Cheryl Schatz

Truthseeker #30
You said:

They also do not refer to such things as the women’s issues as laws.  They are principles written for the church.  Somehow in their minds, that is a significant difference.  All verses that we egals would use to raise questions and/or explain the equality position are subordinated to the verses that explicitly tell women to be silent or not teach or usurp authority, etc.

The problems with this mindset is that they may not say they are “laws” but they act as if they are.  A law is to be obeyed without exception.  But a principle is something that can overridden.  If God has gifted a woman to teach, then will they allow the “principle” of no women teaching men to be overridden?  If they do not allow a gifted woman to teach in the assembly when men are present, then they are proving by their actions that this is a “law” that cannot be broken rather than just a principle.

Also when one “subordinates” one verse to another verse this in essence is saying that that the bible contradicts itself and the “law” trumps the verses that contradict the law.  Rather we should see the meaning that satisfies the seeming contradicts rather than appealing to verses that trump other verses.  I see this as an immature way to “divide” the word.  We need to work hard to rightly “divide” the word.  We need to work to unravel what appear to be contradictions and when we have succeeded we can know we have God’s will on these hard passages.  “Trump” verses are never the answer.  Biblical consistency is the answer and those who ignore this will miss God’s truth in these areas.

Greg is right, they always have an answer.  It may fall flat in our understanding but it seems to work for them.  They do seem to tie everything back to creation.

While they do seem to have answers, I believe that it is important for us to continue to ask questions to show them the inconsistencies and outright contradictions.  What you are doing is the right thing to do.  I get this understanding from having worked with Jehovah’s Witnesses in a support group setting for 16 years.  Those who came to me and who were not open in the least could have the seed planted through asking the “right” questions.  They were not looking for “right” answers because they already believed that they knew the truth.  It was the “right” questions that threw them off their solid foundation.  For those who will not allow themselves to be taught, asking hard questions can be the key to change.  With Jehovah’s Witnesses I found their arrogance at having the only right religion caused many of them to struggle when they had questions given to them that they could not answer.  These questions can shake their foundation.  But you may never know how much your questions have shook them.  Those who are deep down truth lovers will struggle with the questions until the question goes from a seed into a plant in their hearts.  I see the same thing with hierarchists.  They can be very arrogant.  They have the truth and no egalitarian knows anything about scripture on the women’s issue.  But when you present questions that they cannot answer and you continue to push them for answers that resolve the contradiction without ignoring the verses that cause them problems, you will be planting a seed for change in their heart and you will probably never even know it until the seed has produced a plant.

The key then is to keep up the questions.  Keep pushing for answers.  A question asked once without an answer is an opportunity to ask it again and again and again.  This is what I do and what makes me very persistent.  Questions deserve to be answered.  If there is no answer, I do not see the silence as an answer.  I come back another time with the same question or another question that is slightly different worded.  An unanswerable question is not the fault of the one asking the question.  It is the fault of the one who arrogantly believes that he has all the answers.

I was told that the context was different.

This is one of those shut down statements.  It is invalid if they cannot show you from the context where it is different.  This reminds me of all the times where I have argued from the text and the context and the person then states, “but the whole of the bible supports my view”.  So the “whole of the bible” supports that the man is in authority over the woman?  If this is true, then give me a statement that says this.  The “whole of the bible” is used by every cultist I have met and every one who is pushing their own agenda.  Funny how the entire bible (without specifics) can be used to prove anything.  Once one understands that these are classic “shut down” statements, one can formulate more questions that challenge the person.  It is easy to claim the whole of the bible teaches something but the proof of that from the text and the context of two passages in agreement is the standard “safe” way.  Two or three witnesses is for safety.  Every cultist has one verse alone taken out of its context.  Two witnesses are needed at the minimum and the context is the king.

One funny thing is that I have been dealing with a pastor who has been backpedaling on the women’s issue and he has stated that “context is king” to me but when I asked him to show me in 1 Cor. 11 where the context of “head” from 1 Cor. 11:3 is shown to be “authority over” in the passage.  I told him to check it out and see that there is no reference to someone’s authority over the other person in Paul’s writing about head coverings and hair length.  To that he replied that “context is king, but not always”.  No, context is always king.  If one’s idea cannot be supported by the context, then that is only a “pretext” for error.