The dangers of Q&A sessions at debates and conferences – complementarian or egalitarian

I’d rather not include the names, but I just watched a debate on should women preach on the “Lord’s Day” at church. The Opponent did a fine job until he compromised during the Q&A. A woman asked the Opponent, “Does 1st Timothy 2:11-14 apply to women gifted in preaching outside the gathering of the local church. Specifically, can women preach the Word at conferences with men present?”

As a reference point, let’s look at that passage (without an exposition).

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

In part, the Opponents response was, “I see this passage as limited to the Lord’s Day gathering.”

Though it is true that the Text (through a Pastoral Epistle) is an instruction for the church. But it is wrong to imply that the church can become unbiblical outside the four walls of their building. In other words. That it’s somehow acceptable for women to exercise authority over men, and/or teach men at a conference, or at other places where the church gathers. Then of course, what are we going to do when the church meets on Wednesday nights, or any other day of the week?

This compromise creates a two-headed schizophrenic monster, where one head is complementarian, and the other egalitarian (depending on which day of the week it is). It’s a Christianity that’s only open one day a week, rather than 24/7. I believe this Timothy Text goes beyond Sundays.

For research purposes only, I’ve examined conferences held by egalitarians such as Joyce Meyers and Beth Moore, as men sat under them. It is clear that they are teaching (didaskō), while exercising authority (authenteō) over the men. And this is wrong regardless of the day of the week. And let us be honest with each other, let us strive for objectivity, while being non-hypocritical. If it is wrong for Meyers and Moore, then it’s wrong for Joni Eareckson Tada too (since the Opponent mentioned her in his response). It is hypocritical to only oppose egalitarianists whom we would disagree with doctrinally, while winking and nodding at the egalitarianists that we like.

Interestingly, it was a woman that asked the Opponent the above question. Though this is a stretch, and not as consequential, but similarly it reminded me of those words Satan said to Eve, when he got her to doubt God. And we know the rest of that story.

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen 3:1).

Perhaps this woman was a complementarian, and was hoping for a more solid answer? Maybe she hoped to get him on record saying “No, never.” I just don’t know. Nonetheless, egalitarians are going to love that video excerpt.  

Some of the greatest Bible scholars have lost credibility because of their answers given during Q&A sessions. MacArthur still hasn’t fully recovered from his Q&A response back in 1988, in regards to the mark of the beast. But the truth is, I couldn’t debate (nor respond) nearly as good as these men, I am nothing but a maggot in God’s hand.

The world is suffering an identity crisis, whereas wordings are self-identifying as anything they choose. But gender role confusion has no place in the church, nor where the church meets. If we’re to contend for the faith, and defend sound doctrine, then shouldn’t we contend for a healthier church too? After all, Christ gave Himself up for her, we were bought with a price.

Only by the grace of God, so go I.
.