Cheryl Schatz

Hey, Jennifer, thanks!!

Hi Jennifer,

Amazon.com takes credit cards and you can order one line at http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Eternity-Future-Explaining-Exposing/dp/B001ID8582/ or you can call our ministry line at 250-505-5214.  If no one is in, just leave a message with your phone number and order and someone will call you back.  We do take Master Card and Visa through the ministry phone line.

I hope that helps!

Cheryl

Julie,

Welcome! It is always good to have a lurker comment.  Thanks!

Don,

Yes, I too believe that Piper and Grudem are deceiving themselves by reinventing a mean of “not deceived” that is foreign to scripture.  If Adam’s act had not been by a one who knew the truth but defied God anyway, God would not have called his act a treacherous act.

Paula,

Your question about the “plain reading” of scripture is a good one.  i was thinking as I was reading their explanation that they were plain old messing with my head.  Others called this textual gymnastics.  It amounts to the same thing.  Your comment amount the “umbrella made of cheesecloth” made me laugh out loud.

For those hierarchists who are upset that many see Deborah as a wonderful egalitarian leader in Israel, raised up by God as a judge and who condemn egalitarians for “seeing” too much into the account, I thought it appropriate to give a little story:

A young couple moved into a new neighborhood the next morning while they were eating breakfast, The young woman saw her neighbor hanging the wash outside. ‘That laundry is not very clean,’ she said. ‘She doesn’t know how to wash correctly. Perhaps she needs better laundry soap.’

Her husband looked on, but remained silent.

Every time her neighbor would hang her wash to dry the young woman would make the same comments.

About one month later, the woman was surprised to see a nice clean wash on the line and said to her husband:

‘Look, she has learned how to wash correctly. I wonder who taught her this.’

The husband said, ‘I got up early this morning and cleaned our windows.’

Lin,
That is very helpful information.  Thanks!  Are you familiar with the relationship of the subordination of the Son regarding Calvinist/Arminian and complementarian/egalitarian in the Southern Baptist Convention?  I would be very interested to know more information in that area too.

I am still working hard on year end accounting and haven’t had a chance to respond to everything here but I will do so by early next week.

One thing I would like to mention is that I have seen a strong connection between complementarians & ultra strong calvinists & subordinationists.  The ones who are the strongest against the equal authority of Jesus appear to also be against women’s spiritual equality in the church and in strong agreement with John Calvin.  John Calvin was known for his “my way or the highway” approach.  I have been mulling over why the three seem connected in some way and why people like John Piper, John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll appear to be united on these issues.  Perhaps it is a coincidence, but somehow I don’t think so.

Right again, Don!  A widow and a young unmarried girl did not have to worry about having a man make a claim on her hair as an object of lust.  She was able to do as she pleased.

It is kind of a shame that there was freedom for the unmarried and the loss of personal expression after marriage.  But…that was the culture.

Don,

Good thoughts.

The key to establish the meaning is to understand that glory should never be covered up.  If a person is God’s glory, then that person should shine forth the glory.  If a woman is the man’s glory, then she should shine forth his glory and not cover up.  This works well with the man being God’s glory, but a woman has two things to consider as you said.  Just as man from the beginning covered up because of his sin, men were conscious of their sin and wanted to show their awareness of their sin.  But if indeed man is really forgiven of his sins, then there is no need to cover up for sin, but shine for the glory of God.  Jesus said that a light is meant to shine in the darkness and not be covered up.  So man was meant to shine forth God’s glory and not cover up.

Women too have God’s glory but they were also seen as having something that only a husband should see – and that was her hair.  The husband wanted to keep that part of a woman private so that only he could see her glory with a full head of hair.  It appears to me that women originally were covered up as a sign of the shame of sin, but later it became a symbol of her special oneness or intimacy with her husband and he did not want to share that with the world.  In our culture the hair on one’s head is not seen as a thing that would produce men’s lust and thus women have the full privilege of showing themselves as being the glory of God and the glory of the man.  It is a wonderful thing when the man is proud of his wife and is proud to share her gifts and talents with the church rather than keeping her only for his own self.  Keeping her hidden away from the public speaks of his insecurity and perhaps his own pride which produces jealousy instead of the man glorying in his wife’s gifts.  If the woman is truly the glory of the man, then she must be released to be that glory.

For those who are reading my blog and wonder how I am doing – I would like to give a praise report.  The two weeks of antibiotics have done a fantastic job of healing me!  I still have some scarring and faint marks but not that most people would notice.  Now I just need to keep myself away from unusual stress for the next while and I should be 100% healed.  I am just so thankful to God that what was a very bad diagnosis has been changed to a praise report.

