Cheryl Schatz, Author at Women in Ministry

Spiritually different by design?

November 12, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 61 comments

CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) puts on conferences called “Different by Design” and in these conferences they teach that God created men and women different for different purposes.

While we can agree with CBMW that men and women are created physically different, does this mean that God created them also spiritually different? How will we know? Let’s ask ourselves some questions to see if the bible gives any indication that men and women are spiritually different.

1. Do men and women have different ways for being saved?

2. Are men and women designed to come before God in prayer in a different way?

3. Are there lists of spiritual gifts that are listed for only men or only women?

4. Do men and women inherit spiritual “sonship” in a different way?

5. Is the command to make disciples given only to one gender?

It appears to me that what CBMW does is a bait and switch, confusing physical and biological differences with spiritual differences.

In our next post we will look at Galatians 3:28 to see how the complementarian and egalitarian camps look at this verse very differently and how we can determine which of these views is correct or if both of these views is flawed in some way.

What do you think? Does scripture list our spiritual make up as differently designed by God?

Daniel Wallace requests CBMW rewrite “Never Apologize for God’s Truth”

November 7, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 15 comments

In an interesting development, complementarian Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary requests a rewrite of a blog article critiquing an article he wrote on the role of women in the church for Bible.org. He states that the author of the article, a writer for CBMW’s blog, misrepresented him. Concerning the CBMW blog article called “Never Apologize for God’s Truth“, Dr. Wallace writes that they have “misrepresented my views in some serious ways”. Dr. Wallace documents on the blog Parchment and Pen that when CBMW wrote the following statement, that it was far more than what he actually said. The CBMW blog recorded this assessment of Wallace’s article:

Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…

While CBMW writer Jeff Robinson says that one should “Never Apologize for God’s Truth”, apparently he owes Dr. Wallace an apology for misrepresenting Wallace’s stated opinion of truth. Instead of the bold statement that the CBMW blog post attributes to Wallace, Dr. Wallace has written a correction to CBMW which has not been posted on their site correcting the false statements concerning his article nor has his note even been responded to by CBMW. Because CBMW has not made the effort to correct the misrepresentation, Wallace has chosen to make his own correction public by recording his thoughts on Parchment and Pen:

That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church.

Is CBMW really concerned about truth and proper exegetical analysis? If so wouldn’t this show in their own analysis of a fellow complementarian? At least in this case they don’t appear to be too concerned about the truth. Dr. Wallace writes: …

Read More Read More

Modern myths about the Titus 2 woman

November 7, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 30 comments

When the issue of women in ministry is brought up, one of the scripture passages that is used as a slam-dunk women-must-stay-in-the-home passage is Titus 2:3-5. Is this passage really about women restricted to the area of the home with cooking, cleaning and raising children, or are women allowed by God to use their spiritual gifts outside the home as well? Let’s have a close look at the passage to see if we have been influenced by modern myths.

Titus 2:3-5 Older women (literally women elders) likewise are to be reverent (literally meaning such as becomes sacred persons, venerable) in their behavior (literally meaning to make or ordain, position or state), not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine (same qualifications as to the venerable, reverend, reputable, dignified women from 1 Timothy 3:11), teaching what is good, so that they may encourage (literally meaning to disciple, admonish, exhort earnestly) the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home (literally meaning watchers or watchmen of the home taking oversight of household affairs), kind, being subject to their own husbands (literally to subject oneself to one’s admonition or advice – doing good for the other and putting their good first place), so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Myth #1 The woman is not the head of the home so she does not have authority but is under authority in her home.

Scripture tells us that the woman has a great deal of authority in how she rules her home and she is indeed a ruler. In 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul says: …

Read More Read More

Pulpit authority scriptural or not?

November 1, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 59 comments

In my last post called 1 Timothy 2, authority and the magical pulpit, I was waiting for someone to bring up Hebrew 13:17. Since no one brought up this verse in the comments, but I did receive an email that asked me to respond to how this scripture fits in with my last post, I thought my response should make a separate post of its own.

Let’s first take a look at Hebrews 13:17 in the NIV, the version which was quoted to me:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Does this passage teach that the Christian leaders have authority over the sheep? Let’s have a look at this passage in a more literal translation:

Hebrews 13:17 (LITV) Yield to those taking the lead of you, and submit, for they watch for your souls, giving an account, that they may do this with joy, and not with grieving; for this would be unprofitable to you.

The first thing that we can notice about a literal reading of the passage is that the word “authority” is missing in the Greek. Now let’s go through this passage piece by piece to pull out the intended meaning. …

Read More Read More

1 Timothy 2, authority and the magical pulpit

October 30, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 41 comments

Many people feel that the pulpit is a place for authoritative proclamation. However many people also believe that the pulpit gives a man that authority and allowing someone into the “pulpit” who isn’t allowed to exercise authority over the sheep, an authority that the pulpit gives them, is seen as a great sin.

There are several problems with this view. The first problem is an obvious one, in that there is no such thing as a pulpit in the Scriptures. Christianity Today says this about the pulpit:

Pulpits, which are associated with traditional churches today, haven’t always been included in churches. In the earliest days of the church, Christians met in homes. In the Middle Ages, pulpits were installed in churches, but sermons rarely were preached out of them…The pulpit became more prominent during the Protestant Reformation, when the preaching of God’s Word became the primary ingredient of worship. The pulpit became more than a place to stand or a structure on which to place notes and a Bible. It became a symbol of the authority of the Bible, the church, and the preacher.

So the pulpit as a symbol of authority is a modern invention not found in the Bible at all. Many years into the church age what originally was just a piece of furniture convenient to hold one’s notes, has become the symbol of the authority of the speaker. Somewhere along the way, it appears that the authority of the Word of God which held preeminence during the Protestant Reformation, has been transferred to the messenger. In our day the word “pulpit” is synonymous for church authority: …

Read More Read More

Anne Graham Lotz and 800 pastors’ shame

October 24, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 35 comments

CBMW relates a story told by Anne Graham Lotz in the Washington Post where Mrs Lotz writes:

What legitimate, Biblical role do women have within the church? That question demanded an answer early in my ministry when I accepted an invitation to address a large convention of pastors.

When I stood in the lectern at the convention center, many of the 800 church leaders present turned their chairs around and put their backs to me. When I concluded my message, I was shaking. I was hurt and surprised that godly men would find what I was doing so offensive that they would stage such a demonstration, especially when I was an invited guest. And I was confused. Had I stepped out of the Biblical role for a woman? While all agree that women are free to help in the kitchen, or in the nursery, or in a secretary’s chair, is it unacceptable for a woman to take a leadership or teaching position?

While CBMW writer Brent Nelson writes about the en masse action of many of the 800 pastors in a negative fashion…

Such a shameful event should have never happened.

…what action does he say should have happened?

I grieve that someone in a decision-making role, did not wisely preclude a woman from speaking to a large group of pastors who chose to express their biblically sound concerns in such a shameful fashion. The commands to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), are equally as important to obey as the command for a woman not take spiritual authority over men. (emphasis added by WIM)

While CBMW’s article says that women are not to be elders or pastors and this is apparently the “clear” prohibition that CBMW espouses, Anne Graham Lotz doesn’t appear to be either an elder or a pastor. What Mrs. Lotz does in her ministry is preach the good news to whoever the Lord Jesus brings in her pathway. She writes:

Mary Magdalene was actually the very first evangelist! Since Jesus had obviously been present when Peter and John were there, why did He withhold Himself from them, but reveal Himself to Mary? He could so easily have given the task of announcing His resurrection to Peter and John, but instead He had given it to Mary. I believe He was making an undeniable, obvious statement that reverberates through the centuries, right up until our own day. Women are commanded and commissioned to serve Jesus Christ in whatever capacity He calls them, within or without the organized church, in word or in deed.

CBMW writer Brent Nelson agrees that Mary was commissioned to preach the gospel of the resurrection to the Lord’s disciples, but this doesn’t support Anne Graham Lotz.

Mary seeing Jesus and being commissioned to tell the disciples of his rising is indeed an honor, but certainly does not qualify her to take the role of an Elder or Pastor to men.

While I will not be discussing women elders or pastors in this article, CBMW’s article appears to be a sleight of hand bringing confusion regarding official positions of ordination with the call to preach and teach outside of ordination. This confusion is precisely what CBMW itself seeks to avoid when they state that women can minister but not have a “pastorate”.

Imprecision is the handmaid of confusion, and confusion the prelude to bondage (John 8:32). We would do well to make a distinction between women in ministry (which the Bible affirms) and women in the pastorate (which the Bible forbids – 1 Timothy 2:12).

Is Anne Graham Lotz called by God to ordination? She says no:

This space is not long enough to address the issue of ordination which carries with it the right to marry, bury, baptize, and have authority over church members. I do not believe God has called me to be ordained, but I know many women who believe He has called them. Some of these women pastor in countries where the male leadership has been decimated by persecution and imprisonment, and out of necessity they have stepped up to fill the void. (emphasis added by WIM)

What is Anne Graham Lotz called to do? She writes about what the Lord’s commission means to her:

For me, it means going wherever God sends and giving out His Word to whomever He puts in front of me.

So if Anne Graham Lotz is not called to be ordained as a pastor and she is not ordained as an elder, then why would 800 pastors have “biblical sound concerns” to have her speak to them as an invited guest speaker? Again CBMW’s Brent Nelson writes:

I grieve that someone in a decision-making role, did not wisely preclude a woman from speaking to a large group of pastors who chose to express their biblically sound concerns in such a shameful fashion. The commands to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), are equally as important to obey as the command for a woman not take spiritual authority over men. (emphasis added by WIM)

The mindset of CBMW is that women are not allowed to preach the gospel to Christian men because this constitutes taking “spiritual authority” over men. It is only a smokescreen in this case when they say that the Bible forbids women to be pastors and elders, because this has nothing to do with Mrs. Lotz. Anne Graham Lotz is an evangelist not a pastor or an elder, yet she is forbidden according to CBMW, to preach the good news to pastors while they can at the very same time agree that Mary was commissioned by Jesus to preach the good news to the disciples. CBMW affirms that Jesus’ commission for Mary was a godly thing for a woman to obey. This sleight of hand and confusing talk brings great harm to the body of Christ when women are hindered from speaking the truth of God’s word to the body of Christ.

CBMW’s answer to a woman’s preaching the gospel to Christian men is that she should be hindered, stopped and forbidden from speaking in the first place. According to this CBMW article it would be a wise male leader who should have stood in the way of Anne Graham Lotz and prevented her from speaking the gospel to these Christian men. CBMW lifts up the pastors who turned their backs on Mrs. Lotz as godly men who showed their biblical concern in the wrong way. By turning their backs on Mrs. Lotz, these pastors were not preventing her from speaking to them, they were only showing a shameful action of contempt. Would CBMW’s counsel to these pastors have them walk out en masse instead of merely turning their backs?

Apparently CBMW believes that there were two shameful actions that happened the day Anne Graham Lotz spoke to those 800 pastors. The first shameful action was the men who turned their backs toward a godly sister in Christ. The other “shameful” action was apparently the mere fact that Mrs. Lotz would dare to speak the gospel in the presence of Christian men and that a Christian leader would dare to allow her to speak. CMBW’s Brent Nelson writes:

At the end of the day, it is the role of pastors and men to lead their congregations and families in understanding God’s design for the home and the church. When this kind of biblical leadership is lacking, sadly shameful things can happen. (emphasis is added by WIM)

CBMW through sleight of hand has now added to the scriptures that only men may lead Christians in the church and in the family towards understanding God’s design. Shame on CBMW for spiritually turning their back on God’s gifted women, and thus God himself by adding to God’s word things that God never said.

Listen to what CBMW believes Christian men shouldn’t be able to hear Anne Graham Lotz preach and apparently use their CBMW-based conscience to walk out:

Anne Graham Lotz Just Give me Jesus

Pursuing More of Jesus with Anne Graham Lotz

…

Read More Read More

The Trinity DVD is officially released!

October 15, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 38 comments

The Trinity DVD is now in stock and available! Orders can be placed on our web page for MM Outreach here for US orders or here for Canadian and overseas orders or the set is available through Amazon.com here. Video review is available at the end of this post.

The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future — The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future Explaining Truth Exposing Error

The debut of the 2 DVD set went over extremely well as two of the three sections in the DVD set were shown at a conference in Pennsylvania this past weekend. Several of the apologists who attended the conference were surprised at the audio clips that are included in the DVDs of a popular Christian theologian who is teaching that Jesus is not to be prayed to because he not does have ultimate authority to hear and answer prayer. His teaching that is being received into our seminaries and our churches makes Jesus unavailable for us to have a personal relationship with him since it is stated that Jesus is eternally subordinate in authority to the Father, making prayer useless unless it goes out only to the Father. Many people commented that this information needs to be heard by pastors, theologians and lay people alike to call attention to the unbiblical teaching that has been coming into the church.

It is time that we stand up for the entire Trinity and give a sound biblical defense that deals with the attempts at downgrading Jesus Christ by appealing to his being sent by the Father, his submission as the human Son, and 1 Corinthians 15:28 the verse that many have appealed to, to claim that Jesus is lesser in authority than the Father for all of eternity. These positions are soundly refuted in this DVD set and the eternity past to eternity future of the Trinity is biblically set forth as an eternal equality in authority seen in both the Old Testament revelation of the pre-incarnate Christ, as well as his eternal future in the eternality of the Godhead.

See an 8 minute compliation of several clips from this 2 DVD/3 section video at Youtube here.

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 concludes with Paul’s commands

October 5, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 3 comments

We have been going through 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the passage that appears to silence women in the church to see how carefully Paul has constructed his words in 1 Corinthians 14:36 to contradict the silencing in verses 34 & 35. (For past articles on this topic, please see the 1 Corinthians 14 section).

Now we come to Paul’s conclusions and in keeping with the force of the commands that Paul has given throughout chapter 14, Paul ends with two commands that completely blow away any misunderstanding that verses 34 & 35 are Paul’s words to the church instead of a quote from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul.

What is “therefore” there for?

Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:39 “therefore” my brethren… The word “therefore” is a conjuction that joins together Paul’s words in verses 36-38 with the commands in verses 39 and 40. All of this directly contradicts the injunction found in verses 34 and 35. Let’s see how Paul concludes his contradiction of the silencing of women.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Therefore my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy…

The first command of Paul’s in his summary is a repeat of what Paul had already commanded in verse 1. Paul writes in Philippians 3:1 that repetition is for our safety. The body of Christ is to desire earnestly to prophesy and this repetition at the end of the chapter is to make sure that we “get it”. Remember that Paul gave the reason why they were to desire earnestly to prophesy and the reason is for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:3, 4)

Speaking forth and keeping silent

Now let’s have another look at the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 14 to see what pattern is set forth regarding speaking and not speaking so that we can completely understand Paul’s summary.

“Speaking forth” allowed:

All commanded to seek spiritual gifts especially prophesying in the assembly (verse 1)

Prophesying in the assembly edifies, exhorts and consoles (verse 3)

Prophesying in the assembly edifies all (verse 4)

Gifts for use for the common good are greater than a gift that only edifies one’s self (verse 5)

…

Read More Read More

Are women leaders used to judge sinful men?

October 3, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 7 comments

It is very common for hierarchists to explain away Deborah’s position as Judge in the nation of Israel as merely a judgment by God.

The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; yea, the woman had to go with him!

Obviously it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak.

In general the leaders are weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children and women rule over them (compare Is. 3:12). This is God’s judgment because of the apostate condition of professing Christians.

Is it really true that women ruling the nation represent God’s judgment? The only way that we can know for sure is to see what God had to say. Several nations were used by God as a judgment against Israel and their sin. The thing that we can notice in all of the cases of judgment is that the nation who was used as a judgment by God against Israel always hurt and destroyed Israel. Israel was taken captive many times and this was God’s judgment. But what about Deborah? Was she used by God to punish Israel and hurt Israel or was she one of the many godly Judges that God raised up and sent to deliver Israel?

Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.

Judges 2:18 When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them.

The Judges were all sent to deliver Israel from their enemies. This means that it was impossible for Deborah to be a judgment against Israel when she was sent to deliver Israel. …

Read More Read More

Let her learn….or not?

October 2, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 7 comments

In our continuing discussion of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, we come to the problematic area of learning.

1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home…

What can we pull out regarding “learning” in this verse? We can see that if a woman has a desire to learn, she isn’t encouraged to do it in church. Where is she supposed to learn? Her learning is to be done under her husband’s permission and it is to be done at home.

The requirement that a woman is not to learn in public is not a Christian regulation but a part of the “law” of the Jews. Women were not to be taught the scriptures according to the oral tradition of the Jews. Why? Because she was not allowed to touch the scriptures and so she didn’t need to be a rabbinical student and publicly learn. She also would have no one to teach the scriptures to since the men were considered to be the ones who had the responsibility to handle and teach the Torah. Women need not learn. They were not qualified to learn.

In previous posts we have been listing the markers in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 that prove that Paul was quoting from the Corinthians and then refuting their claims in verse 36. The wording about women learning at home (v. 35) instead of in the assembly once again ties these verses into man-made tradition.

But this isn’t Paul’s way nor is it God’s way. Paul had just told us in verse 31:

1 Corinthians 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted

Not only were all allowed to prophesy in the assembly, but the public prophesying was so that all may learn in that public assembly. The learning was done by all just as the prophesying was done by all. All may learn publicly. Paul does not relegate women to learning at home. He allows them to learn in the assembly since it is the body of Christ (not just a woman’s husband) who are responsible for helping her to learn. …

Read More Read More

Recovering from “feminism recovery”

October 2, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 3 comments

Wade Burleson has written an exceptionally thought-provoking post on the difference between one young woman’s journey through her pain (it appears to be a rejection of herself by a boyfriend) into the pathway of accepting a tradition that gives authoritarian license to males vs one young slave woman’s courage in standing up against authoritarian license. I highly recommend you read Wade’s post found here especially for the account of the courageous stand of a slave girl that Wade copies at the end of his post.

Certainly one can have a “recovery” if that person is actually recovering from a bitterness towards men. But depicting egalitarianism in the church as being based on hatred of male authority or a bitterness towards men is a false recovery. Bitterness towards men is no different than bitterness towards women or bitterness towards another race. When someone has hurt you and your self worth has been damaged, one will be tender and sensitive and often people go through many steps of recovery before they can get past the bitterness and intense hurt. However identifying egalitarians (or as Courtney calls them feminists) as ones fighting against authority is a very serious mistake and one might question what she was really recovering from. Bitterness is bitterness. It is a sinful state of the heart that comes from our sin as a reaction to our hurt, not from our belief about the ability for men and women to serve God in the way that he has called them.

False recovery taints the recovery process. It fails to identify where the problem lies. Identifying a false source of the problem can replace one bondage for another. It also can alienate another group of believers seeing them as the problem instead of identifying the heart attitude as the problem.

Meet us in Pennsylvania

October 1, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 6 comments

For anyone in the Pennsylvania area who would like to meet us in person and see the premiere of “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future Explaining Truth Exposing Error”, we will be in the New Ringgold, PA area at the Witnesses Now For Jesus Convention at the Blue Mountain Christian Retreat October 10-12th, 2008. DVD #1 of the 2 DVD set will be shown at 3 pm on Saturday, October 11th. Information on the conference can be found at http://pfo.org/wnfj2008.htm The sessions are free. If you would like to stay for the entire conference, call the retreat centre at the link above for accommodations or see the list of motels in the area at the above link. The convention has great testimonies and teaching sessions and lots of time for fellowship with a really wonderful group of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian ministries.

The issue of the Trinity and how the eternal subordination of the Son has crept into the church since the 1970’s will be a hot topic at the convention and if you are also interested in this issue, please feel free to come by and introduce yourself to us. We will be hosting a book table at the conference and will make ourselves available for discussion and questions before and after the sessions.

Three spheres of subordination shrinks to two

September 30, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 17 comments

In my last post I pointed to USA Today’s editorial that challenged complementarians who are willing to accept a woman as the Vice President of the country, that they should admit that they are full fledged egalitarians in the realm of society, the workplace and public life.

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, an organization that believes the bible forbids women from voting, has taken CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) to task saying that Dr. Gushee is right in his USA Today challenge that people like CBMW have experienced an historic change in their theological position. He writes:

Dr. Gushee’s point was essentially this: Christians must formally acknowledge that a historic change has occurred in their theological commitments and policy objectives, or reasonable observers must conclude that that their position lacks intellectual integrity.

While I do not agree with Doug Phillips at all regarding his very legalistic interpretation of women’s “roles”, he is right in pointing out that if one interprets the distinctions between male and female as rooted in the creation order itself, then it is inconsistent to not apply that principle to all three realms – marriage (home), church and society – instead of just in marriage and the church. If we are going to remove the realm of society and civil government, then we need to rethink our interpretation of Paul.

CBMW states that they are being consistent and that:

God’s design for male headship in the home and the church does not require the exclusion of women from leadership in public life, where spiritual headship is not involved. Such extrapolation carries the biblical teaching about the role of women beyond the Bible’s own application.

The apparent inconsistency according to CBMW only comes when one overlooks the priority of the church:

Complementarians only seem to be inconsistent if one overlooks the priority of the church and misses the distinction between the church and and civil government. This confusion is resolved when one understands that complementarians simultaneously hold a high view of Scripture, a high view of women, and a high view of the church.

I think it is time that we test CBMW’s claim to consistency and see what they have taught in the past regarding the role of men and women in Society.

In 1987 CBMW formed as a concerned group of individuals and in that year they created the Danver’s Statement which is a list of CBMW’s core beliefs.

Point 1 under Rationale, CBMW lists a concern:

The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

Note that the concern is not just about the home and the church but about “our culture”. Did CBMW believe in 1987 that the difference between masculinity and femininity would necessitate different roles in society? Their Danver Statement affirmations make it clear that they believe the “created order” that was ordained by God and it goes past an application to Christians because it is to be found within every human heart:

Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

We find in CBMW’s 1991 book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that there is a “breaking point” of femininity that makes some “roles” for women inappropriate, unproductive and unhealthy: …

Read More Read More

Questions of faith for semi-egalitarians

September 28, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 25 comments

USA Today has an editorial written by David P Gushee in which Mr. Gushee challenges complementarians that they are actually semi-egalitarians and they should be willing to openly acknowledge this. Gushee says that he writes about this issue as a moderate evangelical Christian.

Gushee writes that there are many theologically conservative Christians who accept Sarah Palin as the Republical vice presidential nominee. Yet at the same time:

…at the local church level many congregations would not accept Palin or any other woman even as associate pastor, or deacon, or youth minister or Sunday school teacher in a gender-mixed classroom. The most conservative would not consider it appropriate for her to stand behind a pulpit and preach a sermon, or teach from the Bible, or lead a praise chorus, or offer a prayer, unless her audience consisted entirely of women or children.

He notes that even CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) who Gushee calls “an influential advocacy group” and who are against women teaching men in the church, have no problem in allowing for a woman to serve as vice president of the country. CBMW has replied to the article welcoming Gushee’s questions:

Dr. Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and challenges complementarians with many questions in the September 15, 2008 issue of USA Today.

CBMW writes:

While we are honored that Dr. Gushee considers CBMW “an influential advocacy group” on gender issues, we don’t claim to represent the “evangelical voting base,” or even all complementarians.

It certainly is a fact that CBMW does not represent all complementarians. There is a group called Vision Forum who were formerly associated with CBMW from its beginning, but who have since separated themselves from CBMW now calling CBMW in actuality semi-egalitarians. Vision Forum has written that Dr. Gushee is “spot on”. In an article regarding USA Today’s editorial, Doug Phillips writes this about CBMW:

It is our view, however, that they have erred by overtly embracing an egalitarian perspective of the roles of men and women in the public arena.

…

Read More Read More

The unorthodox view of the Trinity related to women in ministry

September 26, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 73 comments

Wade Burleson has blogged on the Trinity and the unorthodox trend that has come into the church that teaches an eternally subordinated Son of God in the Trinity.

Wade writes:

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person. The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call “the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” as a basis for their hierarchal view that the female is to be subordinate to the male. Women’s subordination to man, according to the teachings of CBMW, is not a consequence of sin or a reflection of cultural values, but is built upon the heirachical order God established before the fall as a reflection of the Trinity.

This view of the Trinity has been used by some complementarians who have a lot of sway in Southern Baptist circles to support the functional subordination of women. I would recommend that you read what Wade has written and then have a read through the comments on his blog as well. It is a frightening thing to me to see the spread of this unorthodox doctrine and how many have accepted it as gospel truth.

It also comes at a very timely place for us as we are just getting ready to release our new 2 DVD set called “The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future, Explaining Truth & Exposing Error”

The DVD will be availabe by mid October at http://mmoutreach.org/ or from Amazon.com.

(October 2008 update: The DVD is now available and a preview is available on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLe-qF2nptA.)

A deeper look into 1 Timothy 2:12

September 26, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 33 comments

This is a response to an article called “A Deeper Look into: 1 Timothy 2:12” by an author posting by the email address of carmradio@ymail.com on September 23, 2008. I will leave his name off this post.

There are so many fallacies in the article that I hardly know where to start. However, let me start with the area that caused so many problems a year ago and I will give here what I should have said in the debate. The section I will be addressing is called:

What the Term “Quiet/Silent” Means

**See comments at the end** The author of this particular piece receives much of his information from an individual and ministry that he is very supportive of. His mentor in a debate a year ago made it clear that silence in 1 Timothy 2:12 does not mean complete silence, but rather quietness. He stated in that debate that if Paul was stopping a false deceived teacher from teaching her error to her husband (as I have shown from the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and as he was trying to refute), then Paul used the wrong word and it should have been the Greek word meaning complete silence, otherwise, as this person said in our debate, it would mean that Paul is saying that this deceived woman can teach her error to her husband “just a little bit“. Hear the short audio clip here where this mentor denies that the word from 1 Timothy 2:12 means silence. Click here: Denial that 1 Timothy 2:12 means silence

This clip was taken from our audio debate a year ago. For the reasons why I am refuting a particular person’s theology but not using their name, please refer to this statement.

Well, let’s just take the reasoning and apply it to his own interpretation to see if doing something “just a little bit” will work for him. This “author”** writes:

This term “silence” is again used in 1 Timothy 2:12, but we can see Paul is using it in the opposite manner as opposed to 1 Tim 2:2. 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men, but to be silent.” It says not to have authority over men, but to be silent. In other words, quietness/silence here means the opposite of having authority over man. So it reads, do not exercise authority over men, but instead be silent.

…

Read More Read More

Are we too emotional?

September 25, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 12 comments

Are we really too emotional?

I have had some interaction with a pastor via the internet on and off for the last half year or so and whenever I have passionately stated my case for believing that women are allowed in scripture to teach the bible to men, I have been accused of letting my emotions cloud my judgment and my thinking. (Sigh) Why is it that egalitarians are pegged as overly emotional while comps consider themselves both logical and biblical?

Now this particular pastor appears to be a very nice fellow. I really quite like him. He isn’t calling me an unbeliever or a heretic as some have. He is also very supportive of my ministry work regarding my reaching out to Jehovah’s Witnesses to win them for Christ. He appears to like me as a person, and as I said, I also like him, but there is a roadblock that is hard to cross over. He thinks that there is no other way to see scripture but that it limits women from teaching the bible to men. Other than apparently my work with non-Christians, he holds the party line that women who teach the bible to men are sinning against God, and that we can see a pattern for human relationships and roles by the “roles” in the Trinity where the Father is the ultimate authority and the Son submits to the Father (double sigh!)

Never mind that he has not been able to answer even one of my challenges to his position. He can wave my position off because he attributes it to emotionalism. It is actually a wee bit humorous because I have been charged by others with being too logical and my dogged persistence is not a sign of weak emotions or a faint heart!

So why do you think that we have to defend ourselves against the charge of being too emotional? Is this a name-it and claim-it-for-the-other-person a way to dismiss everything we say? Are comps really the logical ones and are egalitarians the ones who have no heart for the inspiration of scripture but want to rest their beliefs on feelings, emotions and hurt?

One thing for sure….hierarchists have caused a great deal of grief for many egalitarians including myself. For one who loves peace amongst the brothers to have to deal with name-calling, anger, vindictiveness, insults and rejection of even being called a sister in Christ, it probably would be okay to cry a tear or two for the hurt that has happened in the body of Christ.

I trust that a logical, full believer in the inspiration of scripture, persistent, peace-maker like myself is allowed to cry sometimes without being called overly emotional or that my judgment and thinking are clouded by emotions. A soft caring heart is what I long to see in complementarians because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I trust that God will help to keep my heart soft to them no matter how many attacks I have to deflect that has been unfairly lobbed over the wall and against my name.

Pardon me while I cry.

Forbid not

September 24, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 8 comments

Forbid not….

Paul said something profound in 1 Corinthians 14:39 that goes against the grain of the hierarchical mindset. Paul said “forbid not to speak…”

This is not an issue of whether tongues is valid today or not. What is the issue is the command to “forbid not” to speak in the assembly. Let’s walk through this passage to see how it is all connected together.

In 1 Cor. 14:34 it says women are “not permitted to speak” in the churches. The Greek word is “epitrepetai” and it means to give liberty to, allow, give permission, entrust to. So according to verses 34 & 35, speaking in the assembly is forbidden because there is no permission given to allow women to speak and a “law” is appealed to that takes away the ability for women to speak in the assembly. Verse 36 is set up as a contradiction of verses 34 & 35. Paul answers by stating “n” which is a disjunctive conjunction which is used “to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. Thayer’s lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as an example of “n” used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand”

What then is being denied by the “n” in verse 36? It is the command in verse in verse 34 & 35 that women are to be silent. How does Paul deny this command and the appeal to the law of men? (see The Elusive Law and Is a Woman’s Voice Filthy? for further information on why these two verses are to be considered a quote from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul and not the actual words of Paul himself.)

Paul demands to know if the word of God comes only through them (the men demanding the silencing of women) and he demands to know if only they are to receive God’s word. In other words, Paul is demanding to know if God only speaks through men and God only gives his word to men and does not speak through women and to women. Remember that the command to silence women also denied their learning in the assembly. If they wanted to learn anything, they were commanded to learn at home. Paul in essence asks where is this God’s word? Where are women forbidden to speak God’s words and where are women forbidden to learn God’s words? It is certainly true that in the oral law of the Jews women were forbidden to speak in the assembly and women were forbidden to be taught God’s word. For a father to teach his daughter the Torah was considered immoral by the Jews because women were forbidden to handle God’s word and so there was no need to learn it. …

Read More Read More

Who dared to contradict Paul?

September 21, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 20 comments

Many people have a big problem with Paul because they think that he was sexist. I would like to change that point of view by looking carefully at the text so that we can fully appreciate Paul for who he was, not the false impression that we have of Paul. Under God’s inspiration Paul refuted faulty tradition and that faulty tradition included sexism that was prevalent during his day. Let’s have a look how Paul did that.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul responded to a letter written to him by the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote….

Paul then quotes from the letter written to him and every time he quotes the letter, Paul contradicts the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:1….(Corinthians) it is good for a man not to touch a woman

1 Corinthians 7:2 (Paul) But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 10:23 (Corinthians) All things are lawful (Paul) but not all things are profitable. (Corinthians) All things are lawful (Paul) but not all things edify.

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 (Corinthians) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper (filthy) for a woman to speak in church.

1 Corinthians 14:36 (Paul) (What!?!) was it from you that the word of God went forth? (What!?!) has it come to you only?

In verse 36 Paul starts each statement with the Greek word “n” which isn’t always evident in the translations as some completely ignore this word. It is a term used to show that the question implies a negative answer – a negation of something that has just proceeded it. It would be the equivalent of stating a false statement and then saying “Bunk!” or “Horse feathers!” or “You have got to be kidding!” So what Paul is doing here is negating what was just quoted. Since Paul cannot negate himself, it is evident that the quote from verses 34 & 35 is a quote from the Corinthian letter to Paul. …

Read More Read More

Gospel Today magazine pulled from Christian bookstores’ shelves

September 20, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 13 comments

A Christian magazine is treated as pornography merely for reporting on the trend of women pastors.

The Atlanta Journal reports:

Smiling women on the cover of a slick magazine. Sold from under the counter. Must request it from store clerk. That’s not something a buyer would typically find in a Christian bookstore. Not unless it’s one of the more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the United States, including about six in metro Atlanta.

Gospel Today, the Fayetteville-published magazine, was pulled off the racks by the bookstores’ owner, the Southern Baptist Convention. The problem? The five smiling women on the cover are women of the cloth — church pastors.

So what is the big deal? The deal is that when a denomination says that a secondary issue of faith is so important it warrants barring people from reading about the other side, Lifeway Christian Bookstores has stepped into the realm of milieu control. Milieu control is the control of information and communication. Wikipedia adds that milieu control is about limiting contact in order to restrict the ability to make judgments about information that would present itself against the accepted position: …

Read More Read More

1 Corinthians 14, is a woman’s voice filthy?

September 19, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 20 comments

In the last post we talked about how there is no “law” in the Old Testament scriptures that forced women to be silent in the assembly so the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 had to be some other “law” that forced silence on women. The “law” that silences women is found not in God’s law, but in the oral tradition of the Jews, now written down in the Talmud.

The next red flag that points to another source other than God’s law, for the saying in verses 34 & 35 is the charge that a woman’s voice is filthy. Verse 35 says:

1 Corinthians 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home;for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

The word translated as “improper” is shameful or filthy. Is a woman’s voice shameful? Is a woman’s voice filthy? The oral law of the Jews said her voice was indecent, filthy and shameful. A woman was not allowed to speak in their congregations for the sake of the men. Her voice was considered a sexual enticement thus a woman was not to speak publicly. …

Read More Read More

The elusive law

September 16, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 54 comments

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 has been a problem passage because of two issues that stick out like a sore thumb. The first issue is the elusive law.

The problem that occurs in this passage is that the “law” is the key reference for the required silence. Many have tried to ignore this “elusive” law making their interpretation around it. This has resulted in the silencing of women from asking their husbands questions in the assembly. But where is this “elusive” law found that silences only women from asking questions in the assembly? Paul doesn’t say that it is disruptive to talk in the assembly. The wording is a direct prohibition attached to an existing “law”.

Some have tried to “shoe horn” Genesis 3:16 as a “law” that silences women. This connection is not possible. For women like myself who have very supportive husbands who encourage me to use my gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ (including benefiting men), I am not being silenced at all by Genesis 3:16 no matter how the “he will rule over you” is taken.

So where is the “law” that silences women in the assembly? One cannot interpret this passage without finding the elusive law.

I will let my readers answer this one before we continue on with 1 Corinthians 14. What do you think? Why is there a “law” quoted in 1 Cor. 14:34 that cannot be found in the Old Testament? Have you heard of any other reference to a “law” from the Old Testament? Is it possible that verse 34 is a new law that Paul has just created? Why or why not?

The Trinity DVD is done!

September 14, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 13 comments

Well, it is finally done.

The 2 DVD set with 3 sections dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, the biblical support for the equality of the Word of God in eternity past, and the biblical position on the authority of Jesus Christ and eternity future, does not mention the women’s issue at all, but the teaching of hierarchists that use the subordination of Jesus to justify the subordination of women is soundly dealt with.

Our new DVD will be on its way to the duplicators in just a couple of days. Official release date should be by mid October at the latest. There are some loose ends that need to be cleaned up on Monday and I do need to view it one more time to make sure that all is in place as the computer version shows, but my long hours of hard work have come to an end.

Can we say yippee yay?

Also for those of you who have supported MM Outreach in the transition to a US based corporation, will now be able to get a tax receipt for your donations as we are now officially a non-profit organization.

Can we say, wow isn’t the Lord good?

So many good things happening and we continue to marvel at the blessings that the Lord Jesus has given us!

Public statement regarding Cheryl Schatz’s Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick

September 6, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 21 comments

Public Statement regarding the Cheryl Schatz initiated Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick (CARM)

A meeting was held on August 22, 2008 in Idaho as my husband and I and our Pastor traveled to meet with Matt Slick. The reconciliation meeting was initiated by myself and we journied 12 hours to try to reconcile over the issues of Matt’s public misrepresentation of my teaching along with the continued attacks on my person. I had patiently waited for almost one year for a resolution while I was being slandered, accused of heresy and my sanity was questioned and mocked all because I support the biblical view that women in the body of Christ may use their gifts for the common good and with the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11. It is my position that we are to work hard for unity in the body of Christ and we are to live at peace with all men if possible, so far as it depends on us (Romans 12:18). It is with deep regret that the reconciliation that I fought for and thought I received at the meeting with Matt Slick in August of 2008 has proven to be unattainable.

Matt Slick finally agreed to meet with me to discuss the offenses that were committed against me after he received some “encouragement” from a set of emails he received from a person who wrote as a “man” with authority. Without these emails he would have never agreed to meet with me and I would not have had the opportunity of trying to seek peace with someone who claims to be a brother in Christ but who had been treating me with great disrespect and vitriol.

History:

In 2006 Matt Slick had requested by email that I be a guest on his “Faith and Reason” radio show to discuss my views from my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I declined at that time because I saw him as being disrespectful. After his assurance that he would be kind and respectful and after about a year and a half later when I heard him on the radio discourage a woman from going into ministry, I agreed to discuss the issue of women’s freedom to serve the body of Christ without restriction.

During my time on the radio with Matt Slick, I made a special effort to affirm him for his ministry even telling a personal story about some of his articles that helped me deal with a Universalist and a friend who had been influenced in the area of universalism. However I was not treated kindly and on the first of the two programs that I was on, I was yelled at and talked down to and constantly interrupted. By the end of the second program he refused to let me speak on my interpretation os 1 Timothy 2:15 and how this verse is essential to the understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 and he called me a heretic for my view of women’s freedom to minister with God’s gifts for the common good.

After the radio shows Matt immediately started to post on his discussion board challenging me by name to post responses in order to try to find things to accuse me of. He demanded answers to questions about Calvinism and other areas that I refused to debate over. Before Matt created posts with my name challenging me to answer, I had never posted on his board. In fact I didn’t even originally see the posts challenging me since I was not reading his boards. I was notified by an egalitarian who visited my blog that Matt was openly challenging me on his board. Now he writes that I was the one who came onto his discussion board to cause trouble. No matter what I do, my motives and my beliefs and the facts have been twisted beyond recognition.

In December 2008 after months of speaking against me on his radio show, Matt told a caller a complete misrepresentation of my teaching while he assured the caller that what he was saying was true. I confronted Matt Slick about his misrepresentation and he did nothing. It wasn’t until my pastor wrote to Matt Slick in February and confronted him with his slander that Matt mentioned it on the air, but he said it in such a way that it appeared that I wanted him to make a correction, but that my correction wasn’t true and his original statement was true and it was not slander.

I finally was able to meet Matt Slick in person after Matt received emails apparently from a “man” encouraging him to settle the issue with me as I was requesting from him a Matthew 18 meeting. My husband and my pastor traveled with me for the 12 hour trip to meet Matt Slick. I started the meeting by making it clear that we were not there to harm him but to seek reconciliation after all the persecution that I had received so that we could end the attacks against me and we could move on. I played the audio files I had of Matt’s misrepresentation of my teaching and clips from our radio discussion where I gave my teaching on women in ministry and denied his own declared exaggeration of the view. After listening to the audio file several times, Matt Slick agreed that he would issue a correction and that he would no longer mention me by name on his radio show or on his discussion board or his web site. I agreed that while I would continue to refute his public teaching on women in ministry, I would not post anything against him personally. Although I did not say I would remove any negative comments about Matt on my blog, I did go through all the posts and I removed anything that others said against him that might be considered inflammatory. There were very few comments like that. Most people were frustrated with Matt for his treatment of me and I chose to allow people the freedom to air their frustration without excessive moderation from me. However I have not posted anything of the personal nature since that time and I have kept my word that I would keep any mention of Matt Slick on my bog to the issue of his public teaching only and not in any way on a personal level even though I still have considerable concern about his treatment of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

At our meeting in August 2008, Matt Slick revealed to all of us (his pastor was there along with Ryan Turner a young apologist who had just started working with Matt and who is a gentle natured soul) that his vice-president had purchased my name on the internet three times in an effort to discredit me as a person. Much of the persecution that I had experienced in the last year was done by Matt’s vice-president of CARM Diane Sellner. She openly attacked me encouraged by Matt Slick himself and Matt protected her ability to slander me without sanction on his own discussion board and on a blog that she set up to attack my character and my ministry. Matt said that he would talk to Diane to see if she would agree to stop attacking me personally. (From what happened afterwards, I now do not believe that he ever intended to stop Diane. She has his full support without any sanctions at all.)

Matt asked what we wanted him to say to correct his misrepresentations and although he adamantly refused to apologize for what he had done, he did say that he would make the statement public on “Faith and Reason”. We all worked together to get a statement that would be acceptable to Matt and myself. Ryan Turner proposed that Matt say that he was “wrong” and both Matt and I agreed to the statement even though there would be no apology from Matt. My pastor wrote down the statement that we all had contributed to and Matt and I had agreed to it and my pastor gave the written copy of what we had written to Matt. After over four hours of discussion, we left with that agreement and we went on our way traveling together in the same car and heading back to Canada to try to get across the border before midnight.

However that very day before we arrived home, the agreement made between Matt Slick and myself had been broken by Matt. Matt had changed the statement saying that he had approval from my pastor to change the agreement. However my pastor was in the car traveling with us and not only would he not have had the authority to change an agreement as the agreement was not made with him but was an agreement that I had made with Matt, but I was never consulted by Matt even though Matt knew that we were traveling back home together in the same car. So how did he get such approval and why did he not ask me? Why would he claim to bypass me when we were in the same car traveling home together?

Not only was I never consulted about a change to our agreement, but I have no idea what Matt Slick did or didn’t say on that broadcast because he gave Diane Sellner the authority to remove his comment from the broadcast. His comment, whatever it was, was never given to the general public on his “Faith and Reason” podcast and Matt Slick has adamantly refused to allow me access to hear what he actually said. He has refused to give me a copy of the audio that was removed from the broadcast and he has refused to allow the radio station to give me a copy. I have no way to verify that he even tried to keep his word about giving a retraction to his misrepresentation.

By the day after we arrived home, Matt Slick had released numerous pages written against me personally even though he promised that he would no longer speak against me. He also gave Diane Sellner full access to write her personal vitriol against me on her blog, and he also gave his permission for Diane to link my personal name that she had purchased three times on the internet to Matt’s pages against me on his web site and alternately to link one of purchases of my name to her own blog which was created as a way to slander me personally.

Matt has tried to justify his subsequent attacks against me by saying that I attacked him first before I came onto his radio show. This is an unfounded lie and he has no proof of any such “attack”. He also has lied that I came onto his discussion board to attack him. He is the one who wrote numerous posts about “Challenge to Schatz” but after our “reconciliation meeting” he left all the attacks on line and gave Diane Sellner the authority to remove all my answers. In fact my moniker (WIM) has been completely wiped off the discussion board with only small quotes made by others who referenced my original posts. My respectful posts were removed while the attacks against me were kept on line! The boldness of such a move after the promises that were made to me are amazing!

I spoke to Matt Slick on the phone three days after our meeting and he tried to blackmail me to remove any mention of himself or CARM on my blog even from my careful refutation of his exegesis of women in ministry. I have a copy of that phone conversation and I will not allow myself to be blackmailed. Matt will have to stand one day before the Lord Jesus and give an account of the things that he has done. I pray that the Lord Jesus will continue to enable me to have the courage to speak out on women’s freedom in the body of Christ as I work hard to speak the truth with love. It takes boldness to speak out with kindness and compassion for both my brothers and sisters in Christ who are on opposite sides of this theological fence. Each side deserves to be loved as true brothers and sisters in Christ even if we do not agree on these secondary issues. My stand will not change. I will continue to speak out in love even though I have received a great amount of persecution for my stand. The Lord Jesus provides boldness to speak the truth even in the midst of persecution. I have posted my stand from the introduction to my DVD set on youtube to show that my original stand has always been reconciliation between the two sides regarding women in ministry. My stand can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e9TL5TWdac

Those who view this stand can see that I am not aggressive against the other side. I view them as brothers in Christ even though people like Matt Slick characterize me as an enemy of the church. Matt also has not been able to refute my teaching on women in ministry even though he has tried his best. He gave me my DVDs back after a year and a half of having them in his possession claiming that he didn’t even watch them (the truthfulness of this statement is challenged by his early emails to me challenging me on some of the content in the DVDs and bemoaning the fact that I didn’t put into the DVDs some material that he felt was important such as federal headship). My refutation of his attempt to refute me can be found at this blog.

I do not trust Matt Slick or his promises as everything he has promised has been taken back by Matt, and I am very sad that this is the case as he is a fellow apologist and I should be able to trust his word. Matt has given full permission to his vice-president and board member Diane Sellner to do whatever she wants in attacking me and using my name. Let the reader see that I have not posted personal attacks against Matt Slick and I have not bought his name in order to malign him personally nor have I purchased Diane Sellner’s name. I believe that these are shameful acts that do not serve to lift up the name of Jesus. Matt never once approached me for reconciliation – he just produced pages against me personally that contain lies and half truths. I went the extra mile and paid a great price to seek reconciliation. I waited a long time before I went to Idaho to meet with Matt. I even accepted an offer from Matt to make things right without demanding that he publicly apologize. He says that I am unreasonable but my actions prove otherwise. My character is proven by my actions. On the otherhand, Matt has proven his character by his actions in a less than honorable way. The pages written against me, the complete removal of myself and my arguments from his discussion board, the removal of his “correction” from the public record (if he even made such a correction and I have not one thing to prove that he said any part of the correction that we agreed to), the threats against me personally in the form of blackmail, his support of his board member and vice-president to purchase my own name to malign me personally and his continued claims that I, a fellow Christian who believes in all the essentials of the faith, am an enemy of the church are the actions of his own character. If fellow Christians allow this kind of behavior without correction, then likely it will continue. I cannot see how this furthers the cause of Christ or brings the body of Christ closer together in unity as we are required to love one another and work for peace.

I ask that those who read this page, please pray for Matt. There are accounts on the internet of others that Matt has attacked just like he has done to me. This greatly concerns me. The concern that I have is not so much about the lies that he has told about me but the unsaved that have experienced the same things. They see Matt as a representative of Jesus and the Church and when he launches an attack on anyone who he sees as a threat to his person, or to secondary doctrinal issues that he sees as a hill to die on, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth and many have reported that they have been harmed because of this. If there are any who have been hurt by Matt’s attacks who are reading this, please be assured that this is not representative of Jesus. There are many godly Christians who witness of their faith and who do not personally attack those who do not agree with them. Jesus had compassion and care even for those who attacked him. His love even reached out to the one who betrayed him. Jesus called him “friend”. If I can help heal the hurts that you have experienced, please contact me. My email address is on my contact page.

In conclusion, although our long trip at our own expense to meet with Matt Slick to seek reconciliation has not brought resolution as we thought but only brought further attacks against my person, I have to let God work on Matt Slick’s heart because he refuses all forms of reconciliation demanding instead that I apologize to him for following the scriptural approach regarding dealing with issues of offense or else he will work to destroy me. I followed every step that scripture gives for dealing with an offensive brother. Matt Slick on the other hand never once tried to contact me privately to reconcile with me but has kept up his attacks against me as if I am not worthy of being called a Christian sister and a fellow apologist. For Matt Slick to ask me to apologize for following through with what the bible sets forth for disputes between Christians is unthinkable.

This puts a period on any contact with Matt Slick. I will no longer discuss him although I will discuss his theology on women in ministry especially if I become aware that he has tried to answer my refutation of his articles. Sometimes there cannot be a resolution other than complete separation and this is where it stands.

I have also posted a public statement regarding my Matthew 18 meeting at http://www.mmoutreach.org/slick.htm . Keith and Lorri MacGregor have posted their own comments regarding this issue along with this statement at http://mmoutreachinc.com/cheryl_slick.htm This brings to a complete end any words that I have regarding this matter as I have been pushed to produce a public statement about why I have been silent on this end about this very public disagreement.

I think this piece will put a huge period . on this matter as I have long ago moved on. If anyone has any questions regarding this public statement, please email me privately for clarification. Email me (mmoutreach (AT) gmail (DOT) com or go to the contact page above for a contact form).

Keith and Lorri MacGregor are my ministry partners and have been privy to the attacks against me from the very beginning. Having heard Matt Slick for themselves speak in angry tones toward his sister in Christ calling me a heretic and twisting my words, their wisdom to me is to follow scripture to ignore a divisive person. My pastor has also given me this same admonition and he too has been privy to the attacks against me both on the radio, in emails sent to him by Matt Slick and in our meeting in Idaho and his words have also been twisted against him.

While I am sad that I was not able to be a peace maker in this dispute, I did appreciate that by taking the time and effort to make the twelve hour journey to Idaho, I had the opportunity to meet Ryan, the new apologist on CARM. I really appreciated his attitude and his demeanor. I pray that God will help him to make a positive impact in a godly way in the calling that he has.

Cheryl Schatz

May Jesus get the ultimate glory for He is our peacemaker who brings peace between God and us.

Two heads one master

September 5, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 25 comments

While Paul said that the husband is the head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3) with this metaphor implying that the wife is the body of the husband, scripture also tells us that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ and the believing wife is part of that body too. This means that the metaphor of head/body is used both of a physical relationship between husband and wife and a spiritual relationship between believers and Christ. But does head mean master?

Many believe that head means one who has authority over another. Some believe that a woman is not allowed to teach the bible if her husband does not give her permission to do so. In essence he is her master and she must obey what he tells her. But if head means master, then scripture contradicts itself because the bible says that we have only one master. In John 13:13 Jesus says that he is that Master.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. KJV

The word translated as “master” is didaskalos and it means teacher, instructor, master. Jesus then goes on to show that we are all brothers and only one is our master/teacher.

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Matthew 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. KJV

Jesus also taught that no one can serve two masters:

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.

The word for master here is kurios and it means lord, master, owner.

It is impossible for “head” to mean “lord, master, owner”. Jesus is both head and Master because he alone is God. No husband is to be in the position of master because we are to have only one master and that is Jesus Christ.

It is a wonderful thing when a husband agrees that his wife should teach the bible. However his agreement should have no bearing on the obedience of a servant of the one and only Master. There is only one spiritual head and only one Master. The husband is in a one-flesh union with his wife and together they should work out their marriage relationship. But scripture never gives the husband the position of master over his wife and scripture never tells the wife that she must obey her husband as her master, for no one can serve two masters.

Women in Ministry produces fear

September 4, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 12 comments

Wade Burleson has produced a thought-provoking article about character assassination that comes as a result of fear. Wade writes:

It is almost an axiom of human nature that when you disagree with one’s positions, are fearful of the effect your opponent may have on altering the big picture, you attack the character of the person you wish to defeat. Unfortunately, the art of character assassination in Christian circles is alive and well.

…when other people are being influenced to take a different position than your’s, it is tempting to attack the character of your opponent…

May all of us involved with political processess, whether they be national and secular, or denominational and religious, focus on the issues and leave the character attacks at home.

I agree whole-heartedly with what Wade is saying. There is just too much focus on ad hominem (attacking the man) rather than addressing the argument. Attacking the person and name calling are a sign of a weak argument.

How is this played out regarding women in ministry? Those who are fearful of having women teaching doctrine in the church often use loaded language to put down the opposition. While they refuse to call a brother in Christ who is a Calvinist or an Arminian, a heretic (and good for them for not dividing over this secondary issue), they have no qualms about calling a sister in Christ a heretic for merely believing that women can use their God-given gifts for the benefit of all. Many others are calling into question the salvation of those who advocate women using their gifts for the common good. Is this godly?

I look forward to seeing a generation of women who have been freed to go forth preaching the gospel with boldness and without prejudice. CBMW (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has already announced that complementarians are losing this battle. Churches one by one are freeing women to serve in the gifts that God has given them. Irving Bible Church in Irving, Texas is just one of the long list of churches who have changed their view of women in ministry. They are another example of godly men looking into God’s word and seeing it in context as not holding back God’s gifts given through women. God uses women for his own purposes and he gifts those he wants to use for his glory. When we fight our sisters in Christ and instead of addressing their concerns and their arguments, we call them heretics and we separate from them, we should stop and think whether we are fighting against God himself. We are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit. We grieve Him when we try to control and stop His gifts from being used without prejudice and we grieve Him when we separate over secondary issues of faith.

In my search on the world wide web, I have yet to come across egalitarians calling complementarians heretics merely for believing differently on this secondary issue of faith. I trust that it is rare for such name calling. However it is not rare for complementarians to call egalitarians heretics. This should never be. When one part of the body of Christ hurts, we all are hurt because we are all baptized into this one body. Those who mock and attack the character of a fellow Christian because they disagree on a secondary issue of faith need to repent lest they find themselves fighting against God Himself. This is the time when God’s judgment comes to the church first and then the world. Will we be found loving our brothers in Christ as we are commanded to by Jesus Himself, or will we be found ripping at the sheep using personal attacks instead of reasoning through why our arguments are so weak that we must resort to attacking the man? If we are fearful because of someone else’s position on a secondary issue of faith, may we resort to studying the word of God to show ourselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Passion is godly. Mocking and personal attacks is a tool of the enemy. Whose side will you be on?

Women preaching equated with adultery and homosexuality

August 28, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 37 comments

Wade Burleson has commented on Irving Bible Church’s decision to allow women to preach the gospel to the congregation on a Sunday morning and the attacks that this church has experienced because of this decision. Wade writes:

I shiver when I hear my fellow evangelicals call a church that asks a woman to preach the gospel on Sunday morning a church of “grave moral concern.” WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FEMALE PASTORS!

The idea that a woman teaching or preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ is a “grave moral concern” shows us how far the church has fallen from the place of accepting one another as brothers and sisters in Christ who have gifts given for the benefit of “one another”. Is not the “grave moral concern” rather an issue of saying that “I” (a man speaking) do not need “a woman” teacher?

1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

Why is it that scripture says we “cannot say” something that we do say? The scripture says that we do not have permission to say that women preachers and women teachers are not needed by some in the body of Christ. When we reject God’s gifts merely because of the package that they are housed in, we are rejecting the Lord Jesus in this area. Jesus is responsible for assigning the gifts. If he did not want a female to teach a male the gospel, then Jesus should have created a list of female gifts which list would not include teaching. Then it would be easy for men to disregard something that doesn’t exist. When are we going to stop saying what scripture has forbidden us to say? Saying “I” do not need you and your God-given gift should be treated as a serious moral concern.

The sin of the man

August 28, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 10 comments

We have been looking at Genesis 3 and the fall of man. In this post I want to concentrate on Genesis 3:22-24 to see what we can understand from God’s words that result in God’s actions and why God judges differently between the man and the woman by bringing sin into the world only through the man.

In a previous post we saw that the original Hebrew reveals that God said “Behold, the man was like one of Us….” There is no justification in the original Hebrew for the translation that man became like God when he ate the fruit. This is a very significant point. God said that man was created like God and now he has added to that creation the experience of evil. In his fallen state his inclination would be to partake of what now is forbidden to him which previously was given freely. The tree of life was given to Adam to enjoy the fruit but must now be taken away to fulfill God’s word that “in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die”.

Would Adam reach out to take of the fruit of the tree of life in his sinful state? The actions of God prove that this would be the case. …

Read More Read More

Irving Bible Church releases women to serve

August 28, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 12 comments

In the news is Irving Bible Church who recently took 18 months to study the issue of women in ministry from the scriptures, and now they have implemented a clarification of their position on women regarding the use of their God-given gifts for the common good. They have produced a 24 page paper on Women in Ministry that documents the findings from their study. It is at this link on the right hand side, the PDF document. Although at this point they are still holding to the teaching that only men should become elders, their renewed view coming from the scriptures allows them to release women to teach and preach and use all of their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. It is very encouraging to see another church freeing women to serve with their gifts for the benefit of both men and women.

Below is the brief description of their journey from the front page of the above web site:

Women’s Role in the Church

The May 2008 issue of Chatter, a publication of Irving Bible Church, contained several stories, interviews, and research resources based on Women’s Role in the Church. This web section contains those stories as well as additional resources for your reading and exploration.

Unleashing God’s People

When the issue of women’s role in the Church specific to practicing the spiritual gifts of teaching, leading and preaching was raised, the IBC Elder Board embarked on a journey to discover what God had for all of his people and how he might unleash them to glorify his kingdom. Chatter listened to the Elder Board to learn about that journey, what it involved and where we’ve landed today.

When did the Elder Board begin to look at the role of women?
In 2006, people began asking questions about the role of women in the Church specific to teaching and preaching. For example, could they teach adult Bible Communities? Why didn’t we have a woman on our teaching team? There was also a healthy discussion taking place on Table and Fire. We realized as a board how important it was for us to clarify IBC’s position on this, and thus began an 18-month journey of prayer, study and discussion.

Was there any trepidation on the part of the board?
We knew that once we began, we would need to devote a considerable amount of time and prayer toward it. Each of us had wrestled with this issue on some level, and we came at it from different experiences and with varying perspectives. As a group, we were committed to moving forward with spiritual, biblical and intellectual integrity.

Specifically, what steps did the board take?
We held more than 12 meetings in which the ministry role of women was the primary topic for discussion, study and prayer. We looked at likeminded churches that walked this journey before us and read several books and commentaries that held varying viewpoints. In addition, we dialogued with women both in ministry here at IBC and from other churches. We sought godly counsel, and invited three professors from Dallas Theological Seminary—Dr. Jeffrey Bingham, Dr. Scott Horrell, and Dr. Bob Pyne—representing different positions on the issue to present their studies and insights to us.

What were the most enlightening things you learned?
Jesus was completely radical in how he elevated women in his day. He ignored cultural barriers and invited women to be part of his ministry. Throughout the Bible we found God using women as leaders, prophets and teachers to further his kingdom. We also looked at how God effectively uses women in ministry today. The fact is, he’s used women throughout history and today in powerful ways—in teaching, leading and preaching roles—and there’s fruit. We’ve seen it, and we can’t deny it.

Did this lead the board to feel as though the issue is truly black and white?
Not at all. We quickly learned that there are many God-honoring, spiritually mature, biblically astute Christians who have different views on this topic. We realized that, instead of presuming to determine what is “right” for all times and places, we were called to define “what seems to be good to us and the Holy Spirit” for IBC in the spirit of Acts 15:28.

With that in mind, how does IBC plan to move forward?
We are going forward with the strong belief that God wants to unleash all of His children using all of their spiritual gifts to further His kingdom. Women represent 50% or more of the body of Christ, and having them fully unleashed to use all of their giftedness makes us 50% more effective and powerful for Christ. We need the whole body of Christ fully engaged for the kingdom. So we’re not just saying, “It’s OK.” We’re saying, “Come on!”

How do you expect the IBC community to respond?
We hope that people will be excited about women being unleashed for Christ’s kingdom. For those who are surprised by or unfamiliar with this approach, we hope they will interact with the scriptures and prayerfully consider the validity of our position. After 18 months of committed prayer, godly counsel, reading God’s word, and allowing the Holy Spirit to speak, we believe this is the right and best course for IBC.

How will this change what IBC is currently doing?
Truly, it doesn’t change very much. We’re really looking to provide clarity as to what, in many ways, we’ve already been practicing. A noticeable change may include an occasional woman preacher at IBC as God raises up gifted and qualified individuals for that task.

Satan the liar or truth teller part 2

August 25, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 21 comments

We have been looking at Jesus’ words in John 8:44 which says that there is no truth in satan. We are comparing this to satan’s words through the serpent in Genesis 3:5 and God’s words in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”

Let’s compare the words in these two verses.

Genesis 3:5 the serpent said that God knows. God knows what? The serpent gives a time frame “in the day that you eat from it”. What will happen on that day? Their eyes will be opened (this is presented as a good thing) and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Here we have the serpent saying that Adam and his wife will become something that they are not now and it will be a good thing. It will make them “like” God. The implication then is also that God experiences both good and evil. But does he? The word for “knows” and “knowing” is the Hebrew “yada” and its primary meaning means to know relationally and experientially. What the serpent is saying is that God experientially “knows” evil as well as good.

Now let’s see what God says that is different from what the serpent has said:

In Genesis 3:22 the English is opposed to the original Hebrew and the most authentic versions. The Hebrew “hayah” (English translated as “has” become) is the third person preterite tense, and signifies was, not is. The same tense is translated in the Samaritan text, the Samaritan version, the Syriac, and the Septuagint. Adam Clarke says that “These lead us to a very different sense…” God is saying “Behold the man was like one of us…” God is not agreeing with satan that the likeness with God came on the day of their eating the fruit but the likeness started on their day of creation. They were like God in the beginning.

The distortion here is in the time frame and the grammar. The serpent said that they will become like God on the day they eat the fruit. That is a lie. God said they already were like him…until they ate the fruit.

Adam Clarke says that there is “an ellipsis of some words which must be supplied in order to make the sense complete.” This apparently is not uncommon with Hebrew where the basic information is given and you complete the sense. Adam Clarke goes on to quote a very learned man who fills in the blanks this way:

“And the Lord God said, The man who was like one of us in purity and wisdom, is now fallen and robbed of his excellence; he has added “ladaath” to the knowledge of the evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever in this miserable state, I will remove him, and guard the place lest he should reenter.”

The deception was that there was something more in store for them to be like God. But God does not experience evil. Instead of finding themselves like God, they became very much unlike him because they added evil to their experience of good.

So it is true what Jesus said that there is no truth at all in satan. Even though he comes as close as he can to the truth, he twists it and distorts it so that it says something completely different. Adam and his wife did not become like God on the day that they ate the fruit. Their sinless existence was shattered and they became very much unlike God in their experience. Their eyes were opened as the serpent said they would be, but the opening of their eyes was to evil and not to a new dimension of Godhood.

Satan the liar or truth teller?

August 24, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 19 comments

In this post I would like to talk about one verse and its application to the book of Genesis.

John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

What does it mean when it says that there is “no truth in him”? Does this mean that Satan is incapable of telling the truth? If Satan is incapable of telling the truth is Genesis 3:5 a lie?

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We have God telling us in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”

Is there any difference between what Satan said and what God said?

Before I tell you what I think, I would like to know what you think. How do you reconcile Jesus’ words that say that there is no truth in Satan and the words in Genesis 3:5 compared to Genesis 3:22?

Next post we will discuss more answers.

Women in Ministry list of sins?

August 21, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 39 comments

*This original post created on August 21, 2008 has been changed/updated on September 11, 2008. I have given the individual listed below time to show integrity by stopping the stalking and the vitriol, but this individual is not repentant nor will she remove the offenses on line. It is time to warn the church about the public sin.

As one goes public concerning the biblical teaching that the bible in context does not support a restriction on women teaching the bible to men, it is not uncommon to have one or more people who are so upset by this teaching that they are willing to call a sister in Christ a heretic and resort to tactics that are designed to smear their good name. This is what has happened to me. I now have a stalker who is producing vitriol against me personally having purchased my own name three different ways on line and who is directing these named sites to a blog that is set up to mock and defame me. The person’s name is Diane Sellner. Diane is employed by a ministry that makes a very public issue of calling people heretics and dangerous to the church, whose only crime it is, is to teach that women can be pastors and elders. I have been receiving the brunt of her anger.

I personally feel very sad for Diane Sellner who has produced such a mocking blog. Her lies and half truths do not speak well of the ministry that she works for since she has been allowed free reign to post her vitriol and she has received support from them instead of discipline. No attempt has been made by Diane to contact me privately. Her “fruit” should be easily seen for what it really is. Those who mock and attack without care for their brother or sister in Christ are not showing that they operate with the Spirit of Christ. …

Read More Read More

Is Complementarianism merely personal conviction?

August 14, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 76 comments

This post is a response to Randy Stinson’s article titled “Is Complementarianism a Merely Personal Conviction?“

In Randy Stinson’s article it appears that there is a lot of fear that comes through even to the point of suggesting that if one is an egalitarian they will be affected negatively for their entire life, even to the extent that they may not remain in the Christian faith. I would like to unpack some of the key points of Randy Stinson’s article to look at the underlying message to see how it brings a divisiveness into the body of Christ. Mr. Stinson gives a very telling statement at the beginning of this article:

I believe it is possible for someone to be wrong on the gender issue, but still be a believer. So being an egalitarian does not mean you are not a Christian, but it does cripple the discipleship process for that person for the rest of their life. [emphasis is mine]

I personally do not ever recall reading egalitarian Christians questioning the salvation of their complementarian brothers. Rather than dividing from their brothers, egalitarians generally start with the thought that these are our brothers in Christ and the debate is only on the secondary issues of faith. However complementarians are more and more being pushed towards questioning the salvation of egalitarians. Note Mr. Stinson doesn’t say that egalitarians who are evangelicals are our brothers and sisters in Christ but rather he says that it is “possible” for egalitarians to be believers. He then makes a very bold statement that egalitarians are crippled in their walk with the Lord. His use of this word picture is designed to draw the conclusion that the egalitarian viewpoint is a disease that one can survive but with great damage to our faith. Mr. Stinson then goes on to draw a line in the sand with assumptions that are not only unproven but which are extremely divisive. He lists six points that he says are key areas of Christian theology and practice that are apparently crippled by the egalitarian belief:

1. The authority of scripture is at stake.

Mr. Stinson greatly overstates his case in this point and draws the reader to the conclusion that egalitarians do not hold to the authority of God’s word. While he says that the Bible “clearly” teaches that men and women have distinct and complementary roles in the home and the church he does not mention the fact that a growing number of evangelical Christians who strongly hold to the authority of scripture read the hard passages of scripture in their context and see something that is not so “clear” at all that there are differing spiritual roles for men and women. These same Christians hold tightly to the authority of the scripture and they do not teach people to disregard God’s word but rather they teach that we should all read the hard passages in their complete context because God’s word must not be interpreted in a way that causes one scripture to contradict another.

2. The health of the home is at stake.

Here Mr. Stinson equates the foundation of the home as one person – the husband, whereas scripture reveals that the one-flesh union of husband and wife brings a unity of authority to both mother and father. (Deut. 21:18-20; Leviticus 19:3 where Mother is even placed before Father; and Ephesians 6:1, 2)

Mr. Stinson also says the egalitarian view is disobedience and “they will not have the proper foundation upon which to withstand the temptations of the devil”. Where is such a thing listed in scripture? There is no scriptural reference for Mr. Stinson’s claim. However there is an example of a wife going against her husband and taking her individual authority to pursue peace with King David whose servants had been insulted by her husband. The story is found in 1 Samuel chapter 25 and Abigail is said to be intelligent (1 Samuel 25:3) and one who had discernment (1 Samuel 25:33). She took authority over a matter and did not tell her husband who is described as a fool, a character trait that matches his name. Her wise action which was done in direct conflict with her husband’s foolish decision actually saved her family.

This hinders the sanctification of married couple…

Where is this found in scripture? The only “sanctification” that is found in scripture regarding married couples is in 1 Corinthians 7:14 regarding an unbelieving mate.

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Notice here that scripture lists first of all that an “unbelieving husband” is sanctified through his wife. Paul also says that an “unbelieving wife” is sanctified through her believing husband and the purpose is for the benefit of the children. Sanctification in the marriage is not listed in scripture as coming through a husband as if he was a leader of a subordinate person (the wife) but rather sanctification in marriage comes through a believing spouse whether a wife or a husband. Every other reference to sanctification is personal and has nothing to do with marriage. Mr. Stinson is very wrong in equating the sanctification of the marriage as having anything to do with complementarian belief and practice.

and also introduces confusion about basic parenting issues such as raising masculine sons and feminine daughters.

Mr. Stinson as well as his organization called CBMW (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) makes much of teaching about spiritual masculinity and spiritual femininity yet the bible teaches nothing about the spiritual way to raise masculine sons or feminine daughters. Christianity is not about following Jesus in a feminine way or a masculine way. All of us are to follow Jesus in the same spiritual way. We are all to be humble and to practice submission as Jesus did. The teaching that there is a feminine way regarding spirituality and a masculine way to spirituality is foreign to the scriptures.

3. The health of the church is at stake.

Just like the home, if the church disobeys the teaching of 1Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and disregards the structure that God put into place for the community of faith from the beginning, then the church will be weakened. If the church is weakened in its convictions, it will be less effective in accomplishing its mission.

Here Mr. Stinson implies that 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 are a “structure” that God put into place for the community of faith. Where is this “structure”? 1 Timothy 2 has no hierarchical structure listed. In 1 Corinthians 11 the inspired “order” of 1 Cor. 11:3 is not an ordered list of hierarchy nor does the rest of the passage list any authority of the man over the woman. Rather 1 Cor. 11:11 shows that the male does not operate independently of the female nor the female independent of the male (no hierarchy here at all). In fact verse 12 shows that first in creation did not bring preeminence just as the fact that the man now comes through the woman show that she is now preeminate. The preeminence is solely in God himself.

Mr. Stinson also does not show how the egalitarian view of scripture weakens the church of its convictions in the essentials areas of faith or how the church is less effective in its mission of evangelization and discipleship.

4. Our worship is at stake.

Here Mr. Stinson makes a point that God “named Himself” father. God did not “name” Himself Father. His name is “I AM”

Exodus 3:13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”
Exodus 3:15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

“Father” is not God’s name, it is his relationship with us. While I do not advocate calling God “mother”, God has revealed in scripture his character that has motherly qualities. Yet to us, he has decided to be known in relationship to us as a Father. God is not “Father” because he is male. God is neither male nor female. God is Spirit and there are no “body parts” in God that could make Him male. Rather, God is “Father” because this is the way that he choses to express his relationship to us.

The very nature of our triune God is revealed in a biblically ordered marriage.

Where does scripture say this? If the “triune God” is revealed in a biblically ordered marriage, who in the marriage relationship is the one corresponding to the Holy Spirit? Marriage is a one-flesh union of two equals. It is two people becoming united into one flesh. Marriage is not three persons united into one flesh.

5. Bible translations are at stake.

…my concern is that in the name of gender equality, the Bible is undermined and the very words of God end up being revised.

The English language has evolved so that words previously used in earlier generations do not have the same meaning today as they did in an earlier time. The Greek word for generic humans was translated into English as “man”. In the past it was understood that “man” meant human (meaning men or women), but today the word of God can be held back from being being crystal clear when the term “man” is seen in our day as meaning male only. If we use what is today a male term when a generic term is meant in the original Greek, would that be a good thing for the next generation? Is it wrong to “sharpen up” the English if the original intent of the Greek word is kept intact and made clearer? We should be far more concerned about keeping the clarity and faithfulness of the original languages than we should be concerned that the English word is changed.

6. The advance of the Gospel is at stake.

Ephesians 5 calls husbands and wives to relate to one another as a picture of Christ and the church. The picture involves the humble, sacrificial leadership of the husband…

Jesus is both God and man. As God he is Lord and Master and King. As the human Son, he is the husband of the church. This picture of Christ and the church is shown to be one of a unified body with Christ as the one who serves the church by giving her food. Jesus service is manifested through humble sacrifice to give himself for the church. The husband is to serve his wife in the same way, but scripture never once calls the husband the leader of the wife. Neither does the scriptures say that the husband is to have a sacrificial “leadership”. What complementarians have done is added a word to the inspired scriptures. Without the addition to the text, the husband is pictured as serving his wife and giving himself up for her. The husband is never pictured as being a leader but is pictured as being a servant.

and the joyful, intelligent submission to that leadership by the wife.

When our tradition adds “leadership” to sacrifice, we have in effect watered down and devalued God’s word in accordance with our tradition. We have also watered down the scriptures which say that Christians are to submit to one another. Submission is a “Christian” characteristic, not a feminine characteristic. The tradition that only the woman is to submit to the man takes away a key part of Christian maturity. We submit to one another, not only for the other person’s edification, but so that we may receive from that one the benefit of the other person’s gifts.

Romans 15:2 Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification.

Should a husband submit to his wife’s gifts? Should a husband please his wife for her good and for her edification? Common sense says that we are heirs together in Christ (1 Peter 3:7) and as heirs together we can benefit from each other’s gifts. We cannot benefit from these gifts unless we submit to receive the gifts. Submission then is a Christian virtue, not a female virtue alone.

Deviation from biblical teaching on manhood and womanhood distorts the picture of Christ and the Church, and hinders the advance of the gospel.

Not only is there no biblical teaching on “manhood” and “womanhood”, but there is nothing in scripture that says that the gospel is hindered by the church who has women taking their place alongside the men or by the home that has a united authority of Father and Mother. What this teaching does is attach the gender issue to the essential issue of the Gospel and this is wrong.

Why is this issue so important? Because the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be severed from the methods he has authorized to spread it. Homes and churches in which manhood and womanhood are prized advance the Gospel and the glory of God more accurately than any other kind of home or church.

Here is where the complementarian message has added itself into the gospel. Randy Stinson is essentially saying that the gospel preached by complementarians is “more accurate” than the gospel preached by egalitarians. In essence the complementarian view of “men only” leading in public teaching is part and parcel of the gospel message. One then cannot preach the full gospel that is necessary to save us unless one is also preaching concerning male-only leadership. No wonder so many complementarians are seeing egalitarians as heretics and as unsaved religious people who they must fight against. This is divisive and harmful to the body of Christ. In the last several years, the position of CBMW, of which Randy Stinson is president, has been increasingly antangonistic towards their egalitarian brothers and sisters in Christ. The position has been preached that egalitarians can be saved, but they must repent of being egalitarians.

In the past there have been groups who have attached their own personal preferences to the gospel. Some claimed that one could not be saved unless one spoke in tongues. Now we have a group who are claiming that belief in male leadership is necessary as part of the gospel. This is an ungodly addition to the gospel. CBMW is guilty of dividing sheep against sheep by adding conditions to the gospel of Jesus Christ. May there be repentance from this divisive work before it further harms the body of Christ.

Was Eve mistaken?

August 7, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 15 comments

In our continuing discussions on the fall of man we have dealt with the issue of Adam as guardian of the garden and the charge against Eve that she added to God’s word. In this post I will deal with the position that Eve did not sin by adding to God’s word but she was merely mistaken regarding what God said.

Let’s start with a question. If Eve was mistaken, what caused her to be mistaken? Let’s consider the options.

1. Adam heard the command from God but he added to God’s word when he told the woman that God said “You (plural) shall not eat from it or touch it…” Eve was mistaken because Adam lied to her.

Is this a viable option?

If it was Adam who added to God’s word, then it was Adam who sinned in this way in addition to eating the fruit. If this is true, we can ask the very same questions as we did when we considered if the woman added to God’s word. How can we charge Adam with this sin if there is no charge of adding to God’s words in the text? Who is a witness against Adam? Did God say anything about this sin to Adam? No he didn’t but he should have reproved him if Adam was guilty. …

Read More Read More

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Women’s Role in the Church

Unleashing God’s People

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: