Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?

Blog has moved

2009-07-04T16:29:00.001-06:00

This blog has moved to http://www.strivetoenter.com/wim

Please click on the link to go to my new blog home.

Blessings,

Cheryl Schatz

Trinity DVD and women in ministry

2007-11-10T13:26:00.000-07:00

Just a quick update to let you all know that our ministry is working on a DVD project on the Trinity. While it isn’t directly on the women’s issue, it will deal directly with the complementarian view of the Trinity and a biblical refutation of that view.

All future posts will be on my new blog site at www.strivetoenter.com/wim

Debate with Matt Slick Scheduled

2007-09-17T01:42:00.001-06:00

Hey all,

Regarding my previous post about debating with Matt Slick about women in ministry, I spoke to the producer of his radio program (Faith and Reason) tonight and she has set the date of Wednesday, September 19th for me to call in for the debate.

You can listen to the program live on myfamilyradio.com Go to http://www.myfamilyradio.com/player.html and pick the link at the very bottom for “790 KSPD play outside of browser” The time is 6 - 7 pm Mountain time so that would work out to 7 - 8 pm Central, 8 - 9 pm Eastern and 5 - 6 pm Pacific.

The next day the audio should be up at Matt’s podcast site here

Matt is pretty hard on women and it is time to present the other side in a logical, respectful and winsome way. I trust that the Lord Jesus will help me with all of that. Remember David and Goliath? Guess which one I am?? I will give you a hint…I hope to get out alive!

Verse by Verse through 1 Corinthians 11

2007-05-26T17:27:00.000-06:00

Verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11

Because I have received several questions posed to me on 1 Corinthians 11, I think it best that we go through the passage verse by verse and that should help deal with each question in context. As we go through each set of verses, please feel free to comment or ask questions on the section that we are covering. This should keep our discussions focused and keep each post and each set of questions separated.

The first thing that we need to note is that 1 Corinthians was not written with the chapter and verse divisions. Instead Paul wrote it as a complete letter to the Corinthians. The chapter and verse divisions were added later by translators for our benefit but these divisions are not inspired. Click here to read the rest of this blog entry on my new blog site.

Freeing Sisters in the Southern Baptist Convention

2007-04-23T07:07:00.000-06:00

Wade Burleson has a great new post on women called “Are The Sisters Free to Function?“ It is an article written by Jon Zens. It is long….22 pages printed out, but Jon brings up some good points and the hot discussion following his article might be interesting for you to follow. I appreciate Wade a lot with his courage to take on a tough subject amongst Southern Baptists. You will notice that many of the men and even at least one woman posting responses are very much against women teaching the bible to men.

I am up to my ears in paint as we are getting our home ready for sale and our final move to our new ministry location. If I don’t have a new post that I have time to work on, I will point you to other blogs and information that will help you. Please pray for us that our home will be sold quickly and that our preparations for its sale will go fast. Our hearts are really in full time ministry, not Mr. and Mrs. fix-it, paint-it, and clean-it of 34 years of memorabilia.

For those who have been following my comments on Wade Burleson's post, the three blog articles that I refer to can be found here:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/21/why-was-the-sin-of-adam-more-serious-than-the-sin-of-eve-part-one/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/27/why-was-adam%e2%80%99s-sin-more-serious-than-the-sin-of-eve-part-two/

A reminder that I am posting my new articles at my new blog site of http://strivetoenter.com/wim

Catching up

2007-03-01T17:42:00.000-07:00

Well part one of the relocation of our ministry and the move of our household has occurred and we have a two week break before we go into phase two of the move.

This week I am going to try to catch up on the comments and questions that I need to respond to on this blog and I will try to write a few new posts as time allows.

While I was away, I gave a great deal of thought to the importance of how we view the husband as head and wife as body (one flesh union) because I can see that our understanding of the husband and wife relationship greatly influences how we view the issue of women in ministry. I have been seriously considering doing a second DVD series on men and women in marriage and how it relates to women’s ministry in the church. I would like to incorporate both biblical teaching as well as interview clips of those who have struggled through this issue in their own marriage and in their church ministry and have made it work.

If anyone has questions that they would like to see a series like this answer or suggestions for the series, I welcome any feedback that you have.

Does “husband of one wife” disqualify women from being a Pastor?

2007-01-28T22:21:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the January 26, 2007 radio program online by Matt Slick of carm.org. Matt answered a caller’s question regarding women leading in the church by appealing to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 where it says that a Pastor/Elder/Overseer must be “the husband of one wife”. Matt said it was “case closed” because women cannot be “the husband of one wife”.

I appreciate Matt a lot for his excellent web site that exposes many cults and aberrant movements in Christianity and although I consider him a brother in Christ, I must disagree with him on his quick and pat answer to his callers regarding women in ministry. What Matt didn’t tell his callers and what he should have been challenged on is that “husband of one wife” used in the strict way that he uses it to disqualify women would also disqualify single men as well as married men without children, since the Elder/Pastor/Overseer is to be a “husband” and also required to keep his children under control (1 Timothy 3:4). Read the rest of this post at my new blog site here.

Wade Burleson exposes discrimination of women at Southwestern Theological Seminary

2007-01-20T20:01:00.000-07:00

I appreciate Pastor Wade for having the courage to document this injustice and his courage to speak out. I have been following a blog documenting the injustice done to Dr. Sheri Klouda a professor of Hebrew who was forced out of her teaching position at the Southern Baptist Convention’s Southwestern Theological Seminary because the new President, Paige Patterson, does not believe that women should be teaching men. This comes after Dr. Klouda had been at the Seminary and approved for teaching by the board of trustees since 2002. I think that this is a very important issue to follow as it reveals the cold heart of some men towards other members of the body of Christ. Wade Burleson, a Pastor in Enid, Oklahoma writes:

It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological seminary for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason — her gender.

To read the rest of the blog post documenting the gender discrimination that has occurred within the Southern Baptist Convention click here.

One note – Paige Patterson is on the board of reference for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and his wife is a CBMW Council member.

YouTube free clip of "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?"

2007-01-08T18:02:00.000-07:00

I have uploaded the introduction section of "Women in Ministry Silence or Set Free" to YouTube. You can see the free preview clip by clicking below:

Slavery still an issue today so says The Wilderness Crier

2006-12-31T16:53:00.000-07:00

The Wilderness Crier

Above is a link to a tongue-in-cheek post about slavery using all the standard arguments against women. Brilliant! My jaw dropped open as I read it.

The case of the battling proof texts, Part One

2006-12-29T11:56:00.000-07:00

One of the things that bugs me when Christians have discussions about the women’s issue is the point when they are at loggerheads regarding “proof texts”. One person says they have their “proof text” scripture and so they are not willing to listen to what the other person has to say. The other person also has their “proof texts” and also isn’t willing to budge. However proof texting is simply not good enough. While you may have one verse that seems to agree with you, you also need to deal with the texts that don’t agree with you. This is the point where many people give up. They hold onto their proof text and stubbornly refuse to look outside of their already made-up mindset. Read the rest of this post at my new blog site here.

Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

2006-12-27T17:06:00.000-07:00

While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?

God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:

But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering... But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.'

If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Did Eve experience God’s grace along with his justice? Paul alludes to this in 1 Timothy 1 & 2 as he talks about those who were fully deceived but who received God’s grace in the midst of their ignorance. In 1 Timothy 1:13, 14 Paul says:

"even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus."

In these verses Paul ties in the mercy he received from Jesus with his ignorance so that the one who acted in ignorance was eligible to receive mercy.

Another example of ignorance where a person finds mercy from God is in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul says Eve fell into sin but because of her deception she found mercy when God promised that the Messiah would come through the seed of the woman. Genesis 3:15 says:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Satan’s tactic was to deceive the woman, but by that very act, Satan inadvertently opened the door to mankind’s receiving mercy through the seed of the woman. God did not charge the woman with treacherous rebellion as he did Adam, (Hosea 6:7) but because she had been deceived and had sinned ignorantly in her deception, God had the right to bring the Messiah into the world through her lineage.

What was meant by Satan to bring all of mankind into Satan’s own rebellion was turned around by God and was used as the means to destroy Satan. It was through the woman whom Satan deceived, that God was able to bring the sinless Messiah into the world and that perfect, sinless Messiah would in turn crush the head of Satan. The promise was made to the woman and not to the man because she was the one who received mercy.

Adam on the other hand was not deceived and since his sin was a willful sin, his guilt remained on his bloodline. Adam was therefore the only one who brought sin into this world.

To understand more about the necessity of a kinsman redeemer who was born without inherited sin, click here to read the post called Adam as head of the family at my new blog site.

Why was Adam's sin more serious than Eve's sin? Part One

2006-12-21T15:47:00.000-07:00

While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin. Click here to continue to read this post at my new blog site.

Does God have one unique law? Part Three

2006-12-13T05:43:00.000-07:00

In this part three of “Does God have one unique law?” we will be discussing the last set of circumstances that set apart the “law” that complementarians say God made that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. It is our desire to point out that all of these unique circumstances that set apart this “law” as something completely unique from all of God’s other laws should cause us to see “red flags” regarding making 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal law. Continue reading this post at my new blog site here.

Does God have one unique law? Part Two

2006-12-07T14:21:00.000-07:00

Complementarians have stated that God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This law, they say, is revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12. Since we saw in part one that this law is foreign to the Old Testament, let’s have a look at the New Testament to see if there is a second witness to this law. Click here to read the rest of this article on my new blog site.

What does 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15 mean?

2006-12-02T15:56:00.000-07:00

I was challenged to present my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on another blog and I thought it would be good to summarize my view on my own blog. Here is the teaching from “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” our DVD series on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, presenting the 1 Timothy 2 passage in a nutshell:

(1) In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)

(2) Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine….he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) Read the rest of this post at my new blog address here.

Does God have one unique law - part one

2006-12-02T15:54:00.000-07:00

If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.

All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament. Read the rest of this post at my new blog location here.

Could the Messiah have been a woman?

2006-11-22T14:15:00.000-07:00

Since God is neither male nor female, some have suggested that the Messiah could have been born a female. I would respectfully like to differ with that view. In this post I want to show from scripture why the Messiah had to be a male. To read the rest of this blog entry please click here to go to my new blog address.

Adam as head of the family

2006-11-19T21:26:00.000-07:00

It is common for hierarchists to say that Adam was Eve’s head not because he was her source, but because he had an authority over her. While the teaching that Adam was Eve’s ruler before the fall of man is unsubstantiated, the fact that Adam was the source of Eve is foundational to the doctrine of the kinsman redeemer. Read the rest of the article here on my new blog address.

What women want

2006-11-14T22:55:00.000-07:00

In Genesis chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about her future. Unfortunately God’s words have been interpreted by male expositors in a way that makes God out to be a false prophet. In Genesis 3:16 in the NASB, God said “In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband”

After the fall, God speaks about the future. In the quote above, God says “you will”....

The rest of this post is at my new blog address. Click here to read the rest of "What women want".

Husband as Priest in the home?

2006-11-10T21:44:00.000-07:00

With the push towards defining biblical manhood and womanhood, often men are pressured into a leadership role where they feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Probably none more stressful than the title given to them as “Priest of the home”. But is this position biblical?

Nowhere in scripture is there to be a designated “priest of the home”. In Judges chapters 17 & 18 Micah, an idol worshipper, consecrated his son as a priest in his home (Judges 17:5) and he also persuaded a Levite to be his personal priest (Judges 17:7-13). This “priest of the home” was involved with idol worship (Judges 18:4, 14-20) and he was not set up as a “priest in the home” by God.

Read the rest of this article at my new blog site http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/11/husband-as-the-priest-of-the-home/

What is true headship?

2006-11-07T14:51:00.000-07:00

With all of the talk on submission of a wife, we should at least grant that submission is not related to suppression of God’s gifts. In other words if a woman is gifted to teach, her submission to her husband and her desire to honor him should not be a means to stop her from using her God-given gifts. My husband’s position as my head is “worked-out” by his sacrificing for me. He gives up his life for me in order to provide me every opportunity to use my gifts and in turn I honor him by serving him and stepping outside my comfort zone in service to the body of Christ because of his encouragement.

To read the rest of this post please go to my new blog at http://strivetoenter.com/wim

Godly women need to repent?

2006-10-26T22:28:00.000-06:00

My heart goes out to Pastors who are so engrained in tradition that they can easily justify sending godly women to hell. This past weekend I spoke with a Pastor from a denomination that does not believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men. I asked him several questions regarding his view and his answers were very eye-opening to me.

1. I asked him if there was a law that forbid godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men and he said yes. (Yet every law of God comes from God alone and is never put into the words of a man saying "I do not allow". God's laws are clear, understandable, enforceable and they always have a second or third witness because God's law are always repeated in scripture.)

2. I asked him if disobeying that "law" is sinning against God and he answered yes.

3. I asked him if I teach the bible to men and then do not repent of this sin before I die will I go to hell. He said yes.

Think about this. I will go to hell for teaching correct biblical doctrine. This has nothing to do immorality or a hatred of God. This has everything to do with operating in my God-given gifts. Yet this tradition says that I will go to hell for refusing to kick men out of my bible studies. I must act in a prejudicial way towards my dear brothers in Christ so that God doesn't send me to hell. How Satan must laugh at the church when our traditions have become a cause of separating brothers and sisters in Christ. Women have so much to give to the body of Christ and it is our desire to be allowed to share this knowledge with our brothers.

Audio on Women in Ministry

2006-10-25T22:07:00.000-06:00

I did a talk at an ex-Jehovah's Witness convention in Pennsylvania on October 20, 2006 on the issue of whether women can teach the bible to men. You can download a copy of the mp3 file here or listen online here.

Can complementarians agree to disagree?

2006-09-24T11:34:00.000-06:00

I sent a copy of our DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in February of 2006 and this summer I finally received a response. They have chosen at this point not to try to refute the video and have said that they will just agree to disagree. I think it is wonderful when Christians can have differing viewpoints and after working through their issues, at least agree to disagree. However in this case I am questioning whether that is really possible. I certainly can agree to disagree with them and still call them my brothers in Christ. However their position is that women who teach the bible to men are in sin. Can they agree to disagree when my brothers in Christ see me as living in unrepentant sin? I don't think they have that option.

When you see your brother in sin, scripture tells us what to do if we see our brother or sister in sin:

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.

So if one sees a Christian brother or sister in sin, they should try to restore that one to fellowship, right? Does this seem consistent with "let's just agree to disagree?" What verse would one point to that agrees that sin is merely a matter of agreeing to disagree?

What about this one - scripture says that the one who is born of God will not continue living a lifestyle of sin.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

So if a Christian brother accuses a sister in Christ of sinning against God by teaching the Bible to men, how is it consistent with scripture to "agree to disagree" and see the "sinning" sister as part of the fellowship of the body of Christ? How can the one practicing sin as a lifestyle be held in fellowship?

I certainly want to be gracious about this and to respect CBMW's position, but it seems inconceivable to me that an organization of Christian men dedicated to spreading the complementarian position and who sincerely believe that women are in sin for teaching the bible to men can ignore my request for dialogue. I have asked them for their comments on my exegesis and if they believe I am wrong then to show me where I am wrong. It's a no go. They aren't interested. They just want to "agree to disagree". Hmm....... Is that scriptural?

More thoughts at my new blog at www.strivetoenter.com/wim

New blog

2006-08-18T22:09:00.000-06:00

I have moved my blog to http://strivetoenter.com/wim/ This new address will make it easier to post a comment without having to have an account with blogger. See you there!

Isn't the Priesthood in the OT proof that God uses only men?

2006-07-07T08:42:00.000-06:00

Q: Isn't the fact that God only chose men for the Priesthood in the Old Testament proof that God only uses men in leadership? After all the Priesthood is equivalent to the Pastorhood in the church.

A: Although God originally started with only one tribe in Israel for the Priesthood and only the men from that one tribe were eligible, his intention was not for the Priesthood to stay with only one tribe and only the men. In Exodus 19:5-8, God makes a covenant with the nation of Israel. He says that if they obey his covenant, he will make them a holy nation and a kingdom of priests to him. In verse 6, God says that Moses is to speak to the "sons of Israel". The Hebrew word here means in the widest sense that includes the entire nation of Israel. So the priesthood was not meant to stay with only one tribe and with only the men. The priesthood was meant to extend to the entire nation.

We too as the church have been given the privilege of being a kingdom of priests. This is not limited to the men, but women as well are part of the priesthood. The historic Christian teaching is that the priesthood of the believers extends to every member of the body of Christ. So the OT priesthood that merely started with men cannot be used to exclude women from teaching the bible to the body of Christ because even the OT priesthood was never meant to stay with males alone.

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

2006-07-02T21:48:00.000-06:00

Q: Isn't there a law in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men? Why are you disregarding this law?

A: There are many who take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men and therefore forbids them from ministering in the church using their God-given gifts. However we need to test this “prohibition” to see if it is a situation in the Ephesian church (a local situation) that Paul is stopping or if it is a law that Paul is establishing for the body of Christ. Up until 1 Timothy 2 was written, there was not even one scripture that says that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men. Is Paul constructing a new law for the church? Well, let’s test that.

The Bible tells us that for a matter to be established or when a person is charged with sin, there must be two or three witnesses. Duet. 17:6 and Deut 19:15 establish the law that a charge of sin must be accompanied by two or three witnesses. Jesus confirmed this rule in Matthew 18:16 by expanding its use to the need to have two or three witnesses when one is establishing a fact that would bring a charge against a person. Later Jesus is accused by the Jews of not having a valid testimony because he is testifying about himself and that would make only one witness. One witness alone is invalid according to the OT law. In John 8:16-18 Jesus himself says that he has the required two or three witnesses to establish the validity of his testimony and so Jesus himself even submits to the law of two or three witnesses.

Paul also places himself under this requirement as he establishes in 2 Cor. 13:1 that his third visit to the Corinthians meets the requirement of the two or three witnesses in order to establish a fact. Then in Philippians 3:1 Paul tells us why it is so important to have the second or third witness. He says that it is a safeguard for the church.

I have noticed that this is indeed a safeguard for the church when the cults come at us with one scripture to try prove their point. Where is the second witness to establish a doctrine? I also have noted that no charge of sin and no law is ever established without at least the second witness. Whatever God has told us something that we are forbidden to do, you will never find it in scripture without the second witness. Why? Because there is safety in having the prohibition given with a second witness so that scripture is not taken out of context and without another support to establish the fact. That is God’s established way and a second witness is always there in scripture when God has established a law for us to follow.

So here we are at 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Those who say that this prohibits women from teaching the bible to men are left without a second witness. Which second scripture gives a second witness and says that women cannot teach men? Why is there no second witness? Every law that God established has a second witness and if 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a law then this is the only law that does not have the second witness and that is out of God's order and therefore invalid. This doesn’t of course mean that the passage has no meaning - it just means that it does not have a universal meaning of a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. No second witness = no law. We cannot get around this because it is God’s law to have a second witness and this is for our safety.

Wasn't Adam the only one given God's prohibition in the garden?

2006-07-02T21:39:00.000-06:00

Q: Does the fact that Adam was the only one given God's prohibition in the garden prove that he was given a role of authority that the women was not given?

A: This is a common question and comes from a common misconception about the text in Genesis 2. However scripture does not say that Adam alone was given God's prohibition in the garden and that he had authority over Eve. Let's have a look at scripture to see what it actually says. In Genesis chapter two, God gives the prohibition to Adam saying "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Now who told Eve what she could eat and what she was not allowed to eat? Nowhere does it say that Adam told her so why do we assume that it was Adam and not God himself? The reason is because we have been taught the tradition that Adam alone was given God's word and because he was the only one who heard directly from God, this means he has an authority that the woman does not have. This translates into a teaching that the man alone has the "doctrinal guardianship of the church".

Let's look at scripture carefully to see if this is true. In Genesis 3:3 Eve says concerning the forbidden fruit, "God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." Now the first thing that we notice is that there is something additional here in Eve's repeating of the commandment that is not included in the prohibition to Adam. She said "neither shall you touch it". Some say that she added her own thoughts or interpretation to what she heard Adam tell her. Others say that Eve added to the words of God that Adam gave her. Let take these options and test them by the word of God.

Could Eve's words be her own interpretation of God's command so that she added her own thought "this means I shouldn't even touch the fruit"? According to the inspired words, this is not possible. Why? Because the inspired words say "neither shall you touch it, lest you die." If Eve was quoting her own thoughts she would have said "neither shall I touch it". She would not have talked about herself in the third person. The inspired words show that she is not adding her own personal thoughts, but attributing this quote to God because the inspired word says "you".

The next option that we need to consider, is did Eve add to God's word? That is a very serious charge. God tell us several times in his word that we are not allowed to add to his words. Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 commands us not to add to his commands and Proverbs 30:6 says "Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar".

Would a perfect, sinless woman be guilty of adding to God's words? What reason did she have to lie about what God said? There was no reason for her to lie and add to God's words what he did not say. Also God did not reprimand her for adding to his word and he did not find her to be a liar. Eve was not proved to be a liar, so this theory cannot be right. So what is the remaining option that we have?

The only other option we have is to believe the testimony of the first woman who spoke the words in her sinless, perfect condition. Her testimony is that God spoke these words. The words of God are quoted two ways in scripture. They are either quoted directly as God spoke them, or else they are quoted by the person as a testimony that God said...

Eve said "God said..." and she quoted the words that God gave her. These words are slightly different than what God told Adam, because God knew that the woman would be tempted if she touched the fruit, so for her, he also told her not to even touch the fruit, lest it she be tempted to eat. Why is it that we do not believe Eve? It is because it is easier for us to believe that Eve lied about what God said, than to believe that she too heard the prohibition from God. You see, if Eve also heard directly from God, then Adam had no more authority than she did. And if Adam had no more authority with the word of God than the woman did, then the foundation of the teaching that the man alone has been given the responsibility of teaching doctrine to the church because only the man was given God's words in the garden of Eden, is torn down.

Did God speak directly to Eve? It is her testimony that he did. Which option will you choose to believe - that a perfect woman without sin, without provocation and without reason, chose to lie to the serpent about what God said, or will you choose to believe the words of scripture as they are written, that God spoke to the woman and that from creation on, men and women are spiritually equal and have equal authority regarding God's word?

WIM on line with free introduction clip

2006-05-22T15:01:00.000-06:00

"Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" now has a free introduction clip on line at www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm

Doesn't 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?

2006-04-06T15:54:00.000-06:00

Q: In WIM you say that 1 Timothy 1:3 "charge some that they teach no other doctrine" means people male or female. However isn't the technical grammar of "some" as singular masculine?

A: This is an excellent question and I am glad that you asked this. Although 1 Timothy 1:3 has a generic meaning of male or female, the fine points of the grammar show that the Greek is singular masculine. However this grammar does not exclude females. You see this exact same grammar is used multiple times regarding salvation and the general body of Christ and although these passages are also singular masculine, they include both male and female. Let me give you an example. 2 Timothy 3:17 says:

"so the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Who is the man of God? The Greek word is anthropos which means human being and it is again a generic term, but the technical grammar is also singular masculine. Now we ask, does the church believe that this verse is only for men or are women included too? Women are included of course and the singular masculine form of the generic word for human being in no way excludes women. Here is another. John 6:51 says:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever..."

Who is the anyone that Jesus says can partake of him? The Greek term for anyone is a generic term again meaning male or female, and once again the technical grammar is singular masculine. Now we ask, are only males allowed to partake of Jesus? Of course not! The singular masculine again in no way excludes women. So when we go back to 1 Timothy 1:3 we see that the generic term for human beings with the singular masculine is not restricting the false deceived teachers to men. In fact we see a false teacher who is female in chapter 2 and this one Paul says is deceived as Eve was.

One last example. Matthew 9:38 says:

"Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest."

Now who is it that we are to pray for? Are there only to be male laborers in the harvest field? The Greek term for laborers means "workmen". The Greek is in the plural masculine. The church has always believed and taught that all Christians - male and female are part of the laborers. Should we now say that the plural masculine term here excludes women? Never! I rest my case.

Isn't it a sin for a woman to teach men?

2006-03-19T20:53:00.000-07:00

Q: Doesn't Paul's command in 1 Timothy 2:12 for women not to teach men show that to disobey this command is a sin?

A: That's a great question. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we need to determine what the command is and who the command is to. To determine these two things, we refer you back to the section on 1 Timothy 2:12 in the DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" Now to the question about sin. If one interprets this passage as meaning that all women are not allowed to teach the bible to men, then one would have a very serious dilemma about the charge of sin in this passage. The dilemma is that every single sin that is enunciated in scripture is always confirmed at least once. The reason is that there must be at least two or three witnesses for a matter to be established (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). So, let's look at scripture. Is there any confirmation in scripture that lists women teaching the bible to men as a sin? No. There is not even one place in scripture that says that a woman who teaches the bible to men is in sin. Why is this important? The reason that this is so important is that to impute sin to a woman for merely teaching God's word to men is a very serious matter. God never violates his word and he has already told us that in the matter of sin, there must be at least two witnesses. Yet there is no second witness about this "sin". If there is no second witness about the sin charged to a woman for her disobedience by teaching men, then either God's word goofed on this one or the interpretation that women are commanded by God to not teach the bible to men is not accurate. We submit that God's Word did not make a mistake. The fact that there is no second scripture that charges women with sin by teaching the bible to men proves that this interpretation cannot be right. For those of our brothers in Christ who believe that Paul is commanding something for all women to abstain from or be charged with sin, we simply ask them to prove from scripture the second witness or withdraw the accusation of sin to women who are part of the body of Christ but whom God has called to teach the entire body of Christ.

Isn't "a woman" from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is "generic woman"?

2006-03-13T20:57:00.000-07:00

Q: You say that “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11 & 12 is the same terminology as Paul calling “a man” living in sin in 1 Corinthians 5. Wouldn’t you have to admit that the normal grammatical reading in 1 Corinthians 5 which says that Paul is talking about a particular man, not “all men”, is clearer there than in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 talking about “a woman” not meaning “all women”?

A: Absolutely, yes, I agree. That is why the 1 Corinthian 5 passage is not considered a difficult passage. 1 Timothy 2 has many difficult elements and it has been considered a difficult passage throughout church history. However for one to insist that “a woman” is generic woman or “all women” in verses 11 & 12 one would have to disregard the clear tie that Paul makes to the first deceived woman in verse 14 & his indisputable reference to “she” in verse 15. We choose not to disregard any part of the passage or any part of the grammar and we believe that the entire passage is inspired with the exact words and grammar that the Holy Spirit wanted to convey to show that “a woman” is a single deceived woman in Ephesus.

Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?

2006-03-13T20:11:00.000-07:00

Q: In your section on 1 Timothy 2, you state that Adam saw some of the animals being created, perhaps the mates of the animals already created on day six. However, says that God had formed "all of the beasts" (NIV) or "every beast" (NASB). Wouldn’t you say that it's a stretch to say that means "some" animals were formed when Genesis says that God formed every beast?

A: As we documented in WIM from Hebrew scholars, Genesis shows a second creation of the animals after Adam was created. Although these could have been the mates to the animals created earlier in the day, it certainly could have been both male and female of all of the kinds of animals. We do know that every animal was created after Adam and the point that we make is not which animals are created after Adam (whether they are male or female or both) but the fact that there are animals created after Adam allowing him to be the only one in all of human history to see creation first-hand.

Q: You make mention that it's likely the animals Adam saw created were the mates because on day six in chapter 1 the animals were not told to be fruitful and multiply. However, the birds created on day five were told to "be fruitful and increase in number". The birds are referred to in the same breath as the beasts: "Now the LORD God had formed...all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." How can we differentiate between the two when the verse itself doesn't?

A: This verse doesn't differentiate between the two, but the actions of God after their original creation does differentiate them (birds were told to be fruitful, but the animals were not). However for the point of argument, we will stick to what we know from scripture not what we can speculate. We know for sure from Genesis 2:19 that God formed these animals and then (the wording connects the next action) brought them to Adam. These were not the exact same animals that God originally spoke into existence in chapter one although they are the same kinds of animals. God created all kinds of animals at the beginning of day 6 and then created more of the same kind after Adam. This is not too hard to understand at all. After all God did the same thing with humans. God created the first of the kind of humans (the man) and then much later in the day he created the same kind (human) but in a different way (from Adam's side - not from the dirt). If God did a separate creation of the same kind in two different creative acts with humans, surely it cannot be hard to conceive that God can do the same thing with the animals (as He says he did). The original animals were not formed by God from the dirt but were spoken into existence. The second set of animals (of the same kind) were created differently. They were formed from the dirt and then brought directly to Adam. This we know from scripture and there is no contradiction here, just a similar action with the animals as God does shortly with man. Creation at different times and in different ways

Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?

2006-03-13T19:43:00.000-07:00

Q: It also seems that 1 Timothy 2:15 is crucial for your interpretation. The word 'she' is a definite point in your favor. However, without this verse (being that it's very difficult historically) do you think you'd have the strength in your argument as you do now?

A: Yes, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very strong point in our argument. It is very important because Paul draws all his conclusions that he has systematically defended in the previous verses, and ties them all together in this one verse. Many Pastors will be blunt and say that they have no idea why Paul put this verse in the passage. When tradition is held to instead of a systematic verse-by-verse exegesis, this verse sticks out like a sore thumb. The fact that one cannot find any person to attach the “she” to from verse 15 unless one interprets verses 11 & 12 as a single woman in the congregation is highly important. You are correct in the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired both the “she” and the “they” in verse 15 and this has been ignored in church history. Without this understanding verse 15 has been deemed confusing and out of place in the context. However when we can find a person to attach the “she” to, the passage all of a sudden starts to make perfect sense in the complete context of chapters 1 and 2 of 1 Timothy.

However with all of that said, the question you asked is if our argument would not be as strong an argument without the grammar from verse 15. Without this verse (the conclusion that Paul draws to his previous statements) we would have to rely solely on the fact that the traditional interpretation of 'a woman' being generic woman, or all women past, present and future, causes the passage to contradict other clear passages and it has caused a very unhealthy tradition or attitude in the church. John Piper brings it out very succinctly. He says that up until about 15 years ago, this passage was interpreted as meaning that women were created as ones who are easily deceived. Yet, that is not even holding to the passage in the proper literal sense. Paul didn't say Eve was deceivable. He said that Eve was deceived. Therefore to hold to the literal interpretation, if Paul meant 'a woman' to be 'all' women, we would have to hold to the teaching that all women are deceived and therefore not to be relied on for doctrinal integrity. If Paul meant deceivable he certainly would have said that. The key point is that scripture is talking about someone who is deceived not someone who is defective and thus could be easily deceived. I say let's just stick to scripture and not make it say what we want it to say. It says 'deceived' and the Holy Spirit gives us the end result of this deception, as far as the salvation of the deceived goes, in verse 15.

Wasn't the garden created before Adam was created?

2006-03-13T15:19:00.000-07:00

Q: Doesn’t Genesis 2:8 simply say that God had already planted a garden and then put man into it after he was formed? Don’t the following verses then go on to describe what the garden was composed of, not a sequential account of the garden being formed after the man? If 2:8 says there was a garden that God put man in, but he hadn't yet created the vegetation for it, how could it be called a garden? It's not a garden until we see green stuff. But as a summary statement, it is simple to see that the vegetation and animals and garden were all in place, and then God put man in it. Adam didn't witness it.

A: A garden is a garden not because of the green stuff that you see, but because of what has been planted. We can see that very clearly even today. I can go out into my back yard and prepare the soil and plant a garden. My neighbor won’t come by and tell me that I haven’t planted a garden just because he can’t see any green stuff. The fact that it is called a garden even before the green vegetation is seen.

Now regarding your statement that Genesis 2:8 is a summary statement of what has already happened, that is not possible in the Hebrew construction. There is no mention of the garden before. Now remember that this is not my interpretation but is the precise grammar of the Hebrew and is explained very clearly in the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics” that I quoted in WIM. This book was written by Bible translators and I think their understanding of Hebrew should be pretty good, don't you think? This book came as a result of a seminar that was held on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew in Dallas, Texas in June 1993. Of the ninety or so persons present, about sixty were working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators and other societies, whose main vocation is translating the Bible into languages (often of peoples not yet literate) in various part of the world....The other thirty participants were linguists and biblical scholars from all over the world. I think that we should be able to trust the grammar of these 90 scholars who make their living translating the Bible.

