WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:06:35.000 Let's talk about Calvary Chapel. Um, recently there's been a development at Calvary Costa Mesa, where they have announced officially that they have, well, come out as what I would call egalitarian. Their position is indistinguishable from egalitarianism. As far as what I can tell, this is a strong departure from over 50 years of history of Calvary Chapel of that particular church, of course, and of the movement as a whole. And there's a lot of moving pieces here, and there's a lot of confusion about it as well, and questions. And I'm going to weigh in on this for the following reasons. So I am ordained as a Calvary Chapel pastor now. I'm not functioning as a pastor in my local church now. I am not even at a Calvary Chapel now. I'm at an Ev Free church in La Mirada, California. May I tell you, we are not like many other Ev Frees, so we may not be like one locally that you know, but it's a wonderful church and I'm glad to be part of it. I'm a member there. But Calvary is in my bones. Calvary is in my history. I went through the school at Calvary Costa Mesa. I got my diploma thing there signed by Pastor Chuck Smith when I went through the, uh, school of ministry there that used to exist. And I have also done an extensive long, two years long, it took me project on the topic of women in ministry, where I covered all the same reasons, pretty much why Charlo Broderson is saying they are now going to be egalitarian. He uses the term mutualism that's indistinguishable from egalitarianism. I just want to use the accepted terms for things here and not make up new words so we can feel special. So I don't mean that to sound snarky. I'm just saying I'm not going to keep saying this over and over again. It's egalitarianism. Um, I'm going to go through this. I'm going to talk about the history of Calvary Chapels a bit. I'm going to talk about what announcement was made recently. We're going to play clips of the footage. We're going to address it biblically, and I'm going to show you the actual evolution of Calvary Chapel on this topic, specifically Calvary Costa Mesa. Because right now a lot of people are leaving Calvary Global Network. A lot of pastors are pulling their church from their affiliation with the Global Network. I'll explain what that means. Too. It's gonna be a longer video. Uh, well, I mean, for me, it's gonna be a normal video. But I want to get into all of this because I want to ask, like, how do we think biblically? This is like a precarious moment. We have on one side the rejection of the clear biblical teaching on genders and. And on men and women, both in ministry and in marriage. I do believe that that is both at stake in this particular case. Not just ministry. I'll explain why later. Um, but on the other side, we have the fact that this is a secondary topic, though it's of great importance. That doesn't mean you can set it aside, not worry about it. It's a great. But it's not like a salvation issue. So we don't want to be divisive and we don't want to be backbiting. And there's people saying, like, oh, they're going to be promoting, uh, homosexuality next. I guarantee it. And I'm like, why would you even say this about people you don't know? And slow down, okay? You don't know what they're going to do next. There are plenty of people who become egalitarian and don't go down that road. So it's the overreaction that I also want to talk about and just kind of hopefully cut through, hopefully, a godly line where we can hold fast to what Scripture teaches, resist the watering down of what God has commanded, um, and resist bad scholarship, uh, but also try to be as loving and gracious as possible. And I think that that's a good model that Calvary Chapel has tried to do in the past. They've tried very hard to do that exact thing. And so let's talk about it. So currently, Calvary Costa Mesa, which was the founding church of Calvary Chapel's period. Right. Little. Little known. Well, some people who are close know it is that they're actually not in Costa Mesa. The church started in Costa Mesa when they got their property. It's technically in Santa Ana, but it's still. We call it Calvary Costa Mesa because that's what we did. Um, before I was around, they were calling it that because I'm a young guy for a Calvary guy, even though I'm not really a young guy. Um, so that Calvary Chapel exploded and multiplied and the denomination got real big. I'm not going to recount the whole history of Calvary Chapel, don't worry. But it exploded. And forever Calvary Costa Mesa was the model for all other Calvarys not that Pastor Chuck Smith, the founding pastor, not that he was trying to tell everyone, you have to do everything the way I do, but. But you kind of did have to do everything the way he did for the most part. There was these Calvary distinctives. And it wasn't just theological commitments. It was style of ministry and things like the pre tribulational rapture. Which. Do they believe that, uh, does Charlo believe that? I'm skeptical. Okay. And now I'm okay, if you want to not believe that. But it's strange to call yourself Calvary if you're going to be that way. That's a distinctive. It's what it means. Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself. Um, Chuck, for 50 years taught the complementarian view when Brian took over. He never taught otherwise to my knowledge. But I can tell you how I realized something was wrong years ago, shortly after Brian took over. There was something changing, I might say, including. And, well, something was wrong years ago when Brian Broderson took over. And the reason why I'm addressing this publicly is because all these teachings are public and these issues are public and Charlo's leading the way as the head church of the entire network, whether they claim they are or not. That's impracticality. That's what they are. So because that's impacting churches around the world, I think it's worth addressing. It's an important issue. Listen to this though. This is Brian Broderson in I think the early 2000s. I heard this on K Wave, uh, and I remember that's Calvary chapels radio program back in the day, 107.9. They're still there, but nobody listens to radio anymore. Um, I heard this back in the day and when I heard this, I remember listening to Brian Broderson teach this thinking man, that was bold. He's completely unashamed. I'm going to play you the clips. It's some long clips of Brian broderson talking about 1 Timothy 2. That is the key passage. Later I'll show you what Charlo is saying or Char, uh, is saying about one, uh, Timothy two. That is the complete opposite of what his dad, the former pastor of Costa Mesa, was right. There was Chuck Than his son, his son in law, Brian took over for 13 years, I think it was, or some. Yeah, close to that. 12 years, I don't know, 2013 till 2025, I think. Um, and then Char. Charlo has it now, uh, and he's in charge and there's huge changes. It's a complete flip flop in many areas. That's something people should be aware of. Okay, it does matter. For the sake of integrity. Okay, let's go through it. You'll understand why I'm going to, I'm going to applaud in a second. This is Brian Broderson. We're going to listen to him teaching through 1 Timothy 2, early 2000s, typical Calvary Chapel style teaching on the topic of women in ministry. 2 00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:58.000 So first Timothy chapter two. And tonight we're going to be looking at verses nine through 15. One of the most often asked questions that I get is what does the Bible say about the role of women in the church? 3 00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:34.000 Okay, so straight head on. He's going to tackle this now later on after Brian to the timeline as I remember it, because I can't find this other teaching. After Brian, uh, took over, uh, the senior pastor role at Calvary Costa Mesa, he taught on this again and it was not what you're about to hear, and I'll talk about that later. But let's listen to what he used to say so we can understand that there has been a radical, complete reversal on the beliefs and the teachings of that church. That's important that we understand this because it's not really presented that way when Charlo announced it. And I'll play those clips later. 4 00:07:34.000 --> 00:11:11.000 I believe that although it might seem a bit Neanderthal ish, uh, we're not into being politically correct. And if we ever become politically correct, we might as well just give it up. I believe that the verse has application to today, but, uh, I believe that it's saying something very specific. And I think when we understand what it is saying specifically, I think it will help us to embrace it without any difficulty. So what does he say? First of all, Paul says a woman is not to teach. Now, of course she's not to teach in a general sense because we've already seen that he admonished the older women to teach the younger women in his Epistle to Titus. So a woman is not to teach a man specifically. That's what's being spoken of here. But, uh, it's not that a woman is not to teach a man anything. A woman is not to teach a man something specific. The word here for teach is the Greek word didasko, and there are many related words to it. And it many times in Paul's epistles refers to teaching Christian doctrine. In the Pastoral epistles which we are studying here, it always refers to Christian doctrine. It's never used in any other way in the Pastorals. It's always used in reference to Christian doctrine. So what Paul is saying here is that a woman is to not teach men Christian doctrine. A woman is not to be the Bible teacher in the church. That's what Paul is saying. Now secondly, he says that a woman is not to have authority over a man. Uh, now what does he mean by that? Well, Paul seems to be describing the activity of elders. In 1 Thessalonians chapter 5, verse 12, Paul said, recognize those who have authority over you in the Lord and be submissive to them. In 1 Timothy 5, 17, Paul made reference to the elders who ruled or the welders. The welders. The elders who. The welders who weld. Well, the elders who have authority over you. He referred to them. And then in Hebrews 13:17 he said, Obey those who rule over you and be submissive. So Paul, over and over again he makes reference to certain people who had authority over the believers. And in the context you find that he's always talking about, about the elders. So what Paul seems to be saying to me is that a woman is not to hold the office of the teacher or the elder in the church. In other words, a woman is not to be what we commonly call the pastor of the church. Now the, this is in complete harmony with the requirements that are laid down for elders, for pastors, for the overseers. And as you carry on here into the next chapter, 5 00:11:11.000 --> 00:13:33.000 I'm going to pause just for a second to tell you guys, this is, uh, not necessarily, I don't necessarily agree with every word he's saying here. This is not my teaching. The Dodasco claim, I don't think it's true. I think that the older women were told to teach the younger. I think that's the Dosco there. Memory serves me correctly. Um, so yeah, it is about the pastoral role, but I've got extensive teaching on this. I'm going to link it down below. I have a whole series on women in ministry. I have an 11 hour video. This is not a joke on the first Timothy 2 passage because I went through all the egalitarian scholarship that I could find that I thought was worth talking about because obviously there's always more. Um, and I went through all their claims, I checked their footnotes. I had to hire a scholar to translate an ancient text for the first time into English just so that we could get what it said, all that kind of stuff. So that's all down below. I'm not going to rehash all that in today's video. There's no need. But you can tell with this that Brian is teaching a very clear, unashamed. He's not embarrassed by it. It's not awkward now. That changed later, and then it changed again with Charlo. So I want us to recognize the change. That's what I'm emphasizing here. And we're going to listen on to continue, just to see how clearly he takes this perspective and teaches it to the people. And it's the same thing that Chuck would have taught and did teach. It's the same thing that they would have heard for over 50 years. Over 50 years at Calvary Costa Mesa, as well as at other Calvarys. And so when I played for you the clip of Charlo instituting a new belief into the minds of the people and showing the way he did it was, I think, in a way that I would call, um, not dignified. Um, I don't mean that as an insult. I'll explain all the reasons why you need to see that there is a radical overturning of beliefs. And I'll say, now, for those who think you can't question Chuck or you can't question Calvary. No, no, you absolutely can't. I have. I've made a video about why, how Pastor Chuck predicted the rapture, and that was a huge mistake. And I went through the scripture to show where I thought he got the Bible wrong. Um, I took a lot of flack for doing that, uh, within Calvary chapels as well. And some Calvary's were happy I did it as well. Yes, you can question it, but be honest about it. Right? Be. Be honest. Um, and what's happening, we should just be honest about. And in this case, unfortunately, this particular questioning of Calvary traditional views is the reversal of the biblical truth. And that's a problem for marriages and for churches. All right, let's, uh, listen to more of this, 6 00:13:33.000 --> 00:14:26.000 of this epistle, which we will do next week. You find Paul giving instruction regarding the elders, regarding the overseers. Here in this context. Chapter three, verse one. This is a faithful saying. If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop. The word bishop, uh, comes from the Greek word episkopos, and that word means to oversee. So he's talking about the overseer of the church. The overseer and the elder, those are synonyms. The elders were the overseers of the church. So elder, bishop, pastor, those terms are basically referring to the same position. 7 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:27.000 Right. 8 00:14:26.000 --> 00:15:01.000 And when Paul gives instruction to Timothy here and then to Titus, which is another one of the Pastoral epistles. When he gives instruction regarding the elders, the bishops, the pastors, the overseers, however you want to describe it, he always refers to that position being reserved for a man. If a man desires the office of the overseer, he desires a good work. So there's nowhere in Scripture where we have any indication whatsoever that a woman ever held that office. 9 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:28.000 Very clear. I'm going to play just a little bit more from this one. A few minutes more of audio. Ah. Uh, uh, you can find this on sermon audio if, uh, you just try to. I didn't grab the link for you guys. Uh, you just have to use like, AI or search engine or something to try to find it. But it's Brian BRODERSON Teaching on First Timothy 2. And, um, yeah, here's more. Listen to how he approaches those who would object. He's looked at some of the objections and, and he's found them problematic. 10 00:15:28.000 --> 00:16:22.000 Of course, Jesus is the one who chose apostles. He didn't choose women. We don't have any record whatsoever of any apostolic person being a woman. Ah. And regarding elders as well, we don't have any biblical case of a woman being in that position. Now, there's a lot of pressure that comes upon the church today to conform to, you know, cultural standards that change all the time. Uh, but our task is to stick with what the scriptures say. And I think the position of the Scripture is a completely reasonable position. A woman has many, many, many opportunities for ministry, but the one position that is close to a woman is the office of the teaching elder of the church. 11 00:16:22.000 --> 00:17:37.000 It's a great way to put it. I agree with that entirely, actually. Um, uh, with the position of pastor, I wouldn't say just like, not just senior pastor, but pastor as the elder position is, period. Because there can be multiple elders in the church, not just one lead guy. But, um, the simplicity of it, the boldness of it. I remember hearing this back in the day and thinking, because we live in California, okay. And thinking, I respect Brian Broderson because he's willing to say what he really believes and he's not ashamed and he's not embarrassed and he didn't, like, play with the text like I've heard a lot of guys do. Uh, he just said what he believed, and I loved it. I thought that was awesome. Later, I came to really question whether or not he was right. And certainly others, including his son, have thought this, and maybe he's thought this. It seems, in fact, it seems he has. Uh, that's do. Why do I say it seems? Because Brian is not clear about what he really believes about this anymore. Not publicly. Okay, um, Charlo, it seems to be the first one who's gonna say it out loud publicly. Um, but previous Brian, I thought. A lot of boldness there. Um, let's listen a little bit more. And I want to tell you what happened a few years after I heard this. And I was still a relatively young man. And, uh, I was so disappointed. 12 00:17:37.000 --> 00:20:18.000 Now, why is that the case? What are Paul's reasons? He tells us here, he says, first of all, for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And secondly, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. So what are Paul's reasons? Notice first of all, they're not local or cultural. See, that's the way people try to get around this. They say, oh, no, this doesn't apply to today. This was just a local situation. Or it was just because of the culture. Uh, Paul didn't want to rock the boat. He didn't want to go against the culture. So he compromised here. But this was never intended to be a permanent, um, statute within the church. But Paul doesn't reason from culture. He reasons from Scripture. And he says that a woman is not to teach or to have authority over a man. Because Adam was formed first and then Eve. You see, Paul goes back to creation itself. You see, the idea that a woman would be in submission to a man, not because she's inferior. Of course, as Paul said in Galatians 3. 28, In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female. But that is speaking of our position in Christ. It doesn't address, uh, the issue of different roles that we play. And God has set things in a certain order. There's an order laid out in creation. And so in creation we know the story. Adam was created first, and the woman was created to be the man's helper. She was created as a helper suitable to the man. So the woman was actually created to come alongside in a supportive role with the man. And that's what Paul goes back to here. He reminds them that this idea of wives submitting to husbands and male leadership and all of that. He reminds them again, this isn't a result of the curse. This isn't because of sin. This was established before sin ever entered into the world world. This is the order that God has established in creation, um, 13 00:20:18.000 --> 00:22:13.000 nowadays, uh, uh, Charlo, um, and, uh, Char. I've tried to say char. I've always thought him as Charlo in the past. But Nowadays they're saying that the opposite of all that is true. Uh, so it was just a result of the fall, and there was nothing in Adam being formed first that justifies, uh, women not having the same roles as men in regards to basically men only being pastors in a church. None of that's the case. It was just responding to a cultural thing of the time, and it doesn't have broader application into the church. That's the current position. It's the opposite of everything that he taught before that was taught for decades from the pulpit. And uh, while I may not agree with every single little thing Brian says here, overall it's the same interpretation. And it certainly goes to creation and all that. Adam's form first, then Eve. It's a creation mandate. So, uh, let's listen to the last clip and then we'll go to, um, I'll do a little story time and then we'll go to the current day stuff that's happened over the past two weeks at Calvary Costa Mesa. Again, my brothers and sisters in the Lord, but there's a public teaching going forth that is directly contradicting not only your former teachings and beliefs, uh, and the entire movement, but also going against Scripture, most importantly. And that's the thing. It is entirely appropriate for Calvary chapels to assess our history. I say our, I'm not part of Calvary anymore, okay? But it's entirely appropriate for Calvary chapels to assess their history and to say, where have we got right? Where, uh, have we gone right? Where have we gone wrong? What did we do good? What did we do that was not so good or even just a big old mistake? Learn from it and move forward. And that will mean adapting and changing and shifting as you move forward. And I'm. Okay, I'm cool with that. But you shouldn't pretend that that's all that's happening here. This is something different. This is something significantly more problematic than doing that. 14 00:22:13.000 --> 00:23:30.000 Now, what we have going on today in our world, and especially in our Western world, is a, uh, total and absolute revolt against God's order. Order. That's what you see happening across the board today. It's an upheaval. Uh, it's a cultural and a societal upheaval. It's an absolute revolt and rebellion against God's order. That's what's happening. That's the explanation for feminism. That's the explanation for the emphasis on homosexuality and the desire to, uh, see gay marriage come into the culture as a, uh, totally accepted alternative. That's what's going on in so many different areas. It's a revolt against God's order. And you can revolt against God's order all you want, but you're never going to change the facts. This is the way it is. You can get all the legislation passed in the world, but that's not going to do anything as far as changing God's mind toward it. 15 00:23:30.000 --> 00:31:52.000 I like it. I thought that that was largely agreement. Well said. Um, very, very, very bold and willing to plod through and just let the Bible speak. Just say, here's what it says, here's what it means. Here's what it says, here's what it means. Plain meaning of the text wins in this area. Are there challenging things like, uh, she shall be saved through childbearing? Yeah, he talks about that. Um, I have a whole giant section in my video on that. Of course, we get into all that, but we don't subvert the plain meaning. Now, that caused me, as a much younger man, this sermon, I remember being my first one where I was like, I like this guy. And, um, even though later I went through my own sort of conundrum of like, what if we're interpreting it wrong? What if egalitarian scholarship holds truths that subvert my understanding here, not subvert Scripture, but my understanding of it? What if we really blown it and I just got more and more worried about it, that I just stopped teaching the topic altogether until I could devote my time to a real study of it. I did my Women in Ministry series, and not only were the egalitarian scholars not providing good, strong evidence, they were often providing terrible arguments, bad arguments, demonstrably false claims, about church history, about, uh, authentane or authenteo, about the words, the Greek words that are used in the text and building their arguments on sand. And it was like I was a soft complementarian. And now I'm more of a hard complementarian, um, because of that view. And I think when people hear soft, they think you mean you're gentle and you try to lift women up. And that's already what complementarianism is. I'm just saying it's. It's not. I'm not apologetically complimentarian, I'll put it that way. Um, anyway, you can check out my series. I'll link it down below. But what happened is years later, um, after Brian took over as pastor when Pastor Chuck passed away, and then Brian takes over 2013, I think it was, as the pastor of Calvary Costa Mesa, um, it caused a lot of turmoil. There's a Number of things that happened. I won't get into the whole history of it. It's not relevant. I will say this. Brian had his own vision for where he thought Calvary should go. And then the guys who were the heads of Calvary Chapel association, that was, that was the, you know, it's not a denomination in one sense, but it is an association of churches. Uh, if you wanted to be part of it, it was Calvary Chapel association that you had to get clearance from and be approved by. And those guys had a different agenda where they wanted to go, and they split hard. What Brian did was Brian started a new network and he called it Calvary Global Network. And what he did was he just grandfathered in. Although that's a strange phrase to use here. Um, all Calvary Chapels in the world became part of it whether they asked for it or not. And as far as Brian was concerned, you could be part of Calvary Global Network just by wanting to and not opting out. Right. He's just, even if you didn't want to, just don't opt out. You're part of it. Most Calvary's I think just said, I'll be part of both Calvary Chapel Association, Calvary Global Network. And then there are different visions played out. And I won't even try to untangle that mess. I think there was error on both sides and good ideas on both sides. And I'm not going to try and weigh in on all that. That's not the point of this video. Um, but you can see there's a divide that's happening there now. Some people call it a split in Calvary chapels. It wasn't technically really a split. I don't think so. I wouldn't call it that because it wasn't like, pick a side. You could easily be part of both. Um, but it was around that same time I turn on K wave again. One day I'm driving in my car and I turn on the radio and it's Brian and he's teaching 1 Timothy 2 again. And I for the life of me cannot find this message anywhere. I'm pretty sure it happened. I could be wrong. I think it happened at, ah, Calvary, Costa Mesa after he was installed as senior pastor. I know that's when I heard it. So I'm assuming it was a recent message. Maybe I'm wrong there. Um, but I heard this message and Bryan did a dismal and fearful teaching of 1 Timothy 2 where he plodded through it and ho. Hummed through it and dodged and juked around the passage and then at the very end he said, whew, I kid you not. He goes, I'm glad that's over. And the congregation audibly laughed. The change had already begun is what I'm saying. The change had already begun under Brian Broderson on this area. And that was something people were aware of. It became a topic of conversation and we didn't know what it meant though. What does Brian mean by this teaching? It's certainly not the same guy that taught that before. He certainly has changed views, but it's not clear what they are. He didn't teach, uh, egalitarianism when he went through that. He just soft pedaled a lot to the point where you didn't know what he believed anymore. And so there was open questions and, and people did question and they were asking, hey, you're kind of the head of Cowboy Chapel's global network based upon your own creation of this thing. Um, what are your views on this? And there were assurances made behind the scenes of things like, well, we're not going egalitarian. Don't worry, that's not going to happen. We're not going to have women teaching in the sanctuary from the pulpit. It's not going to happen. It did happen, by the way. Um, uh, I think the earliest that I'm aware of Anyways was uh, 2020, December of 2020. Uh, and it was Cheryl Broderson, so it was Pastor, ah, Chuck's, uh, um, own daughter. And so she spoke in 2021 once as well, and then three more times in 2022. That's the dates I'm aware of. Um, and then since then, in 2025 and 26, we've had a woman named Hannah Colt who's spoken a few times from the pulpit, three times that I'm aware of from the pulpit there. And when they speak, they're just teaching through, through the Bible, whatever passage they were going to be in that morning anyways a lot of the time. So they're fulfilling the role of pastor, uh, on that day for sure. Not like here's my testimony or some other type of thing like Joni ah, Eareckson Tada might do. Um, okay, so those open questions were there and assurances were made that that's not where we're going. And that's why I'm bringing all that up today. Because today we have confirmation of not only where you were going, but where you went 10 years ago and you never told anybody. At least those of us who were on the sidelines who were being like myself asked many times, do you think Khalri Chapel is going to be going, like, egalitarian? Like, is, uh, you know, uh, Brian had, uh, his wife on Pastor's Perspective so many times, and that's a show that always only had pastors on it before. Now she's on it. It's called Pastor's Perspective. And then you'd ask Brian about this, and he'd be like, no, of course not. She's just there to share. She's not functioning as a pastor. And so I took this as an assurance of, like, yeah, it's not going to be that. Um, I feel now that that was dishonest. Um, so not trying to be divisive, but we should be honest about this because liberal drift is a thing. And when people change their theology, and sometimes, uh, conservatives do this too, they change their theology, and they have theology their church doesn't even have. They sometimes won't tell them, and they'll bleed it out really slowly because they're trying to get the people on board so you don't lose as many people. And that can not always. Okay, uh, I'm sure there's some exceptions where that can be appropriate, but that can be dishonest, especially when people are directly asking you about your beliefs and you are not telling them the truth. So fast forward to today. This is two weeks ago. I'm sorry, a week and two days ago. Three days ago, depending on when you watch this. This is Charlo, who is now taken over as lead pastor of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa. And he is talking here about, um, I'm going to get it on your screen so you can see it about how things are changing and also how they've not changed. You just got to hear it. I'm going to address some of it. And for Char, uh, for Brian, uh, I do not mean any of this as personal attack. Um, I'm just trying to deal honestly with what the cards that have been dealt, so to speak. And so this is not meant to disqualify you as a minister or something like that, but this is, in my mind, a significant problem, and so I want to address it. Um, and I do love Calvary Chapel, and I got Calvary in my bones. All right. My, my. My YouTube channel, you know, it. People know I'm Cal Riesman. It's just by the way, I do stuff. So, anyway, here's what happened. Just recently, 16 00:31:52.000 --> 00:32:24.000 taking a brief, brief pause from acts next two weeks just to talk about one of our key values Here at Calvary Chapel, Coasta Mesa. And so, as she said, we've done this, um, you know, when we implemented our indoor baptisms and really, you know, wanted to share this vision of remembering our baptism. Baptism, this identity marker of our lives about who we are. We did this when we introduced, uh, communion every single Sunday as one of our rhythms and practices for recalibrating around the person and way of Jesus. 17 00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:52.000 Okay, I want to point out real quick, you can see they've been changing things for a while. Here's a couple examples. Regular, uh, communion every Sunday. Now, I have no problem with that. I'm not criticizing that. I. I just want to acknowledge that there's been intentional and deliberate changes from what Calvary has always been. That's what's gone on for a while. And he calls this a key value that they have. It's key. Uh, so the importance is high there on this. They believe this very strongly. It's a very important thing. 18 00:32:52.000 --> 00:33:22.000 Topic we're going to look at this morning is men and women serving and leading God's church in a shoulder to shoulder kind of partnership with one another. I want to read a statement to you that I wrote that represents what we believe and what we practice as a local church says Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, believes and practices the ordination of both men and women to pastoral ministry as a recognition of the priesthood of all believers. 19 00:33:22.000 --> 00:34:13.000 Wow. Do you. You have to hear that. This is a complete reversal of the entire life of Calvary Chapels and of this particular Calvary Chapel of his grandfather who founded the church and was there for 40 something, 47 years more, 46 years more than he has been there, you know, and, um, it's, uh, as the pastor anyway, and it's huge to do this. Calvary has held the line on men and women's roles really well. Really, really well. Not perfectly. Not perfectly, but they've held the line. And, uh, the way it's introduced as this just is one of our values, like surprise. This just is our value. It just is. It's always been this for us. It's been this way for a long time. And you'll hear him talk more about this, but it's complete reversal 20 00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:24.000 and the gifting of individuals by the Holy Spirit to continue the ministry and mission of Jesus in the church and in the world. 21 00:34:24.000 --> 00:35:03.000 I'm going to be pausing him a lot more. So I know this may frustrate people, so I apologize. My reason here is because I'll forget to share things, but, um, a lot of the rhetoric from M. The egalitarian side, uh, will speak in ways where you want to. You're like, I agree with that. How is that even a change from what I. Well, yes, we serve. Yes. Women and women are both gifted. Gifted in all kinds of ways. Yeah, Obviously, we all believe that. That's not even a change. This is just vague language that doesn't actually talk. The shoulder to shoulder part is the only thing so far. And then him saying ordained as pastors, women, um, uh, that actually is uniquely egalitarian. A lot of the stuff, the rhetoric is things that everybody would agree on. 22 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:25.000 We believe that both men and women are created by God in His image and are called by him from the beginning of creation to partner with, with him in building for his kingdom. Both men and women are essential in ministering to God and to one another in the work of this partnership in God's redemption through Jesus Christ. 23 00:35:25.000 --> 00:35:37.000 Yeah, we all agree on all that. None of that is. Now you can bake behind that egalitarian beliefs like, well, if we're both in his image, then women have to be pastors, too. You can say that, but there's nothing in the concept that forces that. 24 00:35:37.000 --> 00:36:11.000 Serving and ministering to the church, the home, and the world. Now, we, as a local church have actually been practicing these things for nearly a decade. Women already serve and lead in every echelon of our church organization, from our board of directors to our executive team, to our directors here at the church, to principals and faculty in our school. And so we aren't changing anything in our current practice, but we simply want to go clarify our biblical position and conviction. 25 00:36:11.000 --> 00:38:30.000 This literally means Calvary. Costa Mesa, for 10 years, has been ordaining women as pastors and hiding it. And now you might be there at Costa Mesa thinking. They weren't hiding it. Oh, yeah, Your own people, a lot of them are, like, what they didn't know. If I go to your website. Let me. Let me go to the Cavalry, uh, Chapel Costa Mesa website and show it to you guys. Um, we'll do more of what Charlo says here. So, uh, Char is the lead, uh, pastor. And he is a pastor. He's listed as a pastor. In fact, I'm going to do a control F, and we're going to look for the word pastor. Okay, so here it is. As you scroll down and you look at the executives and directors, you see the word pastor shows up a lot, always under, uh, the picture of a man. Richard is a pastor. Craig is a pastor. I know Craig. Back in the day, we did youth, uh, camps Together. Sean is a pastor. Right. Brian's a pastor. Jordan's a pastor. Colin's a pastor. Not these ladies. They're not pastors. In fact, every single person on this list of staff and volunteers that has the word pastor under their name, everyone is a man. Yet, based on what Charlo has. Sorry, Charl. Char. It's hard for me to say Char. Uh, what Char has said. Um, several of these women are probably ordained as pastors, and they're just not showing it to you. They're just not telling you. Right. One of them he's about to mention by name is under their Calvary Chapel executive team. If I click Meet the team, it's going to be Dr. Brueggeman. And I don't mean to highlight Dr. Brueggeman. He highlighted her, uh, when he spoke, and he calls her a pastor. Oh. This whole time, I've not had you guys on the screen. Well, everything I said was true. I'll show you in a second. Um, but, yeah, so here's Dr. Brueggeman. So she's not a pastor. She's just listed as schools. Right, Right. But whereas Jordan Taylor, he's an executive pastor. Char is lead pastor. But for 10 years, it just known and done and practiced in their church. Of course we ordain women as pastors. That's what we've always done. That's what we do. We've done it for 10 years. Nothing's even changing in our practice, 26 00:38:30.000 --> 00:38:38.000 in our current practice. But we simply want to clarify our biblical position and conviction. 27 00:38:38.000 --> 00:39:32.000 They're just clarifying their position as Calvary Costa Mesa. This is gaslighting us. Uh, like, come on, dude. Dude. Calvary has a history where the large impact of Calvary. The large impact of Calvary is primarily from the days of Chuck Smith and its impact in the world. And the things churches had looked to for years and years and still look to today is primarily that impact from the past, not since the past ten years. Um, so it's also true that many people in your congregation were sitting under Chuck for decades of their lives and are hearing for the first time that their pastor is saying, we do this, and we've been doing it for 10 years. This is a surprise. We've been getting more liberal, but doing it stealthily. And I'm finally willing to rip the covers off. And it's going to cause fallout, of course, but there's dishonesty in it, unfortunately. So, uh, let's keep listening. 28 00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:39.000 Doctor Brueggeman, who oversees our school, she is such a Pastor, such a, uh, biblical story scholar. 29 00:39:39.000 --> 00:41:14.000 So Dr. Brueggemann, who oversees our schools, is a pastor. She's a biblical scholar. He says, I'm not denying that at all, nor do I have a problem with it. But he calls her a pastor, but on the website I showed you, she's not listed as a pastor yet. Other people on the same page as her, their pastor is listed. This is intentionally hiding it. And that's the. It feels deceitful. It feels like a deception, um, that for years and years and years, there are those who thought, no, I wouldn't have a problem with or even defended Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, going, yeah, they have different views and stuff like that. I think he's a looser, complementarian, but they're not egalitarian. That's not going to happen. And it was because of the misrepresentation that they were presenting to us. And so the reason why we bring this up is because we don't know what you guys actually believe. Now, what else have you changed 10 years ago that you never told anybody? Um, you guys, I have the feeling Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa is not Calvary anymore in the sense of Calvary distinctives. It's not a Calvary anymore. It has a Calvary heritage, but is not currently a distinct Calvary Chapel. Now, I'm not at Calvary Chapel either. Okay? So I'm just saying I'm honest about it, though, aren't I? And if I have concerns or questions about, uh, whether it's the rapture or something, I can be open and honest about it, and you won't find me stealthily trying to trick people about it. So tricky, um, thing for a pastor who's trying to navigate where probably the majority or a lot of his congregation doesn't agree with him on this. They disagree. Um, but the way he's presenting it is not honest about the history of things. 30 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:34.000 And she has wisdom, she has understanding. And there are times where Shawn Havelar, Jordan Taylor, myself, Colin McLean, we defer to her leadership. She leads, we follow, we support, and vice versa. Now, as I said, we're already practicing these things. 31 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:41.000 Listen to how he presents to the congregation. For 10 years, we've been doing this. But the audience, I'm telling you, they don't know this. Listen to what he says 32 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:55.000 and have been for almost a decade. But we say these things to give clarity to you, so that, you know, this comes from deep biblical conviction where we're standing, but also to invite you in 33 00:41:55.000 --> 00:42:51.000 to what? If my church had been doing something for 10 years. I don't need to invite people in my church into the thing that we've already been doing for 10 years. For 10 years we've been doing, uh, we've been, uh, let's just take the example here ordaining women as pastors. And now I'm inviting you guys into that. Uh, so I think this is confusing. I think what's being presented on its face as this, like the church, he speaks, we, he speaks for the church is not true of the church, meaning the people that are there. That it's true of the leadership and of those that are in the know. And now it's going to be true of the church. And probably a lot of people will leave Calvary Costa Mesa as a result of this and I think they knew that would happen. Um, because it's not something they've been doing for 10 years. As far as everybody knows. It's a stealth move. 34 00:42:51.000 --> 00:43:16.000 Now as we consider the role of women in scripture, I want to begin by reminding us that this topic falls under the category of secondary issues. It is an open handed issue that many faithful, Jesus loving, biblical, grounded and convicted people hold differing views on. And sometimes those views are held very strongly. 35 00:43:16.000 --> 00:45:08.000 Amen to that. 100%. I actually wanted to make sure to play this clip even though we're not going to play so many of the things he shares. And you're welcome to watch. I'll link below his two messages where he talks about this, uh, so you can hear other justifications he gives for his view that I'm not going to talk about. Um, but this is important. Uh, this is a secondary issue and it's one I hold to very firmly after having almost let go of it, uh, which I feel was largely influenced by my cultural setting and the pull of uh, the feminism of our culture as it impacts my life as well. And now I realize like no man, it was all smoke and mirrors. The scholarship is not there. It's bad, it's bad. Um, doesn't mean they're not brilliant. Doesn't mean they don't do good work in many ways. And sometimes people can, can spend, you know, 10 pounds of brain matter to come up with an elaborate and complex and well researched wrong idea. Um, but this is a secondary issue. This is an issue where I would still fellowship with these people. I didn't say I'd fellowship at their church. There's a difference. I would, as a Christian, I would see them as my brothers and sisters. I would get a cup of coffee with them. I would Say hi to them. I would hug them. I would greet them as a brother in Christ. I could not in good conscience attend, uh, Calvary Costa Mesa as my church unless there was simply no other good option available for me at this point. For these reasons, but, uh, not because I despise you. I'm breaking with you relationally, my personal relationship with people. But this teaching is not something that I think is good for the body. I'd rather go to a body where it's not being taught. Um, and you don't know where they're going next. I don't know where they're going to be in a year or what they're going to believe in 10 years that you'll be like, surprise. You don't know. Because of that history of flip flop and not being honest about how it got there. All right, let's listen to some more. 36 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:26.000 As a community of Jesus people, we want to avoid judging those who think and interpret these things different from us as being somehow less spiritual, less committed to Jesus, less committed to the authority of scripture or any other thing like that. Now, 37 00:45:26.000 --> 00:46:15.000 I've never heard an egalitarian say that a complementarian or patriarchalist is less committed to the authority of Scripture. I've never heard that accusation. So I think what is being said here is, please don't say that about me. Um, uh, he is not challenging the authority of Scripture. Let's make that clear. We should not jump off the deep end with criticisms. Char is not suggesting for a second that the Bible's wrong, that it's errant, that it's not at all. He is approaching this from a faithful, egalitarian perspective. I don't know how else to call it something where he believes the Bible. He just thinks it doesn't mean what you think it means. Now, he's wrong, but that's not the same as someone saying it's sexist and I simply reject that or something like that. It's not doing that. Yeah. 38 00:46:15.000 --> 00:47:01.000 I have wrestled through this topic for many, many years. I've read very broadly. I've had numerous, just very deep, hard conversations around this topic. And I feel that I have clarity on our practice as a local church. You might strongly disagree with me. You might strongly disagree with my biblical interpretation, my conclusions. That's okay. I'm okay with that. We always hold secondary non doctrinal, non salvation topics with open hands and with humility. One wise Christian put it this way. In essentials, unity. In non essentials, freedom, liberty. But in all things, charity. 