Cheryl Schatz

katz,

Welcome to my blog and this forum!

As far as talking outside of the comp/egal framework, I would hope that I am able to do that as an apologist and “normal” Christian. You will find me arguing against a particular egal position if I can see that it doesn’t fit. The reality is that the text should be what is key, not a parochial mindset that limits ones view to the establishment’s “truth”.

Thanks for your comments.

Nicole,

The 12 twelve also correspond to the 12 in the OT. All building stones in a patriarchal society. I have no problem with that and I do see that God makes some concessions like polygamy and slavery were not fully condemned as they could be helpful during evil times when widows would starve without a husband.

Ylenia,
Thanks for your kind comments!

Kay,
I have prayed for your area concerning the ice storm and I encourage others to do so too.

Mark,

You said:

1. You quote Macarthur but ignore his clear expression ‘can mean…’ because elsewhere in scripture it does function the way he says.

I don’t know how you are reading what I write, but I didn’t ignore MacArthur’s “can mean”. In fact his quote that says:

The normal meaning of pastor is “shepherd,” so the two functions together define the teaching shepherd.

…I summarized as:

In other words in MacArthur’s world a pastor is the teacher.

Since it is you that has identified me as ignoring MacArthur’s words, then you would do well to prove where I ignored his words or his conclusion. I do not believe that I have done that.

You also said:

Now obviously the context will decide which best description for ‘kai’ it will be in Eph 4. So Macarthur is not wrong to suggest his interpretation because scripture agrees elsewhere with him. That is your first fundamental mistake.

While the grammar can have two nouns where only one has the definite article and they are joined together with “kai”, and it references one person, then the two nouns must refer to that one person. A good example of this is when Jesus is called the Lord and Savior. Both Lord and Savior must refer to Jesus.

But it is different when it is plural and no one person to refer back to. Ephesians 4 says teachers and pastors – plural. They can have a common function but it is not possible to meld them together in this passage as if one cannot be a teacher without being a pastor. Other examples of the correct reference to two nouns for one person does not fit in this passage. Also the fact that “teachers” are not ever attached to “pastors” but are on their own is another very strong case against removing women’s gifts as teachers.

You also said:

2. Your ‘other’ examples of the two nouns being governed by the one article are slightly diffenrent to Eph 4:11. In both the texts you cited both nouns (pharisees/scribes, chief priests/scribes) are being compared against something. In Matt 5 they are governed around the ‘righteousness’ and in Matt 2 they are fitting around the ‘gathering together’.

Sorry but this won’t help you. The issue is not about the other thoughts in the text but about whether the two nouns that have one definite article and joined together with “kai” are equated as melded into one “thing”. I have proven that it cannot be in other instances. Whatever else is going on, whether a list of other gifts or a comparison or righteousness does not negate the grammar. The grammar is identical and it was interesting to see you try to wiggle out of it. Good try but it is not my “mistake”.

You said:

Now in EPh 4 we do not have this grammatical set-up. Clearly the pastor/teacher association is supposed to be more than you are suggesting. This is your second mistake.

Sorry, but it isn’t “clear” in Ephesians 4:11 that there is no teacher who isn’t a pastor. There is no second witness of such a “clear” reading of this passage and the fact that God has gifted many women as teachers who may not also be gifted as evangelists or pastors also removes the legs from your argument. You cannot just say “it is so” and then fail to give any evidence at all to back up your view just won’t work. I am glad that you are still trying. But I wish you have something that would challenge us to look at your view.

Mark, you said:

Also you have failed to address why Paul uses ‘kai’ in between Pastors and teachers, where as with the apostles/prophets/evangelist he uses ‘de’ instead.

Paul uses different conjunctions in lists. For example see 1 Cor. 12:28.

1 Corinthians 12:28 (NASB95)
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

In Paul’s list he has an ordinal before three gifts, and he connects the next couple with “then”, but the last three gifts have no ordinals and no connecting “then”. They are simply listed together without anything that would separate them. Are we to assume that gifts of healings, helps and administrations are all tied together so that one cannot have one gift without having them all? I don’t think that would be wise to assume. While there are different ways of connecting gifts, we cannot disregard any one gift just because of there is or isn’t an ordinal and there is or isn’t the word “then”.

The fact is that there are different ways to connect lists and using different connectors in the same sentence doesn’t mean that we can cut out one gift and attach it to another gift. It is going to take real proof before one removes a gift like this from the Holy Spirit’s ability to gift women.

Frank,
Thanks for the warm thoughts and for sharing the thoughts from Aida Besancon Spencer’s column in MUTUALITY. I do think that we can set up a strong defense where we cover each other’s backs. One faces one way and has a defense there and another faces in the other direction and covers that line of defense.

I like to look at things frontward and backward and upside down and sideways because there are many good things that we can miss if we only look at a “problem” from one angle. When we present a strong defense in a difference way, we are like water buffaloes who stand back to back with our heads and horns pointed towards the opposition and our vulnerable “back ends” meeting together in the inner circle. I never think that having one good answer is enough. If we can look at the problem through many different angles we are likely to reach people who have dismissed one line of reasoning and have never thought through another line. Together we are much stronger than we are separately. That is what is so wonderful about the body of Christ! We are in this together.

Mabel,
Although John was prophesied to come as a prophet to make the way straight for the Messiah he wasn’t mentioned in the NT first as a prophet. Anna was listed as the first named prophet in the NT although Simeon did give a prophecy about the baby Jesus, he was not said to be a prophet. It is certainly astonishing that God would use a woman in so many “first” ways. It proves that He values women enough to use them and in special ways He sets them up as “first”.

Mabel, that was a good challenge for us to think about!

Jessica,
I am sorry that I have not had time to come to the blog and welcome you. I hope you feel at home here.

You are absolutely right in that Jesus did give a revelation to Martha as well about being the Christ. Your other two points were very well reasoned. Good thoughts!

Hi Mark,
Thanks for touching base. Computer problems, eh? Boy do I relate to that! One year we had three computer crashes on three different computers. I lost a lot of material and shed a lot of tears.

I look forward to you joining in our conversation again as you have time.

I am not going to the CBE conference in Australia. My life is too full right now. I am working on the research end of a new DVD and I have a book in the works that has a due date so it too is a priority.

Thanks Frank!

Thanks Mabel!

Kay,
Excellent point!

I have also been trying to help Mark understand that “teacher” is a gift and “elder” is a work that one can aspire to. A gift is not the same as a work. As a gift, a teacher is gifted and empowered by the Creator who is not held back in His ability to empower one gender. As a good work, all are told that they may aspire to the work of overseer or elder. If God had desired to limit Himself through holding back His gifts and empowerment to women, then these debates would never happen. The void in the gift of teacher in the lives of women would be reason enough to consider this a dead issue. But thankfully the debate is on and heating up because:

1. The Scripture never lists women as vessels who may not receive certain gifts or may not aspire to the work of an overseer.

2. There are women in the body of Christ who are so incredibly gifted that their giftedness by the Holy Spirit is not questioned even by most complementarians.

Off topic: We had a cougar attack in our back yard night before last. A cougar stalked and attacked a deer in our yard and then dragged him under our utility trailer where he ate the most tender parts of his innards. Good thing we leave our late night walking to summer evenings. It is frightening to know that we had this kind of predator so close.

Mark,

To my above statement you probably answered it by this

“Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have never said that teaching is the same as pastoring. Nor have I said that prophesying is the same as teaching. We have both agreed that one who prophesies will teach in the act of using their gift, but prophesying is different than teaching just as the gift of Prophet is different than the gift of Teacher. Are you really sure you understand my position?”

I guess it is easy to get confused when we keep using terms interchangeably.

Well, Mark, it seems like you are the one using the terms interchangeably not me. I am not the one who says that a teacher is a pastor (or evangelist). A teacher is a teacher.

You said “If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone.”

Are you agreeing with me here that only men should be pastors?

No I am not agreeing with you. Here again you are using a term interchangeably which causes confusion. I said “teacher”. I did not say “pastor”. You are the one who makes “teacher” as part of an amalgamated gift. The gifts may have something in common, but they are not amalgamated.

Mark, you quoted my comment below and also said:

“But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.

Cheryl your above comment shows your definite bias and deliberate intent not to understand their position. Unless you realise this, you will never be able to dialogue unhindered. I’m sure the majority of comps aswell as egals believe that waht they say is biblical truth not about authority and kingly rights. Of course people will always be deceived by their own sin and self-righteousness but your above comment really speaks of your position. Now i do understand you better. Please try and dialogue with me without having these assumptions about me.

Mark, I think you may want to take the time to read the blog post that I gave you the link to on this site. I can tell from your comment that you did not read it. First of all, I said “many men”. I did not say you believed this. You are reading into my comment a personal comment about you, but if you just re-read my comment above you will see that I did not assume things about you.

Also my comment is not about my bias. My comment was about what many comp men have been taught about their privilege. So that you don’t have to page back to the link here it is again http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/ Also in this post I link to an online chapter at cbmw called The husband as prophet, priest and king here http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/buildingstrongfamilies/husband_as_prophet.pdf If you had read this material, I don’t think that you would have made your comment above.

You quoted me and then commented:

Finally you asked me “What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?”

What i mean is when we come to 1 Cor 12 for example and see the gift of ‘teacher’ it needs to be understood in relation to the other listings of gifts. So in Eph we both agree Paul correlates it to a pastor. So by separating them extensively i mean emphasising a ‘teacher’ as something without keeping in mind Pauls other use of the term.

So even though Paul mentioned “teacher” without amalgamating it with another gift in 1 Cor 12, we are not supposed to see this as a separate gift but it must be amalgamated with pastor? I do not agree with you that Paul “correlates” teacher to pastor.

Correlate means “mutually or reciprocally related” but that is not true of teacher and pastor. They have overlapping functions but they are not corresponding gifts. They are different gifts that have some areas that overlap in function. It kind of bothers me that you take the words that I use and redefine them by replacing them with different words. This is unfair.

When we read one verse alone and emphasise something about it without looking at all relevant passages we could get in trouble.

What kind of trouble? You mean we might think that a woman could actually have the gift of a teacher? That would only be trouble for complementarians who have already limited God in His ability to gift women at His own discretion.

That is why so many scholars associate a ‘teacher’ with an evangelist and/or pastor. It is keeping the whole bible in view rather than mis-representing one verse.

Misrepresenting one verse? Saying that a teacher is one gift that is not interchangeable with another gift is misrepresenting one verse? Oh my, you have really gone overboard to try to remove women from receiving and using a gift. Why are you so intent on doing this? Does having a woman being a teacher threaten you in some way? If you were wrong in your view, would you really want to know it or are you content with having all the teachers in the church being gifted by God as only men?

Mark,
Continuing on with the answers to your comment #84, and by the way if I didn’t thank you before, I really do appreciate that you are trying to answer my questions. Many others would have left without even trying to provide an answer so you are to be commended.

You wrote:

You said “But all elders are supposed to be teaching”

Now do you mean what this seems to mean that all elders teach or are supposed to be teaching? 1 Tim 3 says a qualification for an elder is that they are ‘able to teach’,…

As I answered in a previous comment, the Greek shows that all elders are to be skillful or gifted in teaching. Should a person that has the gifting as a teacher refuse to use his/her gift?

…but yet Paul says 2 chapters later in 5:17 that ‘elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching’. So the assumption is not all will teach yet they should be ‘able to teach’.

That would be an incorrect assumption from the passage. All are to be skillful in teaching but not all will labour in both preaching and teaching. Those who have a double duty so have a double honor.

See the difference? IS this why you don’t like discussing elders because of Pauls correlation between them shepharding and preaching and teaching and that he only instructs men to take this resposibilty.

There is no difference. The Bible doesn’t say that some elders are not to be skillful in teaching or not encouraged to use (not hide) their gift. I don’t like talking about elders when we are talking about gifts. An elder is not a gift. It is a work that one may desire to attain to. It is not helpful to the conversation to mix up the two.

I have to say that i don’t know why you dodge discussions on eldership. I know you say we are discussing gifts, but it seems silly to discuss gifts that are enormously important for the church without discussing leadership responsibilities. Is it because the two don’t mesh with your view? Are gifts a safer argument for you? Since often gifts and natural abilities are so often confused.

As I said it is not helpful to confuse a gift and a work that one may attain to. Once we have an understanding of what a gift is and who God may gift, then there will not be confusion and we can talk about leadership of those who are gifted.

You quoted me below and then responded:

You said “Do you believe that God can gift women as pastors? Or do you believe that God is limited in His work of giving out His gifts? Are you willing to answer this question that has been posed to you many times or are you going to bypass it one more time?”

No i will not answer this question because im not going to pretend i am God. I will answer questions in relation to His revealed truth, but i will not sin by making myself an idol before my Lord. Please direct you questions in a way that is not leading or loaded?

Mark, I see this as skirting the issue. It is not a sin to give glory to God by allowing Him to be Sovereign over His own gifts. How on earth is one “making myself an idol” by answering whether God has made any comment on whether He will or will not withhold His gifts from some due to gender? The fact is that you have already made it clear that women cannot be teachers so you are already setting yourself up as making God unable to use women by gifting them. How you explain the obvious spiritual gifts of women is really beyond me. Do you also doubt that God can give the gift of teaching to an unmarried men since an elder must be “the husband of one wife”? Using the “answer” that one can’t answer a question because it would be “making myself an idol” could be well used by any who would like to avoid the hard questions. I wouldn’t use it myself but I can see how many would find it handy.

You asked “If I am wrong, then do you now admit that one who prophesies is a teacher?”

No i do not think a prophet is a ‘teacher’ because Paul seperates the gifts. Like i said earlier im sure the NT prophets ‘taught’ things but it does not make them now have the gift of a ‘teacher’ necessarily. Are you now mashing prophecy and teaching after accusing me of doing it?

I was just trying to clarify what you were saying. You are not very clear in your view. I do agree with you that Paul “separates the gifts”. I would also add that each gift is different and each gift is not inseparably attached to another gift.

Thanks Kay and Mara!

Mark,
There is more of your post for me to respond to, but I have run out of time today so I will try to finish tomorrow.

Mark,
You quoted me below and then commented:

“Actually using such a term distorts the NT teachings which show that there is a common “class” of Christians. All Christians are brothers in Christ and no one can lord it over another and because leaders are to be servants, there is no such thing as “offices” which would divide the body into clergy class and laity. Christians are one class not two.”

You have a very negative attitude toward leadership it seems.

Oh? What evidence do you have from my comment above for such a statement?

But i disagree that it is unhelpful using certain terminology to explain things. What would you label elders and deacons as if you dislike the word ‘office’.

I would use the term that Paul uses ergou which means “work, task or undertaking”.

I definitely agree that leaders are to be servants though. The difference i guess is that i don’t think using the word ‘office’ negates that belief.

Why use it when we have a Biblical term to use? The term office is not there.

Also the reality is that we are all called to submit to our church leaders as men who will have to give an account.

This is Hebrews 13:17. We are to “peithesthe” those who “hegoumenois” (those who lead) which means we are to allow ourselves to be persuaded or convinced by those who lead as they will give an account to God of their leadership. (They will not give an account of us, but of their own work).

So what is your point about Hebrews 13:17? Are you willing to be persuaded by those who lead with their gifts? Do you allow them to use their gifts for your benefit and to protect you in a way that you need or do you fight their leading in their gifts and cause them grief along with no profit for you?

Hebrews 13:17…Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

You said:

Maybe you prefer the term ‘chosen ones’ rather than office :-). I have to say i disagree with you on this one. Yes there were 12 apostles chosen as the founding members of the church (Eph 2:20) but i would call this the ‘apostolic office’.

Why should we care what you call them if you are unable to prove that the Bible calls this an “office”?

The reason being there are other passages which call James and Barnabas ‘apostles’ but they were not ‘apostles’ in the same sense i mentioned above.

We can all agree that the 12 were special having been handpicked by Jesus as apostles of His resurrection and the foundation stones of the church, but to call this an “office” when the Scripture calls them apostles and witnesses of the resurrection doesn’t make sense. If we stick to what Scripture actually says we shouldn’t go wrong. When we change a work to an “office” we can become mistaken and find ourselves grieving the Holy Spirit by rejecting those whom God has called and gifted.

I’d be interested to know if you believe this gift has ceased to be given?

The special apostles who were witnesses to the resurrection will never be ongoing since Jesus is no longer showing up here on the earth in bodily form.

You quoted me below and then replied:

“Really? You pointed to Ephesians 4:11 and tied it to 1 Timothy 3:1. There is no problem with people “shepherding” but there is only one gift of “pastor”.”

You have misunderstood me and i will take the blame because i now see i didn’t explain myself clearly. What i meant was not all elders are pastors. But i do believe they both have the same responsibilty of shepharding the flock.

While you can claim that there are elders who are not to be gifted as teachers, is it not true that you believe all “teaching elders” are pastors? Therefore “teaching elder” = “pastor/teacher”?

Mark, it seems like it takes a lot of work to understand you. Do you consider yourself a gifted teacher? Are you training to be a “teaching elder” or “pastor/teacher”?

Mark,
You said:

I disagree in the fact that i believe a pastor is a teacher aswell. The very gift of a pastor necessitates an ability to teach.

Which verse says that a pastor (not an elder since we are talking about gifts here not work that can be applied for) must be a teacher?

The catch phrase “they are a good pastor but a bad teacher” i disagree with. Someone who shephards the flock but doesn’t teach is an elder.

The Bible says that an elder is to be “able to teach”. The Greek term for “able to teach” is one word and it is didaktikon. It literally means “skillful in teaching”. That is gifted. An elder must be gifted in teaching. There is no such thing as an elder that is not gifted in teaching.

Someone who shephards the flock and teaches is a pastor in my opinion.

I would rather have the Biblical interpretation than your own opinion without citing Scripture. And the Bible never says that God will only gift men with some gifts. The very fact that there are women who have the gift of “teacher” and there are also many gifted as “pastors” (and many complementarians will readily admit that women are gifted with this gift) puts the onus on those who want to reject God’s gifts.

Now about a prophet teaching i cant say because i have never seen this gift before, but i have no doubt it did have elements of ‘teaching’ in it as it was inspired by the spirit for the early church. Have you ever seen a prophet?

I have heard sermons by people which were obvious that they were gifted prophets. One of my favorite comp teachers gave a message that even those who deny that this gift operates today, show these gifts operating in themselves even if they deny it. The pastor that I often listen to showed how John MacArthur was operating in the gift of prophet as they went through the Scriptures, yet MacArthur himself denies that this gift exists today. The denial of the gifts doesn’t stop them from operating in us. God’s gifts are without repentance and even if we don’t understand how we are operating in these gifts, they can still flow through us.

The question, though, is not about “teaching” but about being a gifted teacher. Women are gifted teachers. What do you do about that?

Mark,
You said:

You asked “Are women allowed to be “teachers” in the church?”

Now it is important to remember that we are discussing the bible not what ‘I’ allow or disallow. Perhaps you mean do i believe the bible teaches that women will be ‘teachers’ in the church, then i would say no. The reason being the resposibilty of the gift and its correlation to the gift of pastor which i believe the bible teaches are for the men of the church. Now i have no doubt that you will disagree with me on this but remember that the gift of ‘apostle’ was only ever given to men aswell.

Mark, the problem that you have is explaining how it is that God a woman to have a particular gift. It is a no-brainer. If God doesn’t want a woman to be a teacher in the church, all He has to do is not gift her with that gift. That would be the end of the discussion. But since women are obviously gifted as teachers, what do we do with that? Are you willing to argue that God does not gift women with the gift of teacher? That there are no gifted women teachers at all? I hardly think that this position would be one that you would be willing to argue for because even the most staunch complementarian I have met will readily agree that women are very gifted as teachers in fact some even more so than their male counterparts. So if we can grant the view that God indeed is Sovereign and that He does appear to gift women as teachers, what will be the extent of their responsibility as teacher?

Paul very carefully teaches about the extent of God’s gifts. In Ephesians 4:12 Paul says that all of God’s gifts are for the equipping of the saints and for the work of service and for building up the body of Christ.

Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

Paul doesn’t say that the gifts God gives are to be kept back for the benefit of a few but for the whole (not segmented) body of Christ.

Paul then goes on to state that the gifts are useful and needed until we all attain to the unity of the faith.

Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

The gifts are for all for the common good. Paul goes on to say that each individual part is for the growth of the entire body as the gifts are for the building up of itself (singular) not for multiple segment parts.

Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Paul again clearly teaches the “common good” theme in 1 Cor. 12:

1 Cor 12:6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
1 Cor 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

If Paul had meant the “one” gift of “teacher” was not meant for women to be for the common good, Paul would have needed to restrict by gender the gifts. But Paul specifically and without qualification shows that the gifts are for the common good and not to be kept hidden away from the entire body.

Paul then states that there is to be no division in the body. The body is not to be divided up into gender parts with gifts given for the partial good instead of the common good.

1 Cor 12:25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

If God chooses to gift a woman as a “teacher” where does the Scripture say that He cannot do that? And if God gifts here as a gifted teacher who is allowed to say that they do not need her gift for their benefit?

Mark,
You said:

You asked me as one of your hard questions “Do you or do you not believe that Ephesians 4:11 gives “teacher” as a gift for the body of Christ?”

The short answer is of course. However i do not think it should be separated from the gift of pastor for the reasons i have given already, the greek doesn’t allow for it.

If I understand you right, the gift of “teacher” is not a single gift that is stand alone. It has to be connected with another gift.

The problem with this is that the Greek does disallow “teacher” to be a separate gift as you stated above. That would be taking the Greek further than it allows for. I will be doing a separate post on this issue shortly so I will develop me point further, but the fact that teacher is not permanently connected to another gift should be clearly seen when we compare Scripture with Scripture where “teacher” is listed by itself without any related gift.

You said:

And again you asked me “Secondly do you believe that “teacher” is not a gift on its own but must be amalgamated with pastor so that only pastors can be “teachers”?

I do believe that in Ephesians the two are enormously close knitted together, but i would not say only pastors can be teachers. I think a pastor is a teacher, likewise an evangelist is a teacher. This is how i believe we should understand 1 Cor 12 when it lists ‘teacher’, but neither pastor nor evangelist are listed.

What you are doing here, Mark, even if you are unaware of it, is reading into the passage something that is not there. The Bible doesn’t say that a pastor is a teacher. A pastor is a pastor. The gift of pastor can be very connected to teacher especially in one on one counselling. A pastor may very well also be a “teacher”. Notice I said “also” because the term pastor is not synonymous with teacher. But a teacher may not be a pastor or an evangelist. There is nothing at all in the Greek that demands that a teacher must have more than one gift. If a teacher must be connected to another gift then in essence the “teacher” disappears and what we have is a pastor who teaches and an evangelist who teaches but a “teacher” alone doesn’t exist. It is impossible to sustain this from the Greek without reading into the text.

The fact is that we know that you don’t believe that a woman can be a pastor even though a pastor is a gift that is dependent alone on God’s gifting not on any human decision alone. You have defined women teachers out of existence without God making that decision. For if God didn’t want women teachers all He would have to do is fail to gift women as teachers. Then we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we?

You said in quoting me and then answering:

“Yet in discussions with you, you seem to continually stress that a woman is not allowed to be a teacher because pastors are the ones who are given the responsibility of being teachers in the church. Have I misunderstood you?”

Sort of! I do not believe that women are given the responsibility of oversight of the church or shepharding, and therefore they should not have the teaching responsibility of those in that position (pastors and elders).

We certainly can have a discussion about shepherding and oversight, however since we are talking about a “teacher”, these things are not the same. A teacher may have the responsibility of oversight in the church if that one desires the work of overseer (1 Tim. 3:1) The obvious implication is that although there may be many teachers not all may desire the work of an overseer or not all may have the qualification of an overseer. The fact is that a teacher can be just a teacher. You have given no proof at all that there is no “teacher” that God gifts that will never be an elder.

Secondly the gift of “evangelist” is not the same as the gift of “pastor” nor is it the same as the gift of “teacher” or God would have removed one or more of the gifts if they were the same. “Teacher” is a stand alone gift in 1 Cor. 12 which you have not adequately answered. I would like to ask you, if God had intended to gift some as “teachers” does He have the right and freedom to gift some with only one gift without an additional gift? If God has no right to do that, then you will need to prove that He has no Sovereign right to do as He pleases.

Thanks Lin! Many people have told me the same thing and it helps me to understand not only the need of such a blog, but the need for an open forum to discuss the issues even with those who disagree. I think that I have learned how to defend the biblical teaching on the freedom that God has given all of his children the most when I have been challenged for it is then that I have been pushed in an area that didn’t seem important to me before. When I dig deep into what has become a road block for some people and learn how to unravel the wrong doctrine so that the truth is left bare and without obstruction, it helps me a lot and I believe it helps others too who may be sitting on the fence. I just praise God that in the last 4 years this blog has picked up a lot of attention and a lamp stand has been given. It is my intention to lift up the light of the Savior’s freedom for women to serve the body. If we stay focused on respectful conversation and the reasoned exegesis of Scripture, we can shine a light in an area where many have been repressed and held back from giving their very best for the body of Christ.

Thanks for your comments!

Mark,
You asked:

I’d like to know whether you believe verse 10 has more authority than verse 12 of 1 Cor 7 because Paul makes the different distinctions between his charge and the Lord’s charge? Or is verse 12 another example of Paul using his ‘authority’ to expand on a marriage scenario that Jesus perhaps didn’t comment on? Opinions???

The authority of both the verses comes from the authority of God’s word. While verse 10 is a directly worded command of the Lord, verse 12 is an application of Paul’s on the command not to divorce. The underlining authority is the same on both. The only difference is that one is a direct command with God’s exact words and a command with Paul’s interpretation based on the command. We can readily note that Paul is not giving his own command in verse 12 that would have Paul creating his own law. That is not the case. Paul appeals to God’s law in both instances with one appeal directly and the other indirectly.

So what is your trouble with these verses? Do you see a hierarchy here?

Mark,
If correcting error is not hierarchy, then Paul’s giving Timothy the authority to use his name to stop the error cannot be considered hierarchy. Paul wasn’t taking authority over people but authority over error and false doctrine.

It appears that you don’t really understand what people here are coming against. I suggest you read this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/ to see the comp teaching of prophet, priest and king position of the man. The position that I refute is a common comp position even though it may seem shocking to many. The place of “prophet, priest and king” follows the man into the leadership of the church as he takes authority over other Christians who become under his leadership authority.

More later.

Mark,
Are you saying that Paul’s correcting error is hierarchy?

I will get back to your other comments later as I have time to respond.

Mark,
You said:

Now about 1 Cor 12! First of all i don’t believe it is a less ‘teacher’ than Eph 4. Second the reason why Paul numbers the gifts and instructs the corinthians to desire the higher gifts is because they are more beneficial to the church, where as the corinthians over-realised eschatology and emphasis on ‘tounges’ was misguided.

So the gift of “teacher” in Ephesians 4:11 is equal to the gift of “teacher” in 1 Cor. 12? Then is a woman allowed to be gifted by God to be a “teacher” of the church? If not, why not?

Also Paul does not talk about “eschatology” as a lesser gift? I am not even sure what you mean by that. Paul makes it abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 14 that any gift that benefits all is the higher gift. Speaking in tongues without an interpreter benefits only the speaker so it must of necessity be considered the least of all gifts unless it is combined with the interpretation. Then it too becomes the higher gift.

Now many scholars believe that that the apostolic and prophetic gifts ended at the completion of the canon. LIke i said previously this is something i have not done alot of study on.

Those who have this view must deal with the issue of the doing away of knowledge. Only when knowledge is not needed will the gifts not be needed for the edification of the church. If we can do away with the gifts that God has given to some members and we say that these are not needed for the body, then we fall into the trap of arbitrarily deciding on our own wisdom what is and isn’t needed for the body. But God is the ultimate Sovereign ruler who decides on what we need. When he gifts a person with the gift, then obviously it is still needed.

Some believe that evangelists and pastors fall under the banner of ‘teacher’ because of Eph 4 listing. From what i have read on this i would somewhat agree.

This is your problem again. You attach “teacher” to another gift so that there is one less gift that can be given to an individual. If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone. This is essence is exactly what I have been saying all along. When you amalgamate a gift you remove it as a “gift”. It becomes a hyphenated gift without the power of the gift alone. But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.

What ever the case i do believe in the gifting of ‘teacher’ but do not believe it is the same as a prophet.

I agree. Teacher is not the same as Prophet, but one can be a Teacher and a Prophet. One can also be a Teacher and an Evangelist. One can have more than one gift. But each gift is unique in its own right and to attach it to another gift without allowing it God’s power on its own, is not correct NT doctrine.

This statement amazes me:

Finally to answer your final question. I dont know why Paul said Pastor and teacher rather than the other alternatives, im not Paul. What is clear though is that they are seperate gifts but should be understood as closely tied together. The two gifts are similar and both vitally important for the ministry of the church.

If you now admit that pastor and teacher are “separate gifts” then why do you say that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church because she cannot be a pastor or elder?

You said:

We shouldn’t mash the two nor should we seperate them extensively.

What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?

Mark,
You said:

Where have i ever disregarded the gift of teacher? Or is this another assumption of yours? I simply pointed out how Paul correlates the gift of teacher with gift of pastor in Eph 4, which you are now agreeing with.

You have said that women cannot be teachers in the church because they cannot be pastors. You appeal to Ephesians 4:11 and disregard the term “teacher” as if it is completely morphed into “pastor” so that one must be a pastor to be a teacher. Of course the question still needs to be answered…can a woman be a pastor? Can she be gifted as a pastor by God?

You said:

again you said “But you deny that prophesying is teaching”

That was a typo on my part. What I meant to say was

If doing shepherding (verb) makes one a shepherd, then teaching through prophesying must also make one a teacher. But you deny that one who prophesies is a teacher so you have a big problem because you are inconsistent.

If I am wrong, then do you now admit that one who prophesies is a teacher?

IT is you who is being unfaithful by saying that pastoring/teaching/prophesying are all the same. I have simply used the bible to show where you were wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have never said that teaching is the same as pastoring. Nor have I said that prophesying is the same as teaching. We have both agreed that one who prophesies will teach in the act of using their gift, but prophesying is different than teaching just as the gift of Prophet is different than the gift of Teacher. Are you really sure you understand my position?

Mark,
You said:

If you wish to do that then 1 Cor 12 is a far better text to discuss rather than Eph 4. To ignore the way Paul has correlated the two until someone picks you up on it is not very good.

I haven’t ignored it at all as the purpose of talking about a “teacher” is not about how there is a common function with “pastor” but how a woman can be a teacher without having to be a pastor.

I understand that there is no word ‘office’ listed in the greek. It is helpful however to use a term such as it to portray accurately the Nt teachings.

Actually using such a term distorts the NT teachings which show that there is a common “class” of Christians. All Christians are brothers in Christ and no one can lord it over another and because leaders are to be servants, there is no such thing as “offices” which would divide the body into clergy class and laity. Christians are one class not two.

You said:

For example there was an apostolic office, which not all apostles were given. Let me explain, the twelve had an apostolic ‘office’ as did Paul, which had certain authority in establishing the early churches, yet an ‘apostle’ were people who saw the teachings and works of Jesus.

There is no apostolic “office” that was given to the 12. Rather these ones were chosen to be witnesses to the resurrection and were held accountable for the doctrinal foundation of the church. As foundation stones everyone gave up their life as the servants of the church except for John who was used in a special way by Jesus. No other apostle had to see the works of Jesus except for the 12.

For example when the disciples replaced Judas, they chose someone who had been there from the beginning. So there is a distinction between an apostle( someone who was there from the beginning) and the apostolic ‘office’.

You are adding the term “office” when it isn’t there. Apostles are “gifts” not offices. An office is something that can be vacated and filled by someone else. A gift is not vacated and someone else gets your gift when you die. There are no “offices” to be filled in the NT. This is something added by the Nicolaitans and the Hierarchy of Rome who created offices and clergy/laity divisions. But in the Scriptures you do not find such a division.

So i have no problem talking about an office of ‘elder’ as it is helpful in translating the NT teaching accurately.

There is where you have a problem seeing outside of your “office” and “hierarchy” box. The NT has no offices and the leaders were the greatest servants completely destroying the concept of “office”.

You said:

Again i never said that an elder is a pastor. What i did say is that they both are told to ‘shephard’ the church.

Really? You pointed to Ephesians 4:11 and tied it to 1 Timothy 3:1. There is no problem with people “shepherding” but there is only one gift of “pastor”.

A pastor in my opinion is an elder with the gift of teaching.

But all elders are supposed to be teaching, so what is the difference between an elder and a pastor if you are not saying that an elder is a pastor?

Do you believe that a pastor is seperate in responsibility than an elder? DO you believe women can be elders?

Once again the issue is about teachers and about pastors. We can discuss elders at another time. A pastor is listed as a separate gift and an elder is one who takes on a work. An elder is never listed as a “gift” but a responsibility by those who desire the work and who are qualified to do the work.

Do you believe that God can gift women as pastors? Or do you believe that God is limited in His work of giving out His gifts? Are you willing to answer this question that has been posed to you many times or are you going to bypass it one more time?

Mark,
You said:

It now seems to me that you somewhat agree with what i said, where as previously you were trying to use teacher as stand alone by citing Eph 4:11.

It is a stand alone gift, but in Ephesians 4:11 Paul connects the teacher with the related gift of pastor. There is no other use of “pastor” as a gift except for Ephesians 4:11. To list the two separate gifts as having a close association (but not being the same gift nor necessitating that one gift must be accompanied by the other but rather that the two gifts have a common function of teaching). Yet there is only one gift of “teacher”. There are not different levels of “teacher” although there may be different kinds of “teaching”.

Yet in discussions with you, you seem to continually stress that a woman is not allowed to be a teacher because pastors are the ones who are given the responsibility of being teachers in the church. Have I misunderstood you? If so perhaps you can be clear in your view of “teachers”. Are women allowed to be “teachers” in the church? Does Ephesians 4:11 speak about the gift of “teacher”? Or does Ephesians 4:11 only speak about pastors who teach? Is this limited to pastors as you seem to suggest?

Related gifts that are related by function does not negate the separation of the gifts. “Pastor” is not “teacher” although a Pastor can also be a teacher. A pastor using teaching in the function of the gift just as one who prophesies uses teaching in the function of their gift. Do you agree or not?

Mark,
You said:

Again i have never said i don’t believe in a gift named ‘teaching’ nor have i said there are two types of teaching gifts. Please stop with the assumptions that i am never saying. What i did say, is that the Pastor and teaching gifts are correlated in Eph, so it is wrong to only focus on a ‘teacher’ and not understand it in relation to Paul’s listing, which here in Eph he has incorporated it with a pastor.

You appear to be speaking in circles. In Eph 4:11 it doesn’t say teaching but teacher. You continually change “teacher” to “teaching” in Ephesians 4:11 and I would like to know why you do that. I have been talking about Ephesians 4:11 and the gift of “teacher”. It is time for you to answer the hard questions so I and others can get a handle on what you believe. Do you or do you not believe that Ephesians 4:11 gives “teacher” as a gift for the body of Christ? Secondly do you believe that “teacher” is not a gift on its own but must be amalgamated with pastor so that only pastors can be “teachers”? Please note that I am not saying “teaching” but “teachers”. Will you please answer my questions in a clear way and stop changing the noun to a verb? I would very much appreciate it.