Restricting Women to the “Pink Passages”

Recently there have been several articles about Jen Hatmaker’s new support for same-sex marriage, but there was one article in particular that caught my eye. Timothy Hammons, an ordained teaching elder in the PCA (currently without call), wrote a piece, using Hatmaker as an example, on why no women should be teaching the Bible:

Here is the bigger problem: women like Hatmaker, Sarah Young, Ann Voskamp, and Beth Moore have have no business teaching the Bible. I include Sarah Young, who wrote Jesus Calling, and Ann Voskamp, who wrote One Thousand Gifts, in this category of heretical women of the faith as well. I wrote about the error of those two here. These women are having a huge impact with the women of the church, yet they are not trained theologically, they are certainly not called by God, and they answer to no one except themselves, doing what is right in their own eyes, when it comes to leading the women of the church. They are not in submission to the elders of the church, and in their success, have silenced many who might object.

Many would agree with him regarding these particular women who are noted for teaching false doctrine. However, Timothy expands his prohibition to include all women:

What I mean by this is that if the men of the church, especially elders, were serious about our calling as elders and husbands, we would address these issues and provide good solid teaching for our wives. Instead we leave it up to the women to teach the women. No, I don’t believe that the passage in Titus 2:3-5 is instructing the older women to teach the younger women the word of God. … We see no mention of older women teaching the younger women the word of God. …

The role of women in the church is quite clear to those who will actually look at what Scripture says. There is no call for women to be leading large masses of women in Bible studies, or at conferences, or any other such notion. According to the passage in Titus, and the way God created women, they are to be at home serving their husbands.

Let me briefly summarize the rest of his article. After that, I’ll go through point by point and respond.

  • Jen Hatmaker is a false teacher.
  • No woman should teach, not even other women
  • Women should learn from men, particularly elders and husbands
  • Women should be at home serving their husbands
  • Women are delicate, frail, and prone to deception
  • Having a husband read the Bible daily to his wife should be sufficient biblical instruction for women

First, I absolutely agree that Jen Hatmaker and the other women listed above are false teachers. No question about it. Believers should avoid their teaching. Pastors and elders should address their errors and warn their congregations. There is not nearly enough concern over what is taught to women. Aimee Byrd has addressed this in several posts, including this one on Hatmaker and Lifeway.

Interestingly, Timothy’s arguments against Hatmaker, et al, that “they are not trained theologically, they are certainly not called by God, and they answer to no one except themselves, doing what is right in their own eyes” fit many male false teachers too. A notable example is Doug Wilson. who Timothy shows respect for in other posts. So, if the argument was simply that we should avoid false teachers, I would be in complete agreement.

But that’s not where Timothy stops. Timothy believes that women should not teach at all. Now, to be clear, I believe that the ordained offices of the church (pastor, elder, etc) should be restricted to qualified men. I also believe that husbands are called to be spiritual leaders of their homes and that wives are called to submit to their own husbands. But that is not the point that Timothy is making. He says that women should not teach, not even other women.

Timothy does not address whether or not women should be allowed to teach children. From a comment he answers on his blog, it’s not clear. He seems to suggest that the biblical Timothy, who learned from his mother and grandmother, is not a general guideline about women teaching children, but an exception which is allowed because Timothy didn’t have a godly father.

Timothy says that Titus 2 does not mention women teaching other women the Bible. He believes that the teaching mentioned in Titus 2 is limited to loving husbands and children. This is not a common interpretation of the passage. Both John Calvin and Matthew Henry, who lived well before the modern complementarian/egalitarian debates, define the teaching in Titus 2 in a much broader sense. But even if we conceded that Titus 2 was particularly addressing home and family relationships, is this the only passage of Scripture to consider?

Hannah Anderson, in her book Made for More, talks about limiting women to the “pink” passages of the Bible:

Too often as women, we have restricted ourselves to the “pink” parts of the Bible. … And we forget that these “pink passages” were never intended to be sufficient by themselves. (105)

All of the passages addressed to believers are meant for both men AND women. Specific passages to husbands, fathers, pastors, etc. may not apply particularly to women, but the majority of the biblical guidelines for living as believers applies both to men and women. So let’s consider some of them.

