Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 4

Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 4

Witnesses and repetition needed?  Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz debate women in ministry

In the last blog post Cheryl Schatz posed her second set of questions to Mike Seaver regarding their discussion/debate on women in ministry. Links to all the previous questions and responses is at the end of this post.  This discussion will be Cheryl’s response to Mike’s answers on question #2 and Mike’s rejoinder.

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

Regarding Mike’s denial that there is a need for a law to have a second witness:

Cheryl Schatz responds:

I didn’t say that “scripture” needs a second witness.  There is a lot in the scripture that isn’t repeated.  What I did say is that a judicial matter (that is the establishing of a matter that will charge a person with sin) always comes with a second witness.  All of God’s laws have been established by at least a second or third witness.  Try as you might you cannot find a universal law that doesn’t have a judicial second witness.  When God establishes such a requirement for our safety, we can be guaranteed that He will follow through and make every matter of sin clear so that no one will fall into sin by an unclear (bugle) warning.

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.

The fact is that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not recognized as a universal prohibition by a good portion of the church.  Why is that? There are a lot of reasons.  First of all this unique prohibition was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition) and it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal).

Not only is it not clear that  the prohibition was written to all godly women for all of time since it was written to one person concerning particular problems in that one church, but the prohibition is placed in a passage that has several obscure words and concepts that have puzzled the church for a couple of thousand years.  In addition, the sanction of 1 Timothy 2:12 was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not a universal prohibition).  Added to this is the context which is about false doctrine and false teachers and there is nothing in the passage that would hint that Paul is stopping godly Christian women from their teaching of the truth.  Also  a universal command is unworkable with 1 Timothy 2:15 especially with the inspired grammar of  singular and plural (“she” and “they” and the future tense used concerning the question of her salvation), along with the fact that the prohibition is never repeated or explained anywhere else.  Lastly the prohibition is never accounted for in any list of sins. This is a massive amount of red flags that signal that the prohibition is not universal for all godly women for all of church history.  It is about a particular situation in the context of false teaching.

I also established that Jesus agreed that a second witness was necessary for a judicial matter.  His own testimony that He is the Son of God would be a matter that would be used to charge people with sin thus it was a matter that needed a second witness.  It seems inconsistent then that God would fail to give Christian women a second witness in a matter that would charge them universally with sin for teaching the truth about the bible.  Are women to be judged for refusing to be prejudiced towards their brothers in Christ by demanding that these precious men leave the room?  That is unthinkable when compared to Paul’s words about body-wide edification.  God loves us so much, that it is also inconceivable that He would list a sin in a personal letter and then refuse to be clear about when, how or why teaching the truth of God’s word becomes a sin merely by who is listening to her.  Is a woman guilty if a man is listening and she cannot see him?  If she demands that he leaves so that she can continue to teach, is she now sinning because she is “taking authority” over him?  The amount of “what if’s” in this situation would require a complete Christian Talmud to sort out.  Or….we could just understand that it is not a universal “law” that makes correct biblical teaching to be a sin for godly Christian women.

Jesus said that if His testimony was alone, it was still truth, yet it was not considered lawful without a second witness.  Jesus submitted to the law of the second witness and He provided a second, third and fourth witness to lawfully establish who He is.  Those who refused to believe would die in their sins.

The book of Genesis confirms that repetition is used to establish a matter.

Genesis 41:32  “Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.

The Hebrew term for “determined” means to be firmly established, confirmed, fixed, ordained.  God’s law has all been firmly established and ordained with at least a second witness so that it can be used as a judgment against our sins.

God is infallible and inerrant and yet He provided a second witness to every single law that He gave.  There is not one universal law that is without a second witness so we can see that God has been faithful to us to provide ample evidence regarding sin.  But without a second witness, why do so many feel free to accuse godly women of being in sin depending on who is in their audience while they faithfully teach God’s word?  The “law” that God forbids women to teach the bible to men fails the test that this is indeed one of God’s universal laws.  It is because God loves us and wants us to flee sin that He has made it very clear in scripture what sin is. Yet has God changed His mind in the area of women so that He refuses to provide a second witness that teaching the bible is sometimes a sin for them?  Did God say “I forbid women to teach the bible to men”?  Or is it possible that we are reading into 1 Timothy 2:12 a “law” where there is no God-ordained universal law?

The issue is not whether scripture is true or not.  I agree that it is without error (in the original writings) but I also agree with Jesus that even as His testimony is true without a second witness, yet His testimony was also invalid as a judicial witness without a second witness.  God gave us ample witnesses against sin.  But there is no second witness that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.

It will not do to deny that a second witness is needed since God Himself has ordained and provided the second witness in every instance of a judicial matter that would lead to the charge of sin.  I have also documented that both Jesus and Paul submitted themselves to the necessity of the second witness in an area where a judicial matter is being established.  All it would take to refute my entire argument is to provide one example of a universal law that is not repeated.  If you can provide a universal law that is not repeated then you have disproven my case.  If you cannot provide a universal law that is without a second witness, then you will need to explain why God has failed to establish, confirm and ordain one unique law that leaves half of the body of Christ as potentially operating in sin for doing what is never a sin issue for men?  Why has God made an exception to the rule without telling us the reason He has done this to women while leaving no such unestablished law for men to be concerned about?  Would this not be showing that God is a respector of persons as He has failed to establish His law only in regard to women?   God doesn’t have to do anything for mankind in the first place, but since He chose to do something for all of us by communicating His law and setting up a standard to establish the law, it appears inconsistent and unsafe to have one law for all Christian women that falls outside of that established standard.

Mike you said:

As far as other theological debates go…if Scripture needs a second witness than all those who hold a Millennial view of Premillennialism or Post Millennialism are out of luck because only Revelation 20 speaks of a Millennium.  Only Amillennialist bring this up…usually.

My claim is that judicial matters need a second witness.  Scripture doesn’t need a second witness to the Millennium since it is not part of a judicial witness that is used to charge someone of sin.

You said:

Also, I think the idea that more than one source is not consulted when thinking about whether or not women can be overseers/elders/pastors is a faulty one.  Paul, the apostle speaks about it in 1 Timothy 3:2 and in Titus 1:6.  He mentions that women should not teach or exercise authority in 1 Timothy 2:12.

There is no statement in these passages that women cannot be an overseer/elder/pastor.  Also there is no charge of sin or a punishment for a woman who desires to be an overseer/elder/pastor (it is even encouraged in 1 Timothy 3:1).  Nowhere in the scripture is there a charge of sin listed for a woman who is teaching correct biblical doctrine, but who fails to dismiss the men before she teaches.   It is a stark omission that there is no list of sin that documents a sin that relates to women teaching the truth of the bible.

Mike you said:

The order of worship in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (specifically ch. 14) seems to speak about men being the ones leading the corporate meeting.

Where is this “suggestion” that only men are leading?  In 1 Corinthians 12 the term “brethren” is not for men only.  It is a term for Christians.  There is nothing there that says “men only”.  In 1 Corinthians 13, the chapter is all about love.  Is this all about men too?  I have never seen that suggested.   In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says “the whole church” and “all”.  This chapter also isn’t about only men speaking, but about the permission that is given to all to prophesy.  Even church discipline is done not by the elders alone but by the church.  Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:6 –

2 Corinthians 2:6  Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority,

The edifying of the church is to be done by all, not just the men.  Which verses in 1 Corinthians 12-14 say “men only”?  I do not see any such verses.

You said:

Acts 20 has Paul speaking to the Ephesians elders and it seems like they were all men and this is Luke writing (Acts 20:30 uses “men” as who will rise up from among them).  Peter and Paul speak of male headship when it comes to marriages (1 Peter 3:1, Eph. 5:22).

There may have been only men as elders at any particular time in a church.  It is a far stretch to take an historical account and make it a doctrine that only men can teach the bible to the church.  Also I don’t want to go outside of this topic by talking about “headship” in marriage, but from what you have already said, it appears that you agree that a woman can teach the bible to her husband.  If a woman can teach the bible to her husband when he is her “head”, then there is no reason why she cannot teach the bible to another man.  There is no other “head” of the church but Jesus Himself and He has given gifts to His women “sons” for the common good.

1 Corinthians 12:7  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Mike, if women’s gifts were not for the “common good” then scripture should have told us this fact rather than what was inspired where Paul commands all to desire the gifts for the common good.

Mike you said:

So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.

As I said there is no “headship” in the church except for Jesus.  The bible never says males are held responsible to provide leadership.  This is reading into the text something that is not there.

Mike you said:

It is great for women to use their gifts and teach.  It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.

On top of the problems that I have already documented, this kind of interpretation implies that women’s gifts are for some reason inferior to men’s gifts or it devalues men since men are not allowed to receive the work of God’s Spirit through women.

This interpretation devalues men if women’s gifts are valuable because men then are forbidden to receive the edification that women are allowed to receive.  Women then are given by God the benefit of the gifts of both men and women.  They receive encouragement and edification by unique gifts that are given to both males and females.  But men have only ½ the gifts for their own benefit.  Does God want to punish men because He forbids them from benefiting from some of God’s gifts while freely allowing women to receive all of the gifts?

However if women’s gifts are NOT valuable to men, then women’s spiritual gifts are inferior and unnecessary gifts for them. A male could say “Women’s gifts may be valuable to women, but I as a male certainly don’t need to receive women’s gifts.”  But we have told that we cannot say this.

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

A male cannot say that he (personally) does not need women’s gifts.  Our gifts are given for the common good, not just for women.

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

Mike’s rejoinder:

Cheryl, thanks for engaging the conversation again and for your response.

You said Scripture does not need a second witness, but then you said, “[1 Timothy 2:12] was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition), it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal)…”

How is this not saying that Scripture needs a second witness?  Timothy was an elder of the Ephesian church and the letter was circulated as Scripture and is thus in our bibles.  If all of 1 and 2 Timothy are just for that day and age and not for today, is Christ really our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) are the positions of overseer and deacon necessary (1 Timothy 3:1-12)?  Is all Scripture breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)?  Are Paul’s words in a letter to young Timothy Scripture or not?  Are Jesus words that are in red (in some bibles) more inspired than other texts?  I think all of the Bible is inspired equally, so to say that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus words is unsettling.

So, the “law” idea that you build up is set on the principle that one passage (especially from a personal letter) cannot be enough to allow for a teaching to be true.  If Paul wrote to Timothy, “Women should not be elders at any church because that is a position of authority that a man is to take.”  You would say that this is cultural, not abiding by a law of consistency in other passages, and thus discarded.  But, what if Paul said what he meant and the teaching to Timothy are for the entire church, just as those who put the canon together desired.  If something is written one time in Scripture, it must be dealt with as Scripture and not tossed out because there is not an identical passage or teaching found in Jesus’ words.

You said, “All it would take to refute my entire argument is to provide one example of a universal law that is not repeated.  If you can provide a universal law that is not repeated then you have disproven my case.”  Though I have articulated that I don’t think your argument works, I will explain another universal law that does not have a second witness.  The Lord’s Supper.  Is it sinful to eat the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner?  I say, “Yes” because 1 Corinthians 11:27 says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”  It goes on to say that people drink judgment on themselves by improperly taking the Lord’s Supper.  Thus a sin, thus a “law” (as you define it), yet there is no second witness.  This is the only passage in scripture stating this case.  You would have to say “no” it is not sinful to eat the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.  You would have to say that there would need to be a second witness for this to be sinful, but their isn’t.  Thus a universal law, that is only stated once in Scripture…and I believe it is stated the amount of times it is needed to heed it’s teaching…once.

When talking about 1 Cor. 12-14, I’m not saying that the passage is for men only, both men and women are to use their gifts for the common good in an orderly way, I am saying that the authority in the passage is enacted by the leadership.  How else does the order happen?  Someone has to be taking the authority to have order. The church had order and Paul assumes that there is authority in the church.  I assume that we would both agree that the elders or pastors would be overseeing the corporate meeting.  If there are men and women pastors, then I would assume they would both be carrying out the authority of overseeing the corporate meeting, but what if the women pastors were publically correcting prophesies?  This seems to be going against 1 Cor. 14:34-35.  Like we have and will discuss with other questions, I don’t think this passage speaks of a rule to have women not speak at all, but that they are not to have authority to publicly judge the a wrong prophesy and thus correct it.

This passage can’t be seen as a quotation from another Corinthian letter as you say just because you disagree with the wording as it is stated without quotation marks.

DA Carson said, “It is very doubtful that verses 34-35 constitute a quotation, perhaps from the Corinthians’ letter.  During the last decade and a half, one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places—usually in places where the commentator does not like what Paul is saying!  That Paul does quote from the Corinthians’ letter no one disputes.  But the instances that are almost universally recognized as quotations (e.g. 6:12; 7:1b; 8:1b) enjoy certain common characteristics: (i)  they are short (e.g. “Everything is permissible for me,” 6:12); (ii) they are usually followed by sustained qualification (e.g., in 6:12 Paul goes on to add “but not everything is beneficial…but I will not be mastered by anything”—and then, following one more brief quotation from their letter, he devotes several verses to the principle he is expounding); (iii) Paul’s response is unambiguous, even sharp.  The first two criteria utterly fail if we assume verses 34-35 are a quotation from the letter sent by the Corinthians.”

Lastly, Cheryl, you said, “The problem with this [women not teaching men] is that it makes women’s gifts inferior or it devalues men.” I don’t think Elizabeth Elliot, Carolyn Mahaney, or Dorothy Patterson feel inferior.  None of them seek to teach men, yet all of them are very good teachers.  I actually think they are esteemed more and are treated better for taking a strong view on biblical womanhood.

If God says the way he creates things are good, why does one using the gifts the way God desires have to be inferior or superior.  All gifts are from God anyway.  We haven’t earned gifts, but they are from God for his glory and the edification of the church.  Women are equal in worth and value, not inferior.

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

Because of time off to enjoy the summer weather with family, question #3 from Cheryl and Mike’s answer to this set of questions will not be posted until August 17th and it will show up on both Cheryl’s and Mike’s blog at that time.  In the meantime we would like to thank everyone for the amount of interest shown in this discussion and the respectful comments and questions that have been posed.  Because of Mike’s heavy ministry schedule he may not be able to respond to questions but he would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments.

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

Links:

Cheryl’s Question #1 and Mike’s answers

Responses to Question #1

Cheryl’s Question #2 and Mike’s answers

 

22 thoughts on “Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz discuss/debate women in ministry 4

  1. Cheryl said Scripture does not need a second witness, and Mike had said so earlier too. As if everything in the bible, every single thing that is said/written needs to be repeated in order to be true – a ridiculous notion. The point is not about what’s true and what’s not true, the point is about what is God’s law and what is not. Just because all of Scripture is true does not mean that all that is true is God’s law.

    How is what Cheryl said, not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? 1 Tim 2 is Scripture. Where is it’s second witness establishing it as law? Since it is not established as God’s law (comps have yet to prove this) and since it is Scripture therefore it needs a second witness because all of God’s law’s have at least a second witness. So in this sense “Scripture needs a second witness” that is, CERTAIN PARTS of Scripture, when claimed to be God’s law, need a second witness to prove it. BUT this does not mean without qualification that “Scripture” (as in the whole thing, all of it, or anything in it ever said) needs a second witness.

    Mike:
    “You said Scripture does not need a second witness, but then you said, “[1 Timothy 2:12] was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition), it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal)…

    “How is this not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? Timothy was an elder of the Ephesian church and the letter was circulated as Scripture and is thus in our bibles.”

    Yes, 1 Tim 2 is Scripture.

    Mike:
    “If all of 1 and 2 Timothy are just for that day and age and not for today, is Christ really our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) are the positions of overseer and deacon necessary (1 Timothy 3:1-12)? Is all Scripture breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Are Paul’s words in a letter to young Timothy Scripture or not? Are Jesus words that are in red (in some bibles) more inspired than other texts? I think all of the Bible is inspired equally, so to say that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus words is unsettling.”

    Why is the assumption made that 1 Tim 2 is just for that day and age? It’s universal principles are timeless like all universal biblical principles. Two principles, for example, would be that the deceived must learn and not teach.

    That Christ is our Mediator is not being disputed as there is no way to dispute the written Scriptural fact.

    We are not told that the body MUST operate with overseers and deacons at every assembly. Such is never commanded. It is not a law.

    2 Timothy 3:16 directly says all Scripture is God breathed.

    Paul’s words are Scripture and all Scripture which includes what Jesus said, is inspired. But inspired word does NOT mean that it is automaticaly law. As if everything ever said in the Bible which is inspired is LAW?? That makes no sense.

    Who is saying that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus’ words?

    Mike:
    “So, the “law” idea that you build up is set on the principle that one passage (especially from a personal letter) cannot be enough to allow for a teaching to be true.”

    False. Mike does not appear to be understanding what Cheryl is saying at least up to this point in his rejoinder. One passage can be enough to allow for a teaching to be true, but one passage CANNOT be enough to allow for a teaching to be a universal law.

    Mike:
    “But, what if Paul said what he meant and the teaching to Timothy are for the entire church, just as those who put the canon together desired. If something is written one time in Scripture, it must be dealt with as Scripture and not tossed out because there is not an identical passage or teaching found in Jesus’ words.”

    The timeless principles are for the entire church. 1 Tim 2 here is accepted as Scripture and is not being tossed out, but it IS being disputed as to whether or not it’s universal law, and what’s not being disputed is whether or not it’s Scripture. Besides, there is nothing in what Cheryl has said to have given Mike the impression that she believes that 1 Tim 2 is not Scripture. So with that and other things he said or asked above, I don’t know why he has even said or asked those certain things.

    What does whether or not 1 Tim 2 is a universal law have to do with whether or not it is inspired, or Scripture, or Scripture needing a second witness, or whether or not it’s for that day and age, or whether or not Scripture is God breathed, or whether or not Paul’s words are Scripture, etc. What does anything he has said so far in part 4 have to do with addressing whether or not 1 Tim 2:12 IS UNIVERSAL LAW?

    Can someone please knock down the brick wall?? ;P

  2. Maybe since it is being questioned as to whether or not 1 Tim 2:12 is universal law, therefore in Mike’s mind, other things about Scripture are being questioned… For example, if it’s not universal law, then maybe Scripture really isn’t inspired after all – at least it seems that some people could think in this way because 1 Tim 2:12 after all, carries so much weight.

    Another example, if 1 Tim 2:12 is not universal law, then maybe after all, none of it is God breathed.

    So maybe this goes to show how heavily ingrained 1 Tim 2:12 is. If it gets ripped out of it’s place (in one’s mind) then along goes all kinds of other things…or if it’s questioned then all kinds of other things must be questioned too.

    Humm…

  3. It should have read: Another example, if 1 Tim 2:12 is not universal law, then maybe after all, none of Scripture is God breathed.

  4. Very good thoughts pinklight!

    Mike has given what he “thinks” is a law that doesn’t have a second witness. It was a good try, however it does have a second witness in the context because Paul repeats the sin and says it in a slightly different way in the same context. Did anyone pick up that the “law” that Mike points to as not having a second witness was indeed repeated?

    I have asked many people this same question – to show me one law in the scripture that is without repetition, without a second witness and no one yet has been able to give me even one such law and that includes Mike. I do very much appreciate that Mike tried. Many give up without even trying.

  5. I posted this on Mike’s blog…not many people are posting over there 🙁

    Mike, regarding 1 Corinthians 11:27, there is no universal law not to drink the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. The reason that drinking the Lord’s 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.
    It is interesting that you use this example, because you have done with 1 Cor 11:27 exactly what yo have done with 1 Tim 2…makes a universal law where there is not one.

    I guess I take the 1 Cor 11:27 thing as simply a specific example of a universal law.

  6. Dave,

    I agree with your point and the command to love one another and to love God are the universal commands that are broken when one does not discern the body.

    So for the record, Paul does repeat his warning:

    1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

    and…

    1 Corinthians 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

    The law of love means that one should wait on your brother in order to have true communion.

    If for example you remember that you have offended your brother you are to go to him to clear up the offense:

    Matthew5:23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
    Matthew 5:24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

    The reason to leave everything and go and be reconciled to your brother? Because the purpose of communion is so that we can be bonded together with our common salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. If your brother is offended and is not coming to church because you have offended him, it isn’t safe to think that as long as you are okay then you can take communion. We are to bring our brother with us so that he too is free to share in the communion with us. It is the law of love and acted out in the love feast as the body of Christ.

    But it is great to know that even though 1 Cor. 11:27 is an example of the law of love, Paul once again practiced repetition so that we can be sure to understand.

  7. I should also note that Mike has all comments on moderation. He is also a busy pastor so I don’t think he looks at the blog more than once a day. I would recommend that he moderates only for the first comment and once a comment is approved, that the comments should be free to post. That keeps a conversation much less stifled. It is especially important since Mike will be gone for a week. Anyone want to post on his blog this suggestion? That is if you agree with me 🙂

  8. Cheryl – pinklight – Anca – Pat M. – Kay – Alison – Dave – Frank – davidbmc.
    I do enjoy and respect your abilities to reason and put it in writing.

    I do have to read some posts two or three times before it sinks in. LOL

    “They do not receive all the gifts that women do and if they are forbidden to receive part of God’s gifts,
    then is there something wrong with them?”

    Men get the benifit of only half the gifts. ouch!!! Darts!!!

    Where’s my shield… of faith?

    Seriously…

    It’s quite a battle you’ve entered into. Against quite a foe.

    “We can’t go into the promised land – there are giants in the land”

    You are certainly well armed with info and persistance.

    I do have some questions…

    Remembering that “We wrestle not against flesh and blood.”

    Are the giants you battle real?

    And is this the real promised land you’re trying to enter?
    or an imagination?

    Are you jousting with windmills? A mythical giant in a mythical land?

    Some principles of warfare are;

    Do you know your enemy and the enemy’s terrain?

    And what will be your “evidence procedure” to determine victory?

    How will you know if you’ve won? And what have you won?

    Not that there is anything bad about jousting
    with windmills and mythical giants.

    Great practice and fun. One of my favorite hobbies.

    You’ll also enjoy being a dragon slayer.

    Thought this song would be a blessing to you all
    as you battle those windmills and giants.

    What is the impossible dream that you dream?

    What is the unrightable wrong?

    What is the glorious quest?.

    Hint…You might ask God before you answer.

    Writing them down is good.

    To dream … the impossible dream …
    To fight … the unbeatable foe …
    To bear … with unbearable sorrow …
    To run … where the brave dare not go …
    To right … the unrightable wrong …
    To love … pure and chaste from afar …
    To try … when your arms are too weary …
    To reach … the unreachable star …

    This is my quest, to follow that star …
    No matter how hopeless, no matter how far …
    To fight for the right, without question or pause …
    To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …

    And I know if I’ll only be true, to this glorious quest,
    That my heart will lie will lie peaceful and calm,
    when I’m laid to my rest …

    And the world will be better for this:
    That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
    Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
    To reach … the unreachable star …

    Be blessed and be a blessing.

  9. Listen… Could this be Jesus singing to you?

    When you’re weary, feeling small,
    When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all;
    I’m on your side. when times get rough
    And friends just cant be found,
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will lay me down.
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will lay me down.

    When you’re down and out,
    When you’re on the street,
    When evening falls so hard
    I will comfort you.
    I’ll take your part.
    When darkness comes
    And pain is all around,
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will lay me down.
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will lay me down.

    Sail on silver girl,
    Sail on by.
    Your time has come to shine.
    All your dreams are on their way.
    See how they shine.
    If you need a friend
    Im sailing right behind.
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will ease your mind.
    Like a bridge over troubled water
    I will ease your mind.

  10. Ooops – the other link was removed. Found this one very moving.
    I hope you like it.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9y9t5_2003-tony-awards-impossible-dream_music

    To dream … the impossible dream …
    To fight … the unbeatable foe …
    To bear … with unbearable sorrow …
    To run … where the brave dare not go …
    To right … the unrightable wrong …
    To love … pure and chaste from afar …
    To try … when your arms are too weary …
    To reach … the unreachable star …

    This is my quest, to follow that star …
    No matter how hopeless, no matter how far …
    To fight for the right, without question or pause …
    To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …

    And I know if I’ll only be true, to this glorious quest,
    That my heart will lie will lie peaceful and calm,
    when I’m laid to my rest …

    And the world will be better for this:
    That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
    Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
    To reach … the unreachable star …

  11. A Amos Love,
    Thanks for all the encouraging poems and songs.

    To fight for the right, without question or pause …
    To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …

    I pray that I will always be willing to fight for what is right yet with a gentle and respectful attitude especially with my dear brothers in Christ who differ on the issue of women in ministry. May I love them intensely while passionately arguing for the freedom that we have in Christ.

  12. Cheryl,

    Is the phrase “the husband is the head of the wife” ever repeated in Scripture? 1 Co 11 is not necessarily about husband and wife, but could be about man and woman. I wouldn’t say that the concept in 1 Co 11 is repeated in Eph 5.

    ??

  13. Pinklight, 1 Cor. 11:3 is a chronological listing of events in which honor is given to the one who is pre-eminent in each one. This follows a theme in chap. 10 of not using one’s freedom as a Christian for selfish ends but rather seeking the benefit of others. It is followed by a discussion of women’s attire in public while preaching and praying. This highlights that a woman is free in Christ to use the gifts of the HS. It also highlights that when we are bestowed a gift to share we do so to benefit others not take honor to ourselves. Thus our attitude is one of humility. Paul does this in such a clever way that he commands respect and humility from the women first, but also indirectly toward the women at the same time. For the woman must have autonomy in order to yield to God’s Spirit (vs. 10). Nevertheless, neither men nor women can act totally independently of one another (a call for humility). In real life there is balance….. first woman came from and for the man, now all men will come from (and for… a mother) the woman. And finally, we are all to discern for ourselves (not bound by rules) for there are no such rules established in the church in general.

    All of that to say, “the husband is the head of the wife”, needs to be considered contextually where ever it is. Different subject matter and meaning in 1 Cor. 11 than in Ephe. where the wife is to ‘consider’ her husband her head.

  14. Good thoughts tiro. Sorry for being out of touch for a week or so. It has been a busy time for me and I had family visiting too so that kept me away.

    I would like to say that 1 Cor. 11:3 in context refers to one particular husband and wife as 1 Cor. 11:12 shows that Eve came from Adam thus Adam was her source just as all men come through the woman now. Verse 3 then cannot be used to say that a man is the head of all women. It isn’t an issue of a universal boss but the original source (Adam), the current source (mothers) and the ultimate source (God).

  15. What follows is a comment I made on Mike’s blog entry for April titled “Figure Skating Toward Biblical Roles.” Please let me know if this sounds unkind in any way – I may need to quit reading through his blog. I do not want to sound super-critical.

    “Like you, I once loved a romantic, fairytale, happily-ever-after story the way you appear to, but then real life began to happen. Brother, even THE most Christian of marriages between God loving spouses can and do encounter circumstances and tragedies beyond their control that render the husband unable to lead anyone. My perspective regarding husbands having the protector/provider leader role is not the same because of situations I’ve encountered in the lives of Christian friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging who cannot fulfill that even if they wanted to.

    If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then how can it possibly be a command for every marriage?

    How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose Christian husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in a near vegetative state? She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her – to lead, protect and provide for her husband. My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s. My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband. On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. Or what of my cousin whose husband was killed in Viet Nam and she raised two children on her own? I could go on, but I think you can see my point – marriage simply isn’t always like a perfectly executed skating performance. And the longer I live the more clearly I see that.

    I believe this is why the Lord didn’t leave us with a book called “Formulas for the Perfect Christian life” or Bible chapters called “The Only Role of Men” and “The Only Role of Women.” But He did tell us to love one another as He loves us and to walk in the Spirit.

    And speaking of the Spirit – I do hope you can read this in loving spirit it was intended. “

  16. Kay,

    I see your post as an extremely powerful one. I am so glad that you wrote what you did!

    I see that complementarians so often state that women who do what is supposed to be the husband’s “role” are in sin. You have clearly pointed out where it is impossible for her not to take over this “role” and how could it be a sin in this situation. Situational sin cannot be a universal law.

    I also wonder if comps equally attribute “sin” to a husband who stays home with the kids as a service to his wife and family while his wife does outside the home what she is clearly gifted to do. Is now his cooking and cleaning and wiping a runny nose now usurping his wife’s “role”? Is he in sin? Often it seems to only go only way but this comes across as a bias. We are not to apply the “law” in a biased way.

    The solution? Recognize that there is no such demands of God for husbands and wives to have “roles”. They need to work out their own marriage in a one-flesh union that works for them. This is what God has ordained and He gives us much grace and latitude to live out our one-flesh union.

  17. Thanks Cheryl! If anyone could tell, it would be you – who always projects such kindness and a respectful attitude on your CD’s.

    I was as die-hard a romantic as anyone when I went into marriage 30 years ago. We were young, healthy and so in love. Alas, of the three only love remains. LOL! Love and a large dose of real life lived side by side.

    Truthfully, I am one of those people who once wished “formula” living really worked. At times, I’ve wished that God would just write me a list of the things I should do each day and leave it on my bedside table each morning. But He has better ways.

  18. Hi Kay,
    I too was a big romantic. That was 37 years ago for me. I always wanted to grow old with him…and now I see lots of signs that I am getting old! Not quite the way I envisioned it.

    I too wish that God would just lay it all out so that we don’t have to struggle so hard to know what to do in each situation or just how to make it through each day. But God knows that we need to struggle and work things out because the struggle strengthens us. Just as a caterpillar in a cocoon will not survive if you cut the cocoon open, as it needs the struggle to finish the process of becoming a butterfly, God knows that we too need the struggle. At least I know that one day the struggles, the pains, the trials will be all over and this short time will have allowed us to mature in a way that will carry forward into eternity. Praise God for that.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: