Debate with Matt Slick scheduled

Debate with Matt Slick scheduled

Comments 48 comments

Hey all,

Regarding my previous post about debating with Matt Slick about women in ministry, I spoke to the producer of his radio program (Faith and Reason) tonight and she has set the date of Wednesday, September 19th for me to call in for the debate.

You can listen to the program live on myfamilyradio.com Go to http://www.myfamilyradio.com/player.html and pick the link at the very bottom for “790 KSPD play outside of browser” The time is 6 – 7 pm Mountain time so that would work out to 7 – 8 pm Central, 8 – 9 pm Eastern and 5 – 6 pm Pacific.

The next day the audio should be up at Matt’s podcast site here

Matt is pretty hard on women and it is time to present the other side in a logical, respectful and winsome way. I trust that the Lord Jesus will help me with all of that. Remember David and Goliath? Guess which one I am?? I will give you a hint…I hope to get out alive!

David and Goliath

48 thoughts on “Debate with Matt Slick scheduled”

  1. Awesome! I noticed he pulled the entire recent thread on their forums about Gen. 3:15-16. Too much sense was coming through I suspect.

    BTW how does one listen to the debate. I’m in Hawaii. Don’t get their radio station, don’t think. Will you record it and have it for play back later?

    I guess that is one way to boost the listening audience of his station. 🙂

  3. Justa Berean,

    I have added this information to my post: You can listen to the program live on myfamilyradio.com Go to http://www.myfamilyradio.com/player.html and pick the link at the very bottom for “790 KSPD play outside of browser” The time is 6 – 7 pm Mountain time so that would work out to 7 – 8 pm Central, 8 – 9 pm Eastern and 5 – 6 pm Pacific.

    Dusman,

    Thank you so much for your prayers!

    Guys, pass this around to anyone that you know who is interested in the women’s issue and pray that women will be set free from following tradition when God has called them to ministry for the body of Christ.

  4. Hey “David”– aim between the eyes. 😉

    I’m going to email you some things I’ve learned from experience in informal debates with Calvinists (and evolutionists, cultists, etc.). I’m sure they’re reading this blog!

  5. I am busy Sep 19-21, but am rooting for you. One method I try to use is to just get people to study both sides to see who is right ala Proverbs 18:17. As I see it, there are a few things that need to be established.
    1. The fact that any translation is a human effort and is subject to human error.
    2. The fact that any translation involves interpretation.
    3. The fact that we are not the original recipients of the NT letters and that we are, in effect, looking over their shoulders and trying our best to figure out what it meant to them.

    That is, it is absolutely essential to establish that one needs to go to the original language in the original 1st century culture. I am sure you know all this. Unfortunately, most people do not know Greek, as in “It’s all Greek to me.”

    If you cannot even get this established, then the debate will be settled in your opponent’s mind by those few verses from 1 Tim from his favorite translation.

    I would also be very wary if he controls the microphone, this is an unfair advantage.

    I will be praying for you.

  6. Teknomom,

    Yes, you guessed it – I am “little” David. Sure go ahead and email me your words of wisdom.

    Don,

    I will put a link to the debate on the blog later so you can hear it after the fact. Also you points were well-taken and they will be things I will ponder on.

    Thanks for your prayers! I know I will need them.

  7. Good thoughts Don! I too get very nervous when people try to “carpet bomb” you with what they assure you is “the plain truth of scripture”. It’s a common bullying tactic and I’ve seen it time and time again. What we have is infallible truth in God’s word as revealed in the original autographs and languages. What we don’t have is inerrant and unbiased exposition from translators and preachers. And Cheryl, YOU GO GIRL !!! you have all of us here in this blog community pullin’ and prayin’ for ya!

  10. Under Much Grace,

    Thank you! Hey did you know that Matt has a copy of my DVD for a year now and the only comment he had on the material was that it was “slick”. Unfortunately he meant that in a pejorative way. Yet he still hasn’t given me any objections to the material in the DVDs. I guess that I will get more out of him on his radio show, Lord willing.

  11. Is Matt Slick with Worthy Boards or CARM?

    Worthy Boards are getting ready to blackball you big time. In my understanding that means they are running scared. They sense that your aim is good and you’ve hit a vein. They are afraid of losing something important. And unearned priority of power and control is a loss to those who’ve had it when they shouldn’t. It is something that can only safely be held when the aim is totally unselfish. And this isn’t happening.

  12. Matt is the founder of CARM.

    Yes, I do know about Worthy Boards and how they have removed the thread that I had been posting on. Apparently they think that I might be able to influence others and they can’t allow that. It is a secondary issue of doctrine, yet they have made it a primary issue – an issue of orthodoxy. It is so sad when Christians black list other Christians because they don’t agree on the secondary issues. Jesus talked about severe persecution that would come from those who claimed to have the true faith.

    While there is no one that is looking to kill egalitarians, there is a tremendous persecution that seeks to shut up anyone who speaks out for women. The one comfort I have is that persecution is to be expected and we are to endure it knowing that God will make it right in the end.

    2Ti 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

  13. Today it’s egalitarians… tomorrow it will be those who aren’t “purpose driven”… the day after that it will be Bible believers. And it all comes from “the church”. History tells us that persecution is never worse than when it comes from wolves in sheep’s clothing, from “our own household”.

    “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.” (Rev. 18:4)

    This “heathen” internet may be the last place for true believers to fellowship and speak out, so let all of us who have a web presence shout the truth while it is still “day”.

  14. The point about believers having no infallible interpreters is a good one. In fact, history has shown that sometimes interpretations were made in order to reinforce the existing power structures, such as with the idea of the divine right of kings and the Southern Baptists, etc. splitting off to form their own group based on human slavery being OK. The point is we should resist the temptation to interpret the Bible to give a group we belong to an advantage over another group.

    From the 2nd century until the 20th, it was just “KNOWN” that women are inferior to men, so it was mostly just accepted that men would be the leaders most of the time. THe male hierearchicalists cannot use this argument today, so they have to come up with entirely new ones, but all their arguments are recent inventions. So they try to make their answers sophisticated. What if someone taught today that blacks and whites have different but complementary roles to play? The answer is it would be seen as the racist rhetoric it would be. P.S. This WAS part of the argument in the 19th century for black slavery.

    So the question becomes MUST one interpret some puzzling “women” verses to say that women cannot be leaders and the simple answer is that it is NOT true that one must do this. This is similar to whether one MUST interpret some puzzling verses on slavery to say that black slavery is OK. We know the answer to the latter.

    P.S. When I was praying for you last night, I got a word that a faithful servant (you) were to be willing to “take an arrow” and not respond in kind and that this would allow the Holy Spirit to work on others, when they see your meekness when attacked.

  15. Don,

    Thank you for your words of wisdom. I take that “word” to heart and I am willing to “take an arrow” for sure. I am humbled and very grateful that you are willing to pray for me. I really do need that undergirding!

  16. I have just been informed about a new bulletin board where egalitarians would be free to speak about women’s issues and not be shot down. Paula has started this board at http://theology.fether.net/forums/index.php

    It appears that I will be barred from commenting on the complementarian board called Worthy Boards. It is so sad to see Christians stopping others from hearing the other side on secondary issues. At least one person has been asked to stop linking to this blog so it gives me cause for thought. I must be doing something right if I am considered that much of a threat!

  17. As the male hierarchicalists realize they are losing, they will get more strident; this is the way worldly power works. It will become a test for orthodoxy in those churches where the majority believe it, withness the SBC. The slave owners predicted dire consequences FOR those not agreeing with their “plain meaning of Scripture”.

    On 1 Tim 3:2 “one-woman man” both Bruce Fleming (in Familiar Leadership Heresies Exposed) and Ann Nyland (in The Source New Testament) translate this as “faithful spouse”. Lucien Deiss in the edition integrale (fullest set of notes) of the French Bible TOV says that this appelation in Greek is found on both male and female tombstones in Ephesus. This is one way to counter the claim that they never saw a woman who could be the husband of one wife. One needs to read the terms in 1st century context.

  18. Typo in above, for TOV, read TOB, the note is on p.646 note a.

    Here is a link to Amazon France for this book
    http://www.amazon.fr/Bible-TOB-int%C3%A9grale-Skivertex-bordeaux/dp/2204075671/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/403-1905912-0334001?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189616895&sr=8-2

    Unfortunately, it is only available in French.

    Nyland’s The Source text with notes for 1 Tim is available for free as softcopy from http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/Source/source.htm

    Bruce Fleming book on 1 Tim is available as a free download from http://thinkagainbooks.com/8book-series.html

  20. Cheryl,

    Congratulations! You’ve got yet another badge of honor to wear: getting thrown off the Worthy Boards!

    I think the debate is heating up by the day. You’ve posted articles about the escallating aggressive teachings of the CBMW (as they seem to pull back now even from the “white washed feminist” complementarian postition). They’ve already attempted to turn “egalitarian” into a filthy word. In October, I understand that there are two new films scheduled for release from the patrirarchal camp which should fire up the controversy. One is The Return of the Daughters and the other is The Monstrous Regiment of Women–all to set the rest of the Christian world straight. (I certainly don’t see how it can be considered very evangelical.) And SharperIron.com took down the majority of their articles concerning Doug Phillips and the Family Integrated Church movement after Don Veinot’s article in the MCOI newsletter went online. Phillips (an attorney) has requested all the names and addresses of the MCOI Boards and Don’s senior pastor. Many view this debate as a war, and they posture quite violently in their “taking” of the opposition.

    I think that it’s more than just the Worth Boards running scared. Have all North American Christians lost the ability to agreeably disagree? Or was that always just a nice idea that no one ever realized? Praise God that He watches over His Word to perform it! And God bless all the Davids with their slingshots.

  21. The link to the Return of the Daughters did embed in the above post (those in attendance at Doug Phillip’s local “church”).

    Here is the proper link to the Monstrous Regiment of Women:

    http://www.monstrousregiment.com/

    They seem to do an excellent job of painting only two acceptable alternatives for proper behavior of women and mothers, then polarize it against the worst possible examples of strident, God-hating feminists in the full, God-hating sense. I understand that neither Phyllis Schafly nor Carol Everett are pleased with their inclusion in the film, later realizing how the information was to be used.

  22. Under Much Grace,

    Blessing dear sister for posting the links to these two films. It is so amazing to me that there are attacks and pressures coming from so many places. Many want to try to lump godly Christian women who flow in their spiritual gifts together with worldly feminists who have a chip on their shoulder against men. And the second clip seemed somewhat surreal. Daughters staying at home with their fathers instead of seeking for individual maturity just seems out of place in this day and age where women are being given more and more freedom to excel at whatever they want to do. I did notice that every woman in the clip had long hair. I wonder about the message this proclaims. Do women who stay at home with their fathers under their father’s rule even as adult women, show their badge of submission to male rule by long hair? I for one am so glad that God doesn’t have such a rule.

    Freedom and maturity in Christ means looking to the Lord for the direction of our lives, not as adult women looking to the decision making of our Fathers. I really like how the apostle Paul tells us to be mature and quit acting like little children. I see that as for all of us – not just the men!

  23. Cheryl,

    Since you ask: Do women who stay at home with their fathers under their father’s rule even as adult women, show their badge of submission to male rule by long hair?

    The hair seems to be communicated, as in so many of the cults, by social reinforcement, grapevine communication and modeling of what the group desires through milieu control.

    This group represents what I call “next generation” teachings of Bill Gothard. They have taken all of this avoidance of any attraction or emotional attachment before marriage and made it into “courtship” doctrine which continues to grow in popularity. Hence, as many may be aware, this group of patriarchy holds to their courtship model where women stay at home and remain in their father’s care until marriage or death. (Ovid Need, father of the woman who appears in both videos runs a matchmaker service for Christians, BTW.) I’m not sure what they do when the patriarch dies? Maybe the excommunicate the widow and daughters?

    For complementarians everywhere, I hope this is not the trend for all. I know Phillips aligns himself with some of the prophets of the CBMW, but he is far more restrictive than they are pragmatically. Hopefully, CBMW will not follow down Phillips’ path –or at least not too soon.

  24. I’ve seen it even worse than that.

    I once stumbled upon a message board that was so extreme in its view of women as slaves or children, it made me sick. This was perportedly a “Christian” site! The wives were to be given regular spankings and even “maintenance” punishments to “keep them in line”. And that’s about the only thing I can stand to post about it.

    This is even worse than Islam, and rivals the depravity of the Talmud. Satan’s hatred of women knows no bounds.

  25. I recommend you read Groothuis’ paped on 1 Tim availble for free from CBE website. It points out a lot of flaws in the hierarchical interpretation.

  27. Under Much Grace,

    Thank you for your prayers! I do need extra grace from the Lord tonight and I trust he will give me that blessing.

  28. Hoo boy! I don’t know how, but I managed to listen to the whole debate. Cheryl, you had much more patience and poise than I would have had.

    I took some quick notes, and here are the main things I put down:

    — Slick doesn’t know the difference between grammatical gender and biological gender (linguists all know this)

    — He only wants to “dig” if it suits him

    — he only wants to consider society in context if it suits him

    — he wants a “checklist” only when it suits him

    — he says “A CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW BETTER”. I couldn’t agree more!!

    — he wants to dish out ad hominem but not take it; accused you of listening to “worldly” reasoning

    — he appears ignorant of scholarship on Greek word meanings

    — at about 30 minutes he starts groaning, sighing, and getting high-pitched and emotional, then can be heard laughing

    — he allows women to teach men but “not as elders or pastors”, as authorities, and gives “Adam was made first” as the reason!

    — he refused to back up his “federal headship” when pressed whether Eve would have been charged with sin if only Adam had sinned

    — rejects Jesus taking away all sin!

    — accused you of misrepresentation

    — called you a CULTIST in style… BECAUSE YOU DIG INTO SCRIPTURE!!

    — called you DECEIVED

    — wants to pick his personal choice for what AUTHENTEIN means even while admitting no other scripture uses it

    — can’t get past believing “pastors and elders have authority”

    Slick would be very hard-pressed to prove that last one. You may be interested in a discussion on this topic at my message board.

    For example, “pastor” is a gift, not an office. Only “elders” can be appointed, and he should know better than to claim the word for “elder” in Titus 1 is only referring to males; it is simply the plural form and does not mean only males. In Chapter 2 we see the words “male elders” and “female elders”, and no contextual reason to change the meaning there to “older men” and “older women”, especially given the overall context of the entire letter. And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!

    That seems to be his big sticking point.

    Overall, he acted the way I fully expected him to, and he could barely contain his frustration with frequent sighing in the background. You had him on the ropes Cheryl, whether he’ll ever admit it or not. I only hope that the women listening will at least check out the calm and uninterrupted DVD set, or the many fine articles available at your blog and other sites.

    Kudos for the effort!

  29. To: Cheryl

    I am looking forwards to listening to the audio when you can get a link up cheryl.

    thanks for taking a lot of ‘hits’ today for all of us who believe that God has no favourites and we are all – both male and female – ‘priests and kings’ before him through Jesus. I pray that the Lord refreshes you in your spirit after such a challenging and no doubt draining ‘chat’ with Matt.

    to: teknomom

    thanks for your summary teknomom…
    i am interested in your comment above regarding titus 2 –
    “And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!

    Can you flesh this out a bit more for me- which greek word/phrase are you refering to?

    can you pls point me to the specific greek word/phrase that you are referring to… so i can be a good berean and get my head around what you are saying? sounds very interesting indeed.

    Michael Kruse just wrote a helpful post on the titus passage – part of his household code series. he makes some helpful insights on why titus is to get the ‘older women to teach the younger women’ too… in summary Michael shows how these codes (found in places such as Titus 2; Eph 5-6; 1 Peter 2-3 etc) are missional in focus. The behaviour of the church was to always forward the message of the gospel and not hinder it by ‘unnecessarily’ offending the culture of those in which is was being lived and preached. It was socially taboo for a man to teach young women – especially single women – thus Titus specifically asks the older women/ female elders in the church to instruct the younger women. This was not meant to be understood as a rule that they MUST ONLY teach the younger women… see http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/09/household-hou-3.html if you want to read more on this.

    thanks to all who contribute such helpful insights on this website.

    (-:
    Kerryn

  30. Teknomom,

    Thank you for summarizing the points and your thoughts! I had a stack of notes regarding which way to go and I wanted to get 1 Timothy 3 out of the way first. I was nice to see Matt half-heartedly agree that 1 Timothy 3 is “normative” not a check list. So “if” the overseer is a man, “if” he is married, and “if” he has children then all of the characteristics should apply.

    I had so many people praying for me that I was really pumped tonight. I didn’t think we would even get to 1 Timothy 2 tonight but it so happened that we got to the meaning of the scripture just when time ran out. This should give Matt time to research my position for the next debate on September 26th, 2007. It will be interesting to see what he says since he apparently has not been able to answer my exegesis since he received the DVD set a year and a half ago. He did say that he never watched it but that isn’t true since he wrote me a week later and threw out a few insults on parts of the DVD set. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is getting older like me and must have forgotten that he watched it and wrote me that it was “slick”.

    The audio of the debate will go up very shortly.

  31. Hi Kerryn,

    Thank you for your support! Yes, I did get a lot of hits today, but they rolled right off my back. I’ve had worse from the JW’s. I understand why Matt does this to a point. It is a way of deflecting the questions that he cannot answer. My point was to love him enough as a brother in Christ so that in the future when we are on the same page regarding women’s gifts in the church then I won’t have any regrets. If it is possible to live without regrets, then that is what Christ-likeness means to me.

  32. To: Kerryn

    “Elders” is from the Greek word “presbuterous” (plural) [masc. is presbutas and fem. is presbutidas].

    “Guardian” or “Overseer” is from the Greek word “episkopos”.

    “Deacon” is a transliteration of the Greek word “diakonos”; the translation is “minister” meaning “one who serves”.

    The word “elder” sometimes is rendered “older man” or “older woman”, other times as the title of an official. Context has to be used to determine which is meant. But we at least know that both are possible meanings.

    That “elder” word is used in Titus 1 for people who were to be appointed, so these had to be “Elders”, not simply “older people”. Then in ch. 2 we see the same basic Greek word yet instead of “Elders” it is typically translated “older men” and “older women”. Were these not the “appointees” Paul just wrote about a few paragraphs earlier? Titus had been left in Crete for the expressed purpose of appointing “Elders”, yet for some reason translators think the subject changed. Can it be prejudice? After all, if these appointed officials are the subject, then it would mean– gasp!– that there were such things as female Elders! Horrors!

    These women were to be “holy as is fitting for their appointment…”. The Greek in Titus 1:5 is “katasteses” (verb), and in 2:3 is “katastemati” (noun). Both are listed in the same spot in Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon with the meaning “behavior, appearance”, yet 1:5 is given the meaning “appoint”. This makes no sense; how can it mean “behavior” in 1:5– “I left you in Crete to **appear** elders in every city”? Vine’s Expository Dictionary also uses “appoint”, which makes sense, yet we have to wonder why the lexicon does not include this meaning.

    At any rate, the same root word is used in both 1:5 and 2:3. It makes perfect sense to continue the “appoint” meaning in 2:3– “likewise the female elders to behave as is proper for their appointment”. This same word also appears in Acts 6:3 for appointing people to oversee the distribution of food to the Greek widows. Strong’s has these words under 2688 “behavior” but then says “from 2525” which means “appoint, ordain”. But it’s always wise to consult experts in Greek, and one respected scholar is Dr. Ann Nyland. She translates the words as “appoint” and “appointment”.

    So we have the same root word, and it is translated “appoint” in places where either men are clearly indicated in the context or the context is not specific. Yet in the instance where women are clearly indicated, they switch to “behavior”. Inconsistent, to say the least, and likely prejudicial.

    I should also add that Titus 2:4 has the word “neas” from which we get “neo” or “new” (primary meaning of Strong’s 3501). So these female elders were to teach the “new” female believers, not “young women”.

    Hope that helps!

  33. Hey there Teknomom

    thanks so much for your detailed response.
    i’ll be a good berean and try and get my head around it now.
    i appreciate your efforts in explaining.
    God bless you as you serve him so passionately!

    (-:
    kerryn

  35. Teknomom, it is really nice to see someone else come to the same conclusions as I have. And thanks for the workup on the word “katasteses”.

    It is sad to see so much bias in translations. But it cannot be helped due to individuals having blind spots in their understanding resulting in circular reasoning and inaccurate translating.

  36. I am very familiar with who Matt Slick is and what he’s about. I haven’t read every post in this blog, but I see Matt Slick getting misrepresented. I don’t have time to go back and read through the blog to find examples. The comments are there for anybody to read. I’ve seen people on here claim victory (when Cheryl clearly got spanked by Matt Slick on “Faith and Reason”) and jump to conclusions out of false assumptions. Cheryl begged Matt Slick to let her ramble on about her personal experiences, on Matt’s radio show, while her “biblical responses” were not adding up. Matt has let Cheryl know that he’s not interested in stories, only what the text [Bible] says.

    (I have copied this comment to my latest blog post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/)

  37. From my own studies on this topic, I must disagree with those before who have said that women can be teaching elders. Here is the passage:

    “This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

    The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.

    As for your readers’ comments about Matt Slick, they are doing the same that they accuse him of, in particular post #28. This reader recites a list of ad hominems, and even admits to their speculative nature.

    (I have copied this post to the latest blog post on debate #2 at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/)

  40. Question to Don Johnson:

    Don, have you personally checked the Bible TOB with notes by Lucien Deiss? Does Deiss really give cites to inscriptions showing that mias gunaikas aner was put on tombstones of men AND women? If so, I will buy the Bible TOB edition integrale and find a French translator.
    Joanna

    P.S. I was a philosophy major, an Army officer (JAG), and am a retired litigation lawyer (trial and appellate) who converted to Christianity fairly late in life. I was astonished to see males, who usually have less education and leadership experience than I, lording it over me, forbidding me to speak, etc. SO! I am writing a definitive paper on the “woman” issue using the techniques of litigation attorneys. It’s fun and an approach I haven’t seen before. For example, I defend Eve on the charge that SHE was the first to sin and the Bible just says Adam is the one who brought sin into the world because it was his job to control Eve; and besides, “what the woman does doesn’t count”.

    The pastor who said the foregoing actually said that women couldn’t be pastors because, among other reasons, Eve was the first to sin!

    One thing I have noticed about the male supremacists [that is what they are, and that is what we should call them because male supremacy is as ugly as white supremacy, “Aryan” supremacy, etc.], is this: They don’t know Logic! I could write a Logic textbook just by listing and discussing the logical fallacies they make. Really, it is embarrassing – aren’t they supposed to be educated? J.

  41. Joanna. that is a great idea if you have the energy for finding a translator for the French Bible. I’ve thought of it. But I live in the boondocks so to speak.

    You’ve a good point about missing logic. 🙂

  42. To Agent Starling Post # 37

    Two points for you to consider:

    1). Let’s use Logic: 1 Tim 3:8-12 sets forth the qualifications for diakonos, one of which is “mias gunaikos andres”, traditionally translated as, “the husband of one wife”.

    BUT Romans 16:1-3 says Phoebe was a diakonos, and Paul praised her and her work. Therefore, “mias gunaikos andres”, whatever it means, can NOT disqualify women from serving as diakonoi. For the same reason, “mias gunaikos andres” (andra, aner) can not disqualify women from serving as episkopoi or presbuteroi.

    2) You have failed to consider that the phrase, “mias gunaikos andres” may be an idiom. An “idiom” is an expression to convey a certain thought which is not dependent upon the actual meanings of the words used. For example: During the Viet Nam war, we spoke of soldiers who “bought the farm”. That does not mean that after they were discharged from the service, they became farmers! It means they were killed in action! If we say John “dropped a dime” on Bob; it doesn’t mean that he physically dropped a dime on Bob – it means John called the police on Bob; “taking a power” is an idiom for leaving the area; and so on. English is full of idioms; so is Greek. Google “Greek idioms” – you will see!

    IT IS ALWAYS AN ERROR TO TRANSLATE (or understand) IDIOMS LITERALLY!

    I, for one, am going to try to track down the page from the French Bible TOB wherein French scholar Lucien Deiss said that “mias gunaikos andres” appears in Ephesus on the tombstones of woman. See Don Johnson’s posts.

    Joanna

  43. Joanna,
    You are playing gymnastics in order to make God’s word fit your theology. The point in 1 Tim 3:8-12 is simple.
    What does the deacon or pastor differ on with every other position in the church headship? The answer is preaching. Why? Because preaching God’s word behind the pulpit is putting yourself in an authoritative position. God has made it clear, throughout scripture, that leadership (in the church structure and family) is assigned to the what? The man. Yes, men have roles too. It’s not that fun anyway. Now, your presupposition on this “idiom” phenomena is not accurate with the topic at hand. You cannot prove it. Sure, you’ll try to use more gymnastics from other sources to fit your theology, but you cannot prove your point from the only source you should look for this proof: the Bible. I would encourage you (those who support woman pastoring) to stop fighting with God and subject to His word alone. Rebelling against God will not get you far.

    In the Sovereign Lord who created hierarchies and role-playing,
    Zach Kueker

  44. Zach,
    Those of us on this blog love God and we love his Word. None of us want to practice games with God’s word. There is no such thing as “church headship”. The only “head” of the church is Jesus Christ himself and any man or any woman who wants to have this position is usurping the “headship” from Jesus.

    There is also no such thing as a “pulpit” in scripture. This is man’s invention to elevate people to a position of having “authority over” others. We would do well to listen to Peter who cautioned leaders not to take a role of lordship over the body of Christ:

    1 Peter 5:3 (ISV) Do not lord it over the people entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

    As far as proving that men and women do not have differing “spiritual roles”, I would encourage you to get a copy of my DVD. I have a very high view of scripture believing that every word and every piece of grammar is God-breathed. If after viewing the DVD set you are able to refute the exegesis then I ask you to contact me and show me where I am wrong. If you can do that we are in a win-win situation. If you cannot show the errors, then perhaps at least you can see that godly Christians can have an extremely high view of scripture and view the scriptures in context to include both men and women in giving out God’s word and that God’s word does not force any Christian to withhold their God-given spiritual gifts from anyone or any group based on their gender.

    The bottom line is that this secondary issue in the church concerning women is not something to divide over. We can love one another and treat each other with kindness and respect and not charge the other person with rebellion to God’s word.

    Blessings and thanks for stopping by!

  45. Dear Zach,
    Amen to Cheryl’s response to you.

    1) You seem to think the Bible establishes a power structure where one group (males) is given, by God, the right to have power over another group (females). But that is a perversion of Scripture.

    What is the difference between male supremacists, white supremacists, and Aryan supremacists? There is no difference. Each group claims the right to have power over another group because of an “accident” of birth. What is the difference between totalitarian politicians who want to control every aspect of other peoples’ lives, and male supremacists who want to control females? There is no difference. All tyrants believe they have the right to have power over other people. Whether one claims the right to have power over the bourgeoisie, Jews, blacks, or women, the evil is the same: the lust to have power over other people, to use them, and to glorify one’s self at their expense.

    The notion of male supremacy/female inferiority flatly contradicts what Scripture says of human relationships. Look, e.g., at what Jesus said at Mat 18:1-5, 20:25-28, 23:11-12; Mark 9:33-37, 10:41-45; and Luke 14:7-11, 22:24-27. See also Eph 4:2, Philippians 2:3-4, Col 3:12, as well as 1 Peter 5:3-5. Christianity is not about lording it over other people! That is what some of the disciples were wanting to do when Jesus rebuked them!

    The male supremacists’ root sin is pride – they love status and supremacy over others. But look at Mat 23:5-12, Mark 12:38-40, and Luke 11:43-44, 20:46-47 where Jesus shows that such reveals a serious spiritual problem. In fact, at Luke 11:44, Jesus referred to those who love supremacy over others as “unmarked graves”.

    Galations 3:26-29 shows that distinctions of worth and value are not made based upon racial or ethnic origin, social status, or gender. Rev 1:5-6, Rom 8:16-17 and 2 Tim 2:12 show that all Christians are royalty, priests and fellow-heirs with Christ. Yet YOU presume to have the right to exercise power over women who are Queens, priests and fellow-heirs with Christ!

    2) The male supremacists ignore the above passages, and focus on a handful of other passages, all of which are mistranslated.

    I now move to the next issue: how does one learn the true meanings of the Hebrew or Greek words or phrases used in the Bible?

    There are two methods of literary analysis: (1) DECONSTRUCTION, or (2) SEARCHING FOR THE OBJECTIVE MEANING OF THE TEXT.

    The deconstructionist reads in a meaning which fits his own preconceptions. The male supremacists are all, every one of them, deconstructionists when it comes to the “women” passages.

    But those searching for the OBJECTIVE MEANING of the text look for EVIDENCE of how the word or phrase has been used elsewhere.

    a) If a word is used many times in Scripture, we can look up every use of the word, study the contexts, and from that we can often ascertain the objective meaning of the word. For example, Gen 2:18 & 20 use the word ezer to describe Eve’s relation to Adam.

    The male supremacists deconstruct that passage and read in a meaning of Eve’s inferiority to Adam: she is his “little” helper in the sense of, “now you run into the kitchen and make me a sandwich while I do the brain work”.

    But those who look for the objective meaning of the word find out that ezer is used 20 (or so) times in Scripture. Twice it refers to Eve, twice to military allies, and in the other places, it refers to GOD, AS OUR HELP, SHIELD AND DELIVERER. Since the same word refers both to God and to Eve, it necessarily follows that Eve’s being Adam’s ezer does NOT place her in a subordinate status to Adam. So what kind of help is Eve to provide? Hummmmmm?

    b) If a word is rarely used in Scripture, how do we find out what it means? Well, if it is a Greek word, we have a mountain of evidence we can examine: The writings of the ancient Greek philosophers, poets, playwrights, historians, etc. We look at their works to see how they used the words in order to ascertain the meanings.

    Recently, via the discoveries of the papyri & inscriptions, we have found numerous writings consisting of everyday documents (contracts, letters, records, gravestone inscriptions, etc.) written in koine Greek and made around the times of the New Testament. These discoveries show us for the first time what many Greek words in the N.T. actually mean! Get Ann Nyland’s new translation of the N.T. : The Source New Testament with extensive lexical notes on Greek word meanings. The lexical notes are fascinating.

    So, when one finds a phrase which is used only 3 times in the Bible, mias gunaikos andres (andra, aner), how does one know what it means?

    The male supremacists deconstruct the passage and read in a meaning which fits their preconceptions: That only males can be diakonoi, episkopoi, and presbuteroi, because a woman can’t be “the husband of one wife”.

    But it is logically impossible for the phrase to mean what the male supremacists claim it means: Look at this logically:

    Mias gunaikos andres is one of the qualifications for diakonos (1 Tim 3:12)

    Phoebe was a diakonos, and Paul praised her and her work (Rom 16:1-3)

    Therefore, mias gunaikos andres, whatever it means, can NOT disqualify women from serving as diakonoi (and for the same reasons, it can not disqualify them from serving as episkopoi and presbuteroi).

    So what you attempt to dismiss as “gymnastics”, is actually Logic. Logic is clear thinking! Logic is a tool which enables us to deal with objective facts and reality, without being influenced by our own preconceptions, sinful natures or emotions.

    So what does mias gunaikos andres mean? Well, we know it can’t mean what the male supremacists say it means. We can find out through investigation, that koine Greek was rich in idioms. An idiom is a phrase whose meaning is not dependent upon the words used. My example was that of an American soldier in Viet Nam who “bought the farm”: it does NOT mean he became a farmer after the war; it means he was killed in action. So we can form an hypothesis that mias gunaikos andres is an idiom. But how do we know what it means? Well, those who search for the objective meaning of the text, search the Greek literature, the papyri & inscriptions, for uses of the phrase.

    If mias gunaikos andres was in fact on the tombstones of women, as well as men, during N.T. times, then that is conclusive PROOF that it doesn’t mean what male supremacists say it means. And it becomes very likely that the Greek scholars who already are saying the phrase is an idiom which means, “faithful to one’s spouse”, are correct. So, do you see?

    Surely, even without your having studied Logic, you can see that this interpretation of mias gunaikos andres is consistent with the undisputed FACTS that Phoebe was a diakonos and Paul praised her to the skies (Romans 16:1-3). Surely you can see that the male supremacists’ interpretation of the phrase is INconsistent with the FACTS that Phoebe was a diakonos held in high regard by Paul. Is this why male supremacists consistently IGNORE Phoebe?

    So I say we must search for the objective meaning of Hebrew and Greek words and phrases used in the Bible.

    But YOU say one shouldn’t look outside the Bible for word meanings. You thus imply that you get your meanings from the Bible. But you don’t. Male supremacists are driven by their own sinful natures and read in meanings which fit their preconceptions – they deconstruct the passages, and IGNORE the passages in conflict with their deconstructed interpretations. And even when a word is defined in Scripture, as with ezer, the male supremacists lie about what the word really means (assuming they even know).

    So, Zach! Are you able to take on two women in an intelligent discussion? Why not take Cheryl up on her proposal: I hereby challenge you: Listen to Cheryl’s DVD, and point by point, discuss it on this forum. There! I have thrown the gauntlet in your face!

    Just take heed, the “little ladies” are not ignorant and inexperienced; and you won’t get away with any sloppy thinking.

    And if you have any questions of me, fire away! I’m sure you can’t be any worse than appellate court judges.

    Joanna

    P.S. There is no king but Jesus!

    P.S. to Justa Berean: Thank you for your note! It was like being welcomed to this forum. I would have just the note cited by Don Johnson translated: from the French Bible TOB, edition integrale, page 646, note a. I would send it to a French teacher in a university – hopefully a teacher who doesn’t have a dog in this fight.

    I live in the boonies also: my most intelligent daily companions are goats and cats.

  46. Joanna, no need to buy a French Bible. There is a better note in the well respected BDAG under eis:

    ???? ???????? ???? a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16–29.

    William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 292.

  47. Thanks Christian for that information and welcome to my blog!

    I looked up the quote and here is a screen print for those who are interested.

    [caption id="attachment_2624" align="aligncenter" width="877" caption="Eis from BDAG lexicon pg 292 on WIM by Cheryl Schatz"]Eis from BDAG lexicon pg 292 on WIM by Cheryl Schatz[/caption]

  48. Here is the caption again smaller width so that hopefully it fits in the column. If not just right click to copy to save the jpg onto your computer.

    Eis from BDAG lexicon pg 292 on WIM by Cheryl Schatz

Comment to join the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: