The case of the battling proof texts Part Two

The case of the battling proof texts Part Two

Comments 2 comments

In part one, we discussed the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself so when a complementarian has a “proof text” that is used to prove that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men, they must also deal with the apparent contradictions of this view. Here are some of the contradictions that need to be answered:

1. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the only verse in the Bible that seems to suggest that women are not allowed to teach men. Since Paul commended the Bereans for checking his doctrine by the measuring stick of the Old Testament, what Old Testament scripture would they have turned to that confirmed the prohibition disallowing women from teaching the bible to men?

2. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal prohibition, why would Paul word God’s universal law with the words “I do not allow”? Where else did God ever give a universal prohibition with the words of a man saying “I (the man) do not allow”?

3. If women are said to be more susceptible to deception than men, why are women allowed to teach other women (who by their nature would also be susceptible to deception) and young children (who by their age would also be susceptible to deception)? Why would they only be stopped from teaching men (who would be the very ones who would be able to correct them if men are the ones who are not susceptible to deception)?

4. Since Paul’s concern in leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus was to stop the false teachers, what reason did Paul give to stop godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? Why would Paul have not mentioned in chapter one that he left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers and the women from teaching men?

5. If God does not want the teaching gifts of women to be used for the benefit of men, then doesn’t this make women’s teaching inferior to men’s teaching? How can a woman’s gifts be equal to a man’s gifts if he cannot benefit from her spiritual gifts?

6. If a group of men are not allowed to be taught by a woman, why is a single man allowed to be taught by a woman? Can you explain why Paul’s prohibition stopping “a woman” from teaching “a man” is not applicable for a single woman teaching a single man?

7. In Acts 18:26 Priscilla is said to have taught Apollos and corrected his doctrine. What scripture explains why Priscilla was allowed to teach Apollos? Was the universal prohibition to stop women from teaching men given before Priscilla taught Apollos or after she taught him?

WIM Video Preview on YouTube

WIM Video Preview on YouTube

Comments 0 Comment

I have posted a preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview below. Click on the picture to see the introduction to WIM.
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0e9TL5TWdac”][/gv]

To watch a preview clip of the 3rd DVD on 1 Corinthians 14 should women be silent in the church click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-corinthians-11-should-women-be-silent

To watch a preview clip of the the section on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-timothy-2-video-preview-now-available/

Slavery still an issue today – so says The Wilderness Crier

Slavery still an issue today – so says The Wilderness Crier

Comments 0 Comment

I came across an excellent post written very tongue-in-cheek about the issue of slavery using all of the standard arguments against women teaching the bible to men. It is worth the read and the link is here. My mouth just dropped open as I first read it thinking that he was serious. But as I read I recognized all of the old arguments that I have heard about stopping women from ministering from the bible in the presence of men.

I will be back posting again in a few days after taking a few days off to recover from the very busy Christmas season. I wish everyone a very wonderful new year and God’s richest blessings!

The case of the battling proof texts, Part One

The case of the battling proof texts, Part One

Comments 2 comments

Battling proof texts = a real problem

One of the things that bugs me when Christians have discussions about the women’s issue is the point when they are at loggerheads regarding “proof texts”. One person says they have their “proof text” scripture and so they are not willing to listen to what the other person has to say. The other person also has their “proof texts” and also isn’t willing to budge. However proof texting is simply not good enough. While you may have one verse that seems to agree with you, you also need to deal with the texts that don’t agree with you. This is the point where many people give up. They hold onto their proof text and stubbornly refuse to look outside of their already made-up mindset.

So how do we handle the situation when we come up against someone who is holding onto a wrong interpretation because of their “proof text”? What we need to do is to look carefully at their proof text and examine it within its entire context. That entire context may be broader than the chapter it is in and may include the entire book of the Bible that it is included in. Why is this important? It is important because if we do battle with our “proof texts” we are in essence saying that the Bible contradicts itself.  Do you believe that? I don’t. So now here comes the challenge – instead of retreating to your corner with your proof text, how about proving that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself? …

Read More Read More

Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Comments 16 comments

Adam’s treason was serious

While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?

God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:

‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’

If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

…

Read More Read More

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part One

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part One

Comments 0 Comment

Was Adam’s sin more serious?

While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin.

Before we consider the seriousness of Adam’s sin, let’s make sure it was only Adam who brought sin into the world.

Romans 5:18, NASB says:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men

Who was the one who committed this one transgression? Romans 5:14, 15 NASB: …

Read More Read More

Can only men judge right from wrong in the church?

Can only men judge right from wrong in the church?

Comments 1 comment

I read with interest Wayne Grudem’s claim that 1 Cor. 14:34 means that women are to “keep silent”regarding weighing of the oral prophecies in the assembly. While I respect Mr. Grudem as a brother in Christ, I am wondering how he can separate women from the responsibility of judging when scripture says that we all have the responsibility to judge. Judging is not a male activity, but an activity of the mature Christian. Paul had already told the Corinthian church that the saints will judge the world. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:

1 Cor. 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

Paul said that the saints will not only judge the world, but we will judge angels! 1 Corinthians 6:3 says:

1 Cor. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

This is not a male matter of judging, but an activity of the saints. If women are also going to judge the world and the angels, shouldn’t they be allowed to judge matters in the church relating to truth and error and the bible? Nowhere in scripture does it say that women are not allowed to judge. In fact God himself set Deborah up as a judge in the Old Testament. Where is there any law in scripture that forbids women from judging truth from error in the congregation? There is none!

In 1 Cor. 14:29 it does not say that there is a responsibility for males alone to judge. Instead it is the congregation who must learn to be mature and judge between truth and error. “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”

I respectfully say that Mr. Grudem may be fulfilling 1 Cor. 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.” Is there really no need of women to be mature and judge between truth and error in the body of Christ? Can men do this *alone* and they don’t need women? I don’t think we have a right to tell women that they cannot participate in the mature responsibility of the entire body to judge prophesy. Women must be allowed to be mature and to judge right from wrong. If Paul really was claiming that women were not allowed to judge prophesy, then he was contradicting himself when he pushed the saints on to maturity by telling them that judgment is a Christian thing that we will all be required to do. Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!

Why was Adam not deceived?

Why was Adam not deceived?

Comments 32 comments

1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post.

The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.

Does God have one unique law? Part Three

Does God have one unique law? Part Three

Comments 9 comments

God’s one unique law? Part three

In this part three of “Does God have one unique law?” we will be discussing the last set of circumstances that set apart the “law” that complementarians say God made that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. It is our desire to point out that all of these unique circumstances that set apart this “law” as something completely unique from all of God’s other laws should cause us to see “red flags” regarding making 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal law.

If we look at the entire context of 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 2 we are able to clearly see a context of deception and false teachers that Timothy was left behind in Ephesus to deal with, therefore we should be very cautious in using one verse taken out of its context to condemn all godly Christian women who obey God by using their gift of teaching to include men.

In the last two articles where we have been discussing this unique “law”, we have discovered that God has certain characteristics concerning his laws that are common to all of God’s laws. …

Read More Read More

Does God have one unique law? Part Two

Does God have one unique law? Part Two

Comments 12 comments

God God have one unique law? Part 2 Is there a second witness?

Complementarians have stated that God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This law, they say, is revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12. Since we saw in part one that this law is foreign to the Old Testament, let’s have a look at the New Testament to see if there is a second witness to this law.

Paul stated that repetition is for our safety. Philippians 3:1 says:

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

Paul knew the importance of repetition. Every time doctrine is repeated and every time a prohibition is restated, we have a verification of the facts. Cults often take one scripture out of context and twist the meaning. When a fact is repeated, it is less likely that the fact can be disregarded or disputed. Repetition is indeed necessary for our safety.

So since we know that the “law” that forbids godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men is not stated in the Old Testament and would not have been a tutor for the women in the early church, is there a repetition of this “law” in the New Testament anywhere? No there is not. Now isn’t that odd? Every single “law” in the bible is verified by a second witness, except for this one. For more discussion on the necessity of having a second witness click here. …

Read More Read More

What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?

What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?

