Debate Teacher Reacts: Should Women Preach? | Tom Ascol vs. Dwight McKissic

Beth Moore is reaching people in phenomenal ways all over the world with what you're saying.

It seems like that's turning common sense on its head. If you say that women can preach and teach and be pastors, even overseers of the church, you're likely to be what's called an egalitarian on this issue.

This is God's world and he has ordered it. When we get in line with his order, we're not going to feel oppressed.

If you are someone who says that women should not teach or be pastors, definitely not an overseer of the church, you're likely some form or kind of complementarian.

Once you devalue a woman to say she cannot preach on the Lord's day, and I think there's much biblical support for that, you're telling men it's okay to abuse a like -minded document.

No, that's not true. Here's the question that nobody is asking. Is prophecy akin to preaching today?

Because I'll make it worse for some of you in the audience. Watch this. Welcome back to another episode of Debate Teacher Reacts.

This one is going to make some of you upset. Some of you are already ready to break something and the debate hasn't even started yet.

My name is Nate Zala. I'm the face of this here ministry. We're called Wise Disciple because we're helping you become the effective

Christian that you are meant to be. And we get that from Jesus' own words in Matthew 10 -16.

Now, before I jumped into ministry, I was a debate teacher. And so let me go ahead and put my debate teacher hat on and react to this with you.

The title of this debate is, Should Women Preach in Our Lord's Day Worship Services?

Look, I think this conversation is absolutely important to have. And I have an opinion about this as I've studied the scriptures myself and looked at church history.

But all I'm going to do in this video is focus on who is winning this debate.

Who is making the better arguments? Who is challenging the other opponent in a more effective fashion?

This debate is between Pastor Dwight McKissick and Pastor Tom Askell. McKissick is going to take the affirmative.

So in other words, women should preach. And Askell is going to take the negative, which means he's going to argue that women should not preach.

So let's do our best to set aside a motion here. And let's listen very closely to the arguments.

We're not going to watch the whole debate, but I encourage you to check it out. The link for that is going to be in the notes below. I always say that cross -examination is where the magic happens.

So let's go there right now. So I guess question number one, and maybe the answer is in how you define prophecy.

But correlate or contrast 1 Timothy 2 .12 that you see as a strict...

By the way, real quick. This kind of discussion trades on several places in the scripture where the

Apostle Paul talks about women being silent in the church. There's 1

Corinthians 14, verses 34 and 35. 1 Timothy 2, 11 to 15. Let's also mention 1

Corinthians 11 .5. Probably Romans 16. You know, the first several verses there as well. I don't have time to go through all of these passages one by one.

But I think the most important one, in my opinion, the one that anybody who takes a position on this issue must wrestle with is 1

Timothy 2, 11 to 15. Let's actually read that real quick. Let a woman learn quietly, with all submissiveness.

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.

If you say that women can preach and teach and be pastors, even overseers of the church, you're likely to be what's called an egalitarian on this issue.

If you are someone who says that women should not teach or be pastors, definitely not an overseer of the church.

You're likely some form or kind of complementarian. So, that's a quick sketch of the two camps who tend to disagree over women's roles in the church.

Whatever the Apostle Paul is getting at in the other verses of the text, this one in 1

Timothy 2 is the one that must be dealt with in order to answer the debate question.

Whatever that answer is, it must not conflict with all the other passages of the scripture on this issue.

The command for women not to address or teach a local congregation with 1

Corinthians 11, 5, where obviously the St. Paul allowed it and the St. Paul in Romans 16 that tell,

I'm sending you a woman to tell you some things. And since she delivered the

Roman epistle, for her not to reference it would be really a stretch for me.

So, kind of, how do you reconcile those two things? Yeah, I'm just, I want to look at the exact verses.

There are too many pieces in this question, too much talking in this question to be a good question, okay?

In other words, this is too complex of a question. McKissick started off by wondering about the definition of prophecy, right?

What does Askel think about the definition of prophecy? Which is a great question to ask in this discussion.

But then, did you catch that? He's talking about and references 1 Timothy 2, 1

Corinthians 11, and Romans 16, all in the same breath. You have to keep it simple, Pastor. If the question becomes too complex, then you won't get the answer that you're looking for.

You want to? 1 Timothy 2, 12, I suffer a woman not to teach that verse. 1

Corinthians 11, 5, about women can pray and prophesy with their head covered. St. Paul, Romans 16, 1 and 2, y 'all receive

Phoebus, receive her as a sister of the Lord. And she's coming to tell us some business and share some things with you.

How do you, to me, you can't make those texts fit. The strength of a woman cannot address a

Lord's day worship. All right, let me read Romans 16, 1 and 2. Maybe that'll help. I commend to you our sister

Phoebe, a servant of the church in Sycria, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and help her in whatever she may need from you.

For she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. And I would say amen to all that.

But I don't think it has anything to do with teaching a congregation on the Lord's day doctrinally.

Okay, that's a thought. But clearly she was empowered to do more than go bake cookies and those kinds of ministries.

She was operating in a very serious role. But I don't think baking cookies is a bad thing for anybody to do.

Well, obviously I like cookies. But there's a diversity of things women can do just as men.

And sometimes I think we relegate them to, we limit them in a lot of churches to things such as that.

Jezebel in Revelations, I mean, Jesus says she's a, you know, she called herself a prophetess.

And clearly she taught false doctrine. And clearly she was rebuked for false doctrine just as men often are.

And that was judgment and punishment. But I think what we overlook, here's the angel of the house, a male pastor who has this woman functioning.

I think the word teaching is used in that text. Teaching at a gathered worship service, which meant this was no horrible idea to the

New Testament church for a woman to stand and teach. And Jesus had an opportunity there to— Okay, if you've seen any debate teacher reacts in the past that I've done, then you know what

I'm about to say, right? This is a cross -examination period. That means that questions are the only thing that are appropriate from McKissick right now.

Not teaching, not making new arguments, just asking questions. He really needs to get to a question.

He rebuked the angel for allowing a woman to stand before a congregation and teach.

No, he addressed the content of a message, not the container. What verse is it?

I think it's Revelation 2, 18 through 23, perhaps. Yeah, well, one thing

I would— Revelation 2, that's an interesting place to go in this kind of discussion.

Jezebel is not looked upon as someone who has any authority, not even as a prophet. Take a look at how this verse reads.

Verse 20, But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

So this does not read at all as a woman who has been given the authority, in the eyes of Jesus, as he looks upon his church, to speak as a prophet.

As a matter of fact, she's not a prophet, but apparently is calling herself a prophetess. I don't think McKissick is doing himself any favors by appealing to Jezebel here.

Either she's not a prophet because she's a woman, or she's not a prophet because she's teaching false things, but it's not clear which is which in this passage.

That's why, in terms of the academic debate on women preachers, I'm not aware of anyone going to Revelation 2 to make their arguments.

Jesus said to his disciples, I have many things to say to you, but you're not able to hear them.

He didn't always say everything that he could have said in every situation. The fact that this woman was doing what she was doing here in the church is a horrible thing because of what she was teaching, and he rebukes that and tells them to repent of that.

I'm not overly worried that Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols, wasn't called out because she was doing it as a woman.

I think the fact that this is going on at all is sufficient for anyone to say this has got to stop, no matter who's doing it.

You said God was displaying his goodness. It's a paraphrase, so if I get a little bit wrong, correct me.

By denying women an opportunity to exercise their gifts when men are present.

Um, with Charles Stanley getting saved in a worship service with a woman preaching,

God really would have been denying his goodness to the woman by restricting her. God really would have been denying his goodness to Mrs.

Criswell for teaching those, building them up in the faith. I used to often listen to on a Sunday morning.

Dr. Patterson himself allowed her to go to Concord Church in Dallas on a Sunday morning and deliver,

I don't know what they call it, but nobody preached that day. God was denying his goodness to women.

To Beth Moore is reaching people in phenomenal ways all over the world.

But you're saying that would be God denying. That seemed like that's turning common sense on his head.

Yeah, well, I understand it does feel that way. But my response is that all of those things are experiences.

And we just have to be really careful not to let experience become more important to us than what the word actually says.

Now, I'm going to get on some thin ice here. So that's a good response.

You know, whether Askel is right or not in his stance on this debate, that's a really good response.

He's handling this question very well. Myself, because I do this regularly. Sometimes I feel like I'm the worst guy in the world to preach, and I don't know what to say and how to preach, but God's called me to preach.

I know that feeling. OK, here's how I encourage myself. I said, well, God spoke through Balaam's donkey.

Maybe he can speak through me, you know. OK, so I'm not. Don't anybody quote me saying

I'm calling all these people. You just cited Balaam's donkey. I'm not doing that. I mean, God does that.

God does things that are wonderful, but those things that we have in our experiences should not be the final authority as to how we live in the church.

We have a book, and our determination is to try to understand, make good judgments from this book as to what

God requires. So that's what I wouldn't deny those experiences. Say praise God for them. But when

I'm figuring out how the church is to operate, I want to come back to the book. I just want to go on record.

I affirm it. I've enjoyed this conversation, and I'm privileged to be here. I don't affirm that particular, and I don't think you meant any harm you're targeting, but the whole notion,

I think, of in this conversation of women preachers and Balaam's donkey that I tried really hard not to do that, but that's that's that's that's really sort of difficult for me to try to apply it to myself.

And I certainly meant it no ill way. One last question. One last question. There are many churches,

African -American churches, particularly in the South. The East Coast, West Coast, women preachers is just a common thing in churches.

It's not a lot of Southern churches in Midwestern Black churches still will not allow a woman to preach on a

Lord's Day of worship. However, Nene Helen Burroughs, who worked great with Southern Baptists and phenomenal

Black Baptist woman in the maybe 1920s through, I think, her impact goes up through the 60s.

She established something called Women's Day, and it's not uncommon at all, at least once a year.

The two churches I grew up in as a— Okay, again, these are not questions, okay?

These are stories. These are anecdotes, right? Charles Stanley, you know, all these

Women's Day. These don't belong in this segment of the debate. You're just supposed to be asking questions.

The other thing is it would be better if McKissick focused on questions about the

Word of God, about the Bible, like how he started off was pretty solid. He referenced several scriptures.

We should have gone there and maybe shine a spotlight on what

McKissick thinks is wrong with Askel's interpretation of scripture, which is probably what Askel is going to do in a moment when it's his turn to cross -examine

McKissick. But McKissick is just—I don't know what he—he's missing a ton of opportunities right now, and this is getting frustrating.

Boy, did not allow women to preach on a regular—and they would even call it—but once a year, they would designate what they call

Women's Day, and a woman could take over the preaching hour.

Yeah. I guess my question to you would be, having grown up seeing that, it wasn't controversial.

Women loved it. They felt affirmed and validated in value. They get a great speaker. And I would ask myself, even as a kid growing up, why would you allow this once a year?

And especially those that were very good and not allow it two, three, four, five other times. But I dare not ask the question because I was under authority.

But you would see that as in violation of 1

Timothy 2 .12, the Scripture. Yes. Okay. I see it as following in the model of Phoebe, 1

Corinthians 11 .5, the prophecy in Acts 2 .17. And I'm so grateful to have grown up in that tradition and to see the impact of that.

And I find it interesting that we rarely call out the men who have preached

Beth Moore. We were rarely, we wouldn't criticize Adrian Rogers or W .A. Criswell for them allowing women to perform wherever they love to perform with the co -ed audience.

But we will target a Beth Moore. My final question to the statement would be, just like conservative

Christianity, the conservative Southern Baptist Christianity has been really radically wrong on several issues.

There were hyper -complementarianism that says a woman cannot teach Hebrew. At Dallas Theological Seminary that holds in Aaron's seats, women have been teaching

Hebrew for years. They have co -ed classes with women taking preaching. I sat in Dr.

Raymond Spence's preaching class at Southwestern. I was a student when he announced that not only did he affirm women preachers, not women pastors, he embraced the

Baptist faith and message. But he had introduced a woman to preaching. Have I mentioned recently how much debates that we see on YouTube, like this one, you know, like the ones that, if you've been with me in other videos that we've done in the past, how much they're not like formal debates, you know?

Clearly, McKissick is not a debater. He doesn't have, as far as I can tell with what he, how he's handling himself on this debate stage, doesn't have a background or experience in debate, doesn't understand what the cross -examination segment is supposed to be, and just sort of talking, which is fine.

I'm sure in the room, it's not a problem. Only somebody like me who knows better is getting frustrated, you know, like, where's the question, right?

And all of the things that he brings up could be retooled into the form of questions that he could be asking

Askel. Let me put it out there again. There is this weird thing that happens on YouTube with debates where it's almost as if there is a concentric circle of what a formal debate looks like.

A lot of these stray, they wander away, you know, and sometimes it's okay. In this case, it's frustrating.

I mean, this is, to me, is filibustering. It's just, I'm not, I'm not finding a question anywhere in here. I was in class that day, and I never will forget this statement.

He died a year or so thereafter. He said he would be glad to have this conversation with the trustee board at Southern Baptist Seminary, almost as if he anticipated it.

I sat there so proud of him, because if you interpret scripture as he does and I do, it is oppressive and abusive and no less sinful to deny that woman that opportunity.

And Dallas is beginning to shift DTS with coed class, with professors affirming self complementarianism.

So this hard line complementarity, and I appreciate you and Mike and others, some will take it to extreme, calling it functional egalitarianism.

That was just, that's just was mislabeling and not being honest. So I really appreciate it.

I'm sure Askel is sitting there going, man, just go ahead. Because the more that you say things and make statements and make speeches during the time of cross -examination where the only thing that matters is leading questions.

I'm not getting asked a question, so I'm okay. Like, I'm sure Askel is getting ready in his head to think about what he's going to be asking

McKissick when it's his turn. You are not taking my position and painting it to be something that it's not.

On the other hand, if anything I've argued is true today, how we're treating women, how

Sherry Clowder was treated, how certain women have been treated in classes at Southwestern is no less sinful than how

Southern Baptists treated Blacks for many years when they made them sit outside classroom doors and go to school at night in 1945.

If Dallas Theologic, who is just as conservative in their narratives, can be open -minded in the scripture and allow women a much more expressive practice within.

Not sure what the question is or if there actually will be a question. McKissick is here as a pastor.

He's here as a preacher to make his point and tell stories, which really isn't a bad thing when you're a pastor.

But when you're a debater, relying on this stuff alone is really going to hurt you. Evangelicalism, I'm here as a prophet to say

Southern Baptists need to be very careful. The judgment of God may be upon us because I see our attitude identical to how

Southern Baptists for years treated Blacks. That's all I got to say. You want me to say anything?

Okay, yeah. Well, you mentioned a lot of things in there, Dwight, and certainly all the horrible treatment of women and the way some of the women that you mentioned or all the women you mentioned,

I don't know all of the situations. But every time it's been mistreatment of women, that's horrific. And that's an important debate for us to have.

You and I would agree completely on that. We might disagree on what the solutions are or what the causes or background is to that.

But nevertheless, yeah, I abominate all of that and all of us should. But you yourself said it so well that conservative churches have been wrong about a lot of things.

And that's true. That's why we need to not rely upon our experiences or our judgments.

But we've just got to be so rigorously submissive to the word and let the word lead us wherever it will regardless.

And I know you're trying to do that. I'm trying to do that as well. And so these types of conversations, I think, are valuable.

I think of the once a year deal like you. I wish you'd ask the question, see what the answer would have been when you were a kid.

Because once a year in many churches today, there's a God and country service, you know, American flags flown and Lee Greenwood's song sung.

And it's hokey, you know, but it is done in a Lord's Day worship service. And I said, that's not right.

The Bible ought to regulate what happens every one of the Lord's days. You know, regard. Does anybody out there who goes to church in the

South know what Askel is talking about? I've never I've never seen that. Whatever else is on the calendar.

So I don't see those things at odds. And I wouldn't see the fact that we've been our churches have been wrong about things as a reason to jettison an exegetical argument from Scripture.

And I'm not suggesting you do that. But I do think this is where we've got to make our case. And we've got to deal with the actual words that God has inspired and do the best work we can.

And good people disagree, obviously, or we wouldn't be having this debate. And you've cited a lot of guys and they're scholars that have looked at these things and come up with different understanding of them.

But we ought to use them to try to help us understand what does God say? Has God spoken?

And where we get that, that's where I want to be. I know that's where you want to be, but that's what's governed me. I promise this is.

Yeah, so good for Askel. He takes the opportunity in the face of a long series of non -questions from McKissick to lay a framework and help the audience understand how they should be adjudicating this debate.

We need to go to God's word and both sides need to make principled arguments based on the Scripture.

So far, McKissick has made reference to certain texts, but he hasn't asked very specific exegetical questions. He hasn't asked questions designed to poke a lot of holes in Askel's contentions or reasoning.

He's led with anecdotes and asked very toothless questions, in my opinion. And Askel is capitalizing on that.

This is the last question. I was in Atlanta last night, and I won't go through the whole damn frustration of flights.

A lot of us have had those, but it ended up with, I don't know if they're here today, two Southern Baptist pastors in the greater

Dallas area. We ended up riding together from Atlanta to Birmingham, and they both were shocked to know for many, many years this convention would not even allow a woman to vote.

I'm proud it was an Arkansas governor's wife who lobbied for that change. This convention has never acknowledged how wrong and sinful that was to not allow them to vote immediately, but it's that same mindset that they were fighting over the pulpit today.

I wish, because I think we're far apart maybe in what we practice, but in terms of being sincere about how we view

Scripture, I wish this convention would seriously, though, whether women are asking for it or not, just the mere fact we did that, and if we could apologize for Blacks for the serious treatment that's taking place there, we really owe women apology for not just denying the vote, but in other ways.

This whole sexual abuse thing, I think - So he said there was a question coming, and there is no question, okay?

Look, this is a clearly very emotional topic of discussion.

People on all sides of this issue obviously feel very strongly about the position that they take when it comes to this topic.

In a way, actually, I think this is a helpful exercise in showcasing how easy this discussion becomes in emotional appeal, you know?

And I'm not saying emotional appeals have no place in debate. They actually do. But not in this segment.

Not coming from the cross -examiner in cross -examination. Is the judgment of God on Southern Baptist.

Because once you devalue a woman to say she cannot preach on the Lord's Day, and I think there's much biblical support for that, you're telling men it's okay to abuse a like -

No, that's not true. One minute to answer, and then we'll move on to the other. Yeah, brother, I just think that's not right.

You know, that's not right. Anybody who abuses women, I don't care how many documents they sign saying that they believe in the inerrancy of scripture, they're liars, okay?

They do not believe God's word. They're not practicing God's word. And that is certainly true in all of the other scenarios that you cited as well.

You're right. In egalitarianism, you see a lot of abuse, too. I would agree with that. But I mean, we all have blind spots.

And so we ought to be humble in trying to understand the scripture and welcome differing positions to refine our thinking.

But anybody who is following what the word says is not going to abuse women.

It's going to protect women. And any woman who's following this isn't going to feel oppressed by doing what the

Bible says. They're going to rejoice in that. If you believe in what God is doing here at this channel, I want you to join me.

Wise Disciple is now live on Patreon accepting memberships. So go ahead and go over to Patreon and look up Wise Disciple here.

What I'm praying for is that Wise Disciple becomes a community where we can start making a difference in our homes, in our churches and neighborhoods for the kingdom of God.

We are in the beginning. We're going to start out like a mustard seed. It's going to start very small. This can get as big as you want it with our own conventions, our own events, perhaps a debate community.

But it all starts with you. This is exciting. I'm excited. And I'll see you all on Patreon. Why would you allow a woman to preach, engage in the function of pastoral ministry while denying her, if I understand you right, the role of being a pastor in church?

You don't allow women to be pastor in the church, right? Several things.

I think pastoring is a gift. So this is a great question.

This is a question of consistency with regard to McKissick's stance. Usually folks who argue that women can preach also say that women can be pastors.

So this is an interesting boundary that McKissick has set up here because it sounds like from his position, women cannot be pastors, but they can preach every now and then.

And so maybe that's because of a bad reading of the scripture. Maybe it's based on no biblical passage at all, based on McKissick's time in cross.

Whatever the reasons are, if Askell can expose those reasons through cross -examination, this will actually help

Askell. I don't believe that I don't have any quote unquote women pastors on my staff, but I think many function in shepherding and leading and carrying and carrying out.

If a woman teaches Sunday school class, there's a lot of element of pastoring if you're teaching fifth graders.

So that's number one. I'm like Charles Stanley. I separate the authority of the office of pastor from the function of preaching.

I'm like the 1689 confession that believe a body of elders can designate whoever they think is fit.

The word is used in that text, a gifted to preach to allow them to do so.

So I invite a lot of preachers to my church.

None of them come in as a pastor, though. Okay. It would have been great if he could have referenced scripture as the reason for this distinction that he has created between these two roles.

He did reference 1689 confession. It would have been better if he had a reference to scripture.

Would you say that I'd have you to come if you'd come, but I'd be there tomorrow, but just don't preach.

Just don't preach reform theology. You'll be all right. I'll have the yes. Everything else you could preach.

You just took the Bible away from me. What am I going to do, brother? Well, that's a good line.

Maybe we could debate that. Yeah, so the main, would you say that as a pastor of the church?

I feel this way. I say this all the time. My main responsibility as pastor is to preach the word.

So that's the primary. Well, if you go to act six prayer, which a lot of us fail in, but prayer first and then the preaching of the word.

But it's certainly high. I would definitely agree with that. Yes. So if I understand you, right, then women have biblical warrant to engage in that activity in the church, the preaching of the word, you wouldn't put any limitations as to what they could preach.

Well, everybody coming up, just like I gave you limitations, right? Right. But I mean, it's good. It's going to have to be everybody to preach in anybody.

I wouldn't intentionally go into anybody's pulpit. Matter of fact, I read page Patterson's commentary on first Corinthians 14 before I preached the

Southwestern. I'd get anybody to read that and say it done affirmed the very sermon I preached there. Well, so you always come under the authority of whatever you put in the confessional boundaries of whatever set there, but there's no limitations.

It's taking the text and preaching the text. So you wouldn't mind a woman doing that once a month. I got to keep my job.

Okay. But assume they will continue to pay you in your job. Would it be okay for a woman to do that? It's a hypothetical question.

I mean, it's just something I haven't had to process at that level, but in all the preachers at our church, they submit sermons to a senior pastor on my staff.

He reviews their sermons and he'll tell them if this is going somewhere, ladies and gentlemen, watch what

Haskell's about to do. But everybody preaches there comes under authority.

Do they do that to your sermons? Generally not, but if they find some elements, so this is just other folks that come in.

Yeah. Okay. Got you. Well, I'm just, my question is this, so if they will hold me accountable, if they've heard me say something, they find inappropriate.

They'll call you on it. Oh yeah. They've done that several times. Praise God for that. Right. It's good to have faithful elders, isn't it?

So if it's okay for a woman to preach periodically on the Lord's day, my question is, okay, why not have a woman preach every

Lord's day in a church? There it is. Would that be an unhealthy thing? That's the very thing he was writing to the Ottomans.

He was saying they have turned. So what Haskell did here was he started with preaching the word, right?

And then he asked, well, could a woman preach once a month? And then he asked, well, if it's once a month, why not every

Sunday? This was the garden path that he set up for McKissick. A series of questions leading up to a doozy of a question at the end, which by the way, this might not be the $6 million question.

The next question might be the $6 million question. So if McKissick says, well, it is possible for a woman to preach every

Sunday. The next question then is, well, then why not call the person preaching most Sundays or every

Sunday a pastor? You see how you can get there? Again, all of this is designed to poke holes in McKissick's contentions and reasoning.

You would think at some point McKissick has to go to some verse in the Bible for support. But then again, if he does,

Haskell should be able to press him on his exegesis of the text. It sets Haskell up for that opportunity.

I would say Haskell is doing fairly well here so far. The creation order on his head by let worshipping a woman over there and having women dominate and do all the speaking.

Of course, there wasn't a Biblio -Christosistic church either. They said, we're not going to follow that pattern over here.

But to say we're not going to have women dominating and preaching over here is not to say she cannot ever.

But if she can do it once, why can't she do it all the time? Because it's not necessary. Well, men are gifted too.

Men are called too. If the pastor is to be a male, then if she preaches 52

Sundays, when does he preach? So why is a pastor to be a male? Where do you get that?

I get it from 1 Timothy 3. The husband and one wife. Yeah, and I get it from the creation order in terms of leadership.

Okay, so the creation leadership, that brings me to the next question. In 1 Timothy 2, 12, 13, and 14, why do you think

Paul appeals to creation and to the fall in order to give the reason why he does it?

Not just one woman preach or teach, but women in general. Well, there are multiple ways, interpretations, and I'm reading books from some evangelical scholars who don't view it that way.

But I think Paul is directly addressing, what is it?

Ephesus is mentioned in verse 3 of 1 Timothy 1. He, as you know,

Christianity was new. It was small. It was not overly influential.

But worshiping Diana and the temple at Ottawa, it was huge. Therefore, influential.

And therefore, women wore all this costly apparel they could afford in the shop. But if you evangelize and you can't afford, you know, this costly clothing, as you mentioned, it's not, it wasn't healthy, what was happening there.

So everything he said in 1 Timothy 2 is a direct response to what was going on in Ephesus with the cult.

So my question would be, how do you know that? I know that, but same way we looked. Notice, you know, it's interesting.

Look at that picture right there. Do you see what I see? I see on Askel's table, an open

Bible. And then I look over and I see on McKissick's table, a closed Bible. That right there is some symbolic imagery.

Like that's right. I mean, McKissick will not go to the text for some reason.

I don't know why. And so he's paraphrasing from memory. And he keeps referencing all these commentaries that he's reading.

But he's really not answering the question. Askel had asked the question about the order of creation that Paul appeals to.

And McKissick has not seriously addressed this question just yet. It's all biblical backgrounds, historical, grammatical understanding.

Again, when we get to this verse, we won't treat it as verse 9. I know that based on how we treat similar passages.

Right. It seems to me that's it. Yeah. So the answer is, we know that there is this contextual problem in Ephesus going on, right?

First and foremost, because of the text itself. You know what I mean? Not because of commentaries. Like the reason why

Christians recognize that something was going on in the church at Ephesus is because we read the text.

We read the scriptures. We see the clues in the text. And we infer what the historical situation looked like out of which

Paul wrote his letter. But wait a second. If it's the text that we have to be careful of, then we need to pay close attention to Paul's appeal to the creation hierarchy in 1

Timothy chapter 2, verse 13 and 14. This is what it says, actually. So let's go there. Just so that we're very clear on what

Paul is saying when we have this discussion. Actually, let me back up to verse 12.

This is what it says. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

Rather, she is to remain quiet. Now, verse 13. For Adam was formed first, then

Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The question is, for those of us trying to be careful readers of the Bible, if this was a problem in the church, in the

Ephesian church only, which means that Paul's comment about women here was only for one church and not all churches for all time.

Why would Paul appeal to the creation hierarchy? It makes hardly any sense for him to do that. Perhaps this is where Askel wants to go with McKissack.

He wants him to explain why Paul appeals to creation. So hopefully

McKissack can provide some answer along those lines. It's dangerous hermeneutic, though, that if we allow something outside of the

Scripture to determine the meaning of Scripture. I agree with you. And that's why we got all these other verses that Paul spoke that allows a woman to do it.

I just read S .M. Ball's research on this. And he's done the most extensive research on first century

Ephesus. And he says that the idea that the Artemis cult was influential in the culture of the city of Ephesus is bogus because it was a typical

Greek Roman Hellenic city that was patriarchal in nature. And so if that's true, then that raises questions.

But if you want to throw scholars on the table, N .T. Wright, Scott McKnight, a lot of people would contradict what he says.

That's one thing about our discovering Christianity. You can always find two people. Yes, which means we ought to stick with the text, you know.

And that's exactly what I'm doing. That's why I quoted 1 Corinthians 11, 5. That's the reason I quoted Romans 16, 1 or 2.

That's the reason I quoted Acts 2, 2, 17. That's the reason I quoted the very Paul who said these things. Yeah, except the problem is when you were pressed in cross -examination for these things, you don't go to the text.

You don't justify your interpretation of the text, which is exactly what you should be doing. Paul meant here, you have to stick with the text.

What did he mean in these other places? Yes, I get that. I mean, I'm thinking it would have been so easy for Paul to say, don't allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man because this

Artemis cult has so impacted women in the culture and the ladies coming out of that into the church or bringing all their baggage with them.

Well, let's go back to what you said about Jesus and Jezebel. So there you go. He almost said it, okay?

Yes, Paul didn't appeal directly to the historical context, but also he did appeal to creation, which seems pretty compelling that whatever

Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2 verse 12, it's not for this one church only, but for all churches.

So then the question is, what does 1 Timothy 2, 12 really mean? Because whatever that means, it looks like it applies to all churches.

Why? Because Paul transcends historical context to appeal to the beginning of creation. You said

Jesus didn't say it all. That's right. So just like Paul didn't make that statement about the cause of Artemis, Jesus didn't rebuke this woman because she was a woman.

That's right. So that was implicit permission for her to do it as long as she was doing it the right way. Well, but...

To use your logic and hermeneutic. Well, I'm not quite sure that's accurate because Paul does give a reason.

Paul does give a reason. Creation. Yeah, creation and Paul. Which I agree. Creation means male is in charge.

Right. But a woman teaching on a given Sunday does not overturn that creation order.

Artemis overturned it. He said you cannot do that over here. Okay. Based on what?

From the text though. Okay, McKissick, if that's your position, exegete 1 Timothy 2, starting in verse 12.

Paul says, I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

You say women can teach. Explain Paul's words here then. Askel should press him on this.

We're starting to nudge there now. Okay. So this is getting exciting. But that's exactly where Askel should go next.

Let's go to the text. He should press him on his exegesis. Askel should not move on.

Yeah. So your reasons for not allowing a woman to be a pastor have to do with the limitation of pastoral role to men.

So that's what you're seeing in verse 73. Is that right? I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Yes. Now, again,

I've been on church staffs where if you're a woman, you're a director. If you're a man, you're a pastor.

I've been on, you know, and I ran into that. I was doing the same thing.

If I had a woman in this role, I'd call her director. If I had a man in this role, he became a pastor.

They hit me. This is just inconsistent. They even get down to economics.

The men on my staff could claim a housing allowance. The women could not. Again, we're dealing with the same kind of sin against women that we have practiced against other people.

So I ended up just calling them all ministers because we're all called a minister. So I guess I demoted the men from being pastors, made them ministers.

And maybe I elevated the women by making them ministers. But I think it can be something. I don't think there's but one

Moses, one leader of a church. So as long as our church constitution requires that the senior, the leader be a male beyond that function determines what whether you're a pastor or not, not your title.

So I don't have a I mean, I'm a church to refer to a woman as pastor,

Christian education, pastor, view, pastor, worship, pastor, whatever. I really as long as the man is a pastor,

I'm OK. So like a senior pastor. Yes. As long as the man is a senior pastor, if people don't staff a label, it's a gift.

They have to have the gift of pastor to do their jobs well. But you don't think God gives the gift of senior pastor to women?

I believe he calls them, assigns them to that. Because of the husband and one wife passage.

That and the creation order. OK, yeah, that's well, that's I wasn't expecting that.

So this is helpful to me. So with the creation order, I think that's an important point that often gets lost in this debate and a lot of other debates.

In fact, I think that Genesis one, one may be the most overlooked and vitally important verse in all the world right now, because this is

God's world and he has ordered it. And so I think when we get in line with his order, that there's not any protest.

We're not going to feel oppressed. Whatever God has prescribed is going to be right and good for us. So the question is, how do we understand what he has prescribed?

So how does the creation order work in the realm of church leadership?

Does it work? Do you see it working in any other way other than who exercises authority or has authority?

I forget which words you used earlier. You see it that way because God created man first and there's a role.

There's a role. Well, you mentioned holding your presentation. I think it was Scott. Who was it?

Jeremiah. It was four prophets who've written books in the Bible. Just so we're on the same page.

McKissick did not do a great job with his cross -examination. Askel is doing way better than McKissick.

So I would say Askel has the advantage right now and he'll probably keep that advantage. But there are a lot of questions that Askel could be asking that he's not asking.

And they're probably all exegetical questions. You know, questions designed to clarify

McKissick's contentions and then force him to support his contentions with solid exegetical support.

Askel runs up close to it, right? He gets close on some occasions, but not really doing it to the level that he should, in my opinion.

Maybe he will in a moment. It's like, ah, I almost see him do it. And then he shies away again, you know?

So let's see what happens. They were available to King Josiah when he called Huldah to speak for God.

You're saying she was a prophet, she could speak, but just not on the Lord's Day. That's your point.

No, I'm saying prophecy is fundamentally different than what I'm envisioning when we're talking about preaching because of that definition.

Ellis taught a lot of people wrong. Dr. Jack Gray taught a lot of false. Prophecy is an identity break, says he's a cessationist, so it doesn't exist.

But if prophecy is what it says in the first Corinthians 14, 3, I believe a woman could do that on any day of the week and do it on Sunday morning and do it as Huldah did it.

