Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 3
Is there a Second Witness that forbids Christian women from teaching the Bible to men?
This is question #2 of a 10 question discussion/debate between Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz on the issue of women in ministry. The discussion will take the form of five questions posed by Cheryl Schatz with answers by Mike Seaver and then five questions posed by Mike Seaver with answers by Cheryl Schatz. Each question and answer session will be followed up in the next post by one response each from both Mike and Cheryl. Links to the questions and the responses will be at the bottom of this post. Mike’s corresponding post on his blog is here.
Question #2 by Cheryl Schatz
If God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then why is this the only “law” that does not have a second witness? God established the need for a second or third witness in Deut. 17:6 & Deut 19:15 regarding the importance of establishing a judicial matter and also for accusations of wrongdoing. When Jesus was confronted with the law of the second witness, He subjected himself to this law in John 8:13-18 thus confirming the importance of the law requiring a second witness. Jesus even stated that his testimony was not considered true without a second witness John 5:31-37. Jesus also repeated the law in Matthew 18:16, to establish an important matter.
Paul, like Jesus, also obeyed the law by stating that he had met the conditions of two or three witnesses in 2 Cor 13:1. In Philippians 3:1 Paul gave the reason for why important matters need to be repeated. The reason that repetition is necessary is that repetition is a safeguard for us. This important principle is strictly followed in the scripture to prepare the foundation for this universal principle that all of God’s universal laws to mankind are never given to us without a biblical confirmation. Can you explain why the only “law” that is not repeated is the “law” that forbids women from teaching men? If you disagree that every universal law has the required two or three witnesses, can you please name even one universal law that does not have a second witness?
Answer by Mike Seaver:
I think that the idea that Scripture needs a second witness is a faulty one. The idea of a second witness was set up for fallible, finite humans who are sinful and thus have clarity in reasoning and thinking by having a second witness. Scripture is infallible and inerrant it needs no second witness. When Jesus says in John 5:31, “If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true.” He is not saying that his testimony is NOT true unless he has a witness, but it is not deemed true by humans and in John 8, the Pharisees. It seems like the questions comes down to a view of Scripture. Is Scripture completely true or not? Are Greek and Hebrew original writings completely without errors and completely correct in their teaching or not. If Scripture is true, it needs not second witness to be true.
As far as other theological debates go…if Scripture needs a second witness than all those who hold a Millennial view of Premillennialism or Post Millennialism are out of luck because only Revelation 20 speaks of a Millennium. Only Amillennialist bring this up…usually.
Also, I think the idea that more than one source is not consulted when thinking about whether or not women can be overseers/elders/pastors is a faulty one. Paul, the apostle speaks about it in 1 Timothy 3:2 and in Titus 1:6. He mentions that women should not teach or exercise authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. The order of worship in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (specifically ch. 14) seems to speak about men being the ones leading the corporate meeting. Acts 20 has Paul speaking to the Ephesians elders and it seems like they were all men and this is Luke writing (Acts 20:30 uses “men” as who will rise up from among them). Peter and Paul speak of male headship when it comes to marriages (1 Peter 3:1, Eph. 5:22).
So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.
It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next post will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answer and then Mike’s final rejoinder on question #2. The responses will go up on August 5th.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Links to all segments of the debate:
Question #1 and Mike’s answers
Question #2 and Mike’s answers
Question #3 by Cheryl and Mike’s answers
Question #4 by Cheryl and Mike’s answers
30 thoughts on “Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 3”
Mike said:
“So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.”
It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.”
The question is does the bible, in 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Acts 20, 1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22, OR Eph 4 and 1 Co 11 really imply what Mike thinks or believes it does that is, biblical head”ship” in marriage and male leadership when christians are gathered? To Mike, it certainly seems to imply such.
It’s not great then for women to use their gifts and teach with men present but this is NOT according to what the bible SAYS because it does not say that. It is not great for women to use their gifts and teach with men present according to what Mike thinks or believes is seemingly implied by what the bible says.
In Mike’s view then, universaly women are prohibited from teaching (using their gift) with men present on the grounds of “seeming implication.”
The LAW then that forbids women from teaching with men present IS “implication that seems to exist” (which is a certainty according to Mike).
The LAW has finally been found lol! ;P
Ladies, ladies, you’re having too much fun.
Can I say something in the defense of men and toilet seats?
Nah! Can’t wait. Impatient man that I am I’ll just do it.
Sorry, if I don’t do it now I might forget to take the garbage out.
And by the way, how come when you use my tools
you never put them back where I can find them? Huh?
In the defense of men – It’s not really our fault.
It’ God’s fault. No really, it is, it is.
The Bible says when God operated on Adam,
“He caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam,”
It never says He woke him up again.
But keep on trying, please.
Please forgive us.
And forgive us. And forgive us. And forgive us. And forgive us.
Maybe we’re this way because you need the practice? Well? Huh?
See, it’s really your fault. Just as long as it’s not my fault. Whew…
All things do work together for good….
Love and peace.
P.S. – I’m neither Complementarian nor egalitarian.
Oh man. These words make my spell checker crazy.
There has to be another option.
P. P. S. Wow, My anti-spam word is Adam. Go figure.
Is that a sign or something.
Nuts, tried to post and the wi-fi quit.
Now my anti-spam word is friend. That works. See ya.
I thought Mike’s answer to the first question was severely lacking. However, I think his answer here is a pretty good one:
“I think that the idea that Scripture needs a second witness is a faulty one. The idea of a second witness was set up for fallible finite humans who are sinful and thus have clarity in reasoning and thinking by having a second witness. Scripture is infallible and inerrant it needs no second witness.”
dm
davidbmc,
I agree that it is us who need the second witness. That is my point. Without a second witness, how can we be sure that we have not misunderstood what we think is a “law” that forbids women to teach men? A second witness is safe for “us”. God of course doesn’t need the second witness as He is God. We are not God and as fallible finite humans who are sinful, we are the ones who can be mistaken without a second witness given to us. In this, I too agree with Mike, although that is not likely how he meant it.
Mike’s left out of the equation “God’s laws” and makes the framework “Scripture.” Yet “women should not teach with men present” is not Scripture but rather conjecture. Scripture is infallible and inerrant. On the other hand, Mike is saying that certain parts of it seem to imply this (biblical head”ship”) and that (male leaders in church) and if Scripture says something then it does not need a second witness. But Scripture happens to NOT say the things that Mike believes about men and women and roles. And that it happens to not say any of those things MUST be because Scripture is infallible and inerrant. So when women teach with men present they are not violating God’s law or Scripture but rather fallible human conjecture based on what seems to be implied.
Cheryl, there are a number of points in Mike’s latest response which I believe reveal some erroneous thinking regarding biblical and theological interpretation. Consider, for example, what he says about disputes regarding eschatology. As a convinced Premillennialist, I can assure you that our viewpoint is based on more than one “proof-text” in Revelation 20. It is based on the consistent application of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation to all the OT and NT prophecies regarding the Messiah and the establishment of his Kingdom, in which a multiplicity of biblical witnesses are brought together to provide a complete and harmonious testimony as to the nature and extent of the Messianic Kingdom.
And the point I am making here is, of course, that the dispute over women in Christian ministry and leadership, like the dispute about the Millennium, is not due to egalitarians having a low view of the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, while hierarchical-complementarians have the higher view. Rubish! The issue is one of the consistent use of a biblical and theological method of interpretation derived from Scripture vs. the consistent use of a method of biblical and theological interpretation that incorporates foreign, pagan elements that actually sckew the true teaching of Scripture.
Then, again, he makes assumptions and assertions about elders and their role in corporate worship that is based more on the accidents of church history than on the actual teaching of Scripture. He certainly seems unaware of the comparative studies of 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2 and Titus 1:5-2:5 made by Kenneth Bailey, Aida Besacon Spencer, and Leonard Swindler, using so-called “rhetorical criticism,” which have demonstrated Paul is instructing both Timothy and Titus on halting heresy in the churches must be accomplished by putting qualified male and female elders in charge of the congregations. And where, pray tell, does it say in 1 Corinthians 11-14 that either men are in charge of who can pray and prophesy, or that women alone are forbidden to prophesy or judge any prophesy made? That idea is a reading back into 1 Corinthians 11-14 of what is, as we all know, a very questionable interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12-15. So there are a number of problems with Mike’s answer.
I’ve more to add:
So when women teach with men present they are not violating God’s law or Scripture but rather (man made religious law) fallible human conjecture based on what seems to man to be implied. God’s laws are important for this very reason, so that we know what sin is. Women teaching men publicaly for some comps is sin and for other comps is not. How confusing comp land can be.
It’s about what women can and cannot do based on whether or not what they do is sin. That’s the bottom line.
Is it a sin for women to teach men in church?
Is it a sin for women to lead in the home?
Is it a sin for women to judge prophecy?
Is it a sin for women to lead and have authority in the church?
What do they violate and break when they do these things? Scripture?? Then where does Scripture testify in the first place, saying that such things are sin for women?
Frank,
Excellent comments as usual! I wish in a way that my debate with Mike could go back and forth more to bring some of this stuff out, but we agreed that it would only be a question, answer, then a response each and that would be the extent of each set of questions. I very much appreciate that Mike would even do this as many comps would not engage like this at all. Also Mike wanted my answers ahead of time so that he could prepare his responses. So right now what I will be answering and responding to for the rest of the questions to me from Mike have already been done. Later on we will be posting Mike’s questions to me and my answers with both of our responses. Those have not been fully written yet. The fine points will certainly come out in the comment section. You will likely notice that my answers are a good deal longer than Mike’s. Whether I have more to say or whether Mike is just more concise than I am will remain to be seen 🙂
pinklight,
I like your comment about “compland”. You have come a long way in the last couple of years in sorting these issues out. At least I think it has been close that long since I have been reading your thoughts. When I read what you write, I can see your thought process come through. You certainly are a “thinker”. 😉
Thanks Cheryl! Yes, it’s been a couple of years at least…I’ve come out of the thick fog! 🙂
#3 A. Amos Love,
Very funny! Sorry again for both your posts making it into my spam box. That does happen occasionally. Any future posts should go through okay. I unspammed you 😉
So is it sin for women to teach men in church?
Or maybe is it man’s sin to learn from women in church?
Or perhaps the real issue here in this comp view is about “the presence of men”?
“It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.”
What’s the difference between a woman teaching other women and the same gifted woman teaching men also while the women and men are assembled together? Her gift is the same (gift of teaching). What she teaches the women and men is the same (correct biblical doctrine). And what the women and men hear/learn is the same doctrine coming from the same voice. So the woman’s gift (of teaching) itself is not sinful, her using the gift (teaching) is not sinful (it’s great), and what the women and men are learning (correct biblical doctrine) is not sinful, yet somehow “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly?
Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly, because only with their presence we have “church”?
pinklight,
This is the thing that really puzzles me too. If one really thinks it through, it seems as if men are somehow being discriminated against by God. They do not receive all the gifts that women do and if they are forbidden to receive part of God’s gifts, then is there something wrong with them?
Hi A Amos Love,
“P.S. – I’m neither Complementarian nor egalitarian.”
Well, really by definition, an “egalitarian” is also a “complementarian”… ;P
“Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly, because only with their presence we have “church”?”
“They do not receive all the gifts that women do and if they are forbidden to receive part of God’s gifts, then is there something wrong with them?”
Well, what else would we expect if we begin separating parts of the The Body of Christ from one another? Uhh errr umm…doesn’t 1 Cor. 12 warn of the consequences of this very thing?
“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!”
The Body is the Church.
Cheryl,
yeah, why would God discriminate against men from receiving the gifts for the body? humm…
How come complementarians have a different view of “church” than egalitarians? What does “church” mean to the majority of comps?
Purely conjecture on my part – but it appears to me their “church” is usually made of brick, metel, or wood and on the inside is a “sacred place” for males only, called a pulpit or stage and no female is allowed to desecrate it with her presence.
The Body of Christ to which I belong, says that all members are cleaned equally by the blood of Jesus, and all parts are of equal importance so that every part benefits every other part.
Parden me ladies. You all have a male listening. { ; o (….
You are using the word “men” and “church” alot.
“”Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly,
because only with their presence we have “church”?”“
The “men” with which “church” are you having a problem with?
Let’s see…. We have –
The Traditional Church,
The Institutional Church,
The Religious System Church,
The Steeple Corporation Church,
The 501c3, non profit, tax deductible,
Religious Corporation Church,
The Brick and Mortar Church,
The Pastor Led Church,
The Multiple Elder Led Church,
The Congregational Led Church,
The Pope Led Church,
The Bishop Led Church,
The Chief Executive Apostle Led Church,
There really is a Chief Executive Apostle
No Kidding. Saw it with my own eyes.
The Fluid Church,
The Solid Church,
The House Church,
The Simple Church,
The Organic Church,
The Small Group Church,
The Institutional Church,
Oh, i said that one already.
The Denominational Church,
The Non-Denominational Church,
The Inter – Denominational Church,
The Intra – Denominational Church,
The Underground Church,
The Full Gospel Church,
The Mega Church,
The Baptist Church,
The Lutheran Church,
The Evangelical Church,
The Charis maniacle ism Church,
The Pente it’s going to cost you a L ot ism Church,
If I missed any please help me.
The First Church of
The Pleasant Parables
of The Presence of God Church,
and we believe that
Proper
Preparation
Precedes
Powerful
Performance so we
Pray a lot.
Yea, That’s “MY Church.” Started by my uncle.
He than formed a denomination
and made me, his loving nephew,
second in command and gave me a title.
His Holiness,
The Most Holy Right Reverend,
Father Amos.
Yes, My Church,
Oh no,
Am I in competition with God?
Isn’t Jesus the head of the body the church?
Purchased with His own blood?
Church = Ekklesia – A calling out, called out one’s, people of God.
Church – Ekklesia – The habitation of God.
God that made the world and all things therein,
seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth,
dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
Acts 17:24
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:16
Did Jesus shed his blood for an institution, an organization,
a denomination, a business or a corporation? Hello!!!
He purchased His Church, His ekklesia, YOU, people,
With His precious blood.
“Is it a sin for women to teach men in church?’
Can it be a sin if it’s impossible to do?
Is there anything in the Bible about
pastors in pulpits preaching to people in pews?
I will build my church
the Lord added to the church
great fear came upon all the church
great persecution against the church
Saul, he made havock of the church,
entering into every house
they assembled themselves with the church
Herod the king stretched forth his hands
to vex certain of the church
and had gathered the church together
And being brought on their way by the church
they were received of the church
set them to judge who are least esteemed
in the church. Hmmm? Must be a miss print.
If therefore the whole church
be come together into one place
Christ is the head of the church. Hmmm? Jesus is my head?
Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself for it. Hmmm? Jesus loves me, His church?
feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased
with his own blood. Hmmm? Jesus owns me?
gave him to be the head
over all things to the church. Hmmm?
the church is subject unto Christ. Hmmm?
I have to answer to Jesus only?
he is the head of the body, the church. Hmmm?
I dare you to teach “in” me, His ekklesia.
God loves me and forgives me all my sin.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:16
There shall be, One Fold, One Shepherd, One Voice.
If Not Now, When?
In His Service. By His Grace.
Amos is quite funny, but in his own way makes the same point others have made that Christ redeemed us to be his own people, a royal priesthood and prophethood that offers up spiritual sacrifices to the great Triune God who delivered us out of darkness and brought us into his glorious kingdom of light, and also to procalim the message of God’s present and coming Kingdom so that people may be saved and become children of light. The real problem, I think, is that too many complementarians have an old covenant mindset, which makes distinctions between priests and people that no longer holds under the New Covenant ratified by Christ. But that is a whole different topic worthy of discussion itself.
Frank,
And if those who don’t understand the New Covenant came to understand it, it appears that there would be no room for issues having to do with “publicaly judging errant prophecy” or “teaching with men present”. So I think that understanding the new covenant is a VERY important part of understanding the difference in views between egals and comps, at least that’s what appears to be. And how did too many comps come to have an old covenant mindset? How does that happen??
thanks for your clarification cheryl.
regarding men and toilet seats-why dont women have to put the seats up when they are finished?
🙂
dm
A Amos Love,
You had me laughing for awhile after I read your last comment 🙂 Good stuff…
“Is there anything in the Bible about
pastors in pulpits preaching to people in pews?” lol
Kay, what appears to you to be how comps view “church” appears to me too.
Pinklight, as per your question in Comment 24, there are a number of factors that would have to be explored to give you an adequate answer. And since I presently don’t have time to give you “the full answer,” I will give a “short” answer that may help you see what I mean. Because of their Covenant Theology, some Reformed comps don’t see any major changes between the Old and New Covenants that would permit women to full equals in ministry. Unfortunately, that is all I can say about it for now.
Thanks Frank 🙂
Cheryl – pinklight – Anca – Pat M. – Kay – Alison – Frank – davidbmc.
I do enjoy and respect your abilities to reason and put it in writing.
I do have to read some posts two or three times before it sinks in. LOL
“They do not receive all the gifts that women do and if they are forbidden to receive part of God’s gifts,
then is there something wrong with them?”
Men get the benifit of only half the gifts. ouch!!! Darts!!!
Where’s my shield… of faith?
Seriously…
It’s quite a battle you’ve entered into. Against quite a foe.
“We can’t go into the promised land – there are giants in the land”
You are certainly well armed with info and persistance.
I do have some questions…
Remembering that “We wrestle not against flesh and blood.”
Are the giants you battle real?
And is this the real promised land you’re trying to enter?
or an imagination?
Are you jousting with windmills? A mythical giant in a mythical land?
Some principles of warfare are;
Do you know your enemy and the enemy’s terrain?
And what will be your “evidence procedure” to determine victory?
How will you know if you’ve won? And what have you won?
Not that there is anything bad about jousting
with windmills and mythical giants.
Great practice and fun. One of my favorite hobbies.
You’ll also enjoy being a dragon slayer.
Thought this song would be a blessing to you all
as you battle those windmills and giants.
What is the impossible dream that you dream?
What is the unrightable wrong?
What is the glorious quest?.
Hint…You might ask God before you answer.
Writing them down is good.
To dream … the impossible dream …
To fight … the unbeatable foe …
To bear … with unbearable sorrow …
To run … where the brave dare not go …
To right … the unrightable wrong …
To love … pure and chaste from afar …
To try … when your arms are too weary …
To reach … the unreachable star …
This is my quest, to follow that star …
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far …
To fight for the right, without question or pause …
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …
And I know if I’ll only be true, to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie will lie peaceful and calm,
when I’m laid to my rest …
And the world will be better for this:
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach … the unreachable star …
Be blessed and be a blessing.
“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God…?” 1Corinthians 6:19
“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…” Acts 2:17
A question for complementarians: Is a woman’s body any less the temple of the Holy Spirit than a man’s?