Cheryl Schatz

I think that the “dark side” of submission has been hidden and swept under the carpet so that many believe it shouldn’t be talked about openly. I disagree. When we openly discuss these things, those who are in the place to offer counsel and spiritual guidance may have their eyes opened to the danger of telling a woman that the answer is always submission.

One other thing that I should say about the work of an overseer is that Paul said that all may desire to attain to the work of overseer 1 Timothy 3:1. The work is not an “office” that is limited to only a few but all may desire the work. Jews, Gentiles, slave, free, male, female…all may desire the good work of overseeing.

Mark,
I had a big long answer to some of your points and then I accidentally typed over it and lost it. I will just summarize this point:

Timothy should most definitely be described as the ‘pastor’ of the Ephesian Church when Paul wrote this letter. Any attempt to say otherwise is really just ignorance of the facts.

Timothy travelled with Paul from one place to another and together with Paul he wrote letters to the Philippian church and to the Colossians. If you do a word search on Timothy you will find that he ministered to Paul and then Paul sent him out to the churches to find out how they were doing. He would then go back to Paul to minister to him again. Timothy was not “the” pastor at Ephesus. He was an apostolic representative of Paul’s who spent his time ministering to Paul, overseeing the condition of the churches and reporting back to Paul, writing letters with Paul to the churches and at least once in Ephesus he stayed behind after Paul left to clean up some of the remaining problems. He did not remain on as the pastor of Ephesus, but moved on as Paul had need for him.

Paul’s letter to Timothy was personal and he call Timothy “his child in the faith” and not the “pastor of Ephesus”.

1 Tim 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Note the ONLY false teachers we know of are Hymenaius and Alexander, both men.

Not true. The ONLY false teachers that are named are the deliberate deceivers. The misled and deceived are not named so we do not know what gender they are were. And you have forgotten one of the most famous false teachers who was a woman.

Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Paul follows the pattern of the Holy Spirit to name the deceivers and leave the deceived false teachers unnamed.

Mark,
You said:

The reason why i dont think there are no other guidelines for who leads ot teaches in other circumstances is because it doesnt matter. This is precisely my view. Paul only restricts a woman from the formal teaching/leading of the church.

If I understand you right, you believe that a woman can instruct men in Bible study in her own home or in any other venue except for a traditional worship service in a church. If I understand you right, then you are on our side in a lot of ways. I am wondering if you take any active part in helping dispel the wrong teaching that says that women cannot teach the Bible to men any where at any place for any reason? Are you willing to back up your sisters in Christ and help to free us from restrictions that hurts both women and men in giving and receiving God’s gifts?

Just a note that the last segment to the talk on women on trial is now up. I pray that it will help many find freedom in their God-given gifts and also help men embrace their sisters in Christ without prejudice.

Thanks gengwall for catching that. I corrected the error. That’s what I get for not checking my own writing. I am trying to get a bunch of stuff done today and I didn’t read over what I have written. If there are a bunch of errors, then that is why. Just let me know. I should have egg on my face for rushing this morning. 😉

If indeed these can not be classified as “church”, where are the scriptural guidelines that define who can teach in these other “contexts”?

Excellent question gengwall!

I find these back and forth questions and answers very stimulating. This is the way we should always be able to hash out these kinds of disagreements – with dignity and respect and passion. It is iron sharpening iron and it is very beneficial to all of us.

I am going to take a break now and go back to editing the last video clip so that I can get it uploaded today.

Mark, I hope that you will continue to work through the clips and give your feedback. I appreciate the things that you say and especially the places where we have agreement. At least you are not one of those hard-nosed hardliners who make a woman fearful of saying anything lest she might be considered teaching a man. That is a humble attitude that you have in allowing a woman to teach you “unofficially” at least! Carry on and I will be back to this discussion later.

Mark,
You said:

Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’.

Bible studies are “church” as they are assembly of the believers. The early church met in homes and they studied and spoke on the bible just as we do in our own homes. If you are going to restrict women in “the church”, then you will also have to restrict women speaking in the assembly of believers in their own homes.

Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.

Aside from whether women can be elders or not, the fact is that the Scripture nowhere says that only elders may teach. Women may indeed teach in the assembly of believers according to 1 Cor. 14 where Paul encourages all to prophesy so that all may learn.

I would like to ask you to prove that only elders are allowed to teach in the assembly? Where do you get such a strong stand from? Which scripture says this?

That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.

The assembly of believers is as much like Christ as possible when each one is allowed to exercise their own gift just as Paul instructed in 1 Cor. 14. Paul said that we are not to forbid the speaking of the gifts. The question I have is why are so many men willing to forbid the gifts that God has given? Are they not grieving the Holy Spirit by restricting His work and His gifts?

They should teach the word faithfully and be submissive in character and action to their sheep. They should never lord it over or demand things, but they also have the auhtority to make decisons knowing that one day they will give an account for what they do.

The teaching of the word in a faithful manner was not restricted to those who are “called” elders. No one in the assembly is to lord it over others nor as they to take authority over anyone in the assembly.

Headship isnt about domination, Christ revealed it is about love and submission and doing everything in my power to make my wife more like Him.

You are so right when you say that being “head” is not about domination. Kudos to you! However I disagree with you that being “head” means to make your wife more like Him. You have no power to do that. You place is to conform yourself to be like Him. Your wife’s responsible is to conform herself to be like Him. You can influence your wife and she can influence you to follow Jesus, but just as Adam was not called to speak for Eve, you will not be called to speak for your wife or be responsible for her. This is a faulty tradition that the church has accepted for a long time, but which has no foundation in the Scripture.

I dont think we should confuse teaching between spouses and the teaching roles involved in churches.

The Bible doesn’t talk about teaching “roles” and the word “role” is not even found in the Bible. Instead the Bible talks about “gifts”. We are all responsible for our gifts and no member of the body is to restrict others from using their gifts. The only restriction that is ever given regarding the gifts is based on what is beneficial for all. Speaking in another language without an interpretation and long periods of another language (more than three speakers) is not working to edify the church. Other than that, the gifts are to be embraced and welcomed and used. They are not meant to be restricted or held back from others in the body depending on their gender, their race or their social standing.

Mark,
You said:

Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers.

As I said in a previous comment, 1 Timothy was not addressed to a church at all. It was a private letter to Timothy and Timothy was not the pastor of this church. He represented Paul in ministry where Paul needed him and he was temporarily in Ephesus to correct a problem, not to pastor a church. While 1 Timothy is what tradition calls the “pastoral” letters, it doesn’t mean that the recipients were “pastors” but that Paul was writing letters in a pastoral way – letters of encouragement and instruction to individuals.

Each of Paul’s letters is explicit regarding the audience to whom it is written. In Corinthians, Paul is writing to the body of believers. In 1 Timothy, Paul is not writing to the body of believers. He could have written to them all if he wanted. But instead of writing to the entire body, Paul writes to one person alone with individual instruction.

The term “formal” regarding the meeting of the body is not in the scriptures. There are no meetings of the body that are called “informal”. In fact as Dave has pointed out, wherever two or three believers gather together is a gathering of the church and the Lord Jesus promised to be in each gather of believers even if the gathering is as small as two.

Tradition has taught us that there must be men (elders) leading the gathering of believers or else it really isn’t church. This is the same thought that the Jewish oral law provided for the synagogue. They were disallowed by their own law (not God’s law!) from having an official synagogue unless there were at least 10 men present. This is why the women gathered outside the gate.

Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

With an understanding of Jewish history, we can clearly understand why these women were not in the synagogue. They were outside by the river because there was not enough men to qualify for a “formal” assembly. But God has no such restrictions. An all women assembly is indeed considered as a “place” of prayer by Paul and the other apostles.

Mark,
Continuing on, you said:

2. I would also not use the Levitical priesthood as ‘proof’ for my argument for the headship of Adam in the garden. The priesthood does show us something about Leadership and its requirements/who was aloud to do it etc, but i don’t think it supports the JW view either.

The priesthood was about offering sacrifices and it was designed for one family. It says nothing about leadership since there were no qualification of gender or family in the leadership of the Prophets or the Judges. These were chosen and given leadership by God Himself.

Cheryl, im assuming you are the Narrator? If so, i am also concerned at a few things you had to say apart from the accent 🙂

Well, my friend, I am always happy to deal with the concerns. Yes, I am the narrator. It was a talk that I gave to an ex-JW convention in 2006.

