Debate audio between Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz
Sep 19th, 2007 by Cheryl
Hey all,
If you didn’t get a chance to hear the debate regarding women Pastors between Matt Slick of CARM and myself, you can hear it at this link.
The next debate is scheduled for Wednesday, September 26th. The topic on that debate will be how do we know that the woman of 1 Timothy 2:12 is a specific woman in the Ephesus congregation and why is the reason for stopping her tied into the creation of Adam and Eve? It should be another hot debate.
As far as Matt’s treatment of me tonight - I did not take any offense by his words. I believe that he is deceived in this issue and so I am willing to cut him a lot of slack because of this. I consider it a privilege to be able to say even one thing that will help women to be set free in Christ to celebrate their gifts and use them for God’s glory by benefiting both men and women in the body of Christ.
Any thoughts on this debate? I am going to copy teknomom’s summary of this debate that she posted previous to my putting up this post.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hoo boy! I don’t know how, but I managed to listen to the whole debate. Cheryl, you had much more patience and poise than I would have had.
I took some quick notes, and here are the main things I put down:
– Slick doesn’t know the difference between grammatical gender and biological gender (linguists all know this)
– He only wants to “dig” if it suits him
– he only wants to consider society in context if it suits him
– he wants a “checklist” only when it suits him
– he says “A CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW BETTER”. I couldn’t agree more!!
– he wants to dish out ad hominem but not take it; accused you of listening to “worldly” reasoning
– he appears ignorant of scholarship on Greek word meanings
– at about 30 minutes he starts groaning, sighing, and getting high-pitched and emotional, then can be heard laughing
– he allows women to teach men but “not as elders or pastors”, as authorities, and gives “Adam was made first” as the reason!
– he refused to back up his “federal headship” when pressed whether Eve would have been charged with sin if only Adam had sinned
– rejects Jesus taking away all sin! (Calvinism cited as basis– “limited atonement” heresy!)
– accused you of misrepresentation
– called you a CULTIST in style… BECAUSE YOU DIG INTO SCRIPTURE!!
– called you DECEIVED
– wants to pick his personal choice for what AUTHENTEIN means even while admitting no other scripture uses it
– can’t get past believing “pastors and elders have authority”
Slick would be very hard-pressed to prove that last one. You may be interested in a discussion on this topic at my message board.
For example, “pastor” is a gift, not an office. Only “elders” can be appointed, and he should know better than to claim the word for “elder” in Titus 1 is only referring to males; it is simply the plural form and does not mean only males. In Chapter 2 we see the words “male elders” and “female elders”, and no contextual reason to change the meaning there to “older men” and “older women”, especially given the overall context of the entire letter. And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!
That seems to be his big sticking point.
Overall, he acted the way I fully expected him to, and he could barely contain his frustration with frequent sighing in the background. You had him on the ropes Cheryl, whether he’ll ever admit it or not. I only hope that the women listening will at least check out the calm and uninterrupted DVD set, or the many fine articles available at your blog and other sites.
Kudos for the effort!
September 19th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Cheryl, I’m looking forward to listening to the debate, from the audio file which I downloaded. May God bless you for patiently explaining what you believe to be true.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Cheryl,
Respectfully, you’re problem is that you arrived at your conclusion first and then you went to the Bible to interpret passages to fit your conclusion. You read meaning in to passages that are not there. This is called eisegesis and it is wrong.
Cheers
Joe
September 20th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Cheryl
wow - i am exhausted just listening to the discussion after the fact…
congrats on staying so calm.
one thing that has consistently struck me about how you approach this whole difficult topic - whether in writing or verbally - is the grace you show in your communication. it’s all too rare on ‘both’ sides of the debate. thank you for leading the way in this attitude.
may the Lord Jesus give you strength and patience to go another round next week!
(-:
kerryn
September 20th, 2007 at 7:04 am
As I said in the other post, Slick made a very big deal about “authority” in a “church” setting, especially “the pulpit”. The word “pulpit” or its equivalent is not found in the NT at all. Neither are “pastors” ever shown as having authority. And in the link to my message board there’s a good discussion on the fact that Elders are not “preachers” or people having authority **over other believers**.
This is the most fundamental flaw in all complementarianism: “lording it over”. Of course they say they don’t do this, preferring instead to call it “servant leadership”, but actions speak louder than words. They are **usurping authority** that does not belong to them! It’s part of the larger problem of hierarchy in the churches, where a clergy class is invented from thin air. The NT never hints at any such thing.
It’s all about Pride. How can “submit to one another” be twisted to “women must obey men”? How can it not be called Pride to put one half of the Body of Christ over the other? That is not “leadership”, it’s domination, and it’s against what Jesus said and did and what the apostles taught.
Dr. Rebecca Groothuis made an excellent case against such hierarchy in her book “Good News for Women”, especially in quoting the phrase “hermeneutical gerrymandering” to describe the imaginary line these prideful men draw around women’s activities in the church. (see This Link for my review of her book)
Press Slick to define from scripture where these lines of authority are drawn. Ask him where it says certain men have authority over other men. You already tried to get him to prove that all women are forbidden to teach “authoritatively”, which he simply asserts and does not prove, but he has not yet shown where the Bible defines “authoritative teaching” in the NT church. The only such “auth. teaching” I can find is where Acts says the people “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching”, aka our NT epistles.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Okay, one more thing…
Dr. Katherine Bushnell, in her book “God’s Word to Women”, points out something very important about the Genesis passage, in which Slick emphasized “he SHALL rule over you”. Genesis 3:16 should read: “A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing, in sorrow you will bring forth children. Your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” Bushnell Lessons 13-19.
(see http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/scripture/genesis3.htm for more)
That article shows that God never COMMANDED Eve’s subordination (”shall”), but simply warned her of what would happen (”will”) if she elected to follow Adam out of the garden. Eve was never ordered out; it specifically states “the man”. Eve was being BLESSED by God with the promise of the Savior through “her seed”. Why would anyone think God immediately turned to cursing her with servitude? Eve had told the truth! Adam blamed Eve but Eve simply reported what happened. She did disobey God but freely admitted her sin. That is precisely why Jesus had to be born of a woman, a virgin (”her seed”). It was a prophecy and a sign because of Eve’s admission of sin by being deceived.
(Cheryl, you’d be interested in the “sign” aspect as one of those cases of “a second witness”. Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a **sign**: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” The immediate context there would not understand “a young woman” as any kind of sign, but a “virgin” is an unmistakable sign! So this sign confirms the prophecy in Genesis 3.)
September 20th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Joe,
Thanks for being respectful!
You said:
Respectfully, you’re problem is that you arrived at your conclusion first and then you went to the Bible to interpret passages to fit your conclusion. You read meaning in to passages that are not there. This is called eisegesis and it is wrong.
How would you know that I arrived at my conclusion first and then went to the Bible to interpret the passage? If you listened carefully, I said that I was challenged that women weren’t allowed to teach the bible to men and I went to the bible to find out what it said and what it meant. Since I didn’t start with a conclusion, please tell me what you used to make this judgment call?
Also you said that I read meaning into a passage that isn’t there but you didn’t give an example. Please explain what you mean otherwise your comment isn’t helpful to us on this discussion.
I agree that eisegesis is wrong. What evidence do you have that I was doing that? I think I went a long way to prove that Matt was doing the eisegesis. Matt reads “elders” into 1 Timothy 2:12 saying that this verse forbids women from being elders yet the verse does not use the term elder, pastor or overseer. It merely says that “a woman” is not allowed to “teach” or “authenteo” “a man”. That is the simple words without the eisegesis or “spin” that Matt was trying to add.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
teknomom,
Thanks for all the great points! I have to continue to work on setting an outline in my head so I can follow through with all the points in the “heat” of the battle. It ain’t so easy when you are up against someone who doesn’t want to let you talk and keeps interrupting you. Several times I tried to follow a line of reason and I was stopped. Another time Matt desperately didn’t even want me to read a scripture about how “anyone” can mean male or female. He tried hard to say that “anyone” as singular masculine means only males and I was able only to read one scripture to prove him wrong. I had many more, plus I had references from respected lexicons that proved him wrong, but once again the one who has the mike is the one who ultimately calls the shots and who can shoot down the messenger. It is my sincere desire to remain calm and respectful. If I tried to bully my way through the conversation I could have gotten more points through, but then I would have lost my goal of being respectful. I believe with this debate I got further than I had even hoped and this was evidenced by all of Matt’s groaning and sighs. His frustration with me was evident.
Let’s see if I can get him past the groans and sighs for the next debate. We will certainly come back to the “authority” issue as that is key to the debate although I want to tackle the authority issue from 1 Timothy 2. This passage pulls back the curtain on the root of the prohibition and without 1 Timothy 2 as ammunition, 1 Timothy 3 is nothing less than a shadow, a “normative” according to Matt’s words and not a prohibition.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
teknomom,
Yes, what a great reminder about the second witness and the “sign”. Thanks!!
I didn’t want to get into Genesis 3 with Matt on the first debate because we would then be on to others things, but I am willing to continue the debate until all the scriptures are covered. That may take many, many debates to do this.
I got a call back from the producer of Matt’s radio show and she said that everyone in the studio was very interested in this debate and they are excited about listening to next week. That means to me that is Matt is willing to continue, I am willing to continue and we can “have at it” and get through all of Matt’s objections to women in ministry. Maybe these subsequent debates will bear much fruit and getting past the first jitters of the fear of live radio will help me to keep my mind in gear for what will come next.
Thanks for staying with the debate and listening to it all. I can use all the support I can get as I get raked over the coals. I am willing to take anything that Matt anger will throw my way for the sake of the women in his audience who need to know the truth about God’s view of women, authority and teaching the truth of the bible to men.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Cheryl,
I’m very encouraged to hear of the interest of people in the studio in the debate. Yes, you stayed calm and he didn’t, which I’m sure wasn’t easy. And you didn’t let him intimidate you either.
But I have to say his attempt to equate your exegesis with that of the JWs was a cheap shot and a low blow. He should be ashamed for doing such a thing. I could easily level that same charge against him, not only on this issue but also on his Calvinism.
Authority, grammatical vs. biological gender, and using English translations as the “plain” reading of scripture seem to be his main weaknesses.
U go girl!
September 20th, 2007 at 8:45 am
It was sad that you were never allowed to lay a foundation for your teaching without being constantly interrupted. It is like building a house, the foundation must be built first, and it must be built soundly in order to maintain the rest of the structure. If you had been allowed the time and space to prove one point convincingly then the rest of your apologetics would have been more credible (but Matt was not that gracious.) I found it incredulous that in the middle of the debate that he began to sigh and laugh. I guess this was to let the listening audience know that he should be commended for putting up with such a frustrating woman this long. Cheryl, you deserve a commendation for your composure, manners and Christ-like disposition. I think your good manners even compelled him at one point in the discussion to be more mindful of his own.
God Bless and I look forward to hearing the next debate.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
The man was excessively disrespectful to you, but this is to be expected. I have found that the majority of men who believe that women are subordinated to men, giving men the privilege of leadership authority in church and home, have a certain disdain for women who do not believe men have been given that privilege by God. You are challenging his pedestal and it’s pretty high.
Regarding the “husband of one wife” phrase in 1 tim. 3, I have come to a different conclusion. Rev. Bruce C. E. Fleming has a book “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered”. Rev. Bruce Fleming in two books has put forth what I believe a more correct interpretation. He quotes Lucien Deiss (notes to the French Bible, the TOB, Edition Integrate, p. 646, note a) “This Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love”.”
The discussion around page 126 concludes that Paul lists characteristics, not physical qualifications. He notes 12 points of good character. I can quote them if you like.
I believe he may have illustrated for us all where we got the colloquial phrase “he is a one woman kind of guy” or “she is a one man kind of woman”. And the meaning is clearly: to be “faithful”.
The first time I read this, I remember wondering how we could have ever thought that Paul would be recommending someone be married by such a round about the bush route as to say he “must be a husband of one wife”. No one talks like that. But we do have a very ancient colloquial phrase that praises faithfulness by saying “he (or she) is a one woman kind of guy”…. ergo “husband of one wife”.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:34 am
For Joe Montana: I must respectfully submit sir that Cheryl has done admirably with the time honored grammatico-historical method of biblical hermeneutics. If anything, it is the hierarchalists who have imported a foreign ideology into the pre-fall Genesis account as a mandate. Nowhere in the accounts of Genesis 1 & 2 is male headship established. It must be read into the account. So until you can show me otherwise, Cheryl’s objection is sustained, yours is overuled.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Cheryl, you did very well.
Matt’s constant demeaning moans and groans and relentless interruptions would be difficult for anyone.
May I recommend that you ask God how to respond without letting him steer you quite so much. Perhaps, instead of responding to some of his interruptions, you can do a sort of ignore with an “OK, but as I was saying” or something to that effect. There has to be a way that you can finish your thought patterns in spite of his trying to cut you short all the time.
I was a bit put off by his comparing you to the Jehovah Witnesses Watch Tower methods. Disruptions. Perhaps, that is his power in debate. hmmmmm. Good debaters come up with methods that will cause them to appear to win, nothing whatsoever to do with true discussion looking for truth. You have to get around that. I’m sure you will with God’s help.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Joe, I suggest you buy Cheryl’s CD series on this before you jump to that conclusion.
Terry wrote: “It is like building a house, the foundation must be built first, and it must be built soundly in order to maintain the rest of the structure.”
Terry, I agree totally. I am wondering if that ‘foundation’ really lies in a true NT understanding of ‘authority’. All authority. Sometimes when I read the NT, I can only wonder what happened to our churches? The church today resembles more of an OT gathering than a NT gathering. Where in the NT is a pulpit? The office of ‘pastor’? Where is the big building? Where is the ‘chain of command’ we see in so many churches?
I see Paul persuading, rebuking and pleading in love, not demanding or giving orders.
We really are to be a Holy Priesthood. All believers are ‘ministers’ in some form.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I developed the distinct impression of Mr. Slick as an impatient teenager. (I’m sure that he’s not, but that’s the impression…) All of that “under his breath” sighing was very childish. He’s difficult to estimate because he seems to rush everything. It’s difficult to understand whether or not he’s processing anything you say and on what level. He just seems rushed and distracted.
It’s interesting that he accuses you of ad hominem tactics but then likens you to the Watchtower. That did not make him look very good, I’m afraid.
This was a good learning experience for me. I tend to become too emotionally extroverted or collapsed when people start with the insults.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
justa berean,
You said: “May I recommend that you ask God how to respond without letting him steer you quite so much. Perhaps, instead of responding to some of his interruptions, you can do a sort of ignore with an “OK, but as I was saying” or something to that effect. There has to be a way that you can finish your thought patterns in spite of his trying to cut you short all the time.”
I accept that suggestion and will be more than willing to stay away from his rabbit trails. I really do want the Lord to shine through me in love. This was my very first debate and although I have listened to many, many debates, I can see how hard it is to get your point across when you are allowed to speak. I think what I need to do is summarize my point first and then when I am allowed to fill it in. At least that way I get my point through at the beginning. Matt just is not going to give me time to construct my argument as I have in this blog. A debate is a completely “different animal” and I believe that as I give myself to the molding of the Holy Spirit that I will learn and grow in this way.
Thanks again for such a good suggestion!
Cheryl
September 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
clap clap clap, Wow what a debate!
You did very good Cheryl
It wasn’t difficult to hear that Matt got frustrated and angry, its a common reaction I guess when your beliefs are challenged and especially when you have such a good case.
There were delivered some low blows, but you took them gracefully, cudos to you. I like it when you compliment Matt for all the good he has done and is doing, keep on doing that.
I pray to our God that He will make His word come forth of your mouth and that His love will grow in you throughout all of this. May you be a blessing and humble yourself before the Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Your brother in Christ,
Martin Willemoes Hansen
September 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Under Much Grace,
Thank you for your insight. I too got the impression that Matt was frustrated and I don’t know if I imagined it or not but over the phone on my end it sounded like he was tapping his fingers on the desk like he was very impatient at the conversation.
You said: “This was a good learning experience for me. I tend to become too emotionally extroverted or collapsed when people start with the insults.”
I too can be very distracted by insults and this was a very good learning experience for me too. What helped me is that I have heard Matt do this many times before so I was prepared. What also helped is my very great love for women who have been called by God to serve in the body of Christ in teaching the word of God in the pulpit or any other place. The authority is with the word of God not in the messenger. The Holy Spirit gifts each one of us and we have authority to use our gifts but the idea that there is an “authority” in the pulpit or in the preacher is foreign to scripture.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Justa Berean,
You are right in that 1 Timothy 3 lists characteristics of those who are mature in the faith and who may be appointed as an elder - a mature believer. For one to charge a woman with sin for being a Pastor when they do not charge an unmarried man with sin is just plain prejudice. Either we are going to be consist and make every one of the qualities as requirements or we can see that “must be” is talking about qualities that are evident “if” the elder is married and “if” they have children. Otherwise we have Paul contradicting himself when he tells us that unmarried people have more time to serve God. So the ones who have the least time (married men with children and a job!) are the ONLY ones who are allowed to serve the congregation as an overseer? One can have all the necessary characteristics and choose to be single if we understand that the list is “normative” and not a check list that requires a person to have children, etc.