Response to Cheryl's sin list against Matt

by Matt Slick

Return to main article about Cheryl Schatz and women in ministry

Copied from http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=120745

 

Following is a list of sins that Cheryl Schatz says I have committed against her. Instead of dealing with the issues, she has chosen to take things personally.  I think she is misguided and is trying to be vindicated over whatever she perceives as an injustice.  Could she be focusing on me because I have written a section refuting her arguments?  Could it be because I have publically stood against her false teaching concerning women being in authority in the church?  I suppose so.

Cheryl Schatz has persisted in accusing me of sin and wanted to have a personal meeting in order to have me corrected and disciplined.  She stated she wanted my wife to be at this meeting to comfort me during this "difficult time of discipline."  My wife laughed at that comment and has nothing good to say about her.  Cheryl repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly requested my wife to be at this meeting, which occurred on 8/22/08, even though I told her my wife had absolutely no interested in meeting her.  My wife told me that she believed the devil was using Cheryl to distract me from my work on CARM.  Anyway, Cheryl persisted and after a while it became upsetting.  I actually began to feel as though she was stalking my wife.  I told Cheryl to back off about my wife.  So, what did she do?  She started emailing me as R. D. Clarke, accused me of horrible things in the emails, and again requested to have my wife present out this so-called Matthew 18 meeting.  AND...I caught her in a deliberate lie at that meeting...more on that later.

Anyway, Cheryl has gone way overboard.  Following is her post publically accusing me of sin against her. My responses are in green.

One comment here.  It is interesting that with Cheryl it is always about sins against her, never about her sins against anyone else.

------------------------------------

 

"My pastor is very, very interested in finishing his communication with you in person. He is not back until August. Anytime after mid August is fine. There will be no need for us to come to Twin Falls as the Mormon opening will be finished. I would like to meet with you, your wife and your pastor in the Boise area. My pastor will also be there along with my husband. Please state publicly that you agree to meet with me regarding this Matthew 18 request and follow through with your scriptural obligation.

 

Matt you are fully aware of your sin as I have already personally confronted you.

Saying that I'm aware of these so-called sins does not mean that I am.  Cheryl Schatz has accused me of various things in the past.  To be honest, I'm so busy with doing so many things on CARM that it is difficult to keep track of everything that Cheryl has accused me of committing.

For the record here is the list:

1. You have sinned against me by publicly falsifying what I believe on your radio show. You were completely aware that I did not believe the falsehood as it was something that you made up for illustration purposes on our second "debate". Then you took this falsehood and said that I believed it and taught it. Your action was public and done in a willful way. My pastor has already called you to account for this sin and asked you to repent. You have refused to repent of your sin when you have been confronted by both myself and my pastor. I have given you all the documentation and your "correction" on your radio show you just turned into another attack on me claiming that you were right and I was wrong about my "correction".

The so-called public falsification was when I took Cheryl's position and brought it to its logical conclusion.  It was regarding 1 Tim. 2:12, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." Cheryl's position, if I understand it correctly, is that "a woman" in verse 12 is a specific married woman that Paul had in mind and "a man" is her husband.  Cheryl's position is that Paul is telling this woman not to teach or exercise authority over her husband because she was believing some false things.  I looked at the Greek and the word "quiet" is 'hesuchia'.  It means to be quiet but not completely silent.  There is a Greek word for completely silent and it is 'sigao'.  I  took her position to its logical conclusion.  If the woman is a wife teaching false things, and Paul is telling her to be quiet about her error, then, because he is using the word 'hesuchia' Paul would be saying that he wants this woman is not be completely silent on her error.  You'd think that if this woman was teaching false doctrine to her husband that Paul use the word 'sigao' which means to be completely silent about it.  So, with Cheryl's position, it presents a difficulty.

I brought this up on the radio show and mentioned that this would be the logical conclusion of her position by saying, more or less, "What Cheryl is actually saying is..."  Now, when you're talking on the radio you can say all kinds of things in different ways and sometimes you can miss-speak. But, it's never my intention to misrepresent anyone.  So, I spoke about her position and what it could lead to.

Cheryl then contacted me (because she constantly listens to my radio show-- imagine that) and wanted me to let everyone know she did not hold the conclusion to which I said her position could lead. So, I complied and made that clarification over the radio. I thought this would be the end of it. But no, she was not satisfied. Apparently I did not 'apologize sufficiently' for allegedly misrepresenting her.  She said I had sinned against her and wanted an apology.  Well, to the best of my recollection I never said that she actually believed what her position could lead to.  So, there is no apology necessary.  But, she wasn't satisfied and she persisted.

2. You have sinned against me by calling me a heretic publicly on the radio.

Heretic:

#1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

#2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

#3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

I do not maintain religious opinions contrary to those accepted by my church nor do I have religious opinions that are rejected by the church as a whole as unacceptable opinions that would make me outside of Christianity or outside the primary doctrines of faith that are accepted by all born again Christians. There is no such thing as a person who is a "heretic" because they are a Calvinistic or a "heretic" because they do not believe in a mid-tribulation rapture and there is also no person who is a "heretic" merely because they believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men with the authority of 1 Peter 4:11. My pastor has written you that you are wrong in labeling me a heretic and you must repent. You wrote me inviting me onto your radio show and promised me that you would be kind and then broke your promise by attacking me publicly by calling me the name that is reserved for those who destroy the basics of our faith. You did not tell me the truth when you brought me onto your radio show and your attacking me with the term "heretic" must be repented of. You have no documented church wide evidence that attaches the name "heretic" to a person who believes as I do. Your claim that I am a heretic is unwarranted.

Cheryl begins with her definition of "heretic". That's fine. I had offered this one from dictionary.com and posted it on the CARM discussion boards at http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=3364742#poststop.  She responded to the post so I can only assume she knows how I used the term.

    1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
    2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
    3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
    4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

She is indeed at variance with the orthodox and accepted doctrines of the Christian Church as a whole. Now, I must admit that unfortunately Christianity is more and more accepting of women pastors and elders in these last days (which is what this topic is about), and such acceptance is evidence of increasing liberalism -- something quite obvious in the Christian church today. But, the majority of the Church throughout history (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) denies Cheryl's position as being correct.  Besides, the Scripture says that the elder (which is a position of authority) is to be, literally, a one woman man. (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6).  In other words, he is to be a man who holds to having only one woman.

Still, it isn't my word that is important.  God's word says what it says and I stand on that.  But, just to make it clear, I'm not the only one who says her view is false.

  1. "Tertullian:Tertullian: The Perscription Against Heretics
    1. CHAP. XLI.--THE CONDUCT OF HERETICS: ITS FRIVOLITY, WORLDLINESS, AND IRREGULARITY. THE NOTORIOUS WANTONNESS OF THEIR WOMEN.
      I must not omit an account of the conduct also of the heretics--how frivolous it is, how worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as suits their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a believer; they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike--even heathens, if any such happen to come among them. "That which is holy they will cast to the dogs, and their pearls," although (to be sure) they are not real ones, "they will fling to the swine." Simplicity they will have to consist in the overthrow of discipline, attention to which on our part they call brothelry. Peace also they huddle up anyhow with all comers; for it matters not to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, provided only they can conspire together to storm the citadel of the one only Truth. All are puffed up, all offer you knowledge. Their catechumens are perfect before they are full-taught. The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures--it may be even to baptize. Their ordinations, are carelessly administered, capricious, changeable. At one time they put novices in office; at another time, men who are bound to some secular employment; at another, persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service. And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood."TRANSLATED BY THE REV. PETER HOLMES, D.D.
  2. C.S. Lewis
    1. "It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the Army that you salute the uniform and not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord of the Church; for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we rare insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot end matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course, be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but, once more, 'not near so much like a Ball.'" C S Lewis.
      http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/12The/SxTh/WmO/WmOLewis.htm
  3. On the Touchstone blog
    1. (http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/08/ending-incohere.html), Mr. Hutchens (who holds a doctorate in theology and is senior editor of Touchstone magazine) said, "To the best of my judgment, egalitarianism is as significant and seductive an error as Arianism; it is an anthropological heresy that infects theology proper through the attack on Christology it necessarily entails. I claim no special authority to make this judgment, but simply join mine, whatever it might be worth, to that of greater men, and submit it to the Church."
      A Mr. Denny Burke, at http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2288 says, "I am in complete agreement with what Revelation says about the final destiny of liars. I am not as confident about my ability to apply this truth to individual egalitarians [Cheryl Schatz' position on women being able to be in authority over men in the church]. Yes, egalitarianism is a grave doctrinal error. And yes, I regard it as a lie when it is believed and promoted in knowing contradiction to biblical teaching."
  4. http://www.cbmw.org/
    1. This entire site deals with the promotion of the biblical position of complementarianism and refutation of egalitarianism, Cheryl Schatz' position.

It should be obvious that I'm not alone in condemning the idea of that women are to teach and exercise authority over men in the church. Whether it is secularism outside the church or liberalism from within, I'll stand against it.  I stand on the word of God.

 

3. You have sinned against me by failing to maintain authority over your "staff" who has been given free reign under your authority on your own discussion board to publicly malign me as an enemy, a liar, "evil Cheryl" and many other accusations against my sanity and my Christianity, my character and my motives which I can document when we meet. You are asked to repent of your failure to discipline your "staff" against un-Christian behavior with the attacks and name calling. You are asked to publicly make amends for the name calling and to take your authority over your own discussion board to either have your "staff" repent of the names that you have allowed your "staff" to publicly malign me and to attack me or to publicly repent on their behalf because the actions were done under your authority.

I would also like to call you to account for the way you have allowed the CARM discussion board to be used to attack many other Christian posters who disagree with you in secondary issues. There needs to be a repentance and a turning toward Jesus Christ and his ways because Paul says that those who correct the errors of others are to be kind, able to teach, patient when wronged:

2Ti 2:24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

2Ti 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

This is a time for repentance and a turning away from the "style" of attack that you have employed for years. It is not Christ like. I would like to speak on behalf of every poster here who has been hurt by unkind, unloving words spoken with name calling and false accusations. This must stop.

So when will you be able to meet with me? Please give me a time to call to speak with your wife to arrange for her participation so that she can be assured that she will be not be treated unkindly but is requested to be there to support and love you as you go through this Matthew 18 experience.

Cheryl Schatz

 

Regarding authority over my staff:  On the discussion board is a link to the CARM discussion board rules. Under section II: Guidelines and Discussion Board Policies it says for # 1: "Administrators can apply the rules as they see fit and may "bend" them in order to accomplish CARM's general goals." Rule #5.C says, "Please recognize that moderators/manager/admin or volunteers do not speak officially on behalf of CARM when they express any religious, political or social view. The views stated by any moderator/manager/admin on any subject other than the logistics or rules of the boards are purely their opinions and do not represent CARM. When CARM states its official organizational position on any issue, it will be posted on the website, rather than through the use of the message boards." (emphasis in the original)

Therefore, any moderator, manager, admin, or volunteer on the CARM boards who speaks, speaks of their own initiative. Diane is an administrator and, according to the rules, she is able to apply them as she sees fit since she is an Administrator.

I don't have her under my thumb.  I don't try and oppress her and prevent her from expressing her opinions. Furthermore, what she says are her opinions and they do not necessarily represent CARM. So, Cheryl Schatz has no right to accuse me of sinning against her based upon what Diane says.  If she has a complaint about what Diane has said, then she needs to direct it to Diane.

Now, some may conclude that the rules are a bit too lenient for the administrators, maybe even a little too convenient. All I can say is that if someone doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have the post on the boards.

Still, these rules have been developed out of necessity because there are so many thousands of people who post on the discussion boards and there are always people who will complain about how the boards are run. Therefore, I included these rules many months ago to take care of that issue. If Cheryl had read the board rules (she is responsible to do so) she would have known about this in her complaint should not have been registered. Cheryl doesn't have to like the rules. But that's the way it is.  So, why is it Cheryl hasn't read the board rules?

What is interesting is that Cheryl says I am responsible for what goes on in the discussion boards regarding my staff:  administrators, moderators, volunteers, etc.  Okay, if that is so, then what about Cheryl's blog?  From what I understand, Cheryl does not have a staff but she has certainly allowed and even encouraged numerous attacks against me, Diane, and CARM.  Let's take a look at A list of attacks permitted on Cheryl Schatz' blog against Matt Slick and CARM.

So, Cheryl Schatz so-called sin that list against me is ridiculous accusation that she has not publicly retracted.

Update:  Cheryl has since removed a lot of her attacks against me on her blog.  However, a lot of it remains in the documentation provided in the above link was accurate at the time this article was originally written in August, 2008.

 

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison