Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Also Cheryl it is interesting that you post about Genesis but yet tell us that the conversations is about spiritual gifts. What is it that you want to discuss?

Well, Mark, I thought I made it clear when I provided a name “God’s design in Genesis” and provided a picture, and then argued that God gave no design difference that would make a woman restricted in her rule or her spiritual ability to represent God or serve God for the benefit of the church. Which part of that isn’t clear to you?

Now it also interesting that all of you want to dismiss the grammar of Gen 3. You label it a rabbit trail, that i am going off topic, but is this not the very passage and topic we are looking at.

A passage in scripture can have multiple “layers”. We are discussing the “layer” of design here, not the issue of God’s name and how and when He revealed Himself by different names. That is an issue that is of value but belongs elsewhere. For this blog it is a rabbit trail that takes us off the issue of women’s spiritual equality with men.

Let me ask all of you this question…are you teachable? Are you even willing to look at the passages that are difficult for your position?

This blog is all about discussing the hard passages of scripture. I have made it very clear that this blog is an open place to discuss these issues, but if the comp position does not stand up to the test of Scripture in context, then it doesn’t mean that we are not teachable. I would say that we are not gullible.

You say i need to answer your tough questions which i have over and over again, but yet you refuse to answer mine and call them rabbit trails?

You actually haven’t answered my questions. You may be answering what you “think” I am claiming, but you are not sticking to the actual question on the text we are discussing. Why you don’t seem to understand the questions is up for debate, but you are certainly not answering the questions I am asking because your answer brings a twisted view of what I believe. If you actually got it correct of what I am asking, you would likely do better in trying to answer. My thought is that you are a skimmer and don’t actually read to understand. I could be wrong on this and there may be another explanation for why you fail to understand the point first before you attempt to refute it.

I can only conclude your un-willingness to even attempt to dialogue. It seems that this blog is more interested in slandering other Christians like CBMW and comps rather than discussing scripture.

This is actually what I expect from someone who cannot answer the hard questions but needs a way to bow out. Honestly if you don’t want to discuss this issue any more, you have the right to bow out. But don’t leave saying that I have an unwillingness to dialog. I love to dialog. I just want the dialog to be upfront with properly representing the other person’s viewpoint. Misrepresentations or claims of bad motives never advances godly dialog. That is all I want. Let’s keep this an in-house debate where we can still have love for the other as a brother or sister in Christ.

As far as CBMW goes, it is fair to discuss their position. A position that is based on truth will survive the test. CBMW continues to promulgate that women are not designed for certain areas of ministry and it is just fine to challenge that without being accused of “slander”. “Slander” is a very strong word and a very strong accusation. Criticism should never be considered slander.

Slander is:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

If what I have said is “malicious”, “false” or “defamatory”, then such statements should be pointed out so that they can be corrected. But if it is criticism that you are labeling as “slander”, then that would be unfair, don’t you think?

To answer gengwell, some roles are spiritual and some are physical.

The term “role” is not found of any spiritual work. Physical “roles” are not the issue here unless you can prove from the Scripture that godly service is a physical “role” that is dependent on bodily function. I don’t think that you can do that so let’s just continue to focus on the spiritual.

A pastor is both. Some are given the gift, but they must also physically do the work.

The “work” of pastor is only limited physically by those who refuse to be pastored. There is no brawn that is needed to be a pastor and no particular brain function that is dependent on being male or else God couldn’t gift females and He obviously does so at His good pleasure.

They physically have a job to do for the body of Christ.

You are confusing the term “physical”. What you mean, I think, is that some pastors are doing the work for pay and their work requires them to get behind the pulpit on Sundays and the pulpit is a symbol of male authority. If I am not understanding you right, perhaps you could say it in a way that others outside of your own though-process can follow.

Whether there is a purely ’spiritual’ only role i’m not so sure. I would need to look more closely at that.

Perhaps that would be a good thing to do.

But i guess that is why egals are so fixated on dividing the physical and spiritual, to combat comp theology rather applicable truth.

Since you don’t know what is purely spiritual or not, I am not sure that you would qualify to comment on any supposed “fixation” of egals on spiritual gifts for the common good. Don’t you think?

More on Genesis later

Great! At least I know then that you haven’t given your final goodbye yet. I look forward to further conversations on Genesis. It is, after all, the foundation of our faith as set forth in the book of beginnings.

Cheerio for now. I am off to feed my husband a very late supper.