![\"Evaluating](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/path.jpg?resize=400%2C267\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On July 27th, 2009 Mike Seaver and I started a ten session debate on Women in Ministry where I was able to ask Mike questions on his position, he answered my questions and then we each had one response. \u00a0Mike is still considering whether he will continue with another ten sessions where Mike will ask me questions, and I get the privilege to answer his questions on women in ministry.<\/span><\/p>\n Today I would like to summarize the ten sessions that I had with Mike.<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, I would like to say that I really have enjoyed Mike. \u00a0He is a very\u00a0likable soul with a heart for serving Jesus. \u00a0 I haven’t found a lot of complementarians who have been as gracious as Mike. \u00a0Also, most pastors aren’t interested in public debate so for Mike’s agreement to work with me in a bridge-building kind of debate was very much appreciated.<\/span><\/p>\n 1. \u00a0My\u00a0first question<\/a><\/strong> to Mike is about whether 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was referring to a law that was established before or after Paul wrote his two passages on women? \u00a0If God’s “law” was written after Paul’s words, then I asked why God allowed women to freely use their gifts without restriction in the Old Testament?<\/span><\/p>\n Mike’s response\u00a0from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is that although he believes this passage to be about the restriction of women’s public display of discerning and judging prophetic words, he believes that this passage should not be used to restrict women’s teaching in a church. \u00a0It isn’t that he doesn’t believe that women have restrictions on teaching, but that this passage isn’t the one that is restricting women’s public teaching. \u00a0This fact is a big bridge building concession by Mike as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as been used by many hierarchists to restrict and silence women’s public ministry.<\/span><\/p>\n Regarding what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 actually means, Mike isn’t exactly 100% sure. \u00a0 Mike cannot identify where the “law” is located that is referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34 but he does believe that it was established somewhere in the Old Testament. \u00a0Mike speaks about “possibly,” “likely,” “probably,” and “I think” concerning a “law” that would regulate women’s ministry.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. \u00a0In\u00a0my response<\/a>,<\/strong> I brought out the fact that God’s law is always clear and distinct. \u00a0God is clear about His law because He wants to keep us away from sin and therefore sin must be clearly identified. \u00a0The fact that no one can identify any “law” where God says that women are to be silent in the assembly is a serious flaw in the complementarian argument. \u00a0I also brought out the fact that it is a Christian mandate to work on our maturity in judging truth from error because we have been told that in the future we will be judging the world and judging the angels.<\/span><\/p>\n I also pointed out to Mike that although he said that there was a “general pattern” of male leadership a “pattern” does not qualify as a law.<\/span><\/p>\n In Mike’s rejoinder, he says that he is just trying to follow the meaning of the passage and not trying to be mean to women. \u00a0Mike seems to think that I believe the passages are “unclear” and therefore have no meaning. \u00a0This is not true. \u00a0I believe the passages are clear after a careful study of the inspired words and the inspired grammar in the complete context. \u00a0I just believe that the complementarian position has made the passages appear unclear because they have taken the passages out of their context.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. \u00a0In my second question<\/a> <\/strong>to Mike I question him why there is no second witness to a supposedly “law” that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men. \u00a0 I bring up the fact that every other law is established with a second or third witness at the minimum and so I question Mike on God’s way to establish a charge of sin against a person.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike answers by denying that a law needs to be established by a second witness. \u00a0Mike moves away from my question by saying that no Scripture needs to be repeated while I was establishing God’s law of a second or third witness for a judicial matter.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike then admits that the Bible never says\u00a0\u201cgodly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men\u201d although he does believe that there is a “pattern” of male leadership. \u00a0\u00a0The fact that Mike admits that there is no universal prohibition against all women’s teaching to men is a very important admission and certainly comes across at this point as a bridge building admission.<\/span><\/p>\n 4. \u00a0In\u00a0my response<\/a><\/strong> to Mike, I write that 1 Timothy 2:12 is unworkable as a universal prohibition against women teaching men in the church because of the inspired words and inspired grammar and because there was no such a “law” that stopped any godly woman in her teaching for the entire Old Testament period. \u00a0I also wrote that there is no regulation on what would be sin i.e. if a man was listening to a woman teach without her seeing him, would that make her in sin? \u00a0I also challenged Mike to provide even one other universal law that had not been established by a second witness. \u00a0I corrected Mike’s misunderstanding about my claim to a second witness. \u00a0I was only claiming that a judicial matter established by a law that would be used to bring the guilt of sin had to have a second witness. \u00a0I was not claiming that everything in the Scriptures was repeated. \u00a0I also showed that 1 Timothy 3 could not be used as a prohibition against women anymore than it could be used to prohibit single men or married men without children from desiring the work of an overseer. \u00a0I also postulated that if women’s gifts are not valuable to men themselves, then these gifts by necessity would be inferior gifts.<\/span><\/p>\n In Mike’s rejoinder, he again misunderstands my position and tries to say that I am claiming that 1 Timothy was not necessary for the church as it was only written to one man. \u00a0Mike apparently has not yet been able to think outside the box to grasp my argument. \u00a0Perhaps this is why it was difficult for him to try to refute what I was saying. \u00a0Again Mike misrepresents me by claiming that I am saying that if any Scripture is not repeated, then we should just throw it out. \u00a0Mike then tries to answer my challenge to find one universal law that isn’t repeated. \u00a0Unfortunately, Mike failed in his attempt as the “law” he produced about the communion meal was not an unsubstantiated law. \u00a0Not only is the prohibition repeated in the passage but Pastor Dave writes: \u00a0“The reason that drinking the Lord\u2019s Supper in an unworthy manner is a sin (in the context of 1 Cor) is because it was sinning against two universal laws, the law to love each other and the law to love God. It was also breaking other universal laws to do with greed and gluttony.” \u00a0So the prohibition was in itself a repetition of an earlier universal law. Once again there is a failure to prove that there is another universal law that is not repeated in the Scriptures. \u00a0I do give Mike credit for trying to answer my challenge.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike also tries to prove that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is not a quote from an earlier Corinthians letter to Paul because there are no quotation marks around the quote. \u00a0Unfortunately for Mike he appears to be unaware that the New Testament manuscript was written without any marks, so there were no quotation marks around any quote. \u00a0Mike also tries to disprove my assertion that if women’s gifts are not valuable for men themselves, then their gifts are inferior gifts. \u00a0Mike merely answers that some women don’t feel that their gifts are inferior.<\/span><\/p>\n 5. \u00a0In my\u00a0third question<\/a><\/strong> to Mike, I ask Mike if there is a law that forbids men from listening to women teach the Bible. \u00a0I also asked Mike if men are not allowed to listen to women teach then how will they be able to do their job of correcting the error?<\/span><\/p>\n Mike responds by saying that just as a woman is not to be teaching a man, men are also not to place themselves under a woman’s teaching. \u00a0Mike believes that men do not need to evaluate a woman’s teaching unless she is preaching a sermon and since women are not allowed to preach, men don’t have to worry about evaluating her teaching. \u00a0Mike responds that women should be able to do the work of evaluating other women’s teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n 6. \u00a0In\u00a0my response<\/a><\/strong> to Mike, I write that listening to a person’s teaching does not place you under their authority. \u00a0Leading and teaching is a position of servanthood, not a position of taking authority over a person. \u00a0I respond with the fact that the Word of God is the real authority, not the teacher. \u00a0I also asked where in the Bible it forbids women from preaching a sermon to women? \u00a0Mike had said previously that women were not allowed to preach a sermon and so I asked him to prove that. \u00a0I also asked him how it is that he believes that women are allowed to evaluate other women’s teaching when the evaluation and judging were supposed to be the place of men alone? \u00a0I also challenge Mike to consider that nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that men listening to women teach the Bible is going against the Scriptures. \u00a0I said that he is adding something into the Scriptures that is not there.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike again appears not to understand my position as he says that I am appealing to an authority system. This is not the case at all with my argument. \u00a0Mike is adding into what I have said. \u00a0Mike then explains that he didn’t say that women cannot preach to other women. \u00a0The problem is that in his previous argument he said that men only needed to evaluate women’s preaching, not their teaching and since women do not preach, then the men are not needed in evaluation. \u00a0So on the one hand he says that women don’t preach so men don’t need to judge their preaching and then he says that women can preach to women. \u00a0Isn’t the preaching then something that men need to judge no matter who the women are preaching to? \u00a0Mike doesn’t seem to have any answer to this problem.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike says that the men should be the overseers of women. \u00a0It is just that women should oversee women’s teaching (and preaching!) \u00a0Yet Mike says that a man can sit listening to a woman teach if his purpose is only to evaluate her. \u00a0Is this a sin? \u00a0Mike says he doesn’t think it is a sin depending on his motive. \u00a0So now an action is or is not a sin depending on the heart motive of the action. \u00a0I wonder if this works for all sins?<\/span><\/p>\n 7. \u00a0In my\u00a0fourth question<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>to Mike, I asked him by what authority do men have to stop women from using her gifts for the benefit of the entire church? \u00a0If \u00a0God gives her authority to speak out with her gifts by his command in 1 Peter 4:10, 11 then how can men contradict that? \u00a0I asked Mike for a verse that instructs pastors or elders to stop women from using their gifts?<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Mike answered by saying that there was no such verse giving men the instructions to stop women from using their gifts for the common good. \u00a0This was a good admission by Mike in a bridge building way. \u00a0Mike says that men are not to stop women from using their gifts, but it is okay for God to stop women. \u00a0He didn’t give an example of how God stops women whom he has gifted and authorized to speak.<\/span><\/p>\n 8. \u00a0 In\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>my response<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>to Mike, I said that I was very glad that Mike admitted that men are not to stop women from using their gifts as the Bible instructs us not to judge the servant of another. \u00a0I suggested that if men had a conscience problem in listening to women teach the Bible, they should just quietly removed themselves without fuss or disruption and let those men whose Bible-trained conscience does not bother them to benefit from her teaching. \u00a0I said that only the gifts that do not benefit all are restricted. \u00a0I also said that a woman’s gifts do not become evil when a man walks in the door where she is teaching.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Mike responded by saying that he didn’t think that it was a conscience issue. \u00a0He didn’t think that men should listen to a woman teach even if they have a strong conscience on this matter. \u00a0Mike then identified women teaching the Bible to men as a sin issue but not quite on the same gravity as homosexuality but still a serious issue. \u00a0Mike says that egalitarians (and myself) dismiss Bible passages that teach against women teaching the Bible. Fortunately, Mike is wrong in this area. \u00a0I for one do not dismiss these important passages. \u00a0I just interpret them in their complete context instead of taking a verse or two out of the context where God inspired them. \u00a0Mike then said that women commanded not to teach men is an instruction that needs to be obeyed. \u00a0He doesn’t say who is responsible for making sure that women obey since he has previously said that men are not instructed to stop women from teaching men.<\/span><\/p>\n 9. \u00a0In my\u00a0fifth question<\/strong><\/a> to Mike, I asked him if God contradicts Himself? \u00a0If God through Paul gave permission for all to prophesy in the congregation, how can God turn around and forbid women to speak and teach in the assembly? \u00a0I asked Mike whose commands are we supposed to obey? \u00a0God’s commands that tell us to use our gifts for the common good or man’s command that stops a woman from benefiting men with her gift of teaching?<\/span><\/p>\n![\"Mike](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/mike-seaver.jpg?resize=182%2C220\")
<\/span><\/p>\n