Browsed by
Month: September 2008

Three spheres of subordination shrinks to two

Three spheres of subordination shrinks to two

In my last post I pointed to USA Today’s editorial that challenged complementarians who are willing to accept a woman as the Vice President of the country, that they should admit that they are full fledged egalitarians in the realm of society, the workplace and public life.

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, an organization that believes the bible forbids women from voting, has taken CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) to task saying that Dr. Gushee is right in his USA Today challenge that people like CBMW have experienced an historic change in their theological position.  He writes:

Dr. Gushee’s point was essentially this: Christians must formally acknowledge that a historic change has occurred in their theological commitments and policy objectives, or reasonable observers must conclude that that their position lacks intellectual integrity.

While I do not agree with Doug Phillips at all regarding his very legalistic interpretation of women’s “roles”, he is right in pointing out that if one interprets the distinctions between male and female as rooted in the creation order itself, then it is inconsistent to not apply that principle to all three realms – marriage (home), church and society – instead of just in marriage and the church.  If we are going to remove the realm of society and civil government, then we need to rethink our interpretation of Paul.

CBMW states that they are being consistent and that:

God’s design for male headship in the home and the church does not require the exclusion of women from leadership in public life, where spiritual headship is not involved. Such extrapolation carries the biblical teaching about the role of women beyond the Bible’s own application.

The apparent inconsistency according to CBMW only comes when one overlooks the priority of the church:

Complementarians only seem to be inconsistent if one overlooks the priority of the church and misses the distinction between the church and and civil government.  This confusion is resolved when one understands that complementarians simultaneously hold a high view of Scripture, a high view of women, and a high view of the church.

I think it is time that we test CBMW’s claim to consistency and see what they have taught in the past regarding the role of men and women in Society.

In 1987 CBMW formed as a concerned group of individuals and in that year they created the Danver’s Statement which is a list of CBMW’s core beliefs.

Point 1 under Rationale, CBMW lists a concern:

The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

Note that the concern is not just about the home and the church but about “our culture”.  Did CBMW believe in 1987 that the difference between masculinity and femininity would necessitate different roles in society?  Their Danver Statement affirmations make it clear that they believe the “created order” that was ordained by God and it goes past an application to Christians because it is to be found within every human heart:

Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

We find in CBMW’s 1991 book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that there is a “breaking point” of femininity that makes some “roles” for women inappropriate, unproductive and unhealthy:

Read More Read More

Questions of faith for semi-egalitarians

Questions of faith for semi-egalitarians

USA Today has an editorial written by David P Gushee in which Mr. Gushee challenges complementarians that they are actually semi-egalitarians and they should be willing to openly acknowledge this.  Gushee says that he writes about this issue as a moderate evangelical Christian.

Gushee writes that there are many theologically conservative Christians who accept Sarah Palin as the Republical vice presidential nominee.  Yet at the same time:

…at the local church level many congregations would not accept Palin or any other woman even as associate pastor, or deacon, or youth minister or Sunday school teacher in a gender-mixed classroom.  The most conservative would not consider it appropriate for her to stand behind a pulpit and preach a sermon, or teach from the Bible, or lead a praise chorus, or offer a prayer, unless her audience consisted entirely of women or children.

He notes that even CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) who Gushee calls “an influential advocacy group” and who are against women teaching men in the church, have no problem in allowing for a woman to serve as vice president of the country.  CBMW has replied to the article welcoming Gushee’s questions:

Dr. Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and challenges complementarians with many questions in the September 15, 2008 issue of USA Today.

CBMW writes:

While we are honored that Dr. Gushee considers CBMW “an influential advocacy group” on gender issues, we don’t claim to represent the “evangelical voting base,” or even all complementarians.

It certainly is a fact that CBMW does not represent all complementarians.  There is a group called Vision Forum who were formerly associated with CBMW from its beginning, but who have since separated themselves from CBMW now calling CBMW in actuality semi-egalitarians.  Vision Forum has written that Dr. Gushee is “spot on”.  In an article regarding USA Today’s editorial, Doug Phillips writes this about CBMW:

It is our view, however, that they have erred by overtly embracing an egalitarian perspective of the roles of men and women in the public arena.

Read More Read More

The unorthodox view of the Trinity related to women in ministry

The unorthodox view of the Trinity related to women in ministry

Wade Burleson has blogged on the Trinity and the unorthodox trend that has come into the church that teaches an eternally subordinated Son of God in the Trinity.

Wade writes:

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person. The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call “the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” as a basis for their hierarchal view that the female is to be subordinate to the male. Women’s subordination to man, according to the teachings of CBMW, is not a consequence of sin or a reflection of cultural values, but is built upon the heirachical order God established before the fall as a reflection of the Trinity.

This view of the Trinity has been used by some complementarians who have a lot of sway in Southern Baptist circles to support the functional subordination of women.  I would recommend that you read what Wade has written and then have a read through the comments on his blog as well.  It is a frightening thing to me to see the spread of this unorthodox doctrine and how many have accepted it as gospel truth.

It also comes at a very timely place for us as we are just getting ready to release our new 2 DVD set called “The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future, Explaining Truth & Exposing Error

The DVD will be availabe by mid October at or from

(October 2008 update:  The DVD is now available and a preview is available on Youtube at

A deeper look into 1 Timothy 2:12

A deeper look into 1 Timothy 2:12

This is a response to an article called “A Deeper Look into: 1 Timothy 2:12” by an author posting by the email address of on September 23, 2008.  I will leave his name off this post.

There are so many fallacies in the article that I hardly know where to start.  However, let me start with the area that caused so many problems a year ago and I will give here what I should have said in the debate.  The section I will be addressing is called:

What the Term “Quiet/Silent” Means

**See comments at the end**  The author of this particular piece receives much of his information from an individual and ministry that he is very supportive of.  His mentor in a debate a year ago made it clear that silence in 1 Timothy 2:12 does not mean complete silence, but rather quietness.  He stated in that debate that if Paul was stopping a false deceived teacher from teaching her error to her husband (as I have shown from the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and as he was trying to refute), then Paul used the wrong word and it should have been the Greek word meaning complete silence, otherwise, as this person said in our debate, it would mean that Paul is saying that this deceived woman can teach her error to her husband “just a little bit“.  Hear the short audio clip here where this mentor denies that the word from 1 Timothy 2:12 means silence. Click here:  Denial that 1 Timothy 2:12 means silence

This clip was taken from our audio debate a year ago.   For the reasons why I am refuting a particular person’s theology but not using their name, please refer to this statement.

Well, let’s just take the reasoning and apply it to his own interpretation to see if doing something “just a little bit” will work for him.  This “author”** writes:

This term “silence” is again used in 1 Timothy 2:12, but we can see Paul is using it in the opposite manner as opposed to 1 Tim 2:2. 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men, but to be silent.” It says not to have authority over men, but to be silent. In other words, quietness/silence here means the opposite of having authority over man. So it reads, do not exercise authority over men, but instead be silent.

Read More Read More

Are we too emotional?

Are we too emotional?

Are we really too emotional?

I have had some interaction with a pastor via the internet on and off for the last half year or so and whenever I have passionately stated my case for believing that women are allowed in scripture to teach the bible to men, I have been accused of letting my emotions cloud my judgment and my thinking.  (Sigh)  Why is it that egalitarians are pegged as overly emotional while comps consider themselves both logical and biblical?

Now this particular pastor appears to be a very nice fellow.  I really quite like him.  He isn’t calling me an unbeliever or a heretic as some have.  He is also very supportive of my ministry work regarding my reaching out to Jehovah’s Witnesses to win them for Christ.  He appears to like me as a person, and as I said, I also like him, but there is a roadblock that is hard to cross over.  He thinks that there is no other way to see scripture but that it limits women from teaching the bible to men. Other than apparently my work with non-Christians, he holds the party line that women who teach the bible to men are sinning against God, and that we can see a pattern for human relationships and roles by the “roles” in the Trinity where the Father is the ultimate authority and the Son submits to the Father (double sigh!)

Never mind that he has not been able to answer even one of my challenges to his position.  He can wave my position off because he attributes it to emotionalism.  It is actually a wee bit humorous because I have been charged by others with being too logical and my dogged persistence is not a sign of weak emotions or a faint heart!

So why do you think that we have to defend ourselves against the charge of being too emotional?  Is this a name-it and claim-it-for-the-other-person a way to dismiss everything we say?  Are comps really the logical ones and are egalitarians the ones who have no heart for the inspiration of scripture but want to rest their beliefs on feelings, emotions and hurt?

One thing for sure….hierarchists have caused a great deal of grief for many egalitarians including myself.  For one who loves peace amongst the brothers to have to deal with name-calling, anger, vindictiveness, insults and rejection of even being called a sister in Christ, it probably would be okay to cry a tear or two for the hurt that has happened in the body of Christ.

I trust that a logical, full believer in the inspiration of scripture, persistent, peace-maker like myself is allowed to cry sometimes without being called overly emotional or that my judgment and thinking are clouded by emotions.  A soft caring heart is what I long to see in complementarians because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.  I trust that God will help to keep my heart soft to them no matter how many attacks I have to deflect that has been unfairly lobbed over the wall and against my name.

Pardon me while I cry.

Forbid not

Forbid not

Forbid not….

Paul said something profound in 1 Corinthians 14:39 that goes against the grain of the hierarchical mindset.  Paul said “forbid not to speak…”

This is not an issue of whether tongues is valid today or not.  What is the issue is the command to “forbid not” to speak in the assembly.  Let’s walk through this passage to see how it is all connected together.

In 1 Cor. 14:34 it says women are “not permitted to speak” in the churches.  The Greek word is “epitrepetai” and it means to give liberty to, allow, give permission, entrust to.  So according to verses 34 & 35, speaking in the assembly is forbidden because there is no permission given to allow women to speak and a “law” is appealed to that takes away the ability for women to speak in the assembly.  Verse 36 is set up as a contradiction of verses 34 & 35.   Paul answers by stating “n” which is a disjunctive conjunction which is used “to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon.  Thayer’s lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as an example of “n” used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand”

What then is being denied by the “n” in verse 36?  It is the command in verse in verse 34 & 35 that women are to be silent.  How does Paul deny this command and the appeal to the law of men? (see The Elusive Law and Is a Woman’s Voice Filthy? for further information on why these two verses are to be considered a quote from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul and not the actual words of Paul himself.)

Paul demands to know if the word of God comes only through them (the men demanding the silencing of women) and he demands to know if only they are to receive God’s word.  In other words, Paul is demanding to know if God only speaks through men and God only gives his word to men and does not speak through women and to women.  Remember that the command to silence women also denied their learning in the assembly.  If they wanted to learn anything, they were commanded to learn at home.  Paul in essence asks where is this God’s word?  Where are women forbidden to speak God’s words and where are women forbidden to learn God’s words?  It is certainly true that in the oral law of the Jews women were forbidden to speak in the assembly and women were forbidden to be taught God’s word.  For a father to teach his daughter the Torah was considered immoral by the Jews because women were forbidden to handle God’s word and so there was no need to learn it.

Paul then goes on to say:

if anyone is thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write you are the Lord’s commandment.

Obviously those who wrote to Paul about the silencing of women believed that they were spiritual conveyors of God’s “laws”.  Paul says that if they presume to be spiritual guides and prophets giving out God’s words, then they must recognize that the things that Paul has written are the commands of the Lord Jesus.

What are the commands that Paul is referring to?  Let’s look back in the chapter to find Paul’s commands.  “Commands” here is in the plural, so we should expect to find several commands.

Read More Read More

Pastoral support

Pastoral support

Cheryl Schatz and her husband Richard, along with ministry partners Keith and Lorri MacGregor, are members in good standing at Bethel Christian Centre in Nelson, BC.  The MacGregor’s established a counter-cult/discernment ministry three decades ago and have recently partnered with the Schatz’s to form MM Outreach, Inc.  Together, these two couples continue with integrity and a passion for the Word of God what the MacGregor’s had already begun and, recognizing the importance of local church leadership and accountability, operate as a parachurch ministry while remaining closely associated with Bethel Christian Centre.

Rev Derwyn Costinak
Bethel Christian Centre

Who dared to contradict Paul?

Who dared to contradict Paul?

Many people have a big problem with Paul because they think that he was sexist.  I would like to change that point of view by looking carefully at the text so that we can fully appreciate Paul for who he was, not the false impression that we have of Paul.  Under God’s inspiration Paul refuted faulty tradition and that faulty tradition included sexism that was prevalent during his day.  Let’s have a look how Paul did that.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul responded to a letter written to him by the Corinthians.  In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:1  Now concerning the things about which you wrote….

Paul then quotes from the letter written to him and every time he quotes the letter, Paul contradicts the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:1….(Corinthians) it is good for a man not to touch a woman

1 Corinthians 7:2 (Paul) But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 10:23 (Corinthians) All things are lawful  (Paul) but not all things are profitable.  (Corinthians) All things are lawful (Paul) but not all things edify.

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 (Corinthians) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper (filthy) for a woman to speak in church.

1 Corinthians 14:36 (Paul) (What!?!) was it from you that the word of God went forth? (What!?!) has it come to you only?

In verse 36 Paul starts each statement with the Greek word “n” which isn’t always evident in the translations as some completely ignore this word.  It is a term used to show that the question implies a negative answer – a negation of something that has just proceeded it.  It would be the equivalent of stating a false statement and then saying “Bunk!” or “Horse feathers!” or “You have got to be kidding!”  So what Paul is doing here is negating what was just quoted.  Since Paul cannot negate himself, it is evident that the quote from verses 34 & 35 is a quote from the Corinthian letter to Paul.

Read More Read More

Gospel Today magazine pulled from Christian bookstores’ shelves

Gospel Today magazine pulled from Christian bookstores’ shelves

A Christian magazine is treated as pornography merely for reporting on the trend of women pastors.

The Atlanta Journal reports:

Smiling women on the cover of a slick magazine. Sold from under the counter. Must request it from store clerk.  That’s not something a buyer would typically find in a Christian bookstore. Not unless it’s one of the more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the United States, including about six in metro Atlanta.

Gospel Today, the Fayetteville-published magazine, was pulled off the racks by the bookstores’ owner, the Southern Baptist Convention. The problem? The five smiling women on the cover are women of the cloth — church pastors.

So what is the big deal?  The deal is that when a denomination says that a secondary issue of faith is so important it warrants barring people from reading about the other side, Lifeway Christian Bookstores has stepped into the realm of milieu control.  Milieu control is the control of information and communication.  Wikipedia adds that milieu control is about limiting contact in order to restrict the ability to make judgments about information that would present itself against the accepted position:

Additionally, Milieu control “includes other techniques to restrict members’ contact with the outside world and to be able to make critical, rational, judgments about information.”

How did Gospel Today react to their magazine relegated to a place behind the counter?

Teresa Hairston, owner of Gospel Today, whose glossy pages feature upbeat articles about health, living, music and ministry, said she discovered by e-mail that the September/October issue of the magazine had been demoted to the realm of the risque.

While saying that she was “shocked” at the reaction by the books stores, she adds:

“We weren’t trying to pick a fight,” Hairston said. “We just did a story on an emerging trend in a lot of churches.” reports about the controversy:

Published for nearly 20 years, Gospel Today is the largest and most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. The magazine’s publisher, Teresa Hairston, said she was just reporting on a trend, not trying to promote women pastors.

“They basically treated it like pornography and put it behind the counter,” she said. “Unless a person goes into the store and asks for it, they won’t see it displayed.”

Pastor Tamara Bennett of This Is Pentecost Ministries in Sacramento, Calif., one of the pastors featured on the front cover of Gospel Today is encouraging people to ask for the magazine:

“All Dr. Hairston did was tell a story, she didn’t preach a doctrine,” Bennett said of the article. “It’s just sharing news.”

A radio broadcaster from Atlanta has produced his own comments on Youtube regarding this pulling of a Christian magazine and he brings out the Southern Baptist Convention links to Lifeway Christian Bookstores.

1 Corinthians 14, is a woman's voice filthy?

1 Corinthians 14, is a woman's voice filthy?

In the last post we talked about how there is no “law” in the Old Testament scriptures that forced women to be silent in the assembly so the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 had to be some other “law” that forced silence on women.  The “law” that silences women is found not in God’s law, but in the oral tradition of the Jews, now written down in the Talmud.

The next red flag that points to another source other than God’s law, for the saying in verses 34 & 35 is the charge that a woman’s voice is filthy.  Verse 35 says:

1 Corinthians 14:35  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home;for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

The word translated as “improper” is shameful or filthy.  Is a woman’s voice shameful?  Is a woman’s voice filthy?  The oral law of the Jews said her voice was indecent, filthy and shameful.  A woman was not allowed to speak in their congregations for the sake of the men.  Her voice was considered a sexual enticement thus a woman was not to speak publicly.

Did God’s word also say anywhere that a woman’s voice is filthy, shameful or indecent as the Jewish oral tradition taught?  No, it doesn’t.  In fact Paul earlier on in chapter 14 said that everyone was allowed to prophesy in the assembly.  If everyone could prophesy, then certainly Paul would not turn around in just a few verses and say that women’s voices were to be silenced because they were filthy.

Tradition is a very strong force in people’s lives.  Prejudice follows such tradition and causes many of us not to want to hear a woman’s voice speaking the truth of God’s word.  Instead of following tradition, we should see what God’s word says about women publishing the truth.

Psalms 68:11  The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host.

The word “proclaim” means to publish or make public.  God says that there is a great host of women who will take the gospel to the public.

How about you?  Have you had any prejudice against women’s speaking forth the Bible?  Have you considered their words to be inferior in some way or their preaching to be invalid merely because they are women?

The elusive law

The elusive law

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 has been a problem passage because of two issues that stick out like a sore thumb.  The first issue is the elusive law.

The elusive law

The problem that occurs in this passage is that the “law” is the key reference for the required silence.  Many have tried to ignore this “elusive” law making their interpretation around it.  This has resulted in the silencing of women from asking their husbands questions in the assembly.  But where is this “elusive” law found that silences only women from asking questions in the assembly?  Paul doesn’t say that it is disruptive to talk in the assembly.  The wording is a direct prohibition attached to an existing “law”.

Some have tried to “shoe horn” Genesis 3:16 as a “law” that silences women.  This connection is not possible.  For women like myself who have very supportive husbands who encourage me to use my gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ (including benefiting men), I am not being silenced at all by Genesis 3:16 no matter how the “he will rule over you” is taken.

So where is the “law” that silences women in the assembly?  One cannot interpret this passage without finding the elusive law.

I will let my readers answer this one before we continue on with 1 Corinthians 14.  What do you think?  Why is there a “law” quoted in 1 Cor. 14:34 that cannot be found in the Old Testament?   Have you heard of any other reference to a “law” from the Old Testament?  Is it possible that verse 34 is a new law that Paul has just created?  Why or why not?

The Trinity DVD is done!

The Trinity DVD is done!

Well, it is finally done.

The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future
The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future

The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future, Explaining Truth & Exposing Error   © 2008 MM Outreach Inc

The 2 DVD set with 3 sections dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, the biblical support for the equality of the Word of God in eternity past, and the biblical position on the authority of Jesus Christ and eternity future, does not mention the women’s issue at all, but the teaching of hierarchists that use the subordination of Jesus to justify the subordination of women is soundly dealt with.

Our new DVD will be on its way to the duplicators in just a couple of days.  Official release date should be by mid October at the latest.  There are some loose ends that need to be cleaned up on Monday and I do need to view it one more time to make sure that all is in place as the computer version shows, but my long hours of hard work have come to an end.

Can we say yippee yay?

Also for those of you who have supported MM Outreach in the transition to a US based corporation, will now be able to get a tax receipt for your donations as we are now officially a non-profit organization.

Can we say, wow isn’t the Lord good?

So many good things happening and we continue to marvel at the blessings that the Lord Jesus has given us!

Who is in charge? Or who cares?

Who is in charge? Or who cares?

I got a special hug today from Dr. Cynthia Kunsman a very brave lady who has been fighting a battle against authoritarian spiritual abuse.   Cynthia sent me a link to a wonderful post about marriage and the head/body metaphor.  I would like to share this link with you because I believe the article is very well written and balanced.  Here is the link  Who is in charge?  Or who cares?

Mart De Haan writes:

I’m convinced that if we really listen to the text, the right question is not, “who’s in charge?”, but “who cares?” (i.e. who cares for one another as a head and body care for and cooperate with one another?)

I recommend that you browse through the article.  It isn’t too long, but it is powerful.

Feel free to comment here and/or on Mart’s blog.  Enjoy and thank you to Cynthia for sending this hug to me today!  You can visit Cynthia’s blog here or her web site here.  Cynthia’s material on hierarchy, spiritual abuse, the Family Integrated Church movement and more is extensive and thought-provoking.

Public statement regarding Cheryl Schatz's Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick

Public statement regarding Cheryl Schatz's Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick

Public Statement regarding the Cheryl Schatz initiated Matthew 18 meeting with Matt Slick (CARM)

A meeting was held on August 22, 2008 in Idaho as my husband and I and our Pastor traveled to meet with Matt Slick. The reconciliation meeting was initiated by myself and we journied 12 hours to try to reconcile over the issues of Matt’s public misrepresentation of my teaching along with the continued attacks on my person. I had patiently waited for almost one year for a resolution while I was being slandered, accused of heresy and my sanity was questioned and mocked all because I support the biblical view that women in the body of Christ may use their gifts for the common good and with the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11. It is my position that we are to work hard for unity in the body of Christ and we are to live at peace with all men if possible, so far as it depends on us (Romans 12:18). It is with deep regret that the reconciliation that I fought for and thought I received at the meeting with Matt Slick in August of 2008 has proven to be unattainable.

Matt Slick finally agreed to meet with me to discuss the offenses that were committed against me after he received some “encouragement” from a set of emails he received from a person who wrote as a “man” with authority. Without these emails he would have never agreed to meet with me and I would not have had the opportunity of trying to seek peace with someone who claims to be a brother in Christ but who had been treating me with great disrespect and vitriol.


In 2006 Matt Slick had requested by email that I be a guest on his “Faith and Reason” radio show to discuss my views from my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I declined at that time because I saw him as being disrespectful. After his assurance that he would be kind and respectful and after about a year and a half later when I heard him on the radio discourage a woman from going into ministry, I agreed to discuss the issue of women’s freedom to serve the body of Christ without restriction.

During my time on the radio with Matt Slick, I made a special effort to affirm him for his ministry even telling a personal story about some of his articles that helped me deal with a Universalist and a friend who had been influenced in the area of universalism. However I was not treated kindly and on the first of the two programs that I was on, I was yelled at and talked down to and constantly interrupted. By the end of the second program he refused to let me speak on my interpretation os 1 Timothy 2:15 and how this verse is essential to the understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 and he called me a heretic for my view of women’s freedom to minister with God’s gifts for the common good.

After the radio shows Matt immediately started to post on his discussion board challenging me by name to post responses in order to try to find things to accuse me of. He demanded answers to questions about Calvinism and other areas that I refused to debate over. Before Matt created posts with my name challenging me to answer, I had never posted on his board. In fact I didn’t even originally see the posts challenging me since I was not reading his boards. I was notified by an egalitarian who visited my blog that Matt was openly challenging me on his board. Now he writes that I was the one who came onto his discussion board to cause trouble. No matter what I do, my motives and my beliefs and the facts have been twisted beyond recognition.

In December 2008 after months of speaking against me on his radio show, Matt told a caller a complete misrepresentation of my teaching while he assured the caller that what he was saying was true. I confronted Matt Slick about his misrepresentation and he did nothing. It wasn’t until my pastor wrote to Matt Slick in February and confronted him with his slander that Matt mentioned it on the air, but he said it in such a way that it appeared that I wanted him to make a correction, but that my correction wasn’t true and his original statement was true and it was not slander.

I finally was able to meet Matt Slick in person after Matt received emails apparently from a “man” encouraging him to settle the issue with me as I was requesting from him a Matthew 18 meeting. My husband and my pastor traveled with me for the 12 hour trip to meet Matt Slick. I started the meeting by making it clear that we were not there to harm him but to seek reconciliation after all the persecution that I had received so that we could end the attacks against me and we could move on. I played the audio files I had of Matt’s misrepresentation of my teaching and clips from our radio discussion where I gave my teaching on women in ministry and denied his own declared exaggeration of the view. After listening to the audio file several times, Matt Slick agreed that he would issue a correction and that he would no longer mention me by name on his radio show or on his discussion board or his web site. I agreed that while I would continue to refute his public teaching on women in ministry, I would not post anything against him personally. Although I did not say I would remove any negative comments about Matt on my blog, I did go through all the posts and I removed anything that others said against him that might be considered inflammatory. There were very few comments like that. Most people were frustrated with Matt for his treatment of me and I chose to allow people the freedom to air their frustration without excessive moderation from me. However I have not posted anything of the personal nature since that time and I have kept my word that I would keep any mention of Matt Slick on my bog to the issue of his public teaching only and not in any way on a personal level even though I still have considerable concern about his treatment of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

At our meeting in August 2008, Matt Slick revealed to all of us (his pastor was there along with Ryan Turner a young apologist who had just started working with Matt and who is a gentle natured soul) that his vice-president had purchased my name on the internet three times in an effort to discredit me as a person. Much of the persecution that I had experienced in the last year was done by Matt’s vice-president of CARM Diane Sellner. She openly attacked me encouraged by Matt Slick himself and Matt protected her ability to slander me without sanction on his own discussion board and on a blog that she set up to attack my character and my ministry. Matt said that he would talk to Diane to see if she would agree to stop attacking me personally. (From what happened afterwards, I now do not believe that he ever intended to stop Diane. She has his full support without any sanctions at all.)

Matt asked what we wanted him to say to correct his misrepresentations and although he adamantly refused to apologize for what he had done, he did say that he would make the statement public on “Faith and Reason”. We all worked together to get a statement that would be acceptable to Matt and myself. Ryan Turner proposed that Matt say that he was “wrong” and both Matt and I agreed to the statement even though there would be no apology from Matt. My pastor wrote down the statement that we all had contributed to and Matt and I had agreed to it and my pastor gave the written copy of what we had written to Matt. After over four hours of discussion, we left with that agreement and we went on our way traveling together in the same car and heading back to Canada to try to get across the border before midnight.

However that very day before we arrived home, the agreement made between Matt Slick and myself had been broken by Matt. Matt had changed the statement saying that he had approval from my pastor to change the agreement. However my pastor was in the car traveling with us and not only would he not have had the authority to change an agreement as the agreement was not made with him but was an agreement that I had made with Matt, but I was never consulted by Matt even though Matt knew that we were traveling back home together in the same car. So how did he get such approval and why did he not ask me?  Why would he claim to bypass me when we were in the same car traveling home together?

Not only was I never consulted about a change to our agreement, but I have no idea what Matt Slick did or didn’t say on that broadcast because he gave Diane Sellner the authority to remove his comment from the broadcast. His comment, whatever it was, was never given to the general public on his “Faith and Reason” podcast and Matt Slick has adamantly refused to allow me access to hear what he actually said. He has refused to give me a copy of the audio that was removed from the broadcast and he has refused to allow the radio station to give me a copy. I have no way to verify that he even tried to keep his word about giving a retraction to his misrepresentation.

By the day after we arrived home, Matt Slick had released numerous pages written against me personally even though he promised that he would no longer speak against me. He also gave Diane Sellner full access to write her personal vitriol against me on her blog, and he also gave his permission for Diane to link my personal name that she had purchased three times on the internet to Matt’s pages against me on his web site and alternately to link one of purchases of my name to her own blog which was created as a way to slander me personally.

Matt has tried to justify his subsequent attacks against me by saying that I attacked him first before I came onto his radio show. This is an unfounded lie and he has no proof of any such “attack”. He also has lied that I came onto his discussion board to attack him. He is the one who wrote numerous posts about “Challenge to Schatz” but after our “reconciliation meeting” he left all the attacks on line and gave Diane Sellner the authority to remove all my answers. In fact my moniker (WIM) has been completely wiped off the discussion board with only small quotes made by others who referenced my original posts. My respectful posts were removed while the attacks against me were kept on line! The boldness of such a move after the promises that were made to me are amazing!

I spoke to Matt Slick on the phone three days after our meeting and he tried to blackmail me to remove any mention of himself or CARM on my blog even from my careful refutation of his exegesis of women in ministry. I have a copy of that phone conversation and I will not allow myself to be blackmailed. Matt will have to stand one day before the Lord Jesus and give an account of the things that he has done. I pray that the Lord Jesus will continue to enable me to have the courage to speak out on women’s freedom in the body of Christ as I work hard to speak the truth with love. It takes boldness to speak out with kindness and compassion for both my brothers and sisters in Christ who are on opposite sides of this theological fence. Each side deserves to be loved as true brothers and sisters in Christ even if we do not agree on these secondary issues. My stand will not change. I will continue to speak out in love even though I have received a great amount of persecution for my stand. The Lord Jesus provides boldness to speak the truth even in the midst of persecution. I have posted my stand from the introduction to my DVD set on youtube to show that my original stand has always been reconciliation between the two sides regarding women in ministry. My stand can be found at

Those who view this stand can see that I am not aggressive against the other side. I view them as brothers in Christ even though people like Matt Slick characterize me as an enemy of the church.  Matt also has not been able to refute my teaching on women in ministry even though he has tried his best. He gave me my DVDs back after a year and a half of having them in his possession claiming that he didn’t even watch them (the truthfulness of this statement is challenged by his early emails to me challenging me on some of the content in the DVDs and bemoaning the fact that I didn’t put into the DVDs some material that he felt was important such as federal headship). My refutation of his attempt to refute me can be found at this blog.

I do not trust Matt Slick or his promises as everything he has promised has been taken back by Matt, and I am very sad that this is the case as he is a fellow apologist and I should be able to trust his word. Matt has given full permission to his vice-president and board member Diane Sellner to do whatever she wants in attacking me and using my name. Let the reader see that I have not posted personal attacks against Matt Slick and I have not bought his name in order to malign him personally nor have I purchased Diane Sellner’s name. I believe that these are shameful acts that do not serve to lift up the name of Jesus. Matt never once approached me for reconciliation – he just produced pages against me personally that contain lies and half truths. I went the extra mile and paid a great price to seek reconciliation. I waited a long time before I went to Idaho to meet with Matt. I even accepted an offer from Matt to make things right without demanding that he publicly apologize. He says that I am unreasonable but my actions prove otherwise. My character is proven by my actions. On the otherhand, Matt has proven his character by his actions in a less than honorable way. The pages written against me, the complete removal of myself and my arguments from his discussion board, the removal of his “correction” from the public record (if he even made such a correction and I have not one thing to prove that he said any part of the correction that we agreed to), the threats against me personally in the form of blackmail, his support of his board member and vice-president to purchase my own name to malign me personally and his continued claims that I, a fellow Christian who believes in all the essentials of the faith, am an enemy of the church are the actions of his own character. If fellow Christians allow this kind of behavior without correction, then likely it will continue. I cannot see how this furthers the cause of Christ or brings the body of Christ closer together in unity as we are required to love one another and work for peace.

I ask that those who read this page, please pray for Matt. There are accounts on the internet of others that Matt has attacked just like he has done to me. This greatly concerns me. The concern that I have is not so much about the lies that he has told about me but the unsaved that have experienced the same things. They see Matt as a representative of Jesus and the Church and when he launches an attack on anyone who he sees as a threat to his person, or to secondary doctrinal issues that he sees as a hill to die on, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth and many have reported that they have been harmed because of this. If there are any who have been hurt by Matt’s attacks who are reading this, please be assured that this is not representative of Jesus. There are many godly Christians who witness of their faith and who do not personally attack those who do not agree with them. Jesus had compassion and care even for those who attacked him. His love even reached out to the one who betrayed him. Jesus called him “friend”. If I can help heal the hurts that you have experienced, please contact me. My email address is on my contact page.

In conclusion, although our long trip at our own expense to meet with Matt Slick to seek reconciliation has not brought resolution as we thought but only brought further attacks against my person, I have to let God work on Matt Slick’s heart because he refuses all forms of reconciliation demanding instead that I apologize to him for following the scriptural approach regarding dealing with issues of offense or else he will work to destroy me. I followed every step that scripture gives for dealing with an offensive brother. Matt Slick on the other hand never once tried to contact me privately to reconcile with me but has kept up his attacks against me as if I am not worthy of being called a Christian sister and a fellow apologist. For Matt Slick to ask me to apologize for following through with what the bible sets forth for disputes between Christians is unthinkable.

This puts a period on any contact with Matt Slick. I will no longer discuss him although I will discuss his theology on women in ministry especially if I become aware that he has tried to answer my refutation of his articles. Sometimes there cannot be a resolution other than complete separation and this is where it stands.

I have also posted a public statement regarding my Matthew 18 meeting at .  Keith and Lorri MacGregor have posted their own comments regarding this issue along with this statement at This brings to a complete end any words that I have regarding this matter as I have been pushed to produce a public statement about why I have been silent on this end about this very public disagreement.

I think this piece will put a huge period . on this matter as I have long ago moved on. If anyone has any questions regarding this public statement, please email me privately for clarification. Email me (mmoutreach (AT) gmail (DOT) com or go to the contact page above for a contact form).

Keith and Lorri MacGregor are my ministry partners and have been privy to the attacks against me from the very beginning. Having heard Matt Slick for themselves speak in angry tones toward his sister in Christ calling me a heretic and twisting my words, their wisdom to me is to follow scripture to ignore a divisive person. My pastor has also given me this same admonition and he too has been privy to the attacks against me both on the radio, in emails sent to him by Matt Slick and in our meeting in Idaho and his words have also been twisted against him.

While I am sad that I was not able to be a peace maker in this dispute, I did appreciate that by taking the time and effort to make the twelve hour journey to Idaho, I had the opportunity to meet Ryan, the new apologist on CARM. I really appreciated his attitude and his demeanor. I pray that God will help him to make a positive impact in a godly way in the calling that he has.

Cheryl Schatz

May Jesus get the ultimate glory for He is our peacemaker who brings peace between God and us.
Two heads one master

Two heads one master

While Paul said that the husband is the head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3) with this metaphor implying that the wife is the body of the husband, scripture also tells us that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ and the believing wife is part of that body too.  This means that the metaphor of head/body is used both of a physical relationship between husband and wife and a spiritual relationship between believers and Christ.  But does head mean master?

Many believe that head means one who has authority over another.  Some believe that a woman is not allowed to teach the bible if her husband does not give her permission to do so.  In essence he is her master and she must obey what he tells her.  But if head means master, then scripture contradicts itself because the bible says that we have only one master.  In John 13:13 Jesus says that he is that Master.

John 13:13  Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.  KJV

The word translated as “master” is didaskalos and it means teacher, instructor, master.  Jesus then goes on to show that we are all brothers and only one is our master/teacher.

Matthew 23:8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Matthew 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Matthew 23:11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  KJV

Jesus also taught that no one can serve two masters:

Matthew 6:24  “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.

The word for master here is kurios and it means lord, master, owner.

It is impossible for “head” to mean “lord, master, owner”.  Jesus is both head and Master because he alone is God.  No husband is to be in the position of master because we are to have only one master and that is Jesus Christ.

It is a wonderful thing when a husband agrees that his wife should teach the bible.  However his agreement should have no bearing on the obedience of a servant of the one and only Master.  There is only one spiritual head and only one Master.  The husband is in a one-flesh union with his wife and together they should work out their marriage relationship.  But scripture never gives the husband the position of master over his wife and scripture never tells the wife that she must obey her husband as her master, for no one can serve two masters.

Women in Ministry produces fear

Women in Ministry produces fear

Wade Burleson has produced a thought-provoking article about character assassination that comes as a result of fear.  Wade writes:

It is almost an axiom of human nature that when you disagree with one’s positions, are fearful of the effect your opponent may have on altering the big picture, you attack the character of the person you wish to defeat. Unfortunately, the art of character assassination in Christian circles is alive and well.

…when other people are being influenced to take a different position than your’s, it is tempting to attack the character of your opponent…

May all of us involved with political processess, whether they be national and secular, or denominational and religious, focus on the issues and leave the character attacks at home.

I agree whole-heartedly with what Wade is saying.  There is just too much focus on ad hominem (attacking the man) rather than addressing the argument.  Attacking the person and name calling are a sign of a weak argument.

How is this played out regarding women in ministry?  Those who are fearful of having women teaching doctrine in the church often use loaded language to put down the opposition.  While they refuse to call a brother in Christ who is a Calvinist or an Arminian, a heretic (and good for them for not dividing over this secondary issue), they have no qualms about calling a sister in Christ a heretic for merely believing that women can use their God-given gifts for the benefit of all.  Many others are calling into question the salvation of those who advocate women using their gifts for the common good.  Is this godly?

I look forward to seeing a generation of women who have been freed to go forth preaching the gospel with boldness and without prejudice.  CBMW (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has already announced that complementarians are losing this battle.  Churches one by one are freeing women to serve in the gifts that God has given them.  Irving Bible Church in Irving, Texas is just one of the long list of churches who have changed their view of women in ministry.  They are another example of godly men looking into God’s word and seeing it in context as not holding back God’s gifts given through women.   God uses women for his own purposes and he gifts those he wants to use for his glory.  When we fight our sisters in Christ and instead of addressing their concerns and their arguments, we call them heretics and we separate from them, we should stop and think whether we are fighting against God himself.  We are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit.  We grieve Him when we try to control and stop His gifts from being used without prejudice and we grieve Him when we separate over secondary issues of faith.

In my search on the world wide web, I have yet to come across egalitarians calling complementarians heretics merely for believing differently on this secondary issue of faith.  I trust that it is rare for such name calling.  However it is not rare for complementarians to call egalitarians heretics.  This should never be.  When one part of the body of Christ hurts, we all are hurt because we are all baptized into this one body.  Those who mock and attack the character of a fellow Christian because they disagree on a secondary issue of faith need to repent lest they find themselves fighting against God Himself.  This is the time when God’s judgment comes to the church first and then the world.  Will we be found loving our brothers in Christ as we are commanded to by Jesus Himself, or will we be found ripping at the sheep using personal attacks instead of reasoning through why our arguments are so weak that we must resort to attacking the man?  If we are fearful because of someone else’s position on a secondary issue of faith, may we resort to studying the word of God to show ourselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rather than resorting to personal attacks.  Passion is godly.  Mocking and personal attacks is a tool of the enemy.  Whose side will you be on?