Another very important resource is the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. It was produced a few hundred years before Christ and was often quoted by Christ and his disciples. In the English version of the Septuagint we can clearly see that the translation of the Hebrew shows a subsequent creation of both plants and animals after Adam’s creation. In Genesis 2:8 it says

And God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and He placed the man there whom He had formed.

It is clear from this translation that man had already been formed when God planted the garden. The formation of animals after Adam is also clear. In Genesis 2:19 it says:

And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and He brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living creature, that was its name.

It is clear from the Septuagint that the animals were “formed yet farther” (a second act of animal creation) out of the earth after Adam’s creation and the garden was planted after Adam was created.

If you would like to see the English copy of the Septuagint on Genesis 2 you can access it here
http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/g01genesis/g01c02.pdf

Is there no distinction between male and female?

2006-03-12T19:23:00.000-07:00

Q: Some feminists say that there is no distinction to be made between male and female. Is this what you believe?

A: One of the biggest deceptions that Satan has brought into the women's issue is that equality = sameness. That is not what we believe or teach. You may have noticed in the last section of WIM that I say that equality does not mean unisex. Women are different than men and that is the way that God planned it. Woman was created to meet a man's need. Men need women because women are different than men and were made to complement him and to complete him. A man and a woman together in marriage are a union of two equals but not a union of two of the exact same things. Women think differently, react differently and have different emotional needs. Satan has confused matters by bringing ungodly women into the secular women's movement who not only have hijacked that movement and taken it onto a pathway of evil but who usurp God's authority in creation and teach that men and women are the same. By their ungodly and unnatural teaching they uphold the sinful position of those who want to propagate same sex unions. Again the lie of the devil is that equality = sameness.

Recommendations for WIM

2006-03-11T18:14:00.000-07:00

Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?" as a whole is a very well produced and presented multi-media teaching series on the legitimacy and freedom of women to be in any ministry that God should call them to. The instructor is knowledgeable, very presentable, and articulate. The series presents serious biblical exegesis and research on a number of texts that are often quoted as evidence that women's roles and opportunities in ministry are limited. Taken all together I find this series to be very relevant and helpful and therefore cannot be passed off lightly....This series can go a long way to giving women the freedom to pursue ministry as God calls them and to answer the concern and questions of others.

I can recommend MM Outreach ministries and would be privileged to do so.

-Rev. Robert Guthrie, B.Th. M.A. Instructor in Biblical Studies and Church History Vanguard College, Edmonton, Alberta

In a world where many secular societies have seen the equality and value of women in leadership roles, too often religions have been slow to make the same transition. Biblically, Christ "tore down the middle wall of partition" that separated men and women, yet still, many Christian denominations and organizations maintain an error-filled perspective concerning women in ministry. As "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" clearly exposes the truth of God's word, each individual who wants balanced instruction in this vital area of teaching will discover that God's word is not vague nor is it indifferent about the role of women and their God-given ministries.

Those who have felt confused or restrained will find instead great freedom and a sound stance that upholds truth and extends endorsement for all women who choose to serve Christ in leadership and teaching roles.

...(the) series was well-prepared and with good documentation! Well done!

-Pastor Wayne McNeilly/Evangel Pentecostal Assembly, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.

Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

Women in Ministry is a well-researched, well-presented series on the role of women in the church today. Cheryl Schatz has done her homework in a very thorough and thought-provoking manner. She brings to our attention the pertinent scriptural teaching that helps us see the freedom women are given by the Lord for leadership in the church and the exercise of their God-given spiritual gifts.

The material is presented in an engaging format. From the very beginning the viewer is drawn in with excellent graphics and video clips. Cheryl is a gifted Bible teacher.

This series is a must-see for those who seriously want to know what the Bible teaches on the role of women in the church today.

Rev. Bob Carroll
Church Planting Pastor
The Link Christian Community
Edmonton, Alberta

Scriptures Showing Women in the Ministry are Missing

2006-03-11T18:10:00.000-07:00

Q: Why did you not list in WIM all the scriptures that show women properly leading and serving God in both the New Testament and the Old Testament?

A: This DVD set is specifically about the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women from ministering to the entire body of Christ. Although listing all the scriptures that show women's ability and calling to minister wherever God calls them is important, these scriptures alone do not adequately explain what appears to be a roadblock to women's ministry - namely the hard passages of scripture. WIM deals with all the hard passages in a way that makes them understandable and allows the scriptures to be read without contradiction.

Introduction

2006-03-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

"Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" (WIM) is a very visual way to learn to understand the hard passages of scripture concerning women in ministry. However I felt that it would also be helpful to have an interactive way to answer questions that have arisen from those who have viewed the DVD teaching series. This blog will give readers the ability to see what questions others have asked concerning WIM and the teaching on the hard passages of scripture.

If you have any comments or questions you may post them for others to see or for me to answer. I do expect that you will be courteous and dialogue in a respectful manner.