The great commission in Matthew 28 is a command for all believers to spread the gospel. Women are not exempt from this:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matt 28:19-20 NASB)

In 1 Thessalonians, Paul tells the believers (brethren) to encourage and admonish each other:

We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. (1Thess 5:14 NASB)

In Colossians, Paul says believers should teach and admonish one another. This would also include women:

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col. 3:16 NASB)

To proclaim the gospel, to make disciples, to teach them all things, to encourage and admonish one another, all of these are what believers, men and women, are called to do.  And the Scriptures give us examples of women doing these things.

In Acts, we read of husband and wife, Aquila and Priscilla, taking Apollo aside to teach him correct doctrine:

and he [Apollo] began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:26 NASB)

Also in Acts, we read of Phillip’s daughters who were prophetesses:

On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. (Acts 21:9 NASB)

In Luke, we’re told of Anna, the prophetess who recognized Jesus as the Savior. She “continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Isn’t she an example of how we are to proclaim the good news and share it with others?

And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38 NASB)

Next, Timothy writes that women should only learn from men, specifically elders and husbands. He uses 1 Cor. 14: 35 to support his argument. “If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (NASB). However, this passage is more about order and decency in public worship than it is about women learning only from their husbands. If Timothy’s point was that women shouldn’t be pastors or elders preaching in church, this passage would be a reasonable one to use. To make this passage into a prescription for women to learn only from men is a stretch.

What about women without husbands or women whose husbands are not believers? How are they to learn? Timothy answers this question posed by a reader on his blog. He says that deacons and elders should take single women and widows into their families so they can be taught by men.

As Christians from the Reformed tradition, we should be very resistant to any attempts to put mediators between believers and Christ. All believers, even women, have direct access to God through Christ and need no other mediator. We are a priesthood of believers, both men and women. We are all called to take person responsibility for our faith and for the exercise of it. We are all called to read the Scriptures and to pray on our own. Yes, women should discuss Scriptures with their husbands, but that doesn’t mean they should ONLY discuss it with their husbands. In a community of believers, where the passages on encouraging and admonishing fellow believers are followed, women are going to discuss their faith with other women. And that’s a good thing.

Yes, women should discuss Scriptures with their husbands, but that doesn’t mean they should ONLY discuss it with their husbands. In a community of believers, where the passages on encouraging and admonishing fellow believers are followed, women are going to discuss their faith with other women. And that’s a good thing.

In our society, with the use of social media and interactions beyond our local church families, it may well be that women will have these discussions through blogs, books, and even conferences.

Timothy also writes that the role of women in the church is “to be at home serving their husbands.” This is a seriously limited view of women. Setting aside the obvious problem of applying that role to single women and widows, Timothy’s prescription for women in the church does not fit with the examples of biblical women we’re given in Scripture. Lydia, Dorcas, Priscilla, Anna, Huldah, and Deborah are described as doing much more than serving their husbands at home. The Proverbs 31 woman is busy both inside and out of her home.

Now, I’m not saying that wives should NOT serve their husbands at home. Taking care of our families is an important part of who we are as wives and mothers. We should honor that. But just as men are more than their careers, women are more than their familial responsibilities. We are believers and fellow heirs. We may well be called to serve God in additional ways. Taking care of our families can include discipling others as part of the family of God.

Timothy goes on to appeal to the frail and delicate nature of women as the reason why men should step in and teach their wives. He quotes from 1 Peter 3:

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7 NASB)

It’s certainly true that women are often physically weaker than men, in general. Our bodies are often smaller and due to the nature of childbearing, vulnerable. Men are told to treat women with honor as fellow heirs. It’s a reminder that men aren’t to use their greater strength and power to harm or mistreat women. But that’s not the kind of weakness Timothy is talking about.

Timothy writes that women are more prone to deception than men. Quoting from 1 Timothy:

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1Tim 2:14 NASB)

Yes, Eve was deceived. And Paul uses both that and the creation order to explain his prohibition on women teaching with authority over men. But Paul does not say that women, in general, are more prone to deception. The passage also doesn’t say that therefore women should not teach other women. That is Timothy’s interpretation of the passage.

