A Response to John MacArtur
John MacArthur telling Beth Moore that she and other women who preach ought to “go home” has been well documented. He further insisted, “There is no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion” (something I believe is a load of bunk). Except with those whom also espouse this hermeneutic, MacArthur has been decried and challenged in his views across the board. Many people would simply back down and acknowledge that not everyone agrees with them and move along, but MacArthur apparently is not content to go quietly about women preachers. Much like certain elected officials, MacArthur chose to double down on his remarks during a recent sermon.
“Women are to maintain submission to men in all churches in all times. Women pastors and women preachers are the most obvious evidence of churches rebelling against the Bible … Women who pastor and women who preach in the church are a disgrace and openly reflect opposition to the clear command of the Word of God. This is flagrant disobedience.”
Oh, is it now? Are you sure about that? You might think that “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is the way one should read the Bible but this is where you’re wrong. This attitude underscores the danger and outright ignorance that ensues when this hermeneutic is employed (I’ve written/preached about this before). Let’s remember that all scripture was certainly divinely inspired but, at the end of the day, this collection of stories, songs, letters, and biographies was written and compiled by human authors. These authors were often writing to specific people or groups. They were also writing in specific contexts with specific issues that they were addressing. This is not to say that the larger truth contained in them is not timeless but the circumstances described were often constrained to a moment in time. The sort of cherry picking and proof texting that MacArthur and his ilk engage in and claim authority under is nothing short of a disservice to scripture and to their pastoral office.
MacArthur invoked 1 Corinthians 14:34 as a proof text for his assertion that women should be silent in church. According to the article linked above, MacArthur stated, “You don’t say anything,” he stressed, later adding: “Women need to get themselves under control and realize they are not to speak in a church.” For a highly educated man, he certainly does not employ much intellect. If he knew anything about historical context and how to apply it to interpretation, he would know that Paul was not issuing a blanket ban on women speaking in church, rather he was addressing the fact that women who preached in the pagan temples of Corinth wished to preach in the newly established Christian churches. Paul was simply telling them to become educated in the gospel before undertaking this task. That’s it. Dr. Ben Witherington III, the Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary, has written an excellent commentary on the Pauline letters, including this about 1 Corinthians 14:34:
Those asking questions were not yet educated enough in the school of Christ to know what was and was not appropriate in Christian worship. Paul affirms their right to learn, but suggests another context. In any case, Paul is correcting an abuse of a privilege, not taking back a woman’s right to speak in the assembly, which he has already granted in ch. 11Witherington, B., III. (1995). Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (p. 287). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Let’s not fool ourselves though. MacArthur can claim biblical authority all he wants to but this is about something else entirely: Good old fashioned sexism.
“When women take over a culture, men become weak; when men become weak, they can be conquered. When all the men have been slaughtered, you [women] can sit there with all your jewelry and junk. You’ve been conquered, because you overpowered your protectors.”
There you have it: John MacArthur is afraid of women taking over the world. He feels threatened by women having any sort of power, including the authority of the pulpit and sees this as a threat upon his power. This sort of rhetoric is much more than an old man spouting off outdated cultural norms. This is a man who sees women as inferior, or at least wants to give that appearance, and who will demean any woman who dares to speak up or to take authority.
There is no valid excuse for this kind of sexist, bigoted, weak-minded thinking.
MacArthur’s views are completely unbiblical. The first one to witness the risen Lord was a woman who was told to go and tell the other men. Yes, a woman – often maligned as a prostitute in an attempt to downplay her contribution to the gospel story – was the first one to preach resurrection when she burst into a room where the men had been hiding and shouted, “I have seen the Lord!” (John 20:18) In Romans 16, Paul specifically sends greetings to several woman, including Priscilla and Aquila who he refers to as “co-workers” in the gospel, and to Junia who was respected among the apostles. The original Greek of these instances indicates that these women were on equal footing with Paul and any other man who was in the trenches of pastoral ministry.
One might be quick to say that MacArthur’s view is a simple difference in interpretation of scripture but I disagree. I believe this is something much more malicious. The fact that MacArthur refuses to employ interpretation beyond “God said it, I believe it” aside, MacArthur’s demeaning comments about women in general reveal that he sees women as beneath him and as unequal in God’s kingdom. His point of view has no place in the church and the sooner this sort of attitude is eradicated, the better. This is more than “an old man being an old man.” This is evil. Pure and simple. This is a man who feels threatened by a woman holding power, even going so far as to say that empowering women weakens men. As we say in the south: MacArthur needs to go and sit down somewhere and be quiet.
The only weak man I see in this situation is John MacArthur.