Cheryl Schatz

Don #7,
It is a “tradition” because it is proper word usage within the text. If this “tradition” is not correct, then it must be shown why it is not correct. Just saying that it is incorrect and that it is a wordplay without showing how the wordplay works within the inspired context just doesn’t cut it.

Some might think that I am an egalitarian because it suits the way I feel. This is incorrect. I have freedom to test everything by God’s Word and not by my emotion or any agenda that I may or may not have. I can reject things that other egalitarians say because I trust that the scriptures are clear when one looks deeply at the inspired words, inspired grammar and the inspired context. Any explanation that does not fit within these parameters can be rejected if it is not supported. I am one egalitarian who is very sure that I have the freedom to reject even egalitarian arguments if they do not fit. I also have freedom to show why the explanation doesn’t fit hower I do not reject the people who hold to the view. But for me I would rather have truth than anything. I am sorry if that makes anyone feel like I am not towing the party line. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as a party line. We do not stick together because we have a common agenda. We should be sticking together because we have a common desire for truth and a common love for Jesus. What isn’t valid as truth should be able to be freely rejected no matter who says it. If a complementarian is faithful to the scriptures and shows how the teaching is valid in the context with the words, grammar, context and the historical meaning, I am okay with that. Unfortunately the complementarian argument falls flat because there are so many contradictions between their argument and the text itself. My bottom line is now and will always be to seek out the truth and to hold tightly to the Word of God while loving the people who do not see it the same way as I do and treating them as valued brothers and sisters in Christ.