There are weak women who are easily deceived. Paul talks about them in 2 Timothy 3:6. But notice that Paul describes them as “weak” women. If all women were more prone to deception, there would be no need for the modifier. Given the many passages warning believers, both men and women, to be careful of being deceived, it seems clear that deception is something we all need to guard against.

Lastly, Timothy believes that women don’t need much in the way of biblical instruction:

As for the women in the church, you need to quit looking for star-studded satisfaction in your biblical instruction. If your husband reads the Bible to you daily, that is enough. The word of God is sufficient for you in that category.

Yes, the Word of God is sufficient for all believers. But like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, at times we all will need someone to guide us through the Word. We should look to our pastors and elders to teach us in the local church setting. No celebrity, male or female, should take the place of our local church, the preaching of the Word, or the private reading of the Word. But would we tell men that reading the Bible every day is sufficient biblical instruction for them?

Many men and women have a desire to think about and discuss theology. That’s a good thing, and we should encourage it. As I mentioned before in our modern society, that may include writing articles, books, speaking at and attending conferences. Many believers may write publicly to encourage and admonish others, just as Timothy is doing on his own blog.

To conclude, I think it’s absolutely imperative that we guard against false teachers. For too long, many pastors and elders have turned a blind eye especially to what is being taught to the women in the church. This needs to change. It’s vitally important that men AND women be taught sound doctrine. Pastors should be encouraged to preach sound doctrine. Husbands should be encouraged to study the Word with their wives.

But, we should be careful not to set up extrabiblical hedges. In our defense of qualified men as ordained leaders and husbands as spiritual leaders in the home, we should not restrict women to the “pink passages” in Scripture. Nor should we set up men as mediators between women and God. Christ is sufficient, for men and women.


39 thoughts on “Restricting Women to the “Pink Passages”

  1. Cara says:

    I am a complementarian, somewhat begrudgingly, I’ll admit 🙂 But when I read articles like the one you critique here, it makes me want to run from complementarianism and jump into the arms of egalitarianism, regardless of what Scripture says 🙂 Of course, it isn’t as if Timothy would care about my thoughts, because he probably assumes I’m over here just scrapbooking in my pink doodling Bible, since I’m not smart enough to understand complex thoughts like the Trinity, or sovereignty, or salvation. So frustrating that it is 2016 and we STILL have this to contend with…


  2. Tim says:

    Mr. Hammons will call you a heretic for daring to speak out authoritatively on the subject, Rachel. He’s the one teaching error, though. He should listen to me on that, right, since I’m a man?


  3. hebrewsdnt says:

    Oi vey:

    We see no mention of older women teaching the younger women the word of God. The older women are to help the younger women with their primary calling: loving their husbands and children, working in the home, being kind and submissive to their own husbands. Far be it from the women’s ministries of our current age to ever teach younger women anything dealing with godly submission.

    I must admit, there are times when I wish these patriarchalists would spend more time studying linguistics and exegesis, and less time getting involved in social controversies. In this case, Hammons makes seriously gross errors in exegesis that involve a reductionistic view of meaning in language. For example, look at verse 1:

    Titus 2:1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

    Where does this “sound doctrine” come from if not from scripture? More than that, look at the content of what Titus is to teach:

    Titus 2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.

    Hence, the teaching is doctrinal, but it is also ethical in content. However, that ethical context continues into the following verse:

    Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

    Notice how the ethical and doctrinal context started in verses 1-2 is carried over into verses 3-5 right into the text which talks about what older women are to teach younger women. How is verse 2 about doctrine, but verses 3-5 is not about doctrine when the very same kinds of ethical words are used in verse 2 as well as verses 3-5? And if this is a continuation of the sound doctrine spoken of in verse 1, then where does this sound doctrine come from if not from the word of God?

    The problem here is an errant view of language. It is the assumption that the word of God must be specifically mentioned if that is what is meant. It is the assumption that there is a one to one relationship between language and reality. That is a grossly reductionistic view of language, that has been refuted over and over again. If I hear a Sheikh tell someone to teach that Muhammad is the last prophet, that salvation comes through submission to Islam, and doing the five pillars, and that Allah is the only God, do I therefore conclude that he is only to teach these things, and not the rest of the Qur’an also? Not Islamic ethics also? Furthermore, would I make the gross error and further assume that he is only supposed to teach Islamic theology, and not Islamic ethics as well? One could say the same thing if I were to list several elements of Islamic ethics concerning purity that the individual is supposed to teach, and then say that the person is only supposed to teach on Islamic ethics, and not Islamic theology also. No one would ever make that mistake.

