Letter to Beloved Bro Bill
by aymon de albatrus
Bro Bill is a true friend of long standing, a brother in the Lord, an upright and righteous man. He is the one who introduced me to Christ and secretly prayed for my salvation for over five years. He is the kind of man that you would trust with anything, even your life. We were fellow engineers and shared many, but many lunchtime walks/talk in the nearby gardens talking about God and His ways. Bro Bill is now a Pastor and he is making a courageous standing against the inroad of modernism in our churches.
Picking up the Church Order ministry you are suggesting.
Your response after attending the Ministers Conference both depressed and encouraged me.
It depressed me because it proved to me the lateness of the hour, and confirmed what I suspected, that the battle is lost already, apart an act of God. It encouraged me in that it finally proved to you the seriousness of the situation, as warned long ago.
Regarding having a ministry in this area methinks quite impossible (apart an act of God), for, as you know, when ministering against people's beliefs one has immediate hostilities, that is normal, but, in this case, one is truly alone without any backing or/and support. Let me give a true fact that holds true in every age. Before Christ was born there was in Rome a powerful general, Julius Caesar who wanted to emulate Alexander the great. He had already conquered the whole of Gallia (present France) but wanted more and so decided to march on Rome. The Senate appointed Pompey (of the Palestine fame and the famous city bearing his name) to check Julius who was told not to cross the river Rubicon, in France. Caesar, sure of himself, did not heed the warning and crossed the river citing that famous phrase. On the course of the campaign, one of Julius footmen got captured and when what the soldier had as his normal meal was shown to Pompey, Pompey cried out: "I have lost the war". Actually at that time the war was still in high activity and there were no clear sign of a winner, but what Pompey saw was enough to make him pronounce his own loss. What the soldier had for food?: "little balls made of musk, mud, berries, tree bark and such like things". The soldier believed so much in both Julius and his cause and had such a loyalty to him that he willingly put himself through such an ordeal to win with Caesar the war. And they did.
Are today's men so 'convinced' on this issue??"
Now if I were to take on this ministry, given I've got the capability and the anointing, to be yet proven; which will be my violent opponents? At least the women, of course. And who will be my support? Will there be a solid group like Julius' soldiers? No, my friend, there will be no one, indeed no one at all to run the full course. To be understood that I will, necessarily, have to speak and preach to the men, for the Word of God says: " And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home" 1Co14:35. This clearly means that women should be taught by their own husbands. Thus the score is that a man has to learn from another man to be able to teach his wife. In other word if I get involved in the ministry of Church order I ought to teach men, NOT women, as Scripture says, right!
Now, would the men listen to me?
Will the wives listen to their own husbands?.
I leave you to give an answer to that.
In my estimation, these days there are at least 6 types of men:
The heretical theologians, such as Dr G F, who by their scholarship and ability to both present and manipulate words can pass as authentic, but misleading many,
The democratic theologians, such as KJC who, indeed see the problem, but have not got the courage to face publicly the problem nor they are fully convinced, kind of (as I was told by the man): "look, it is written as you say, but I cannot accept it", no much help there,
Those pastors that really do not care too much about the problem as long as they hold to their position, and so they behave like that man who said: "in my home I am the boss, when I say I wash the dishes, I will do so". In other words, they adapt to the situation, indeed making their own the present trend, thus appearing as in tune with the situation. This lot is probably the majority and also the more dangerous because they will defend the present status (for fear of personal loss) and being the majority their impact is great,
Then there are those who really would like to do something about it, but they lack courage to act on their own, and are only partially for the cause for they must fight against a life time of brainwashing and look for a leader to follow, these are few and difficult to move,
There is a lunatic fringe of misogynists, these must be avoided, fortunately there are not many,
Finally there is just a couple "fools" like myself that believe that they have both the revelation and the strength to do it. These are of the Eliah brand, but will not move unless the Lord gives them a clear personal mandate, for they are not stupid, as the score is to be clobbered by both the men and the women.
So you see, my beloved Bill, there is truly no hope, apart an act of God. Or do you disagree??
Still you are not convinced!!. Well try this then:
Last Friday I went with my Gideons brothers to distribute NTs at a school here in Genoa, outside the door, of course, for we cannot enter it. I got shocked, but I should have not. This High School prepares kids specifically for the role of Teachers. This particular school has about 300 students, and guess how many male students attend? Less than 10. Upon querying the fact, I was told that the ratio is about that in this type of school. Now I am sure you still have engineering in your blood and that it will take you little effort to estimate the future outcome, that is that in the very near future practically all the teachers will be women. Only in Italy??. Nossir, in England in excess of 60% of Uni students are women, and growing. What about the Law schools and the Medical, Etc, The same.
And in Theological Colleges …… what you think?
This means that in the very near future we can expect not only the schools to be predominantly ruled (and "manned" by women) but also the Parliament, the Courts, the Hospital and Medical and eventually the rest. In any case, is it not already almost like that? If more that 60% of Uni. students are women (and growing), where are the dwindling men? What are they doing? Dole!
It is interesting to note that when the Communists take over a country not only they get hold of all ruling positions, but in particular, they get hold of the schools, the very first thing. Why is it so?
And my friend, do not believe that your daughters, and my daughters are different, for if you do so, you are will be fooling yourself.
What can we do about it? A very big fat naught, my friend, the time has passed over. What, we can barely save is our dignity and our manhood, maybe.
Only an act of God or a huge war will be able to change things.
The weak point is "THE MEN". If the men were to see it and act, then there may be a slim hope of change, but they will not, for they have much to loose, e.g.: "Their congregation, their job, their ministry, recognition of other men, their wives, their daughters, their family, and maybe their lives too". It is just too much, not on. Fear of the Jewesses is greater.
If you do not believe me still, here is another proof. The following if a brief response I gave to my daughter's questions about this subject. Pay particular attention where the logical conclusion of the argument inexorably leads. Then tell me know your reaction to it, this will prove the depth of your belief on this cause and how much you would be committed to it. That is the proof.
In the letter you are asking me my views about the role of woman. This is a subject that I think the Lord has really granted me sufficient insight. I will share it with you briefly, as I have in the past, but it must be understood that a woman should ask her husband if she wants to learn something. 1Co 14:34,35,36
I am sending my views because your husband has respect of my age and person, so it is by his permission that I do so. As you have noticed, it is my intention to not interfere in the marriage of my children, which is Biblically correct, only giving my advice when specifically asked for, and not without accompanying permission to do so.
This I believe to have done, in the main. A huge number of marriages have been damaged, and even destroyed, by the interference of nosy parents.
"A man leaves his father's home to make his own home, becoming one flesh with his wife, and that is that".
In some Christian homes you find attached to the wall words to this effect: "The head of this house is Jesus Christ". Of course, ultimately the head of the household if Christ for He is All in All.
Experientially, by God's decree, though, the head of the household is the husband, for it says specifically: in 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Therefore the hierarchical order in the home is clearly spelled out and it is for all times. To boot, Adam is the one who got the charge to attend God's creation.
This is clear to you, of course, I know. Nevertheless, the pressure of the world is so strong that even to the elect it could be misleading, if it were at all possible. Alas, the majority of Evangelical churches have fallen prey to this Jezebellian spirit, even pastors, who should protect their flock, but are confused, even worse, they are actually preaching and pushing this view of having woman in all positions, even governing.
You say correctly when telling that teaching and preaching is governing. Indeed, what else it is.
I find it incredible how can anybody go past the explicit statements in 1Ti 2:13-14 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.
Here are the 2 reasons why God has decree such order of things:
"Adam was first formed, then Eve." There is quite a lot in this little phrase. See, Adam was created from the earth whilst Eve was not created, rather she was extracted from Adam's chest, and so she is a part of Adam as he testifies: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". There is here, a parallelism with God and Christ: Christ proceeded from God. He is not created but of the same essence of the Father, though the Father is greater than He, by Christ's own admission, and so woman is of the same essence of the man, though the man is the head. Indeed, the man is the Image and Glory of God, whilst the woman is the Glory of man, 1Co 11:7, being derived form the man. Thus, God Himself has made a hierarchical order already from the word GO! At creation.
Secondly, Eve was specifically punished for enticing Adam, for Scripture says, "Adam was not deceived". Though Eve did. Moreover, Eve being deceived fell in transgression and brought man down with her and through Adam, the whole humanity. Thus the barring in teaching or preaching or having authority over man is to avoid such thing happening again. Alas, as in the Garden of Eden, so it is today
Do note that many in trying to belittle this prohibition say the word "man" in 1Ti 2:13 should be translated "husband". This twisting brings about more difficulties than it solves. This Greek word is "Aner" which can mean both "man" and "husband" very much like in English or French where "man" can be used for "man" or "husband" and the same in French "homme", and similar for other languages, of course. If it were taken to mean "husband" this would mean that when the wife preaches, the husband would have to go outside. Moreover, in 1Co 14:35 it says that the woman should go to her husband to learn anything, how can it be in this case. Furthermore this definition would mean that even if we respect God's prohibition that woman is not to teach/govern her husband because she may lead him astray, she is nonetheless permitted to lead astray the other men. Does this make sense!! The word "Aner" in this context is "man" for it fits also like a glove the tenor of the rest of Scripture.
In summary then, the woman is not to teach/preach/govern over any man for these two basic and unchangeable factors:
God's Creation Order and Purpose, and
Eve, as representative of all women was deceived and fell in transgression bringing her husband (and humanity) down with her.
Someone pointed out in your session that "OK, woman cannot teach a man, why then they teach boys for one day these will be men?" A good point, over which I have pondered already a long time. If we rationally and honestly extend this principal to its logical conclusion, we got to admit that under this prohibition woman cannot teach a man-child either, especially when we consider that in that age they are in their forming years. The women teaching Sunday school has come of late, due to modernism and men's laziness, but in the primitive churches and the Reformed/Puritanical churches it was not so. Elders taught the children.
Can woman teach other women? Only if anybody considers women of second class. But this is not what Scripture says. Woman is not of second class for she is the same essence of man, being extracted from him, as explained earlier, nevertheless she is under his authority, as Christ is to God 1Co 11:3. Of the same essence with different function, that is. If we are making woman teach other women we are actually saying that women are of second class, for we are stating that it is Ok for women to be deceived, as the argument goes. But, God has prescribed that the best authority in the matter should teach her, that is: her husband, not another woman. Therefore, on the light of the evidence God has provided in His Word, it is so clear to me that woman is NOT to teach/preach/govern anyone at all.
Now, one may even find a few that would, under sufferance, admit to this Biblical teaching, but they would definitely and strictly limit it only to church's life. Hypocrites! Is secular life outside God's creation? Did Eve sin in the church or in every day life? Are God's laws only applicable in church? Where are the majority of sins committed, in the church or outside it?. Hypocrites, God's decrees are applicable in ALL His creation, anywhere. It is only because we have such an exaggerate separation between Church and State that we are wallowing in such errors. In God's economy there is no separation between State and Church, but different functions. Briefly the Church is the mouthpiece of God whilst the State is the actuator of God's oracle (and not its own, for sure). So, if we take the current "separation" between State and Church, it would be like saying:
"Woman cannot "deceive" man in church by teaching/preaching/governing there, but she can do it in the secular world". As if, that, were not part of God's domain. Hypocrites!
Someone could say. "Well, then what can a woman do?" Answer: "She can do what God says: 'Bear children, obey and submit and revere her husband, manage her home well, wash the saint's feet, provide for the homeless, teach by example younger women to do the same, fear God, that the Word of God may not be blasphemed.'" As stated in Tit 2:3-5 1Ti 5:10 1Pe 3:1-6 Pro 31 and many other places. In general the wife is to be a help-meet to her husband, this means to be a helper to him, not a nail in the head. She should help him as he directs. If a woman is not married she should be under the authority of her father, if she has no father, a brother, a pastor, a man of God, but she has to be under manly authority, as it has been in the past, up to about 45 years ago.
In the church, woman has a very useful role in doing the things listed above, in particular teach younger woman (by example, not lectures or conventions, but personally, as Sarah did) to do these same things. I also think that in Sunday school woman can have a role such as the one suggested by Eric, in that the teaching is given by the man and afterwards woman reinforces that teaching by practical application such as demonstrative employment. Handling the Word of God and governing has to be done by men and the young ones need to have this practice performed in front of them, without contest. I have seen disgraceful unbiblical things in the church where the husbands go at the back to change babies' nappies whilst the wife sits in under the preacher's teaching. How can the husband learns so to teach his wife, if he changes nappies instead of being instructed!! Shame, men, shame.
This brings about the question that was raised: "But aren't you, as a mother, teaching your children." This is true, of course, but it is not to be teaching as intended in their context, but similar to the proposed Sunday school activity by woman, above. To clarify: it has to be a reinforcing of the authoritative teaching given by the husband. Woman is not to add or "teach" something new or different, but to provide practical reinforcing by living it. A parallel of that can be seen in Exodus 15:1-19 where Moses and the men sang a song to the Lord (19 verses) then Miriam and the woman repeated the first verse of Moses' song.
Incidentally, this example is greatly misused, today.
Well, my Bill, I always value your wise counsel.