Meg Basham on Twitter-X has been posting well-known Gospel songs sung in other countries in their language. They are terrific! I love listening because it is a wonderful and happy reminder the Gospel is being spread to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the rest of the world.
We will be greeted in heaven by people from all nations, tribes, tongues, and what a day that will be!
This Southern Gospel song “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder” from Russia especially takes off when the male singer comes in. Simon Khorolskiy – When the Roll Is Called up Yonder – На небесной перекличке:
This is Kenyan singer Samson Maombi who covers famous country Gospel music hits in Swahili language. (Warning: He is Seventh Day Adventist- his song is good, his religion is not).
Southern Gospel by way of India! The Living Stones Quartet from Kerala India
The Kiffness x Gogo Gloriose – Everyday (I need the blood of Jesus)-Rwanda
The Kiffness x Rushawn – It’s a Beautiful Day (Original song by Jermaine Edwards)- Jamaica
The Lord reigns over all! His GOOD NEWS penetrates to the smallest corner of the world and in even the darkest heart!
Today on X (formerly Twitter), a theologian noted that Jen Wilkin made a nonsensical statement by twisting a biblical concept while on a Q&A Panel. He said,
I’ll have three points here: 1. In general, avoid Jen Wilkin, 2. Specifically, explaining the error of her statement that was posted yesterday, 3. Explaining what the ordo amoris is.
1. In general, avoid Jen Wilkin
I have written about Jen Wilkin several times here on my blog, once positively (long ago!) and then always negatively. Jen is a teacher and preacher out of Matt Chandler’s church, The Village Church in Flower Mound, TX. She has been the Director of Curriculum, she has been teaching pastors & missionaries, and she preaches as a guest in other churches. Of course, the Bible says a woman may not preach or teach men in the church. (1 Timothy 2:11-12). It is disgraceful for her to do so. (1 Corinthians 33-35).
She is an egalitarian, feminist, rebel, Bible twister, unhumble, unteachable, and in general, one to be avoided. She is false. Resources supporting my claims will be provided below.
2. Specifically, explaining why her statement today is error
The entire video from which this short clip is taken is available on Youtube. It is from a Gospel Coalition series titled Good Faith Debates, and the debate was “Should Christians Send their Children to Public School?” Wilkin’s stance is pro-public school. She believes in the “public school ideal” and thinks that Christian children, even kindergarteners, should be in public schools to be a witness and to be engaged in society. So that is her overall stance.
In this specific short clip Jen said, “The most common phrase I hear thrown out in these conversations is ‘well I just need to do what’s best for my family.’ I think that’s something that as Christians we have to push back on. Philippians tells us each of you should look not just to your own interest but to the interests of others.“
Something that dishonest debaters do is to make a generalization. Here, Jen said ‘conversations I’ve heard’. Normally, people have conversations with people who think and believe the same as they do. If she has heard conversations of people saying that 5 year olds need to be active witnesses in public school then I am positive this is a biased view of the situation. It’s also too narrow. Her statement is not based on wide-ranging, unbiased fact. Or the Bible in context.
Secondly, another dishonest debating trick is to restate the question as an either-or. She split what should not be split. Here, Jen subtly poses the question as ‘Christians either ONLY do what’s best for their family’ (and by implication, no one else). She makes it seem as if Christians in this debate are only concerned with their own family and are ignoring the needs of the rest of the world.
No one in their right mind is going to ‘push back on’ having a primary view of doing for one’s family. No one. In addition, most Christians are concerned with the needs of others. Philanthropy is alive and well among the brethren.
3. What is the ‘Ordo Amoris’?
The term originates from Augustine, if not the concept from the Bible. He wrote about it in the City of God. We know that we are supposed to love the right things; holiness, our spouse, His word, our neighbor, His name (Psalm 5:11), and so on. We also are not supposed to love certain things- we are not supposed to love violence Psalm 11:5, or worthless things (Psalm 119:37).
But in addition to knowing what to love, we are supposed to love in the right order. That’s where ordo comes from, it’s a Latin word. So is amoris. We love pizza, we love our football team, we love our home, our children, our spouse, Jesus. Not all of those loves are measured with the same weight. We don’t even love all the people in our lives the same amount.
