Matt Slick and Cheryl Schatz debate 2
Sep 26th, 2007 by Cheryl
Matt Slick and I had an interesting discussion on whether Paul was stopping true biblical teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 or whether Paul was stopping error. My answer concerning the imperative command to let a woman learn (1 Timothy 2:11) and the fact that all teaching by “a woman” was to be stopped until she was properly taught was not picked up by Matt as he kept on asking me the same question over and over again. I am not quite sure why he cannot hear the answer to his questions. Maybe he was looking for a different answer and I didn’t give the one he wanted?
Unfortunately Matt did not let me finish discussing the passage with the crucial verse of 1 Timothy 2:15. I asked to come back on and I am willing to discuss the implication of Adam’s first creation where the Holy Spirit links the prohibition with Adam not being deceived as the first one created and the second one created was deceived, however Matt wouldn’t commit to another “discussion”. I really looked forward to hearing what Matt had to say about verse 15. No one yet has been able to answer my exegesis concerning the “she” and “they” from 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul again moves from singular to plural. I can only assume that Matt still does not have the answer since he has not answered me for a year and a half since he first got my DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”
September 27th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Sorry that I didn’t get this up faster. It has been a very busy day for me. Please also see comments on this second debate at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/ as Jason’s comments are very important regarding the impact that Matt has on this young student Pastor.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Well, well, well…
First I’ll just dump my hasty notes I took as I listened, then post my comments:
M– one woman not fit context of 1 Tim 1-2
C– subject can change, not an issue 1 tim 2:11 has grammar shift from falsehood to leadership, plural to singular; makes v15 make sense
M– if “a” woman can’t teach falsehood to “a” man, claim H & A as false teachers
C– they are deceived but know better;
(M showing signs of impatience at 7 min.)
M– mere opinions and philosophy, not scripture (he ignores scriptural basis)
M– calls sincerety in the heart is FALSE and RCC; relies on Calvinism here
M– moaning at 11 min.
M– still doesn’t get it, that people can be shown mercy because they are sinning in ignorance; accused C of teaching Palagianism
M– change subject to “the word ‘quiet’” hezukia=”subdued, quiet (not silent” = sagao)
M– argues that can’t be about false teaching cuz she’s told to be “less false” instead of “less quiet”
M– back to “husband of one wife” = must be a man
M– wants to bring in other passages to this one, but won’t let C do it
M– back to “less false”; still doesn’t get that “be quiet” applies to the teaching, not the fact that she should sit down and learn instead of teaching
C– tries and tries to explain her point; M doesn’t get it
C– Paul never says “stop women from teaching anything at all”
M– interrupting, voice getting higher, moaning at 24 min.; still going on about the meaning of “silent”; cut C off on this point
M– hetera didasko kaleto = false teaching, but not in 1 tim 3, so this can’t be about false teaching
M– compares her to JW again over this
M– keeps going on about CHAPTERS which are not in the originals
M– more moaning at 28 min;
M– she can still teach heresy while she learns! (”whew” at 30 min.)
M– wants to ‘red herring’ by asking C how things are in her marriage
C– “Im shy by nature” M– “oh really?” under breath
M– unsatisfactory, fabricating, reaching, answers from C
M– Paul has a pattern of using didasko only concerning true teaching (won’t let C cite patterns)
C– so she can’t teach / authority over men in CHURCH
M– suddenly doesn’t want didasko to mean ALWAYS sound teaching; never answered Q about women teaching correct doctrine
M– keeps waffling on whether women can teach correct doctrine
M– Adam had priority cuz Eve was “helpmeet”
C– Adam not deceived cuz first created, Eve deceived cuz created second; nothing to do with priority at all
M– Eve sinned cuz she didn’t go to her BOSS Adam to ask him what God meant (wow!)
M– didasko for true teaching but no, I didn’t say woman can’t ever teach true doctrine
M– “household of God” == CHURCH (oy)
M– cuts C off cuz he thinks she’s just babbling and telling “stories”
M– C can’t come back unless she stops with the “stories”; expects C to be an experienced debater like him or she “doesn’t know what you’re talking about”; he wants only short answers
M– more sighing at 43 min.
M– going on more about “in the church” and “authority”
M– women cant teach authoritatively in the church; elders have “authority”
C– why ALL women not allowed to teach from this passage?
M– C’s logic not good; back to “male” words in text, appeals to OT, STILL doesn’t know diff between grammatical and biological gender, men failing in taking authority “in the church”
M– Adam authority over Eve
M– men RULE well
M– created order = order of supremacy
M– C is teaching falsehood and hogging the show she was invited to; “it’s my show”
C– offered her dvd for hearing the other side
M– didn’t like her plugging that
M– thinks C is undermining the church and the home, deceived, says she should be absolutely silent
C– woman teach with authority sin? M won’t answer with def. ‘yes’
M– admitted she is in sin finally
C– am I sinning?
M– “I listen to heretics all the time, and C is one!”; don’t know if C is allowed back or not
M– back to “you know better” as in first debate; blamed C for not knowing Greek; keeps interrupting
M– long answers “drive me up the wall”; wants always short answers or nothing
M– women can’t have spiritual authority on basis of the flesh alone
M– said C used term “authority” illogically
C– OT did not stop women from teaching
M– all OT and NT teachers are male so end of story
M– wants a formal debate instead; still won’t commit to continuing here
C– why more patient with atheist than a sister in Christ
M– atheists are more polite than C; called her “dear”
M– “I can’t get a word in edgewise” (!!!)
(this blog comment was copied from another post to this one)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I am very familiar with who Matt Slick is and what he’s about. I haven’t read every post in this blog, but I see Matt Slick getting misrepresented. I don’t have time to go back and read through the blog to find examples. The comments are there for anybody to read. I’ve seen people on here claim victory (when Cheryl clearly got spanked by Matt Slick on “Faith and Reason”) and jump to conclusions out of false assumptions. Cheryl begged Matt Slick to let her ramble on about her personal experiences, on Matt’s radio show, while her “biblical responses” were not adding up. Matt has let Cheryl know that he’s not interested in stories, only what the text [Bible] says.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am
From my own studies on this topic, I must disagree with those before who have said that women can be teaching elders. Here is the passage:
“This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.
As for your readers’ comments about Matt Slick, they are doing the same that they accuse him of, in particular post #28. This reader recites a list of ad hominems, and even admits to their speculative nature.
(Note from blog owner Cheryl - I have copied this comment from another blog post so the comments will on the second debate will all be posted on this one blog topic)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Matt makes a fair mistake when he tries to say that didasco in 2:12 has to be in reference to sound teaching because it was used that way in 3 other verses. Whatever the context in other verses, it cannot change the meaning of the word. The word itself does not define the kind of teaching. That must be gleaned from the context. In the case of 2:12, the context is one of false teaching. The reason the woman needs to learn is because she was ignorantly teaching false doctrine. The purpose of learning is so that one would not teach wrong doctrine, but would learn right doctrine and then be able to teach right doctrine.
He also has not researched the word he translated “exercise authority”. It is authentein, used only once in the whole of the NT and was always translated “usurp authority” until recently. Actually, research has shown that the word is even more negative then that.
Remembering that the primary point was “let a woman LEARN” in the quiet and submissive demeanor of a student, then not teaching or usurping authority are subject to the main point of Let Learn. Students need not to try to teach, but must stay attentive to learn. Students must not try to usurp the authority of their teacher, but must tend to learning. No one stays a student forever. When one has learned, then they can proceed to teach what they have learned.
Over all he was a bit loftily rude. He says on the one hand that the two of you were “just talking”. And then he lectures you on how you need to be succinct. Thus he can just sit back and critique, nit pick, and analyze the manner in which you present yourself instead of actually considering your words.
Interestingly, he was afraid to ask you why you believe what you do. Thus, he revealed an intent to pretend a willingness to talk, but really just wanted to put forth his own opinions about you. Now he talks time and time again with atheist Bob, but a Christian woman he is afraid to have a real conversation with.
I had to laugh out loud when he said you are not polite. You were extremely polite.
It is disappointing that he could not have been more respecful.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:45 am
copied this over for you…..
Matt seemed to get stuck on hesuchios which means quiet or peaceable. It has been my understanding that the phrase “to LEARN in quietness with all submission” was a common phrase applied to those who were students. Don’t know where he got the idea that it said she should be quiet. It says that the woman is to LEARN! in quietness. It’s a demeanor that a student needs to have while being instructed.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:51 am
justa berean,
Bless you, my friend for helping! My head is spinning right now (now don’t be calling me spinny, okay?
and hopefully we can keep the comments on this one blog entry because I have to learn WAY more about blog organization! It is not my strong suit!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Agent Starling,
In one of the other “threads” we had quite a discussion about the phrase “one woman man”. It is actually a colloquial phrase that was quite common in Pauls era. The phrase was used of both men and women and meant faithful. We have a similar phrase in English that means the same thing. When we say “he is a one woman kind of guy”, we don’t mean he has to be married but that he is faithful in relationships.
You can find more information on it in “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered” by Rev. Bruce Fleming. I believe it is also discussed in “Discovering Biblical Equality”.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I would imagine you would be “spinning” a bit after that debate.
You did fine. It was not an easy discussion.
And actually Matt did OK also considering that he has such a strong distaste for women who disagree with gender hierarchy.
wish I could help more.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Hi, everyone!
I appreciate all the positive comments on here and there’s alot to absorb. Thank you everyone!
I just read some comments over at the carmpodcasting blogspot about someone saying that they did not hear anything yet from Cheryl that supports women to be ‘elders/pastors.’
I hear often comments made that confuse a ‘pastor’ with an ‘elder’ as they are not only two different words in Greek but also pastor is a gift, whereas an elder/overseer is not. I would like to continue to see discussions or articles over this mix up because it certainly is a huge point.
All gifts are given to ANY no matter thier gender. The question then is not even if a woman can be a pastor! What I’ve found is that usualy with most comps the issue is not that women can’t have any or all the gifts, but rather that they cannot function with them with authority over men. I realize that a heirarchal view has reaped a mix up between the two positions but I just have to point out then that what it comes down to is that this debate (in regards to 1 Tim 3) is really not even about the gift of pastor (!) but rather it is about a man or woman being able to aspire to ‘overseer’.
Isn’t there a link here somewhere at this site to an excellent article that spoke to this issue?
September 27th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Matt’s foundtional assertons are of course the root of how he interprets all else, and the first is his complete misunderstanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden.
He ASSUMES that Adam is in charge of Eve, in spite of not one word from God to that effect. Animals were created prior to Adam, so are they his boss? Adam was formed from dust, is dust his boss? If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.
He IGNORES the fact that both of them were commanded to “subdue the earth”.
He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply. It would be perfectly justifiable to claim Eve’s superiority over Adam with this argument.
And that’s all before chapter three!
When Eve was being tempted, scripture plainly states that Adam was there with her. He said nothing. Some leader! Matt would have us believe she snuck away behind Adam’s back to meet the serpent, but the truth is Adam stood idly by as the temptation went on. He never corrected her when she said “or touch it”, which Eve attributed to God, not Adam. He never said anything at all to the serpent. This is “covering”? This makes Adam fit to lead? This makes ALL MEN over ALL WOMEN for ALL TIME?? It is nothing but presumption to claim Eve did this in a dark corner away from Adam’s knowledge.
So Adam watches the temptation, does nothing, and takes the fruit without hesitation. Then God wants them to confess, and what does Adam say? “It’s YOUR FAULT God, for giving me this woman who gave me the fruit!” But what does Eve say? The truth! She did not pass blame but freely admitted her sin, and truthfully stated the cause: “the serpent tricked me”. She didn’t even blame Adam, whom she had every right to blame. This is all proof that Adam had neither the command nor the authority nor even the willingness to rule over Eve.
And look at God’s response: the serpent was cursed, and the earth was cursed because of Adam, so he would have to sweat for his food. But neither Adam nor Eve were cursed directly. No mention is made of “the death of man’s spirit” in the very spot it allegedly happened. Not one word or hint. But notice how God dealt with Eve, in great contrast: He BLESSED her! Through “her seed” the Savior would come!
Does it make any sense to think God then did a 180 and started CURSING her? Not at all. He did NOT say Adam “shall” rule over her, but that he “will”, and this as a result of Eve’s TURNING, NOT” DESIRE”. God then orders ONLY ADAM out of the garden so ONLY ADAM cannot take from the Tree of Life. That’s how the Hebrew reads. This is where God’s prediction to Eve begins: she follows (”turns”) Adam out of the garden, which God never ordered her to do. And as a result, Adam ruled over her, which God never ordered him to do.
And conspicuous by its absence is any claim that the relationship between Adam and Eve is to apply to all their descendents for all time. God never said any such thing, neither did he order it. All God did was curse the earth and the serpent.
So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.
Why does he not do with “ezer” what he does with “didasko”? Is it because “ezer” is mostly used to describe God? More specifically, it’s because he wants to use a principle only when it looks good in a debate.
And here again, Matt kept equivocating on whether this was a debate or a conversation. Since he offered a formal debate, then at best this was informal, and he can therefore not demand “concise” answers. He can’t have it both ways.
I could go on and on about all his double standards, logical fallacies, and continual eisegesis, but why shoot at a building whose foundation is on shifting sand?
September 27th, 2007 at 6:20 am
The complementarian (or hierarchical or traditional) position on women in ministry is filled with contradiction because it is based on widely-varying, almost-arbitrary application of 1 verse: 1 Timothy 2:12.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV)
If women can’t teach men, what can’t they teach? Greek? Church history? Sunday school? And at what age do men become men? Can a woman teach 12 year olds? 18 year olds? 21 year olds? When does it become unbiblical? Some have said when boys start getting hair under their arms. At that point, no more women Bible teachers. Should we do armpit checks starting at age 11?
Others say it is ok for a woman to teach if her husband is on stage with her so that he is teaching “under his authority.” Others say it is O.k. as long as he is in the front row.
My favorite example is that of complementarian and well-known New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem entitled “But what should women do in the church?” (PDF document) It is hard to figure out how to apply 1 verse (1 Timothy 2:12) to everything women do in the church today but he sure tries. His attempt at application reveals to me how absurd the position is.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Regarding Matt’s comments on the Greek word for teach which is didasko, Matt was trying to say that because the word for teach used in this passage is a normal word for teach not one specifically for false teaching, that Paul isn’t stopping the teaching of error. His reasoning does not hold water first of all because 1 Timothy 2:14 shows that the reason for the stopping of the woman’s teaching was related to the deception of Eve. Secondly didasko? is used in relation to false teaching twice in the book of Revelation.
In both these examples the teaching is error and didásko is the inspired word that the Holy Spirit chose to use. If Matt truly believes that didásko can only reference true teaching and not false teaching, then 1 Timothy 2:12 would have to be stopping only the teaching of true doctrine and this just doesn’t fit within the reason given for the prohibition in verse 13 & 14 - the deception of Eve. The fact is that the only teaching in 1 Timothy that is being stopped is false teaching. If Paul was stopping the teaching of true doctrine merely because the one teaching the truth to a man was a woman, then there would have to be an explanation for the stopping of true teaching that would allow us to see that Paul was creating a new law prohibiting women’s teaching. Since Matt was not able to show that the OT restricted the teaching of women, Paul could not have been adding a law against women’s teaching without the proper scriptural back up. For Matt to say something to the effect that there is no allowance for women teachers in the OT is trying to prove something from silence. There was no specific allowance for Gentile teachers either in the OT. Yet there was no prohibition against Gentile teachers or women teachers in the OT. Matt was trying to make a point that was shaky at best and nonsensical at worst.
Matt’s other point about silence was also very weak. He tried to establish that since Paul was not completely silencing “a woman” that this proved that error was not involved in the prohibition. He disregarded verse 11 where the focus is on her learning and as dusman has pointed out in a previous post, as a student she would not be completely silenced since she would be allowed to ask questions so that she can clarify any misunderstandings and thus learn properly.
The authority issue is the key to Matt’s argument since he believes that only men are allowed to teach the word of God with authority. However nowhere does the scripture give an authority to speak God’s word only to the man. Each one of us is given a gift by God and we are empowered to use that gift whether we are male or female. Consider 1 Peter 4:10, 11 where the authority to speak for God (speaking the utterances or the oracles of God) is given to the one whom God has gifted. Nowhere is gender a part of the equation.
The problem that Matt faces too which unfortunately I was unable to get to since Matt was not in the listening mode, is that the ordinary word for authority is not found in 1 Timothy 2:12. If Matt is so concerned that teach is an ordinary word and not restricted to error, then what sense does he make of the word translated authority which is the Greek authenteo? This word has no positive usage in the Bible at all and is only used once in this passage in regards to the stopping of “a woman” which is related to the deception of Eve. Surely Paul could have used a word for authority that was given to a man to use. Yet men are never given permission to have authenteo over a woman or even another man. Matt’s belief that only a man has “authority” to give out the word of God to the body of Christ is faulty and without scriptural backing.
(For any one confused - I had been moving comments over to this post from a previous post and I inadvertently copied a poster’s i.d. on this one. It is corrected now)
September 27th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Agent Starling said,
“The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.”
A few questions are in order to show the inconsistency of holding this position regarding the Greek word dei (”must”) being used in connection with the phrase “husband of one wife”. If we force the text (1 Tim 3) to say that “husband of one wife” disqualifies women, then we must also consistently disqualify unmarried men. Do we also consistently say that unmarried men who are in the pulpit are sinning against God? What about married males who do not have children? If we consistently apply the text in a wooden way (instead of applying the spirit of the law, which means “faithful spouse”) we would also have to disqualify married men who do not have children since 1 Timothy 3:4 says that the overseer must be “keeping his children under control”. Do we also consistently consider married men in the pulpit who do not have children to be sinning against God? Ah what a tangled web we weave when we leave consistency aside for a prejudiced view of women.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Dusman, you said:
What you have said should cause us to think hard about all the rules that would be required to interpret the prohibition of verse 12 if God forbids any Christian woman from teaching men. A couple of years ago when I was working on the script for my DVD, I was nose deep in the Talmud and I was appalled at the minuit rules that the Pharisees had regarding when a female was considered “of age”. They had a “two hair” rule and I won’t get into the gory details but the nit-picky rules that came out of trying to regulate their own interpretation of the law literally made me sick. Is this what we have come to now? We now need a Christian Talmud to interpret verse 12. When does a woman’s teaching become a sin and when is it not a sin? I am sure that every woman would need to know because none of us wants to sin against God. For Paul to leave a woman without guidelines so that she can be sure she isn’t sinning would be unthinkable. No, the “simple” meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not the stopping of all godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. The “simple” meaning is that Paul is stopping “a woman” from teaching error to the one whom she was influencing with her error and that is “a man”. She is to learn and then Paul says, she will be saved if she has sincere faith and she holds fast to the truth.
Matt’s treatment of me is the fruit of extreme complementarianism. Although I am not a professional debater and don’t think on my feet as fast as I would like, the treatment afforded me during the debate is the fruit of what this movement brings to women. Women are treated with disrespect as if our words are not worthy of being heard or respected. A woman’s word is without weight because she has no right to speak for God.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-can-women-be-pastors-part-2.html
September 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Thank you Pastor for the link to the audio!
September 27th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Guys,
As you listen to the audio from last night’s debate remember one thing…I asked to share why I believed that “a woman” was a particular woman and not “all women” and Matt refused to allow me to share this. He called me a heretic without even hearing my argument to the end. I asked Matt to tell me what it was in the passage that made him believe that Paul was restricting all women from teaching men and Matt went outside the passage to do this. Friends, this means that there is NOTHING in 1 Timothy chapters 1, 2, or 3 that would make us believe that Paul is stopping the teaching of every godly Christian woman since Matt was unable to bring even one argument to the table from the passage we were talking about. Think about this! A charge of sin is being leveled against all women by Matt for the sake of one false, deceived teacher in Ephesus! If this charge was taken to court and we had a jury trial, I would ask where is the evidence? Verse 15 is so precise in the grammar that we simply cannot get “all women” as an interpretation of the “a woman” from verse 12.
I have asked complementarians everywhere to give a defense of their belief that “a woman” is every Christian woman by asking them to then tell me who the “she” is from 1 Timothy 2:15 and who are the “they”. I have yet to have a single one of them able to give me a coherent answer. They just don’t know. And apparently Matt doesn’t know either because he stopped me from discussing verse 15. Is that confidence that he has the truth or is he running away from something that he has no answer to? Maybe we will never know because he will not dare to have back on his radio show. He simply cannot afford to talk about verse 15.
We need to hold FAST to what is true and test EVERYTHING by God’s word. If there are complementarians reading this perhaps you can answer for Matt. Who is the “she” and who are the “they” from verse 15? Remember “she” and “they” must have been alive at the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy because “she” and “they” were required to do something regarding the salvation of the “she”. This is Paul’s puzzle to us. If you are willing to be challenged and to know the truth you will work hard to find out who Paul is talking about because the reputation of godly Christian women hangs in the balance. Do not be one who judges unfairly. Look to the facts and then you be the jury. Can we condemn all godly Christian women who teach correct bible doctrine to men because all godly Christian women are forbidden to teach with authority? Or does this one single verse ripped from its context in the letter to Timothy that deals with false teachers and false teaching have no second witness at all that Paul is talking generically about all of our beloved sisters in Christ because there is no such law against teaching true doctrine to anyone by anyone?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am
(Note I am copying this one comment from my post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/
It is the comment # 44 by Jason Oliver Evans. Jason’s blog is at http://www.iamasonofgod.blogspot.com/) I think this comment will help us to see the hurtful nature of calling women in ministry teaching doctrine to men as sinners and heretics. Below is Jason’s full comment:)
I have never been so apalled at a so-called man of God. This man should not be on radio. He was rude, arrogant, very disrespectful. He has twisted your words. And no, Matt, there was one elder in the Old Testament who was female, Deborah. Matt should have known better that the early church was modeled after the Old Testament governance (elders). And the elders (presbuteroi) is masculine-gendered plural word but that does not necessarily refer to just men.
Did the men of Israel have a problem with Deborah? From history and the biblical witness, I think not! Jewish historians have so much respect for this woman of God. Western Christian men have problems with her. Matthew Henry had a problem with her, too. I was completely offended at Matt’s behavior and the way he spoke to you. God forgive me for the names I called him!!! The more I hear this complementarian doctrine the more it makes my blood boil.
This gender debate in the evangelical movement is literally making me sick! The devil is truly busy to divide the Church, keeping women oppressed and men ignorant! Sometimes wonder why I identify myself as an evangelical. If it wasn’t for the Gospel of Christ and the power of Holy Spirit to keep me, I don’t know what I would do. Because of this issue which is so dear to me, my flesh just screams to renounce Christ, not purse ministry and go down the to perdition. Hell seems to be easy way out because this debate in the so-called household of God is ripping my heart! God have mercy on us. Have mercy on me!
Cheryl, God bless you. You are a strong woman. I take my hat off to you and the man who married you. I want to be married to woman just like you. Please keep me in your prayers and I will surely pray for your strength in the Lord.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Cheryl,
It was unconscionable for Matt to call you names like that. It’s ad hominem and he knows it, not to mention in violation of the most basic Christian principles. And as you keep saying, but the supremacists cannot hear, if “authoritative teaching” (which they cannot support from scripture) is forbidden to all women for all time, then they are hypocrites and guilty of the blood of all Christian women teachers who are sinning ignorantly. Like Adam who stood idly by while Eve was tempted, they stand silently and refuse to speak out that which they believe in their hearts: that it is SIN for women to teach with authority. And if SIN, then they cannot excuse their failure to plainly call it that and have all us “heretics” thrown out of their Church of Testosterone Supremacy.
Regarding “she” and “they”, I should point out that even Dr. Nyland thinks “she” is Eve. But it cannot be, because there is no way Eve could be saved by the obedience of anyone else, much less women living millenia into the future. Without it being Eve, it gives much weight to your argument that this is a particular woman being addressed, and “they” are she and her husband.
I’ve seen many commentaries take the coward’s way out and say “Wow, this is very difficult; we just don’t know what to do with it”. But they can’t figure it out because they have already told God what He can and cannot tell them.
I still can’t get over how strongly Matt insisted upon male supremacy. Why would any believer crave such power, and over other believers no less? Why does he guard it so fiercely?
And here’s where his Calvinism really becomes absurd: If we are, as Calvinism asserts, incapable of free will such that God must necessarily direct every thought, word, and deed, then what’s the point of debating anything at all? Are we not “heretics” because God decreed us to be so, “all for his good pleasure, from his eternal decree”? How is this not a case of fighting against the sovereign will of God? He simply cannot reconcile his invective against women teaching authoritatively with the micromanagement theory Calvinism asserts for God. When he rails against you, he is really railing against God who made you the way you are.