Cheryl

Matt Slick has answered my request for a written debate by posting this on his discussion board:

I am in the midst of two debates right now, prepping, etc. and I find out that “a woman” has said I refused to debate her? right….. It turns out that “a woman” is misrepresenting what I have said in the past about debates. I offered “a woman” to debate me on Paltalk, publically, live, timed, etc. Paltalk is a public forum, an excellent Internet-based, voice chat system. I have done formal debates there many times in the past and I will do more in the future. It is very easy to do. Since I have already had “a woman” on my radio show twice, in public, while I paid the bill, I’m ready to do another “discussion” in public, on pal talk. I am still waiting for her to accept this challenge that I offered months ago. I have no interest in a written “debate”…been there and done that with the atheists and it turned into, if I remember correctly, a debate that was over 25,000 words long (I think that is like over 60 written pages). I am not interested in that happening again. So, I’ve already written an awful lot on the women’s issues exposing the stupid errors of that position. I’ve already had one of its representatives on my radio show… she drove me crazy with the slow, condescending delivery. And, As I’ve already said, I have no interest in a written debate. I’m perfectly comfortable with debating the women’s elder/pastor thing with her and anyone else who is willing. Paltalk is a great forum for this. So, if she is up to it, fine. If not, then she can go back to her corner and keep swinging at shadows.

______________________________
Here is what I posted in response:

The issue of whether a woman is forbidden by God to teach the bible with authority to men is an important issue that affects all of us in one way or another. It is also a very worthwhile issue to debate with other Christians when it is done with love and respect. This is a secondary issue of doctrine that should never divide us.

I was invited by Matt Slick to be on his radio program through an email sent by him on April 5, 2006. In this email Matt Slick said that he would be respectful and that I would be allowed to cross examine him on live radio.

**Here is a copy of Matt Slick’s invitation to me to come on his radio program. The invitation was given on April 5, 2006:**

Quote:

I am willing to have myself be challenged and examined on live radio. I am willing to have what I believe to be true to be cross-examined. 1 Pet. 3:15 commands that I do this and I obey it. Your DVD does not allow cross-examination and what it presents as “opposing views” are not always sufficiently represented.

Please understand that I’m not trying to be hostile, though it may sound like it.

I have for more than two decades requested women and men who hold to your position to actually have a dialogue with me on these issues and not a single individual has ever accepted. Why is that? I cannot help but wonder what the problem is?

I can certainly understand why you would not want to discuss this with me live over the radio. I’m disappointed that you have declined since you would be someone who will be very good at defending a position.

Just so you know I am very respectful on the radio and everybody, except for one atheist who got cornered, has said that I had been extremely respectful and polite — even those who have disagreed with my positions.

At the very least, the DVD has provided more areas, more positions fromyour perspective, that I need to address.

Again, I politely request to have you on my show to discuss this.

in Jesus,

Matt

________________
I finally accepted Matt Slick’s offer in September 2007 and I was a guest for two programs on his Faith and Reason Radio Show.

I offered to come back for another show and Matt said he would think about it. Later he stated on his Faith and Reason radio show that he would allow me to come back on his the radio if I would limit my answers to 1.5 minutes each question. To my knowledge Matt has not tried to control any other guest to this extent; however I was willing to abide by his rules and I responded to Matt that if he would provide me with his questions in advance so that I could work on keeping my answers short, I would abide by his restrictions. Matt subsequently withdrew his offer and I was not allowed to finish my explanation for 1 Timothy 2:15 – a verse crucial in the interpretation of the prohibition.

I do believe that we should passionately debate this issue and because of this I have extended to Matt Slick an invitation to come onto my blog to have a written debate with me. The debate would be on the question of Does God forbid women from teaching the bible with authority to men? Matt’s position would be the affirmative and my position would be the negative.

The debate would be done in a scholarly fashion with both sides presenting their arguments in an open way for the world to see how each side presents their argument and how each side answers the questions posed to them. I do agree with Matt Slick that cross-examining is important. I also believe that the written record of such an important debate would be helpful to many who are searching the scriptures to find out what God’s will is on this matter. A written record of the debate would also make us both accountable for the attitude that we display as the scholarly community and the world would also be watching. This is one way to keep accountability for the attitude that can slip away from the respect that I had been promised and did not receive with our audio debate. The two programs are on my blog for anyone to check the respect level that was afforded me on live radio.

I have already accepted Matt Slick’s offer to dialog with him in the audio format on his radio program. It is time to take another format that would be more conducive to a respectful, passionate debate. I think that all will find a written format to be easier to follow and with a higher accountability for a respectful attitude since the record would be a permanent written record on the internet. The arguments can then be analyzed at the reader’s leisure and a good evaluation made on that basis, rather than on tone and level of voice, etc and would provide an effective way to have peer analysis and scholarship. The written debate is the way to go after what has already transpired.

I understand that Matt has tried the written debate before with an atheist and with issues that are primary to our faith and not secondary. Whether he did well or not in the written form of debate is not my concern. If this issue is as important to him as it is to me, then there is no reason not to spend the time and the energy to bring this debate to a public forum that will be seen and evaluated by the Christian world. My blog is a place where there will be no control on either one of us and there will be respect for both of us as is fitting for brethren in Christ.

Cheryl Schatz