Starting off the article in this manner is just appealing to emotion. She wants you to think that people on the other side of this issue “don’t believe in asking questions.” You might as well play scary music in the background and act like this is some great Christian conspiracy to oppress women.
For example, as a young Christian I wondered why women could become missionaries if they couldn’t teach in the church. The answer—if a man is not available, God doesn’t mind sending women (Krizo, God Sends Both Men AND Women).
Missionaries are not the same as people who teach in the church (pastors and elders). In fact, some missionaries sent by the local church do not even have as their primary role to teach or evangelize at all (for example, medical missionaries or missionaries that build houses, churches, water systems, etc.). Conflating the different categories of missionaries and teachers in the church just confuses the issue. In the following text, the Bible identifies several different categories of individuals that God calls for the work of ministry:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-12).
Evangelists as described in this Biblical text are probably most similar to the idea of a missionary implied by Krizo in this blog article (yet she will later try to equate missionaries with apostles rather than missionaries). But even the term evangelist does not encompass all the modern uses of the term missionary. We could perhaps consider all evangelists to be missionaries, but definitely not all missionaries are evangelists. In either case these evangelists are different from both apostles and shepherds and teachers.
If the Bible uses distinct categories for ministry then we should too. An evangelist is not an apostle. An evangelist is not a pastor or elder. The God-defined distinctions are important. Just as the God-defined distinctions between men and women are important.
The answer—if a man is not available, God doesn’t mind sending women. I didn’t like the answer then, and I don’t like it now. (Krizo, God Sends Both Men AND Womenl).
Whose answer was that? Krizo does not say. Perhaps she did hear that answer in the past. But receiving a non-Biblical answer from someone in her past would not justify her giving another non-Biblical answer. And it does not matter if she does not like the answer. The question is whether or not it is Biblical.
But the American church of the 19th century didn’t have a choice. Ron Boehme, from Youth With a Mission (YWAM), visited our church recently and told our congregation that women, single and married, became missionaries in the late nineteenth century because most of the men of their era were gone. The Civil War had wiped out nearly an entire generation of men; there was no one to send (Krizo, God Sends Both Men AND Women).
This is a pragmatic argument not a Biblical one. Plus, the facts do not support their premise at all. An estimated 620,000-850,000 soldiers died during the Civil War. In 1865 at the end of the Civil War, the US population was estimated to be at least 31,000,000. That means that at most 2.7% of the US population died during the Civil War. Assuming that all of the dead were men and that men make up 50% of the total population, then at most 5.5% of all men died during the Civil War. Basically 1 man in 18 was lost. Even if you expand the men lost to include casualties (estimated to be 1.5 million total) the percentage of men lost only increases to only 9.7%. Surely this was a major impact on those men who were of the age to both go to battle and go to the mission field, but it is hyperbole at best to say there was “no one to send.”
Even if the facts were true that there were no men to send, the church still had a choice. Let’s assume that the church, under God’s command, could only send men as missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. If 100% of the men were wiped out under the sovereign control of God during the Civil War, then so be it. Does Krizo reject the sovereignty of God to fulfill his purposes? Does she reject God’s commands when she feels it becomes necessary to meet some good goal? Besides, the Bible does not mandate the number of missionaries that must be sent each year. So we cannot even change the argument to say that there were not enough men.
The nineteenth century brought a freedom and release to women in missions that greatly impacted the history of the world evangelism (Krizo,God Sends Both Men AND Women).
Did you notice the use of inflammatory language? Women had previously been in bondage, but now had been freed! Krizo is again appealing to emotion rather than making Biblical arguments.
Well, that is it for Day 2. To this point the article Krizo not used the Bible to defend her position, but she has used emotion, pragmatism, inflammatory language and bad facts. Jump to Day 3.