While there has been some genuine, respectful dialog between complementarian and egalitarian scholars, more often than not, the emotions that are brought into the dialog have brought less than respectful debate. The body of Christ is meant to fight the enemy together but when some turn their weapons inward in order to fight their sisters in Christ because of a secondary issue of faith, this certainly brings not only shame upon our Lord Jesus, but harm to some precious members of the body of Christ.<\/p>\n
How should we react to the debate when it has become vitriolic? I would like to suggest that we need to stay the course and continue to deal with the issues in a respectful way. When some turn the debate on women teaching the bible authoritatively to men away from the issue and choose to make it instead an attack on the person, we need to refrain from following suit. The Lord Jesus is best served when we treat our brothers in Christ with respect even when that respect is not afforded to us. Yet we do not give up sharing truth and doing so in love. The winning side will be the one who fights for the truth of scripture while passionately debating the issues in love.<\/p>\n
While responding with love is a mandate of the Lord Jesus, we may choose the way we debate to limit the abuse that we receive because we can identify those who have a habit of using verbal attacks to try to control the debate. Let me give an example of what can happen through an audio debate when a brother in Christ has a problem holding his emotions back from attacking a fellow believer in Christ.<\/p>\n
On April 6, 2006 I received an invitation for an informal dialog on Matt Slick\u2019s Faith and Reason radio show. While the invitation was very kind, I had heard Matt debate other Christians before and I was not impressed with his combative \u201cstyle\u201d. While he assured me that he would dialog with respect, I did not accept the invitation until September of 2007 when I heard Matt persuading women that their calling from God in ministry would not be a valid call. I decided that it would be worth the risk of being attacked because I truly cared for Matt\u2019s listeners who were only hearing one side of the debate. While I kept my cool and kept my respectful attitude towards Matt, he did not treat me with either respect or Christian charity. Matt must have had some negative feedback about his treatment of me on his radio show because the next week he started out much more calm but in the end he stopped me from giving my biblical understanding of 1 Timothy 2:15, a verse that is key to the understanding of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, and he lost his cool once again this time raising his voice and calling me a heretic for merely differing with him on this secondary issue.<\/p>\n
Later Matt said that he would consider having me back on his radio show only if I would agree to limit my answers to his questions to 1.5 minutes a piece. No one else has ever been given such a strict time limit on his radio show before, but when I agreed to his restrictions, he backed down and would not allow me to debate him even with me under strict time limits. Months later in April and May of 2008 Matt produced articles on a limited portion of my position on women in ministry (he has my full view on my 4 DVD set \u201cWomen in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?\u201d but he apparently chose to ignore a good portion of my material) and I have been going through each of the new articles refuting his \u201crefutation\u201d. I have also offered Matt Slick a respectful written debate on his position and his articles since his position has many holes, errors and faulty premises. I agree with Matt\u2019s position in his original offer to have me on his radio show that those who produce a non-interactive position on women in ministry (DVD or written form) should allow themselves to be questioned on that position. I met him on his \u201cplaying field\u201d on the radio and now I have asked him to answer my questions on his position in a written debate. Matt has declined to do so. Matt\u2019s position is that he is comfortable with his discussion board, his radio show and Paltalk and he won\u2019t venture anywhere else. I have offered a neutral site where we could both debate without editing or anyone controlling either one of us and apparently he is very sensitive and needs his \u201csafety zone\u201d that he won\u2019t leave. I have also included links to the audio files of both of Matt\u2019s radio shows with me as his \u201cguest\u201d. They are at the bottom of this post. Listen carefully and see how gentleness and respect has been subsequently interpreted by a very sensitive Matt Slick as an \u201cattack\u201d on his person.<\/p>\n
Matt has already refused to have me back on his radio show, his discussion board is highly controlled and edited by his vice-president and Paltalk is a forum where Matt can continue to verbally abuse those he disagrees with and it is not suitable for keeping him accountable to a respectful dialog. I am including the type of \u201crespect\u201d that Matt Slick offers. The following are words to me on his discussion board regarding Matt\u2019s \u201coffer\u201d to debate in an audio form. See if this sounds like I would get a fair and respectful audio debate:<\/p>\n
Matt titles his comment \u201cthis is how it is\u201d<\/strong> found at http:\/\/www.christiandiscussionforums.org\/v\/showthread.php?t=108945&page=2<\/a><\/p>\n I\u2019ve already written the section refuting the liberal position on women being pastors\/elders. That\u2019s the written form\u2026<\/p>\n I don\u2019t go to your blog. I don\u2019t debate anywhere but here, Paltalk, and the radio.<\/p>\n I\u2019m too busy to get buried in a written debate with you\u2026 If you write like you talk on the radio, you\u2019d KILL ME!\u2026. not with competence, but with sssllloooowwww and condescending remarks that would drive me up the wall. No thanks! On the radio you\u2019d not answer a question directly. You beat around the bush, said a ton of NOTHING, to get to some invented position, and acted in a condescending manner. I was ready to shoot myself you were so difficult to deal with. Again, NOT your content, your manner and deliver is what is difficult.<\/p>\n You\u2019ve been refuted by me and those much smarter than me.<\/p>\n I believe you\u2019re given over to your error by God. I believe you are injuring the body of Christ. I further think more of what you\u2019re really made of will become evident.<\/p>\n Now, stop your whining. If you want a debate with me, Paltalk is the place. I\u2019ll put your stupid arguments in the trash where they belong. If you\u2019re not up to it, then go away, stop whining, stop playing around. I mean, sheesh, just get over it and take your liberal feminism somewhere esle and help the enemy undermine the church from some other location.<\/p>\n You want to take the man\u2019s place? Want to compete with men? Okay, bring your pants, step up to the plate\u2026.and let\u2019s go, Paltalk! If you accept, I\u2019ll bury you. If you don\u2019t accept, go away.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Does this sound respectful or kind? Matt is not going to debate me in a forum that he cannot have control of or win. I will continue to work through his articles and provide my own \u201cwritten\u201d refutation. If and when Matt Slick allows me to question him, I will provide those answers and of course my own refutation as appropriate.<\/p>\n Listen to debate #1 here.<\/a><\/p>\n\n