This morning Laura Ingraham said something on her radio program that set off a set of fireworks in my brain (the good kind of fireworks, that is). While discussing the market debacle that is currently captivating our attention as a nation, she–with the help of dated articles to back up her assertions–has shown that the problematic practices undertaken by Freddie & Fannie actually began during the Carter administration and were strongly encouraged and even ramped up during the Clinton administration…despite objections and warnings from lawmakers and financial experts alike. The overwhelming theme of the Clinton extension of looser lending practices was set forth under the ploy that everyone should own their home…and it was (apparently) the government’s job, through its quasi-government/private lending agencies [Fannie & Freddie once again], to make sure this happened.
Laura’s money quote in reference to the outcome of those policies?
“Well, that strikes a stunning blow to egalitarianism there.”
And that is why I like this woman. Egalitarianism in social constructs where it is not warranted is dangerous. Certainly on a great number of things we all stand as equals…before the law, before the Cross, as citizens of this great country, as human beings…in all these things neither gender nor age nor ethnicity matter. BUT, egalitarianism is not a one-size-fits-all-situations card. In the aforementioned case of home loans, mandating that lending institutions institute unwise financial practices in the name of helping provide a home for everyone has caused our country to enter the most troubling financial time in decades. Also, those who wish to be housing egalitarians must also assume the mantle of economic socialists as well. I am well aware that anyone who would have or still does support former President Clinton’s economic policies, especially in this instance, would likely recoil at being called a socialist…but that is what it is whether one claims the mantle or not.
Obviously the collapse of that egalitarianism brings to mind the reason I see such danger (as do Dr. Tommy Nelson, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. John Piper, Dr. John MacArthur, and a host of others) in theological egalitarianism…and the subsequent monicker of “evangelical feminism” which is so readily embraced by many who style themselves to be theologically conservative in Christian and Southern Baptist circles today. Those whose mindset it is to force egalitarianism into a social construct where it is not warranted (e.g. housing) are dangerous enough…those who wish to force egalitarianism into a place where God expressly forbids it are more dangerous. WHY? My concern with these theological egalitarians who wish to push women pastors, theological openness, and denegrate the role of a father in the home is this…where will they stop? If we are to be “open” about this issue, which one is next? How broad does the tent need to become?
Why does this bother me? BECAUSE there comes a time when the tent becomes too broad and it ceases to exist, and that is not an option. SO, I feel a necessary responsibility to stand up and speak up concerning this issue…to call this egalitarianism what it is: a troubling doorway to liberal ecumenical thought once again attempting to rear its head in our midst.
So it’s egalitarians fault? Scott, I know you to be more intelligent than to buy this argument which is nothing more than a world class straw man since this is not what egalitarianism is.
Debbie,
Good to here from you once again. How stunning that you would be a defender of any understanding of egalitarianism…
And so as to make my point that we, indeed, are talking about egalitarianism, good ol’ Merriam-Webster defines egalitarianism as…
a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges
So, egalitarianism has varied applications with respect to social, economic, and political circumstances. And it does not deserve a carte-blanche acceptance nor application to every social, political, economic, and theological discussion.
Mrs. Kaufman, tis not a straw man that has been asserted. In fact, in the post I draw a distinction between unwarranted egalitarian mindsets and prohibited egalitarian mindsets and the subsequent danger of each.
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott: I am well aware of what egalitarianism is. These loans were not made with the good intentions of every person needing to own a home. There was a lot of greed socially and corporately involved here. Loans made with higher interest rates to those with bad credit is not because of egalitarianism.
You then tried to equate your above argument with egalitarianism in the church realm. That I truly couldn’t believe. But you did it. You also added arguments that do not pertain to egalitarianism. Scott. You turned in an absurd argument. I am still picking my jaw up from the floor.
Then you further try to tell me that I have no idea what egalitarianism in either setting is. Again wrong Scott. This could be why some are against women going to college. We actually go to learn something. :)
Oh and I forgot to add, you got all this information by listening to a woman. That kind of flies in the face of all you have just said doesn’t it? I know I sound a bit catty in my comments Scott, and I apologize, but so does your post and you just slapped a lot of people in the face that don’t deserve to be slapped. Not with this argument.
Scott:
This is nothing but red meat from you to fire up like minded people. You worry way to much about women and trying to blame Clinton for this mess blows my mind. There is plenty of blame to be shared and it is Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc.
Scott:
This is nothing but red meat from you to fire up like minded people. You worry way to much about women and trying to blame Clinton for this mess blows my mind. There is plenty of blame to be shared and it is Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc.
Scott:
This is nothing but red meat from you to fire up like minded people. You worry way to much about women and trying to blame Clinton for this mess blows my mind. There is plenty of blame to be shared and it is Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc.
Actually, Mrs. Kaufman, there is no slap to anyone, for the aforementioned argument does not negate the opportunity for one and all to be as educated as they desire…but just because Julie Pennington-Russell is highly educated does not mean that she is biblically qualified to be a pastor…and indeed the practices established by two previous presidential administrations are significant to the financial malaise in which our country currently finds itself. Certainly, other factors are involved…not the least of which is greed. But certainly you do not mean to reject out-of-hand the impact that Freddie & Fannie have had on this crisis…simply because it has now been tagged with a specific term you find offensive.
As to my admiration and props to Laura Ingraham, and other strong women, like Sarah Palin, for instance…unless you have missed discussions swirling around the internet, talk radio, & Christian talk radio, there is not one iota of threat to a complementarian world view posed by women such as these.
Boy, in each of my last two posts I’ve had you slapping your forehead and dropping your jaw…if this keeps going, you could end up in traction. :-D
Please be careful. And don’t worry about the catty condescension. I’m used to it here in the blogosphere.
SOLA GRATIA!
Mr. Parker, I’ve always liked red meat, hunting, (not so much on the fishing)…and golf (now how’s that for a non-sequitur?)!
I don’t worry way too much. This thought was just sparked this morning :-)
And, yes, I do wish to fire up like-minded people and to engage non-like-minded people to see how they think as well. That is often the point of raising issues in our world today…to motivate to action..and prayerfully to right action. To simply have sat on the sidelines today would not have allowed Mrs. Kaufman to exercise her amazement nor you to exercise your blown mind. :-D
Certainly others could have taken up warnings and not perpetuated the practices which have led to the financial problem in our markets…but that merely makes my point. When I see another form of egalitarianism which I find to be more troublesome, then I should speak up and do all I can to stop it.
SOLA GRATIA!
Mr. Gordon:
Thanks for the kind response and I do mean that. I can assure you that just as you are fired up about this issue that myself and many others are just as fired up. In my opinion you do worry way too much about egalitarianism. You and others got rid of the “liberals” with the CR and it appears to me that was not enought for some of you. There has to always be some sort of enemy to fight against for some in the SBC.
Scott: It’s this comparison of the current financial state to the egalitarian view that some Christians hold that I find most troubling. Disagree with them, I have no problem with that, but just as the Gender blog as been pretty outlandish lately, so is this comparison. And yes, I’m pretty much in traction. :)
As for the financial collapse, it was a chain of events that caused this, from high oil prices, to the shipping of labor overseas, to no wage increases to fluctuating mortgage payments, bad investments, the list goes on. Mortgage payments began affordable for these folks, then raised beyond what they could pay, or they lost their jobs and couldn’t pay. Meanwhile, grocery prices, utilities went out of sight, then two disasters involving hurricanes. No insurance pay outs for the damage. It’s been a mess for quite a while.
Fannie and Freddie are being investigated for fraudulence are they not? It’s more than just bad loans, which is part but not all of the problem. Forgive my being so aghast at your post, but I knew somehow that either you or someone else would try and equate the two, but then I thought, no, I might disagree with them, but they would never try and make a silly argument like this. Yet you did.
I tell you what…it’s just wrong to have a post with a title like this. You got my hopes all up!!!
I totally agree with your statement regarding the erosion of doctrine and allowing “evangelical feminisim” to creep into the church. The fact is, the battle for truth and for sound doctrine will never be over. When you’ve got theological lightweights like professors at Mercer University writing that “Gay Christians won’t wait any longer” or the president is Wake Forest Seminary saying that homosexuals should be allowed to attend seminary.
