He certainly is not the only major teacher of Christian Feminism, but he definitely has his unique brand of it. Skip Moen might be a loving husband and loving father to his children. So what is this heresy that Skip Moen teaches? I love studying the Hebrew and Greek languages which are the languages the Bible was originally written in. I love studying the cultural backgrounds of the Scriptures.

Author:Tojashakar Dule
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):2 March 2012
PDF File Size:6.45 Mb
ePub File Size:6.13 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Reprinted with permission. Originally found in Gates of Eden Bi-monthly Vol. That might appear to be the case, because Moen arrives at many of his conclusions by theorizing. I do not know Skip Moen and I have nothing against him personally.

He is probably a very nice, likeable, sincere person. But nice, likeable, sincere people can be sincerely wrong. I am not suggesting that Moen is knowingly and deliberately teaching error and lies. I am disagreeing with his conclusions, not attacking his character. Like just about any book, it contains some truth. This is a fundamental truth which is familiar to most Messianic people. Just because a book contains some truth is not reason enough to swallow the message the author presents.

Even though I sometimes write about controversial topics, I do not enjoy it. I feel no need to boost my ego by proving myself right and somebody else wrong.

Readers can see the first two of these articles in the archives on the GOE web site, or request photocopies if you want to read how I arrive at my conclusions. But for now, very briefly summarized, here is my position.

Ministry-wise, I believe a woman, if qualified, is an eligible candidate to fill any position a qualified man is eligible to fill, with two important exceptions: 1 a woman should not be in a position of spiritual authority and leadership over a man, and 2 a woman should not minister in a teaching role that places her as a teacher of men. I believe it is Biblically permissible for a woman to publicly share testimonies, prophesy, preach the gospel to the lost, and to teach men academic subjects such as math, English, history, or even Biblical languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

But I believe it is contrary to Scripture for a woman to stand before an assembly in the role of a Bible teacher and give Bible instruction to men. I base this primarily, but not exclusively, on 1 Timothy f. The wife is commanded to submit to her own husband and to be subject to her own husband Eph.

But under normal circumstances, these are the God-given commandments to wives. My view was based on the plain truths plainly stated in the Bible. Obey Him? On the contrary, it further convinces me that my view is Biblical. How so? Because I can see how flawed and flimsy and illogical are all the arguments against the traditional, conservative view that I and many others hold.

It was not really my idea. Here is how it came about. Not long after that, I was asked by a man if I would read the book and write a response to alert people to the error and deception in the book. I had no desire to read the book nor to write about it. So I bought the book and prayed and asked the Lord to help me read it with an objective mind and to be open to any correction I might need.

Here is my response. Moen uses the words misogyny and misogynists at least eight times in his book. Moen uses these terms, either separately or together, at least times throughout his book. A man is supposed to trust his wife in the same way that he trusts God. These cognates mean the same in both languages. However, many times cognates do not mean the same in both languages. Basing a conclusion on an Arabic cognate of a Hebrew word is very flimsy evidence at best. When Moen applies all these terms to the wife, this obviously reverses the traditional, conservative view.

I realize that when writing about a phrase and its meaning, some repetition is necessary. The only human in existence was a male.

The concept of a female helper would have been meaningless until after the female was built, so why use a meaningless term? In fact, the etymology of this word suggests someone who has superior military strength. But is this true? Not at all. The helpees — Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Adonijah, Zerubbabel and Jeshua — were the stronger ones in charge of these situations. The ones helping them were their subordinate assistants, not their equals nor their superiors.

They would be coming as the weaker, subordinate assistants. Why were the Torah laws that regulate warfare given to men instead of to women?

This becomes evident when Moen tries to re-interpret the many verses that speak about male headship. Adam is going to rise up against you and take charge. I see it as a blessing for the woman, something that gives her a provider, a protector, a spiritual guide, etc. From now on, he will make the decisions… Instead of forgiving, Adam assumes control, suggesting that the woman is unfit for the job.

From this point forward, Adam takes the initiative. He no longer trusts his wife. Moen bases this outrageous claim on the fact that Adam also gave names to the animals. If naming someone demotes them to the status of an animal, as Moen claims, then parents who give their children names are demoting them to the status of an animal.

Moen goes even further. But even more importantly, it contradicts what the Bible plainly says. Before he attempts to explain these passages in the latter part of his book, he makes several comments about them in the earlier part of his book.

I will answer that question. It is the general introductory statement to the instruction Paul is about to write regarding submission and authority.

First, as an introduction, Paul says to submit yourselves one to another. In the midst of these instructions, Paul gives commandments to husbands about loving their wives, to fathers about not provoking their children to wrath, and to masters about the treatment of their servants.

These commandments to people in these positions of authority are not to be ignored nor minimized, but neither are the commandments to those who are in positions under authority. If this were true, the wife who bestowed authority on her husband could just as easily revoke that authority and refuse to submit to her husband, thereby castrating from the Bible the commandment for wives to submit to husbands.

If Peter had in mind only unbelieving husbands, he would not have used the example of Sarah obeying Abraham, who was a believer, not an unbeliever. And of course Paul writes about wives submitting to husbands. The knowledge that Peter discusses in this verse? This might sound like a good idea, and for some decisions this can work.

But it is unrealistic and naive, because a lot of decisions in life have deadlines. School starts in two weeks. Public school, private school, or home school? A wedding invitation has R. The husband has been offered a better job that will require relocating to a different state, and the company needs an answer in three weeks. We have to tell them something.

What should we do? For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Yes, this epistle was addressed to Timothy. But it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. She is to be forbidden to do so. First, because it is a mere theory without a single shred of evidence. It is eisegesis. But more importantly, because it ignores the very next verse, which tells us the two-fold reason for the prohibition.

When the Bible gives a reason for a prohibition, it is presumptuous and dangerous to invent a different reason to justify transgressing that prohibition. O My people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Probably the most significant passage Moen does not explain nor even mention is Numbers chapter 30, which gives a husband authority to nullify a vow made by his wife. If a man makes a vow, no second party can nullify that vow, it says. But if a woman makes an unwise vow, she can be rescued from that vow by her husband.

All ten of my sources spell the word with a single Shin. If it is spelled with a doubled Shin, it does not appear where it should appear in any of my dictionaries or lexicons, and it is not given as an alternative spelling with the single-Shin entries.

I realize anyone can make a spelling error. Moen makes other non-credible claims based on the Hebrew text. Moen not only adds to the Word of God, he also suggests that it is permissible to take away from the Word of God. Why does Moen say this?

Yes, Junia might have been a man, not a woman. As every day brings us one day closer to that great and dreadful day, the spirit of Elijah works to turn our heart back to our fathers — not only to our biological fathers who begat us, but also to the forefathers of our faith, the Patriarchs.

In the Messianic Movement we see many believers returning to a patriarchal world view, which is actually the Biblical view.


The Heresy of Skip Moen and his book Guardian Angel



Similar authors to follow



Guardian Angel Book Review




Related Articles