    The problem is, like Islam, Christianity’s ethics are intimately connected to scripture and intimately connected to theology. That is why Titus can speak of “doctrine” here, and yet frame it in ethical terms. These connections cannot be ignored when discussing ethics. Are we seriously supposed to believe that women are to teach these ethical things, but not give the basis for them in scripture? If not, what are you supposed to tell people who ask you why you should do these things? And once you give the basis for them in scripture, doesn’t that mean that you are teaching scripture? Put all those things together with the texts about women actually teaching which he calls “exceptions,” and you have an extremely weak argument. In my mind, no one would ever come up with this unless they had already reached Hammons’ conclusion. Yes, it is a gross example of eisegesis.

    Looking over his blog, this is not an isolated incident. For example, he has even taken the quiverfull interpretation of Genesis 1:28 which is a mess exegetically and linguistically. Has it ever occurred to him that it is *impossible* for an individual family to “fill the earth” as no one can have seventy trillion children so that they fill the earth? The Duggars only had twenty. Twenty children doesn’t fill the earth, last time I compared the size of the earth to the space 20 people can hold. Of course, the better interpretation is to understand אדם there as referring to mankind, and not to individual couples. The plural pronouns “let them rule,” male and female he created them,” “God blessed them and said to them strongly suggest that we are talking about a group of people here, not an individual man.

    What amazes me is that this man is a pastor, and a pastor in my own denomination! How could a pastor in my own denomination be so careless at exegesis? Where is the PCA’s standards when it comes to the ability of pastors to handle the word of God? I am thankful that I have elders at my church that care enough about the proper handling of the word of God that they will not tolerate this kind of thing in the pulpit. I expressed my concern for this interpretation of Genesis 1:28 when a visiting pastor used it, and our elders said they would never have the man back. I hope individual churches in the PCA will start protecting their flocks in this way, and my hope is that the General Assembly of the PCA will work to make sure that the pastors being ordained are able to handle the word of God competently. This is an utter embarrassment to me as a member of the PCA.


    • puritangirl says:

      Hello, HebrewSdnt! Pegasister from the #prosapologian IRC here (remember me?). Once again I appreciate your pointing out the flaws in someone’s misuse of scripture, particularly in regards to language (I say “once again” because I’ve also taken note of comments you’ve left elsewhere, in particular on some of Aimee Byrd’s posts over at Mortification of Spin–at least, I think that was you).

      I agree that Hammons’ mishandling of the texts is an embarrassment to the PCA. What I find interesting, however, is that he says what he does in the context of what’s going on in the PCA overall. I’m not PCA myself; I’ve recently left the CRCNA for the URCNA because of a long period of being spiritually and emotionally abused by people in the former (see my sister’s blog,, to find out about the clergy killing our father was subject to). But I have been paying some attention to the rumblings occurring in certain corners of the PCA. I have one friend who tells me there were serious talks in his former presbytery about allowing unrepentant homosexuals to be full, communicant members in the churches. I also am aware that there are some advocating for the ordination of women to the eldership, or at least some who would like there to be a “study” done to make way for such.

      So on the one hand there are people like Hammons who adopt the patriarchal (and rather sexist), extrabiblical approach to gender and gender roles in the church and family, and on the other there are people with a decidedly egalitarian bent who want to bring things in /that/ (unbiblical) direction. How are both of these opposing factions at home in the one denomination? Is one or both of them smaller or less powerful than it appears? Or would you agree with my friend who thinks the PCA is heading for a split?

      (Feel free to weigh in here, Rachel. This is your blog anyway. 🙂 )


      • Rachel Miller says:

        In the PCA we have progressive churches that may very well be pushing the envelope on issues dealing with homosexuality. We also have pockets of patriarchal leaning pastors. I believe that the majority of churches still fall between those two extremes.


      • hebrewsdnt says:

        Hey PuritanGirl!

        Praying for your father. Yes, that is an ugly situation, and I hope God intervenes there. Remember that they did the same thing to Machen, and he became one of the greatest Presbyterians in history! So, stay strong, and trust in Lord that he will bring your father through!


  4. elnwood says:

    This is tangential to the original post, but I think it’s worth noting that Hammons’ assertion that Sarah Young is not trained theologically or in submission to her elders is false. In fact, she received a master’s degree in biblical studies and counseling from Covenant Seminary, the PCA’s own seminary, is currently married to an ordained PCA elder, and they are missionaries with MTW, the PCA’s own mission board, to whom they are presumably accountable.

    I’ve not read any of her books, so I don’t have any comments or insight about them, but it’s interesting to me how people in the PCA call her a false teacher, and yet she continues to be in good standing with the denomination.


    • Rachel Miller says:

      I’m familiar with Sarah Young and have read some of her writing. I think the concerns are valid about what she’s written. I don’t know if her presbytery has addressed any of the concerns. Some of her claims have been edited, so that’s possible.


      • elnwood says:

        Unless I misread your post, you wrote that Sarah Young and the others are “false teachers.” Having valid concerns about someone’s writing is one thing. I would think that calling them a false teacher is quite another, invoking the “false teacher” language of 2 Peter 2, which it associates with destruction and condemnation.

        Do you mean “false teacher” in this biblical sense? If so, shouldn’t the PCA censure her? Should she continue to be a supported missionary of the PCA?


      • Rachel Miller says:

        Jesus Calling is false teaching because the messages Sarah Young records as from Jesus often contradict the Bible. I know that PCA pastors have spoken out about this, but I do not know why nothing else has been done. The PCA has a variety of false teaching going on, including Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul. There is much more that should be done that hasn’t yet been addressed.


      • elnwood says:

        Yes, but churches have left the PCA over Federal Vision, and elders have been put on trial. It’s been debated for years, and there has been considerable effort to combat Federal Vision teaching. Yet, most people (Hammons and others) don’t even seem to know or acknowledge that Sarah Young is in the PCA, much less talk about disciplining or censuring her. Why is that?


      • Cara Schaefer Wieneke says:

        I apologize that I do not know much about the PCA. But is it possible that she is not being censured because no one cares? I mean, I get the feeling that, in general, many church elders either don’t care or don’t believe it is worth their time to find out what the womenfolk are doing. The male elders don’t read her books, and really, I think many more men in leadership share the belief that women either can’t handle or don’t need to be trained in doctrine.


  5. Jennifer says:

    I thought this was an egalitarian blog, but you use the same logic that he did in believing that because Eve was deceived, all women are barred from ever teaching men. Then you claim that women are not more prone to deception? Then why bother denying them??


    • Rachel Miller says:

      No, I’m not an egalitarian. As I wrote, I believe Scripture teaches that the ordained offices of the church are to be filled with qualified men. I didn’t say that women can’t ever teach a man. The passage in question is particularly dealing with teaching with authority. The restriction is on ordaining women as elders, pastors, etc.


  6. Denise says:

    Thanks for your post. I am very offended at Hammons’ article. The level of misogyny in the complementarian mindset is very concerning to me. Twenty five years as a Christian and I am still embroiled in debates about the roles of women in the church. I am a single woman in my mid-fifties and a missionary to an unreached people group in Africa. God has given me spiritual gifts to use for His Kingdom. There are spiritually hungry people out here and they need to hear God’s Word!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sue M. says:

      Thanks for your service to Christ and His kingdom. May God bless your work. You are just as valuable as any man to God.

      Sorry that your denomination still has debates about robes and the role of women in the church. I’m thankful that mine has a “local option” about women’s ordination and robes are just fine. We also have women on our governing board (Vestry). I belong to the Anglican Church of North America.


  7. NJ says:

    Mr. Hammons has a followup post. He appears to be against home bible studies, period.

    “My contention is that the current form of Bible study by women, and women’s ministries, and men’s ministries for that matter, that are not led by those called to do so, and ordained to do so, are superfluous to what we are truly called to be, which is being fed by in the local congregation. If the pastor of the local congregation is doing his job, preaching the full-counsel of God’s word, then this is sufficient for all of us. Yes, we should read the Bible in our homes, and teach the truths to our children, and share the gospel with our neighbors. But God’s declared word in the congregation on the LORD’s day is quite sufficient for our needs.”

    After quoting John Calvin, he also said:

    “They are not to be trying to have it all, as the modern woman would have it. In fact, for the godly woman, her focus is on her home so much that it is the center of her universe. She is not confused by trying to serve the two-masters of the modern day. The first master being the calling the LORD has placed on the Christian woman, the second master is the lure of the world to have all the material wealth and prosperity she can obtain.”

    I’m just glad I’m not a single woman in Hammon’s church. Speaking of which, in response to a comment on another post, he mentioned he hopes to leave the PCA within the next year, Lord willing.


    • hebrewsdnt says:

      Hammon writes:

      My contention is that the current form of Bible study by women, and women’s ministries, and men’s ministries for that matter, that are not led by those called to do so, and ordained to do so, are superfluous to what we are truly called to be, which is being fed by in the local congregation. If the pastor of the local congregation is doing his job, preaching the full-counsel of God’s word, then this is sufficient for all of us. Yes, we should read the Bible in our homes, and teach the truths to our children, and share the gospel with our neighbors. But God’s declared word in the congregation on the LORD’s day is quite sufficient for our needs.

      My question is, if that is “sufficient,” then how could the pastor ever be corrected by the word itself? The logical result of this kind of position is an absolute and total denial of sola scriptura, which has been one of my concerns with the patriarchy movement from the beginning. It replaces sola scriptura with solus pater, or, in this case, solus pastor. It utterly destroys the ultimate authority of scripture to correct those in ordained ministry. If I were on a pastoral search committee, and this man applied to my church, one of the questions I would ask him is how he can say he believes in the ultimate authority of scripture when the only teaching of scripture that is allowed is by men, and the only group study of the Bible that is allowed is by the ordained office. How could men and the ordained office, in such a view, ever be *corrected* by the text of scripture?

      The problem is, whenever the word of God is being properly handled, it is God himself speaking. Apparently, this pastor thinks it is sufficient that God only speak on the Lord’s Day, and he can’t speak any other time. Now, I am not, by any means, suggesting that there should be Bible studies that the elders don’t know about. However, any disputes that come up as a result of those studies need to be dealt with on the basis of scripture. This system simply could never raise disputes against what the pastor is saying, because the pastor has a monopoly on the teaching of scripture. That is seriously dangerous. Even more dangerously, it means that the pastor’s understanding of the word of God is the only way in which the scriptures are going to be understood in the church. Different aspects of the scriptures simply cannot be explored, because there is no one else to bring them up. In essence, the scriptures are framed by the pastor himself, and any other input as to how the scriptures themselves frame their discourse may or may not be brought up. Thus, the pastor stands as having the sole authority to interpret the scriptures. That is seriously dangerous and downright cultic. No one should have that kind of power, much less someone like Hammon who is this horrible at Biblical exegesis.


  8. Nancy2 says:

    I am a Baptist, but men (including church deacons) with attitudes very similar to Hammons’ are exactly why I haven’t attended church services since February. These attitudes leave two possible conclusions, as far as I can tell:
    1.). Women do not have souls (God obviously is not interested in women at all)
    2.). They are wrong, and are teaching heresy.
    In either case, why should women go to church. If we do go to church, should we each get our rabies and parvovirus shot, and wear a vest that say “Service Animal”?


    • Rachel Miller says:

      I’m very sorry for what you’ve been through. I would add a third possibility. Find a church that respects women and doesn’t teach what Hammons does. There are good churches and good pastors. Sometimes it takes some looking.


      • Sue M. says:


        Please pray and seriously consider what Rachel said. Unless you live in an isolated area, there are probably other Baptist churches that treat women with respect, dignity, give them credit for their intelligence, and want women to use their spiritual gifts. Call, visit, or e-mail the pastor first to get an idea. Check out their websites. I’m not Baptist myself, but good Baptist churches have to be out there given that there are millions of Baptists!

        God bless you,


  9. Lea says:

    >If your husband reads the Bible to you daily, that is enough.

    I am late to this, but wow. Breathtaking nonsense really. Women are not children.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s