“For whatever reason, Jesus had His Peter, James, and John, and He had His twelve, and He had His seventy. And so there are these concentric circles of intimacy, it seems, that mattered to Him.” ~John MacArthur
We love our family first, the nuclear family is the first priority. Our deep love and care goes to the people living under our roof. That is found in 1 Timothy 5:8. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.“
It doesn’t say not to provide for anyone else except your family, it says to be kind to all, but especially one’s family, indicating a hierarchy. There are circles of responsibility. As pastor John Michael LaRue said on X,
“To add to this, Paul’s recognition in 1 Corinthians 7:33-34 of the divided interest of the married man undergirds the reality that the husband and father has responsibilities of protection and care for his wife and children that a single man does not have.“
Then a close second in love are extended family members, then our neighbors, then love our community, then our country, and then consider the interests of the rest of the world. Of course these can overlap and even shift. The concentric circles are not in stone.
Galatians 6:10 says “So then, while we have opportunity, let’s do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith“, again indicating a concentric circle of mindfulness when considering to whom we donate. Jesus said to love your neighbor and defined it as, well, anyone in whose proximity we can share God’s love with.
My view on this ordo amoris discussion is, I trust true Christians to do and to give wisely based on their good decisions, true Christians who are making unwise decisions will be dealt with by Jesus (not me), and if they are not true Christians, then when they face Jesus they will have worse things to worry about than who or what to whom they gave donations.
In an essay about the ordo amoris, not specifically commenting about Jen Wilkin’s either-or statement, Owen Strachan said not to be “confused by silly dichotomies. You can love your natural family AND love the global body of Christ AND seek the salvation of the lost among the nations.”
The point is to use wisely the means (money, expertise, energy) Jesus has given us. Being a wise shepherd means making wise decisions about how to deploy what Jesus has gifted us with. After settling one’s obligations for the month, there may be discretionary money to use to fulfill others’ needs. Even if there is no money leftover we can use our energy, time, expertise to help fulfill others’ needs. As Christians we DO help with needs, as Christians we do so wisely.
Conclusion
False teachers abound, and Jen Wilkin is one of them. False teachers use deceptive language to divide the brethren, to confuse them, and to advance their evil agenda. Third, the ordo amoris is just a fancy phrase for being wise in providing for the people in your circles and extending outward with care and attention, founded by prayer and biblical principles.
One of my most fervent prayers is that your/my church is not filled with comfortable unbelievers. The odds are though, that at least some in the church believe they are saved but are not. The Bible says,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)
Artist: Boris Sajtinac
Today is the day we should…
...draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:22)
Here is a resource for you to test your faith and find assurance
Is It Real?– 11 Biblical Tests of Genuine Salvation 1 John; 1 John 5:1; John 10: 10; 1 Peter 5:10-
Throughout the letter is a series of tests to determine whether you possess eternal life. If you don’t pass these tests, you’ll know where you stand and what you need to do. If you do, you’ll have reason to enjoy your eternal salvation with great assurance.
God gave us His Spirit to indwell us as the guarantee of our salvation and of our future eternity with Jesus. Do you have the Spirit? Are you sure? Here are further resources addressing the question-
Hermeneutics. It’s not a word you hear often inside of churches. In our watered down state of the church, preachers and pastors don’t often use the “big words” any more. If they do, they’re abashed and even apologize for saying theological words like ‘justification’ or ‘inerrancy.’ Hermeneutics is a battleground in our continued spiritual warfare against the schemes of the devil. You have to know what it is.
From the Compact Dictionary Doctrinal Words by Terry L. Mithe, hermeneutics is
From the Greek hermeneutikos, “interpretation.” Hermeneutics is the science of the study and interpretation of Scripture, the branch of theology that prescribes rules by which the Bible should be interpreted. Biblical hermeneutics strives to formulate guidelines for studying scripture that help recover the meaning a biblical text had for its original hearers.
Here are some thoughts regarding hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting text, in this case, biblical text. The problem today isn’t so much Bible inerrancy, it’s Bible insufficiency- the Bible isn’t enough so we interpret it the way we want. The opposite of hermeneutics is casual interpretation and practices such as “life verses” and “what this verse means to me”.
In this essay you will find-
1. John MacArthur explains the fallacy of teaching ‘What does this verse mean “to me?”‘ 2. A recommendation of Todd Friel’s teaching series “Herman Who? The art and science of interpreting Scripture“. (His ministry is now called Fortis Institute) is very helpful. 3. Matthew Henry’s quote
I think we’ve all seen either in real life or in videos, where a popular women’s ‘Bible teacher’ stands up to welcome her audience and to share with us her ‘life verse.’ Or as we hear the teacher ask the women, say, “Now, what does this verse means to you?…”
Biblical interpretation is not a Rorschach test “What do you see in the inkblot?”
That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching. The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.” The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word.
In just one paragraph, MacArthur punctures the practice. We cannot adopt a scripture because it has personal applicability to us and dispense with other verses because they don’t. MacArthur continues,
No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory. True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.
Solid biblical hermeneutics searches for truth under the premise of “What did God intend for me to know about Himself in this passage?” versus today’s practice of me-centered interpretations asking “What does this verse mean to me?” The latter leads to a false kind of open-mindedness regarding interpretation. It’s also “me-centered” and not God centered.
In theology at some point you need firmness, it’s imperative to obtain a settled authoritative stance on at least the fundamentals of the faith.
When it comes to possessing a firm understanding of the foundations of the faith gained by a proper interpretive methid, it’s OK to be ‘dogmatic’.
Dogmatic theology gets its name from the Greek and Latin word dogma which, when referring to theology, simply means “a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed.”
Biblical hermeneutics appropriately conducted leads to an illumination of the scriptures which leads to a Spirit-settled understanding which leads to an authoritative witness with conviction. S. Lewis Johnson this in his sermon “Paul’s Right to Compensation.” In highlighting the importance of dogmatism he compared the ridiculousness of open-minded non-dogmatism in the secular world:
Now, I’ve been talking like I’m dogmatic, haven’t I? I’ve been trying to inject a little bit of the apostolic dogmatism in it. The world has little use for people without convictions when — for example, when your child becomes very, very sick and you want to call a doctor, you don’t call a doctor who is open-minded about personal disease, do you? Or we don’t send our children to school if we know the teachers are open-minded about the multiplication tables and things like that. We don’t do that. We want someone that we have confidence in…
Does a pastor ascend the pulpit on a Sunday morning after a week of study, and say, “Open to John chapter 3, here is what the verse means to me. It may mean something different to you.” No. Not a good pastor.
In contrasting the “this verse means to me” approach with the biblical approach, we now turn to Acts 8:26:40. The Spirit directed Philip the evangelist to go up to the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was seated in his chariot reading scripture, Isaiah 53 as it turns out. How did Philip begin the teaching lesson? Did he say, “Oh, I see you are reading scripture. What does the verse ‘“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth’ mean to you?”
Of course not. We read in Acts 8:30-31 that Philip asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” This indicates there is one understanding, not many understandings dependent on personal applicability, whether the reader likes it, or how it fits into their culture or era.
In humility, the Eunuch said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” indicating that interpreting a verse is not about a mutual exchange of different interpretations relative to an individual’s personal meaning, but a teacher-student relationship wherein one submits to the other’s greater knowledge and listens. (Always check for proper interpretations as a Berean afterward as per Acts 17:11). What happened next was,
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. (Acts 8:35)
Philip told him. Dogmatically, authoritatively. That’s what a teacher does, he studies, submits himself to the Spirit and seeks the interpretation. Then he tells the Good News. Do we say “I will share the Good News. It’s Good News to Me. Maybe it won’t be to you.” Heavens, no!
This is not to say that we aren’t humble when we’re dogmatic. Philip was humble when he submitted to the Spirit’s order to go where he didn’t know and approach the person he didn’t know and explain the scriptures to him. The Eunuch was also humble in his reply.
The difference between errant dogmatism and correct dogmatism in hermeneutical interpretation is the Holy Spirit. He will settle you, if you earnestly seek the Lord and submit to His teaching. Once a passage or doctrine is settled in your mind due to the Spirit’s illumination, then it’s the time to explain, exhort, and defend.
Observe, No scripture prophecy is of private interpretation (or a man’s own proper opinion, an explication of his own mind), but the revelation of the mind of God. … But though the scripture be not the effusion of man’s own private opinion or inclination, but the revelation of the mind and will of God, yet every private man ought to search it, and come to understand the sense and meaning thereof.
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2436). Peabody: Hendrickson.
In 2002-2005 I went through a severe trial. It was in the middle of that time that I became saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, who extended His hand and lifted me from my sins and the muck I had lived in, thinking it was a palace. No, His hand grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and shook the mud off and He gave me His righteousness. As I grew in Christ, I was humbled, no, awed, but the fact that He absorbed the Father’s wrath for these very sins I’d been living in for 42 years.
Salvation came in the middle of the trial, so I had opportunity to view it from two vantage points. One was when looking back, from own worldly perspective having tried to overcome the pit in my own strength. The other was His heavenly perspective, HIS strength given to me to overcome those trials. After the cross punctuated my life and split my history, the trial was still hard but I had another viewpoint to deal with it: HOPE.
Beforehand, my mental/internal picture was of me in a deep pit. I was a struggling worm, trying vainly to climb out. Afterward, I saw myself climbing the steep, muddy bank of a shallow but raging brook, slipping and sliding, clawing and hanging on, but making upward progress.
After salvation, the embankment was still steep, and the mud was still very real, but my steps became surer. Like the hinds’ feet,
The Lord GOD is my strength, And He has made my feet like deer’sfeet, And has me walk on my high places. For the choir director, on my stringed instruments. (Habakkuk 3:19).
People have verses, quotes, and hymns or praise songs that they often turn to in times of need, in order to grab hold of something outside themselves to help them persevere. For me during that awful time, it was a song by Randy Travis,
Shallow Water, Randy Travis
I will not drown in shallow water. Not with your love within my reach. I did not come this far to falter. And will not rest until I’m free.
Through Your love my eyes are open Through Your love I’ll learn to see And in Your name my bread is broken By Your grace I’ll rest in peace
I had reached the breaking of day within the long dark night of the soul. The Light is beaming, the Lighthouse awaits. No, I will not drown in the mud and muck, what I learned was actually sin. I will not drown in raging waters of turbulence and strife. The water was shallow all along! I can climb the embankment because HE sets my feet on a sure path. I can persevere, now that I’m acting in His strength, not my own, which had only brought me lower, if I’m honest. I’m NOT a struggling, buried, insignificant worm dwelling in mud that blinds, I am a daughter of Christ, loved, and washed by His blood. I won’t faint. I will live!
I heard that song again recently after some years of it having sunk below the piles of newer songs. It all came tumbling back to my memory, as these things often do when they’re triggered by a smell…a sound…a song.
Shallow Water was published in 2000 as part of an album called Inspirational Journey. The album peaked in 2001, but the individual songs kept on, and were popular during the time I was undergoing the trial.
Friends, the water is shallow. The lions are chained.
“Now before he had gone far, he entered into a very narrow passage, which was about a furlong off the Porter’s lodge, and looking very narrowly before him as he went, he espied two lions in the way. Now, thought he, I see the dangers that Mistrust and Timorous were driven back by. (The lions were chained, but he saw not the chains.) Then he was afraid, and thought also himself to go back after them; for he thought nothing but death was before him. But the Porter at the lodge, whose name is Watchful, perceiving that Christian made a halt, as if he would go back, cried unto him, saying, Is thy strength so small? Mark 4:40. Fear not the lions, for they are chained, and are placed there for trial of faith where it is, and for discovery of those that have none: keep in the midst of the path, and no hurt shall come unto thee.” John Bunyan Pilgrim’s Progress
Stay on the path and He shall make your feet sure, like hinds’ feet climbing to high places. O, what a day when we mount up on eagles wings!
But those who wait on the LORD Shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint. (Isaiah 40:31, KJV)
No, I will not faint. The Lord is with me. Nor shall I drown in shallow water.
What are your go-to verses or songs or hymns from which you receive solace?
God came to Moses in a burning bush. The bush was burning but not consumed. Moses saw the spectacle and his amazement awakened, He turned aside to view it. That’s when God announced His presence and said Moses was standing on holy ground.
Just think on that for a second. What if you were going about your daily life, and by the side of the road you saw a car that was burning but not consumed. Would you stop? Would you believe it if God said I AM to you?
Anyway, we know Jesus is not making appearances these days but we tend to take for granted the shocking biblical moments when we read about when the supernatural breaks into the mundane. ‘Oh yah, that’s the burning bush’ we think. But pause and consider what it was REALLY like for Moses.
God told Moses what Moses must do. Yet, Moses wasn’t too sure about these marching orders. He questioned God in Exodus 3 in a series of questions. He asked several reasonable questions and God patiently instructed Moses. It was only the last one, where Moses’ questions turned to objection, that God became angry. This is instructive for us.
1. But Moses said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11). 2. Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3:13). 3. Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say?” (Exodus 4:1) 4. Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent…(Exodus 4:10a). 5. But he said, “Please, Lord, now send the message by whomever You will.” (Exodus 4:13). Other translations say that Moses said ‘Send someone else’.
NOW the Lord became angry. Moses’ questions, while initially reasonable, drifted to faithless objection. He wanted out from the responsibility. There was a consequence to his attitude, as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states,
“The anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses—The Divine Being is not subject to [boiling] passion; but His displeasure was manifested by transferring the honor of the priesthood, which would otherwise have been bestowed on Moses, to Aaron, who was from this time destined to be the head of the house of Levi (1Ch 23:13).“
Mary asked a reasonable question to the angel Gabriel informing her that she would soon be pregnant. Very reasonable! She wondered about this, an event that had never happened before and never would again. “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?“(Luke 1:34). In her innocence, she was not rebuked. Her question was sincere and pure.
Habakkuk asked God about the timing of God’s plan, and was patiently instructed. The Prophet was earnestly inquiring. More at Habakkuk Questions the Lord, a Ligonier article.
But Zechariah the father of John the Baptist questioned the angel Gabriel too. Why was he punished and Mary wasn’t? Because of all people, a priest of God should have remembered the same angel Gabriel brought a message to Daniel. He should have remembered that Abraham and Sarah bore Isaac in their dotage just as Gabriel said Zechariah and Elizabeth would bear John. Worse, Zechariah asked for a sign- “how shall I know this?” and thus, demonstrated his unbelief. Gabriel replied exactly that -“because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.” (Luke 1:20b).
Where Mary accepted the news in submission, Zechariah’s question showed unbelief, so he was punished. JC Ryle here on Zechariah’s question: Zechariah’s Unbelief .
The Pharisees asked a whole bunch of questions. Their questions were insincere, dishonest, and came with an evil agenda (they were trying to trap Him, test Him, and destroy Him.)
God encourages us to ask questions. If we are truly wondering, seeking, grappling with the enormity of it all, God understands. He answered Habakkuk and Mary. He was patient with Moses (to a point). Jeremiah, Job, and Elijah all asked God to let them die. They were not rebuked or punished. Instead, GotQuestions explains:
Through the prophet Jeremiah, God says, “Ask me and I will tell you remarkable secrets you do not know about things to come” (Jeremiah 33:3, NLT). How could it be wrong to question God when Jesus Himself encouraged, “Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7–8, HCSB).
The point is, we can ask questions of God sinfully, thinly veiled queries which are really asking Him to justify Himself. We can ask questions sinfully like the Pharisees did, just to gather evidence that God is not worthy. Or we can be a Mary or Habakkuk and sincerely ask and give him worshipful praise when the answer comes- or not, as Job did.
All the articles linked to here are good to explore the question of whether it is OK to question God. Ultimately though, Mary’s and Job’s conclusion, “Let it be done to your servant as you will,” and “Shall we actually accept good from God but not accept adversity?” is the best thought to rest on as you await an answer- whether it comes or not.
Kay Cude poetry. Used with permission. Right-Click to enlarge or read text below.
Redeemed of Christ – Do You Remember? I stood alone amongst its green, beneath its spreading bough of leaves; surveyed rain-drenched the glistening field; stood tucked ‘neath nature’s verdant eaves. O wonderours the good of God — His love purveyed through simple gifts, of light and dark and glowing sky, swept fresh by rain in pelting drifts.
Soon breaks the glow of piercing light, upon my brow, upon my face; and see I there remembrance of The Selfless Love given through Christ’s Grace. He washed us clean from crimson sin, by Sacrifice His Life For ours; removed the evil that is borne within our natural hearts so dour.
THE LORD WILL PROTECT you from all evil; HE WILL KEEP your soul. The LORD WILL GUARD your going out and your coming in, FROM this time forth and FOREVER. Psalm 121.7-8
THE LIGHT OF OUR SALVATION A Psalm of David. The LORD IS my LIGHT and my SALVATION; Whom shall I fear? The LORD IS THE DEFENSE of my life; Whom shall I dread? (Psalm 27.1)
O send out YOUR Light and YOUR Truth, let THEM LEAD me; Let THEM BRING me to YOUR Holy Hill And to YOUR Dwelling Places. Then I will go to the Altar of GOD, To GOD my exceeding joy, And upon the lyre I SHALL praise YOU, O GOD, my GOD. (Psalm 43.3-4).
You know that HE APPEARED in order TO TAKE AWAY SINS; and IN HIM there IS NO SIN. NO ONE WHO ABIDES IN HIM SINS; whosoever sins has not SEEN HIM or KNOWS HIM. (1 John 3.5-6)
The other day I came across a post on X (formerly Twitter) from The Transformed Wife/Lori Alexander/ @godlywomanhood, which stated flatly:
I erased the rest of the post so I could present the main focus, her outlandish statement. I left the date and time stamp if you want to look it up to see the rest of her sentence.
Lori plays doctor, making overgeneralizing claims that have no basis in reality. Ladies, sometimes it’s OK or even necessary to work. Circumstances vary from household to household. In Christian liberty, you and your husband should pray, discuss, and decide what is best for you.
“The workforce” doesn’t cause infertility. Activity such as a stressful work environment can impact a woman’s cycles. But so can intense physical activity. Some female athletes when intensely training for an event, can result in not having a period anymore, called Amenorrhea.
Avoid Lori, her counseling advice and her medical advice!
Point #1-
Lori is a Legalist. This means she puts burdens on people she declares as biblical mandates which are actually within the realm of Christian liberty. Legalism has several nuances.
1. Legalism is believing that salvation can be earned by obedience. 2. Legalism is believing that one can obey the Bible through his own will and power for the purpose of gaining a greater measure of God’s approval and favor.
And here is where Lori Alexander’s legalism comes in-
3. Legalism elevates man-made rules above the Scripture.“This third form of legalism elevates man-made rules, especially prohibitions, to the same level of authority as God-given commands and the belief that following these rules will aid you in your spiritual growth.” Source ACBC Biblical Counseling.com
There is no scripture that says a woman may never under any circumstances join “the workforce”. In fact you notice Lori rarely if ever attaches an actual verse to her commands and pronouncements. Not just Lori, but ladies, watch out for any “Bible teacher” who does this.
There are situations which a husband and wife decide the wife works- he is deployed, in jail, on medical disability, finishing college, trade school, or seminary. To save for a house to have large down-payment and low or no debt.
The Bible offers up women who DID work in “the workforce”. There are others mentioned such as prostitutes, servants, and slaves but I am not pointing to them. The ones in this list are women who had jobs or duties in some kind of work-for-pay outside the home or a job that took them from home, whether it was theirs or their father’s.
Rachel was a Shepherdess. Egyptian Midwives worked. Sheerah, a builder, was the daughter of Ephraim, son of Joseph, 1 Chronicles 7:24. Lydia worked, she had a business selling purple. Her work allowed her to have a large enough house to host church and guests for the propagation of the Gospel and the teaching of the saints. Deborah worked, she was a wife but also a Judge/Prophetess. Priscilla- was a Tentmaker with her husband. Esther, Candace, Sheba- Queens. Ruth- worked as a gleaner alongside Boaz’s women in the fields until the end of the harvests. (Ruth 2:23) Women were also patronesses & benefactors, such as Susannah and Phoebe, which required them to manage their means and likely an employee.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
I don’t see a gender prohibition in this verse. The verse doesn’t say, if any man is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either; But women must not enter the workforce’…
It’s true that we must be diligent to sustain ourselves and not rely on the church or others without being willing to pull our own weight. But the Lord was gracious to leave us room to manage our individual affairs in ways that would be consistent with His general principles in this area without making strict mandates in a one size fits all forcible lifestyle.
Point #2-
Christian liberty means where the Bible doesn’t command or deny some kind of standard for us, it is within the realm of the individual or the couple to pray and follow biblical concepts as best they can.
Believers are free to do any activity that is not expressly forbidden in the Bible, as long it it does not present a stumbling block to others or violate your own conscience. Romans 14:22 says,
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
There are many verses in Proverbs and elsewhere that talk about the busy ant, verses speaking against the slacker and the idle. Christians work.
EPrata photo
The Bible does not expressly forbid women to work outside the home. The women named above were not chastised by any person in the Bible or any verse that said they were violating a command.
However, there is a third, very important point-
Point #3
When the couple begins to have kids mom should do all she can to be a stay-at-home mother, though. God did give women a special role in childbearing and child raising. Strongly, if at all possible, moms should be at home with their children.
What are God’s priorities for women? Seven priorities of a godly wife are spelled out in Titus 2:3-5 … Whether or not a woman works outside the home, God’s primary calling is for her to manage the home. That is the most exalted place for a wife. The world is calling many modern women out of the home, but not the Lord. His Word portrays the woman’s role as one preoccupied with domestic duties. It is a high calling, far more crucial to the future of a woman’s children than anything she might do in an outside job.
The ultimate decision is a personal one that each woman must make in submission to her husband’s authority. Obviously, a single woman would be free to work and pursue outside employment. A married woman with no children is perhaps a little more restricted in the amount of time and energy she can devote to an outside job. A woman who is a mother obviously has primary responsibility in the home and would therefore not be free to pursue outside employment to the detriment of the home.
Conclusion
1. Some “Bible teachers” who sound good and biblical at first pass are actually expert at mixing in untruths with truth to the disservice of your walk. Not all that glitters is gold. Don’t let unwise and uninformed internet teachers put a burden on you that does not exist. (Or release you from restrictions that should exist). Test all things.
2. Keep in mind your Christian liberty- absent a command or a forbidding, always seek to align your decisions with the values that God has for you in your role at each stage of life. Always compare what you are learning from any teacher online or real life, with what the Bible says- and doesn’t say.
3. If you have children it is true that you and your husband should seek the Lord’s help in structuring your life to align with the priority of the mother at home managing the home, while husband provides.
Further Resources
Lori follows the stance of (false) Dale Partridge, which is that women should NOT teach any theology to any man or woman. Ever. His stance is here.
Partridge’s stance is rebutted biblically by Henry Anderson at The Cripplegate, here.
Does the Bible Allow women to work outside the home? Live Q&A, video by Dave Guzik, “We shouldn’t treat one Bible passage as if it says everything about a subject- we need to do what 2 Timothy 2:15 says to do, rightly divide the word of truth, and that means not taking one verse and acting as if that’s the only thing the Bible says on the subject.” slide to 3:43 to 17:24
He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he departed with no one’s regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. (2 Chronicles 21:20)
Left, The Royal Sceptre of Boris III of Bulgaria
Dorcas:
Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she became ill and died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, urging him, “Please come to us without delay.” So Peter rose and went with them. And when he arrived, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping and showing tunics and other garments that Dorcas made while she was with them. (Acts 9:36-39)
In the first case, a sinful king. He served satan, and practiced wickedness. He was still a man, however, and yet not one person lamented his passing. Not even his wife. He was a king, touching the lives of each and every person in his kingdom. His influence was the largest a man’s could be, and yet not one person in an entire kingdom or beyond mourned his death. He was not regretted.
In the second case, a woman. Her sphere of influence was small. Her reach was especially small because she served widows, nearly the lowest of the low in terms of cultural power. At her death, relatives are not mentioned, it would seem that it was her friends the widows who washed her and laid her in the upper room. And yet, she was beloved. Usually the ritual was to immediately rub the body with spices and lay the death cloths on and bury immediately. Yet these women did not. They loved Dorcas so greatly they sought a different way.
They sent men to find Peter. They did not want to let her go. Dorcas’ life was regretted. They lamented and cried and presented her works to Peter. One can visualize wringing of hands and weeping and wailing of many. Dorcas was loved and lamented.
Dorcas: “who with her needle embroidered her name ineffaceably into the beneficence of the world.” ~Unknown
Why was Jehoram immediately forgotten and Dorcas never forgotten? I cannot say definitively or exclusively, but one reason surely must be that Dorcas was in Christ, and Jehoram was in Satan. The verse says that Dorcas was “a certain disciple” so she was a believer. She must have been beautiful in Christ, bearing the fruit of His love and grace and joy and peace, all the while serving tangibly with her needle.
Who can say what influence a loving submissive disciple of Christ will have for His kingdom? Jehoram was given Christ’s kingdom (Judah) and he served satan with it. (2 Chronicles 21:6). Dorcas was given Christ’s kingdom and served Jesus with it. Both have everlasting eternal consequences but both have earthly consequences too.
As for the eternal consequences of their deaths, Jehoram’s life was snuffed out and the spiritual repercussions were zero. It seems that nobody was the better for Jehoram having lived. As for Dorcas, she was raised bodily from the dead but the effect of that was many were saved. They were raised from the dead, too! Their spiritual deaths were now over and many became alive in Christ! The effect of that was Peter stayed and nurtured the new church in Joppa, personally discipling many converts. What an eternal effect Dorcas had on the lives of the people there, personally and spiritually!
The question is, what kind of death would you have? Or me? Would my own death be unlamented? Unremarked? Or would it cause mourning and weeping? The key is serving, and the fruit we bear. Dorcas served the people in Christ’s name. Jehoram expected to be served, and was one of satan’s. Dorcas served with her needle. Jehoram expected to be served with his scepter. Dorcas loved Christ and thus she loved her neighbors. And they noticed. Boy, did they notice. Jehoram loved satan and thus he hated his neighbors. And they noticed. Boy, did they notice.
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15).
Love, serve, produce fruit. It will have an eternal effect.
Genesis 2:9 says, Out of the ground the LORD God caused every tree to grow that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 3:6 says, When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
Eve already knew that all the trees were good for food. Only one tree she was told not to eat of it. Eve added ‘nor touch it’ herself, or perhaps Adam had instructed her so. In any case, ‘nor touch it’ wasn’t in God’s commands. He does not like when His word is added to or taken away from. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19).
But satan suddenly made her ‘see’ it in a new way, a way that touched her selfish desires.
Did you know that John Bunyan wrote a commentary on Genesis? He had completed commenting on 10 chapters of Genesis fully and partially on Chapter 11. It was discovered oin his study in his own handwriting by Charles Doe, and then published in 1691. You can find Bunyan’s Genesis commentary online here at Monergism.com or at BibleHub, among other places. Here is what Bunyan had to say about that scene with Eve in the Garden-
————begin Bunyan commentary————
This verse presents us with the use that Eve made of the reasonings of the serpent; and that was, to take them into consideration; not by the word of God, but as her flesh and blood did sense them:
This is a very dangerous and devouring to the soul, from which Paul fled, as from the devil himself: “Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood” (Gal 1:16).
Wherefore, pausing upon [the devil’s words], they entangled her as with a threefold cord-
1. “The lust of the flesh”; she saw it was good for food.
2. “The lust of the eye”; she saw it was pleasant to the eye.
3. “The pride of life”; a tree to be desired, to make one wise (1 John 2:16).
Being taken, I say, with these three snares of the adversary, which are not of the Father, but of the world, and the devil the prince thereof, forthwith she falls before him: “And when the woman saw” this, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.”
“And when the woman saw.” This seeing, as I said, is to be understood of her considering what Satan presented to her, and of her sensing or tasting of his doctrine; not by the word, which ought to be the touch stone of all, but by and according to her own natural reason without it.
God commands to self-denial.
————end Bunyan commentary————
Self-denial. Obedience. Submission. Three little words that meant the difference between Righteousness and the Fall of the human race. And so it is today. Not popular words. Admittedly very hard to do. Even in the Garden of Eden when all conditions were perfect, our human nature wants to rebel, disobey, fulfill self. It’s harder now with our fallen nature tempting us at all points.
There is One who was tempted at all points and yet mastered sin. The Holy One, Jesus, lived the perfect life of righteousness on God’s eyes. He died for us as the sacrificial (eternal) lamb so we may life. Resurrected and ascended to heaven, He reigns there now, receiving all who would repent of their sin.
Outside of Jesus, we sin daily, minute by minute our thoughts and intentions of the heart, our words, and our actions displease God. His wrath already abides on us. But if we repent, God then sees us as He sees His Son, as righteous and holy. To be sure, we still sin, but the Spirit in us given as a deposit of the guarantee, will continue to lead us into righteousness and help us resist temptation. Jesus will forgive our sins when we repent.
Jesus is the most wonderful person in the universe. Repent unto salvation if you have not already. If you have repented unto salvation, work at mortifying our daily sin, putting it to death.
the-end-time.org 
