Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 2

Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 2

Judge on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Last post Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz started a discussion/debate on women in ministry.  Here is a link to Cheryl’s Question #1 given to Mike.  This post will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answers and Mike’s response to Cheryl’s response.  Mike’s corresponding post on his Role Calling blog is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cheryl responds to Mike’s answers:

God’s law is always clear and distinct.  Paul explained in 1 Cor. 14 that a word that is not clear is as useless as speaking into the air with no one to hear or understand.  Similarly a law that is not clear or distinct has no power to prepare a person to identify sin, keep away from sin and judge sin.  The clearness of God’s law prevents us from misunderstanding what God requires.  God has blessed us with a clear message and the clearness of the message guides our conduct.

On the contrary an unclear word produces confusion, disagreement amongst Christians and an inability to prepare for spiritual warfare.

1 Cor 14:7  Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?

1 Cor 14:8  For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

1 Cor 14:9  So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

I have noticed how useful Paul’s words are for judging false interpretations about the law.  Whenever I have asked complementarians to point to the “law” that forbids women from speaking in the congregation, I have noticed the indistinct sounds that come forth without a consensus among complementarians about where this “law” is to be found or even what the “law” forbids.  Instead we hear indistinct words like “probably” “possibly” “seems to be” “not absolute” “likely” “general pattern”.  Not only is there no “distinct” and “clear” law that can be pointed to in the Old Testament, but no matter what is “guessed” for the original location of such a “law”, complementarians are unable to explain how the wording of the OT quote qualifies as a law.  How does the account of the creation of the woman provide the basis for such a “law” (no other law is ever stated in such an unclear fashion) or what the law even mean?

Some “guess” that the “law” from 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 means absolute silence of women in the assembly but they have no proof of such a “law” from the Old Testament nor do they have proof of any silence commanded to Eve.  Others “guess” that it must mean that women cannot judge between truth and error spoken in a message given to the church.  Others “guess” that women can indeed judge between truth and error, however they must not do it publicly.  But where are all these “rules” for women listed and why is the “law” so indistinct that the church cannot come to a consensus what is and what is not forbidden for women and if there is a prohibition, how far does the prohibition extend?

Mike, you yourself admit that your interpretation of these passages may not be the same as other complementarians.  This proves my point.  I say that the “law” that complementarians want to claim is in these passages is so unclear that there can never be an agreement without a Christian Talmud set up outside of the bible to hash out the details of what women can and cannot do in private or in public.  Would it not be better to allow the bible alone to guide our steps as we realize that there is no “law” that forbids women from speaking in the assembly?

Regarding the judgment that “others” are to do:

1 Cor 14:29  Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. (ESV)

The Greek term for “weigh” (what is said) is diakrino and it means to discern.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament shows this as evaluating the difference between things: discern, distinguish, differentiate.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in classical and Hellenistic Greek this term is mostly used for “converse” or “discussion” and that there is an art of persuasion and demonstration that comes in the form of question and answer.  The idea for a time of question and answer after a speaker has given his message is popular even today in seminars and it was also common in the Christian congregation.  This practice allows the audience to participate in clarifying any things that are taught which are unclear.  It also allows for the discernment and evaluation that is commanded to all in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21.

1 Thess 5:19  Do not quench the Spirit;

1 Thess 5:20  do not despise prophetic utterances.

1 Thess 5:21  But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

These verses in 1 Thessalonians 5, which were written by the Apostle Paul, show that examining the prophetic utterances with the end result of separating the good from the bad and holding onto that which is good, is a command to everyone.  It is to be a part of our maturing in Christ.  Who then can doubt that 1 John 4:1 is a command to the whole church:

1 John 4:1  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The fact that the church has been warned that false prophets and false teachers would seek to deceive the church identifies the importance of everyone being on their guard and testing all things.

We need to take note that testing all things is an important part of Christian maturity.  By using this test, we can see that there is no identifiable “law” in the Old Testament that either silences women in the congregation or stops them from evaluating a spiritual message.  This is highly important.  Paul could not have emphasized the importance of having a clear and distinct “sound” saying that without this clarity “how will it be known what is spoken?” and then turn around and himself give an “indistinct sound”.  It would be an “indistinct sound” that would link a “law” that is unidentifiable within God’s own law and an “indistinct command” for women to learn at home when this contradicts Paul’s own words that all may learn in the assembly (1 Cor 14:26, 31).  Indeed God is not a God of confusion but a God of the “distinct sound” and “distinct message”.

Instead of seeing 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 as Paul’s command to silence the women’s voices in the assembly and commanding them to learn at home, it is much more natural to see these words as a quote from the Corinthian’s who had written a letter to Paul (1 Cor. 7:1) that Paul answers throughout this letter.  Paul’s words saying “now concerning” (1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1 12:1) deal with many subjects that the Corinthians were concerned about and several that apparently were in dispute.  The issue of women speaking out in prophesy would have concerned those who wanted to follow the Jewish oral law that forbid a woman’s voice from being heard in the assembly.  The fact that Paul uses words of contradiction in 1 Cor. 14:36 fit with Paul’s judging of the Corinthian quote as mere human commands in opposition to the commands that God has revealed through Paul throughout chapter 14.  These God-given commands revealed through Paul had released women to publicly prophesy, allowed them to publicly learn, and gave them the equal obligation to evaluate and discern the truth in order to hold to what is good (1 Thess 5:21) and to judge between true and false prophets and true and false prophecies.  It is when all of us practice this discernment that is for the mature (not the mature male alone), that we will be kept safe from error.

Heb 5:14  But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Mike, you said that there is a “general pattern” of male leadership in the Old Testament.  However the term “general” does not make this a law since God chose Deborah as a Judge over Israel.  When we make a “law” out of “patterns” we are outside of the clear “pattern” of God who always gave a distinct sound regarding His law.  It is a man-made “law” that forbids a woman to participate in public questions and the discerning of truth from error.  God has made no such law that forbids a woman to participate in public and any attempt at trying to “sort of” or “kind of” find such a law to impose on godly Christian women falls to the ground under close examination.

Mike you also said that Priscilla was not disciplined for correcting Apollos because she did the correction privately.  However there was no such law that would have forbidden her from correcting him publicly.  We also note that the public speaking that Apollos did that was in need of correcting was not done in the Christian assembly where both men and women had the freedom to speak out, but it was done in the synagogue where women were restricted from speaking.  Since Apollos was witnessing in the synagogue about Jesus, and since he was speaking accurate things about Jesus (Acts 18:25), there was no need for a public correction.  Priscilla with her husband Aquilla took Apollos aside to explain the way of God more accurately.  This doesn’t imply that he was in error but that he needed to be taught what he was missing – a more accurate understanding.  The Greek word for “accurate” is a term that focuses on careful attention to the details.  According to the BDAG lexicon it means “strict conformity to a standard or norm, with focus on careful attention, accurately, carefully, well”.

In regards to your comment about 1 Timothy 2:12, the Greek word “authento” is a unique term that is never repeated in the scriptures.  Its meaning is not altogether clear although there are no examples of a positive meaning for this word in historical records.  Thus it is a very unwise thing to set up a “law” on another “unclear sound” with no biblical evidence at all that Paul was stopping godly teaching rather than stopping the teaching of error which is clear in the context of 1 Tim. 1:3, 7.

Next,  if the requirements of 1 Tim. 3:2 “husband of one wife” are a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from following 1 Tim. 3:1 where “anyone” (see 1 Tim. 3:1 ESV) may aspire to the work of overseer, then it must also be a “law” that the one who does the work of overseer must also be married and must also have children (1 Tim. 3:4, 5).  For anyone to make a “law” from one part of the “must be above reproach” moral requirement and fail to hold to the rest of the details in the same way, they would be appealing to an unclear sound as far as “law” goes.  Those who fail to forbid single men or who fail to forbid married men who are without children from doing the work of an overseer while at the same time forbidding godly Christian women from desiring the work of an overseer, would be guilty of making a moral requirement out to be an unclear and unexplained contradictory and discrimatory “law”.

Mike, you also said that 1 Tim. 3:2 “able to teach” means that “the man is to be the teacher”.  This is another unclear word.  Paul did not say that only overseers can teach (although overseers in their work must be able to teach), nor did he say that only pastors and elders can teach.  We cannot force 1 Timothy 3:2 as a limitation on who teaches in the congregation since this would be a very unclear word, and an unclear understanding on this passage.  If Paul meant that only men could teach, then Paul could have clearly and distinctly said that only men are allowed to teach.

In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul does not say that a woman is not allowed to teach men (plural).  That would imply that the prohibition is regarding a public teaching.  Instead Paul forbid “a woman” from teaching “a man” so the implication is that whatever is forbidden is applicable at least at the private one-one-one level.  However the connection to deception in verse 14 and the concern about the salvation (verse 15) of the one who is stopped from teaching leads to a much more natural understanding that Paul is not stopping correct godly teaching, but the teaching of error.  We simply cannot understand 1 Tim. 2:12 by removing this verse from its complete context of 1 Tim. 2:11-15.  Verse 15 is the conclusion to verse 12 and without the conclusion, the prohibition becomes an indistinct sound.

If Paul is dealing with a specific situation in Ephesus regarding a specific false teacher it becomes clear why Paul put this prohibition in a personal letter to Timothy rather than in a general letter to the church.  If taken as a general “law” for all godly women it becomes an indistinct and unclear “law”.  Without repetition of this law anywhere else in a book to the entire church that would make the indistinct “law” to be clear, it remains as a failure to qualify as a clear, universal “law” that would set limitations on the wise biblical teaching of women.  It also remains unclear why Paul would tell us in 1 Corinthians 14 that we should all seek spiritual gifts for the edification of all and then in 1 Timothy 2 force all women to withhold their God-given gifts of teaching from men.  General application then is an “indistinct and unclear” sound while a specific application to a specific situation would not violate any of the liberating commands that Paul has given to women.

Mike, I really appreciate your willingness to answer questions.  This openness is commendable and refreshing.  I also appreciate that you have allowed your answers to be challenged and tested.  I trust that all can see that the answers provided by Mike are an indistinct sound and an unclear “law” that fails the test of clear, biblical “laws” which were all designed by God to provide an accurate identification of sin.  Without that clear sound, how will one know to turn away from sin?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike’s response to Cheryl:

Cheryl, thanks for your response to my answer to your question (did that make sense?!? HA!).  Obviously, I disagree on numerous points, but I think our later Q&A will hit a lot of this.  My greatest problem with your view is that you siphon away all the passages that could possibly go against your position instead of giving the consideration that when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”(1 Tim 2:12)…he may have really meant “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.”  The idea that you put forth that allows woman to lead, teach, and exercise authority over men is based on me not having a “law” to back up my position.  I’m really not trying to be mean hear, but I’m just reading what it says and trying to apply it.  I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.  I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don’t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let’s just throw out verse 12.

I also don’t think it is wise to throw out the 1 Timothy 3:2 overseer qualification “the husband of one wife” when Paul has it in there.  He could have spoken to women/wives in this context as he did in the deacon qualification in v. 8-13, but Paul didn’t.  I just think there is probably a reason for that.  Paul says “husband of one wife” (or “man of one woman”) to make sure that the overseer was not practicing polygamy, so hopefully a single man would not be practicing polygamy either, or he would be unqualified.  A single man however would still be a “he.”

It seems like our interpretations come down to this:  Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?

Cheryl, it is a joy to get to correspond with you and I respect you.  Though we disagree, I’m thankful for the conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cheryl’s second question to Mike and Mike’s answer will be posted on August 3rd.

22 thoughts on “Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 2

  1. Some thoughts…

    In discussion/debate 1, Mike’s answer seemed to be tied back all the way to 1 Tim 2. It began with 1 Tim 3 but behind that for support was 1 Tim 2, and so 1 Co 14 was seen through that lens (and also an interpretation/lens of Eph 5 vv22-24). And it is obvious now that this is the case. And now as can be seen the focus is not really on 1 Tim 2 vv11-15 passage. The focus is on only one verse – V12:

    “My greatest problem with your view is that you siphon away all the passages that could possibly go against your position instead of giving the consideration that when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”(1 Tim 2:12)…he may have really meant “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.”…I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don’t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let’s just throw out verse 12.”

    It seems to me then that so far this view of 1 Co 14 sits on 4 verses, a 1 Tim 2 verse and a few Eph 5 verses:

    “It seems like our interpretations come down to this: Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?”

  2. More thoughts…

    “The idea that you put forth that allows woman to lead, teach, and exercise authority over men is based on me not having a “law” to back up my position. I’m really not trying to be mean hear, but I’m just reading what it says and trying to apply it. I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don’t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let’s just throw out verse 12.”

    Is V12 a law itself or not? IF the verse is a law and IF it does mean that women are not to teach and have/exercise authority over men in the church then the comp understanding would be that it should be obeyed. But if it’s not a law, then what is it? A prohibition that can just be ran over by women and such is acceptable to God? This is why it is important whether or not what Mike speaks of (particularily v12) is a law commanded by God.

  3. “I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.”

    I’m clarifying ;P

    I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation to make VERSE 12 to mean exactly the opposit of what it says.

  4. “It seems like our interpretations come down to this: Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?”

    This is what is written:

    “I do not allow a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man”

    Is it true? Yes.

    Is the singular grammar unclear? No.

    Is the replacement of the inspired singular grammar with the plural, misconstrued:

    I do not allow women to teach nor usurp authority over men.

    Yes. Why? Because what is written (the singular) is true.

    Can we find what is true about verse 12 which is in the singular? Yes, ONLY if it’s context is NOT dismissed.

  5. “I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.”

    I would like to know how women (pl) teaching correctly can be pulled out of vv11-15. Except I already know that it’s impossible to pull that out. ;P I say leave the word alone and leave it alone on it’s page that way “women” plural cannot be forced into the passage in one’s mind.

  6. It seems Paul’s opponents whom he quotes in 1 Co 14, thought of church (the assembly or gathering of christians) as “the holy place”…

  7. Hi pinklight,
    I can see that you are reading and thinking and meditating and unraveling. Man, I don’t think anyone could ever get anything past you as you are working hard to pay attention to all of the relevant parts.

    Is the replacement of the inspired singular grammar with the plural, misconstrued:

    Good point!

  8. Well, I posted a comment to Mike Seaver’s website yesterday, and when I get a chance, I will reply to his response. Here I just want to briefly respond to some of pinklight’s comments. It appears to be a common practice among evangelical patriarchalists, or complimentarians if you prefer, assume that Paul assumes a timeless, transcultural hierarchical created order in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, use that as the interpretive lens through which they view what the rest of Scripture says about men and women in Christian ministry and leadership, and then after some rather clever but circular reasoning, conclude that this eternal, hierarchical creation order bars women from full participation in Christian ministry and leadership. But when challenged to prove their premise from Scripture as a whole, they can’t do so, simply because this viewpoint is not the teaching of the Scripture itself, but a self-serving distortion of Scripture.

    Secondly, as John Jefferson Davis makes clear in his recent Priscilla Papers article, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” the case of Deborah the Judge and Prophet, is an unanswerable dilemma for those holding that this verse is a prohibition that is timeless and transcultural, rather than temporal and congregationally specific to the church in Ephesus. Here, in part, is what he says:

    The case of Deborah poses a special dilemma for the “traditionalist” reading of 1 Timothy 2:12: If it is true that Paul’s use of creation texts is intended to prohibit all women in all circumstances from exercising authority over men in the covenant community, then the Apostle is FORBIDDING what God has in this instance PERMITTED–and this would amount to a contradiction within the canon itself. Various ways of evading this problem are not convincing. Was Deborah usurping authority rather than exercising it legitmately? There is no indication in the Book of Judges, the Old Testament as a whole, or in the New Testament that God disapproved of Deborah’s activities; on the contrary, Deborah is to be understood in light of the programmatic statement in Judges 2:16 that God, in his mercy, “raised up judges who saved them”; her leadership is a notable example of exactly such divinely empowered activity.

    Then he goes on to make several observations and critical comments of these various evangelical patriarchal attempts to evade this dilemma, very similar to those Cheryl herself made in her own posting regarding Deborah. He then concludes:

    The implications of the foregoing observations is that Deborah should be seen as a positive and not negative example of a woman exercising authority in the covenant community. Deborah may be unusual and somewhat exceptional in biblical history, but she is a positive example notwithstanding. Since God himself raised up Deborah as judge, and that which God chooses to do can not be INTRINSICALLY WRONG, it cannot be intrinsically wrong for a woman to exercise authority over a man in ecclesiastical contexts. The case of Deborah, seen as a positive example, is then consistent with a recognition of the CIRCUMSTANTIAL nature of the prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:12; not all women are prohibited by God from exercising authority over men at all times in the church. The reading here presented then removes the appearance of a “contradiction within the canon” and provides hermeneutical space for the recognition of other “Deborahs” who may be called by God to lead from time to time.

    So, as my friend, Robert K. Wright, Mike is going to have give an adequate and convincing explanation of this “biblical platypus” if we are to believe his position is truly logical and consistent with what the Bible teaches as a whole on women in ministry and leadership.

  9. Mike said,” Paul says “husband of one wife” (or “man of one woman”) to make sure that the overseer was not practicing polygamy, so hopefully a single man would not be practicing polygamy either, or he would be unqualified. A single man however would still be a “he.”

    Mike that is a very good point! BUT, when using the same logic the other way around, we come to the same exact conclusion in regards to women! Let me explain. You are using common sense and realizing that it wasn’t necessary for Paul to address the unmarried men in that way since it wouldn’t be a moral issue for them in the first place. Simply put, the unmarried man cannot( by it’s very definition) be polygamous. For if you are polygamous, than you are also married! You are recognizing that Paul wasn’t’ addressing all men in general but rather the polygamous man. And it is on that recognition that you know better than to disqualify all men in general. I encourage you to be Faithful with this logic and carry that exegesis Full Circle!

    Using the same logic, can we say that since in that culture women were not allowed to be polygamous, Paul would not have had a reason to address them in that context? That it was already understood from silence and culture that women, (substituted for men in your conclusion) were not polygamous? That Paul was not making a broad point but had a particular audience in mind in regards to the restriction and that women and unmarried men were not it? So then, if single men are not excluded on the those grounds of not meeting the criteria, than neither should the women be excluded! As far as you saying “At least he is a he” – think about it! It wouldn’t matter since “shes” were not polygamous and Paul would not need that restriction place on them in order to qualify for that position! Paul did not address the women for the same reason he did not address the unmarried men! He was not concerned with the sexes, he was concerned with polygamous men! It was not a command to restrict the unmarried men nor the women, it was a command to restrict the polygamous who at that time were only males!
    After knowing the motive behind Paul’s command, using the argument to justify the exception for unmarried men but not women is being partial and dishonest!

    Will you please help me with a problem I keep running into by giving me some expert advice? Every Friday night I have a prayer meeting in my home with a mixed group of both men and women. Since the men have different biological parts than the women, they have an issue that applies particularly to them. I unfortunately had to put a sign on the bathroom door that says” Any Man Who Wants To Use MY Bathroom Must Put The Toilet Set Down After He Is Done, Or He May not Use It! I The next thing I know, the men start arguing with the women and refuse to allow any of them to use the bathroom! They insisted that since the note addressed men only that the women were not allowed to use the bathroom!! That because of the specific mention of the men the women did not qualify! I was so disappointed to see that they had completely missed my point and treated the women so unfairly! What do you think I should tell the men to help them understand what I really meant?

    If I offended you by the above example, please remember that Jesus also spoke in parables. As foolish as the story above may seem, when one uses the “husband of one wife” phrase to restrict women from aspiring to the position of an overseer, they are using the same unintelligent logic as the men did in the story above!

  10. LOL @ Anca. Your anecdote reveals just how some patriarchalists distort the gospel and Paul’s letters into saying things that they might never have meant to say! It takes some pretty rigorous mental gymnastics to get from the point A of a polite (though tongue in cheek, I take it) reminder to leave the dang toilet seat down (sorry, my guy does that too, so it bugs the crud out of me) and get to the point B of saying that women can’t use the bathroom!

    In the same way, it takes the same kind of mental gymnastics to twist personal letters into universal commands, meant for all time. I have two questions for complementarians, which I doubt I will ever see answered: 1. Why didn’t Jesus say anything about the role of women, and 2. If God didn’t intend for women to be leaders, why did He give them leadership gifts? I’d love to see them quit the mental gymnastics and answer the questions honestly.

  11. Alison said,
    “Why didn’t Jesus say anything about the role of women?”

    Excellent point! Notice how unlike the 1 Cor.14 passage, Jesus did not tell Mary if she would learn anything she must shut-up and her ask her husband a home because her voice is disgusting! Rather she sat at his feet as a student and Jesus defended and commanded her for it! If Jesus wasn’t worried about the authority she would assert over the men disciples by learning and asking questions in that assembly, then why should the men of today? Are they better than Jesus and the disciples?

  12. Alison,
    You said:

    2. If God didn’t intend for women to be leaders, why did He give them leadership gifts?

    This is a question for complementarians that has really bugged me. No one doubts that women have these gifts. The gifts are evidence for all to see. However comps must either say that the gifts are to be limited in some way to the presence of other women or it appears that God taunts women by giving them gifts that they must refuse to use. Having a gift and then having to deny the expression of that gift would make God out to be a tormentor. Better that He didn’t give women these gifts, then that He would give the gifts and deny their use.

    The question for those who believe that the gifts can be used but only with other women, would be to show these gifts being used in the scripture in the presence of only women. While the older women are told to teach the younger women to love their husbands, the bible never says that the older women are told to teach the younger women about the bible. I believe that the absence of one woman teaching other women the bible is because the usual pattern in the life of the church was for one’s gifts were for the use of all (the common good). Any other usage of one’s gifts is not the norm in the life of the church. The women did not go into another room and teach other women. The women stayed in the congregation and used their gifts just as Paul said – for the edification of the church.

    BTW, I am really frustrated today as my internet has gone down twice during the time I was trying to post this comment. I have a technician coming on Tuesday. Hopefully I can get my next post up on Monday as Mike and I agreed that would be the next date for our joint posts. If I am unavailable for awhile, I am probably out walking or cleaning toilets as I wait for my internet to show up again for a few minutes before it goes down again. (Mutter, mutter, mutter).

  13. #9 Frank,
    Thanks for your good comments.

    One thing that I would like to note is that most complementarians leave out verse 15 while stressing that 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is transcultural and for all time. Verse 15 causes them a lot of trouble with their interpretation of the prohibition so they let it slide as if verse 15 is not necessary to understand the passage. I have said before that verse 12 cannot be understood without verse 15. Verse 15 sets the defined grammar, the concern that prompts the prohibition and the solution to the problem that defines the specific components that are necessary to the interpretation of verse 12. Those who have ignored the connection between the end of the prohibition (verse 15) have taken the church into bondage by hog-tying half of the church and limiting the effectiveness of the body of Christ.

    Secondly the issue of Deborah has caused many to view the “place” of a woman’s ministry as limited to outside the church while misunderstanding that the people are God are God’s congregation (OT) and the church (NT) and the building that they meet in is not. Where Deborah did her judging should not be the issue. It is the fact that she did the work of a judge that is the issue. When some side-step her work and make the “place” of her work the issue, they are in essence providing a smoke-screen to try to hide the legitimacy of Deborah’s God-ordained work and position in the congregation.

  14. Cheryl, pinklight, or Anca,
    Would one of you let me borrow your brain for…oh, even just 5 minutes – I would luv to know what it’s like to observe and reason the way you do!

  15. Cheryl – pinklight – Anca – Pat M. – Kay – Alison

    <<<<>>>>
    You ladies rock. You guys are okay too.

    Your questions and your reasoning; priceless.
    But my brain hurts. I’ll have to read them again.
    Or maybe not. ; o )

    You can teach me anytime. Already learned some stuff.
    Ooops, am I in sin? Learning from women?

    Let’s see, am I in Church or out of Church? Hmmm?

    I’m in a Barns and Nobel. (free wi-fi and soft chairs – praise you Jesus)
    Lots of books about Jesus and coffee but no pulpits, pews or pastors.
    Plenty of Bibles but no steeple. I pray a lot here, does that count?

    Wait a minute, isn’t Jesus the head of the body the Church?
    So, I’m a member of the body…
    I’m in Christ. I’m in the body. Does that mean I’m in Church?

    Church, ekklesia, doesn’t that refer to people,
    called out one’s, assembly? Where two or three are gathered?

    Does Church, ekklesia, ever refer to a building, an organization
    an institution, a business or a corporation with a pastor? Hmmm?

    Doggone it! Yes – I am the Church.

    God that made the world and all things therein,
    seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth,
    dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
    Acts 17:24

    …for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said,
    I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and
    I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    2Co 6:16

    Lets see, God is in me, God is in women. Hmmm?
    The same spirit that raised Christ is in me?
    The same spirit that raised Christ is in women? Hmmm?

    Jesus said, “ the spirit of truth will teach you all truth. Hmmm?

    Hey, is their any law against the spirit in you teaching me?

    No, No, No, Now you have me doing it. It’s hard to stop.
    My brain hurts again.

    “complimentarians and egalitarians” sounds like lawyer speak to me.
    And you know what Jesus thought about lawyers.
    All that gnat and camel stuff… There is got to be another option.
    Sounds like a seminary thought them up. That’s not to critical, Is it?

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
    and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
    John 10:16

    There shall be, One Fold, One Shepherd, One Voice.
    If Not Now, When?

    In His Service. By His Grace.

  16. Hi Kay!

    Glad you are here!

    What’s it like for me to observe and reason the way I do? It’s playtime! Observation is a playground where reason is free and free to toy around ;P

    …Thankfully, Cheryl shares her toys! 🙂

  17. Thanks Anca!

    It’s playtime for me too, pinklight – but I always seem to be several steps behind you guys. ):-

    It’s been great to find a group of polite believers!

  18. Cheryl Schatz said,
    “Secondly the issue of Deborah has caused many to view the “place” of a woman’s ministry as limited to outside the church while misunderstanding that the people are God are God’s congregation (OT) and the church (NT) and the building that they meet in is not. Where Deborah did her judging should not be the issue. It is the fact that she did the work of a judge that is the issue. When some side-step her work and make the “place” of her work the issue, they are in essence providing a smoke-screen to try to hide the legitimacy of Deborah’s God-ordained work and position in the congregation.”

    People who say the it was OK for Deborah to have been a Judge since it was only government and not authority in ministry need to remember one very important thing! In Israel at that time there was no separation of Church and State!!! The Spiritual Leaders lead the Country!! Remember Samuel? Deborah was a Prophet as well as Judge. A perfect mix of both spiritual and government, the highest authority in the land at that time!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: