, status in life or gender may be. That may mean that a pauper may be the pastor of a church and a king may be serving as an usher. Or it may mean that a cleaning lady is an elder and her employer serves as a greeter.

P.S. I will continue to focus on blogger Michelle Lesley when I will discuss her next example related to Galatians 3:28.

 

Read Part Six HERE

Women are not allowed to teach men: Michelle Lesley P/4

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to focus on popular blogger Michelle Lesley.

Some of her statements on 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 are as follows

 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Michelle Lesley:"The most important thing to remember about rightly handling and understanding God's word is that we must study it in context..... Paul is trying to establish a structure for worship service, and a hierarchy of church leadership, and one of the main ways he can quickly and neatly cut a lot of the chaos is to tell the women to be quiet and hang on to their questions until they get home and can talk freely, in more depth, and at greater length, with their husbands. So taking this passage and other passages about God's design for worship and men's and women's roles in the church hand in hand, it doesn't seem what Paul is saying in this particular passage is that no woman can ever say a word out loud in the church meeting simply because she has two X chromosomes. There are occasions when women can speak- in an orderly way - in church, as long as they are not doing it in a way that violates any other Scriptures (e.g instructing men in the Bible or holding improper authority over men, as prohibited by 1 Timothy 2:12).

 Michelle Lesley:"For example: if you go to a church where people are prone to say the occasional "Amen" when the pastor says something especially important in the sermon, it would not be a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 for women to say "Amen" along with the men."

Michelle Lesley: "Neither would a women be disobeying this verse if she stood up to make a general announcement if the church has a designated time of the service for that. Saying something like, "Just a reminder - we're having a potluck on the 23rd. We could really use some guys to help move tables." would be fine."

Michelle Lesley: "There are probably  many instances in which it would be fine for a woman to say something in church, assuming she is not being disruptive or violating any of the other Scriptures that define God's plan for women in the church. But if there is any question about the biblical appropriateness of the situation, it is best to have a godly man handle things instead."

My Comment

It is interesting to me that, though it seems Paul does not allow women to speak in church and seems to say that it is in fact shameful for a woman to speak in church, Michelle Lesley tries to find loopholes so that, according to her, Paul does not mean it when he  says women cannot speak in church as long as they do it appropriately. Her view on this passage is, therefore, not helpful but confusing.

The reason her approach to this text is confusing is because she does not understand that the words in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are, in fact, not Paul's words. Let me repeat that statement: The words in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are NOT PAUL'S WORDS but is a quotation from a letter he had received from some of the Jewish religious leaders in Corinth as we know from 1 Corinthians 1:11

 

My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

 

. Paul's answer in the form of a rebuke can be found in 1 Corinthians 14:36-37

 

What!! Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

 

These religious leaders were trying to silence women in the church and Paul told them off for doing so. Please don't forget that the overseer of the church in Corinth was a woman named Chloe as we know from 1 Corinthians 1:11

 

My brothers, some from Chloe's household.....

 

 He would, therefore, not have silenced women as we know not just from this verse but from many other passages such as 

 

Romans 16:1-2; Romans 16:3-5a; Romans 16:6; Romans 16:7; Romans 16:12; Philippians 4:2-3; Colossians 4:15.

Read Part Five HERE

Women are called to be like Sarah: Michelle Lesley P/3

https://prayingandprophesying.blogspot.com/2020/08/in-this-post-i-will-focus-on-bible.html 

                                                      Read Part One HERE

   
In this post I continue to focus on popular blogger Michelle Lesley

Please find below her final comments on 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 followed by my comments

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven...

Michelle Lesley: "Head coverings are no longer a cultural norm in Western society. Christian woman today do not have to wear a literal head covering, but even from the earliest Old Testament times godly women have always "adorned themselves with a symbol of authority" on their heads; their humility and submission to their husbands and to Christ, in the home, in the church, and in the world.

"Do not let your adorning be external . - the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear - but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. 1 Peter 3:3-7

Michelle Lesley: "If you're following in Sarah's footsteps, striving to love Christ and obey His written word in all you do, you are already "wearing a head covering." So the next time someone tries to use this passage of Scripture against you, asking, "Why don't you wear a head covering?" you can confidently answer: "I do. Why don't you?"

 My Comments

Michell Lesley is referring here to 1 Corinthians 11:10

For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

However, she does not explain here that the words "a sign of" are not in the original text but have been added by the translators. Neither does she explain that the authority Paul writes about in this verse is the woman's own authority. This verse is, therefore, not related to women's humility and submission to their husbands, and to Christ, in the home, in the church, and in the world. 

As for Peter 3:3-7 Peter is referring here to women whose husbands are not believers and he counsels them to minister to their husbands through their attitudes rather than through words

As for Sarah, though at times she listened to her husband, at other times he listened to her as directed by God (Genesis 21:8-12). And as for Sarah calling Abraham "lord," that was simply a term of respect.

Read Part Four HERE

It is all about authority: Michelle Lesley P/2

                                                       

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this blog I continue to focus on popular blogger Michelle Lesley

We will continue looking at her commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:4-5

Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven... 

Michelle Lesley: "As chapter 11 opens, Paul commends the church at Corinth for keeping God's word as Paul had taught them, but, apparently, something was out of whack with the authority structure and the way men and women were behaving in the church because Paul immediately pivots to say , "But I want you to understand...."

Michelle Lesley: "Why is this important? Because those who use this passage to argue against the biblical roles of men and women either misunderstand or ignore the main point the Holy Spirit is trying to teach in these verses. The thesis statement of this passage of Scripture is not found in the verses mentioning head coverings. It is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."

Michelle Lesley: "In other words, the entire point of this section of Scripture is not that women should wear head coverings, the point is the biblical line of succession of authority. Head coverings etc are examples, illustrations, and logical arguments supporting the main point in verse 3."

Michelle Lesley: "God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of his wife. And similar to the way that Christ has a different role in the godhead than God the father, yet is not in any way inferior to Him, women have a different role in marriage and the church than men, yet are equal to them in value, worth and salvation. Paul proceeds to explain this by using head coverings, common place marks of apparel whose function and significance would have been easily understood by his first century audience - to illustrate his point. At that particular time, in that particular locale, among those particular people, a head covering was worn by married women to signify that they were married and that they respected and were in submission to their husbands. For the women of the church in Corinth, it was a symbol that they understood and embraced their role as godly wives. A woman who pointedly refused to wear her head covering in church would have been making a statement akin to, "I can do what I want. I don't have to do what my husband, my church leadership, or even God says." By doing so, she dishonoured both her own head (herself) and the "head" of her home, her husband. Worst of all, she rejected and rebelled against the authority structure God Himself established."

My Comment

Michelle Lesley may have never checked out the Greek word for "head" as used by Paul in this passage. However, it is very important to do since Paul wrote this verse, and, in fact, the whole chapter in Greek and not in English. Going back to the Greek language in Paul's days, there were 14 words for the word "head," including a word for "authority" which is the word "archon." However, Paul did not choose the Greek word "archon" for this verse but chose the word "kephale" which means "source," "source of life." Paul is, therefore, not giving us a hierarchical structure in this verse, or a structure of authority, which Michelle wants to introduce us to as we can see from the way she changes the order in the verse!! Paul is giving us an chronological order or an order of time for Christ was the Source of Life for the first human from whom every human has come, the first man was the source of life for the first woman and God was the Source of Life for Christ at the time of His incarnation.

Moreover, when she mentions that Christ has a different role in the godhead than God the Father, she undoubtedly refers to the unbiblical teaching of the Eternal Submission or Subordination of God the Son to God the Father and uses that teaching to defend the false teaching that, likewise, women/wives are subordinate to men/husbands.

Furthermore, she uses the words "wife" and "husband" rather than "woman" and "man". That is no, doubt, because she wants to prove her point. Her whole commentary on the head covering of women is in line with some religious leaders in Corinth who tried to bring women back into line rather than the words of Paul.

P.S. The next post will be my last post on Michelle Lesley's commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

Read Part Three HERE

 

Women who obey God's command are wearing a headcovering: Michelle Lesley P/1

 

In this post I will begin to focus on popular blogger Michelle Lesley

She has made the following statement:

1 Corinthians 11:4-5                                                                                       

Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.....

Michelle Lesley: We are going to take a look at the different roles God has laid out for men and women in the church and one passage of Scripture people commonly like to twist to argue against the clear teaching of God's word about those roles. But aside from a very small minority of folks, no one is arguing that Christian women need to wear some sort of head covering in church or while praying. Most of us seem to instinctively know that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is not a command that is binding on 21st Century women. So why even bring up this passage? Because 1 Corinthians 11 is used by egalitarians as a "gotcha" passage against Christians who rightly uphold the biblical roles of men and women in the church."If you believe women shouldn't preach, teach men, or hold authority over men in the church," they say, "then why don't you wear a head covering? See? You're a hypocrite! You pick and choose which Scriptures you'll obey!" What they don't realise- because this passage takes some digging and studying... is that women who obey Scripture's parameters for biblical womanhood such as submitting to their husbands, following God's role for women in the church etc are "wearing a head covering."

My Comment 

Michelle Lesley does not realise that the words in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 are not Paul's own words but are words spoken by religious leaders in the church in Corinth and referenced by him. Literal headcovering was, therefore, not even taught by the apostle Paul but but by some religious leaders. Neither was a spiritual headcovering taught by Paul in this passage as a way to uphold the so-called biblical roles of men and women.

The subject Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:3-12 is origin and not authority as we know from the last verse in this section which reads as follows

1 Corinthians 11:12

For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything come from (originates from) God.

As for the subject of "authority" the word does appear one time in this section, in verse 10, when Paul wrote that the woman has "authority on her own head." It is, therefore, her own authority and is not related to the man's authority over her, be it her husband or another man.

".... The woman ought to have (a sign of) authority on her head."

Please note that the words "a sign of" are not in the original text but have been added by translators.

P.S I will continue in the next two blogs looking at Michelle Lesley's commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

Read Part Two HERE

The woman is to remain in an abusive marriage: Above Rubies P/10

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to share from a story told by teacher and writer Nancy Campbell in her magazine "Above Rubies."

The story is about a couple named Connie and Jim with Connie giving the details of their lives together as printed in "Above Rubies." I will follow up her statements with my comments.

 Connie: "The years went on and the crimes continued. I was completely exhausted and my mate still continued another crime and went to prison four years. I loved him. I felt he was demon possessed, yet he was my husband. I hated it when he deserted me, but I was married to him no matter what. Adultery to me was the worst of all sins..... "

My Comment

In the case of Connie and Jim, things eventually turned out well. Her husband did become a believer and he gave up his life of crime and unfaithfulness. However, it could have easily been a different story with Jim never changing. I doubt if Nancy Campbell would have shared this story then in her magazine "Above Rubies." Moreover, the fact that Nancy Campbell shared this story more than once in her magazine shows  that Jim's continuing unfaithfulnes was of no importance to her. It is one thing for Connie to not have addressed it perhaps out of a lack of understanding how God views things as a relatively immature believer but there is no excuse for Nancy Campbell to ignore all that took place in the marriage of Connie and Jim because she teaches many women and has done so for many years. She has thereby opened the door for other women to believe that they may have to accept their husbands' behaviour no matter what they may be doing, including being unfaithful and committing crimes of any kind. And that it would be wrong, even sinful, of them to speak up or take action when their husbands are involved in such activities.

P.S. This is my last post on Nancy Campbell.

The woman should allow her children to suffer emotional abuse: Above Rubies P/9

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I continue to share from a story told by teacher and writer Nancy Campbell in her magazine "Above Rubies."

The story is about a couple named Connie and Jim with Connie giving the details of their lives together as printed in "Above Rubies." I will follow up her statements with my comments.


Connie: "Jim disappeared from the home about thirty times in twelve years. He would suddenly disappear without warning. The three children would run in from play crying, "Where is daddy, where is my daddy?"


My Comment
By allowing Jim to disappear over and over again without taking any decisive action to confront him with his sinful behaviour, Connie not only aided Jim to carry on in his criminal lifestyle, she was partly responsible for the suffering the children went through. Their suffering may well have had a long lasting effect on them for the rest of their lives. It is shocking to me that as a bible teacher, author and speaker Nancy Campbell never even addressed the fact that these children might have been traumatised by their dad's ongoing sudden disappearance.

 

Read Part Ten HERE

The woman is never to ask any questions: Above Rubies P/8

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I continue to share from a story told by teacher and writer Nancy Campbell in her magazine "Above Rubies."

The story is about a couple Connie and Jim with Connie giving the details of their lives together as printed in "Above Rubies." I will follow up her statements with my comments.

Connie: "After Jim had been committing crimes he would come back home. I would receive him and take care of him. No matter what he had done to me, we were still one flesh. He was my first and only husband -  a terrible, ungodly, unfaithful husband, but he was still my husband."

My Comment
Jim had broken his marriage vows to Connie by being unfaithful. Their relationship was therefore no longer a one-flesh relationship since many other women had become part of their intimate relationship 

(1 Corinthians 6 :16). Once again, Connie was not fulfilling her role as "ezer kenegdo" or as "equal partner" because she was not confronting her husband with the truth about him having broken the marriage covenant between them. It seems she did not understand the seriousness of his sin and what that meant for their lives together. Furthermore, she was not helping their children understand what it means to be in a one-flesh relationship.

Moreover, Nancy Campbell does not make any comments on the situation when she shared this story in her magazine. Thereby, implying that she is in agreement with the way Connie handled her marital relationship.

 

Read Part Nine HERE

The woman should support her husband's sinful activities: Above Rubies P/7

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I continue to share from a story told by teacher and writer Nancy Campbell in her magazine "Above Rubies."

The story is about a couple named Connie and Jim with Connie giving the details of their lives together as printed in "Above Rubies.". I will follow up her statement with my comments.

Connie: "I did not see my husband Jim for two and a half years because he was in prison. He then came home. After a year he began to commit crimes. In between he would come come back home, after he had been missing for 4-5 months each time."

Mt Comment
It is not surprising that Jim went back to crimes since that was his pattern. Sadly Connie did not take up her responsible task of "ezer kenegdo" or "equal partner" to speak into his life by letting him know in no uncertain terms that he cannot continue his life of crime, especially because there were children involved. Since she did not take action by, for instance, removing herself and her children and not allowing him to return to the marital home, he carried on committing these crimes in the knowledge that she and the children would be waiting for him when he tired of committing these crimes. She was in a way aiding him in his behaviour, even though she knew it was wrong, by not taking active measures.

 

Read Part Eight HERE