39 00:47:01.000 --> 00:49:22.000 A couple things on this. That's from. I'm blocking it. But Rupertus. Maldinius. All right. Who said that? I take this as a good thing. He's saying like, hey, believers in my church, it's okay if we don't agree on this. But what's also there is. But you're not steering the ship. We're going this way whether you like it or not. I'm just hoping that you'll still stick around even if you disagree. I take it to mean that. And, um, it's healthier than if he was like, get on board or get out. I think that's healthy to say that. Um, but that's where they're going. That's where their leadership's going. If you think you'll get newly ordained after today at, ah, Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, and you're not an egalitarian, good luck with that. Right. Like as far as leadership goes and your, uh, growth and advancement or the next senior pastor will guarantee to be egalitarian. The one after that, the one after that, as far as if they can control it. And um. And so it's not just you can fellowship here if you disagree, but there's going to be a ceiling in a sense on that. I believe. Um, that's how it usually plays out for these kinds of things. And that's fair. But let's just. I'm not saying they can't do that in a complementarian setting. Like, as I'm not going to. I don't want to ordain in my church. Uh, m. Not that I'm ordaining in my church, but I wouldn't want to have in my church one of our teaching elders who's egalitarian, because that's a demonstrably false view and it's going to leak out in their teaching. So I wouldn't want them there either. So that's fair. But just so people understand where they're at. Um, yeah. Now we're going to get into some more details about the specific justifications. And, um, there's two messages he gave back to back. I have clips from both that I'm going to share. Just a little snippet of it, just some small bits, because I've covered in detail in my series on women in ministry, which I'll link below and I'll highlight the video on 1 Timothy 2, because a lot of it will be about that. But he'll also talk about Genesis. In fact, in the first week when he announced they're ordaining women as pastors um, he also gave like, a survey of a bunch of stuff in Scripture which read to me like every egalitarian text I've read on the topic. Uh, where they go, oh, in Genesis it means this and this, and it's a post fall thing. We'll talk about some of that right now. I won't get into all the nitty gritty. Neither did he. He just did a survey. But let's dig in. 40 00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:33.000 And within the text of Genesis chapter one and Chapter two, we don't ever have any language of Adam, um, having any kind of authority over Eve. 41 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:44.000 First claim. Let's remember that claim. No language in Genesis 1 or 2. No language of Adam having any authority. Uh, the word authority is not there. But is there any language that relates to that? 42 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:54.000 There's no mention of him being her spiritual teacher. No mention of her being his spiritual physical student in any way, shape or form. 43 00:49:54.000 --> 00:50:04.000 Okay. Nothing about Adam teaching Eve spiritual? I don't know what spiritually means. Okay. Uh, let's just say, remember the teaching claim. 44 00:50:04.000 --> 00:50:33.000 Now, there is a mention of dominance that does come in Genesis chapter three. But this dominance comes as a result of the Fall. But when we simply look at the original text of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 at face value, we see that though Adam is created first, the language is always of oneness and partnership between the male and the female. And it is never of authority or subordination. 45 00:50:33.000 --> 00:51:20.000 Um, oneness and partnership are not the opposite of authority and subordination. Uh, there can be oneness and partnership while one of them has more authority. So the either or framing is not rational. Um, but we're going to look at Genesis 1 and 2, and I just want to mention the important egalitarian point. And yes, he says he's mutualist, not egalitarian. It's egalitarian. The, uh, important egalitarian point is that, um, the Fall is the cause of authority, you know, and conflict. Authority for a husband and conflict between a man and woman in marriage. The Fall is where the authority stuff happened. And of course, with Jesus. You want to reverse the Fall? This is a major egalitarian talking point. I've been over it for hours in my series. I'll link it below. But just know that that's where he's coming from. 46 00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:40.000 Adam and Eve are a king and a queen over God's creation. Together they image God. Together, they rule over creation and perform this priestly work, partnering with God and spreading his kingdom to the ends of the earth. 47 00:51:40.000 --> 00:58:05.000 Okay, I'm not going to get into every single claim he makes. But, um, let's look at. Let me pull it up on your screen. We're going to look at the passage in Genesis 1 to see those two claims. Genesis. Well, Genesis 2 is where we're going to focus. But Genesis 1 has relatively little information about this. Right. Um, and Char doesn't get into the text in detail. He does a survey style where he just makes claims about it. Right? He just makes claim, moves on. I'm m not saying he can't do that, but if those claims are not accurate, there's a problem. Right? So, uh, God makes male and female. And there's not a lot of detail in Genesis 1, but one thing he definitely says is that they have authority. Right. Uh, and that's true. Then God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So men and women have authority, as I've stressed, as complementarians, I think generally stress, but maybe not enough all the time. So men and women, Women, you have authority over the earth as well. It has nothing to do with marriage. It doesn't talk about marriage. Marriage could be a separate issue. It doesn't say, okay, God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Um, male and female. He created them. And so mankind is male and female is in the image of God. All right, now they're told, you know, be fruitful and multiply. You know, have dominion again is mentioned. So we don't have anything about authority for the husband over the wife or anything like that there. But then you get this extended account of just the creation of Adam and Eve. How did it proceed? And we have specific things that are done. I'm not going to read through the whole text, but first God makes Adam. Then God brings Adam examples of all of, like things like trees that these Adams can see. He gets to see the, um. Sorry if this is making your eyeballs go wild as I'm skipping around here. God, uh, forms every beast of the field, every bird of the heavens. He brings them to Adam to see what Adam will call them. Why is Eve not present in Genesis 1? God names. He doesn't just create. He names things. He calls it day and night and earth and all. He names the things, he names them. That is God exerting an authority over those things, is it not? And when he forms the beasts of the field, the Things that he just told man to have dominion over. He doesn't make Adam and Eve, he makes just Adam. And he has Adam name the things that he has dominion over. He names them. So after. It seems there's no helper fit for him. And I don't take helper to be a diminutive term here. Some people do. I have a whole thing on that. So I'm just mentioned that. So I'm not going to make an argument based on the word helper here, but the phrase fit for him is that Eve was made for Adam. Adam was not made for Eve. Char didn't even talk about this. The New Testament reiterates this. Adam was. Not only was Adam formed first, but Eve was made for Adam, not Adam for Eve. And that's a theological point about male headship that is actually stated in the New Testament. That didn't even get touched when he was saying this. So that's the New Testament giving, uh, commentary on the meaning of the Old Testament. That she's. It's not just that she's a helper. It's not the word helper that I'm leaning on. It's the phrase fit for him, which the New Testament leans on to talk about male headship. In First Corinthians. So the Lord God then causes Adam to fall asleep and then forms a woman from the man and he gives her a name. So Adam names Eve. That is pretty significant, actually, because the context of Genesis 1, the naming of things that God makes, then Genesis 2, Adam naming the things that God's given man dominion over. And then Eve is made, and then Adam names Eve. And as far as Adam having a teaching role with Eve, I won't call it spiritually teaching, but that which would be meaningless, uh, in the Genesis context, you're not getting a differentiation between those things. But Adam is going to say Eve, that's an ostrich, that's a caribou. He's going to be giving her the instructive information about the things that he has seen and he has named and so that she is also in authority over those things, but she's not the same as Adam. There is a difference in the Genesis 1 story. There's other things I could add to this. I'll just link my series down below. I talk about Genesis. There's a whole video on the topic. So Char's claims do not hold up is my point. And, um, we're going to look at some more of those claims in just a second. Oh. Then he says, oh, it comes from the Fall. Um, I should just mention this in Genesis 3, this is a typical egalitarian talking point that, um, the authority that a husband has over his wife comes from the fall. Whereas that's not the truth. It's the conflict, not the authority. The New Testament affirms this very clearly. The conflict, your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you is that. Now there's this conflict between them. And her desire is to rule over her husband. And we see this in the same phrase. Desire for your husband is when God tells Cain, sin's desire is for you. It's not like intimate desires. No, no. It's desire to control you. Yeah, there's going to be a conflict now, but it is, in fact, the husband who has that role. Okay, women have tons of authority. They have tons. But in the marriage context, the husband has more. More. And there's different spheres and there's different roles. And all this, all that stuff's true. But it's very clear in Scripture. And, um, I've done the homework to be able to say that with great confidence. Although I could have said it with great confidence before. It's. If it hadn't. If my own confidence in what the scripture clearly teaches hadn't been watered down by bad egalitarian arguments from scholars who should know better. I say that, and I do mean that. I've looked deep into their stuff. I thought I'd find better if it was really not good. So let's dig into more of what, uh, Char has to say about this. Um, let me find it. Boom. All right, 48 00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:25.000 now, as I mentioned in Genesis chapter three, the whole plan goes off the rails. And when God's judgment is dealt out for Adam and Eve's disobedience, God does say that one result of their sin will be a wrestling for dominance. God says to eve in Genesis 3:16 your 49 00:58:25.000 --> 00:59:02.000 to say they will wrestle, there'll be conflict. Doesn't mean that the actual question of male authority just didn't exist before. It's just that the conflict didn't exist. Just as Adam was going to till the ground whether or not there was a fall, but now that there's a fall, he'll till the ground with trouble. Right? Briars and thorns and thistles. And, um, Eve was already going to bring forth children, but now she will bring forth children in trouble, in aches, pains. And so the pain that exists inside of the role differences in marriage, that's the new thing, not the role differences themselves. That's consistent with everything in Genesis 3 and 1 and 2, 50 00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:19.000 desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you. So with the entrance of sin, there is this enmity and struggle between the man and the woman who previously were one who were partners. Now they are competitors. 51 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:30.000 Yeah, in his language, it sounds like their partners means they're egalitarian. And that's loaded into the assumptions here. 52 00:59:30.000 --> 00:59:41.000 So the struggles of the sexes that we often see in history, that we see in culture, is actually something that has come into human dynamics through sin. 53 00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:48.000 See, I 100% agree with that. That's a complementarian view as well. That phrase doesn't do anything to establish the egalitarian view. 54 00:59:48.000 --> 00:59:54.000 It is not part of God's original design, not part of God's will, not intended by God. 55 00:59:54.000 --> 00:59:55.000 Right. 56 00:59:55.000 --> 00:59:59.000 Men are not created to rule over women and vice versa. 57 00:59:59.000 --> 01:01:24.000 False. Uh, now the phrase rule over women I think is loaded. I think it m is meant to sound as strong as you can. Um, uh, but men are heads, husbands are heads. And this is where you go, hold on. He's not just talking about pastors. He's talking about your marriages. The marriages of the people that attend this church are now being told they're egalitarian. And for all the husbands in the room and wives in the room who thought, I feel like I'm supposed to submit to my husband, they're being told mutual submission. Now, male headship doesn't mean anything biblical in the context of this teaching now. And that's what I get more concerned because I think that the, um, the wrongness of ignoring God's commands about men being elders and pastors in the church is even lighter and less of a problem than going into people's marriages and messing with their marriage and pulling them away. From a biblical perspective of not mutual submission is the phrase they get from Ephesians there, which, uh, isn't at all talking about husbands submitting to their wives in that context. Um, there's ways in which husbands can submit. No, no, but you know what I mean, right? The complementarian view is well established in Scripture. And to revert people's opinions on this, that's what's actually happening. Underneath this is full egalitarianism in every aspect. That's what I see. It's not just pastors. 58 01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:34.000 Humans are created to partner with one another, to image God together, and to partner with him to build his kingdom. 59 01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:42.000 Right. Much of that is like throwaway phrases, right? Because everybody agrees on most of that. But the egalitarian parts are all wrong. 60 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:57.000 Now, one last note. Even Before God's judgment is pronounced upon Adam and Eve, God promises redemption and salvation will come, but not through a man, but through the seed of the woman. 61 01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:08.000 Did you hear what he just did? Listen to it again and think about what he's saying. Because in a sense, he's not saying what he's saying. He's saying something around what he's saying. 62 01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:30.000 God promises redemption and salvation will come, but not through a man, but through the seed of the woman. Now, this should be radically significant in the Christian perspective on women and, and God's redemptive purposes to include her. 63 01:02:30.000 --> 01:05:57.000 No, it shouldn't. I'm sorry. Um, Christianity, wherever it goes, it exalts women, uh, it lifts up their status in the culture and in the society. Wherever biblical Christianity travels, it does that and it should do that. And yes, it's powerful that God chose through Mary, through a wonderful woman, blessed be Mary, that the seed would come. But to use this as a talking point for egalitarianism is really weird and wrong to say God didn't do it through a man, but through the seed of a woman. I'm sorry, through the what of a woman? The who? The seed. Who is Jesus? Who was a. Do you know what gender Jesus was in 2026? Does anybody know? A man. He was a man. God saved us through a man. And what's interesting about this is while Eve was involved and Mary was involved in super important ways, super incredibly important ways and lofty ways, yet the salvation came through the seed, not through the woman. The seed of the woman, that's Jesus. And Jesus is a man because men are the heads, men are the representatives. Male headship is why the Messiah is a man. Jesus is a man. And he ignores this. This is what the New Testament teaches, right? Ah. In Adam all die. Not Eve. In Adam all die. It's Adam as our representative that we all fall. Eve isn't. Even though she was the first to eat, the first to sin, she is not sourced as being the one we fall with and fall in. It's Adam because he was the representative. And so Jesus comes to represent us on the cross, and it's appropriate and biblical that the representative be a man because the men have headship. That's a biblical concept. As offensive as it is to many. It is clearly taught in scripture. And it's not, um, this brash patriarchalism that puts, uh, women down, all this other stuff. No, but it is offensive to our culture. So wild to hear him, him make that particular argument. I'm surprised by it. So what we're going to do next though is we're going to dig into the following week. The following week, uh, he gave some more stuff that was ultimately not this overview of a bunch of stuff in the Bible. He talks about a ton of things as he goes through this thing. I mean, um, he says in there to talk about how he's critiquing all of church history. I don't think I grabbed this clip. So I'll just say it. He'll say in there at one point, for too long the church has been a single parent household. And here, uh, he's critiquing all of church history, um, all of church history. And every church, almost every church that has ever existed is seen as a single parent household because it didn't have the mom in the room that is female pastors, which means that Calvary Chapel, publicly speaking has been a single parent household this whole time as well. And privately for 10 years they had a secret moms. And it's just, it's wild, it's wild stuff. Um, maybe I have the clip in here. I don't think I do. But I'm going to go and play the other clips and respond to those and then we'll ask like what do we do now? What do we learn from this? What lessons can we get from all of this? It's not just like news stuff. I don't usually uh, report on things. I try to give commentary that I think will help us think biblically. And this is a masterclass in not thinking biblically about men's and women's roles. 64 01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:29.000 And we believe that this is what God's church needs to look like as well. You know, for too long the church has been a uh, single parent household. We need mothers and fathers to pastor and shepherd God's household with these family like dynamics. Mothers and fathers who will oversee God's people and genuinely serve God, care for, teach, protect and restore the family of God. 65 01:06:29.000 --> 01:07:50.000 So there you have it. Um, in the end the stakes are high. Okay? This is why, even though it's a secondary issue, it's an important issue. If they are correct, then the teaching I have is perhaps oppressively. No, definitely oppressively. Uh, training women to reject their God given authority in the home. Uh, although teach they have a ton of authority in the home but their God given authority in relation to their husbands and to reject their God given calling and giftings to be pastors in ministry. So the stakes are very high. Like I need to repent if I'm wrong on this issue because it's radically harming individuals. On the flip side, if Char's position is wrong, then we have great harm befalling the church when you fall in line with his position because you're rebelling against God's design in marriage and God's specific instructions on how the church is to be run. And so, yeah, these are heavy issues. They're important issues. It's worth publicly disagreeing on them and hashing it out at the end of the day saying, I disagree strongly. I think you're making a huge mistake. I can't even go to your church. I still love you. I pray that God would use you. I. I hope for the best for your congregation. You're still. We're still going to be celebrating in heaven for eternity together. Um, and that's, I think, the right perspective. All right, let's listen to some more. 66 01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:57.000 And we believe that this is the model that we see in the New Testament, and that's what we want to model. Male. 67 01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:11.000 So they believe the model of the New Testament is like, male and female leadership at every level, spread out. So we would have had female pastors in the New Testament, female apostles in the New Testament, Every. Every level. That's his belief, it seems. 68 01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:30.000 Male and female together, shoulder to shoulder, submitting to one another, imaging the renewed humanity in Jesus Christ, partnering with God by the empowering and gifting of his Holy Spirit to continue the ministry and mission of Jesus in the world, to serve the church, the home, and to build for God's kingdom. 69 01:08:30.000 --> 01:09:46.000 And here's what I just want to mention. For those that are familiar with Calvary chapels, you're going to notice there's, like, buzzwords and phrases and things like that that change over time. Um, the idea of imaging the new creation, uh, these things are coming from somewhere. It's not coming from your reading of the text. It's coming from the commentaries and the books you're reading. And those influences are impacting and affecting. And, um, uh, it's fair for people to say, where are you going? Tell us who you really are. Okay, Just tell us. And in that sense, I'm grateful for this. This message. Vichara coming out, being bold enough to say what he really believes. For 10 years, they've apparently believed it and not said it. Now they're saying it. Good. Better late than never. But what I'd ask is, if you're going to continue to call yourselves Calvary Chapel, and you're a Costa Mesa of all Calvary Chapels, why not tell us the other things, too? Uh, just what Are all your beliefs now? What are your distinctives? Why, um, not just put it out there? Because from what I can tell, Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa isn't really a Calvary in the classic sense anymore. Um, and that doesn't mean that they're a bad church in this area. It's very wrong. Women in ministry doesn't mean they're not necessarily a bad church. They may have made some good changes, some good, positive things, too. But maybe just rip the band aid off, tell people who you really are. Because it seems to be an open question now, 70 01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:51.000 but if Paul's common practice was to not allow women to teach in the. 71 01:09:51.000 --> 01:11:13.000 Oh, I got to set this one up. So, um, m. The argument he's about to present here is about one Timothy. So now we're getting into the first Timothy arguments. I just have two major clips to show you, and then I'll close out the first Timothy arguments. One of them is. I'm just gonna. He makes many of the arguments, and they're all the same egalitarian stuff I've heard before, for the most part. Um, there's a couple things that are new that he says in there that I'm like, I've never heard that. He says that Artemis was like the number two God under Zeus. Like, she's like, higher than all the other gods next to Zeus. And I'm going like that. I don't remember. I read a bunch of stuff on Artemis that sounds. That's news to me. I don't know who even claimed that. Maybe that was in the recent book by Glahn. I read her articles, but not her book. It wasn't published yet. Um, um. Or maybe I read her articles. I think her book got published as I was doing my series. But anyways, um, uh, this particular argument goes like this. Yeah. Paul says, I don't permit a woman to teach or have authority in the church. Uh, but if Paul was saying this to Timothy, then Timothy would have already known that. If that was something Paul always did. So the fact that Paul's saying it to Timothy means that it's something new. It's not Paul's normal thing. Paul must have normally been ordaining women to all kinds of positions. And in this case, it's a special circumstance just for Ephesus. That seems like how the argument goes. I'll let you listen to it in his own words. Here it is. 72 01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:51.000 But if Paul's common practice was to not allow women to teach in the church at all. And again, Timothy was a close disciple of Paul, a true son in the faith. This letter says, who traveled the known world with Paul, who established churches and church leadership with Paul. Why did Paul have to write Timothy a letter about this issue? Not allowing women to teach? Timothy would have already known that. He would have already held to it. 73 01:11:51.000 --> 01:13:34.000 The logic here may sound good, but here's how you can test such a claim. You go to the letters from Paul to Timothy first and second Timothy, and you ask how much of this stuff. If I follow this logic, that if Paul had to mention it, then it must be new because Timothy would have already known it. So therefore, Paul only writes to Timothy things Timothy doesn't already know. If you approach the letters of Paul to Timothy this way, you come up with some wild new beliefs like, wow, so Paul just, uh, found out about Jesus. Paul just found out about salvation. Wow, what do you know? Paul just found out that there's qualifications for leaders and that they have to have godly character. That was new. Paul never told Timothy, you know, elders are supposed to have righteous character. Um, Paul never said anything about men shouldn't be acting out in wrath, uh, that we should be patient and love one another. And it's crazy to read one Timothy this way. What it is, is it's a rule that is made up on the spot and only used in one passage of the Bible and ignored everywhere else. Because if you use the rule everywhere else, then you're acting like almost everything Paul says is new. And Timothy, it's like to even travel with this guy. So, yeah, read the letters of, uh, read just one Timothy even and say, I'm going to pretend that everything he says here is new. Uh, it'll be like, that makes no sense. Um, but it's persuasive. Persuasive to people who are listening. So I thought it was worth mentioning that one. Let's do the next clip and then, uh, yeah, see where it goes and I'll round it up and I'll reference you to my work on this, which is very, very thorough, very detailed, and took me literally years, years of focus to do. 74 01:13:34.000 --> 01:14:54.000 But in this specific letter, he says to Timothy, I am not allowing a woman to teach or assume authority. Now, assume authority over a man. The word here is used only one time in the New Testament. It's the Greek word authenteo. I can say that one. Um, it's used for authority. It's a very strong word. It's often used, um, as a term of violence. It's never used positively. It means to be taken against your will. To do something. And in other pieces of literature from that time, you can find this in the context of a master and a slave type of dynamic. Dynamic, Right. Where a master is forcing a slave to do something against their will. They don't have any rights to do something. And so this is a very negative thing that Paul is addressing here. I do not believe that Paul is saying men can have authentea. Uh, men can use this kind of authority, but women cannot. No, this kind of authority is actually an abuse of authority. Authority. It is a misrepresentation of Jesus, like authority, the shepherd who cares for the flock. 75 01:14:54.000 --> 01:30:15.000 Okay, so Paul's only forbidding a specific kind of authority. Um, I'm not going to give you all of Charlo's. I'll share a few things of his perspectives on this stuff. Um, in his teaching, he, uh, highlights a bunch of stuff. Right, Paul's. I'll deal with what he just said in a second. But Paul's, um, letter to Timothy is a personal letter. I've heard a whole. All the egalitarian arguments about this. It's not a personal letter, um, in that it's about personal issues. And it's weird to even bring that up. Um, it's a letter to one person, but it's about running the church. Um, it's about female false teachers that in Ephesus there were these women who were false teachers. And this is part of Char's belief now in 1 Timothy, that there was so many female false teachers that were affecting Ephesus specifically, and they tried to build this with a bunch of gobbledygook about the Artemis cult that is either non sequiturs or it is sometimes things that are just not actually true. Um, and he tries to say, look, there's this host of female false teachers and they are so bad that Paul actually tells Timothy, don't let any women teach. Like, there may be one great godly female pastor in Ephesus. And she has to step down now. All of them have to step down for now. Because there's so many women. You can't just say, no false teaching. You have to say no women teaching because there's that many women. Um, is there evidence of a bunch of female false teachers? No, there's not. There's implications, there's suggestions, there's hints that are in the mind of the reader and not in the. Not in the text. And no, it's not there. And they usually use the cult of Artemis to establish this, which is why I have like tons of content on the Cult of Artemis in my first Timothy 2 video. I'll link it down below. It's only 11 something hours long, so, you know, you can spare time for it. Um, oh, there's other things. Oh my gosh, there's so many weird things. He teaches that, um, the Cult of Artemis taught that Artemis was the firstborn, not Adam. That's a ridiculous claim I tackled directly in my actual series of, uh, videos in First Timothy 2. I talk about that in that video. Um, the word permit, uh, he has a weird interpretation of that that doesn't work with the Greek. And here in the clip that I just showed you, he says the authority that was being forbidden in 1 Timothy 2. The authority that was being forbidden in 1 Timothy 2. Here's the word. Authority is a special Greek word, authenteo, however you want to pronounce it, I don't care. And this word, it means bad authority, right? Like a master aggressively taking over a slave. Um, this is not true. I did an extensive study on the word authentane as it's used here in 1 Timothy and even had to hire a scholar because there was one particular passage that was untranslated in English. And I hired a scholar, Gary Manning, and he did a great job and he translates this thing and demonstrates for us that it never meant what scholars like Philip Paine said it meant. And other scholars like Linda Belville said it meant they were deceiving people about the meaning of alphontaine. Uh, uh, let me restate that, okay? They were leaving people with wrong beliefs about the meaning of alcanteo because of the. What they said the other occurrences of the word have. Because it's an exceedingly rare term. Okay? But I go into tons of detail. We talk about classical Greek and we talk about the Koine Greek and we talk about all the examples. And I had to go and read a bunch of Diodorus and stuff, and I had to get into all the. I had to read ancient astronomy texts and stuff, and I share with you guys all the evidence. So it's all there, plain as day, for people to see in my series. This is not true. The term here is not negative in its connotation. Yet there are many egalitarian scholars who, who will boldly claim things that are simply not true about the word. I was so disappointed with egalitarian scholarship when I dug into it in detail. There's a reason why just about every translation just translates it. Authority, or the one word is translated, exercise authority. Because it, uh, can mean like you're actually actively doing something with your authority, and it's over a man. And they're told they cannot teach or have authority over a man. And to make it clear that Char's interpretation, for those at Calvary, Costa Mesa, uh, or influenced by him, cannot make sense, his belief seems to be that because Paul saw a host of female false teachers, for which there is no good evidence. No cult of Artemis is not good evidence. I go into all the details there. Please check my video out. Um, because there was this host of female false teachers, Paul has a rule. No woman can teach or exercise authority over a man, yet they can apparently do these things to other women. Think about the incredible irony of this interpretation. The solution to the problem is protect men from false teaching, but it's okay if it's done to women. That's his interpretation of this passage. I know he says he thought long and hard about it and read tons of stuff on it, but I want to say, like, you made some wrong turns. Char, please stop. Please go back. Your interpretation makes no sense. It makes no sense. Paul's like, and yes, teach or exercise authority. This is a phrase, and I go into all the detail. It's both of them together over a man. So it's not that a woman can't teach, period, or exercise authority over a man. No, it's a woman cannot teach or exercise authority. Those things, that cluster of two things over a man. That's what it's saying. So the solution to women false teachers is women can't false teach men, or, in Char's opinion, grab authority over them aggressively and wrongly and evilly. But there's nothing barring them, apparently, from doing that to other women. And the justification is, of course, Adam was formed first, then Eve. This is his interpretation of this is classic egalitarian view, um, that this is about the cult of Artemis. And Artemis, when she was born, she was born before her brother Apollo. And then people reversing this. There's a ton of stuff here that is simply not present in the original source material, nor is there any reason to think that it's present. People look all through one Timothy for hints like, well, it has the word braided hair. So that was an appeal to the cult of Artemis. And it's just seeing Artemis everywhere, um, and it's not smart. Um, and then the phrase shall be safe through childbearing. Char has his interpretation of this, and it seems to be that, um, the Christian women are not going to die when they give birth to children because God's going To protect them. I think that seems to be his perspective. It's just the weirdest stuff I get into in all my series. So what do we say in conclusion? What do you do now? Um, Calvary Costa Mesa is a Christian church with Christians, people who love Jesus. And I don't know if there's a lot more under the covers that are in the beliefs of say, uh, the leadership that's there that they haven't revealed. And that's the problem of credibility that it goes. It just undermines trust when, uh, we find out that you guys have shifted beliefs on these things a long time ago. And I know you're kind of in a rock between a rock and a hard place. Did your beliefs change and then the heritage is there. But I want to point out in this entire two sermon series where he establishes we're going to ordain women as pastors, he didn't even mention Pastor Chuck or the historical teaching of the church, didn't acknowledge that they are going directly against things that two of their former senior pastors have taught when with great confidence for years and years and years. And to not acknowledge it, the way in which it's handled it understandably makes people go, what else do you believe that you don't want to tell us until later on? Um, that's an open question now, and it's a legitimate open question because previously the assurance was we're going this far and no further. And in reality, you kept going while you were saying that you kept going quite quietly and in private. And so now, uh, we don't know what you are. Um, so there's a sense in which your credibility is in question as far as do you really believe what you say you believe? What do you believe? Clearly, there's been shifting and changing. Now, I'm not primarily concerned just about one church, Calvary Costa Mesa, but they're putting their sermons online. This thing's going viral. And I know that it will affect other churches. And this will cause a lot of Calvary's. Not the majority. I think the majority won't do this. But a lot of Calvary's to probably stop and go. Maybe we should be ordaining women. And I want you guys to know you cannot trust Char's rendition of what the scholarship, uh, has proven. And surely they say things he says, but you cannot trust that that's what's actually demonstrated and proven. Trust your eyes. Trust your eyes. Read the text. It's a creation mandate. It is clear. It is abundantly clear. So I'd encourage you guys to stick to. To what scripture says on these topics. Do not compromise, regardless of the consequences there. I also recognize probably unless there's a lot more behind the scenes, like they don't even believe in inerrancy anymore. Uh, or even believe in. They think maybe Paul was just wrong and then this is. He's saying other things than what he means. Sure. Is that possible? It is. I'm not going to believe that, though. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that they're now giving us what they really believe, that Char is telling you what he really thinks and believes, but what he really thinks and believes undermines God's design for marriage and God's design for church leadership. That's a pretty big deal. So if it was me, I would be not fellowshipping at that church. And that's a hard question or, uh, hard move to make, uh, decision to make. But over this, I think I would. Because of the trust issues, as well as this particular revelation about what's been going on now for apparently ten years. Um, I hope that other Calvary chapels will not follow suit. I really do. I really do. And a number of Calvary leaders have pulled out of the global network, which maybe that's a good move. Um, in the global network, that was what Broderson started, and it's a loose association. And then the Calvary Chapel association is the other thing, and there were some issues in that, too. So I'm not. Life's complicated. There's no perfect group to be part of. So you guys are, of course, your pastors, and you guys will, uh, make those decisions according to what you believe is best. But let's not follow suit. Um, it is kind of a cautionary tale. Um, ah, sort of a sign of the times, in a sense. And here's my last word on the complexity of all this stuff. Um, Calvary Chapel, in my opinion, should reassess some of its history and some of its things, some of its distinctives should be reassessed. The Moses model of leadership, they seem to have left it behind at Calvary Costa Mesa. And I think that's a healthy thing. I do. I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to have a senior like this is unbiblical and ungodly. I'm not quite there, but I know that if I was planting a church, it would be a plurality of elders. I know that the church I attend now has a plurality of elders. And every week it's a different guy. There's a group of elders, and there's no one man that's in charge of it all. And, um, there's pros and cons to that, too. And that has good things and bad things associated with it, because every form of government, church government, will have pros and cons. But calling it a Moses model, I think is not right. And Moses didn't model this for the church. That's a distortion. Don't call it that. Pastor Chuck just didn't want to anybody over him. That's the reality. Okay? That's the history. And, yeah, I've heard him say so. He just was sick of denominational control in the four square. That's how that started. Um, then the Moses model language came later to justify a practice that came about for other reasons. So the complexity of this is the following. Yes, there are some things that are good to change. Like Costa Mesa has said, let's work more towards plurality. I don't know if they're governed by plurality or if they just exchange people on stage frequently. Um, but the fact that there can be good changes, and you can look back and assess the legacy and history of Calvary Chapel and Pastor Chuck Smith and try to call balls and strikes and move forward in the best way you can to serve Jesus, that's a healthy thing. That's a healthy thing. But it's so easy. And this is something I see as a trend in our day, to look at and criticize something and then go full speed ahead into something even worse than whatever you're criticizing. And we see this often with people who criticize evangelicals and then they launch into folly. And I'm going, I actually agree with a lot of your criticisms, but your solutions are terrible. And this is the thing that we are doing in our culture and our time is we have legitimate criticisms. They sometimes get overblown, exaggerated, or we disregard all the good. That's coming from something in our history, in our legacies that we've inherited. Ah. So we don't have a mixed bag. We just look at it, just criticize, and then we jump headfirst into something that is foolish. And that is what you want to avoid. May we assess, may we move forward. Well, and the only way to do that as a Christian that's reliable, that's going to keep you faithful, that's going to have you doing the right thing in your church, in your life, in your ministry, and your theological commitments, is not by chasing the smells and bells of Orthodoxy or, uh, Catholicism, or of trying to live out an embodied faith in Some new hipster style. It's going to be Scripture. Scripture is what grounds us. Scripture is what checks us. Scripture is what confirms that what we're doing is actually of God. Scripture and Scripture alone. Yep, that's my belief, and that's what I would impart to you as well, if you'll follow me on that path and say, let's go with what the Bible is actually says. And in the case of women in ministry, the Bible's abundantly clear. So Calvary Chapel, I am, um, forever indebted. Forever indebted in wonderful, beautiful ways. Uh, more blessings than anything else I've received from Calvary Chapel. Some baggage, as we do from wherever we come from. And I'm, um, able to work through that, hopefully in a godly and healthy way, but forever indebted to the blessings there. It was at Calvary Chapel that I did my own two years in the, uh, school of ministry there, where, uh, two of my teachers were Brian Broderson and Pastor Chuck Smith. So Chuck Smith and Brian Broderson were two of the teachers we had. Interesting. So I've heard. And I was there to see some of the struggle and some of the differences between the different groups and stuff. Um, but, yeah, reassess, evaluate your history, move forward in a proper way. Um, yep. Check about the end times perspectives of thinking. It's so around the corner that we actually Calvary, Many of them became doom and gloom without justification because they had too highly anticipated that they understood the timing of God's plan. Um, yep, Recover from that, get away from that, but get to scripture and let scripture be your guide. All right, I'm repeating myself, so I'm going to stop.