God is able to use many unusual things to bring about a person’s salvation.  This does not condone an abusive tactic used by the church or pastor.  I heard one of Mark Driscoll’s messages that was a very powerful presentation of the gospel.  It isn’t the gospel that is the problem but what he adds to the gospel and the way he ministers that will hurt his ministry and eventually the name of Christ.  There is much advice and correction in scripture on why the way of the Master is much better than having a super pastor who uses crude language and a “my way or the highway” approach.  Yet God is still able to take the gospel preached and bring a soul to Christ.  My concern is how that new convert is discipled so that they do not emulate the abusive behavior.

The really scary part is that many young men see Mark Driscoll as a hero, a kind of super Christian doing everything the right way.  There are many young pastors who hold him up as a type of mentor and who will be following in his steps.  When people add to the gospel and the destructive way they deal with the sheep may very well destroy their ministry and further tarnish the image of Christianity.  So many pastors, instead of serving the sheep, are pushing a “my way or the highway” approach to shepherding.  Everywhere on the internet we read of churches that are being hurt and destroyed and sheep that are being battered and abused.  This makes me very sad.

This week has been very busy for me as I am working day and night on year end accounting for our ministry and by the end of the day I am very exhausted so this has kept me away from the blog.  Hopefully the work will be done this week.

Lin,

I think it will be exciting to meet each other in person in heaven.  Some of the regular posters here have become very special to me that I feel like I know you.  I will certainly want to get to know you for real in our final home.

tiro and Don,
Many thanks for all your input and kind thoughts.

Mike,
What a blessing to know that you have joined in our little community even if you don’t post very often.

I’ve come to the conclusion that our present model for ‘church’ has so many flaws and is so far from the example that we were given in the New Testament church; its no wonder this goes on.

I have thought lately that the church may end up going back to home churches as the present model of church has become so infiltrated with hierarchy and abuse.  Also the structure of the church as we know it does not allow for everyone to use their gifts and the church has become a training ground for pew sitters instead of participants.  This is not the way it should be.

Jael,
Thanks for popping in and sharing your thoughts!  I am glad to know that you too are one of the (usually) silent readers here.  I am amazed at the amount of people who have been spiritually abused and who have also put up a huge wall in their hearts because of it.  When we have the opportunity to care for one another and share our concern and love, we are given the special blessing of helping to tear down that wall that has been built up.  Jesus is the only one who is truly trustworthy, but he lives inside of us and we need to continue to grow to be like him and minister his love to the body.

I will look forward to that special hug later in 2009!

Regarding the one post that I just removed,  we do not allow vulgarity on this blog.  Perhaps you can find a manly blog where insults are the order of the day.

Have a good day!

Lin,

I hear what you are saying.  For those without a safe place amongst their family and friends, it can be especially hard.  Many people when they are forced to leave their churches because of some type of spiritual abuse find that they are separated from all of their friends.  This makes their situation all the more hopeless in their eyes.

In this day and age of computers and ways of communicating without having to live close by each other, we can connect and have a community through the internet and email.  I treasure the community of believers that comes here.  It is my desire for people to feel safe to contact me and to know that what is placed openly on this blog is meant for hope and healing.  This may not be as good as people you can go to and receive a physical hug, but it may be the next best thing and for that I give God the glory and honor and praise that he has provided ways for us to connect.

Ramon,

The word “Trinity” doesn’t need to be given in scripture because the concept of three persons all called God but only one God is in scripture.  There is absolutely no such concept of “priest in the home” given for the man.  I have a whole section on Genesis and Adam and Eve.  Do a search at the top right hand side of the page in the box called search for “Adam” or “Eve” and you will find what I have written on that subject.

You said that God didn’t go to Eve regarding her sin.  This is false.  God did speak to Eve about her sin.  God did not speak to Adam and Eve’s sin.  God only spoke to Adam about his own sin.

There was no “curse” given for the sin except for what God said about death.  The only “curse” was given to the animals and the earth.  Again, read up on what I have written in this blog about these subjects.

As far as “order” in the Trinity, read on what I have written about the Trinity and the false teaching about Jesus’ eternal subordination.

As far as “leadership” in the NT, I assume you mean “authority” of one person over another.  I do not believe that the NT gives anyone another over another person.  Instead the leaders are to be “servants” not ones who have “authority over” the flock.  There is a lot on this blog about that topic too.

I hope this helps.
Cheryl

I can deal with a leader when I have differences in interpretation if they are gentle.

Amen!  Gentleness makes the differences easier to handle.  If someone thinks that I am wrong, it certainly won’t help me to change my mind if that person speaks harshly with me or mocks me.

Proverbs 15:1  A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Don,

I concur with your statements.  For many the place of power will corrupt them whether it is giving place to their sinful nature a little bit or a lot.  This is why, I believe, that God doesn’t place us under a human mediator as some religions would have us believe, but rather God allows us individually access to Himself through the God-man Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the best example of the difference between a dictatorial leader and a servant model is what happens when there is a perceived “wrong”.

2 Timothy 2:24  The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
2 Timothy 2:25  with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
2 Timothy 2:26  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

The one who is a godly servant to the flock will be patient when wronged.  He will act in gentleness and he will pray that God will grant repentance to those who wronged him.  The attitude is one of care for the flock, a heart of love and a patient steadfast nature that will not attack the one who “wronged” him.

In contrast the one who is an authoritarian leader will not be patient when wronged.  Instead he will act to protect himself instead of acting to protect the flock.  His actions will show that he is the most important and his ego and his “rights” are what needs protection.  You won’t find this kind of leadership in scripture.  Well, actually, that isn’t quite right.  There is a “leader” of sorts who protects himself.  This “leader” is called a “hired hand” or in the KJV a “hireling”.

John 10:12  “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:13  “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.

This is why I believe we are called to service and sacrifice.  Service helps us to love those we serve.  Those who are pastors for the money they get or the power they wield are unlikely to care about the sheep because their focus is not the sheep but themselves.  So one of the ways to know whether a pastor has a true heart of a pastor is to see what he does when trouble comes.  When he is wronged, who does he protect, himself or the sheep?

Don, I liked your example of the hobbits.  I never did “get” the Lord of the Rings, probably because I have too much of a logical mind to “get” things that don’t seem to make sense.  I do appreciate those who are able to distill the message down to a place where even I can grasp it.

Don, you are a hoot!  😉

It takes an active position on each of those things.

It also takes a great deal of humility in my estimation.  The more we practice to be a servant of all, the more we should naturally excel in humility.

Don,

It is underdetermined when considered by itself.

That’s why we should never take the verse by itself.  I like when Greg Koukl says “Never read a bible verse!”  What he means is that we should never read “a” bible verse.  We should always read the context instead of just one verse.  This simple principle would clear up most of the problems that have caused some to go off into false doctrine.

pinklight,

We certainly can be sure that Paul stopped one woman from teaching.  The interesting thought that goes with this, is that Paul didn’t need a “law” to stop one woman from teaching.  If there was a problem person or a problem situation, Timothy was to deal with it.  One doesn’t need to create a brand new law to deal with such a situation.  It makes far more sense that 1 Timothy 2:12 is about the specifics of a situation in Ephesus that than it was a universal law for all times.

Don,

Paul did use the definite article in verse 14 and the grammar shows that the problem was on going so that would eliminate Eve.  Complementarians have a huge hurdle in verses 14 & 15 with the grammar in both verses.  I have yet to hear an explanation from that camp that didn’t have huge holes in their argument.  The fact is that verse 12 cannot be taken without verse 15 since verse 15 is directly connected with “but” and gives the expected outcome from the prohibition.

My challenge to anyone who thinks that verse 12 is very “clear” that it is a universal prohibition, is to tell me how verse 15 universally completes the prohibition if “all women” is in view.  I do ask anyone who wants to take the challenge to be very careful to not disregard any piece of the inspired grammar from verses 11-15.  There are more than one red flag in this passage that should effectively stop us from using it as a universal prohibition for all godly women using their gifts in the church.

I should clarify as well.  I am not saying that 1 Timothy or all the other letters written by Paul to specific individuals are not valuable to the church.  They are very valuable, very insightful and they are the inspired word of God.  The important point that I was trying to get at is that they need to pay attention to the context and who the letters were written to.  If we want to ignore the specific problems mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy and take the temporary prohibition to “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12 as a universal prohibition for all women and for all of church history, we are going to have a problem.  The big problem is that we do not have anything to verify that Paul was making a universal prohibition.  Since Paul said “I want…” and told his wants to Timothy in a personal letter about specific problems in one congregation, and this “I want…” is never confirmed as a prohibition given to every situation in every congregation, when men stop women from teaching because of one verse taken out of its context, they become accountable to God for making an improper application.  No woman was ever stopped from teaching God’s word in the Old Testament and for men to stop women in the church age from teaching God’s word, this should be a huge red flag that we need to rethink our doctrine on universal laws.  If this “case” were sent to a judicial court, it would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

God has never before lacked evidence on sin issues.  If this is the only “case” where evidence is lacking and no second witness is available in the entire 66 books of the bible, those who are real truth lovers must stop and ask themselves what is going on.  Have we misunderstood Paul’s letter to Timothy?  Why have we forged ahead and forbidden women to teach the bible in the congregation without a true biblical “case”?  There is much to think about for those who sincerely want to follow God’s way.

Paula,

Mutilating the body of Christ is a very strong word picture that I’ll bet many people have never thought about, but in many instances this is what some people are in actuality doing.

Don,

The last word in the last verse of 1 Tim is y’all or you plural.

This phrase is a typical end blessing but it doesn’t imply that Paul is speaking to many people.  Paul says that same thing at the end of each of his letters to individuals including 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon.  It is kind of like saying, Grace be with you and yours.  When you see how Paul ends letters written to the church and not merely to individuals one has an opportunity to see that Paul ends these letters differently.  Paul ends 1 Corinthians with “My love be with all of you (plural)”

Paul ends 2 Corinthians with “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

Paul ends Galatians this way “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren (plural). Amen.”

Ephesians ends with “Peace be to the brethren…”

Philippians ends with a greeting to the plural “you” and the same goes for Colossians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians.  All of the letters to churches have either the words “you all” or several instances of the plural you.  The letters to individuals do not have the term “you all” or the plural “you” except for the colloquial greeting.

I do appreciate John MacArthur in his standing strong for the gospel, but I also have noticed his propensity to stretch his exegesis into what could only be labeled fictional story telling.  His classic story about why men were not to wear the head covering (taken from 1 Cor. 11) saying that it was forbidden because it would make men look like women just as if men today were wearing an Easter bonnet, is stretching a tale beyond credulity.  Also his statements that biblical women wore a head covering because it showed they were in submission to men is without historical evidence.  The head covering was worn for modesty not for submission and John MacArthur’s lack of historical facts for his assertions, I am afraid, do not represent him well as a reliable teacher.  While he may be really good in other areas, if he cannot be trusted because of his story telling, he will lose credibility because who will be able to trust him in areas that are not so easy to check the facts?

Don,

Those 4 points are excellent examples of why so many people do not change what they believe.

The challenge is for all of us to love the truth so much that we don’t fear:

1.  losing our comfort zone
2.  the embarrassment of having to repent
3.  rejection
4.  embarrassment at looking inconsistent

In the end the truth is more important than our ego.

Good thoughts, Don.  I agree that his word “shame” does not appear to follow his very civil responses, but I think he is meaning not that you “shame” the person, but that the words you use could be used by the Holy Spirit to bring the person to feel ashamed of their behavior toward you.

It is the same thing with his term “aggressive”.  What he then goes on to explain is not what most would term as “aggressive” but rather very assertive.  I have listened to Greg for quite awhile, perhaps a couple of years and his reasoned and gentle approach is refreshing especially after hearing some apologists yell and demean their callers who may be evangelical Christians who merely disagree on secondary issues.

I am glad that Greg goes on to describe what he means by his terms because that certainly does help us.  I have heard him use these tactics with very aggressive individuals who are especially nasty.  There was one time that I heard him allow a caller to give his view and then Greg bid him goodbye and he did not respond.  He said that the caller made it clear he wasn’t interested in Greg’s view and he only wanted to be heard, so he got that opportunity.  There is no reason to fight with one who has his hands over his ears.  Sometimes the grace you give a person seems to do nothing right now, but they may remember your graceful approach and next time may be willing to listen.

Thank you Kerryn!  I very much appreciate it.

I also think that those who think that Paul is talking about women who are coming into the church wearing “sexy pearls” and “sexy gold” are likely in the same class as those who attributed their lustful thoughts to women who in the mere act of walking, happened to show a part of their ankle.  It is a form of prejudice.

Victorious,

I am glad that you were able to see outside the traditional “male” box.  It always struck me as odd after reading a lot in the Talmud, how Christian leaders could take the view that Paul was talking about a “sexual” modesty.  After all the examples of modesty have nothing to do with sexuality.  In reading the Talmud, it is very clear that women were kept covered so there was not an opportunity in that day for sexual dress as we know it.  In fact, the standard of that day was that a woman must not even bare her forearm as she was using her distaff.

Since Paul is talking about women who have a claim to godliness, it is utterly ridiculous in my mind for men to force into the text women who are coming to church wearing tight burquas 🙂 in order to seduce men.  I think a simple “show me that in the context” is in order.

Truthseeker,

pinklight is also right in that the final proof of the meaning of a word is the context itself.  The context is about origin or source and that God is the ultimate originator.  There is nothing in the context that has a meaning of authority over or “the boss of me”.