Your whole argument for this video around the priesthood if i can put simply was this ‘The Levitical Priesthood was the foundation and it was supposed to spread to everyone (women included) not just men’. If this is what you were saying i disagree.

What I was saying was what the Bible says about the nation of Israel. The Priesthood started out as the “Levitical” Priesthood. It was one tribe alone. But it was not meant to stay this way because God promised Israel that they would be a nation of priests just as God said that the body of Christ are all priests.

1. The ‘covenant’ nation Israel is not the same as the Levitical Preisthood. You attempted to argue your view from Exodus 19 where Israel is called a ‘kingdom of priests’, to show how women are essentially included into the priesthood- they are not. The covenant community was chosen as God’s people to be a nation of preists in the sense of projecting God’s glory to the world. This of course included men, women, children as it does now. ‘The Church’ i.e covenant community has the same role to fill. The metaphor for a nation of priests is symbolic of their role as Gods chosen people and i think you have confused it with the role of Levitical men wrongly.

It is interesting that the family of Levites who are priests is literal but the nation as priests is a “metaphor”. It isn’t a “metaphor”. The fact that God says that if Israel would obey Him, that He would make the entire nation a kingdom of “priests” shows that God is not withholding service from some because of their family line or their gender. Mark, this is not dealing with the text in an honest way. You are just disregarding what God has said by calling it a “metaphor”. Where does God say that the priesthood of Israel is “symbolic”? 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.

Is the body of Christ “symbolic” priests or do we have a spiritual function as priests in the kingdom? Certainly we do not sacrifice animals on the altar but that is unnecessary since the one true sacrifice has been offered and the sacrifices have been abolished.

2. The Levitical Preisthood was established as God’s priests to fulfill the role of the Hebrew cultic system, i.e temple. This role could only be performed by men of the tribe of Levites. No women were aloud to perform this role, nor men from another tribe. The Levites were set aside by God for this role.

That is correct. However in this was a temporal duty and there is a higher position coming. God said that the nation would be priests “to ME” and in the New Testament we are offering up our own bodies as a living and holy sacrifice and this is our spiritual service of worship. We are a kingdom of priests serving God in this temple (our body) to the service of the entire body of Christ.

Rom 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

This higher position, higher than the Levitical priesthood is available to all without restriction in the body of Christ. Israel has not yet come to the place where they are all priests to God since they are in disobedience until now. But one day they will also fulfill God’s mandate for them and they too will all be priests.

If God calls us real priests and offering up our body to him is a real duty of that priesthood, then who are we to say that our priesthood is only “symbolic” and that it is less than that of the Levitical priesthood? It is not less than the first priesthood. It is greater.

Therefore i am concerned how you confuse the two in an attempt to show that women were just as much ‘priests’ as the men. This is simply not the case. The role given to the Levitical priesthood should not be confused as the same role/idea as the kingdom of priests, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the New Testament. We all have the role of being Christ’s representatives here on earth as did the Hebrews, but the role of priests belonged only to men in the OT. Likewise the positions of elder/pastor are only held by men in the NT and we should follow that. All it really did was show a poor biblical theology.

I am not saying that the Jewish women “were” priests. I said that if Israel obeyed God, he promised that all of them would be priests. They never got to that point so their women had not yet come into the priesthood of Israel. Although you say that the “role” of priests belonged to men alone in the Old Testament, I showed you from the scriptures where this was not the way that it was meant to stay. It was not meant to remain a closed position only with one tribe and only men. It was always meant to be open to the whole nation.

You see, the priesthood was a place of holiness where the priests had to keep themselves clean. No one could minister without be cleansed. The nation was not yet ready to be in that position, but God promised that one day they would be clean – all of them. This is a very precious promise and in the body of Christ we are all clean by the blood of Christ. All of us have been given the position of priests and as ones cleaned and ready for service, none of us are held back by the uncleanness of sin. So while God started out with only one tribe that was “clean” and fit for service, He would spread to the entire nation so that all are “clean” and fit for His service. To disregard this is to say that God’s promise of service for the entire nation has no real merit.

Think about it this way – if the priesthood was always and only for men alone then it would be improper for God to promise it to women in any shape or form. He would have to call their service something else because women then would not be able to be priests whether symbolic, actual or spiritual. It would be disallowed. You have to deal with this. Why were women said to be part of the priesthood? Why are you so willing to dismiss this very important chapter in favor of restricting God’s service to men alone? Is it possible that your own prejudice has kept you blind so that you cannot accept the high calling of women alongside their brothers?

Secondly the Bible never says that “pastors” and “elders” can “ONLY” be men. The Bible could have clearly said that if that was the case. But it does not. More about that later.

Mark,
You said:

1. I’m not very familiar with the Jw’s or there theology, so i can only go off what is presented in these videos. I do not agree that Eve ‘sinned’ by talking to the snake. If this was true the fall would be insignificant and the bible wrong. I do not believe that, so i am not willing to accept that Eve sinned pre-fall.

Mark, that is excellent! Then you would agree with me that the woman was not under obligation to ask permission from her husband to either speak to the serpent or to make a decision for herself? For I believe, as the bible teaches, that Eve’s sin was none other than her eating of the forbidden fruit.

Mark,
I have very little time tonight to respond. I will try to do so tomorrow.

The one question I have for you is your statement:

Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church.

Can you please point me to the documentation from 1 Timothy 1 where Paul is addressing a church? Also where do you get the idea from that Timothy is the “pastor” of the Ephesian church? Timothy was not the “pastor” but an apostolic representative who was in Ephesus temporarily to correct the problems. Paul didn’t leave Timothy behind to be the “pastor” but he was left behind to stop the false teachers from giving out their error. The book of 1 Timothy is a personal letter from Paul to Timothy to encourage him and give him some direction regarding problem people and problem situations. If you have any documentation that Paul was actually writing to a church instead of his “son” in the faith, then I would be willing to see what you have.

Mark, thanks for your work on the modern language copy of Margaret Fell’s 1666 book. I am sure that there will others who will also feel that this was a worthwhile venture. Thanks!

Mark,
Amen! And welcome to my blog!!

I am teaching on Eve and Genesis tonight at our small group women’s Bible study. My topic will be how God has brought the necessity of faith even in the very beginning. I will likely do another post on the faith angle later on as I have time. There are so many ways to see the importance of paying attention to what God has said and to understand why He said it.

Oh and for those who really want to get into Bible study in a new generation of software that will blow your socks off, here is the link http://www.logos.com/4

Leanne,
Thanks for your kind comments!

My talk that I made into youtube videos was done in 2006 and at that time I had far less Greek/Hebrew resources than I do now. Although the term “aner” is usually used for males alone, it can be used generically and although I didn’t know that in 2006, I added the fact that it can be generic in the visual text so that it would be properly noted.

Last night I finished loading my new upgrade to Logos Bible Software 4. I upgraded to the platinum version and the new version of Logos is mouth dropping amazing. It is going to be hard to pull myself away from all-out Bible study. If I am missing for long periods of time, just visualize me at my computer in the Logos system because that is likely where I am when I am not video editing and doing all other kinds of ministry.

Dave,
I love everything you write! There is so many times I have read your answers and wish I had said that!

pinklight,

Did you say “apple” gengwall??

Pinklight you caught this one and it made me laugh so hard. I am just getting ready to load the next audio clip for the youtube clips on this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/31/women-on-trial It will take a few hours to upload but the info in the latest clip will show why our dear old “apple” can never be listed as a possible fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As always I am very interested to hear Mark’s feedback.

Lin said:

Adding to HIS Words to get preeminance for themselves.

Unfortunately the fact that the Scriptures have been added to and the result is that men alone are given a preeminent position and women alone are restricted shows that the old sin nature is still an issue. When we determine to love one another preferring one another in brotherly love, we won’t insist on preeminence nor will be lord it over others to force them to be silent. When we do as Jesus told us to do – service with love, we will not follow the deeds of the flesh.

Kay,
You asked:

It seems like one has to twist oneself into an impossible hermenutical pretzel in order to “prove” that Eve was out of submission before the Fall….(Have you ever been able to directly question any comp leaders/teachers about this…uhhh, hemmm… little problem?

When I have asked these questions on other forums/blogs I either get silence back or else answers that assume their position without even trying to prove it. The only challenge they offer is that God talked to Adam first. But this proves nothing unless God defines this as meaning what the comps want it to mean. There is no direct or indirect command for Adam to rule Eve or to take his authority over her at their creation and if we think we can add to God’s Words a meaning from silence then we could “prove” that women should now “rule” man because God approached Mary first and then Joseph was contacted only after Mary was already pregnant. Buttress that with the fact that women were the first apostles sent out to give the men the message of the resurrection. Should we be “proving” that these very special things “prove” that women are to “rule” men and must now take authority over them? That would be ridiculous! One gender ruling the other gender in either direction is not a godly command in the Bible and no amount of reading into the text even by who was created first is good enough as a proof.

Pinklight,
In keeping with your questions, we should then question whether there is a “role” at all. It may appear that Mark is convinced not about “roles” but about a building. If it isn’t a “place” of worship then women’s teaching isn’t forbidden. Is it possible to challenge his position by saying that it isn’t a “role” prohibition but a “place” prohibition? That is…men’s “place” is in the church. Woman’s “place” is in the home and in the schools and the rented halls, etc.

But the puzzling part to this equation is that there is no mention of Christian buildings in the New Testament. No “place” of church is listed so how could women be banned from teaching in a “place” that didn’t exist? The church (and this is a term regarding the people not a building) met in homes and by the river and anywhere else there was safety.

Also it would be odd for Paul to ban women from teaching in the assembly (amongst the believers) when 1 Cor. 14 allows all to use their God-given gifts to teach all so that all are edified. There are so many unanswered questions when we take 1 Timothy 2:12 as a universal law even if we downgrade it to the law of a “place”.

Excellent additions gengwall!

Mark,
I do not hold to parochial views. I have no problem at all disagreeing with egalitarian views if I believe that they violate the scriptures. Those who regularly read my blog will attest to that. I have way too much of a love for the truth to get caught up in an ideology. I just want Biblical truth no matter which direction it leads me.

My shock at the complementarian view of a subordinate Lord of Hosts in the Trinity (for this is who Jesus is in His preincarnate state) is because of my doctrinal background not because of my egalitarian beliefs. My work with the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1988 has trained me in the importance of the Trinity and the comp view is much closer to the JW view than it is to the historic position of the Trinity. Remember I used to be a comp myself but I could not teach a subordinate will in the Trinity or a lesser authority for the LORD of hosts. It is against the express teaching of the Scriptures. Some JW’s find themselves in the comp view and they tell me because the comp view is the most like their old JW view. Others who have been set free from the Watchtower are shocked to hear the teaching about the lowering of Jesus. I sat in a lecture by Bruce Ware with a former Jehovah’s Witness on either side of me, one of them having a family history back to the time of the founder of the Watchtower. She literally gasped when she heard the comp teaching of the Trinity. And she was raised to believe that women couldn’t teach men so that wasn’t the issue. The issue is the downgrading of Jesus.

Bruce Ware has gone so far in his downgrading of Jesus that he has no problem in stating that Jesus has no “role” of hearing or answering prayers. My response to that is what one of my ex-JW friends said about Bruce Ware. He did not want to be standing next to him at the judgment when he gives an account to Jesus. He says that anyone who believes that Christians are wrong to give too much honor to Jesus deserves the lightning bolt that will hit them at the judgment.

I say that one cannot give too much honor to Jesus. He is the Almighty God and worthy of all honor and praise and glory.

Mark,
Weird accents? No way, my friend. We speak English up here in Canada. Not sure yet what you “blokes” speak 😉

Let me ask you about women not teaching in “the church”. There were no church buildings nor where there pulpits in the time that Paul wrote to Timothy. Are women allowed to teach in their own home?

I will try to get the other segments up later this week. I am quite interested to see how you will do on our jury duty. Will you find the women innocent or not? We are sitting on pins and needles to know what you decide. Thanks for agreeing to watch the segments. They should prompt some good discussion.

Lydia,

I would love to hear you speak to this. It took me many years to conceive. The emotional pain is unbearable. We had started saving to adopt internationally (no fat cat donors giving us funds!) because it is actually cheaper and safer than adopting in the US! (You have NO guarantees in the US anymore of keeping the child)

Thank you for sharing your pain! Yes, I think that this would be an appropriate topic for this blog and I have written it down for a future post. Thanks for bringing this up.

And that being so, still not all women become mothers and not all men become fathers.

Good point, Kay! I stand corrected. I should say that all mothers are women and all fathers are men. These are not necessary “roles” for everyone but they are accepted “roles” that differ between sexes. It is wonderful now that we can accept women doctors and male nurses. Each person has their own gifts that we should not stifle.

Mark #233,

You said:

Where do you NOT blend their persons?
Frank your research is no doubt extensive and you continue to pursue the idea that the early church denied distinction in roles somehow- I disagree. The whole battle the early theologians faced was a subordinationism of essence. I think you are wrong to read back into that debate a subordinationism of function.

“blending their persons” means that one attempts to make them into one person. When one says that they believe in three persons who are in an intimate relationship with each other, that cannot be a “blending of their persons”.

Also subordination of function necessitates a subordination of essence. If, for example, the Father is said to have more power than the Son, then that function must be tied into the person’s nature for power and authority are part of God’s essence. God is omnipotent. If the Son would have less power and less authority to use His will and power, then He is no longer omnipotent. I understand your desire to hold to the complementarian view of God because it is helpful in your view of women, but I would like to gently encourage you to try to understand the issue of essence. God’s power and authority cannot be divorced from His essence.

If Jesus was raised as a physical human man, and is now seated at the right hand of the father, what now is his ‘role’ in your opinion? If Jesus still has his humanity now and according to egalitarians, that is the ONLY thing that makes him subordinate, how is he not then eternally in that position? Maybe you think his humanity is now insignificant?

Jesus is a resurrected human and He will be sitting in a place of judgment shortly. All judgment has been given to Him. When He completes His return to earth and earthly reign and the 1,000 years and future judgment are complete, He gives back into the Father’s hands everything that the Father has turned over to Jesus alone.

I really recommend you to get a copy of The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future for my two sections on the second DVD will fill in all the gaps for you. Email me if you would like a deal on the shipping to Australia.

As far as Jesus eternal subordination, no that will not continue. The Godhead will be seen as ONE in eternity with no role divisions. Again, I recommend that you get a copy of the DVD because it will make it much easier to dialog on this subject.

Also, I have received a request to invite you to my post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/31/women-on-trial/ where I have placed three segments of my talk that deals with a trial against two of God’s women. There are many of us who would like to have you interact with the material. I still have another 3 or 4 segments to post, and I will try to get them all up within the next week.

Again, welcome back Mark. I think I can speak for us all that we really missed you! You are a joy to have on this blog even if we disagree. We love to talk about our disagreements and even in the end if we must agree to disagree, I believe that we can be as iron sharpening iron.

Mark,
I also believe that many if not most complementarians hold to their belief because they do think that it is the view of Scripture. These kinds of complementarians can be engaged in conversation and we can give them our view to show how we are convinced that God has given women freedom in their gifts without gender, culture or social standing restrictions.

However there are others who have written about their viewpoint while distorting the facts about the opposition. While we cannot judge their heart and say why they have done this, we should point out the misstatements. When they are aware of what they are doing and still continue, it is a serious issue. It is a godly thing to point out these errors. I do ask for respect for both sides on my blog. I don’t strictly reinforce it because I don’t want to be guilty of holding people back especially in their own pain. But I do very much want respect given to each and every complementarian who comes here and who does not come to attack. I think that comps who can brave any egalitarian “camp” should hold our deep respect.

Hi Mark,
I am glad to see you back.

Allow me to clarify something if I may 🙂 You said:

Seems like your blog is about ministy and ‘roles’ not spiritual equality.

My friend, ministry is a spiritual part of our lives and the ability to have equal freedom to operate without restriction with the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives us is an issue of spiritual equality.

There are “role” differences in the natural. Only women can be mothers. Only men can be fathers. However when one tries to place a “role” on the spiritual as if some are free to use their gifts without anyone standing in their way and others must deal with human roadblocks in order to fulfill their spiritual calling, there is a spiritual problem.

Perhaps you can tell me why you think this is not a spiritual issue? Do you consider “spiritual” matters to only be private issues concerning ourselves and God or can you understand that spiritual matters can be our spiritual service to the body of Christ? I would be very interested to understand your viewpoint.

Yes, it is a real problem. It not only creates sin before the fall, but it creates a sin that neither Adam, Eve, God or any of the Biblical writers exposes. That is quite a conundrum.