Women In Ministry

This is part 2 of answering the complementarian objections of Matt Slick on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. See part one here. My article laying out the original argument showing that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a specific woman that Paul forbids from teaching is here.

In Matt’s article on CARM 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here he is making an attempt at refuting my teaching, and in doing so he tries to deny that Paul is talking about false doctrine in the passage, by making a distinction that scripture does not make. Matt tries to prove that the word for false teaching (heterodidaskaleo) must be used when referencing false teaching but this will not stand up under careful inspection of the scriptures as Revelation 2:14, 15, and 20 have the word “teach” that comes from didasko (to teach) and this Greek word is used for teaching that is clearly situations regarding false doctrine. Once again Matt cannot hide the fact that Paul’s reference to the deception of the woman (1 Timothy 2:14) and the deceived false teachers in chapter 1 are the context of the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12.

The next issue related to deception is Paul’s reference to the first creation of Adam and the fact that the second one created was deceived. Note that Paul does not tie in the first creation of Adam with leadership nor does he tie in the second creation of Eve with the one must be the follower. Yet Matt says that Adam’s first creation is probably a matter of primogeniture, that is the pre-eminence of the first born. But primogeniture has nothing to do with marriage or male and female issues. It has to do with inheritance of the Father’s estate and in Christ both men and women are inheritors equally. Scripture never says that Adam had preeminence over Eve or that Adam was the only one who had God’s inheritance. This would be reading into the text. It is much better to take the text for what it says not what we can read into the text.

Matt Slick further says that not only are women not to teach men because the man has primogeniture rights but because of Eve’s deception “a woman” is not to teach or exercise authority over “a man”. It is amazing to see that while he had been arguing that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 has nothing to do with deception, he is now arguing that deception is also the reason why “a woman” is not allowed to teach. Now that Matt has agreed that deception is the reason for the prohibition, we can go back and connect 1 Timothy 2:12 to the deceived teachers in chapter 1 who are to be stopped from teaching. There is no doubt from the context that deception is key to understanding the passage and the stopping of one teacher in chapter 2 is related to the stopping of other deceived teachers in chapter 1.

Matt also admits that it is a possibility that the “a man” and “a woman” from 1 Timothy 2:12 could indeed be a husband a wife situation in the congregation. It is good to see Matt agreeing that there is nothing in the passage that would rule out a particular couple that Paul is commanding Timothy to deal with. Matt does say, though, that it is only a theory and the fact that it is a possibility does not make it a fact any more than that “a woman” was a temple prostitute who had a crush on Paul. Matt’s fallacious reasoning amounts to a straw man argument and there is nothing in the passage that would attach such a meaning to a temple prostitute having a crush on Paul. However there is much in chapters 1 & 2 to show that deception was the problem in the congregation and false teachers were to be stopped. Also the grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 shows that there is a specific “she” and “they” that Paul has been referring to. In a future post I will deal with Matt Slick’s attempt at identifying who the “she” and “they” are from 1 Timothy 2:15 and I will show how his identification is impossible from the text.

I would like to apply Matt Slick’s own words from his article. He says that it is alright to have an opinion, “but it is not alright to insist that is what the text means. If someone does, then he or she is pushing an agenda and not being faithful to the plain reading of the word.” I heartily agree. I would like to ask why Matt Slick has attached a Jewish rule of primogeniture to the marriage of Adam and Eve when God never used this Jewish rule for marriage nor for any male and female issues of teaching or leading? Also, why would Matt Slick deny that the Greek word for “teach” can be used to include false doctrine when a search of this Greek word clearly shows that he hasn’t told us the truth? Why would he deny that deception is the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 when the deception of the woman is clearly given in verse 14? Is it possible that Matt Slick is the one who has an agenda?

Why is Matt Slick not being faithful to the plain reading of the word that lists the deception of the second one created as a reason for Paul’s prohibition? Matt’s final words are very appropriate “But isn’t that the case when people have an agenda? They find ways to make the scriptures fit their “cause”.” Indeed, Matt has tried to make the scriptures fit his “cause” by redefining a Greek word and ignoring the deception of the woman as a reason for the prohibition. His insistence that “a woman” must mean all godly Christian women just doesn’t fit the grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15. Finally after finding no way to refute the teaching that “a woman” is the specific “she” from verse 15, Matt Slick has had to admit that the grammar could include the possibility that Paul was referring to one specific woman. Should we restrict all godly Christian women from using their God-given gifts with the authority of 1 Peter 4:11 just because some have an agenda and want to place all women into the prohibition in a verse that has nothing to do with godly teaching? May it never be!

My article laying out the original argument showing that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a specific woman that Paul forbids from teaching is here.

Matt Slick has put up several articles attempting to refute my reasoning and today I would like to answer Matt’s “refutation”. This article will be an answer to Matt’s article at http://www.carm.org/womeninministry/1Tim2_9-15specific.htm

In Matt Slick’s article he admits that “a woman” and “a man” could be a specific husband and wife. This is quite an admission from Matt since he has been trying to prove that it would be impossible for Paul to be referring to a specific woman. Since we already have that admission from Matt, we will let the context be the key to understanding Paul’s meaning. Matt summarizes the egalitarian argument this way:

“One of the interpretations given to these two verses is that there was a particular married woman who had been deceived (as Eve was deceived), was believing false teachings, was ignorant of the truth, and had been teaching false things to her husband…Even though she was a fallacious teacher, she was being shown mercy because of our (sic) ignorance just as Paul said he was shown mercy due to his ignorance as he mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:13. Once the woman learns the truth, then she will be permitted to teach men and or her husband.”

At this point Matt writes that this interpretation would be reading into the text because the text says:

“absolutely nothing about ‘this woman’ being deceived in ignorance. It isn’t there. Nor is there anything prior to this text that would imply there was a woman was deceived.”

What Matt does is completely ignores Paul’s connection between verse 12 and the reason for the prohibition in verse 14 as the deception of the woman. Since Paul is the one who connects the two, we cannot say that there is no mention of deception. We also find a connection to 1 Timothy 1:3 where Paul is instructing Timothy to stop certain people from teaching strange doctrines. The inspired text here doesn’t say that Timothy is to stop certain “males” but unnamed people teaching error. What has happened to some of these unnamed people who are teaching false doctrine? Paul said that some have turned aside from the truth. Another thing that Matt Slick completely misses in his article is the ones who turned aside from the truth are desiring to be teachers and they do not understanding what they are teaching:

1 Timothy 1:7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

So there is a connection between 1 Timothy 1 & 2 because Paul is stopping teachers in chapter 1 and stopping a single teacher in chapter 2. The reason Paul gives in chapter 1 is that these teachers are teaching in ignorance and in chapter 2 Paul stops a woman teacher and he ties it in the deception of a woman, another strong connection to the ignorance of the false teachers in chapter 1.

Paul also makes a clear difference in chapter 1 between those who are acting ignorantly in unbelief and those who know the truth and are distorting that truth.

Matt then claims that there is nothing in the context to suggest that there is a woman who has been sincerely deceived and is ignorant of proper doctrines. But what Matt fails to state is that the only command in verses 11 & 12 is the command for Timothy to let “a woman” learn. The fact that Paul makes it mandatory that she is to learn is a strong indication that her teaching is faulty.

Paul’s command for her to learn ties in to chapter 1 where Paul says there are people who are ignorantly teaching error. We know one thing for sure. There is no evidence at all that Paul meant to stop godly people who are teaching correct biblical doctrine. Paul’s theme of error and deception in the church is carried from false deceived teachers to “a woman” who must learn and must stop teaching and it ends with the deception of Eve in Chapter 2. For Matt Slick to say that there is no connection between ignorance (chapter 1 has ignorant people teaching error) or deception (chapter 2 has a deceived woman – verse 14) and the stopping of one teacher reveals Matt’s prejudice.

The next point that Matt tries to make is that Paul tells “a woman” in verse 12 to be quiet instead of telling her to be silent. Matt asks,

“…if the verses are about a woman teaching false things to her husband, then shouldn’t Paul tell her to stop doing it completely?”

The answer is very simple and understandable. If this is indeed a husband and wife situation, it would not be “normal” for Paul to tell a wife that she could not say one word to her husband. For Matt to say that Paul would have had to tell this wife that she couldn’t talk at all to her husband if she was a false teacher is completely illogical. Matt then puts words in Paul’s mouth by saying that this would be telling her “to speak her false doctrines a little more quietly” and he asks “Does that make any sense?” Matt’s question doesn’t make sense. The fact is that Paul could not interfere in a marriage and tell a specific wife that she could not talk to her husband at all. The term “quiet” in verse 12 most certainly refers back to the “quiet” from verse 11 where she is told to learn in a quiet manner. Paul’s first concern is that she learns the truth in a quiet manner, not looking to continue to teach her error, but learning in a quiet manner. He is certainly not telling her that she can teach error, just a “little more quietly”. Paul said she is to be stopped from teaching. Her being in quietness then has nothing to do with continuing false teaching but with her place of learning (verse 11).

Matt then tries to make an issue of the fact that the word “teach” that is forbidden in verse 12 is from the Greek word didasko (to teach) not heterodidaskaleo (to teach falsely). He asks,

“So, if Paul is referring to a certain woman in 2:12 who is teaching false doctrine, then why does he not use the word heterdodaskaleo when referring to her teaching…It doesn’t make sense if the egalitarian position is true.”

The answer is found in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 2:20, Jesus uses the same term for false teaching when he speaks to the church in Thyatira:

Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Here we see that Jezebel is teaching and leading in false doctrine, yet Jesus himself uses the term didasko. If Jesus can call false teaching “didasko”, and it is also used this way in Revelation 2:14 and 15 then there is no problem in Paul using the same term to include false teaching. The proof that it is false teaching is in the context itself, not in labeling the teaching “false”.

The question that I would like to ask Matt back, is where does it make sense from the context of 1 Timothy that Paul was desiring to stop godly Christian women from teaching correct doctrine? No Old Testament passage ever forbids women to teach the bible to men, so why should we even consider that Paul’s goal was to stop godly teaching instead of stopping false doctrine? It only makes sense to those who come to this passage with a preconceived view against women teachers.

Next post will be part 2 of the review of Matt Slick’s “refutation” of the “a woman” argument.

One of the key differences between an egalitarian and a patriarchal marriage is in the area of authority and will. In a patriarchal marriage, the man is set up as the final decision maker of the home and he is given the right to make a decision for his wife even if it overrules her will. The question we need to ask ourselves, is this biblical? Is a husband given a scriptural right to take authority over his wife against her will?

There is only one place in scripture where we find husbandly authority. This authority is found in 1 Corinthians 7:4. The Amplified version says:

1 Cor. 7:4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].

In this case both the husband and the wife have rights and authority over their spouses’ body. While the bible shows that each has an authority over their spouse’s body, this does not give one person the right to exercise authority over their spouse’s body against their will. In verse 5 Paul addresses the one who has made a decision to hold back from their spouse the sexual rights due to them.

1Co 7:5 Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire.

Paul’s encouragement is not aimed at the one who has been deprived of their rights telling them to take what belongs to them by taking authority over their spouse. This kind of forcing of one’s will on the other is never permitted. Rather, Paul’s instruction is to the one who is holding back and he instructs them to consider their spouse and the marital rights that are due their spouse because of their one-flesh marriage union. Paul writes that abstaining from marital relations is fine as long as it is for a time and is by mutual consent. The focus then is on mutual consent not on one person taking authority over another. If there ever was a place where Paul could have allowed men to take authority over their wives, this would have been one such place. But Paul does not tell men that it is their right to take authority over their wives even when he states that it is a man’s right to have marital relations with his wife. Why doesn’t Paul tell men in this instance that the husband has the right to take authority over his wife when their view on sex is different? Why doesn’t Paul tell men that they are allowed to make a decision for their wife when the husband and wife do not come to a mutual decision? It is because when a husband takes authority over his wife and physically overrules her will it is called rape.

If a husband is not allowed by scripture to take authority over his wife physically to force her against her will into a sexual relationship with him, then what makes patriarchs think that the husband is allowed by scripture to take authority over his wife’s will when they have a difference of opinion in other areas of their marriage? Scripture never once tells a man to take authority over his wife. This would be an overriding of her will and God considers our will as a very precious thing that not even he overrides. When people reject God by a decision of their own will, God does not force them into a relationship with him. God has given mankind a will that God respects. God will encourage us and persuade us and plead with us but God will not override our will. If we reject God, God will give us our will in the end and he will punish us for our sins instead of forcing us to be saved against our will.

One of the challenges that patriarchs will offer, is what does a married couple do if they disagree over a decision? If the husband doesn’t take authority to make the decision then how can they survive in a dead-locked position? The book “Does God Really Prefer Men?” available as a free download from doesgodreallyprefermen.com gives some very good biblical suggestions regarding what to do in this situation. When a couple is dead-locked, this is an opportunity to take the decision to the Lord in prayer. It is also an opportunity to work at unity. Last, it is an opportunity for the husband to sacrifice for his wife and/or for the wife to submit to her husband.

There is another good reason why God has not given the husband the right to take authority over his wife. The reason is that God’s desire is for each one of us to grow up and be mature. If the husband takes the position of decision maker in the home, the wife’s ability to mature is withheld from her.

Let me give you a couple of real life examples from a former complementarian couple who were taught that the husband was to be the decision maker of the home and he was to be responsible for his wife.  I will refer to them as “Bruce” and “Connie”. On their wedding day Bruce started this “role” as he took seriously his responsibility as “head” of the home. On their honeymoon in the mountains, when he realized for the first time that his new wife was afraid of heights, he took on the responsibility of dealing with her fears. He took authority over Connie by forcing her to go close to the edge of a cliff. For him it was an act of love because he was taking authority over her fear and that should have been a good thing. However his young wife was not released from fear. Instead she experienced a great amount of fear and panic and for the very first time in her new marriage, she experienced resentment because he had exerted his authority over her and against her will.

Within a few months they came to their first major roadblock in decision making. Bruce had a bag of mending for Connie to do and he wanted her to work on mending the holes in his pants. She loved sewing but she hated mending and she did not want to mend the ragged holes in his pants, at least not now. Maybe later, she told him, but not now. So he took his authority over her and told her that she had to do the work – now. Bruce pushed Connie down into the chair in front of the sewing machine and took authority over her will. This certainly should help her to be responsible and do things in a timely manner. He did everything that he was taught to do. He became responsible for her and he took authority over his wife and made the final decision when they disagreed. But by his taking authority over her will, she started a process of dying inside. Because Connie’s husband took authority over her will, she started to lose who she was as a person and instead of growing and maturing as a person and as a Christian she was kept in an immature state and she stopped growing. Through the years he loved her by protecting her from making mistakes. For example if she bought a frying pan at the store and he didn’t think that she needed a new one, he took authority over her will and made her take it back to the store.

As Connie’s will was overridden time and time again she started to hate her oppressor. After years of having her husband take authority over her, she started to dream about doing the unthinkable. She could never actually divorce him, but she could dream about divorce and what it would be like to be free from the one who controlled her life. What neither one of them realized at the time was that taking authority over your spouse against their will is emotional rape. It wasn’t until many years later when Connie came to the end of her rope and she finally drew the line in the sand because of all the control, he stopped taking his authority over her and he stopped making all the final decisions and she finally started to grow and mature emotionally. She actually started to blossom as a person. Instead of protecting her from every bad decision, he started to allow her to make wrong choices and she started to learn from her mistakes and this helped her to mature. She responded by loving him intensely for the freedom that he gave her to be her own person. She now was able to submit to him in love instead of having her submission forced on her. Bruce started to understand that loving his wife meant that he needed to sacrifice his need to keep her from making what he considered to be mistakes. True mature love, he learned, is not about taking authority over another person, but in serving them. A true godly husband serves his wife by providing her with all the tools that she needs to grow and mature.

When Jesus was on earth he did not take authority over his bride. Instead of taking authority over her and making her decisions, he spoke gently to his bride and he used persuasion instead of authority. One of the best examples of this is when Jesus submitted himself to wash the feet of the disciples. Peter, part of the bride of Christ, refused to have Jesus wash his feet. If the patriarchal way of taking authority over the wife was the right way, then Jesus surely should have taken authority over Peter and made the decision for Peter to wash his feet even if it was against Peter’s will. However Jesus did not do that. Instead of taking authority over Peter’s will, Jesus told Peter why he needed to wash his feet. When Peter understood Jesus’ actions as serving Peter in his need, Peter was very willing to submit to the service of Jesus.

The actions of Jesus are representative of a godly husband. A godly husband does not take authority over his wife’s will. Instead of making decisions for her, a godly husband will gently persuade and lovingly sacrifice for his wife. When a husband does these things, a wife will find joy in submitting to his sacrifice and it will be an act of her own free will that will accept what he offers her.

One of the ways that hierarchical teaching has influenced the church since the 1970’s is in the area of the doctrine of the Trinity. In hierarchical teaching, the Trinity is no longer three functionally equal persons who share the same nature. Instead Jesus and the Holy Spirit become functionally subordinate to the point that Jesus no longer has a will that is exercised. Instead of a functional equality with the Father, it is now claimed by some hierarchists that Jesus as the pre-incarnate Son of God had to have permission to create the world since the authority even for creation rested on the Father alone. It is also claimed that the Jesus is so unequal in authority with the Father that we are not biblically allowed to pray to Jesus or have intimate communication with him. These claims more closely resemble the teaching of some well-known cults than they do of historic Christianity.

Will the church stand back and allow the Trinity to be downgraded so that the persons of the Trinity are no longer equal in authority, in their will or their work? We are now seeing a ground swell of opposition to the hierarchical teaching that tries to equate women’s subordination with an re-invented eternal subordination within the Trinity (this is not the first time in church history that the issue of subordinationism has reared its ugly head). Our new DVD on the Trinity is just getting ready for filming in early May 2008 and the second DVD in this 2 DVD set will focus on a refutation of the hierarchical distortion of the Trinity. Although the subordination of women will not be mentioned in the DVD, the foundation of the modern subordination movement that bases the subordination of women on the supposed eternal subordination of Christ in the Trinity, will be thoroughly refuted. There will also be many audio clips from noted hierarchical teachers such as Bruce Ware that documents the faulty logic used to downgrade Jesus to a lesser authority than the Father (the same logic they use to downgrade women as under the authority of all men).

Others who are bringing to light the connection between the hierarchical movement and the subordination of the Son are doing a good job at drawing our attention to the attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity from within our Christian churches most notably from within the Southern Baptist Convention.

Be sure to read Wade Burleson’s blog post and Dr. Cynthia Kunsman’s post discussing the censorship that she has experienced by merely talking about patriarchy and views espoused by hierarchists such as Bruce Ware and CBMW.

We believe that our new DVD will bring to light evidence of the tampering of the Trinity by modern Evangelicals that may shock a lot of people. One thing that I have found most disturbing is that in the written material that I have read from Dr. Bruce Ware as well as in all of the lectures that I listened to by Ware on this subject, he never fails to connect the Trinity to the women’s issue and the subordination of women. This is extremely troubling to me that he would be so passionate to limit the full usage of women’s gifts in the church that he has become passionate in the last dozen or so years to make the Trinity an issue of eternal subordination. I do want to point out that in email correspondence with me Ware has denied that he sees Jesus as less than equal with the Father in function because he sees women also in the same lower “role”. However his inability to even discuss the Trinity without bringing the women’s issue into play makes his denial very suspect. Ware simply sees the two issues so intimately connected that he cannot discuss the Trinity without making application to the “glorious” pattern of male authority over women which is a reflection of the Trinity. I related to Bruce Ware that whether women are or are not subordinated to men does not reflect on the full equality of the Son. Ware does not see it this way. He has been one of several who have dedicated themselves to teaching the eternal subordination of the pre-incarnate Christ. This is not good nor is it right.

It is about time that we set up a flag in the ground and a line in the sand and say “No more!” We will fight for the truth and expose the error. No longer should we stand by to see Jesus dishonored by those who wish to remove his full and equal function as Deity.

I was also asked to have a place where we could list good blogs/web sites that promote godly views about women in ministry or issues of egalitarian marriage, etc. This post will be the permanent place to place links.

Pastor Wade Burleson http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/ has been posting great articles on women in the church. While Wade may not agree with everything on women in ministry he is a great advocate for letting the Holy Spirit decide on who does what by the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives. You may want to page through some of the stuff that Wade writes regarding women to see how a “voice in the wilderness” is crying for sanity in the Southern Baptist Convention regarding women. Good stuff.

Wade Burleson’s father caught my attention quite a while ago and I just love the humility of Pastor Paul Burleson http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/ Pastor Paul often writes on the women’s issue and he is very supportive of using women’s gifts in the body of Christ. One of the things that I appreciate about Pastor Paul is his humble willingness to be taught. He does not look down on women or a person’s race or their age. He believes that he can learn from anyone when the person speaks the truth of God’s word. Paul speaks from the wisdom of his many years of service to the Lord Jesus.

Wayne Leman is a very caring man who started http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/ This is a respectful place for both complementarians and egalitarians to dialog. Wayne is a bible translator and has a lot of wisdom in his years of service in the Lord as well. I have been privileged to meet Wayne in person and I greatly respect Wayne and his dear wife Elena and their hard work in bible translating.

There is also our dear Paula Fether http://www.fether.net/ who some consider to be sorta like me on some days but just a little more bold and untamed. She has a lot of thoughts on the women’s issue too that are worthy of consideration. Check out here site and I think she has a discussion board attached to it somewhere.

Then there is a great egalitarian discussion board http://equalitycentral.com/forum/YaBB.pl where you can find friends, coffee and fellowship. Complementarians are welcome there too if they would like to dialog with respect. You will need to register to post, but it is worth the register to meet the great guys and gals there!

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml is the Mother of all sites on biblical equality having been around since the time of Eve

Go ahead and add to my list. This post will be the chief post where we can list great web sites and blogs about biblical equality.

For those who would like a picture to appear by your comments go to http://www.engravatar.com and sign up. This program will allow you to pick a picture from your hard drive or from the internet that will appear by your comments. Kind of cool.

Another very helpful web page is http://www.DoesGodReallyPreferMen.com where you can request a great ebook called “Does God really prefer Men?” This ebook is especially helpful in establishing the base of an egalitarian marriage. I also found her exegesis on some of the hard passages of scriptures to be very akin to my own finding in scripture. Leslie Johnson writes that this is because we have the same Dad, the same Savior and we are filled with the same Holy Spirit. I heartily agree! For those of you who are especially looking for resources on marriage, make sure to request this free e-book from Gary and Leslie Johnson.

I was asked to provide a post that lists what people use for biblical helps all in one place.  I will start and anyone is welcome to add to the list.

I love e-sword http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html It is a mostly free program that you can download onto your computer and it has tons of resources and bibles and helps.

I also love scripture4all http://scripture4all.org/ You can download the program or check the scriptures right on-line.  It is great for checking the Greek or Hebrew parsing.

Blue letter bible http://blueletterbible.org/ is also helpful although I rarely use it any longer since I have the helps already on my computer.

If anyone has already put their links in the comments area on other posts, please consider putting them in the comment section here so we can keep all of the resource links in one place.  Thanks!

To Diane Sellner,

I have invited you to my blog and provided a safe place for you to dialog with me. I thought this was thoughtful, kind and generous. What you have done is accuse me of teaching error and then you put posts up on CARM that say I haven’t answered the accusations yet you have blocked me from posting as you have my posts on moderation and they are not showing up.

Clearly we have two different standards.

Here is the new discussion board that Diane has delegated both for general discussions and the issue of women in ministry http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=91

If any visitor to my blog would like to see the side of hierarchy that regularly bans egalitarians who post in a respectful manner, and dominates and controls those who don’t agree with them, please do visit CARM’s discussion board and pay close attention to the attitude displayed there. The really old posts on “feminism” are downright scary when you consider the leadership at CARM are supposed to be fellow Christians.

Now I would like to ask a question to the visitors on my blog: why do you think that there is such a double standard with hierarchists? What might be some of the reasons that causes them to treat this secondary issue in the body of Christ as if it is a matter of salvation, thus causing them to be divisive towards their fellow brothers and sisters in the faith?

Also I would like to ask for wisdom from the posters here. What has helped you to keep a respectful attitude when you are being attacked? Are there points of wisdom that you can share with all of us that will keep our eyes focused on our Lord Jesus and less on the attacks coming from this hierarchical camp?

I would also like to bring attention to my previous post where I have answered some of the challenges posed to me but which to this point have not been allowed to appear on the CARM board to this point.

Apparently my wisdom in deciding that my own blog is the appropriate place to answer the challenges to my egalitarian argument by Matt Slick has been a good decision. It is the only place I can do this in a respectful manner without having my answers held back. I really appreciate the ability to be able to post here and to find such a respectful community of believers who take the challenge to heart about representing Jesus with a truly Christ-like attitude!

Also a quite note that I am still working hard on the Trinity DVD so my periods of absence here are for a good reason!

Blessings,

Cheryl

On one of CARM’s discussion boards, “En Hakkore” accused me of misrepresenting and misunderstanding Dr. Randall Buth the author of chapter 5 in the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics”. My position in my DVD series is that the Hebrew grammar in Genesis chapter 2 shows that the garden of Eden and the animals spoken of in chapter 2 were created after Adam’s creation.

Yesterday I received an email back from Dr. Randall Buth confirming that I do indeed understand his writing correctly and this is how the grammar of Genesis 2 reads and that the NIV incorrectly applies a pluperfect wayyiqtol rule when translating Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 to make these refer to a past event. Instead the verbs in these two verses should be translated as they are intended as sequential within the account in chapter 2.

Dr. Buth also brought up something that is very important in understanding scripture. He commends a “willingness to let the text be whatever it is and not to sub-ordinate it to “presuppositionalism”.

When we assume that God created both male and female animals at the same time, we are then forced to take a passage that shows that the animals were created after Adam (Genesis 2) and make this passage refer to the exact same animals that were created in Genesis 1. Dr. Buth says that we need to just let the text be whatever it is. What the text “is” is a sequential creation of animals after Adam’s creation in Genesis 2.

CARM and especially Diane Sellner have been quick to try to accuse me of false teaching without ever going to the source of the material that I quote. This is unacceptable for an organization whose goal is to present an apologetic reasoning for the Christian faith. Rather we need to do what the Bible tells us to do:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ISV) Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good

With all the hostile name-calling tactics against egalitarians rampant on the internet, godly, peace-loving complementarians may wonder what they can do in their current position to bring peace amongst the body of Christ. I am glad you asked. Below are my recommendations on how you can bring peace to the body of Christ and support godly women teachers without compromising your own conscience:

• When a godly woman is asked to speak publicly, do not discourage her or put her down for using her God-given gifts. Give her the opportunity to use her gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ by quietly and without a disrespectful show of superiority, leave the building so that others will receive the benefit of her teaching. When those who are complementarian and who have a weaker conscience regarding hearing the truth from scripture from the mouth of a woman have left the building, the rest of the body of Christ will be free to benefit from the teaching that God has for them. It is never right to stop a woman from teaching the truth of God’s word. It would be a respectful and godly thing to leave the building yourself so that God gets the glory and your conscience is not hurt. This is a godly “Elvis has left the building” peace-making effort.

• When a godly woman is preparing to give a bible lesson do not ask that woman what she is allowed to do by God, ask yourself rather what you are allowed to hear. If your conscience is bothered by hearing godly teaching coming from a sister in Christ who has been commissioned by God as a teacher, then do another “Elvis has left the building” exit. In doing so you will not disturb those who are ready and willing to hear the truth of God’s word from one of God’s gifted teachers.

• Ask yourself why the church has practiced stopping gifted women teachers from teaching the truth from scripture rather than a much simpler plan of allowing men with weak consciences to leave in a respectful manner? Why do some men sit up front when a woman is scheduled to speak in a church or a chapel and then get up in protest and walk out in an act of arrogant superiority? Is this godly? Does this please God? Or should these men rather choose not come to the chapel in the first place or choose to sit discreetly at the back in a respectful manner and then quietly leave before she gets up to speak? Would it not be a godly and peace-loving thing by respecting their sister in Christ and respecting Jesus who has accepted and gifted this godly teacher by quietly and discreetly making their exit? Why do some men make a show of disrespecting women rather doing a humble and discreet “Elvis has left the building” exit?

• Pour over scripture and look throughout the Old Testament and then search through the new testament looking for a reason as to why God treats men as second class citizens and keeps part of his gifts away from them? Why would God give 100% of his gifted teachers for the benefit of women in the body of Christ, but then hold back 50% of his gifted teachers from benefiting men? Search carefully through scripture to determine for yourself why God is so prejudiced against men that he gives them only half of his best gifts for their benefit?

• Apologize to women that you have disrespected and treated with disdain because they have freely offered their gift for your benefit. Ask God to forgive you for your attitude. Ask God to change your heart so that you will allow yourself to encourage, love, respect and appreciate every godly Christian bible teacher that has had the courage to continue teaching after being mistreated, scorned, rejected and hated by their brothers in Christ.

• Finally, pray for your sisters in Christ and ask God to help you to be a peace-maker and an encourager of their gifts and support their courage to use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ whom Christ also died for.

For more information about the dual use of the term “Elvis has left the building” click here. You will then need to determine if you are one who is to stay or to go.

Anyone have anymore respectful things that a godly complementarian can do to encourage his/her sisters in Christ?

I am going to post the first audio to my 4 DVD series Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free because I gave out the wrong times for the airing of the first DVD on the Boise, Idaho radio station. I announced it as Pacific time when it should be Mountain time so many missed hearing it this week.

 Listen to the audio of DVD 1 of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free here.

For those of you who tried to listen to my airing of my 4 DVD series, I sincerely apologize that I gave the wrong radio time. For some reason I thought Idaho was Pacific time but Boise Idaho is Mountain time! “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” will be heard on My family radio station in Boise, Idaho at the air times in Boise Idaho (see below) - all are Mountain time.

You can listen live to the audio from my 4 DVD set at the following link. The listen button is at the top right hand side and it will allow you to pick the radio station that you want to listen to for the times listed below. The link is http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php Remember the times are Mountain Standard time and if you are listening at Eastern time you need to add two hours so instead of 12 noon it will be 2 pm and instead of 4 pm it will be 6 pm.

KBXL 94.1 FM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 12 noon - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 12 noon - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 12 noon - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 12 noon - segment four

KSPD 790 AM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 4 pm - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 4 pm - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 4 pm - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 4 pm - segment four

In dealing with women in ministry, the question has been asked of me, isn’t circumcision a proof that God only wants men to minister through leading and teaching since God gave the sign of circumcision for males only to his people in the Old Testament?  Did God give preferential treatment to males when he brought them into the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament through circumcision?

While some believe that the entrance into the Abrahamic covenant of blessing through circumcision gave preferential treatment for males, the fact is that only the males had a necessary ritual of entrance into the covenant and without this ritual they were rejected as part of the covenant.  Females entered the covenant without restriction and without rejection.  To understand the reasons why, we need to look at the biblical requirement for circumcision.

Circumcision was performed on babies when they were 8 days old and if the parents did not circumcise their baby boy, the baby was rejected.

Gen 17:14  “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

It is an interesting fact that babies did not circumcise themselves and the failure of their father to cut off his son’s foreskin would result in that baby being cut off from the people of God.  This means that the physical act of circumcision was done by a father to his son without the son having done anything sinful of his own.  This was a generational sign done to the next generation and then passed on to the next generations.  When Israel disobeyed God in the wilderness for 40 years and one of the ways they disobeyed is that they did not circumcise their sons, Joshua took the responsibility to circumcise the males, sons of the ones who fell in the desert, so that they could be in God’s covenant and go into the promised land.  The females were allowed to go into the promised land without restriction.

To understand God’s restriction on males and how it relates to the Kinsman Redeemer we need to understand the physical and spiritual sign that God gave as a symbol for sin.  The symbol in scripture for sin is the foreskin.

While only males carried the symbol of sin in their body, both males and females carried the spiritual symbol of sin that God says must be cut off to be right with him.

Deuteronomy 10:16  So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6  Moreover the LORD your God will  circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4  “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.”

Sin needed to be dealt with and the spiritual symbol of sin is the “foreskin” of our heart.  It needs to be cut off from our heart so that we can be right with God.  So while the Abrahamic covenant dealt with the fleshly sign of sin, the fleshly foreskin on the males, the New Covenant in our Lord Jesus deals with the spiritual sign of sin, the uncircumcised heart.  We must circumcise our heart through repentance turning away from sin (Deut. 10:16), but God himself does the actual work by removing our sin (Deut 30:6).  In this way God gives us a new heart.

Ezekiel 36:26  “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

While females also have a piece of physical skin that will be removed when they get married, their skin was not likened to sin but to purity.  The symbol of a woman’s skin of her virginity was the symbol of purity.  The Messiah then was to come through a virgin alone and no male would be involved in passing on of the seed of Adam to the Messiah.  This is an important fact since the male alone has the physical symbol of sin in his body.

Circumcision was created to be a sign of righteousness but it was also created to be something that was done to a person not what one does for ones self.  This symbolizes that the righteousness does not originate in us but through the grace of God.  Romans 4:11 explains:

Rom 4:11  and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

So circumcision was a seal of righteousness.  It was a seal, a sign of the cutting off of sin that results in a righteous standing before God.

The physical sign of sin had to be cut off to enter God’s Abrahamic covenant.  Only the males carried in their body this sign of sin.  Cutting off of the sign of sin was the seal of righteousness, a sign of the physical fleshly standing before God.  Abraham received this sign even while he was yet uncircumcised so that the ultimate symbol would be a symbol of God’s work of grace not a work that Abraham accomplished.  This is why the cutting off of the physical sign of sin was done to babies who could not accomplish this “work” for themselves.

So why is there a physical sign of sin only on the males when the spiritual sign of sin is on both males and females?  The answer comes in the sin nature that we inherit from Adam.  We are under a double condemnation of sin both by the sin that we inherit and the sin that we personally commit.

The first condemnation of sin is that which we have inherited through Adam.

Psalms 51:5  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalms 58:3  The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

We all have inherited a sin nature that causes us to sin from a little child on.  No one needs to teach a child how to lie.  They do it naturally because they are born with a sin nature.  Scripture also says that sin entered the world through one man.  It doesn’t say that it was just corruption that entered the world but “sin” itself entered the world.

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

Notice in this scripture that the death that came through sin “spread” to all men.  The Greek word that is translated as “spread” is dierchomai and it means to pass through.  How did death pass through all humans?  The literal Greek says:

Romans 5:12  Because of this as even as through one human the sin into the world entered and through the sin the death and thus into all humans the death passed through on which all sinned.

It is clear from the literal translation that the sin that entered the world is passed through all humans with death as a result and the sin that we personally sin is based on our sin nature.  The Greek says “on which” all sinned.  It is what has been passed through to us, “on which” or on the basis of this all sin.

Romans 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

We enter the world in a dying body because we have inherited the sin nature from Adam and death follows to all who are descendants of Adam by his seed because these are the ones who were “in” Adam when he sinned.  All of us are the seed of Adam and all of us were there inside him in the form of his seed when he sinned.  It was Adam’s one sin that caused us to start our life as dying beings.  The fact that we enter the world in a body that is susceptible to sickness and death proves that we inherit Adam’s sin nature since death follows sin.  There would be no death if sin didn’t exist first.

Romans 5:15  But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Yet it wasn’t just that we enter this life in a dying body, we also enter in a fleshly body that has inherited the sin nature. We were created as sinners because of Adam’s sin.  Adam’s sin caused both a physical death and a spiritual separation from God.  The very day that Adam sinned, he was separated from God and kicked out of the garden.  We inherit this separation from God because we were “in” Adam when he sinned.  Verse 19 proves that it wasn’t just our death that came as a result of Adam’s sin, but we were made sinners through Adam’s sin:

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

How is it through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners?  “The many” were made sinners because Adam’s sin was spread to us by inheritance.  By the one man’s sin, we inherited his rebellion and this spread to us tainting us even in our mother’s womb because we are the seed of Adam.  Romans 5:19 makes a strong point that one man’s sin made the many to be sinners.

Scripture also makes it clear that this sin is brought into the world, not by Eve and through her seed, but by Adam.  Yet scripture also makes clear that the one who would pay for our sin must be a kinsman Redeemer of Adam’s.  Jesus must be the last “Adam” not the last “Eve” or the last “Abraham”.  The one who started the sin must be dealt with by the life and work of the “last” Adam.  The word Redeemer in the Hebrew is “gaal” and it means to act as a redeemer to a deceased kinsman, to redeem or buy back from bondage.  Jesus is to be that kinsman Redeemer who buys back from bondage all that was lost by Adam’s sin.  In order for Jesus to be that Redeemer he must be a perfect sacrifice without sin or blemish.

Jesus was born from a virgin without a human father so that he would not have the inherited sin nature that comes through the seed of the man.  Jesus is the only one who is not a seed of Adam.  Jesus was not in Adam when Adam sinned.  By showing us that only the man has the physical sign of sin, we have a fleshly sign to show that the Messiah could not come through the seed of the man.  The foreskin is a powerful symbol of sin.  It must be cut off because the foreskin is identified with sin and with the rebellion of Adam.

Scripture also tells us that the father can affect the seed within him.

Hebrews 7:9, 10 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

If scripture says that the seed within the father can be credited with the act of the father, then the seed within the father can also be credited with the sinful rebellion when Adam fell just as scripture says.  Scripture very clearly says that Adam brought sin into the world.  He brought sin into the world just as surely as Levi paid tithes while he was in his father’s loins.

So if the male transfers the sin nature of Adam (Adam’s seed) to Adam’s fleshly descendants, then why was Jesus born with a foreskin that needed to be cut off?  The reason is that Jesus was to be made like us in all ways but without sin.

Romans 8:3  For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Jesus was sent in the “likeness of sinful flesh”.  What was that “likeness” of sinful flesh?  Jesus was born without inherited sin but he did have the symbol of sin in his body just as all other men had.  Jesus had a foreskin and this foreskin had to be cut off in order to fulfill the law.

Although Jesus was without inherited sin because he received his humanity through the woman’s seed, not the man’s, Jesus still had to fulfill all of the law on our behalf.  In the same way, although Jesus had no sin of his own, Jesus had to fulfill the law by being baptized.  Baptism symbolizes the washing away of sin by cutting off the foreskin of the heart, yet Jesus had no sin to be washed away and no foreskin of his heart that needed to be cut away.  But because he was to fulfill the entire law on our behalf, Jesus needed to go through these acts in order to be identified with us in our sin so that he could be our sin bearer.

As the sin bearer of the entire human race, as the last Adam, Jesus needed to be a descendant of Adam but not through Adam’s seed.  How is that possible?  God bypassed the man’s seed by going through the woman’s seed which had not been tainted with Adam’s sin.  God bypassed the one who brought sin and stain into our lives by going through the very one who had been deceived by Satan.  Click here to read how God did this by reading my article on Adam as head of the family.

To sum up the importance of circumcision and the importance of cutting off of sin, we need to see that:

1.  Adam alone brought sin into the world.
2. Adam alone was kicked out of the garden as the one whom God pinpointed as the one who would continue to rebel against God’s rules and eat from a tree that was no longer available to him.
3. Adam’s seed was not to be used to bring the Messiah into the world.
4. Only the males have the physical sign of sin (foreskin)
5. Death is passed through to each one of us because of Adam’s sin.
6. The sin nature that we inherit causes us to practice sinning on our own.
5. Jesus was made in the image of the first Adam and Jesus had a foreskin the physical sign of sin.
6. Entrance into God’s family requires the removal of the foreskin of our hearts and this is a requirement of both males and females who all have their own sin.
7. We are saved by grace through faith and it is God who removes the symbol of sin from our hearts and He is the on who makes us clean.

As born-again Christians we need to allow the Spirit to do his work in our hearts.  The Jewish nation had the symbol of fleshly circumcision but they resisted God and would not allow God to do the work in their hearts.

Act 7:51  “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

What started through Abraham with a fleshly symbol is now shown to represent a spiritual symbol of the work that God does in our hearts.

Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

So in answer to the question about circumcision, this rite of entrance into the Abrahamic covenant was not a lifting up of the male as more important than the female.  Females were not given circumcision because sin does not pass through from the seed of Eve.  The sign of circumcision was God’s finger pointing toward the birth of the Messiah through the seed of the woman. Praise God that he found a way to bring the Messiah as a kinsman Redeemer without the stain of inherited sin.  Christ and Christ alone was the unblemished lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

On Thursday our ministry partner Lorri MacGregor was on the radio program called Iron Sharpens Iron speaking about the situation in Canada that forced us to either compromise our Christian faith, be shut down by the Canadian government if we refuse to comply with their demands or shut down the charity ourselves.  If you want to hear the heart of this ministry and what our year long fight with the government has been, you can go to http://sharpens.blogspot.com/2008/02/lorri-macgregor-canada-gags-gospel.html where there is a link to the mp3 file of Lorri’s interview on Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast from New York.

Breaking news first!!! The radio station that sells air time to Matt Slick’s Faith and Reason radio show has confirmed the dates and times of the public airing of my 4 DVD series “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” This is free air time because of the misrepresentation of my view by Matt Slick. My family radio station in Boise, Idaho has been gracious enough to give me air time to allow my view to be heard without misrepresentation. Here are the air times in Boise Idaho - all are Mountain time. The station is presenting the DVDs on BOTH their AM and FM stations, praise the Lord!

You can listen live to the audio from my 4 DVD set at the following link. The listen button is at the top right hand side and it will allow you to pick the radio station that you want to listen to for the times listed below. The link is http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php Remember the times are Mountain Time and if you are listening at Eastern time you need to add two hours so instead of 12 noon it will be 2 pm and instead of 4 pm it will be 6 pm.

KBXL 94.1 FM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 12 noon - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 12 noon - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 12 noon - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 12 noon - segment four

KSPD 790 AM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 4 pm - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 4 pm - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 4 pm - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 4 pm - segment four

My next post has been delayed because of my work on the Trinity DVD, however I have been advised that Diane Sellner from CARM thinks that she has an answer to 1 Timothy 2:15, regarding who is the “she” and who are the “they” that will disprove my exegesis and also a proof that the animals were not created after Adam, disproving my exegesis that Adam saw some of God’s acts of creation.

I welcome Diane trying to answer me. I have created this post so that it will be a safe place for her to come and share with us her answers. Now I know that some of you have been hurt by Diane’s harsh attitude on CARM, but I ask that you refrain from any unkind or unChristian attitude towards her on this post. While I do not agree with Diane’s public attitude towards others, I do not want her to find this kind of attitude on this post. This is an opportunity for any of you who have been hurt to show her that a Christian attitude is alive and well on this blog. I have given Diane an invitation to post her answers here so that it will be a safe environment for both of us.

Now I know that Diane may not feel safe in the beginning because she is used to only being around strong complementarians who support her strong critical “style”. But this safe environment may be just what Diane needs to get outside the environment that surrounds CARM. Please welcome Diane, remember that I will personally put your posts under moderation if there is any kind of personal attack or unChrist-like behavior.

If you are a Christian, then Jesus lives in you. The true test is not how you treat others when they treat you well, but how you treat others who have been less than kind to you. This is the safe environment that I welcome Diane to. Diane, let’s discuss your “correction” and I challenge you to show me where I am wrong. Then be prepared for a very strong challenge. The world is watching, Diane. You said this on CARM’s discussion board didn’t you? I am ready and willing to “debate” this issue with you in a respectful dialog-kind of way. Diane, jump on in, the water’s fine and there are no “sharks” in this water.

On Friday February 22, 2008 Richard and I were interviewed on Frank Pastore’s radio in Los Angeles, California show regarding the way that Canada is forcing Christian ministries to either go against their Christian faith or have their charity status revoked. You can hear the interview here in mp3 format. It is 9 minutes long.

There were some details that were left out of the interview such as the Canadian government attaches a 100% tax on a Charity that is closed down whether the people voluntarily revoke the charity or whether the government comes after you and closes you down involuntarily. This means that we were required to purchase our own editing and office equipment at fair market value and the proceeds from this “sale” as well as the money in our Charity bank account that had been set aside to build a state-of-the-art video studio will be confiscated by the government or we will be allowed to give it all away to a Government approved charity.

What is happening in Canada is outrageous in what used to be a “Christian” country. The cults may flourish and write their literature attacking Christianity but a long-term ministry dedicated to bringing people to faith in Christ in a loving and thoughtful way is not “charitable”!

For more information on our ministry to the cults more information is available on our websites at:

mmoutreach.org

jwinfoline.com

mmmoutreachinc.com (Keith and Lorri MacGregor’s web site)

It’s time for an update especially since I have been so busy that I haven’t been able to post much for awhile.

[Updated] First of all regarding the Boise Idaho radio station that will be broadcasting the audio version of my 4 DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”, the radio station has confirmed the following dates and times [all times are Mountain time - for Eastern time add 2 hours]:

KBXL 94.1 FM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 12 noon - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 12 noon - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 12 noon - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 12 noon - segment four

KSPD 790 AM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 4 pm - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 4 pm - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 4 pm - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 4 pm - segment four

The programs can be listened to live at http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php. Go to the top right hand corner for the live audio feed.

For those who haven’t been following my blog, the radio spots are free air time that I have been given because Matt Slick of “Faith and Reason” has been misrepresenting me and my teaching for months now and in December he made some very untrue statements that went far past the place of a Christian apologist. In fairness to me, the radio station that hosts Matt Slick’s program has agreed that it is only fair to present the opposing view in an honest and fair way so that the misrepresentation will be put to rest.

Secondly on an update on our ministry, there has been a type of closure on our fight with the Canadian government - a fight to have the freedom to preach the gospel to the lost souls in the cults. While it may appear to be a defeat, we believe very strongly that God has orchestrated the recent happenings so that we have actually expanded our vision past what our comfort zone has been.

Briefly, here are the things that have happened to this point. In 2007 there was a complaint to the Charities division of the government of Canada against the work that we do as a ministry. Our ministry is called MacGregor Ministries (MM Outreach for short and to represent the joining together of MacGregor Ministries and Media Ministries). The complaint resulted in an audit in June of 2007. While our books were fine, it was determined that there was a question about our qualification as a Charity since the majority of our gospel preaching focuses on the topic of the cults. Not only do we actively reach out to those who have lost their way in the cults but we also teach Christians how to reach Jehovah’s Witnesses and others in different cults and bring them to faith in Christ. This has been deemed as “uncharitable” by the Canadian government representative who took over our case from the original auditor.

We did retain a lawyer to help fight our case but there was not much we could do as the government agent was determined to shut down our ministry and squash our work with the cults. In the end we were given an ultimatum that our web site was to be “gone”, our products geared to reaching those in the cults for Christ were to be “gone”, we were to stop writing material on the cults and stop doing “persuasive” biblical teaching on DVD and finally that we were to treat all religions as equal in value with no teaching to be done as “persuasive”. This is completely unacceptable to us and would compromise our Christian faith. The only options available to us would be to shut down our own ministry and ask the Canadian government to de-register us or do nothing and wait until they come and get us and forcibly de-register the Charity themselves. We chose to be proactive and send in our letter voluntarily de-registering the Charity under protest.

The effects of de-registering the Charity is the same as having the government do this to us. In closing the Charity, it involves a 100% tax by the government. We had to dig deep into our savings to purchase our own editing equipment at fair market value and purchase our own stock of products at fair market value. The money generated by this “sale” along with the money we had saved up to build a state-of-the-art video/movie studio will either be confiscated by the government or we can give it away to a government approved charity. Everything that we have worked so hard for as volunteers for years (the MacGregor’s have put in 30 years of ministry and we have been working as volunteers in ministry since 1988) will be gone except for what we are able to purchase back (again!) with our own money.

So how is this a good thing? Well it has pushed us to go beyond our comfort zone and to look to the Lord and his call to us in ministry. The government of Canada is not the one who called us into ministry and the government of Canada cannot take us out of ministry. This has pushed us to take a step of faith that without this push from the threat of de-registration, we would never have stepped out in faith. We have with the support of a dear US friend, started a US corporation dedicated to continue on the ministry of preaching the gospel to those lost in the cults and this will be based in the US. We also have a Canadian corporation in place to do the work in Canada. This Canadian corporation will be a taxable corporation and while we will no longer be able to give tax receipts in Canada, we will have something that is very precious - that is free speech and freedom to preach the gospel with power in order to benefit those whom the church has long ignored.

The government agent responsible for trying to shut us down told us that there is no such thing as free speech while operating as a registered Canadian charity, yet praise God we are now free to preach the gospel without government intervention and we are working on expanding our ministry base directly into the US. We do not know how all of this will work out financially since we do not as yet have tax exempt status in the US, but we are confident that the Lord Jesus will fulfill his promise to us to bless our efforts and he is the one responsible for taking care of all the details.

All of these changes has been very time consuming for me. While I should be nose to the grindstone on our newest DVD project on the subject of the Trinity, I have been waylaid by the immediate need to switch our web site over to reflect our product ordering pages to the new US corporation so that any product sold from now on will go directly into the account of MM Outreach in the US and will enable us to start getting some income in order to purchase the rest of our stock.

For those of you who haven’t been on our product pages to see where my DVD is sold along with other materials that are used to reach out into the world of the cults and aberrant Christian movements, now would be a good time to visit. Any proceeds from the sale of our products will go directly into helping our ministry to move forward. Click here for our DVD ordering page and there are other product pages that can be accessed from this page. I do not yet have the Canadian & Overseas links working yet as it is very labor intensive. Hopefully this will be done by sometime this coming week, Lord willing.

While we may not understand how the Lord is going to work all of this out, we do trust him that what was meant for our harm, God is going to use for his own glory. Praise the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

I do still intend to do a post on circumcision and how this “sign” is meaningful to the issue of women in ministry, but right now this post is having to take a back seat until I get the most important things done first. Please keep our ministry in prayer as we go past one hurdle after another. We are trusting in God, but you can also join with us in the prayer of faith. Also pray for me for my work on the Trinity DVD script. All of the changes in ministry have come at a time that I should be coming to the end of my research and writing and I am way behind schedule. The filming is scheduled to take place by the end of April to keep us on schedule so I could use some prayer too to keep me focused and on schedule.

So now you know why I have been distracted and largely unavailable. I am so glad that you guys have carried on without me I really love the community that comes and visits on this blog. For those of you who haven’t received an email answer from me for sometime, I won’t be able to catch up too quickly. I have the rest of the product pages to update and then some catchup work on the Trinity DVD. I will try to pay as much attention as I can to my blog, but if I am somewhat spaced out, at least you now know why ’cause y’all now know the “rest of the story”.

Recently someone sent me a Youtube clip of Mark Gungor’s “Laugh your way to a better marriage”. Since we have been talking about marriage and women in ministry, I thought I would share this with you.

I purchased Mark’s 4 DVD set of his marriage weekend seminar after watching the clip. I think the DVDs are very helpful with some very helpful insights into marriage and why men and women struggle with seeing things differently. It is also very funny and I like insightful things that make me laugh. I haven’t had time to watch the last of the 4 DVD set yet, but if it is as good as the other DVDs in his marriage seminar set, I think he has a real winner. If any of you are looking for marriage help and wondering how mutuality in marriage can be worked out, I recommend Mark’s 4 DVD marriage seminar set. It cost quite a bit more than my 4 DVD set does, but I think there is good value in it.

Awhile back I was asked to consider posting a comment on a very strong complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians. This particular blog, I found, was run by two pastors of a Presbyterian church who appear to think that egalitarians do not have the right Jesus or the right gospel and they have taken it upon themselves to “rip” at the sheep who do not belong to their own complementarian flock. Since there is only one good shepherd and he is the shepherd and master of the entire flock, I wondered how Jesus feels about under-shepherds who mistreat the sheep.

I was quite shocked to see how a fine Greek scholar (Suzanne McCarthy) was treated on their blog not only because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet. Apparently they didn’t have an answer either to what I said about the Trinity because they shut down the comments within a short time of my posting my comments and recommended that a woman should do a Titus 2 work in order to help me to understand the Trinity since I apparently didn’t know a thing about the Trinity. You can read the original post of the Bayly brothers here.

Since I am in the research and writing process of our newest DVD on the Trinity and a part of the DVD will deal with the errors of the complementarian position which teaches that Jesus is eternally subordinated in role, in will, in authority underneath the Father, I am interested in how I will be corrected by one of the women followers of the Bayly brothers. Kamilla is willing to do this “correction” and I am offering this post for our discussions. This public forum is for two reasons. First of all a public discussion is always best to create a permanent record of the argument and so all can see the attitude that comes through. We are all encouraged by Paul to be gentle and respectful so that all can judge for themselves the argument without any quarreling or disrespect. Paul instructed Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth

The second reason is that I think we can all learn and participate in this discussion and since my time is limited because of the DVD project, I would love to welcome those who have things to say about the Trinity to be able to do so in a safe environment.

Since I greatly desire a respectful conversation and since I know most if not all of you who are regulars on my blog agree with me, I think we can welcome Kamilla as a complementarian sister and ask her to make her time here an exercise in grace a.k.a. 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. Everyone who is interested in this kind of discussion is also welcome with these rules:

1. Correspond in the tone that you would if Jesus was sitting by your side and reading every word you are typing.

2. Remember that healthy discussion and passion is fine as long as there are no personal attacks and the language is respectful. Jesus said that they would know us by our love. (John 13:35) Let’s prove to the world which ones are really Jesus’ disciples in this forum.

3. Be patient and kind especially since my time is limited and I cannot always answer right away.

4. If you do not follow these rules, I reserve the right to edit out inappropriate content or remove your posts altogether. All new posters will have their first post held for pre-approval.

5. Women and men are both welcome to post and no one will be told to “be quiet” because of your gender.

Kamilla may not be on-line until Monday, however if any of you other dear souls have comments about why you believe that it is important to see Jesus as equal with the Father in will, in authority and in “role”, you are welcome to post. If Suzanne reads this post and comes to interact, I would like to just say “You go girl! You are welcome and respected here as a dear sister in Christ.”

Cheryl

Below is what I posted on Matt Slick’s discussion board. I will add the day and time of the airing of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” when the radio station gives me the finalized details.

Scripture warns us not to make a hasty judgment on a matter. When two sides have conflicting interpretations, those who wish to be Bereans should be willing to carefully consider all of the facts from both sides of the issue first in order to avoid making a hasty judgment.

In an effort to allow the hearing of the other side of the story on the issue of women in ministry that hasn’t been given a full hearing on Matt Slick’s radio show “Faith and Reason”, the radio station where Matt hosts his radio program has offered to allow the airing of the 4 DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” over four consecutive weeks in the month of February. Listeners will then be able to hear and judge for themselves if the teaching on the DVD set treats scripture respectfully and in context. The entire DVD set is 3.5 hours of teaching and will be broken down into 4 segments to air over 4 weeks.

Here in Canada it is a ruling that if one misrepresents a person, they are given equal time to defend themselves and to present their side of the story. In the US, this is also a fair ruling and I greatly appreciate My Family Radio Station in Boise Idaho for agreeing that this is a fair and reasonable solution.

I am sure that Matt will also agree that this is fair and reasonable when Christians have biblical disagreements. It is only when we can hear the full story that we can then be bible Bereans and make the choice for ourselves which side represents a better biblical view.

The dates and times of the airing of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” on My Family Radio are posted below. The DVDs are a very visual verse-by-verse view of the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. Although the radio will not do justice to the DVDs in that there will of course be no video or graphics, the audio that will be heard should be thought-provoking.

You can listen live to the audio from my 4 DVD set at the following link. The listen button is at the top right hand side and it will allow you to pick the radio station that you want to listen to for the times listed below. The link is http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php Remember the times are Pacific and if you are listening at Eastern time you need to add three hours so instead of 12 noon it will be 3 pm and instead of 4 pm it will be 7 pm.

KBXL 94.1 FM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 12 noon - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 12 noon - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 12 noon - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 12 noon - segment four

KSPD 790 AM

• Saturday March 8, 2008 at 4 pm - segment one

• Saturday March 15, 2008 at 4 pm - segment two

• Saturday March 22, 2008 at 4 pm - segment three

• Saturday March 29, 2008 at 4 pm - segment four

In part two of this discussion we asked whether God has ordained that a woman must have a priest in the home to represent her to God and God to her. Today we continue our discussion about whether a husband is to have the position of king over his wife in their marriage. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. The book is called “Building Strong Families” by Dennis Rainey (Dennis is on CBMW’s board of reference) and we are focusing on chapter 4 of this book called “The Husband as Prophet, Priest and King” this chapter authored by Bob Lepine.

Mr. Lepine admits that the teaching about the husband as King has been abused by many well-meaning Bible teachers. Because of this he says that we need to “proceed with caution”. Although a king is thought to be someone who wields power and enjoys privilege and position, Lepine says that the husband needs to go beyond that to be the kind of kingly husband his wife ultimately wants and needs him to be. Lepine then focuses on the king as a warrior and a representative of “his wife and his family in the culture”.

I personally found this part of the chapter to be the most alarming. This patriarchal teaching about the husband as “representative” of his wife and family is lived out by a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips. Taking the husband as “representative” teaching to a position of “law”, Doug Phillips teaches that “God does not allow women to vote”. Quoting from Mr. Phillips:

“In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.”

So if the husband is “federal head” then he makes all the decisions and she is forbidden by God to vote. Do you see the problem here? This type of “federal head” concept of the husband as King and representative of the family taken to its logical conclusion makes the husband’s rule in his family virtually unchallenged by anyone. Who then can decide if the husband is being unkind to his wife?

Going back to chapter 4 of “Building Strong Families” Lepine suggests that there will be attacks on the husband’s way of leadership from all kinds of directions. He says that “(attacks) will come from friends and coworkers who, thinking themselves to be wise, have become as fools (Rom. 1:22)” Under the heading Know your enemy Lepine also identifies the wife as someone who will attack the man’s leadership. He says:

There will also be attacks from your closest ally, your wife. While her spirit will welcome the leadership, protection, and provision of a wise king, her flesh will war against her spirit and will seek to thwart your authority. Over time, there will be showdowns as you wrestle with whether to compromise and gain her approval or to stand fast and face her wrath. There will be times when you’ll have to decide whether to serve her or to serve God.”

The advice then is for the husband to stand against his wife. When a wife doesn’t want her husband to vote for her as her “representative” and she doesn’t want his leadership, the husband is to take control of his kingdom and stand up to her anger. He is to lead whether she wants him to take control or not.

Is this really what scripture says? Does the Bible ever tell a husband to take control of his wife or to have a showdown with her wrestling her to force her to a place of submission?

The Bible never once instructs the husband to “lead” his wife. The Bible also never once tells him that he is to be her king or her priest or her prophet. The position of her King is already taken. Jesus is her King and her High Priest and her Prophet. The husband is never granted a place to usurp Jesus’ role. The husband’s role in the marriage is to take the initiative to bond with his wife so that they can have a one-flesh union. In Genesis we find Adam identifying his wife as flesh of his flesh.

Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

In Genesis 2:24, the Bible says “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” For what reason? The reason is because she was taken out of him and he is to initiate a joining of himself with her to be that one flesh union again.

When a husband loves his wife and treats her tenderly and with affection and he sacrifices himself for her, a woman will respond willingly to that kind of love. That is why a husband is not to take authority over her but he is instead to love her and this will bring her willingness to submit to his love.

Right now I am hard at work on our new DVD on the Trinity but when I get a chance to do another post, I would like to respond to some of the questions that were posted on my original 2006 blog article about the husband as priest of the home. There were questions about the wife obeying the husband that I didn’t get to at the time so it should be interesting.

The term “equal but different” has become a catch phrase in marriage and “women in ministry” issues as it has replaced the pre-1970’s common view of the inferiority of women. In complementarian circles the thought is that women are equal in person but different in role. In the same way the Trinity is defined as equality in essence and status but different in roles. We are told that “different” is not “unequal”, it is just different. For example see this definition of the Trin