Comments 86 comments

Summary of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in its context

I was challenged to present my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on another blog and I thought it would be good to summarize my view on my own blog. Here is the teaching from “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” our DVD series on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, presenting the 1 Timothy 2 passage in a nutshell. Below the summary are links to my 4 DVD set for free on YouTube.

  1. In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)
  2. Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine – he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)
  3. Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of his fighting against the church was because he was ignorant of the truth and he had been deceived (1 Tim 1:13, 16)
  4. Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7) and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)
  5. Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)
  6. Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)
  7. All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst – those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
  8. The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)
  9. The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)
  10. Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man and deals with a problem of false teaching and a false teacher.
  11. Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers – he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education in sound doctrine and he never ever identifies the deceived.
  12. Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context the prohibition can only be the stopping of false doctrine and stopping a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)
  13. We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for false teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)
  14. Whenever gune and aner are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.
  15. Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1) 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 follows that example as two people are called “a woman” and “a man” without naming them. They are not named because the wife is one of the deceived and Paul never identifies the deceived ones by name.
  16. Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman was created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14 and Gen. 2:8, 19) See Genesis 2:8, 19 in the Apostle’s Bible which is the modern English version of the Greek Septuagint where it is quite clear the education Adam had before Eve was created.
  17. The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The “she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.
  18. The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.
  19. 1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer as to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).
  20. Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.

View “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” for free

For a full media production of this passage along with the other hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, we have placed our entire 4 DVD set called Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? for free on YouTube.

Part 1s & 2 can be found here.

Part 3 can be found here.

Part 4 can be found here.

Parts 5-7 can be found here

A fuller version of my article on 1 Timothy 1:11-15 by clicking here. To purchase the 4 DVD set of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? go to our website here.

Does this exegesis make sense?

Does God have one unique law? Part One

Does God have one unique law? Part One

Comments 4 comments

Does God have one unique law?

If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.

All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament.

Laws traced back to OT on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

All prohibitions that are God’s law written in the New Testament are traceable back to the Old Testament law.

But it is an odd thing about the law about women not teaching men-

It cannot be traced back to the Old Testament. There is no connection there at all! Now isn’t that odd? The 1 Timothy 2 “prohibition” about stopping women from teaching the bible to men is a unique law, the only”law” that cannot be traced back to the Old Testament! …

Read More Read More

Could the Messiah have been a woman?

Could the Messiah have been a woman?

Comments 7 comments

Coud the Messiah have been a woman?

Since God is neither male nor female, some have suggested that the Messiah could have been born a female. I would respectfully like to differ with that view. In this post I want to show from scripture why the Messiah had to be a male.

The scriptures definitively say that sin came through one man.

Romans 5:12 NASB: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”

Paul carries the thought further by saying:

Romans 5:19 “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

Although Adam and Eve both sinned, the willful disobedience of the man was what brought sin into the world. …

Read More Read More

Adam as head of the family

Adam as head of the family

Comments 61 comments

Adam as Head of the Family

It is common for hierarchists to say that Adam was Eve’s head not because he was her source, but because he had authority over her. While the teaching that Adam was Eve’s ruler before the fall of man is unsubstantiated, the fact that Adam was the source of Eve is foundational to the doctrine of the kinsman redeemer.

Let’s see if we can draw out the important connection regarding Adam’s headship and the new head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam was the first human creation and from his body, Eve was created.

The fact that Eve was created from Adam’s body and that he was the source of her flesh-and-bone-body is highly important because of what happened next. Although Eve was deceived and she sinned because of her deception, Adam sinned willfully without being deceived. Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Adam was charged with bringing sin into the world. The following diagram shows how Adam’s blood line was tainted with sin.

The Redeemer from the woman

God, however, prophesied that the Redeemer, the Messiah, would come from the woman. It is vital that the seed of the woman alone would produce the Messiah because of the inherited sin nature that comes through the man. The diagram below shows that the Messiah is produced from a virgin woman.

…

Read More Read More

What women really want

What women really want

Comments 9 comments

In Genesis chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about her future. Unfortunately God’s words have been interpreted by male expositors in a way that makes God out to be a false prophet. In Genesis 3:16 in the NASB, God said “In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband”

After the fall, God speaks about the future. In the quote above, God says “you will”. This is a prophetic utterance about the future and about the desire that Eve will have for her husband. What is this desire? In the Hebrew the word desire means a stretching out for – a longing for. The Complete WordStudy Dictionary describes this as the strong feelings of desire one had for another, but it wasnt always a healthy one. So is the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 a healthy desire or not? The word translated as “desire” is only found three times in the Old Testament.

In Song of Solomon 7:10 it says “I am my beloved’s, And his desire is for me.” This desire is a very healthy desire of a husband toward his wife. This desire is between a man and a woman.

In Genesis 4:7 it says “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” This desire is a figurative desire of sin wanting to control a person.

So which kind of desire is God prophesying about in Genesis 3:16? Is it like the figurative desire of sin to control and to destroy? Or is it like the longing of one person for another? Almost every commentary you read, the male commentator says that God gave a judgment on the woman so that she will desire to rule over the man. But is this true? Can scripture be properly interpreted that way? First of all the fact that the woman will desire her husband is not God’s judgment against her. It is a prophecy that would be shortly fulfilled and the desire for the man is the natural longing of the woman in spite of the pain that she experiences from having his children and in spite of the domination that the man has over her. She will long for him in spite of all the reasons for her to want to stay away from him.

In a recent bible study class the instructor brought up these verses and said that it was God’s judgment that women would desire to rule their husbands. When we broke up into groups for discussion, the first thing that the women said was “I have no desire to rule or control the man.” Every one of the women in our group said the same thing.

If we take the interpretation that the male interpreters have put onto this passage, then it puts God into dire straits because he has predicted something that on the whole simply is not true. Perhaps the male expositors should have taken the time to ask women what their desires are and then they would have known for sure the proper way to interpret this verse. So what do women really want?

Women want men to love them emotionally. Women long for their men to hold them and speak tenderly to them and to be treated as if they were the only woman on this planet. Yes women want sex too, but sex is an outworking of the emotional bond between man and woman. Women are not like men. Women do not use emotions to get sex. Women throughout the centuries have naturally used sex to get emotional love. So what is it that women want? Women want and desire emotional love. Women’s innate desire is not to rule men.

I have spoken to many women about this verse and most think the concept about them desiring to rule men is abhorrent. They can’t even conceive of it. Think about the women in all the third world countries. Do they desire to rule men? No. They dream about and long for freedom from being dominated and controlled. Women just want to be free to be themselves, they aren’t looking to rule the men, and above all they want to be loved.

So why have men chosen to believe that God said that the woman would desire to rule her husband? It is only because they are men who don’t know the internal nature of women.

Now think about it this way- if God’s intention was to punish women by making them want to rule their husbands, then why is it world-wide that women are not trying to rule their husbands? Why is it that the womanâ’s natural state is one of being easily controlled? It is because the woman’s natural tendency is to please the man and to want to do whatever will get emotional love from him. God’s words about her desire are not a curse on the woman, they are a prophetic statement concerning the innate longing that the woman will have.

And within a very short time, God’s prophetic words will come to life. Think about this – God kicks Adam out of the garden of Eden. He does not kick Eve out. Why is that? Because God knows that Adam in his rebellious state will desire to eat from the tree of life. Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit – she did not eat because she was acting in a rebellious way. So God kicks out the rebellious one.

Genesis 3:23 and 24: therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

God kicks out the rebellious Adam and he is forced out of the garden. So if God doesn’t kick Eve out, then why did she leave? It is so simple. God has already told us. He prophesied what was going to happen. Eve left because she desired her husband.

Husband as the Priest of the home?

Husband as the Priest of the home?

Comments 210 comments

With the push towards defining biblical manhood and womanhood, often men are pressured into a leadership role where they feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Probably none more stressful than the title given to them as “Priest of the home”. But is this position biblical?

Nowhere in scripture is there to be a designated “priest of the hom”. In Judges chapters 17 & 18 Micah, an idol worshipper, consecrated his son as a priest in his home (Judges 17:5) and he also persuaded a Levite to be his personal priest (Judges 17:7-13). This “priest of the home” was involved with idol worship (Judges 18:4, 14-20) and he was not set up as a “priest in the home” by God.

A priest is one who represents the people to God and offers sacrifices to God. Our High Priest is Jesus himself and he is both a mediator between mankind and God and the one who offered the ultimate blood sacrifice for our sins. Since we have Jesus as our High Priest, is there any need for a single priest in the home representing the family to God? Let’s see what scripture says. 1 Peter 2:5, 9 says that we are all to be priests to God in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices.

1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

By removing the wife from a joint priesthood with her husband and making only the husband responsible for seeking God’s will in all family decisions, those who espouse the unbiblical position of the man as the sole priest in the home, relegate the wife’s participation to a secondary and subordinate position in the home. This dismantles the woman’s equality as joint-heir with her husband and threatens to limit her spiritual growth.

The ultimate goal of every believer is to be conformed to the image of Christ and to grow into a mature “son” of God. All believers are called “sons” of God because all believers are fellow heirs with Christ. Because we are fellow heirs with Christ, all believers are expected to grow to maturity by learning how to make spiritual decisions that conform to biblical principles. Paul said that in the next life we (men and women in the body of Christ) will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) so it is so important that we all learn how to make mature spiritual decisions in this life.

By believing in the faulty doctrine that men are the sole priest in the home, many women have been taught that their husband is spiritually responsible for them. They think that if they love God and follow their husband’s spiritual lead that they will have no responsibility in the decisions made by their husbands. However in two of the best known examples of a husband not making wise spiritual decisions, Adam and Ananias (Acts 5:1), the wife was judged for her actions equally with the husband. There is no example of a husband called to account for his wife’s actions or a wife freed from spiritual responsibility because her husband made the original decision as in the case of Ananias. God did not ask Adam what Eve had done even though Adam was there with Eve during her temptation (Genesis 3:6) and Sapphira was held equally responsible for her acceptance of her husband’s plan to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9).

As joint-heirs of Christ and partners in the holy, royal priesthood, husband and wife have equal responsibility to seek God’s will for the family and equal responsibility to work together to preform God’s will in the home.

What is true headship?

What is true headship?

Comments 10 comments

With all of the talk on submission of a wife, we should at least grant that submission is not related to suppression of God’s gifts. In other words if a woman is gifted to teach, her submission to her husband and her desire to honor him should not be a means to stop her from using her God-given gifts. My husband’s position as my head is “worked-out” by his sacrificing for me. He gives up his life for me in order to provide me every opportunity to use my gifts and in turn I honor him by serving him and stepping outside my comfort zone in service to the body of Christ because of his encouragement. In my shyness in the past I have stepped back from using all of my gifts because of fear of man, but my husband has continually pushed me and prodded me to grow and mature. He has used his headship wisely for my good and my growth just as a physical head feeds the body.

True headship nourishes and encourages and lifts up the woman to be everything that she can be in Christ. True submission allows the head to nourish and sacrifice for her benefit. When my husband “works out” his headship in a godly way, it will always lift me up and will never suppress or hold back my God-given gifts.

Godly women need to repent?

Godly women need to repent?

Comments 2 comments

My heart goes out to Pastors who are so engrained in tradition that they can easily justify sending godly women to hell. This past weekend I spoke with a Pastor from a denomination that does not believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men. I asked him several questions regarding his view and his answers were very eye-opening to me.

1. I asked him if there was a law that forbid godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men and he said yes. (Yet every law of God comes from God alone and is never put into the words of a man saying “I do not allow”. God’s laws are clear, understandable, enforceable and they always have a second or third witness because God’s law are always repeated in scripture.)
2. I asked him if disobeying that “law” is sinning against God and he answered yes.

3. I asked him if I teach the bible to men and then do not repent of this sin before I die will I go to hell. He said yes.

Think about this – I will go to hell for teaching correct biblical doctrine! This has nothing to do immorality or a hatred of God. This has everything to do with operating in my God-given gifts. Yet this tradition says that I will go to hell for refusing to kick men out of my bible studies. Otherwise I must act in a prejudicial way towards my dear brothers in Christ so that God doesn’t send me to hell. How Satan must laugh at the church when our traditions have become a cause of separating brothers and sisters in Christ. Women have so much to give to the body of Christ and it is our desire to be allowed to share this knowledge with our brothers.

Audio talk now available online

Audio talk now available online

Comments 5 comments

On October 20, 2006 I gave a talk on the women’s issue at a convention of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. The talk was roughly based on questions that I had received from a Pastor who had watched my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” He had asked me some questions that were not covered by the hard passages on women from WIM. In my talk I answer the challenges against women teaching the bible to men that the Watchtower makes as well as the challenges from some Christian pastors. You can download the audio file at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 file or play a streaming version at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 streaming version.

Can complementarians agree to disagree?

Can complementarians agree to disagree?

Comments 20 comments

I sent a copy of our DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in February of 2006 and this summer I finally received a response. They have chosen at this point not to try to refute the video and have said that they will just agree to disagree. I think it is wonderful when Christians can have differing viewpoints and after working through their issues, at least agree to disagree. However in this case I am questioning whether that is really possible. I certainly can agree to disagree with them and still call them my brothers in Christ. However their position is that women who teach the bible to men are in sin. Can they agree to disagree when my brothers in Christ see me as living in unrepentant sin? I don’t think they have that option.

When you see your brother in sin, scripture tells us what to do if we see our brother or sister in sin:

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.

So if one sees a Christian brother or sister in sin, they should try to restore that one to fellowship, right? Does this seem consistent with “let’s just agree to disagree?” What verse would one point to that agrees that sin is merely a matter of agreeing to disagree?

What about this one – scripture says that the one who is born of God will not continue living a lifestyle of sin.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

So if a Christian brother accuses a sister in Christ of sinning against God by teaching the Bible to men, how is it consistent with scripture to “agree to disagree” and see the “sinning” sister as part of the fellowship of the body of Christ? How can the one practicing sin as a lifestyle be held in fellowship?

I certainly want to be gracious about this and to respect CBMW’s position, but it seems inconceivable to me that an organization of Christian men dedicated to spreading the complementarian position and who sincerely believe that women are in sin for teaching the bible to men can ignore my request for dialogue. I have asked them for their comments on my exegesis and if they believe I am wrong then to show me where I am wrong. It’s a no go. They aren’t interested. They just want to “agree to disagree”. Hmm……. Is that scriptural?

Another complementarian Pastor responds

Another complementarian Pastor responds

Comments 3 comments

I am preparing a talk on women in ministry partly based on questions and challenges presented to me by a complementarian Pastor from a large denomination which restricts women from teaching the bible to men. Here are excerpts that he gave regarding our DVD teaching series on Women in Ministry:

I want to say from the start that I was very impressed with the quality of your production and the depth of reasoning present in Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? This is a well thought out treatment of this controversial issue of women in ministry… It would have been easy for you to fall into a derogatory and disrespectful and even an antagonistic tone in this production, but you did not stoop to this level and for that you are to be commended. The tone throughout was one of respectful disagreement and honorable treatment of those who differed from you in your position. That’s grace.,,, I learned some interesting things from your teaching [for example](your handling of 1 Corinthians 14) – This was well done and your reference to Jewish tradition was powerful in making your points. Could Paul’s reference to “the law” in verses 34-35 be referring to a quotation from Jewish tradition? You make a pretty persuasive case that it is… Again I want to commend you on your work. It is well done, rational and reasonable, temperate, well organized, and of high technical quality… I want to say in closing, Cheryl, you and all those who worked on this project have done a magnificent job in presenting your case. I thank you for allowing me to review your work. It stretched me and forced me to dig deep and seriously consider what I believed about this issue.

I appreciate this Pastor’s willingness to be open to have his position on the women’s issue biblically challenged. This Pastor also gave me a list of questions and challenges that he believed needed to be answered regarding issues outside the hard passages of scripture and thus not included in the material in the DVD itself. I have answered his questions point by point and right now we are still dialoguing.

Pastor has his eyes opened regarding faulty traditions

Pastor has his eyes opened regarding faulty traditions

Comments 3 comments

I recently received this email from a Southern Baptist Pastor who watched the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” this summer:

Yes I did watch the video and thought it was very interesting. You made
some very valid observations…Your DVD was excellent…I must admit that my eyes were opened away from some faulty traditions from viewing your DVD objectively and un biased.

The question is how do we contend without being contentious? Many people, even women are steeped in tradition rather than educated in Scripture. Lord help us all!!!

It is a great question that he asked. …

Read More Read More

Isn’t the Priesthood in the OT proof that God uses only men?

Isn’t the Priesthood in the OT proof that God uses only men?

Comments 12 comments

Q: Isn’t the fact that God only chose men for the Priesthood in the Old Testament proof that God only uses men in leadership? After all the Priesthood is equivalent to the Pastorhood in the church.

A: Although God originally started with only one tribe in Israel for the Priesthood and only the men from that one tribe were eligible, his intention was not for the Priesthood to stay with only one tribe and only the men. In Exodus 19:5-8, God makes a covenant with the nation of Israel. …

Read More Read More

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

Comments 12 comments

Q: Isn’t there a law in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men? Why are you disregarding this law?

A: There are many who take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men and therefore forbids them from ministering in the church using their God-given gifts. However we need to test this “prohibition” to see if it is a situation in the Ephesian church (a local situation) that Paul is stopping or if it is a law that Paul is establishing for the body of Christ. Up until 1 Timothy 2 was written, there was not even one scripture that says that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men. Is Paul constructing a new law for the church? Well, let’s test that. …

Read More Read More

Wasn’t Adam the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden?

Wasn’t Adam the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden?

Comments 15 comments

Q: Does the fact that Adam was the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden prove that he was given a role of authority that the women was not given?

A: This is a common question and comes from a common misconception about the text in Genesis 2. However scripture does not say that Adam alone was given God’s prohibition in the garden and that he had authority over Eve. Let’s have a look at scripture to see what it actually says. In Genesis chapter two, God gives the prohibition to Adam saying “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” …

Read More Read More

Doesn’t 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?

Doesn’t 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?

Comments 3 comments

Q: In WIM you say that 1 Timothy 1:3 “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” means people male or female. However isn’t the technical grammar of “some” as singular masculine?

A: This is an excellent question and I am glad that you asked this. Although 1 Timothy 1:3 has a generic meaning of male or female, the fine points of the grammar show that the Greek is singular masculine. However this grammar does not exclude females. …

Read More Read More

Isn’t it a sin for a woman to teach men?

Isn’t it a sin for a woman to teach men?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: Doesn’t Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 for women not to teach men show that to disobey this command is a sin?

A: That’s a great question. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we need to determine what the command is and who the command is to. To determine these two things, we refer you back to the section on 1 Timothy 2:12 in the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Now to the question about sin. If one interprets this passage as meaning that all women are not allowed to teach the bible to men, then one would have a very serious dilemma about the charge of sin in this passage. …

Read More Read More

Isn’t “a woman” from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is “generic woman”?

Isn’t “a woman” from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is “generic woman”?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: You say that “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11 & 12 is the same terminology as Paul calling “a man” living in sin in 1 Corinthians 5. Wouldn’t you have to admit that the normal grammatical reading in 1 Corinthians 5 which says that Paul is talking about a particular man, not “all men”, is clearer there than in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 talking about “a woman” not meaning “all women”?

A: Absolutely, yes, I agree. That is why the 1 Corinthian 5 passage is not considered a difficult passage. 1 Timothy 2 has many difficult elements and it has been considered a difficult passage throughout church history. …

Read More Read More

Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?

Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: In your section on 1 Timothy 2, you state that Adam saw some of the animals being created, perhaps the mates of the animals already created on day six. However, says that God had formed “all of the beasts” (NIV) or “every beast” (NASB). Wouldn’t you say that it’s a stretch to say that means “some” animals were formed when Genesis says that God formed every beast?

A: As we documented in WIM from Hebrew scholars, Genesis shows a second creation of the animals after Adam was created. …

Read More Read More

Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?

Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: It also seems that 1 Timothy 2:15 is crucial for your interpretation. The word ‘she’ is a definite point in your favor. However, without this verse (being that it’s very difficult historically) do you think you’d have the strength in your argument as you do now?

A: Yes, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very strong point in our argument. It is very important because Paul draws all his conclusions that he has systematically defended in the previous verses, and ties them all together in this one verse. Many Pastors will be blunt and say that they have no idea why Paul put this verse in the passage. …

Read More Read More

Wasn’t the garden created before Adam was created?

Wasn’t the garden created before Adam was created?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: Doesn’t Genesis 2:8 simply say that God had already planted a garden and then put man into it after he was formed? Don’t the following verses then go on to describe what the garden was composed of, not a sequential account of the garden being formed after the man? If 2:8 says there was a garden that God put man in, but he hadn’t yet created the vegetation for it, how could it be called a garden? It’s not a garden until we see green stuff. But as a summary statement, it is simple to see that the vegetation and animals and garden were all in place, and then God put man in it. Adam didn’t witness it.

A: A garden is a garden not because of the green stuff that you see, but because of what has been planted. We can see that very clearly even today. I can go out into my back yard and prepare the soil and plant a garden. My neighbor won’t come by and tell me that I haven’t planted a garden just because he can’t see any green stuff. The fact that it is called a garden even before the green vegetation is seen.

Now regarding your statement that Genesis 2:8 is a summary statement of what has already happened, that is not possible in the Hebrew construction. …

Read More Read More

Is there no distinction between male and female?

Is there no distinction between male and female?

Comments 14 comments

Q: Some feminists say that there is no distinction to be made between male and female. Is this what you believe?

A: One of the biggest deceptions that Satan has brought into the women’s issue is that equality = sameness. That is not what we believe or teach. You may have noticed in the last section of WIM that I say that equality does not mean unisex. Women are different than men and that is the way that God planned it. Woman was created to meet a man’s need. Men need women because women are different than men and were made to complement him and to complete him. A man and a woman together in marriage are a union of two equals but not a union of two of the exact same things. …

Read More Read More

Recommendations for WIM

Recommendations for WIM

Comments 0 Comment

Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” as a whole is a very well produced and presented multi-media teaching series on the legitimacy and freedom of women to be in any ministry that God should call them to. The instructor is knowledgeable, very presentable, and articulate. The series presents serious biblical exegesis and research on a number of texts that are often quoted as evidence that women’s roles and opportunities in ministry are limited. Taken all together I find this series to be very relevant and helpful and therefore cannot be passed off lightly….This series can go a long way to giving women the freedom to pursue ministry as God calls them and to answer the concern and questions of others.

I can recommend MM Outreach ministries and would be privileged to do so.

-Rev. Robert Guthrie, B.Th. M.A. Instructor in Biblical Studies and Church History Vanguard College, Edmonton, Alberta

In a world where many secular societies have seen the equality and value of women in leadership roles, too often religions have been slow to make the same transition. Biblically, Christ “tore down the middle wall of partition” that separated men and women, yet still, many Christian denominations and organizations maintain an error-filled perspective concerning women in ministry. As “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” clearly exposes the truth of God’s word, each individual who wants balanced instruction in this vital area of teaching will discover that God’s word is not vague nor is it indifferent about the role of women and their God-given ministries.

Those who have felt confused or restrained will find instead great freedom and a sound stance that upholds truth and extends endorsement for all women who choose to serve Christ in leadership and teaching roles.

…(the) series was well-prepared and with good documentation! Well done!

-Pastor Wayne McNeilly/Evangel Pentecostal Assembly, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.

Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

Women in Ministry is a well-researched, well-presented series on the role of women in the church today. Cheryl Schatz has done her homework in a very thorough and thought-provoking manner. She brings to our attention the pertinent scriptural teaching that helps us see the freedom women are given by the Lord for leadership in the church and the exercise of their God-given spiritual gifts.

The material is presented in an engaging format. From the very beginning the viewer is drawn in with excellent graphics and video clips. Cheryl is a gifted Bible teacher.

This series is a must-see for those who seriously want to know what the Bible teaches on the role of women in the church today.

Rev. Bob Carroll
Church Planting Pastor
The Link Christian Community
Edmonton, Alberta

%d bloggers like this: