Well, one thing that we know for sure…the blame game started with Adam.  It is much easier to blame someone else for your failure than to take the blame yourself.

The other part of the problem is also as described…those who want to have a power based authority will fear any who threaten that special authority.

The inability to handle personal blame and fear of being “usurped” is a deadly combination.

Good thoughtful question, Don.

The bible does say that we are friends of God, but I don’t think that this gets rid of love.  The “lover” of our soul is an unconditional agape love of God that fills our very being inside.  We are to reciprocate that love by loving him back with our whole mind, body and soul.  To me that goes beyond mere friendship although I certainly do not discount friendship.  The ones who add in a sexual overtone are looking at God with their human understanding.

Arlene, this is one of the reasons why I really like having a community place to meet that this blog provides.  It gives me access to people that I would not otherwise have.

When I was first studying apologetics and theology, God brought Jehovah’s Witnesses to my door and I had such a passion to reach these people for Christ and other Christians who did not share this passion were not able to understand me.  While I loved my passion, I felt very alone.  Once a year we are able to meet with other ministries who do apologetics as we do, reaching out to the lost in the world of the cults.  It is at that conference that I feel understood and appreciated and not so alone.

The internet has now given us an ability to interact and find each other.  Those who fight for proper understanding of the hard passages of scriptures in their context regarding the women’s issue can now type in a few key words and find an accepting and loving community of believers.  I am still awe-struck regarding how God allows us to connect with one another.  I do not feel so alone in this area any longer either.

Lin,
I think you just gave a good example of what it takes to allow some to see us as completely human just as they are.  You have my great respect!

Lin,
I missed seeing your comment while I was writing my response.  You are absolutely right.  While there may be general male and female characteristics, these are not a “given” because we are human first.  I myself am in a field that is populated mostly by men.  There are not too many female apologists although in the last few years more are coming out of the woodwork.  I wake up in the morning thinking about Christian doctrine and if I find a group of men debating doctrine or theology, I find myself right in their midst like a dirty shirt.  I am bored by knitting and “female only” groups focused on recipes.  Being that I myself am an “oddity”, I am way more sensitive to others who also don’t appear to fit into society’s expectations.  I don’t say to the potter “why did you make me like this?”  I just enjoy being who I am and if some refuse to accept my God-given gifts because I am female, then they are the ones missing out.

Greg,
I was hoping that the part of my post that was tongue-in-cheek humor would help to shake up a few people who place the blame for men’s lack of commitment on the women.

Tom,
Welcome!  Thank you for your good comments.  We do need to see each other as individuals first who are not stereotypes.  My husband is a very manly man, yet he is way more emotional that I am.  And I love him just the way he is.  I also am very encouraged by men who express an appreciation of the value of women.  Thanks!

Arlene,
Very insightful comments!  Your comments from your own experience are very valuable!

Don,
Your comments are always appreciated.  I continue to be in awe of men who support women in ministry and who stick their own necks out to affirm women.  Bravo!

This is true grace in action.  Thanks guys for being a good example of working through a disagreement!

Dane,

Thanks for the update.  It is wonderful to know that a loved one has finished the race and gone on to be with Jesus.

Here is my reply:

Thanks David for suggesting me! I am always willing to have a written debate on women in ministry especially one based on 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

The problem of a written debate is that the email address given to you is one that has already refused a written debate with me.

If I am to do a debate, I ask those who will debate me to view my material so they know what they are to refute. Once the material has been viewed, I haven’t had a single person willing to debate me in writing.

If Mr. John Baker is willing to view my exegesis and my position on women in ministry from my DVD set and he would still like to debate me in writing, I would be very happy to do so. I am sure that we could pick a neutral place to have a very cordial and interesting debate.

I will leave this up to Mr. Baker. He can either communicate with you or with me at my blog http://www.strivetoenter.com/wim

I suspect you won’t hear from him again, but I am very happy to be proved wrong.

Blessings,
Cheryl Schatz

Here is the debate challenge that David has referred to me:

Hello David,

I will offer to discuss/debate you on the topic of the heresy of permitting women to be pastors and elders.

Please send your suggested details on our debate format (I am flexible) to carmstuff@yahoo.com, and mention my name JBaker45 (John Baker).

I look forward to having a civil and educational discussion with you 🙂

Karen,

Thank you for your kind word and welcome to my blog!

For a woman to go into public without her veil, would be considered a shameful act, and it was treated as if one was guilty of adultery whether it was true or not.

While I am not saying that God is guilty of treating women in a bad way, I am saying that women’s legal status was not equal to the men’s status because the men had control and they used this control in a very biased fashion.  What God has done is given us equality in Christ in such a way that women cannot have their inheritance taken away from them or controlled by a man.  This is true equality in a way that should be universally recognized without bias.  I believe that some day it will be recognized.

I just pray that God will grant us patience and enough love to bare with our brothers in Christ until they recognize us as full heirs with them in word and deed (privilege).  I think that it is tempting to be impatient and with that can come unloving actions and words.  I sincerely do not want to be guilty of that.  Whether I am accepted or not as a teacher, as a sister in Christ, as one whom God has gifted for a particular purpose, should not stop me from accepting others who do not agree with me if I am walking in the Spirit.  If I keep my eyes on Jesus, I will walk in the Spirit and not give a foothold to a any kind of bad attitude or resentment of my dear brothers in Christ.  I pray that God will continue to grow love in my heart and a great deal of patience as I strive to make a difference for those female “sons” who have been set aside because of their gender.

Don,

You said:

I agree we are all legal hiers thru adoption, just that there does not need to be any mapping of a woman to a legal son, what counts is being a legal heir.

The fact is that a woman was not a legal heir.  Her dowry was not in her hands and in that patriarchal setting, her dowry could be removed so that she would never benefit from it in any way.  A daughter’s rights in no way were equal to a son’s privileges.  This left women subject to mistreatment.  However “in Christ” we are all full legal heirs.  No one can take away our inheritance like a husband could take away his wife’s dowry.  Do you see the difference?

By making us all legal sons, we are in a position of power.  We are not subject to having our gifts taken away from us as if our gift is under someone else’s control.  What Paul has done is provided the strongest legal wording of that day and applied it to women.  Women now are legal “sons” and as “sons” they are given the privilege and responsibility in such a way that their privilege is not subject to the control of someone with more responsibility and privilege than they have.  When someone is under the ultimate control of another, there is no equality in privilege.  Daughters did not ultimately have control of their own privileges.  This would have been the problem if Paul had made us “sons and daughters” in Christ.  We would have been seen as under the men since no woman had ulitmate control of her dowry.  But as “sons” we do not have a dowry.  We have a full inheritance with full privileges and we are not under a tutor or a controller.

To me this is the full essence of equalty in Christ.  We are all “sons” IN Christ and in Christ there is no sense that I have to have a human male meditator between God and my inheritance.  Men should now be able to see us as full “joint” heirs.  Women never were “joint” heirs in the natural sense with the men.  They always came up on the short end.  The men controlled their dowry and could take it away.  If a woman went in public without her head covering, he can divorce her without giving her a cent of her dowry.  This is not equality in any sense of the word.

But if she was a in the legal sense a joint heir, a legal “son”, then he could not touch her inheritance.  This is what God has given to women.

Is this okay with you?

Don,

I am not saying that a woman becomes a man.  I think you misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that a woman becomes a legal “son”.  This means that legally she inherits all the privileges of “sonship”.  It does not mean in any sense of the word that she becomes male.  It is only that she is treated as a legal heir which is legal sonship.  She remains a woman physically.  In the spirit there is no sense that we are male or female since there are no spiritual sexual parts.

I really appreciate when you question these things in order to understand what I am saying.  I helps me to see where I might be talking around people.  If anyone thinks that I am saying a female becomes a male, then I certainly need to clarify that.  It is only about legal privileges which belong to sons and “in Christ” we have all legal privileges without restriction as he are considered “in Christ” as having sonship for the purpose of inheritance.

Yippee yay, pinklight, I think you got it!

I received an email from an interim woman pastor who reads my blog.

Her church is looking for a permanent pastor and they will consider a
female candidate. If you know of anyone in the Minnesota area that would be interested, let me know and I will get you in contact with the pastor.

See email below:

Hi Cheryl, I have been reading your site and am grateful for your
ministry. I am currently serving as an interim pastor in MN. Our
church is in a pastoral search process. I don’t know if you do this
but our church is welcoming toward women candidates in the senior
pastor role. If you know of anyone in the MN area seeking a
pastorate, I would be willing to send the job description and a bit
about our church. The church does not pay alot at this time but is
growing so the candidate will need to be a tent-maker.

I should add one thing, the issue of women inheriting is only ever in favor of women if there is no male heir.  In the case of Christ’s followers, there is no such thing as no male heir, so the women would certainly lose out if they were designated as daughters.  Because there are males AND females, there must be only sons that would inherit. Thus Paul designates the women “IN Christ” as sons.

Make sense?

Don,

I think we can safely assume that Paul is talking about the Jewish inheritance rights for several reasons:

1.  The “law” that is referenced is the entire code of law given to the Jews not the Gentiles (no Roman or Greek law even hinted at here).

2.  The Judaizers that were instigating this return to the law were Jews that came from James and so it was the Jewish mindset that is at work in this passage.

3.  The “different gospel” that threatened the Gentile Christians was circumcision and rules brought in by the Jewish oral law.  Circumcision laws would have nothing to do with any Greek or Roman set of laws.

4.  Since we know that Galatians 3:28 cannot be about salvation since the salvation of the Galatians is not what is in question here but rather the outworking of their salvation, the addition of “female” is Galatians must be linked to inheritance issues which is a problem for women amongst the Jews.  There is no other reason to bring in females being equal in Christ with the males.   Galatians chapter 4 is about inheritance and so is Galatians 3:29 the verse directly after verse 28.  Verses 28 & 29 are attached by another “IF” “THEN” conditional connection.

Gal 3:29  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

The entire passage has the Jewish “flavor” of a hindrance caused by those intent on bringing the Gentile believers under bondage.  1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 also has that Jewish “flavor” by its reference to the Jewish oral law insisted on by the Judaizers.  There is of course no God-given OT law that restricted the ability for a woman to learn in public or speak in public.

From what I can see from the passage there is no issue of Roman or Greek influence in the bondage that is being brought onto the Galatians.  It is pure and simple a Jewish influence designed to force the Gentile Christians to conform to both the old covenant laws and to the Jewish oral laws that hindered women from using their gifts in public and restricted men to circumcision.  Paul refutes all of this by using the Jewish inheritance law to his benefit.  He brilliantly argues for women’s privileges and benefits by designating them “in Christ” as part of Christ’s body (THE male heir) therefore all would rightly be receiving sonship and therefore equal heirs (or elsewhere called “joint heirs”).  Inheritance then for all is key to us being IN CHRIST for only through him are we heirs at all.

Don, thanks for your thoughts!  It is always good to test the exegesis.  If there was a Roman or Greek law that was threatening the Christian community by taking away equal inheritance rights or equal anything, I would be willing to see the biblical evidence from the book of Galatians.  This is where the primary evidence is located and from everything I can see in Galatians, the threat is from the Jewish agitators alone and the evidence used throughout is Jewish-based law.

Pastor Burleson,
I fixed the spelling of your name.  I also fixed the typos on my own post.  Boy, we are all getting old, eh?

Don,
The problem with Nyland’s translation is that she misses an extremely necessary piece of Greek and she focuses on something that by itself has no guarantee of the inheritance.

Galatians 4:7 says “IF” and “then”.  The word “if” is the Greek word “ei”  It is a primary particle of conditionality.

What is “if” connected to?  Paul writes “if” a son “then” an heir.  The ending result is being an heir.   One cannot get to the point of being an heir without being a son.  This was their system.  Only sons were heirs.  So Paul’s point is that they were slaves but they are no longer slaves.  They have gone from the position of having no privileges, no rights and no importance, to the place of adoption as a son.  The sonship (which is the “if”) must lead to the inheritance (which is the “then”).  “IF” sons “THEN” heirs.  If we remove the male part of being a son, the part of inheritance is not a natural flow nor is there a guarantee.  The reason is because if one is a daughter there is no if/then relationship with the inheritance.  Full sonship for all, both men/women, Jews/Gentiles, slaves/freeborn is in view and ALL without exception receive adoption as sons.

If we remove the conditional part of the Greek, then we also have no place to focus the guaranteed rights of sonship.  Paul is focusing on our position right now.  IF we are sons, THEN there is a guarantee of inheritance.  IF we are sons and daughters, then there is not a full guarantee of inheritance.  Legal adoption does not guarantee the inheritance.  Only sonship does.

Does this make sense?

Thanks Pastor Paul!  It is comments like yours that make me want to continue to work hard and give out my very best.  For the body of Christ and for the Lord Jesus!

5 Jan,

I think I forgot to formally welcome you here to my blog.  Welcome!

pinklight,

I have heard CBMW speakers says that we are sons and daughters of God.  Apparently they have missed the bible’s point that there are no daughters of God – only sons.  If all are legal heirs, then we should not be differentiating between the haves and have-nots regarding privileges of representing God in the church.

Don,

I think Galatians 4:7 answers your question because it is singular male.

Gal 4:7  Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

In this verse it isn’t just child, but son.  It says “If a son…then an heir”.  This is vitally important because only sons were legal heirs.  In the OT one who is an heir is always male.  The wording specifically shows that all of the rights, privileges and honor also belong to women.  When Paul says there is no Jew or Greek, male and female, slave or free, he is referencing the full and complete rights of inheritance.  We, then, have no right to limit someone’s privileges of being used by God or being a mouthpiece of God because all are equally heirs.

The REASON to follow the rules in any covenant is for the blessings of that covenant, but not to be saved by that covenant, as it is not the way to be saved, only faith in Messiah is the way to be saved.

Amen!

Don,

Yes, the literal Greek is male and female in Galatians 3:28.  It is very good to pay attention to the words the way that God breathed them.

You said:

“curse of the law” I see as not saying the law is a curse, but is referring to the curses in the law for not obeying it; these are given in Deu as blessings and curses or in covenant/contract language benefits for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.

Yes indeed the law isn’t cursed at all.  It is those trying to live by getting righteous through the law because it is an “all or nothing” law.  James said:

James 2:10  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

None of us are capable of keeping the entire law.  Only Jesus ever kept the entire law perfectly.

Good thoughts, Don!  Of course the bottom line is that the complementarian view that limits these verses to salvation alone, leaving no real equality in the outworking of our Christian faith is refuted by the context from the entire book of Galatians.

Also for CBMW to say that Christ “redeemed” gender-based roles, puts a spin on Christ’s redemptive work that is not biblical.  When we can see that Old Testament women had more freedom to serve than New Testament women in some complementarian churches, something is drastically wrong.  Most comp churches will not allow women to teach men but OT women were not restricted in this way.  It is a sad day when we can see these restrictions on women after Christ that were not there before Christ and then hear complementarians say that these gender-based roles are “redeemed” by Christ.  If the restrictions are a “redemption” then what were the freedoms that godly women of old experienced?  Was their freedom a sign of sin?

Thanks pinklight & Rachel!

Lin,

I remember the first few times I heard complementarians insist that Galatians 3:28 is only about salvation and I wondered how they could justify women being a part of the list.  If we ignored the context the verse is found within, we certainly could understand if Paul said there is no Jew or Greek in Christ, that people would think it was about salvation because of the mindset of the early Jewish Christians.  But where in the scriptures is the salvation of women ever questioned?  It would be out of place to say that women are equally saved if there is never any question about their salvation.  But it certainly would not be out of place to stress the equality when the subject is on full sonship.  Women then inherit as equal heirs and share equal privileges and equal responsibilities.

Galatians 3:28 had to be forced into a salvation “boat” or the complementarian argument that the kingdom is made up of male and female “roles” would be demolished by our equality in the full inheritance of God.  What a shame that so many have swallowed CBMW’s interpretation without a careful study of the scriptures.  Galatians is written to Christians whose problem is not in regards to their salvation but in regards to their sanctification.  Paul makes this abundantly clear throughout the book of Galatians.  How we serve God and the growth and maturity that comes through that service is part of our sanctification process.  When we limit a person’s sanctification by refusing to allow them to grow in maturity in all the gifts that God has given them, we do the body of Christ a very great disservice.

Ayla,

Anne Graham Lotz certain does appear to be free from moral blemish although of course we know that we are all sinners in constant need of the Savior’s cleansing work daily.  I think that it would be very unfair to call her “homophobic”.  This means a fear of homosexuals.  I don’t think that expressing the biblical view of sin qualifies her to be called “homophobic”.  All of us have inherited sin from our conception and the person who lives a life of telling lies is called a liar.  The bible is very hard on those who are “liars” and it says that those who live a life of lies and whose habit it is to practice lies will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  While we can rightly identify lying as a sin, we can still treat those who are liars as human beings.  Jesus died for liars too and if they will turn from their sin and repent they can be cleansed.  Same thing for adulterers.  I have no doubt that people are born with this inclination for lying and cheating etc because we are all born in sin, but our opportunity is to love the sinner while not supporting or condoning the sin.  I do not think that Anne is unloving or fearful at all.  That is just my take.

Thanks for popping in.  And welcome!

Mike #44,

I am just getting back to finishing your comments.  You said:

but I still point to the fact that God set it up this way – so we would depend on each other for completeness – not just in marriage…

I agree with you.  I believe that women’s input and women’s teaching complement the man.  This makes us rather necessary not just optional.

I’ve seen women start a thing, but more often than not its a male – but once the thing is up and running, again IMHO, all bets are off – everybody is needed and has a place.

Is it possible that males are the one’s starting things because we shut the door in a woman’s face or perhaps because we give the message that this isn’t a woman’s place?

In 1988 I started a support group to help former Jehovah’s Witnesses find freedom in Christ.  While I was the one who had the vision and do the “leg work”, I let the Christian men who were coming alongside me, run the first meeting because I was a complementarian woman who knew my place.  That meeting went south pretty fast.  The Christian men had a great time debating scriptures on the Trinity and the shell-shocked JW’s hated the meeting and didn’t want to ever come back.  So I took over the next meeting and it became very clear that God had gifted me to support these people coming out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses so that they opened up to me and allowed me to teach them the truth about God and his word.  My leadership carried on for sixteen years and the only time we had trouble was when I tried to get a man into the position.  Many men are not patient enough to be a support group leader.

I would encourage us all to allow the various differences that we bring to the table (not just the gender ones) – we need all that expression within the church – again, in my mind the question still has not been answered – what is the best way to do this on a practical level?  I’ve seen so many variations – but not too many of them were very effective…

I think that on a practical level we should just let people be people.  Let them operate in their girts without judging them on their gender, their nationality or their social standing.  If we have trouble doing this, then we need to learn how to change.

I like this blog site by the way Cheryl et al. I’ve been reading a lot of your stuff – you may be on to something – I’m just trying to understand it all and figure out in my small little brain, how we can take this learning and apply it on a practical level within the church?  How can we overcome the barriers? There may be a vein of gold here that the church needs – I wanted you to know that I recognize that…  😉  MM

Thank you!  I do not claim to have all the answers.  This is why I really like this community.  There are special people who visit that give freely of their wisdom and knowledge.  I am in awe of the wonderful godly people who regularly stop by.  I think we need to be humble enough to listen to one another.  If we are willing to learn even if it is from someone who is not like us, who does not look like us or speak like us, then I think God will grant us the ability to learn.

Arlene,

Welcome to my blog!  I loved your comments.  You said:

Second while a woman is different and being female is a part of my identity, it is not all of my identity.  I am a mother,  but also a teacher, athelete, scandinavian, passionate Christian.  Being female is part but not all of who I am and it does not define everything about me.

This is very true.  I too am a very passionate person.  Passion is not a male or female characteristic – it is a human characteristic.

Third, the difference argument is often used to justify strict roles.  Much like a similar difference argument was used to justify slavery.
It comes from the same foul source.

If one does research on the reasons that were given for slavery, one would come away amazed to hear the same arguments that are used today regarding gender.  I also believe the source is the same.

Fourth, I do not see scripture dividing the attributes of the Trinity when he created the man and woman.  We are made in God’s image.

This is also an excellent point.  Perhaps this might be a good time to ask, in whose image are men made in?  Are they made in the Father’s image or the Son’s image?  Whose image are women made in?  The fact is that we are made in God’s image.  There is only one image for God and not a divided image.   Those who try to divide God’s image for one way for men and one way for men are doing an injustice to the one God who made us.

They use a limiting hermeneutic on women and a broad one for men.

Good thoughts!  You have clearly shown us the prevailing pattern of the prejudice.  The really troubling thing here is that in our culture even women have become prejudiced against other women.  I find this very disconcerting.  In fact I have seen more anger and abusive talk with some women then from some men.

Then I have to look at my own heart.  Have I been prejudiced against women?  I think I was programmed to be prejudiced too for a long time.  It is difficult to get it out of one’s head.

Anyone else experience prejudice against women from other women?