Women in Ministry - Page 5 of 11 - This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled “Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women’s ministry.

Raymond Ortlund says creation order needed to not obscure nature

January 27, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 8 comments

In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured. Ortlund writes on page 102:

God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)

Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter. God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-

…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.

and

A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)

Read More Read More

The Emperor has no clothes

January 24, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 37 comments

In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chapter 3 is written by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. and called “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3” but honestly, I think it could be retitled “The Emperor has no clothes” a thoughtful comment from a child in the fairytale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes“. This chapter in CBMW’s book is one of the most fanciful reworking of the Genesis account that I have ever seen. Take for example the reworking of sin to be “operating on Eve’s mind” even before sin entered the world.

On page 106 Ortlund writes:

Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”. But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her. It knocks her back on her heels. And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms. She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…

After the words “which Adam had shared with her”, Ortlund inserts a note number 39 and the end notes from chapter 3 note 39 reads: …

Read More Read More

Did the serpent have more knowledge than man?

January 22, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 25 comments

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden. The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so. Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”. They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver. They write:

If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”

Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? …

Read More Read More

Who was the judge of Israel, Deborah or Barak?

January 21, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 13 comments

The story of Deborah and Barak in the book of Judges has caused many hierarchists to assign the God-given work of judge delivering the people of Israel to Barak while denying that God raised up Deborah as a deliverer. By assigning a calling to Barak that scripture never assigns, it appears that the example of Deborah and Barak is a clear example of reading into the text the tradition of men and failing to identify in the text God’s own inspired words which give the calling to Deborah. In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) Journal article, Barbara K. Mouser writes concerning Barak:

Barak is a weak man who does the will of God when paired with a righteous and wise woman. He does the job of deliverer-judge, makes the roll call of faith, but suffers a loss of glory because of his lack of zeal and obedience.

Barbara Mouser also denies that Deborah is a God-given judge who is raised up by God to deliver Israel:

Deborah is Not a Judge

She is not a judge in the sense that the book of Judges defines a judge; she is not a military deliverer.¹⁷ Rather she is a prophetess, and as a prophetess, she commands and exhorts Barak with God’s own words and authority.

The amount of “reading into” the text is astounding in this article. For example, where is Barak said in scripture to be “raised up” by God as a judge? Barak is never called a judge but Deborah is and Judges chapter 2 makes it very clear that all the judges were raised up by God.

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

The raising up must include all of the judges and in this account of deliverance it is only Deborah that is identified as a judge, not Barak.

Next the CBMW article identifies women as a sign of degeneracy:

Isaiah tells us that the rule of women is a sign of degeneracy, not liberation (Isa 3:12).

Read More Read More

“They are sinning through questioning”

January 15, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 32 comments

The issue of women in ministry allows us to the opportunity to ask questions about the hard passages of scripture and to work through these passages to discover God’s intended meaning through the inspired context. But in many quarters, questioning is a “sin” that will get a reprimand from a strong authoritarian leader. Is it really a sin to ask questions? The New York Times has produced an article by Molly Worthen called Who Would Jesus Smack Down? In a surprising view of “the cussing pastor”, Mark Driscoll is not only against women pastors and what is called the feminization of the church, but he also refuses to tolerate any opposition to his views. In The New York Times article Molly Worthen writes:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Sinning through questioning – this attitude of leadership has become an epidemic in the hypermasculinity movement. See Cynthia Kunsman’s articles on surviving the Sheperding Movement and All about Authority: the Popularity of Submission Doctrine. …

Read More Read More

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse

January 9, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 27 comments

Recently I was contacted by Dr. Barb Orlowski who has compiled her research on spiritual abuse into a manuscript that will form the basis of a yet unpublished book called “Ministering Restoration: Recovering Spiritual Harmony”. Dr. Orlowski wrote to me because she is interested in the issue of women in ministry as it was part of her study on spiritual abuse by authoritarian and abusive leadership in the church. In her on-line book in chapter three “What does the Bible say?” she lists the inherent weakness of the hierarchical/authoritarian model of leadership. These models can be used as a way to abuse the flock if the leadership demonstrates power driven or controlling tendencies. Barb writes:

Hierarchical and Authoritarian leadership can often slip into abusive patterns. What appears to be a reasonable system of church governance can often get molded instead to suit the designs of certain types of leaders. Unfortunately, these leaders distort church authority in ways that eventually misrepresent biblical principles for church governance. Leadership then becomes a command and control style which slowly erodes the effectiveness of that church body and leaves those under that regime dependent and immature in their Christian lives.

One of the ways that these leaders become abusive, according to Dr. Orlowski, is by not allowing others to participate and these “authorities overstep their bounds and use their position of leadership to mistreat those under their care”. …

Read More Read More

Was 1 Timothy 2 written to the church?

January 7, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 15 comments

Complementarians claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 is universally applicable because they say it was written for the church to know how to behave. According to John MacArthur, in God’s High Calling for Women part 1, 1 Timothy was written to “set the church in order”.

First Timothy 3:14-15 gives us the overall intent of the letter: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ” First Timothy was written to set the church in order.

MacArthur appears to deny that Ephesus had godly women as he states that the Ephesian women were “desecrating” the worship service.

First Timothy 2 focuses in on another problem involving women. Under the pretense of coming to worship God, they were flaunting themselves and desecrating the worship service. Their dress and demeanor betrayed an evil intent rather than a heart of worship.

While John MacArthur’s exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:9ff is about women with an “evil intent”, a statement completely foreign to the text, yet he claims that the prohibition that follows in verse 12 is all about the “biblical role” of all women in the church.

From his discussion of the problems women were causing in the worship services, Paul branches out into a discussion of the biblical role of women.

In the “biblical role of women” given universally for the church, the apostle Paul, according to John MacArthur, states that women must come to church with a “proper sense of shame”. …

Read More Read More

Changing views on women in ministry is not easy to do

January 6, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 11 comments

Very few people quickly admit their beliefs are wrong

This blog has been a meeting place for many who have received huge challenges to their view of women in ministry. Here I receive questions about how to deal with a spouse or a pastor who is strongly opposed to allowing women to freely serve the body of Christ with their God-given gifts. How does one deal with opposition even when one has presented well-reasoned arguments and the other person is unwilling to engage the arguments or is unwilling to really listen to what you have to say?

Today I would like to call attention to a very gentle apologist who has written some really great tactics that are very encouraging to me in how to deal with those who oppose women in ministry. While I understand that some people are so abusive and unChristlike that it is better to stay away from them rather than engage them and risk being personally attacked yourself, sometimes it is impossible to stay away from strong opposers because they are part of our family or the church family where we worship.

In today’s issue of Stand to Reason’s (STR) “The Page”, Greg Koukl’s email updates sent to subscribers, Greg gives some wise advice on the issue of why change is so hard and how to handle opposition. …

Read More Read More

Reading the scriptures without a male bias

January 1, 2009 Cheryl Schatz Comments 14 comments

In the beginning God made male and female. Together they were to do God’s work on earth but unfortunately the fall happened and their work done together as equals was challenged by the man who took the sole rule for himself. Society became strongly patriarchal, and men were seen as the only ones who were capable of speaking for God and interpreting his word. But without the female complement working together with the male, some scriptures took on a decidedly male bias that is foreign to the context. For example, look at 1 Timothy 2:9 to see Paul’s instruction given to godly women.

1 Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

1 Timothy 2:10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

We can note from 1 Timothy 1:2 that Paul is writing to Timothy. In chapter 2 Paul gives a standard for godly women to show their Christian maturity from the inside out. Women are to adorn themselves modestly and discreetly as is proper for women who make a claim to godliness. This is where some veer off into male bias.

The male bias reads a sexual temptress instead of godly women into this passage.

John MacArthur gives the interpretation that Paul is referring to women who are acting indecently. …

Read More Read More

A soft place to land

December 29, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 30 comments

As a woman in ministry, I have struggles like everyone else, wanting to do my best for the Lord Jesus, yet finding opposition from the enemy who tries to sap my strength and take away my passion. Sometimes there isn’t even a soft place to land when places/people which have been trusted as a safe place are no longer safe.

I am reminded of David who was a man after God’s own heart, yet at times felt betrayed and homeless. I am also reminded of Jeremiah who is known as the weeping prophet who did God’s work by being the messenger bringing a warning of judgment, yet as the messenger he was rejected and abandoned.

Everywhere I turn, I see godly people having some of the greatest struggles of their lives. When one is tested and tried and the work and the struggle is difficult both emotionally and physically, where does one turn to to find a soft place to land? Where or what do you turn to? …

Read More Read More

Merry Christmas!

December 25, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 4 comments

Merry Christmas to all. May the real meaning of this season be foremost in your thoughts today as you celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

How many wise men?

December 4, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 11 comments

Tradition has flavored a lot of things for us that causes us to see everything in terms of tradition instead of thinking outside the box.

Today I am offering a guest post to Don Johnson who will challenge us to see things without our traditional “glasses”.

How Many Wise Men? by Don Johnson (guest post)

The Question

Here is a fun question you can pose to your friends. Please be as specific or as general as warranted by the biblical text. The answer may surprise you if you have not heard this before. …

Read More Read More

A Christmas post – does the star of Bethlehem belong to satan or God?

December 3, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 47 comments

While this post isn’t exactly a “Women in Ministry” post, I think it does highlight the importance of men and women working together in complementary ways for the benefit of the body of Christ and for ministry to the lost. God often uses women in ways that are different than he uses men simply because he has made us to provide what is missing. This is the definition of a helper – one who provides what the other is lacking. Together men and women can make a great team each uniquely providing their gifts with teaching provided by not just one but both as a full rounded view that is beneficial for the common good.

My gift is seeing outside the box on disputed issues. I have the gift of seeing in scripture what others miss. The article below was written by myself at least ten years ago as an apologetic response to those who see the star of Bethlehem as a satanic tool that was used to guide ungodly men who brought about the deaths of many baby boys in Israel and whose actions also threatened to destroy the Son of God as a child. I think that at this time of year it is a good article to post because there are many naysayers who dispute Christmas as a freedom for Christians to celebrate the birth of the Messiah. I think you will find the following dialog to be an interesting read and could be helpful the next time a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door and tells you that Christmas is pagan and the star of Bethlehem was satan’s star sent by the enemy to bring death and destruction.

The following article is in dialog form for ease of reading. It is a simulated dialog between a Christian named Chris and a Jehovah’s Witness named Joe. This article has been used by God in a mighty way for many years to free those who used to be bound by the Jehovah’s Witness religion regarding their fear of Christmas. Those who come out of this false religion remain bound by their traditions until the word of God is used as pure water to wash away the false doctrine. (Note the New World Translation is the Jehovah’s Witnesses own in-house translation).

Was the Star of Bethlehem satan’s star?

By Cheryl Schatz / MM Outreach

(original article on line found here)

Chris: Joe, can you tell me why the Watchtower believes that the star of Bethlehem was Satan’s star and that the wise men were led by Satan? …

Read More Read More

The all new 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Church

December 1, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 16 comments

I don’t do “humor” too much on this blog, although I love humor and I love to laugh. The issue of women in ministry is normally a serious one but I couldn’t resist this funny cover that comes from my friend Pastor Jon Zens. Pastor Jon’s web site is here and he has written a good article on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here called Are the sister free to function? There is also an answer to whether a woman is to be silent in the church here called A discussion on silent women. Pastor Jon has been very support of the function of women in the church using their God-given gifts. He has been a personal encouragement to me and he recommends my DVD set to many people.

Jon also has a new video clip on the front page of his web site revealing his views that the church should not have a clergy class but that elders and pastors are a part of the body of Christ and not a special “class” of believers.

Do egalitarians twist the scriptures?

December 1, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 4 comments

The charge is often laid that egalitarians twist the scriptures. I would like to apply a saying that I read recently. Here it is:

(Complementarians) are quick to accuse of foul play but there are no rules that they have to follow.

What egalitarians are trying so hard to do is interpret scripture with scripture and take the full context instead of isolating scriptures from their context. Let’s see if complementarians play by the same rules or if they hold themselves as exempt from their own rules.

1. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is used as a general principle that forbids godly Christian women from using their God-given gifts for the benefit of their Christian brothers. If this is true as complementarians assert it is, can you please tell me why Paul uses singular and a plural grammar in verse 15? Who is the “she” who will be saved in the future if “they” continue on in faith, love, holiness and self control? Isn’t it a twist to ignore the specific grammar of verse 15 which is the conclusion to the prohibition? How can we know who Paul is prohibiting in verse 12 if we do not know who the “she” and “they” are in verse 15? …

Read More Read More

The feminization of the church – a modern day fix

November 25, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 45 comments

There has been much talk in the last few years about the “feminization” of the church. Books have been written about this “serious” problem and many men are thoroughly disgusted with seeing men outnumbered by women in the church. These men feel that something drastic must be done to bring men back into the church. I think that it is time we give this issue a “serious” look in order to help those men who have stopped going to church because of the “feminization of the church”.

Before we look at a solution, let’s have a look at the problem as identified by men:

1. Men don’t like singing love songs to Jesus. Jesus is my savior, they say, not the “lover of my soul”.

2. Men do not like to see flowers and tissue boxes at the front of the church nor do they enjoy sitting on pink cushioned pews.

3. Men need to separate from women to assert their masculinity. Men don’t want to be around a place where there are a lot of women. In the book “The Church Impotent the Feminization of Christianity“, Leon Podles writes about men’s need to separate from women. David Wayne reviews the book by writing: …

Read More Read More

Galatians 3:28 is it only about salvation?

November 18, 2008 Cheryl Schatz Comments 114 comments

According to complementarians, Galatians 3:28 is not about equality in Christ, but about all of us being in the same “boat” of salvation. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has made quite an effort to try to demolish Galatians 3:28 as a basis of spiritual equality outside of salvation. Instead, they say that this verse is only about the equality we have in Christ in regards to salvation. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood pages 71-72, John Piper and Wayne Grudem comment:

The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29)…Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.

But is Galatians 3:28 only about equality in salvation? Let’s have a close look at the book of Galatians to find out if this is true.

Paul speaks about agitators who had come into the community and had thrown the Galatians into confusion (Galatians 5:12). These agitators were false brothers, Judaizers and the “party of the circumcision” and they had come into the congregation to spy on the liberty that the Christians had in order to persuade them to come back into bondage.

Galatians 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

Paul describes in his letters some of the areas that the Judaizers were working to bring Christians into bondage and causing the Jews to treat some with prejudice. In Galatians 5:2, these men were trying to bring circumcision into the congregation of Gentiles. Also in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 these followers of the Jewish oral law were trying to silence women in the congregation and they wanted to stop women from public learning. …

Read More Read More

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

%d bloggers like this: