« 'Nuff Said | Main | 100 Word Gospel Challenge »

July 02, 2007



Great post bro. I find myself in the same boat these days.


What, you're becoming a woman?


Nice, G.


mac's cud

My uterus hurt just reading this post. Are you cramping? Who are you?

mac's female cud

Dude, you are killing me. I read your blog and had to close my eyes (can you relate?). My Pastor from the past who opened my eyes on the importance of the worship service and now THIS? I ran this by my head to make sure I could send it, oops, I forgot, who needs a head? Let the women preach on!!


Hey - I think it is unbiblical for women to preach in corporate worship... I also think it is wrong for unqualified men who can't teach to become "teaching elders," but we see that all the time!!!

We're all picking our poison. I'll take this particular poison instead of the half-Gospel / quasi-Gospel I get in your typical Reformed church.



Mr. Boneman!

I am happy to see you still blogging and distributing your poorly thought out Reformed "ideas". You should know that we Baptists have always suspected you wet baby types as being soft on the Bible, with your nods to the Catholics - and now to the liberals!

OK, I'll say it again (especially since Mr. Mac is also reading). PLEASE go read your Bible!


Mike Spreng

I think women preachers are a slap in the face to male headship and even the gospel itself. The gospel demands the voice of men as her guardian, to promote its masculine nature. Female preachers, in itself, cultivates an emotionally driven gospel; the very problem of Evangelicalsim and liberalism.

Also, this gal, Lisa, is knowingly crossing a line in which she knows causes strife among brethren. Why would she do this? Is it that important that she become a pastor?


Hey Mike,

Thanks for your post. I was hoping someone would wade into this with me...

Some thoughts - starting backwards:

1. I don't know Lisa personally, but I know she is deeply committed to Scripture. Most "evangelicals" who believe in female ordination simply came at 1 Tim 2:12 with a different hermeneutical lens. Namely, they take certain narrative elements, meta-narrative trajectories, and select proof-texts to recast the context of Paul's teaching. Believe me - they make a Scriptural argument. It is not one that I think holds water, but it isn't as easy as saying they outright reject the Bible...

2. Again, I can't answer for Lisa, but I'm sure she has no intention of causing strife. Let's face it - most of Protestantism now ordains women. Are we going to write it all off as apostate? I'm not.

3. I think we should be careful about generalizing what will happen with women preaching. It isn't fair in my mind to say it will become "emotional" in some bad sense of the word. I have heard plenty of men who were "emotional" in a bad way - and quite frankly, Lisa's sermon was very, very good. Her exegesis was sound and it was very well delivered.

4. Do we want to say the Gospel has a masculine nature? I mean, the church, the bride of Christ, is female! Even the Jerusalem from above is called "our mother." Don't get me wrong - God reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, not Mother, Daughter, and Spirit. I get that. But do we say the Gospel itself is masculine???

5. Your words are pretty pejorative - "slap in the face at headship... and the Gospel itself." Wow. Boy. I guess I just can't get that virulent about it. I disagree with it. I think it is wrong and weakens the church. However, I think a whole host of things do that and I don't spit nails at every one of them.

The point of this post is not that I think this is all okay. The point is that we need to weigh the problem in light of other problems. I would rather deal with this than a lot of the Gnostic amil crappola that I have heard from a lot of "Reformed" men.


Mike Spreng

Brett, I think the Gospel is masculine because of its doctrine not because of its people.

I do think that the PCUSA is apostate. They deny the trinity. Your tithe goes to the people that promote that. The OPC left years ago for much less.

Part of the curse is that women would desire the [position of] man. It takes some Hebrew wrestling to get to that in Genesis 3, but it makes sense.

I hear your cry against the Gnostic amills. I cannot stomach that for the life of me.

I sold my home in Yuma, and took a 30k loss on it so I could move to a place that has good churches. I was very blessed to find an REC with a Postmill pastor. Honestly, if he was not here, I would move again. I would, and I have, quit my job for a lesser one to be under a sound church. Many families in history have done much more than that.

I love the Church, and I think I would rather die than submit to Liberal and Gnostic crap! I just won't do it; and I believe God is blessing this path.


(Because no one is stopping me... from last Sunday:
Luke 8:2 ...Mary, called Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means... (ed.)

- the women with Jesus also appear to be an example of the field to which Jesus is called to proclaim the Good News. They are an unexpected representation of the Good Soil that he will mention in a moment… I only say that because the Jewish society of Jesus’ day did not elevate the status of women like the emerging Christian church does.
- The author Luke in his gospel and in the book of Acts is quick to mention all the prominent women involved in the history and ministry of the church for the cause of Christ.
- God’s grace had performed miracles in these ladies lives, and they completely embraced the Gospel, they are also willingly giving of their resources – so in Luke’s definition of a disciple – that’s what they are!
- Women from all walks of life, who were not in any official leadership position in Jesus ministry, but they sure provided for the advance of the Gospel – we have in this verse the first mention of a “woman’s missionary society” – working behind the scenes, supporting the missionaries out in the field.
– EVEN in Christ’s own ministry woman were involved as a team effort from the very beginning – and favorably mentioned for doing so!

Andrew Richardson


I hear you, Man. Good thoughts.

Why is listening to a gnostic, emotional, poorly prepared sermon by a man superior to a robustly biblical sermon preached by a woman?

I don't need to spell out which one I'd rather hear.

Don't misread this post, people!




1. Please help me understand how doctrine is masculine or feminine... I don't get it.

2. My understanding is that the PCUSA had some kind of study committee that wrote a heretical report on the Trinity. It was not adopted by the denomination in any official capacity or binding way. It is not encouraging, but you can't write off the whole PCUSA. My understanding is that there are more "confessing" churches (conservative evangelical types) in the PCUSA than all the members combined in the PCA.

3. Glad you had an opportunity to move on. I have opportunities to stay and slug it out. Different paths.

4. Don't assume b/c a woman is ordained that is automatically a radical feminist. Big mistake.

Thanks for the great interaction!



Hey RevK,

Thanks for stopping by and the helpful post! Will have to catch up soon!


Mike Spreng

1. Brett, why not just go back to Rome, then? Seriously...the whole reason why we are not Roman is because we believe in right doctrine. My understanding is the USA adopted the heretical Trinity notion at the General Assembly last year, along with even more tolerance to Homosexual ordinations. I mean, how bad does it have to get to draw the line? No one is saying there are no righteous people there, but that it is not a good place to build your heritage. Will your children end up in one of those alleged conservative branches when they grow? Something to consider.

2. Doctrine is masculine in that it is merely a simple group of words that becomes living and powerful. Its masculinity in this sense is that it takes order above and beyond the normal words of the culture. It is becomes the basis of all human thought and reason, because it is masculine and not vise-versa. It is the Word made flesh (1:14). This flesh was in masculine form (Christ). Christ was not a woman! A minister represents Christ, and so a man must be the one to do this. But that is aside from the masculine aspect of doctrine. Doctrine is God (John 1:1) and God cannot be mocked by portraying Him as a feminine. That is, if one believes that there is a difference in female and male. This is what the advocates of female ordination believe, that males are not the head. This really screws up the whole point of how God is trying to portray the family as the pedagogic means for his kingdom: Father, Mother, Children.

3. Have you really been given a chance to slug it out? Are they making you the moderator in the USA? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but let's face it, there are many men whom have practically died trying to fight the liberal beast of the PCUSA; men that were much more seasoned than you or I.

I'm not trying to debate you, I just care for you as a brother, watching your blog for the last year or two, and relating to your positions and circumstances. I just hate to see you become a part of the USA and I'm sure I speak for many others.



John P

I don't know your situation, but if all conservative Presbyterian denoms are out of question, have you looked into any conservative Anglican parishes?



I've been returning to this post for a while and I thought that by now someone would have mentioned the emphasis in some Reformed circles (yours, for example) on covenant renewal worship, specifically as this regards the representation of Christ by the pastor/minister. Covenant renewal worship on the Lord's day is supposed to be about the Husband renewing His gracious covenant with His bride, the church. This includes His consecrating His bride via the sermon. It is totally inappropriate, then, for a woman to fill this role because a woman should not represent the Christ/Husband. This is stuff that you've told me! Mike alluded to it above but I am surprised you haven't mentioned it yourself, unless you are enjoying the ruckus.

This is not to say that we support a hyper-patriarchal view of women in the church, in which they are NEVER to speak AT ALL. Sounds like your church has found someone who is gifted in speaking and exegesis. Ideally, assuming the church in question did not place her in an inappropriate role, wouldn't such a woman best use her gifts by teaching Sunday school, leading Bible studies, or evangelizing? Or how about training pastoral interns to preach, so fewer people have to endure weak preaching from a man. None of these activities is liturgical, and so none jams any representational wires.




1. Rome? Rome doesn't ordain women! And for the last time - I don't think it is appropriate for women to preach in corporate worship! As for the PCUSA - I'm not there to change a denomination. I'm attending a good local church to worship and perhaps serve in some capacity. Period.

2. I'm not buying the doctrine is masculine bit, Mike. "It is not good for man to be alone." "Let us make man in our image... male and female He made them." etc.

3. Again, I'm not flying a PCUSA banner. I'm simply trying to find a place to worship and serve.

Thanks, Mike.




While I don't mention "covenant renewal," I hit the concept in paragraph 3. C'mon now.

Is anyone hearing me!?!?! I DON'T AGREE WITH FEMALES PREACHING IN CORPORATE WORSHIP!!! BUT I can tolerate it under certain circumstances! That's it!





But in paragraph 4 you complained of a "patriarchy that strictly relegates women's leadership to childcare, hospitality, and mercy ministries." And so I made some suggestions that would use a woman of Lisa's gifts in a way that did not sideline her.

Also, I wondered why you hadn't used the term "covenant renewal" as part of your ongoing discussion with other commenters, not the original post. You did, however, refer to the church as a woman, and so in the comments section this question got muddled. I guess it wasn't clear that I was referring to the discussion, not the post.

The point in saying all this is that there seems to be a false choice here: hyperpatriarchy or liberalsim. Perhaps that's what's going on due to the weakness of the church, but it doesn't have to stay that way. Maybe someday there will be a conservative pres church that makes better use of all the gifts of all its people.



I'm not creating the false dichotomy - I'm living in it!

Hey, I understand that this isn't the dilemma everyone is facing, but it seems to be the one I am facing. And again, the problem isn't hyper-patriarchy, it is the quirky / wacky Reformed stuff that is driving me MAD!



Helpful thoughts. Much of the church is impaling itself on an absurd either/or here (either subliminally misogynist or wacky uber-feminism that is at least out of balance) so it is nice to hear a sane voice.

And this coming from one who supports WO (unlike many of the others commenting here...)

(and Mike, chill on your rhetoric about the PCUSA. Your line about them denying the trinity is a howler that only shows you unfamiliar with the document I assume you are referring to--not to mention the denomination. I have my own problems with that document, but I'll happily take on your view here on this, or the frankly naive views of gender put forth, though on the latter, email me: i don't want to hijack the blog).

Ray Fisher

Man, you sure got under some skin on this one, sorry I missed this liberal blog on the internet, j/k. It's amazing the lengths to which one might go to justify the pulpit supply at ones church, I suppose we could simply solve this by choosing a "new" bible translation that makes some helpful changes to Paul's letters to Timothy. ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.