Cheryl Schatz

Don,

I like what you said here:

The more they respond with paper after paper, the more they self-repudiate their claim of supposed clarity.

This is so true.  If it was so “clear” then how come churches don’t know how to implement it without a whole set of additional “rules”?  How come churches have to write to CBMW to find out if they can have women ushers and women serving communion?  If women are not allowed, then where is the dividing line?  This position only says that no one really knows.  Where is a set rule and where does conscience play into it?  But if we see scripture as allowing women to follow Jesus in using their gifts in the way that men can follow Jesus, then we don’t need organizations like CBMW.  We can now decide for ourselves and allow the scriptural position that men and women are spiritually equal before God and as spiritual equals they can both use their gifts for the benefit of the common good.

Irving church also stands out as a perfect example of an egalitarian view being upheld because of scripture.  I noticed that during their 18 month study of the scriptures they also studied both sides from both CBMW books and egalitarian books.  If the issue was so “clear” as CBMW says, then why didn’t their “clear” view convince those who were clearly very open to scripture and who only wanted to hold tightly to the scriptures.