Should Women Preach in Church? Why Brent Hobbs is an Imbecile. - BY NEWS DIVISION (JD Hall)

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

A completely over-the-top offensive presentation. This author is supposedly a Christian, believe it or not. Yet he seems to have no problem at all characterizing his theological enemies in the most egregious ways.

Granting for the moment that the author is correct, what is he setting out to accomplish? Persuasion? Restoration? Correction? Nope. Everything he writes is intended to blow things up. Nothing else.

We should note that our intent here is not to defend women pastors. In fact, we oppose them. Our purpose is to examine the presentation and ideas of the author.
--------------------

SBC Voices, a blog for Southern Baptist pastors, is going all-in for the defense of women in the pulpit. In doing so, they are either leaving behind their biblically literate congregants or – worse yet – leading them astray.

I’m convinced that there is no corner of the religious blogosphere (That is, every part, without exception...)

that is as hopelessly ignorant, ("Hopelessly?" That means there is no possibility of improvement.)

purposefully imbecilic, (Imbecile "was once used by psychiatrists to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal. The word arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded."

Thus the author doesn't simply have a differing point of view, he is dealing people with substantial intellectual impairment.)

doctrinally ill-informed, and grotesquely self-unaware as the bloggers at SBC Voices. (Brothers and sisters in Christ are described in the most severe terms. Again, this person is supposed to be a Christian!)

A group blog of Southern Baptist pastors who clearly love their denomination more than Jesus or the Scripture, (The author cannot know this about these people.)

these virtue-signaling denominational fanboys are grotesquely aloof, and nothing demonstrates that as much as the frequency with which they change their theological positions. (The expletives just keep coming.)

(A long and irrelevant rant deleted at this point...)

However, it’s this post by Brent Hobbs, who we’ve written about previously here, that really takes the cake. In his post at SBC Voices, Hobbs shows all the Biblical acumen of a United Methodist who grew up reading Rachel Held Evans books. His church should fire him just for the sheer embarrassment of him.

In a post entitled, Cooperation and the Complexity on the Question of Women Preaching, Hobbs (as you would expect from the title) argues that the question regarding whether or not women should be preaching at church is “complicated.”

It’s not. (The author summarily dismisses centuries of thoughtful debate by Christian scholars, who if they lived today would be horrified at the kind of scorched-earth rhetoric used by the author.)

The question has never been complicated in the SBC, since at least the days of the Conservative Resurgence. Until the ‘Great Awokening’ began, Hobbs didn’t think it was complicated. But alas, men like Hobbs, Blosser, and Miller don’t have thoughts of their own. Their thoughts are assigned to them by Southern Baptist leaders, who might give them a doggy treat and a pat on the head at the next convention meeting.

Hobbes argues that there is a disparity between the style of worship as modeled in the Scripture and that in our modern services (maybe in his church, but ours is modeled after the New Testament, (We sincerely doubt that. Despite the fact that no pastor is shown in the "leadership" section of his church's website, the author is the only one who preaches in his church. We'd be willing to bet that he is a paid staffer, probably the only one. It looks like they meet in a nice facility, no doubt owned by the church and financed with offerings.

So we're fairly certain that this church bears little or no resemblance to the NT church.)

so he should fix whatever kind of garbage he has going on at New Song Fellowship in Virginia Beach).

Speaking of this disparity, Hobbes says:

I specifically mention this because of the inclusion of prophecy in New Testament worship.

Women did prophesy in the church service in New Testament times.

If your view of Christian worship prohibits women from speaking (1) to the entire gathering (2) in a meaningful way (that includes exhortation and imperative verb form), then you should certainly stop pretending that your view matches the New Testament.

Brent Hobbs is a moron. ("Moron [mo´ron] obsolete term for a person with the highest grade of mental retardation..." Hobbs is a moron solely because he has a different doctrinal perspective.

We shall address whatever biblical argument the author provides us. If he actually gets around to making one. If we successfully counter him, we would then wonder if the he would happily deem himself a moron.)

I don’t feel the word is too strong. (Yes, it is.)

From where did Hobbs get the impression that women prophesied in the gathered assembly? Does the man know the Bible? Mercy sakes, this is a pastor.

Let me help Brent out. (The author, having been content to offer a condescending, insulting screed, now turns to instructing these imbeciles and morons. Let's see how he does.)

Women ‘prophesying’ in the New Testament era (post-ascension) (The author's criteria are convenient in that he can exclude OT characters like Miriam [Ex. 15:20], Deborah [Ju. 4:4], Huldah [2Kg. 22:14], Noadiah [Ne. 6:14], as well as NT prophesiers like Mary, [Lk. 1:46-55], and Anna [Lk. 2:36].

includes only two occurrences. (Before we continue, we should document that only Agabus has a prophecy quoted in the NT. So if the number of times is evidence, then men have a problem too.)

The first is Acts 21:9, which includes a brief reference to Philip’s daughters. In this instance, they prophesied in their own home. (Let's quote it, since our "Bible scholar" seems reluctant to do so:

Ac. 21:8-9 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

So that's why he didn't quote it. The passage does not say anything about where Philip's daughters prophesied. Hmmm.)

The second occurrence is in Revelation 2:18-29 and the woman is prophesying in the church of Thyatira and is rebuked by Jesus. I mean, hellooooo. The only woman who is recorded as prophesying in the church is rebuked. (The smug condescension is not justified by the author's puerile defenses. Our scholar turns to his second "conclusive" example. Again we shall quote it:

Re. 2:20-21 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

Now, we must admit we do not possess the high-level intelligence of the author, but it certainly seems like Jesus is not condemning her for prophesying or being a church leader of some sort. He is condemning her for her misleading teaching and immorality.)

However, the quintessential text regarding females prophesying in the church is in 1 Corinthians 14. This passage explicitly references females prophesying in the gathered assembly. (Emphasis added.) (We remind the reader of what the author just typed: 

From where did Hobbs get the impression that women prophesied in the gathered assembly? Does the man know the Bible? Mercy sakes, this is a pastor.

First he claims women didn't prophesy in the the assembly, then he admits the Bible does teach that they did...)

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:26-35).

So here, Paul gives instructions for use of the Apostolic sign gifts, (What? This identifier is nowhere found in Scripture. And why would Paul give instruction about how to do what only the apostles could do?)

which were commonplace during a church age with Apostles. (Oh, so non-apostles commonly did the apostolic sign gifts? Does this make any sense at all?)

Because things were to be done decently and in order, they were to prophesy one at a time. Women, however, were not to prophesy. (This Scripture does not say this. The author thinks verse 34 prohibits women speaking in churches, but ignores the further statement in verse 35. 

This statement, If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home, gives us context. And that context is Paul is changing the subject. Women were being disorderly when they asked questions, and they were speaking out in church. However, Paul wants them to remain silent and ask their husbands their questions at home. This does not speak to what Paul said in 1Co. 11:5:

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved.

This verse was omitted by our "Bible scholar," who claimed he was providing us with a comprehensive list. However, we see that 1Co. 11:5 is unambiguously dealing with women prophets, and it's clearly within the assembly of the saints. 

We know this because Paul concludes his instruction about women covering their heads with this:

1Co. 11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God...

Women covering their heads while prophesying was the sole practice of every church. Our Bible scholar trips over his own arrogance.

Now remember, the author deemed his opponents as morons. We shall refrain from doing so in return, and simply note that the author is spectacularly wrong.)

They were not permitted to speak to the assembly. For to do so, is shameful. A better question might be, “If a woman wasn’t even permitted to share God’s words in the assembly, why should they blather their own?” (The author swerves into something. Does the author require the total silence of women in his own church in Sidney, Montana? Remember, Paul said "silent." Thus women can't talk about the weather in church, they can't correct their children, they can't even answer their husband's questions.

Silent means silent, doesn't it?)

Does Brent Hobbs even Bible? He has all the doctrinal acumen of someone who was catechized by Beth Moore Bible studies.

I’d be ashamed to be his mother. If I was his dog, I would run away. If I was his wife, I’d sleep on the couch. His argument is just that bad. It’s imbecilic. All the posts at SBC Voices have thus far argued that they are complementarian, but there are different “kinds” of complementarians, some of whom allow female preachers. I’ll not sit by and let them abuse words and definitions this way, or to revise history. I’ll address their notion of these supposed different kinds of complementarianism in a forthcoming post, and I plan to skewer (Actually, "screw it up.")

it in characteristic fashion.