Cheryl Schatz

I finally finished this response to John Starke’s article instead of commenting on the preceding posts. I hope you will forgive me. Time is at a premium right now for me. We leave tomorrow to meet with some of our US Board of Directors and in the travels I will be away from the internet for the next few days on and off. Go ahead and post away your comments and I will try to catch up as I can. 🙂

Jim,

hese lapses and disagreements in translations…do they make you believe that our Bible has been changed/altered over the years based on historical events/cultures until now it cannot be considered infallible?

The manuscripts haven’t changed but translations are not infallible as they are translated by humans. This is why it is helpful to compare difference translations to each other and it is also why checking out the original words in a lexicon can be extremely helpful. However no matter which Bible is used the essentials will always agree. It is only in the non-essentials (like the women’s issue) that there are discrepancies.

Jim,
You said:

One side says an ancient word is feminine, the other says masculine.

What word are you referencing? There should not be an discrepancies in the actual original words. There are many places where one can look these things up to see who is saying accurate things.

Sorry for being awol in this discussion. Things have been very busy with all kinds of meetings and I had a very painful (!) dentist appointment today.

Well I am certainly looking forward to gengwall’s insights or his being the devil’s advocate whatever his role is in this one 😉

I agree with Susanna that God did not give Adam an inferior helper. Adam needed someone who had the power and ability to provide him what he needed. Adam certainly did not need a junior flunky who needed to be watched and trained lest she messed up the garden. Adam’s need was not to have someone to boss over. He had all the animals to boss if his need was to be in authority. Adam’s need was not for someone less than himself. He had all the “lessers” already created. He needed a strong person to meet his real need.

Hi Christopher,
You may email me in private if you would like. My email address is listed above at the “email” tab at the very top of my blog. Or you may comment here if you would like. Whatever you prefer.

Blessings,
Cheryl

gengwall,

Ah, a “secret” leadership. A concept I had not thought of 😉 I guess this comes with “secret” authority that is never mentioned. Now how on earth will these men defend a “secret” authority without revealing how, why and where they got this “secret” from?

The problem with “secrets” is that scripture shows that God’s secrets do not belong to humans. It is only the revealed things that belong to us.

Deut 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Anyone who would claim that they have a “secret” authority would be in contradiction to God’s word.

What many people may not recognize is that I went first to complementarians with my DVDs with the first ones receiving a pre-production copy. I asked for feedback and/or a review or a refutation as I felt that would be helpful to me. My interest is in truth. If I was not interested in seeing any blind spots that I may have I would never have gone to complementarians or especially to them first. Here is the very first review from a complementarian that viewed a pre-production copy. It is from Dr. Scott Heine:

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

Also regarding NN, I received an email from his wife last night saying that she will watch the DVDs once more to refresh her memory and get back to me privately regarding the material in the DVDs. I am hoping that NN will participate as well, but she made no mention if he was willing or not to dialog on the DVDs.

Please pray for this precious couple that God will minister to them in their physical needs as well as open their eyes regarding women in ministry. I don’t believe that they have come to my attention and to this blog haphazardly. I believe that it was a Divine appointment that God is using to bring a blessing into their lives.

And NN, “absolute authority” implies a higher authority. The husband is not shown to have an authority above the authority that the woman holds. Therefore, as Dave said, she doesn’t appeal to his higher authority. She is the higher authority. If he had the higher authority, the passage should instruct her to appeal to his higher authority just as Paul appealed to a higher authority. But, 1 Cor. 7 does not.

NN,
Thanks for popping in for Dave. I hope that you will pop back for me too! After all I have been waiting for three years now to hear about the review of my DVDs and I am more than interested in what you and your wife have to say. Remember I sent the DVDs at my cost. So what is it going to be? Would you like me to start a separate post that will be a public discussion just on the DVDs? I can do that if you would like. Just say the word.

Dave,
Once again you have a wonderful way of putting things! You have condensed what I have been trying to say – that the woman has rights but she has the highest authority. There is not a whisper of a claim that the husband has an authority over her authority. That would be not only reading into the passage but actually removing what the passage says because she has an authority that the husband cannot remove or override. No other passage gives the husband an authority that overrides his wife so no wonder the comps seek to dismiss and dismantle this very important passage. But they cannot do so without doing harm to God’s inspired word.

NN,
Well, let me be bold on this one and ask my question. You gave your blog address and I went to it and found out that one of your friends identifies herself as your wife. I know her! She is a very sweet lady! I went back through my records and found out that your wife and I had been conversing back to at least July of 2006 and as a result of our conversations I sent her a review copy of my DVD set on October 5, 2006. She told me that she would get back to me to point out any errors that she found in the DVDs and we could have some conversations about the material on the DVDs. She did post some comments on my blog in late December of 2007 but not about the DVDs and we have yet to have any conversation on any of the material in the DVDs I sent her. I haven’t heard from her now since Dec 2007. I am still interested in her view and now I am very interested in what you thought.

So now might be a good time for us to discuss the DVDs since I think three years has been long enough to pick them apart if there was an error, eh?

Was there anything on the DVDs that helped you to understand the egalitarian position?

Was there anything on the DVDs that needed further explanation?

Did you find any errors that you would like to discuss with me?

If you are willing to correspond, I would be delighted. If you would prefer to keep it private, I am willing to do that too. My email address is listed on the email tab at the top of my blog.

I appreciate you coming to my blog. I looked back at an old email from your lovely wife and she said that you love to debate. I just wish you wouldn’t have given up so quickly as debate and pushing for the truth can be very helpful for both sides.

Please give your dear wife a hug and tell her I have never forgotten about her. She is one person that sticks out in my mind even after all these years!

NN,
I have an important question that deals with me personally. May I ask it?

NN,
The problem as I see it, is that you are continuing to look on the husband as a “governing authority” when 1 Cor. 7 shows that his authority is not that of “governing” but an equal authority with his wife.

In Hebrew 13:10 the authority is to the complete and full right, power and authority to do an action. If you say that the ones who have the authority to eat from the altar (those who are in Christ) are still under the authority of God, I have no problem with that since God is the Sovereign of all. Anyplace and anytime God is Sovereign. But you cannot place a sovereignty on the man and say that the woman’s authority over his body doesn’t negate his sovereignty. His sovereignty over her as her ruler and king and lord doesn’t exist.

You are using faulty examples and part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is that you fail to identify your point of view. Also a secular example cannot identify a sovereignty of the husband nor can God’s authority over us identify a sovereignty of the husband. The fact is that full sovereignty means that one has full rights and the ability to overrule anyone and anything. 1 Cor. 7 disproves at the very least the full sovereignty of the man and since no authority is given the husband except for 1 Cor. 7 and the man and woman were given equal rulership in the beginning, the burden of proof identifying full sovereignty of the man would be on the shoulders of those who claim it. Are you one who claims it? I don’t know.

TL,
I agree. We can use our gifts without having to have the other spouse’s agreement. But when it comes to uprooting the family or going into full time ministry when one is against the move, it is far better, in my opinion, to wait on the Lord to work out the call through agreement.

In my own ministry I knew that I could not be in full time ministry without my husband’s full participation and agreement. In about the year 2000 or 2001 he was content to just have a retirement of doing what we like to do and I had agreed to let him choose the direction. What it did was sap all of my strength and my unhappiness was evident to him even though I submitted to his will. It was then the Lord got his attention and started talking to him and that has completely changed his life and his desires. He now not only supports me but he has a real call of God to use his own gifts in ministry.

The issue for me is whether a husband can hold the trump card as if he alone has the ability to know the Lord’s will. I do not believe this is biblical, but I do believe that going into ministry without waiting for your partner’s acceptance can really cause a lot of trouble.

Michael’s ministry has apparently been able to flourish right where he is and there may come a time when they can both agree as the Lord works on Kristie’s heart.

Michael Patton has put a really thought-provoking testimony up about what he originally thought was his male trump card privileges. He has given me permission to repost the story and I have just posted it here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/12/how-a-passion-for-ministry-almost-cost-c-michael-patton-his-marriage/

I think you will be as touched as I was to read the end result that started with a recipe for disaster. I think it touches on some of the issues that we have been discussing on this current post.

NN,
Another confusing thing. You said:

“One of the most vexing things in the universe is a poor argument for a true idea.”

