Cheryl

teknomom,
You are so right. CARM likes to accuse people of having no proof for what they say and then when they provide the proof they just go onto the next issue and completely ignore the proof (or even deny it is proof) or they do what they have done to me. Diane has put me on moderation so that when I posted the confirmation that Dr. Randall Buth gave me regarding my understanding of the creation of some animals created after Adam that was proved in the Hebrew Discourse book, my comments are not showing up. What is Diane so afraid of? This reminds me of Romans 1:18:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

For what purpose would CARM have to suppress the truth? Why would my statement that Dr. Randall Buth has agreed that I do understand his comments about Genesis 2:8, 19 be held back on CARM? Is it because holding back the truth allows Diane Sellner to keep saying that I have been refuted by “En Hakkore” and I have misunderstood/misrepresented Dr. Buth?

It is nothing less than a shame that Diane has kicked off peace-loving egalitarians from CARM’s discussion board on the issue of women in ministry. It is a shame that CARM has held back the truth in favor of what is not truthful. It is a shame that this has been done in the name of the Lord Jesus and against other brothers and sisters in Christ.

Truth is provable and truth does not run and hide. Truth is not afraid of being challenged. Truth can be held onto and truth can be supported. Everything that CARM has done to suppress the truth has been turned around by God to bring about good even though these ones have meant it for evil. This is the way of our Sovereign God!

Paula,
Yup you are “out” my prickly friend 😉

Sandy,
Hug accepted! 🙂 You know that is another reason why I love the people who come here. They are respectful and hugable!

Sandy,
Honestly, I would just like to give you a hug!
You said:

“One thing I’m just beginning to learn now that I’ve started using the internet is that many believe the comp vs egal issue to be a matter of salvation.”

This is something that have been working hard to dispel this myth. There are so many who see women as sinning against God for merely using their God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ without prejudice. This is so divisive and I believe that it hurts our dear Lord Jesus very much. I personally lost a dear friend who turned against me because I believed and practiced a non-prejudicial approach to giving out God’s gifts for the benefit of anyone that God’s brings in my path – both men and women. I was treated with anger for a very long time and called nasty names and I still stuck around. The final straw came when I realized that there would be no peace because they actually saw me as being a big sinner, one who was unrepentant and someone who was hurting the church by my unrepentant sin. Since I stopped trying to make things work, I am being treated as if I don’t exist. It is an unloving and divisive thing to see those who disagree with you on this secondary issue of doctrine as enemies of the faith. If I could help others from being treated this way, I would do everything I could. Perhaps the church will again experience persecution and this will drive us all together again.

Sandy,
I wish you well on your journey. It was an adventure for me as I journeyed to where I am today.

Truthseeker,
Thanks for your input! Good going!!

Sandy,

Here is some food for thought regarding the Southern Baptist Convention – http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-primer-on-women-in-christian.html

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-primer-on-women-in-ministry.html

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-primer-on-women-in-ministry_20.html

tiro3,
Yes it is nice that my son Ryan stops by here occasionally. He is mostly an “Elvis has left the building” kind of guy not because he is not an egalitarian, but because of his very busy career and apologetics ministry. He does come by once in a while to crack me up! (Guess where he gets his sense of humor from? 😉

Sandy,
I am so happy that you stopped by!! I speak for myself but I think I can speak for most people here when I say that we love our brothers and sisters in Christ even if they disagree with us on the women’s issue. Our tie together in Christ is far greater than any disagreement on the secondary issues of faith. You are very welcome in this place and I invite you to participate as much as you would like in the community here because the emphasis is on unity and Christ-likeness while we lift up women in ministry.

I am sure that there will be some who will have good things to give you regarding how God views women in the OT. If you haven’t read a series of four articles that I did on “Does God have one unique law?” I encourage you to follow the links to the articles because they tie in with the Old Testament since the basis of the law and what is and isn’t allowed has its foundation in the OT. Also I think you will find the articles thought-provoking if nothing else. Part one is here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/29/does-god-have-one-unique-law-part-one/
Part two here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/07/does-god-have-one-unique-law-part-two/
Part three here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/09/does-god-have-one-unique-law-part-three/
and part four here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/01/19/what-law-does-satan-agree-with/

My expertise is more on the hard passages of scripture regarding the question of whether a woman is allowed to teach the bible for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. During my two year research project, I felt that the weak area that hadn’t been sufficiently dealt with and needed some work was in answering all of the problem areas in these hard passages that still had some contradictions that needed answering. When the passages that “seem” to restrict women are dealt with decisively in context, then all the other wonderful passages on scripture that had already been adequately dealt with by others would stand strong on their own.

I look forward to having others put their two cents worth in for Sandy’s benefit.
Warmly,
Cheryl

Greg,
Good points about the “office” and the thoughts about taking us back into the Old Covenant.

Paula,
It is always good to remind us that we take some things for granted and do not test them by scripture.

Ryan,
That was quite a funny about “Elvis has left the building” when another underling comes to give us a message. Very sharp wit, but that’s my son!

Don,
I LOVED your list! #10 especially touched me. If we consider that someone is the weaker brother we are not to treat them rudely or in an unkind manner. We can have grace towards our complementarian brothers who still have a conscience that is not as strong as ours on disputable matters. I would just ask that our complementarian brothers do the same if they think that we are the weaker “brothers”. They may feel their conscience pricked by being taught by a woman, but if they feel that they are the stronger ones because of this conscience and we are the weaker ones, they should treat us in an especially kind way giving full opportunity for us to serve God in every way possible for the benefit of the body of Christ. Paul said:

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

If a complementarian believes that a woman is teaching the right things to the wrong people, they should pray for the woman and treat her in a compassionate way knowing that she too belongs to Jesus and we will give an account for our treatment of our brothers in Christ.

Lin,
You are so right in that it is the word of God i.e. the message that has the authority and not the teacher. What has always puzzled me is how some speak about the “pulpit” as if it is some godly thing that has authority. There is no “pulpit” in scripture just as Paula points out. Does it not show our humanity when we refuse someone access to the “pulpit” when there is nothing about a “pulpit” in scripture? I think that we have gone way past scripture in our trying to have a hierarchical rule of one person over another in the body of Christ.

tiro3,
Amen! Good way to put it.

Don,
While I can see “tender” is a by-product of circumcision, I think there is a much greater application concerning what is cut off not what is left. This is why I believe very strongly that the scripture’s metaphor for sin is “foreskin”. I would agree with you the unprotected part now having the protection cut off is more open to being tender, but again in my article I am not dealing with the after-effects so much as the part that necessitates it to be cut off. Why must the foreskin be cut off? It can be pushed back and that would also create sensitivity. But scripture doesn’t say to pull back the foreskin but to cut it off. The emphasis is on cutting off what must not be there to be in God’s covenant.

Although I rarely appeal to commentaries because I believe that the Bible is the final say, let me copy a few words from other commentaries showing that the foreskin is indeed identified with sin, corruption, evil, body of sins etc.

John Wesley’s explanatory notes:

Jer 4:4 – Circumcise – Put away your corruptions. Heart – Let it be inward, not outward in the flesh only.

In John Gill’s exposition of the Bible he says:

and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, Deu_30:6, and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, “circumcision without hands”, and “whose praise is not of man, but of God”, Col_2:11, and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows:

lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, Nah_1:6 and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance

Matt Henry’s commentary on the bible says:

(Jer_4:4): “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskin of your heart. Mortify the flesh and the lusts of it. Pare off that superfluity of naughtiness which hinders your receiving with meekness the engrafted word, Jam_1:21. Boast not of, and rest not in, the circumcision of the body, for that is but a sign, and will not serve without the thing signified. It is a dedicating sign. …Circumcision is an obligation to keep the law; lay yourselves afresh under that obligation. It is a seal of the righteousness of faith; lay hold then of that righteousness, and so circumcise yourselves to the Lord.”
II. The danger they are threatened with, which they are concerned to avoid. Repent and reform, lest my fury come forth like fire, which it is now ready to do, as that fire which came forth from the Lord and consumed the sacrifices, and which was always kept burning upon the altar and none might quench it; such is God’s wrath against impenitent sinners, because of the evil of their doings.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown’s commentary says:

Jer 4:4 –
Remove your natural corruption of heart (Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Rom_2:29; Col_2:11).

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary:

“Circumcise you to the Lord” is explained by the next clause: remove the foreskins of your heart. The stress lies in (Hebrew text won’t copy); in this is implied that the circumcision should not be in the flesh merely. In the flesh all Jews were circumcised. If they then are called to circumcise themselves to the Lord, this must be meant spiritually, of the putting away of the spiritual impurity of the heart, i.e., of all that hinders the sanctifying of the heart; see in Deu_10:16. The plur. (Hebrew text won’t copy) is explained by the figurative use of the word, and the reading (Hebrew text won’t copy), presented by some codd., is a correction from Deu_10:16. The foreskins are the evil lusts and longings of the heart.

NET notes:

9 tn Heb “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskin of your heart.” The translation is again an attempt to bring out the meaning of a metaphor. The mention of the “foreskin of the heart” shows that the passage is obviously metaphorical and involves heart attitude, not an external rite.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary

Jer 4:3-4 –
Jeremiah then used two metaphors to show the need for repentance. The first metaphor pertained to farming. Just as a farmer does not sow his seed on unplowed ground, so God does not sow His seed of blessing in unrepentant hearts. The men of Judah and… Jerusalem needed to break up the unplowed ground of their hearts through repentance. The second metaphor came from the Jewish practice of circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of being under God’s covenant with Israel (cf. Gen_17:9-14). The men, though circumcised physically, needed to circumcise their hearts so that their inward condition matched their outward profession (cf. Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Jer_9:25-26; Rom_2:28-29).
Unless Judah did exercise true repentance — not just outward profession — God’s wrath would be released and would burn like fire against the people. And once God’s wrath was released no one could quench it.

Don,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. That was a very thoughtful answer.

Let’s have a look at the physical and spiritual meaning of protection over a sensitive part. First of all we can see that both men and women have a piece of skin that acts as a protection over a sensitive part. While it is fairly rare that women’s skin is removed by circumcision, that is the removing of the skin of protection over her very sensitive part, it is very common in the third world to have a young girl’s entire organ cut out resulting in genital mutilation. If we ignore the mutilation part, we can readily see that it is possible to remove the skin covering the sensitive part on both men and women. Agreed?

We should also be able to agree that removing the foreskin in the flesh is a fleshly act that is spiritualized by removing the foreskin of our hearts. Agreed?

Next I think that we can agree that God only required males to be circumcised in the flesh and there was no such requirement for the females even though females also had a piece of skin that covered their very sensitive part.

Let’s go on next to the spiritual end of the circumcision of the foreskin. Let’s look at Jeremiah 4:4 in the ESV.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.”

The key words here are circumcise, foreskin, hearts, wrath, evil, deeds. So what is God saying? One thing that we know for sure is that each one of us has had a foreskin on our hearts. The foreskin of the heart is not limited to males as females also have it. God says that the foreskin on our hearts brings God’s wrath and what we need to have cut away has to do with evil deeds that have something to do with our heart.

Is God saying that we need to remove a piece of skin from our hearts that keeps us from being sensitive or we need to be made tender by the removing of the skin? Jeremiah 4:4 doesn’t appear to be saying this at all. Does God say that his wrath is to go forth like a fire because we are not tender? Or is God saying something else that is far worse? What exactly is it that God says that equates with the foreskin of our heart? Read on to see that God’s anger against us is because of the evil of our deeds. It is the evil that needs to be cut away from our hearts. Evil is sin. The evil of our deeds is the sinful thoughts of our heart that gives birth to sinful deeds.

The next problem I think you would have if you made removing the foreskin to be a symbol of making a person more tender, is explaining why only males are to be made more tender? There is no family mediator in the OT who speaks on his wife’s behalf to God thus answering for her sin. The sacrificial system shows that each person must made a sacrifice acceptable to God for their own sin. There is no required mediator of the family where the man’s circumcision covers other people. In fact it is very clear that a father’s circumcision does not even cover his own son. A circumcised father still will have his son rejected from the people of God if his son is not circumcised.

When I read scripture it is clear that the foreskin of the heart is a symbol of the sin and evil that is in our heart. When the evil and the sin that starts in our hearts is cut off, God says that he will give us a new heart one that follows hard after him. It is our sin that separates us from God and the foreskin is the symbol of that evil and evil is sin.

Corrie,
You said:

“If you already have something you do not have to go after it! That is just a silly statement to make and I am appalled that noted theologians have not taken him to task for such a statement.”

I agree with you completely! I was so shocked to hear and read the statements that makes Jesus to be not equal in some way with God and yet know that theologians and Pastors aren’t jumping up to take these men to task for what they are doing to Jesus. Men like this would only find themselves agreeing with groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and it totally blows my mind that we let these men get away with saying these things. Is it because we value degrees and book learning so much that we cannot call someone to task if he is highly educated? Have we become mindless robots who nod our heads and let these guys put down the Son of God to a inferior place in the Trinity? I just question when we will wake up and see what has happened to the church. Will we see the wolf skin when they question the resurrection? What really is next?

I was going to ask one other thing, Don, if you see scripture as saying that removing the foreskin was a sign of being tenderized, where do you get this from? Scripture says that the need for circumcision of the heart was because of our evil deeds. Jeremiah 4:4 says that if they do not circumcise their hearts, God’s wrath will go out against them. This is a consequence of their sin, their uncircumcised hearts.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.

Uncircumcised heart = sin (or evil) in their heart. God’s wrath is poured out against our sin. This is why we are told that we need a new heart not a tenderized heart. That is the way I see scripture. If I have missed something, I welcome correction.

Don,
Thanks for your comments!

Circumcision was a sign of the family progenitor entering into the covenant but this doesn’t mean that a male was need to get into the covenant. The fact is that only males were required to be circumcised, but female slaves and single women did not need a male to be a part of the Abrahamic covenant. This brings up the question of why?

You are right in that it is absolutely true that anyone who is in Christ is part of the Abrahamic family of God. We all had our hearts filled with sin and it is Jesus Christ who removed the foreskin of our hearts. Removing the foreskin was a sign of removing the sin. The question that I was asking is why is the removal of the foreskin a sign of removing of sin? It is because the foreskin is a symbol or sign of sin. If is it true that we all have a spiritual foreskin that needs to be removed off our hearts, we need to also consider why it is that only men have a physical foreskin that needs to be removed that allowed them to come into the family of God in the OT? There was never one woman who was refused entrance because she did not have a male member of her family to bring her into the covenant. The covenant did not have a male mediator who brought the family into the covenant. The covenant was for each person individually. The father could not bring the sons into the covenant even if he was circumcised. The father’s circumcision was not good enough. Each male member had to be circumcised or they were out of the family of God. This is quite a sober warning of God that each son was rejected with or without their father’s own circumcision.

When we see the importance of the cutting off of the foreskin in the males as a sign of passing on of the inheritance of the sin nature, it should cause us to realize why God did not give the promise to Adam of his seed being the Savior and why it was the seed of the woman alone who became our Savior. So many say that the virgin birth is unnecessary but that is not correct. The virgin birth of Jesus has been and continues to be a important part of our faith. Jesus had to be the sinless lamb who was able to take away our sin. He could not have inherited a sin nature in any way and he could not have sinned on his own or he would not qualify to be our Savior.

It is interesting also to note that God rejected a sacrificial lamb that had any physical blemish. It wasn’t just the innocence of the lamb that was required but there there was also a requirement that there be no physical mark or blemish on the lamb in order for them to be a pure sacrifice for sin. Everything that God does is for a reason and each symbol has a meaning. Jesus as the lamb of God had to be physically without blemish (a sin nature inherited by birth would have disqualified him) and internally without blemish (without personal sin). If he failed in either way to be sinless then he could not be our Kinsman Redeemer.

Paula,
Good points!

Val,
I don’t know why it is a “secret” to so many that they believe it to be a sin for a woman to teach the bible to men. One of my friends was extremely prejudiced against women believing that women are sinning against God when they teach the bible to men, but he kept it hidden from me. I could not figure out, though, why he was treating me so badly. I experienced the brunt of his anger many times and it didn’t make any sense to me. It wasn’t until I came to understand how strong some complementarians are and I pushed him to admit that I am not sinning against God for teaching the bible to men and he refused to say that I wasn’t in sin, that I became fully aware of what his problem was. It is my belief that a person cannot fully respect or love their sister in Christ while at the same time believing that their sister is willfully sinning against a direct command of God’s. Finding this out freed me to move on from our friendship because a friendship like this is not healthy or respectful to the woman. I tried to save the friendship for a long time before I realized that it was hopeless. Unless one can change their view about this “sin” it appears to me that it is pretty much impossible to have true Christian fellowship. This makes me very sad but it also helps me to want to fight against these false beliefs because this error in belief is responsible for tearing apart brothers and sisters in Christ.

Lin,
God does test us to see if we will obey and I think Moses was tested until the very end. God did something similar with Balaam where he told him that he could not go with the Midianites to curse Israel. Later when Balaam asked again (why would he even ask God again?) God said that he could go but with the Midianites but he must only say that God gave him to say. God was testing Balaam. Since Balaam was hoping to get some money for his “work” it appears that it took him all of two seconds to get up and go with the men. But God put an angel in the way to kill Balaam and ultimately Balaam was saved through the miracle of a talking donkey who protected Balaam from coming across the path of the angel who would have killed Balaam.

So here we have two examples, one of God’s leader for Israel and another of a “prophet” who were both almost killed and each had a savior provided to keep them from being killed. In Balaam’s case God provided a talking donkey to keep Balaam from going further. In Moses’ case he was on the way to lead Israel when he too encountered a God-ordained appointment with death if he would have gone an further without an obedience to God in what he already knew to be true. He too was saved when his wife obeyed the commandment.

It seems to me that these two instances are about God showing us how serious he is in our obedience and there are consequences for disobedience, yet he also provided a “way of escape” so that he didn’t have to kill the man. It also shows to me that before we take the next “step” of faith in going on with God we need to make sure that we have obeyed God in what he has already told us. The next step of faith is dependent on what we already have revealed to us and we cannot move on until we are obedient to God’s revealed will.

Mark,
First of all our son was done as an emergency. Even with a stretching he wouldn’t drink or go to the bathroom. I completely disagree with you especially since I have been through this. And if God required something then God is the one who knows best not us. The bottom line is that when God says to do something we must obey. God almost killed Moses because he had not circumcised his son. Although we do not have this law for Christians today, to say that it is wrong to do is simply not true.

Mark,
I have never heard of female circumcision except for what is wrongly labeled as circumcision but it is actually mutilation. It has been widely reported on in the media. As a mother of a son who had to be circumcised because the tissue grew shut when he was just a small baby, I would rather see a child circumcised in a painless way than go through what we did when it became medically necessary. It was very hard on us to see him in such pain.

The point is that as Christians we do not need to follow the Jewish law but it is not wrong to have the procedure done. There is reasons to have males circumcised. There are no health benefits for cutting of a woman’s skin and God did not require this.

The question on circumcision for the Jews or circumcision for our hearts all revolves around obedience. Many Jews didn’t obey God when they came out of Egypt and that generation died in the wilderness due to their disobedience. God has a right to our obedience because he is God.

Mark,
The “hood” in a female is not called a foreskin however cutting it off is not illegal. What you are probably referring to is not cutting of the piece of skin but cutting off the entire organ. This is widely done in third world countries where the woman’s sexuality is stifled by female mutilation. This procedure is illegal and it is brutal. For this procedure to be similar in boys would be to cut off the entire organ.

God’s law required cutting off the foreskin in an act of obedience for the Jews in the same way that God’s law requires that we have the foreskin of our hearts dealt with by the Lord Jesus. We stubbornly cannot hold on to our sin and think that we are following God. When we repent and turn away from our sin, and submit to the cutting work of the Holy Spirit, God has promised to give us a new heart and a new spirit. God’s way is the way of obedience and man’s way is the way of rationalization and disobedience.

Lin,
God had chosen Moses to lead the people out of Egypt, but in order to do this job he needed Moses to be completely obedient. The sons born to the Israelites as well as the servants born to their family must be circumcised on the eighth day and it is apparent that Moses had not done this to his son. Perhaps it was because his wife was not an Israelite and did not approve of the practice and he listened to her rather than obeying the commandment. When God came to put Moses to death for disobedience, it appears that his wife had been holding back Moses from circumcising his son, so Zipporah finally relented when she saw that there was no other option, but she did the circumcision in anger and threw the foreskin at Moses’ feet calling him a husband of blood. The fact that Zipporah did the circumcision and it was not Moses who did the job, appears to give strong evidence that she was the hold-out and Moses should have had some backbone to do what was right even if his wife didn’t want to follow God.

Although scripture says that the uncircumcised son will be cut off from the people of God, it appears that God threatened to cut off Moses too for disobedience. Circumcision was a requirement, not an option in obeying God. It symbolized the importance of cutting off of sin, so much so that God chose to make this a “hill to die on” and would have removed Moses if there wasn’t complete obedience.

Oh and one other thing…I do VERY much appreciate all those on this blog who try very hard to keep the rules of a respectful dialog. I know it isn’t easy, but you guys have been trying hard and this is a good time to say THANK YOU to all!

MN Swede,
Thanks for your gracious comments, and I welcome you here! You are right in that the equality within the Trinity is not something that has been preached lately. It may be because books have been printed that come against complete equality and this certainly is a serious matter. We are doing our part in our work on a new DVD on the Trinity. We trust that it will not only be uplifting to the complete equality of the person in the Trinity but also have a respectful tone towards those who oppose us. Honestly it isn’t easy and at times it would be nice to have a spiritual pill to make all the fighting and opposition to go away. But God sovereignly works even in times of conflict and so that does help us to stay respectful to others. The way I think about it is to consider how I would like to be treated if I was the one in error. Surely I cannot be right in everything. How would I like to be treated that would help me the best to see my error if indeed I am in error? When I apply that practice, then it is easier for me to try to persuade instead of attack.

Paula,
The post that you linked to actually made me laugh. You certainly are not a “blah” person! I have had opportunity to personally give you a word of encourage to take it a little easier on some whom you were offended at, and I think you did hear me, but all in all “blah” would never cross my mind regarding you! I have always said that I love passionate people. Yes, passionate people do have a chance to step on toes, but they also bring some spice to life. Paula, I must say you really are a spicy kind of gal. You fight hard, even against me at times, but I have never been offended yet. Truth is worth fighting for and if my truth can’t answer the hard questions, then it won’t stand the test when I step up to my next radio debate. Now as far as a radio debater, I am a “blah” but working on it 🙂

wanderer,

You said:

First, I do not determine what the rules are at CARM, but I do my best to follow them, even if I do not agree.

You are completely correct in that none of us but CARM itself determines its own rules. However, the godly thing to do is to apply these rules equally for everyone. When I first started posting on CARM, I was appalled at how much attack was allowed by those who seem to be the “teacher’s pet”. While I did see some legitimate warning for those who did speak out of turn, there appeared to be a real attitude of turning a “blind eye” to those who support CARM in every area and who speak harshly to anyone who disagrees with anything that CARM stands for. This double standard is what has caused many to be dismayed. If the rules were applied across the board in a fair way, I don’t think anyone could really say much. But the rules are only applied to the letter of the law against those who disagree with CARM’s position especially on the secondary issue of women in ministry. If I remember right the first time I got kicked off was because I made a statement about the unequal way that people were treated. “christdependent” was forever “in my face” calling me very unkind and nasty names and questioning my motives and my character, yet nothing was ever done to stop her rants against me or others. I reported her as the rules said to do and when nothing was done, I questioned why she was allowed to continue the nasty words.

In this forum, I do want a safe place for all, not just for egalitarians. So if I find someone harshly attacking another person, I will do something about it. If it is a complaint about the way they have been treated, I do let them sound off as long as they are not doing a “christdependent” kind of attack. When I was on CARM, I did not reply to “christdependen’s” attacks. I completely ignored her, but one cannot ignore when the moderator of the board goes on the attack saying lies and attacking people’s characters. This is ungodly and if the good say nothing, the evil will continue.

So while I completely agree with you that rules are rules and if one doesn’t like the rules, they may need to either adjust or move on, the unequal application of the rules is a worldly thing, and has nothing to do with a Christ-like attitude.

I do hope that you will stay around long enough to read my posts on marriage and why women don’t wear headcoverings and why women are not to be completely silent in the church. Another good place to start reading about the necessity for a kinsman Redeemer is my post on Adam as head of the family.
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

You will find also that there is a real openness here for complementarians who love God’s word and who are respectful to those who disagree with them. We are the body of Christ and we are called to have a very special love for each other because by loving each other we show our love for Jesus.

I also invite you to post your views of women. We would love to hear from you whether or not you agree with anything we say. I have always welcomed complementarians to this forum and I want to assure you that we consider this issue a secondary issue in the church, not an issue that should divide us from fellowship. You are completely welcome here and we would really love to hear what you have to say.

Paula,
You make a good point about us being able to discern the difference between an attack and a defense. When someone is attacked and they defend themselves, we do a disservice to them to equate their defense with the attack that has been leveled against them. There were times when Jesus was silent when he was being attacked and times when he not only defended himself but he also put the opposers in their place and called them white-washed tombs full of dead man’s bones. The wisdom is always to know when to be silent and when to make a defense or come to someone’s defense. When the body of Christ is coming under attack by those who cause division, it is a time to speak out and expose the attacks, the lies and the hypocrisy. These are the times that I personally cannot be silent and I cannot silence those who are wanting to stop the insanity.

wanderer,
It is interesting for you to say these things. How many posts have you read? The kindness that has been granted to CARM’s VP while she has threatened to sue me is proof that the “spirit” that is on CARM does not reside here.

Much blessing,
Cheryl Schatz

Psalmist,
Thank you for letting me know and I really appreciate your caring for me this way!

My response to Donna is that I haven’t read what she wrote about me neither do I care. Those who treat me in a Christian way will have the courage to say things to my face. Those who refuse to do that generally show themselves to be operating in a fearful-filled manner always going into their own safe place where they can launch an attack against others instead of dialogging in a respectful manner. My husband always gives me his wisdom in these matters by telling me to remember the source. I have no inclination to get sucked in by those who practice throwing scud missiles and then running away to hide, so I will give Donna’s blog a miss.

Nevertheless, I appreciate having a head’s up so that I could make that decision.

Much blessing,
Cheryl