Cheryl

Well, it looks like the debate is off. Matt just announced that although he had said that he would allow me back if I went through his hoops and I agreed to go through the hoops, he has now announced that he will not allow me back on. Can you believe that? I was willing to limit my talking to 1.5 minutes per question and to give him a written list of my position so that he can go through it with a fine tooth comb and now he has rescinded this.

I am sorry, but what should we call someone who says things and then he goes back on his word? He said that I could give out the information on my DVD and then after he said it was okay he had his assistant remove that information. Is that honest?

Then he said last night that he would allow me back on with his restrictions. I was warned not to allow him to control me like this but I felt that it was a way to glorify Jesus and I would submit. Then he rescinded the invitation. The really strange thing is that this comes right after his teaching on how to be honest and how to show honor to Jesus. How is Matt showing honor to Jesus by going back on his word that he gave publicly?

Any thoughts?

Denis,

By the way, I LOVE the Way of the Master! My son’s life was changed forever several years ago when I lent him a copy of Ray Comfort’s The Way of Master series. He is now an “on fire” evangelist/apologist with a heart of love for the lost.

Denis,

“I would encourage you to look into the paltalk option that Matt suggested. As someone who is interested in hearing both sides of this debate, I don’t think your style meshes well with the talk-radio format.”

My inexperience may not mesh well with anything live, but I am willing to learn. I would rather, though have a bigger audience than PalTalk. I was on a PalTalk site once because I was invited and I was quite uncomfortable with the whole thing. And that is not even listening to an audio debate. No, live radio is more than scary enough for me!

“Without getting into the content of the discussion, I too had problems following you answers to some of the questions posed (it did indeed seem that many questions were left unanswered).”

Part of the problem was that Matt wouldn’t let me finish. The other part of the problem could have been me not understanding where Matt was going and the third part was that I answered the questions but Matt didn’t accept my answer and kept saying that I didn’t answer. A case in point was when Matt asked me why Paul used the word didasko? (teach) instead of the word heterodidaskaleo which means a different doctrine. The question was asking me to understand Paul’s mindset instead of really dealing with the issue. The issue is whether didasko can be used properly to mean false doctrine. The answer is “of course”.

In Revelation 2:14 didasko is used twice and the meaning is clear that it is false teaching:

Rev 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality

However the question posed to me was not whether didasko was a wrong word to use when false teaching was meant but why Paul used it. My explanation was that Paul was stopping all of her teaching not just the false teaching and that false teaching was understood in the passage not because of the Greek word used for “teach” but because of the context “deceived” showing the teaching was attached to deception. I don’t know how clearer I could have been. If you could tell me what you didn’t understand about my answer, then I will be able to expound further. It sure didn’t make sense to me that Matt kept on asking me the same question when I had already answered him. If he had said that he didn’t like my answer or if he would have told me what was wrong with my answer, then I could have gone on, but for him to say that I didn’t answer was just plain frustrating to me.

“A more structured format may be exactly what is needed here.”

Well that may be better for me too. Since Matt wants to keep me to 1.5 minutes per question, I will need to have a list of his questions and his follow-up questions or I won’t have the time to work on them in order to be concise. Yes, yes, I know I can be verbose too! That is one of my human faults and I freely admit it. I just have so much passion and love for the Bible that when I get going…..well…..I think that says it all!

Don & Dusman,

Thank you for the amazingly good words that you have written for me. Your suggestions make sense and I believe I can use them. I had many good suggestions before but Matt never let me get to them because he had a habit of cutting me off. Now that I know I will be given 1.5 minutes of silence so I can get a point across, I will take your suggestions to get the point across! It will be a matter of talking faster and honing in faster to the essential point. I am so used to teaching verse by verse that this idea of a radio debate is foreign to me that requires me to get to the point first and then back it up later by verse by verse. I have to get my head around that. And I have to get my head around that being pointed is not being rude or arrogant. I really shy away from any kind of rudeness and I try hard to treat others the way I want to be treated. Looks like a radio debate is playing by different rules than I am used to conversation.

Don,

Good news. I am taking a Greek class from the Greek scholar Dr. Bill Wagner. I asked him if in 1 Tim 2:15 whether the “she” (implied in the verb sothesetai) was theoretical or actual and he said he believed it was an actual person. He said Paul is very direct in his letters and Paul would not have written it this way to Timothy if Paul had wanted it to be theoretical. Bill is the author of “First Reader in New Testament Greek” which is the textbook for the class I am taking he personally knows all the famous names associated with the Greek NT.

Kudos to Dr. Bill Wagner. It seems to me that more people are coming out of the woodwork since my DVD set was produced. I was quite counter cultural with my exegesis and by that I mean even counter cultural among egalitarians. The reason is that I don’t just accept egalitarian literature without testing it by the Bible. When I went through the scriptures seeking to understand what the hard passages of scripture I didn’t accept the traditional egalitarian understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 that Paul was stopping all women in Ephesus from teaching because they were poorly educated because it didn’t make sense with the reason for the prohibition given by Paul as the deception of Eve. Were all women in Ephesus deceived? And it didn’t make sense in verse 15 where we had to have a living “she” or the passage didn’t make sense. I got my understanding from only the Bible. I read no book and no secular source told me that the “she” was an individual woman. Now since my DVD went public, it seems that there are wonderful godly people coming to my attention who believe as I do that I had no idea about. I will certainly have to record that Dr. Bill Wagner is on board with same exegesis and I don’t think that Matt dares to call him a heretic.

Jason,

No I don’t think that Matt’s time restriction is generous. I think it is restrictive and a way to control me. But I have faith in a very BIG God who is able to open doors that no man can shut. I really didn’t think I would be allowed to be back and frankly I think this hints of fear. Why else would he remove the advertisement for my DVD set on his podcast on his site? But if he is willing (I don’t think he thinks I am willing!) God can do a miracle. At any rate I am willing to be a vessel to be used by God to do whatever he wants.

Anyone have words of wisdom for me??

Cheryl

Hey every one out there,

On tonight’s Matt Slick’s program a man named Vince said that he wanted to hear more about what I was saying about scripture. Matt said that he would only consider having me back if I presented a written list of what I would say and also if I would limit my comments to 1.5 minutes. This would be an opportunity to speak again to Matt’s audience. I know I won’t be reaching the ones who have closed their hearts against a woman teaching the Bible with authority, but for those silent ones who are listening especially those who pick up the show through the internet, it could be a good opportunity to give Jesus honor and glory by lifting up his word in a way that most have never heard.

What do you think?

Jason,

Welcome to this community! I hope you will be encouraged and loved and cared for by many people here!!

pinklight,

I don’t have a way for you to directly edit your post, but you can either contact me through the form on the contact page (listed at the top of this page) and I can either remove the post or put in your edit. Your choice!

Don, teknomom, dusman, justa berean, greg and everyone else who has commented wisdom on this blog,

I have learned from you all. Your wisdom has amazed me. I don’t always have time to write much but I do read all the entries. You are a support for each other too and that is such a blessing! I always wanted this to be a safe place where people can learn about God’s will for women without feeling threatened that accepting their God-given gifts or the gifts of their sisters was a pathway to sin. We need to trust God’s word that it alone is the test of truth and you have helped me do this.

I am honored to call you all friends. Really honored. And your help is most appreciated. Sometimes there just are not enough hours in the day. I didn’t go to bed until 1 am last night and up again this morning at 5 am. When I know there are others there to back me up and to treasure scripture along with me answering someone who questions these hard passages of scripture, I can relax and not burn myself out from overwork. You all are truly appreciated.

Terri,

I use e-Sword a mostly free program on the web http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html I especially like The Word Study Dictionary which has a charge but which has been very helpful to me in the study of the original languages. I also use The Sword Project http://www.crosswire.org/sword/software/biblecs/ for help with the finer points of Greek/Hebrew grammar.

I hope you get a lot of help too from others. I have sure appreciate the community here! There is a lot of wisdom in the posters to this blog and I learn a lot from them.

Agent Starling,

I have never stopped a post from going through. I have it set up that the very first post of a new person must be approved. This is to stop spam and to make sure a person isn’t using profanity. Your original post was put up and I even copied it on to this thread. Perhaps you might want to check before you dust those sandals of yours. You are welcome here.

Cheryl

(Note I am copying this one comment from my post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/
It is the comment # 44 by Jason Oliver Evans. Jason’s blog is at http://www.iamasonofgod.blogspot.com/) I think this comment will help us to see the hurtful nature of calling women in ministry teaching doctrine to men as sinners and heretics. Below is Jason’s full comment:)

I have never been so apalled at a so-called man of God. This man should not be on radio. He was rude, arrogant, very disrespectful. He has twisted your words. And no, Matt, there was one elder in the Old Testament who was female, Deborah. Matt should have known better that the early church was modeled after the Old Testament governance (elders). And the elders (presbuteroi) is masculine-gendered plural word but that does not necessarily refer to just men.

Did the men of Israel have a problem with Deborah? From history and the biblical witness, I think not! Jewish historians have so much respect for this woman of God. Western Christian men have problems with her. Matthew Henry had a problem with her, too. I was completely offended at Matt’s behavior and the way he spoke to you. God forgive me for the names I called him!!! The more I hear this complementarian doctrine the more it makes my blood boil.

This gender debate in the evangelical movement is literally making me sick! The devil is truly busy to divide the Church, keeping women oppressed and men ignorant! Sometimes wonder why I identify myself as an evangelical. If it wasn’t for the Gospel of Christ and the power of Holy Spirit to keep me, I don’t know what I would do. Because of this issue which is so dear to me, my flesh just screams to renounce Christ, not purse ministry and go down the to perdition. Hell seems to be easy way out because this debate in the so-called household of God is ripping my heart! God have mercy on us. Have mercy on me!

Cheryl, God bless you. You are a strong woman. I take my hat off to you and the man who married you. I want to be married to woman just like you. Please keep me in your prayers and I will surely pray for your strength in the Lord.

Guys,

As you listen to the audio from last night’s debate remember one thing…I asked to share why I believed that “a woman” was a particular woman and not “all women” and Matt refused to allow me to share this. He called me a heretic without even hearing my argument to the end. I asked Matt to tell me what it was in the passage that made him believe that Paul was restricting all women from teaching men and Matt went outside the passage to do this. Friends, this means that there is NOTHING in 1 Timothy chapters 1, 2, or 3 that would make us believe that Paul is stopping the teaching of every godly Christian woman since Matt was unable to bring even one argument to the table from the passage we were talking about. Think about this! A charge of sin is being leveled against all women by Matt for the sake of one false, deceived teacher in Ephesus! If this charge was taken to court and we had a jury trial, I would ask where is the evidence? Verse 15 is so precise in the grammar that we simply cannot get “all women” as an interpretation of the “a woman” from verse 12.

I have asked complementarians everywhere to give a defense of their belief that “a woman” is every Christian woman by asking them to then tell me who the “she” is from 1 Timothy 2:15 and who are the “they”. I have yet to have a single one of them able to give me a coherent answer. They just don’t know. And apparently Matt doesn’t know either because he stopped me from discussing verse 15. Is that confidence that he has the truth or is he running away from something that he has no answer to? Maybe we will never know because he will not dare to have back on his radio show. He simply cannot afford to talk about verse 15.

We need to hold FAST to what is true and test EVERYTHING by God’s word. If there are complementarians reading this perhaps you can answer for Matt. Who is the “she” and who are the “they” from verse 15? Remember “she” and “they” must have been alive at the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy because “she” and “they” were required to do something regarding the salvation of the “she”. This is Paul’s puzzle to us. If you are willing to be challenged and to know the truth you will work hard to find out who Paul is talking about because the reputation of godly Christian women hangs in the balance. Do not be one who judges unfairly. Look to the facts and then you be the jury. Can we condemn all godly Christian women who teach correct bible doctrine to men because all godly Christian women are forbidden to teach with authority? Or does this one single verse ripped from its context in the letter to Timothy that deals with false teachers and false teaching have no second witness at all that Paul is talking generically about all of our beloved sisters in Christ because there is no such law against teaching true doctrine to anyone by anyone?

Thank you Pastor for the link to the audio!

Dusman, you said:

Can a woman teach 12 year olds? 18 year olds? 21 year olds? When does it become unbiblical? Some have said when boys start getting hair under their arms.

What you have said should cause us to think hard about all the rules that would be required to interpret the prohibition of verse 12 if God forbids any Christian woman from teaching men. A couple of years ago when I was working on the script for my DVD, I was nose deep in the Talmud and I was appalled at the minuit rules that the Pharisees had regarding when a female was considered “of age”. They had a “two hair” rule and I won’t get into the gory details but the nit-picky rules that came out of trying to regulate their own interpretation of the law literally made me sick. Is this what we have come to now? We now need a Christian Talmud to interpret verse 12. When does a woman’s teaching become a sin and when is it not a sin? I am sure that every woman would need to know because none of us wants to sin against God. For Paul to leave a woman without guidelines so that she can be sure she isn’t sinning would be unthinkable. No, the “simple” meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not the stopping of all godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. The “simple” meaning is that Paul is stopping “a woman” from teaching error to the one whom she was influencing with her error and that is “a man”. She is to learn and then Paul says, she will be saved if she has sincere faith and she holds fast to the truth.

Matt’s treatment of me is the fruit of extreme complementarianism. Although I am not a professional debater and don’t think on my feet as fast as I would like, the treatment afforded me during the debate is the fruit of what this movement brings to women. Women are treated with disrespect as if our words are not worthy of being heard or respected. A woman’s word is without weight because she has no right to speak for God.

Regarding Matt’s comments on the Greek word for teach which is didasko, Matt was trying to say that because the word for teach used in this passage is a normal word for teach not one specifically for false teaching, that Paul isn’t stopping the teaching of error. His reasoning does not hold water first of all because 1 Timothy 2:14 shows that the reason for the stopping of the woman’s teaching was related to the deception of Eve. Secondly didasko? is used in relation to false teaching twice in the book of Revelation.

Rev 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

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.

In both these examples the teaching is error and didásko is the inspired word that the Holy Spirit chose to use. If Matt truly believes that didásko can only reference true teaching and not false teaching, then 1 Timothy 2:12 would have to be stopping only the teaching of true doctrine and this just doesn’t fit within the reason given for the prohibition in verse 13 & 14 – the deception of Eve. The fact is that the only teaching in 1 Timothy that is being stopped is false teaching. If Paul was stopping the teaching of true doctrine merely because the one teaching the truth to a man was a woman, then there would have to be an explanation for the stopping of true teaching that would allow us to see that Paul was creating a new law prohibiting women’s teaching. Since Matt was not able to show that the OT restricted the teaching of women, Paul could not have been adding a law against women’s teaching without the proper scriptural back up. For Matt to say something to the effect that there is no allowance for women teachers in the OT is trying to prove something from silence. There was no specific allowance for Gentile teachers either in the OT. Yet there was no prohibition against Gentile teachers or women teachers in the OT. Matt was trying to make a point that was shaky at best and nonsensical at worst.

Matt’s other point about silence was also very weak. He tried to establish that since Paul was not completely silencing “a woman” that this proved that error was not involved in the prohibition. He disregarded verse 11 where the focus is on her learning and as dusman has pointed out in a previous post, as a student she would not be completely silenced since she would be allowed to ask questions so that she can clarify any misunderstandings and thus learn properly.

The authority issue is the key to Matt’s argument since he believes that only men are allowed to teach the word of God with authority. However nowhere does the scripture give an authority to speak God’s word only to the man. Each one of us is given a gift by God and we are empowered to use that gift whether we are male or female. Consider 1 Peter 4:10, 11 where the authority to speak for God (speaking the utterances or the oracles of God) is given to the one whom God has gifted. Nowhere is gender a part of the equation.

1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The problem that Matt faces too which unfortunately I was unable to get to since Matt was not in the listening mode, is that the ordinary word for authority is not found in 1 Timothy 2:12. If Matt is so concerned that teach is an ordinary word and not restricted to error, then what sense does he make of the word translated authority which is the Greek authenteo? This word has no positive usage in the Bible at all and is only used once in this passage in regards to the stopping of “a woman” which is related to the deception of Eve. Surely Paul could have used a word for authority that was given to a man to use. Yet men are never given permission to have authenteo over a woman or even another man. Matt’s belief that only a man has “authority” to give out the word of God to the body of Christ is faulty and without scriptural backing.

(For any one confused – I had been moving comments over to this post from a previous post and I inadvertently copied a poster’s i.d. on this one. It is corrected now)

justa berean,

Bless you, my friend for helping! My head is spinning right now (now don’t be calling me spinny, okay? 😉 and hopefully we can keep the comments on this one blog entry because I have to learn WAY more about blog organization! It is not my strong suit!

justa berean,

I am going to copy your response to the newest blog entry as I am getting confused myself with too many blog posts that I did titled debate 2.

The real official post for debate #2 is now at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/

Thanks and y’all can comment there!

I guess I got too many topics set up on debate #2. (I must be tired or something!) Anyways, can we now put our comments on debate #2 at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/

Thank you!

Let’s put all new comments at my latest blog entry for debate #2 at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/

Thanks all!

Sorry that I didn’t get this up faster. It has been a very busy day for me. Please also see comments on this second debate at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/23/debating-women-in-ministry-round-2/ as Jason’s comments are very important regarding the impact that Matt has on this young student Pastor.

Jason,

This gender debate in the evangelical movement is literally making me sick! The devil is truly busy to divide the Church, keeping women oppressed and men ignorant! Sometimes wonder why I identify myself as an evangelical. If it wasn’t for the Gospel of Christ and the power of Holy Spirit to keep me, I don’t know what I would do. Because of this issue which is so dear to me, my flesh just screams to renounce Christ, not purse ministry and go down the to perdition. Hell seems to be easy way out because this debate in the so-called household of God is ripping my heart! God have mercy on us. Have mercy on me!

My friend, please do not be discouraged!! Keep your eyes on Jesus and on no one else. Everyone is human and can fail you but our precious Lord Jesus never will. Please email me at mmoutreach (a t) gmail (d o t) com (replace the “a t” with the @ symbol and the (d o t) with the period. I hate when spam bots pick up the email address and send spam my way.

I would like to have the opportunity to encourage you personally!

For now let me tell you that Matt is following the way that he has been taught. Although he has been educated in common fallacies, he don’t think that he even realizes that he has fallen prey to the snare of the enemy. He has judged women as heretics for believing in God’s word and teaching it with passion (and authority!) yet scripture tells us all in 1 Peter 4:10, 11 that those who have a gift for speaking are to speak as one who is speaking the utterances of God. That is speaking the word of God with authority.

1Pe 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1Pe 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I will comment more on the new blog post after I have had time to sleep and be refreshed.

Hi all,

I just got finished putting the audio debate tape together. According to Matt’s blog, his assistant decided to edit out a couple of my comments regarding my DVD, my web site and my blog. Ah, the marvel of technology – I put them back in! I am just too tired tonight to figure out if I got all of the removed parts but rendered it and put it up http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/26/matt-slick-and-cheryl-schatz-debate-2/

I will move or copy several of the comments that are posted on other posts, but I will have to do it later on Thursday. I am really tired tonight after spending the week with my folks, late nights, and running off to bible study tonight after the debate.

Yes, that is true. When we go beyond scripture and say that someone is sinning when scripture doesn’t say such a thing, then we are not being biblical or righteous. When someone wants to muzzle God’s people this is simply wrong and we could call it sinful. Paul says that such a one is “ignorant” or it could be translated as that person is to be “ignored” (1 Cor. 14:38)

teknomom,

Let me add one thing….the question is also whether someone who doesn’t agree with us is sinning against God. This is my main point of contention with Matt. He says that women Pastors are sinning against God. It is a serious thing to charge someone with sin. I myself can say that someone is deceived if I truly believe that they have been influenced to believe tradition on a debatable issue. I still believe this to be kind because it is not saying that a person is a deliberate deceiver. Someone who is deceived will only know that they have been deceived by false tradition when someone else is able to refute their argument and give them evidence that they have not considered before that removes their “solid” evidence.

I may not be able to do that with Matt tonight because he appears to me to be quite closed-minded, but I will be challenging those women who have been listening to him and his tradition and thus staying away from their call from God. If I can touch just one amazing woman who is gifted and called by God to be a Pastor, this woman (me!) will be jumping for joy!

For other women, I hope to help to remove some of their burden. It must be very difficult to do their job in the body of Christ while faced with “friendly” fire that accuses them of sinning against God. I am not ashamed to stand up for them. God is helping me to get some tough skin so that I can take more and more abuse and not respond back. If I can take some of that “heat” away from another woman of God, I will gladly submit. The body of our precious Lord Jesus is what is important and when we love each other, we are in essence loving Jesus himself!

May I put my two cents worth in this line of thought?

If we take Paul as saying that God is not a God of confusion and then Paul quotes from the letter from the Corinthians which is a source of confusion and restriction of women, then we rightfully have Paul correcting the confusion in verse 36. i.e. God is not a God of confusion so the confusing contradictions of the Corinthians cannot be from God. Paul’s commands (plural) then from verses 1 to 33 are from God because God is a God of peace (tranquility and a lack of dissension) and the dissension that comes in verses 34 & 35 is not from God but from man. Paul is not going to let men divide themselves from the women in this church and thus bring dissension into the Corinthian church (and into the body of Christ!) In this way Paul is saying that all the other churches have peace.

I am not saying that this is the only way to take Paul, but the fact that there is no record of dissension against women in any of the other churches tends to make me find support to the view that “as in all the churches of the saints” is a word from Paul not the Corinthians.

Again, I could be wrong, but a quote that starts with “as in all” seems to be misplaced if it is a Corinthian quote. It is also missing support of women’s suppression in all the churches if the quote is from the Corinthians. The other important thing to consider if this is part of the Corinthian quote, is that it is a misplaced sentence. It should read “Women are to keep silent in the churches as in all the churches of the saints”.

Thoughts?

Blessings. I’m really really appreciating all the input here.

Hey, folks, me too!

Thanks Don for highlighting the Chiasm. This is a very important thing for all to see.

That was a great word, teknomom! You are so right in that we need to be considerate of others and rebuke in a loving way, but that is not to take away our personality. I see each one that God used to write the Bible as a separate personality that God was able to use. Matthew is a bit of a space cadet in that you couldn’t get any hope of a real time line by his writing, yet he was used of God in a mighty way and some of the details of the death of Jesus are captured by Matthew in a unique way that is not repeated by any of the other gospels.

Paul is a person who was so deep that many didn’t understand him, yet he was used so greatly by the Holy Spirit. We cannot understand the hard passages of scripture without digging deeply into Paul’s inspired words and his inspired grammar. Yet although Paul was fully inspired in his writing scripture, his personality comes out in a big way.

“If it’s about someone else, err on the side of tolerance; if it’s about me, err on the side of abstinance”.

Amen!