Are you saying that you are the one who is giving a poor argument for a true idea, or are you actually agreeing with us on this issue but saying that we are the ones giving a poor argument for a true idea? Without a stating of your position, I find your words extremely confusing because the quote has nothing solid to hang its hat on since you haven’t defined enough for me (or us) to understand.

NN,
I think you should reread what I wrote. After clarifying the different words used, I did not state that you are claiming that the Greek “exousian” was used in Acts 25 but that the essential meaning is “authority” for you wrote “authority/claim as a Roman colonial citizen”. When you input “authority” into the meaning of the text right next to “claim”, you have gone past the actual meaning of the text. Thus you are claiming that although the word “exousian” is not in the text, the general meaning of authority is there. I strongly disagree. Here is where the problem is:

However, the conceptual link, is that for Paul to be able to make a legitimate legal appeal, he had to have the authority to do so.

The correct term would be the “right” to do thing, not the authority. Authority implies the power to command obedience and one in whom authority is vested. Paul had none of this with Rome. He had the “right” to a trial. He had no authority over Rome neither did he have the authority to govern Rome. His “right” to a trial is not even in the same ball part as a woman’s “authority” regarding her husband’s body.

On the topic of where I stand, I prefer to be heard for what I say and not what people will presume that I believe.

I think there are very good reasons to state your position because what you are saying is confusing and unsupported by the text. Honestly if I connected together two unrelated texts as you have and attached them together by ascribing the essence of “authority” when no such authority is evident in the text, I rather think you would be loudly protesting and denouncing my exegesis as contrived and biased.

Perhaps it would be better for you to rethink your example to find a solid case of a real essence of “authority” that could relate to the text under discussion. This would make your point actually heard and much less confusing. Also if you are able to articulate your position, I believe that it would help against people’s presumptions. As you can see by not stating your case, it seems to cause more presumptions than if you had given a clear representation of your view.

NN,
You said:

You are quite right about what word Paul uses (epikaleoe) and what its meaning was in Roman empire jurisprudence (e.g. “to appeal”). However, to make this appeal, Paul had to have authority/claim as a Roman colonial citizen. Many others would not have had the authority/right to do this.

Once again you are making the “claim” that the Greek word for claim means authority and this is not correct. Why do you continue to do this?

The word is not used in the Acts text. I was simply pointing out the fact that the right to make a claim upon the rulership does not negate that rulership.

But because your “claim” is that the meaning of authority is in the Acts text, your claim that rulership does not negate rulership is invalid from the text you are claiming proves this.

Again, I have made no claim that hierarchy is necessitated by this passage. I merely point out that this passage is not incompatible with the idea of hierarchy.

It isn’t necessitated and there isn’t even a breath of hierarchy in the passage which is why hierarchists seem to avoid the passage.

So are you going to share your personal view? What position do you hold to?

NN,
I also thought Susanna’s questions #37 were very good. Will you be addressing her questions?

NN,
to call: epikaloumai

(C) In a judicial sense, to call upon, invoke a higher tribunal or judge, i.e., to appeal to, e.g., Caesar (Acts 25:11, 12, 25; 26:32; 28:19).
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament

(3) middle, as a legal technical term for appealing to a higher court appeal, call or summon as witness (2C 1.23)
Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

Is Paul “taking his authority” over the judicial system? The two words are not even similar (Acts 25:11 and 1 Cor. 7:4). One is an appeal and/or invoking a higher authority and the other (from 1 Cor. 7) is the higher authority in that particular category.

Why do you connect these two terms when they do not mean the same and are different words? 1 Cor. 7:1-5 stands in a category of its own with authority and power to act on that authority.

It seems to me that you are trying to do a dance with words and trying to force this dance onto an unrelated passage. It makes me wonder if the passage of 1 Cor. 7 is such an important concept that it is threatening to those who are in the mindset of hierarchy? Why such a stretch to try to undo the woman’s authority in the only passage relating to marital authority?

NN, do you mind telling us where you stand yourself? Do you consider yourself into hierarchy or do you consider yourself to be a complementarian or what view do you take regarding the equal or unequal authority of a woman?

NN,

exousiazo:

to have the right of control, have the right/power for someth. or over someone exousiazo one who is in authority (Eccl 10:4, 5; TestSol C 9:8) Lk 22:25. Specif. the right or power to do with someth. as one sees fit (IG XIV, 79, 4) w. gen. of that over which one has the power
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature

LN 37.48 (4) to have authority over Lk 22:25; 1Co 7:4(2); to have the power, to control 1Co 6:12
The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament.

This is the word for authority, the right to control that is used in 1 Cor. 7:4.

Please provide the reference to exousiazo regarding Paul and the state of Rome so that we can have a look at the words in the passage that you are quoting from.

Okay, now we are getting to an actual claim of yours. You are claiming that 1 Cor 7:5 is compatible with hierarchy. Since CBMW has not shown how hierarchy is compatible with this verse, would you be so kind as to show how where the compatibility is shown in this passage?

NN, you said “I also never said that men were “exempt” from the general instruction on submission.” Then you cannot claim a distinction.

What you are pointing out is your claim and if what you point out is not a true claim, then why are you pointing out inconsequential things?

NN, it isn’t a distinction at all unless the things that Paul said are exclusive. Are you claiming exclusive commands to husbands and wives?

Thanks for the links Thy Peace!

So NN let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the passage is not incompatible with hierarchy and it is not incompatible with egalitarianism. It could be just as well used to prove the egalitarian way as well as the hierachical way since it is not incompatible with either?

NN,
You said:

Your assumption is that “I am comparing apples to oranges” – but my very point was that this was an assumption of yours and not intrinsic to the word itself. Therefore this passage can either be interpreted as a situation in which hierarchical governance exists or not.

If you read again my comments, I clearly state that this passage is a unique passage (the only one…) and the usage of the word is always defined by the context. There is nothing in the context that gives more authority to the husband nor is there anything in the passage that gives the husband the right to veto the wife’s will regarding no separation. The passage cannot be interpreted with hierarchical governance even though CBMW would like it that way. They give no reason for interpreting it this way except that this is the way they interpret all the other marriage passages and this one must fall within the “normal” responsibility of the husband.

As far as the other passages go, they are not in this discussion at this time other then they do not contain the word authority. I have made no other claims in this particular post. We have discussed other issues of marriage in other posts and we will be discussing more issues in the future, but for this post, my claim stands.

1. There is only one place where authority is used in the marriage between the husband and wife.

2. Is this one text where the word authority is used, there is no indication that the man has an overriding veto power over the wife’s will regarding separation.

3. In this one text both the husband and wife are given equal authority and the when a separation may happen, it may not occur without both agreeing to the separation.

NN,
A warm welcome to my blog!

You said under point 1:

Both in current thought and even back then, the existence of lawful claim of a subject does not negate governance.

Paul appealed to the Roman government with his Roman rights, but this doesn’t translate to a husband and wife situation. A wife is not appealing to her husband as governor to claim her rights. Her husband does not have a “right” as “governor” while she has a “right” as a “subject”. Paul shows in the text that the two have equal rights without one having a higher right than the other. I think you are clearly comparing apples to oranges.

Under point 2, you said:

We are called to total unity with Christ and yet to absolute obedience to him. We are called his friends only after we have called him Lord (Jhn 15:14-15).

Jesus is both God and the resurrected man. We cannot compare Him to the human husband as the human husband is not the wife’s Master and Lord. The wife is never told to give absolute obedience to the husband. Christ then is in a category of His own that no man is to replicate His authority as God.

Thanks for pointing out what you think are flaws. It is always good to have feedback on the posts and on the comments too. I think those who read this post can evaluate for themselves whether you have pointed out a legitimate flaw or whether the “flaw” is not a flaw at all in the argument but a valid point.

Joey,
Welcome to my blog! I really believe that these “hard” passages of scripture need extra attention paid to the inspired words and the inspired grammar. It is easy to miss that “childbearing” is a noun if one just takes the English word. And the fact that it is “the” childbearing is even more significant.

Thanks for your comments and I hope that you feel comfortable enough to come back again and participate in our discussions.

Dave,
I love when you are in the thinking mood. Your thoughts are very profound and I feel blessed to have you share here on my blog. Thanks!