Eddie Hyatt is back again to devalue women by telling them the church is holding them back...

::::::::

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. - 1Timothy 2:12-14 (ESV)

Click Here

Let me start with my usual disclaimer when I speak about this subject and that is that it brings me no joy. I know women who can preach the paint off the walls. It is a silly argument to try and say women can't preach or serve in leadership roles in the church because clearly, they can because clearly, they are. The issue is not can they but should they. The issue should always be, what has God said, on any given topic. I only write about this in direct response to people who twist the bible to fit their desired answer to these questions. I do so because people are easily misled by deceivers with agendas. I have no such agenda on this subject except to say what God has clearly said. In many cases I say I do not know why God decrees what He does but, in this case, He actually tells us. Proponents of women in church leadership contort themselves into theological pretzels to avoid what the text says. They seek out deep cultural arguments to dismiss scripture, much the way the world does to excuse sin. They turn biblical heroes like Paul into misogynist women-haters completely eviscerating the doctrine of divine inspiration. When we read the key verse, or any verse for that matter, we believe God divinely inspired the words. That means God wrote them, not Paul. One of the most egregious bible twisters in this area is Eddie Hyatt, who spends all of his writing insisting women should be in leadership and rewriting American history to achieve NAR dominionist goals. Debunking Eddie is easy because he is so transparently bad at understanding scripture and history. He also has this hysterical habit of citing himself in his articles, which is absurdly irrelevant and not vaguely academic. What he is trying to do is lead people to buy his own books. Once again, laughably transparent. So let us reason together once more beloved.

'Sixty-one percent of the delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis voted for a constitutional ban on all churches that have a woman on staff with the title of pastor. The vote, however, fell short of the required two-thirds majority necessary for a constitutional amendment.

The amendment would not have changed the SBC's position on female pastors but would have added teeth for enforcing its stance. The denomination's position is still that put forth last year by the executive staff, which quoted Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12a (NKJV), "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." Based on a superficial reading of this passage, the executive staff then declared that Paul "Concludes women cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men in the life of the church."' - Eddie Hyatt

By "superficial"; Eddie means actually reading the words. As we will see what Eddie likes to do is play games with the words, read into them things that are simply not there, and use linguistic games to muddy the waters. Nothing however changes the actual words. The actual words say - I do not permit - period. There is no equivocation in the words. There is no grey area. For the umpteenth time also, these are not "Paul's words." They are God's words and maybe you shouldn't be messing around with them to accomplish your carnal beliefs. The other thing Eddie conveniently leaves out is the context, which I provide in the key verses above. It is like God knew, which He would of course, that there would be people trying to twist His word. So, in an effort to be abundantly clear, God tells us the "why" for this decree. Man was formed first and it was the woman that was deceived and became the transgressor. You can parse this anyway you like but you cannot deny what it says.

'Based on this "authority myth," this year's annual meeting expelled the First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia, from the SBC because of its embrace of female pastors. Messengers also voted not to accept the requests for reinstatement from Saddleback Church in Southern California and Fern Creek Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, both of which were excommunicated for having women pastors. For the SBC and all churches that ban women from leadership roles, "authority" is the central issue. The titles may change, but authority is still the issue. For example, one megachurch allows women to be pastors but does not allow them to be on its board of elders because the elders govern their church and "women cannot function in governing authority."' - Eddie Hyatt

I cannot speak for the SBC, which has their own doctrinal issues but even this notion of pastorates being somehow acceptable but not elderships makes little sense. Listen beloved, this is not a matter of somehow thinking lesser of women. Those are lies the world sells women. There is nothing wrong with having proper roles and giftings. The advocates like Hyatt speak at great length about how positive Paul was about the women who helped him in his ministry efforts. They count beloved. Their efforts count. What Eddie ends up doing is devaluing the actual roles that many women play in the kingdom today by whispering in their ear that they are somehow being cheated or held back. It is the literal causing of division. I thank God for all of the faithful women in ministries that have been there in my walk. I do not think less of them and one can make the sound argument that I think more of them by speaking the truth about what God has said.

"This authority myth is, however, dispelled when we take a closer look at Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 and when we look at what Jesus said about authority in the church. The Greek word for "authority" in the New Testament is exousia. It is found 102 times in the Greek New Testament, and numerous other times in its verb and other cognate forms. For example, Matthew 7:28 says the people were astonished at the teaching of Jesus, "For He taught them as one having authority (exousia) and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:29). Not once in the entire New Testament is a woman told she cannot exercise exousia. Those who would ban women from the pastorate immediately point to 1 Timothy 2:12, which says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." However, the word translated "authority" in this verse is not exousia. It is the word authentein and is found only here in the entire New Testament. The fact that it is used only here should cause us to pause and question why that would be the case. Why would Paul use this strange Greek word that neither he nor any New Testament writer ever uses? It certainly indicates that Paul is not addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church. Paul is obviously using this strange word to address the unique situation Timothy is confronting in Ephesus (Hyatt, "Who Says Women Can't Pastor," 16-31)." - Eddie Hyatt

Ah-hah! So, it must have been Professor Plum with the candlestick in the conservatory! Notice the logical sleight of hand Eddie plays here. Granting he is correct about exousia and authentein, Hyatt openly wonders why Paul would use a different word for authority in this particular passage. It may be perfectly fair to wonder such but the conclusion Hyatt draws conveniently fits his narrative. The truth is we have zero idea or proof as to why Paul used a different word. Hyatt concludes he must have used it because he was addressing a specific problem for Timothy at Ephesus. This local cultural argument is central to the pro-women in leadership crowd. Except that is a very dangerous slippery slope we find ourselves on when we start to parse the word of God based on assumptions that destroy divine inspiration. Yes, the letter was written by Paul for Timothy but the spiritual context is that God was writing it for His church for the next millennia and beyond. Why would God include something for our viewing today, that was only meant for Ephesus in Paul's time? Additionally, why all the subterfuge? Why not specifically say, "Timothy, regarding Ephesus, I do would not permit the women to speak? He even said "would" instead of "do." Saying I would not permit might indicate specific directions to Timothy about his reality but Paul said - I do not, indicating a more generalized instruction. Perhaps this was because God was divinely inspiring the words and knew they had to stand for all time, not just for Timothy's time in Ephesus. These are the games Eddie plays, as he again cites himself. He presents a linguistic fact and then draws conclusions from it that fits the outcome he desires. It is not a serious argument whatsoever and it completely ignores the context! Why would Paul say "I do not permit" only for Ephesus and then present Adam and Eve as the reason! So, the argument of Eve being the transgressor and Adam being created first only applies to this random church in Paul's day? That makes absolutely no sense.

"Jesus made it clear that leadership in His kingdom is not about authority. He made this clear when James and John asked for the two most prominent seats in His kingdom"one on His right hand and the other on His left. When the 10 heard about it they were angry, for they wanted those positions of authority. As strife erupted among them over the issue of "authority," Jesus rebuked them and told them they were thinking like the heathen. He said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who are great exercise authority (exousia) over them and their great ones lord it over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant (diakonos)" (Matt. 20:25b-26)." - Eddie Hyatt

Once again, Eddie playing games. The ask from the sons of thunder was regarding the eternal kingdom of God, not the mortal church here on earth. This pretense that God somehow eschews authority is ridiculous. Why then are those who labor in the word held to higher account and deserving of double honor? The point God is making here is about lording one's authority over people not that there should not be people in authority. Now, I have written against the false authority paradigm for over a decade now but that is not what this is about. Christ shepherds the church and His pastors are His under-shepherds. A true under-shepherd would never lord their authority over their sheep. That is the point of being a servant first. God is not saying here that there should not be people in authority but rather that those who are should be servants first. I know my pastor has always been a servant first. I also know local pastors who are really hirelings and they are far from a servant first. Do not be deceived beloved.

"The word that Jesus said must characterize leaders in His movement is the Greek noun diakonos. In first century Israel, a diakonos was a household servant who did the bidding of his/her master. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines diakonos as "those who advance other's interests even at the sacrifice of their own." In other words, diakonos designates one who is a servant and is the very antithesis of "office," "authority" and "power." Jesus thus steers the Twelve away from thinking of their ministry in terms of hierarchy and authority to thinking of it in terms of humble service. The late Catholic reformer, Dr. Hans Kung, wrote, In the New Testament, not only is the word 'hierarchy' consistently and deliberately avoided, but so too are all secular words for 'office' in connection with church functions, as they express a relationship of power. Instead of this, an all-encompassing term, diakonia, service (really 'serving at table'), is used, which can nowhere evoke associations with any authority, control or position of dignity and power (Hyatt, 41)." - Eddie Hyatt

It is interesting to watch how we deceive ourselves to make innocuous things agree with our pre-biased conclusions. As I just surmised, God is probably just explaining the true expectation of authority within His church is to be a servant first. Eddie essentially agrees with this but then takes the extra leap to pretend it somehow agrees with his overall stance, which it does not. The fact that servant is the opposite of authority is the exact point God is making here! It does not mean however that He was steering them away from thinking of authority but rather that the think about it as He wants them to. We are all servants in God's church. Some of us however, have different roles. That does not diminish anyone. Stop listening to the arguments made during the women's liberation movement. They do not apply to God's design.

Perhaps the most ironic thing here is Hyatt using diakonos correctly as a household servant. It is ironic because Hyatt and his ilk are fond of pointing to Phoebe as some kind of church leader, or even a deaconess in the early church. The problem with that argument of course is that the word deacon as a church elder would not originate for another thousand years. Phoebe was a very important person to Paul but the word used for her was diakonos, which did not mean deaconess but rather, "helper." Hyatt inadvertently agrees with that here by trying to leverage diakonos in a different way. I love how God exposes false teaching by using the false teacher themselves.

"Modern churches such as the SBC who make authority the central issue are at odds with both Jesus and Paul. Neither made "authority" the central issue for functioning in church leadership, including pastoral ministry. The idea that women cannot function in authoritative roles is doctrinally unsound and harmful to the mission of the church. While much of the church languishes in defeat, spiritual gifts are being quenched, and voices are being muzzled. This is tragic! The world will never see a fully functioning body of Christ until it embraces the gifts and callings in all its members, including the women." - Eddie Hyatt

No, they are not Eddie. Just stop. By the way, correctly handling God's word does not mean anyone is making anything a "central issue." That is a red herring. It is sad that according to Eddie and those who share his flawed beliefs it is damaging to the mission of God's church, to adhere to what God has said. The church languishes in defeat because of heretics like Eddie Hyatt, whose more egregious offenses are on the dominionist side of false theology. The church is defeated because it insists on getting into bed with the world. Because it compromises the gospel for a slice of the purpose driven dreams of avarice and greed. Beloved, this is not a salvation issue. There are much bigger fish to fry, so to speak. That said, never allow hucksters and snake oil salesmen to try and peddle their wares to you. Women are an integral part of the design of God. He has decreed and allowed them to contribute in nearly every single way, except one and He has explained why He does not permit that one. The obvious irony is that the original woman was once instructed that she could partake of everything in the garden except one tree. God did not withhold that one tree for malicious reasons yet the woman listened to the enemy, was deceived, and became the first transgressor. It is for those exact reasons beloved, that God once again allows everything except for one thing and along comes Eddie Hyatt to whisper in the ears of women everywhere in the church:

Did God actually say, 'You shall not preach with authority over man with His church?"

Yes Eddie, He did.

Reverend Anthony Wade - June 15, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.