Cheryl Schatz

Frank, that was quite a tome! You are welcome to write more, especially on 1 Cor. 11. Once we have gone through the video clips that I put up, Mark is going to give him reasoning for why kephale cannot mean source, what its true meaning is, and I have also asked him to defend his view point from the context. I will then post his article so that we can all discuss. If you want to wait until that post shows up or if you prefer to post it on this one, it doesn’t really matter to me.

And in this Trinity, none is before, or after, another. None is greater, or less, than another.

The main issue seems to come from whether the Father can have a superiority that the Son does not have in the Trinity. I have not yet seen any passage in the Scripture that shows a superiority of either essence or works defined as belong to the Father alone. To add a superiority to the Father that isn’t explicit seems ill-advised but to add a superiority when this is strictly rejected by the Scripture and the creeds is shocking to me. Perhaps I have missed something. I don’t think so. After teaching former JW’s for 16 years how to understand God, I would think that if the Father is described as superior to the eternal Word of God, then I would have come across it in my study. I have not and it doesn’t seem to fit in the creeds either. So why is the superiority of the Father held on to so strongly? I would like to pick their brains to find out why this is so important to them that these men risk falling outside of orthodoxy in order to create an “office” that is God-like as the Father’s rights, privileges and His office alone belong to the Father alone. I tremble when I think of what this is doing to the Godhead and God’s unity.

Mark,
I don’t have much time right now, but in answer to your point about this being forbidden to women:

1 person presenting the passage in an expository fashion.

I have always taught in an expository fashion – verse by verse explaining the meaning in the passage as well as bringing up the cultural issues that affect the understanding of the early Christians. I have done this both in my home and at church at pastor’s invitation. Am I sinning against God because I teach in an expository fashion?

I guess my comments were more based on spiritual abuse, but I should add that abuse by one who is in a one-flesh union is akin to spiritual abuse. It is devastating.

Lin,
You have made a good point about forgiveness. Many misunderstand the process and think that forgiveness without repentance means that we must let the person back into our lives. True forgiveness on our part means that everything is clear between us and God so that the root of bitterness will not spring up. But walking in fellowship with another person requires repentance.

Mara,
I am so glad that you shared a little bit about yourself. I think it brings up a good point that we should be kind and compassionate and not judge because we do not always know what the other person has been through. Until we walk a mile in their shoes, we need to be sympathetic to the pain that we may not understand.

I posted this on one of my other posts and I think it is good to see it again.

It is a grave disservice to the spirit of a woman when she is given the subtle message that the truth of her own pain is not as important as the reputation of the ones who inflicted it.

– from quiveringdaughters.blogspot.com

I do understand that some people will always have a hard time relating because they have never experienced this kind of abuse. What I have seen in many situations is a double abuse on the “one who has been violated. Recently I saw a pastor come down hard on one who had been abused instead of his focusing on the real troublemaker. If those who should be protecting us subtly blame us either for the abuse or for our reaction to the abuse, it is like salt rubbed into the wound. There is certainly wisdom in all of us understanding that bitterness can destroy us. But when one has been wounded and the attacker has gone scot-free, one becomes very sensitive and it may take a long time before the person is open to even a gentle reprimand. The thing that I have learned, and I hope that I practice it, is to always acknowledge the pain and the wrong-doing. And I understand the value of letting people talk it through. I have experienced spiritual abuse myself and so I understand how harmful it is to be abused by those who should love and care for us. I also know what it is like to have those who should have been knowledgeable about spiritual abuse, do all the wrong things and actually add insult to injury. I trust that God is using my own experiences to help me be far more tolerant of those who have been abused in the body of Christ. It is a betrayal that can wound people so deeply that the only way that they can survive is to walk away from the church. This is not the way that it should be, but sadly it is the way it is with many who don’t understand the dynamics of betrayal.

Bonnie,
Welcome to my blog! You are very right about the inconsistency of the hierarchical thought process. They do what works for them. In the process it is inconsistent but doesn’t seem to bother them at all.

Sam,

This “covering” teaching is an invention, a lie, and often results in spiritual abuse.

Absolultely!

Sam,
What Southwestern Seminary has done is real. My comments about what they have done is tongue-in-cheek.

You know pinklight, I think you have hit on something profound. The church building represents God. And women cannot teach in the presence of God. She must not be clean enough to minister in the presence of God. Very profound, indeed.

Now it is time to test all things by God’s word. What does it say?

So how did Eve know that she could teach Adam in the garden but certainly she couldn’t teach him in the “church” because that wasn’t allowed by creation? That would mean that women’s gifts are both legal and illegal. Now we really need a Christian Talmud to find out if there are other areas where our gifts are illegal. Seems to me that this kind of thinking is illogical and brings fear lest we find ourselves sinning against a secret law that never tells women what they can and cannot do. Should it be trial and error? If a woman is struck by lightning then that activity must be illegal? How are we to know for sure? Which Christian should be the next pope that determines once and for all what is allowed for Christian women and what is not? It just doesn’t make sense.

Dave, you are a hoot!

I found a great quote on this web site http://quiveringdaughters.blogspot.com

It is a grave disservice to the spirit of a woman when she is given the subtle message that the truth of her own pain is not as important as the reputation of the ones who inflicted it.

I think that the article is well written. While I may not have said it the same way, remember it was written by someone else so while we can give suggestions to a change of words, it is not in our ability to change it unless someone wants to comment over at Lee Grady’s post.

Ah, my spam word for this one is “leader”. 🙂

The issue of 1 Timothy 2:12 being a restriction in a “church” building has a problem. The problem is the reference to creation. Where was the “church” in the garden of eden and where was the “home”? If Paul’s reason for the prohibition had something to do with creation and deception, then we either restrict women from teaching men anywhere (because of creation) or we understand that the restriction is not universal. If you watch my video clips you will see that I give multiple reasons for why Paul’s restriction could not be a universal law as it fails everything that is required to establish a universal law. Paul was such a good detail person and he surely would not have failed to present this new “law” to the church if there was such a law. The fact is that how, where, when, why and to whom the prohibition was written are all clear indications that the prohibition absolutely could not be a universal law for all women for all time, in all places and for all reasons.

So the bottom line is that we are either to pay attention to the details of the text and see that it is a situation in Ephesus that Paul was dealing with or we will have to restrict all women from teaching men in any way at any time and in any place. You just can’t forbid women from teaching in a church building and then link it to creation. The comp argument that wants to allow for home teaching will stumble over the “creation” reason and I don’t think that Mark has given any valid reason women should be allowed to teach at all.

Mark,

Not all who believe in the male headship define is a ‘dominant’ husband. How many times do people need to be told that comp theology is not about domination whether in relation to marriage, church or the Trinity.

I wish all comp pastors understood that true complementarity is partnership. In counseling a marriage when the wife is a strong character the husband is usually told by the pastor to exercise his authority i.e. to be the dominant one as that is what is believed is what God made him to be. Some as pushed into it and others come by it naturally. Those who claim to believe in the comp position but who talk things over and work on their marriage as a partnership are living the egalitarian lifestyle in action even though it may not be in name. Comps and egals should join together to bring healing to marriages where bad advice is given by comp pastors. It is never helpful for one partner to take authority over the other. It is not God’s way.

David,
Welcome to my blog and thank you for your thoughts on Piper. I have looked at what John Piper has to say about women outside the abuse area and in fact he is on my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” regarding those views. He has some very faulty views that need to be addressed.

I understand your wanting to defend him because you feel that he has been very helpful to you on other areas. I am not saying that John Piper is not a Christian nor that he has no helpful things to say. But on the areas of women in ministry and abuse, he is not helpful. Calling verbal abuse as verbal unkindness minimizes the sin. He is not alone, though, so he is not being singled out with this kind of attitude. There are many pastors who minimize the man’s sin in marriage and push the woman to “submit more” to fix the problems. I think that it is time to wake the church up to the problem so that pastors will become educated not only to the problems but to appropriate and godly solutions. Allowing sin to continue and practiced against us is not helpful for our husbands.

In my DVD I treat John Piper with respect as I do all the other theologians who have very bad theology on women. If you can help him in this area, I think it would be wise, for he may have no idea how many women and how man marriages that he is hurting. His responses on being smacked around and on “verbal unkindness” are typical of those who are hierarchist and so I don’t think that we would get much different an answer from John Piper even if he had time to think about it longer.

Thanks again for dropping in and if I can be of service, I am willing to help out. In fact if John Piper is willing to dialog, I am certainly willing to communicate with him.

Okay, one more before I attend to my sweetheart who is waiting for me.

in the video the claim rests that the Levitical priesthood was the firstfruits of the true priesthood and israel failed in producing the proper priesthood, but now you say it was meant to happen this way and you agree with me that women were never meant to be literally slaughtering the animals.

Mark, my friend, you have misunderstood the video clips. What I said was that the Levitical priesthood was the “foundation” that was set up with only men and only one tribe. But Israel was promised that they would all be given the ability to be in God’s special priesthood as all of them would be “ministers of God”. I never said that Israel failed in “producing the proper priesthood”. Not at all. What I said was that they failed to be faithful to God. They did not obey Him nor did they fear Him. They went out to other “lovers” and God said that He would “love them no more” as that special possession of His very own. In fact God divorced Israel and Israel never did what God said she should do to be that special priesthood.

So is it literal or metaphoric? You seem to be changing your opinion all the time.

Honestly I find you very cute. The only reason that you think that I am changing my mind is because you did not understand my position.

The thing that I try very hard to do, and I am not perfect but I really do try, is to understand the opposing position and then present my own. When I did the research for my WIM DVDs, I went to CBMW and to John MacArthur’s org (his right hand man was the one who answered my emails) and to others. I always looked to and respected the complementarians by giving them my work to critique. If I misunderstood then I wanted to be corrected. I didn’t ask them to agree with me, just to help me understand their view and not to misrepresent it. Since I took their own words and their own writings, I kept very careful to show them the honor that they deserve as fellow Christians. At the same time I very strongly disagreed with them and carefully explained from the Scriptures where they were wrong. No one is able to correct me in my own exegesis unless they do it from the Scriptures which is my own straight edge that I highly trust.

If the whole nation was to be a kingdom of priests and the priests literal role was to slaughter animals why are you no back tracking and saying women were never meant to be in that role?

I never said that they were to be in that “role”. God defines His own terms and He said that the nation would be “ministers to Him” and to the nations. This is the highest place that they could be in and it would come if they were faithful. God Himself called this work as the “priesthood”. I want to be faithful to His Word and agree with Him. That is my position and I have not changed. Perhaps you have changed a little by coming alongside me in understanding. That is a godly thing to do.

Okay, I am off now to fellowship with my husband. Go ahead and continue to dialog and ask questions of whatever. Mark, I can hardly wait until you get through all the clips. You will still be my brother whether you agree with me or not, but I look forward to us being a little bit closer to the center and a little bit closer to understanding one another when you are done.

Thanks again!

Pretty soon I will need to take a break and minister my friendship to my husband who likes to see me once in a while 🙂

Mark,

Let me clarify one thing. The only false teachers we know about in Ephesus, where Timothy is ministering, are men. An argument from silence is hardly as convincing as we what we are actually told.

Actually I will say that your argument is from silence. Just because a woman is not named as one of the deceivers does not mean that there were not false deceived teacher(s) that were women. In fact not a single false deceived teacher is named. Only the deliberate deceivers are named, so the group of the deceived are not accounted by their gender or their names so we cannot prove anything other then that Paul stopped them from teaching because of his love and his assurance that those who were operating in ignorance and unbelief as he himself had operated, would also qualify for the great mercy that God gives.

atm i’m trying to concentrate on these videos

Mark, did I tell you lately that you are appreciated? I really, really appreciate you taking the time to review my work and to ask questions and challenge me. This is helpful for all of us and I believe that it honors the Lord Jesus as we seek to be iron to each other.

By the way a pastor is a “gift” and an overseer is a mature Christian who desires the good work of oversight. Oversight is by qualification and pastor is by gift.

Mark

it seems like Dave and Cheryl are expecting me to find the term ‘office’ in the NT to back my claim. I have no intention of trying to prove such a thing because its not there. The point i am making is just because the word isnt there, doesn’t mean the picture/meaning is portrayed. Pastors/Elders/ Deacons are all offices in the sense that they are positions/roles within the church structure.

Okay, so “office” is not in the Bible. But “role” isn’t there either. Pastor is clearly a gift but “position” is another term that is not in the Scriptures. Everything is “gift” based not position, not role, not office. I can guarantee you that “gift” is there in the Scriptures but you are going to have a really hard time as you find nothing for any of the other terms.

Again, just because Paul doesn’t call timothy a ‘pastor’ doesn’t make his role void.

There are no “roles” but there is the work of an overseer. Any can desire this work and those who do desire it must study to show themselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed. This is a “good” work.

You have yet to show how his role was NOT that of a Pastor.

He isn’t called a pastor and he didn’t stay in Ephesus to tend the sheep. His work was primarily that of overseeing the work of clearing up the error, getting the deceived taught and inside the church where they could be nurtured and then he moved on to serve Paul in other areas. Do you agree?

Mark,
I love you for this:

Yes Cheryl, i would be willing to back you up in those circumstances. Although i disagree with you that woman can preach in church, i have no problem with a woman leading a bible study, leading youth, sunday school etc.

You are a dear brother in Christ. What I am looking for in being “backed up” is to fight with us with those who try to restrict us. I am very happy that you support us, but if you are willing to engage those who try to hold us back, that would be the very best “back up”.

Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.

Why do giftings need to be restricted by men? If God doesn’t want a woman to be a pastor, then all He has to do is not gift her. It seems to me that if God gifts, then His gifting is His permission and any man who would stand in the way of God’s Spirit is hurting the one who gave us the gifts.

Also as pinklight has already said, there is no such thing as a “head” of the church other than Christ. No man is ever installed into the “head” of a church and any who would take this “calling” are actually usurping Christ’s headship. There is one head and no other. If a man comes to “support” a woman who is leading and teaching the Bible, that is appreciated. But women do not need to be spiritually protected since we do have direct communication with God just as men have.

Again 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!

Mark, I think that the questions you have received on where instruction would be for “informal” meetings is a key question that has been asked of you. I haven’t yet read your latest answer so pardon me if I am behind a little. The fact is that any gathering of Christians to study the Word of God, give of their gifts to edify the body and to pray for one another is “church”. I don’t recall Paul or anyone else saying that the gatherings of the believers don’t qualify as Christians assemblies (or church) unless they have missing elements added.

Also it is up to all of you to show how Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering in these 2 texts.

Since two or three Christians are guaranteed the Lord’s presence and since two or three may operate in edification, worship with prayer and bible reading and each person’s service in edification, the scriptures don’t limit “church” to large gatherings and neither should we. Place, amount of people, gender, social standing were not limitations of what qualifies as the gathering of the “church”.

I believe the onus is up to all of you to show how the Levital Priesthood should be understood as literarily growing into a kingdom of Priests where men from other tribes and any women would have been aloud to perform the sacrificial system of Israel.

If I believed that, then the onus would be on me. While I have stated that the whole nation would be a kingdom of priests, I never once said that I believed that they would all be killing lambs. I just go with what the scripture says in that they would all be “ministers of God”. I didn’t say that these ministers all had to be killing the lambs and offering a bloody sacrifice. The old priesthood is not the highest order of priests. That part of the priesthood was always meant to be abolished. Yet the priesthood continues in Christ without animal sacrifice and as priests we are all equal and they too, when they come into faith will be in the fulfillment of what God gave to them when they were not yet faithful.

The fact is Cor is addressing a formal church gathering. Please use relevant ‘proof’ texts to show otherwise.

If by saying that “formal” is the gathering of the believers together in worship and service, then we will not dispute that. However the fact is that women are prophesying in what you call a “formal” church gathering. That disproves your point that women are not allowed to teach men in the assembly. I would point you to my answer to Mike Seaver’s effort to try to prove that “prophesying” was not teaching or preaching and where I refute his arguments from the Greek. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/09/02/mike-seaver-cheryl-schatz-10/ Also my evaluation of the entire debate with Mike Seaver listed here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/09/19/evaluating-schatz-seaver-debate/ I just don’t have the time to rewrite everything that I already wrote during that debate. I know that you are a busy fellow, but if you do have time to evaluate my arguments, I would love for you to do so. And if you have any questions after going through the material, I would welcome questions.

Mark,
You said:

Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

I hear a “call” for help. Anyone is welcome to jump in if they want.

What I would like to add is that the priesthood of the past was the symbolic. It symbolized Christ. Although the work was literal, as they had animals to kill, the service was symbolic in that no animal death ever took away sin.

Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Our work now is giving glory to God in the reality that the symbolism merely pointed to. We have the privilege of giving out the good news about the gospel in the way that it was fulfilled in Christ.

Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering.

Mark, you need to read some more Jewish history. I don’t think anyone is claiming that it was a “Christian” church, but it was an assembly of believers in God. It was the ONLY way that they could meet without enough Jewish men to constitute a legitimate synagogue. It certainly was a witnessing opportunity for the Apostles, but this begs the point because the women were holding unqualified Jewish assemblies. This is the point that is being brought up. Not that they were already Christians, but that they lead in prayer and worship.

I noticed that keeping my comments shorter, I am saying “Mark, Mark, Mark” a whole lot more. Hope you like your name used a lot 🙂 Anyway if I get tired of saying “Mark” then just know it is for you unless I use someone else’s name.

If we are to always take it literary you contradict yourself. You used Exodus 19 as ‘proof’ but then said the Hebrew priesthood never came to fulfilment? Did God lie or fail with Israel in your view?

No, God didn’t lie. He still has the promise for them. He said “if” and “if” is conditional. When they align with God’s conditions, they too will fulfill their calling as priests.

If Romans 12 is literal why dont we literary sacrifice ourselves. Like it or not, the ‘priesthood’ is symbolism and should not be used as supposed evidence to support the view that women can be pastors/elders.

We are literally offering our bodies as a sacrifice. It isn’t on an altar made of stones, but it is an offering. It isn’t symbolic. Just as those who literally offering their bodies to sin, we literally offer our bodies for righteousness.

Romans 6:13 | and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Or are you thinking that those who offer (or present) their bodies to sin is not anything that is literal but only symbolic? I don’t think you will find symbolic sin in the list of sins but literal sins are sure there.

ou said “Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.”

yes i can- scripture only ever had men from the tribe of Levi a ‘priests’ in the real sense. If you think women filled this role show me.

You misunderstand me. I didn’t say that women would join in with the Levitical priesthood nor did I say that God’s promise came to pass. It did not. On the contrary, the Levitical priesthood would be part of the whole – the priesthood of the nation and “if” and “when” Israel meets God’s conditions, they will all be “ministers” for God.

THe rest of Israel was symbolised as kingdom of priests- all genders included. How else could God say that they were a kingdom of priests if it is not understood this way.

Hey, my friend, that is not a “proof”. It is just a statement without proof. And remember that God spoke about a future time when they would be priests. Since it hasn’t happened yet, what proof do you rely on that makes one priesthood literal and the whole as symbolic? If all are “ministers of our God” then is that not literal?

It would make God a liar and untrustworthy. How do you reconcile this?

It is easy to reconcile. It hasn’t happened yet for them. It has happened for us. We (the body of Christ) are all priests. We are all “ministers of our God”.

Peter saids in his first letter “But you are a chosen PEOPLE, a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, a people belonging to God, that you may DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIGHT”. If this is not metaphorical for our role as ‘priesthood’, how is it then literal. The fact is, you have entangled the literal Levitical Priesthood of the Hebrew cult with the with the metaphorical understanding of the people of God as a kingdom of Priests.

Other then what I have already said, we are literally declaring the praises of Him who called us out of darkness. Every time you give your testimony and praise God, you are literally declaring God’s glory and His praise. It isn’t symbolic. It is literal and spiritual. It is our spiritual service.

I think the problem that you have, Mark, is that you think that a priest “serves” only by killing lambs and offering bloody sacrifices. This was a temporal duty of a few. But the permanent duties that Israel will come into will not revolve around the death of an animal, but of spiritual service as witnesses of the LORD God Almighty. The work of a priest in animal sacrifice was merely a shadow of the reality which is in Christ. The priests pointed towards Christ by offering of the animals in death and the priests after Christ point back to the bloody sacrifice on the cross. The priesthood has changed with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

And to carry on…

Calvin summarises Israels adn Christians role as ‘Prophet, Priest and King’. Symbolically we are a kingdom of priests- we represent God on this world.

Romans 12:1 says that our service is “spiritual” not as “symbolical”. It is a spiritual service in ministry. You just can’t make it go away. We are fellow heirs with you, my friend, and our service to the Lord and to the body is of equal value.

Mark,

The Levitical priesthood could only ever be done by men from the tribe of Levi-scripture teaches this.

Then tell me what the “Levitical priesthood” will be doing during the future reign of Christ when there is no more animal sacrifices? Let me answer you: They will be joined with their brothers and sisters in the national priesthood as “ministers of our God”.

Mark, I am loving this conversation. Thanks for hanging in….

4. Cheryl, again i totally disagree with your understanding of the priesthood. Exodus 19 is actually the only occurance where the 2 hebrew words form together ‘kingdom of priests’.

God says more about this special priesthood:

Isa 61:6 But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And in their riches you will boast.

Mark,

3. The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT. IT derives from the idea of shephard/prebyter/overseer. It is not man made tradition. In fact im a bit sick of being referred to traditon all the time. It’s in the bible. Maybe we should question who is more influenced by society, the comp view or egal view? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

The “office” is a tradition but is not scriptural. I think that if you had Biblical proof that there was such an “office” of pastor, etc, then you would have given it by now. The only “office” that is said that needed to be filled was the “office” that Judas held as one of the 12 who was picked by Jesus as an apostle.

I think that we should just leave the issue of “office” for now since you have brought no Scriptural proof of such an office and just saying that it is there in the Bible is no substitute for proof. Here I like to test all things and to hold fast to what is true.

As far as who is influenced by society, all we have to do is go to the third world (India, Africa will do) and see how the society holds women back and in so many places they refuse to allow women to learn or to be teachers. We are way too cloistered in our own society that we miss what goes on in the “real” world.

Mark, continuing on:

2. Cheryl, i don’t see prophesying in Cor as the same as teaching. If that is what your bible exposition looks like in your church i would be very intrigued to visit one day. There are many different types of ‘prophecy’ outlined in scripture. We ought not bulk them together under the banner of ‘teaching’ or preaching. If you think we should, please show how scripture does this? Also i have repreated said that 1 Tim was written to Timothy not a church. If you can outline from 1 Timothy how is role is not a ‘pastor’ from what Paul is instructs him to do please also show?

Prophesying has to have some element of teaching in it because Paul says that when everyone does this, then everyone learns

1 Cor 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

If people are learning, then they are being taught. I don’t think we should have to back away from that.

Paul instructs Timothy as his son in the faith as one who ministers to Paul and goes out to serve the assemblies as Paul sends him for one reason or another. That is an apostolic representative as he represents Paul to the congregations and reports on the congregation’s well-being back to Paul. Timothy is never called a pastor.

Mark,
Ahhh….I just hate when I lose my comments. Oh well, if what I was commenting on that I lost comes up again, I will work on reconstructing my comments. 🙁 Maybe I should work on restricting my comments to a shorter version so that I don’t lose as much 🙂

1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe this but no one has given any evidence to conclude that 1 Cor 14 is not directed to a ‘formal’ type gathering. Likewise do any of you bother going to church on a sunday? IF you do, why do you bother, if Sunday ‘Church’ is the same as bible study and the like. Your own actions if you go to church, contradict your own view.

Mark, you say “formal” but the assemblies in the early church were nothing like what we have in our “formal” church. Instead of one speaker with all just as listeners, everyone had an opportunity to edify the church. Going to a larger building on Sunday is wonderful because many more people are able to meet that way. But the other smaller gatherings of the church are just as good. They are more intimate and everyone gets to speak out. Our “church” services on Sunday are tradition and not necessary to meet in a large building. Many people today have opted out of the large (please excuse me for the dear pastors who read this as I am not trying to offend you) institutional one man dog-and-pony show. Small groups and home churches are becoming far more common place.