What do you think about that definition? Well, yeah. So here's the question that nobody is asking.

Is prophecy akin to preaching today? That's a question that must be asked in this kind of discussion, because I'll make it worse for some of you in the audience.

Watch this. Peter on the day of Pentecost gets up in front of everyone, right, their minds have just been blown by the work of the

Holy Spirit, and he gets up, this is in Acts chapter 2, and he says, what you're seeing right now is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel.

In verse 15, for these people, this is Acts chapter 2, for these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it's only the third hour of the day, but this is what was uttered through the prophet

Joel. And then Peter quotes Joel. And in the last days, it shall be God declares that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh.

And your, watch this, sons and your daughters shall prophesy. And your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams.

Who is going to prophesy? Just the men? No, the men and the women, sons and daughters will prophesy.

And we see that happening in the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 11 5, Paul acknowledges that women are prophesying in the church, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

So, so women are prophesying in the New Testament, but the question is, what does that mean today?

How does that translate into our church today? Mission in Exodus, where Paul, or where God tells

Moses that he's going to make him like God to Aaron, and Aaron will be his prophet, and he will put his words in Aaron's mouth, and Aaron will speak his words.

That, to me, seems like the clearest definition of prophecy from the Bible that we have.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. I don't play that against 1 Corinthians 14 3.

I don't see a country. I'm not seeing the distinction. Maybe I'm slow. Well, here's what I'm saying. Well, how's that different? No, no, no.

Yeah, let me go in. I didn't, I assumed what I shouldn't assume, because these thoughts are going on in my head, not yours.

But the first time I ever heard that definition, though, I mean, that's, is that unique to you? I wish it was, but it's not.

No, I got that from O. Palmer Robertson, I think, years ago. But the final word, I believe, is where he writes that.

But those words then become the, those are the inspired words of God. So when the prophets were speaking prophetically, they were speaking the very words of God.

It was as inspired of it as any letter that Paul wrote that's in the New Testament. So what were they speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 3?

Well, they were speaking prophecy. They were speaking the very words of God. So there was a point is there was authority.

What is your point? My point is that there was a passivity to them. Like you and I have to sit down and look at the text and struggle and sweat, try to understand what it means and then proclaim it.

But when God came upon someone to cause them to prophesy, he was like he puts his words in them.

They become his mouthpiece. That's my understanding of that. Have you not prepared?

So Askel says prophesying cannot be preaching because prophesying is only a passive enterprise where God uses folks as his mouthpieces.

Just to be clear, that's a more narrow definition of prophecy than what other biblical scholars would say.

Just FYI. I put a message that just says God, it doesn't equate to scripture. Right, right, right, right.

But God inspiring you, God. Oh, yeah. I prayed for Simon for Sunday. I meant to get here earlier, but I didn't get to bed at three because I wanted to hear

Dr. Nettles. I'm going to preach on me and Sunday. And that's why, you know, now. So that wasn't going to be

God. That was going to be Strahan and Nettles. I'm glad you made the distinction.

So now I got to figure out, I got to give me a sermon. But there have been times, many times when

I'm preparing a message. Yeah. And I believe God gave me the words, the thesis, the direction of that message.

But I wouldn't dare suggest in any way. It's the same thing as scripture. Oh, absolutely not. Yeah, that's my that's my understanding of prophecy and how

I understand prophecy to work. Okay, interesting. I take it

McKissick disagrees, which is probably how he can come to his conclusion, which is prophecy is akin to preaching.

And if women can prophesy, they can preach. That's probably what he explains his stance on on this issue.

This is obviously a heated issue within a lot of churches around the country. And I am under no delusion that watching one debate reaction on this channel is going to magically clear everything up for you.

However, for the debate itself, purely as an adjudicator of the debate, here's what I can say.

McKissick missed so many opportunities to press Askew in cross -examination. Again, cross -examination is meant for one opponent to poke holes in his interlocutors contentions and argumentation.

The questions are supposed to be a lot more concise than what McKissick offered, and they should have been questions, guys.

There were a number of times that McKissick didn't even ask a question, but just said a bunch of things and then drifted off into silence after making a series of statements.

Askew, on the other hand, was more focused. He did ask McKissick questions related to his contentions and arguments.

He missed opportunities as well to really press McKissick to support himself with strong exegetical presentations of the important biblical passages up for debate.

But nevertheless, he did a much better job than McKissick. So I say Pastor Tom Askew is the winner of this debate, at least the portion that we watched right now.

I encourage you to watch the whole debate. The link for that is in the notes below. And now it's your turn, okay?

Who do you think won this debate? Let me know in the comments below. I'd love to get your thoughts on that. If you are part of my

Patreon community, I want you to jump over to Patreon and join me for our very first premiere party.

Okay, this is where we're going to hang out. We're going to talk about the video, and I'm going to answer your questions directly.