One might ask “What do the two have in common, Joe?” Well, I’m glad you asked that. Theological liberalisim. “Yes the Bible says [insert doctrine here] but this is what it really means is [or some variation of that phrase used to dismiss sound doctrine because someone doesn't like it]…”
I have been so bored these last few days without a post to comment on. Imagine my excitement when I see that Joe has come on and totally disregarded to topic to preach his broken record message about what HE thinks the bible says about women in ministry. I love the way you link homosexuality to it as well, even though I do agree with you on that point. (by the way, the post on your blog about Ray Boltz really disturbed me. What a waste of musical talent)
As usual, thanks for the laughs Joe.
Oh, by the way Robert, would you please show where in my comment I said anything about women pastorettes? Comment # 10 above.
Thanks
Debbie,
I had a couple of thoughts on your “chain of events” that lead to the current crisis. While I have little doubt that the events you describe had some effect on things, they are not the core reasons we are where we are now. In most cases these banks were forced to lend to those who could not possibly pay it back. This would be thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act passed during the Carter and Clinton administrations. The second problem is the lack of risk involved in a “bailout” happy government. Some business gave these loans because they knew the legislative and executive branches would bail them out. Greed is not the problem here. There is no profit in bad loans unless the government covers the tab. The three core problems are as follows: no risk, government intervention, and low income families taking on loans that they knew or should have known they could not pay back.
In regards to the egalitarian argument, I think that Scott is on the money in the sense that an egalitarian philosophy (political or theological) assumes entitlement. In the same way egalitarian theology assumes an entitlement to the pulpit; egalitarian politics assumes an entitlement to goods and services at the public rather than the private expense. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I have written more about the current economic situation at my blog.
Peace be with you,
Joe Garner III
http://www.uberconservative.wordpress.com
Robert, you read my blog? I’m astounded.
Further, it’s nice to be reminded that I am the only Christian who recognizes what the Bible clearly teaches about women in relation to the office of pastor. I mean, there are no other people on the planet that say the same thing I do.
To All
There have been some comments that have gone overboard. As always, we ask for respectful dialog. None of us can monitor this 24/7, so we trust that Christian character and grace is displayed.
Scott, I must say – excellent post! In this post, you have echoed freely from Baptist leaders of past such as Richard Furman. I’m sure Mr. Furman would concur wholeheartedly with your assessment of all types of egalitarianism.
You write:
“Egalitarianism in social constructs where it is not warranted is dangerous.”
Who determines when egalitarianism is WARRANTED? You? Your Baptist Pope? Who? Your entire argument rests on the word WARRANTED. Who makes the call?
As to socialism, I suspect it’s best that we don’t cite right-wing rabble-rousing radio talk show hosts when making claims about constitutes socialism. Maybe it’s just my academic nature but I don’t think Laura Ingram (as entertaining as she can be) is considered an authority on socialism…or really anything.
Mr. Weaver,
Casting all spurious aspersions aside…would you seriously say that we could not in either political or theological realms make a determination regarding the application of any ideology? Certainly Marxism is a form of egalitarianism with which free thinking people from a free church tradition would say is an unwarranted and ineffective form of government.
Also, you might want to reign yourself in. If you will actually read my post, you will find that I in no way reject all forms of egalitarian understanding. I do and unapologetically will find fault with many applications of egalitarian thought in politics and theology.
And, by the way, academic elitism is not always the final word in an argument. AND, I did not cite Ms. Ingram as an expert opinion on what constitutes socialism.
I am hitting at the focus of a great danger I see in our world today…which is rearing its head again in theological circles, specifically in the Southern Baptist arena…liberalism. It is detrimental to biblical understanding…detrimental to the Gospel. No matter what new label it tries to wear it must not be accommodated.
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott:
You’ve got to be kidding about liberalism in the SBC. That boogy man is gone or at least very well hid. You only hope to keep it alive to serve your own purposes. It is the old fear factor. You worry way to much about things that do not exist.
Tom
Are there SBC churches with female pastors? Yes
Are there SBC churches that are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle? Yes
Therefore, liberalisim is alive and well in the SBC.
As to who should decide when egalitarianism is warranted, I’m not sure who should make that call. I would hope that it would not be folks who are associated with schools like Wake Forest, Mercer, and the like.
Joe:
What do you suggest we do about the churches you mentioned? What needs to be done to get rid of them and further rid the SBC of this type of liberalism. Can they not be kicked out of associations and the SBC. Surely the SBC does not take money from these churches do they?
Tom
They should be voted out of the SBC. Is disfellowshipped still a term? The SBC should not take money from them but I imagine with all the politcal mechanation it does. As far as ridding the SBC of this type of liberalisim, well I’m not sure I’d know how to do that actually. That’s part of the problem. I mean, I know for a fact that the upper leadership and trustee’s don’t have all the answers.
Maybe “Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus”?
Joe:
What I want to know is why the SBC would take even $1 from any church it believes is Liberal. It just smacks of hypocrisy.
Joseph Garner: While I usually agree with you, this one I disagree. Egalitarianism in a social sense, simply means that all people are to be treated equally under the law and have the same political, social, and civil rights. That is what our forefathers meant when they wrote “All men are created equal” That hasn’t exactly happened. That includes getting an education. Consideration for loans.What was created was a false wealth. A bubble. Flippers buying houses, putting virtually no money in them but making them look as if they did, selling the house for more than it’s worth, telling people that their house would be worth more in the future. Fluctuating mortgage payments that began affordable and then rose higher than people could afford. Credit cards promising no payments for 12 months. It’s come back to haunt.
The things I mentioned above crippling the ability for people to pay their loans or credit card debts. It has nothing to do with an egalitarian social system which should always be. The alternative would no longer be America, but England or another country, but not the America which are fathers founded.
As for the egalitarians in the church, to treat each other equal, to not make women feel as if they should know their place,to quit debating about us and talking about us as if we didn’t matter or were some bad disease would be refreshing. Just look in scripture as to how women were used by Christ in his ministry, treated. Where did he ever tell them what they couldn’t do in the church. I’m tired of everything including Sarah Palin being turned into a religious debate. Leave us alone and let the Holy Spirit use us where He wills. We love the Lord and want to serve Him. We want to make a difference for Him in this world and the only thing that seems to be stopping us are men and women who have an over zealous view of egalitarianism. We do not wish to take men’s place or devalue men, they instead are devaluing us. We wish to work side by side with men. We are not hussies who should not be spoken to because an affair may happen. Please, we value our marriages and who we are in Christ too. We are in this world. We are in the church. We are smart, we love the scriptures and truth. Let us in.
Tom
I have no idea why they would do that. I don’t think they should.
Debbie,
Thanks for your well composed reply to my ramblings. I would like to begin my replay with a complement to your definition for egalitarianism. It is the best sort of definition in that it is well written and full of meaning. However I think the definition would be more appropriate for “natural rights” rather than “egalitarianism.” I say this because many of the things you point to (education, consideration for loans) are not what I would consider “being treated equal under the law” or a reflection that “all men are created equal.” These things can happen or not happen and it does not necessarily impugn a person’s natural rights. As for the remainder of your comments on “political” egalitarianism I think one component you are missing in your injustices is that these “crippled” people willingly entered into these loans and financial agreements. I think that this component is missing from the broader financial conversation. Even if the lenders created these “bad loans” for their own greedy purposes (which would have been stupidity and not greed), the borrower willingly took the risk in accepting these funds for their financial progress. People (lender and borrower) must be able to lose in order for capitalism to bring greater wealth and freedom to all. Everyone can not have equal financial standing, only the equal opportunity for financial gain. The type of egalitarianism it appears that you seek can only be found in Moore’s Utopia (or perhaps Marx’s?).
Concerning your comments on egalitarians in the church I would referrer you to my previous reply on the matter (and to other academic sources which are far better equipped than I). Your comments assume that part of “equality” must assume a woman’s ability to “teach or have authority over men” (counter 1 Tim. 2). We are all equal in that none of us are less or more of a person than another. However one does not have to look in scripture far to see that we are not all equal in every way. There are elect and non-elect. There are priests and there are worshippers. There are kings and there are commoners. There are prophets and there are those who are judged by the word of God. There are the 3, the 12, and the thousands. There are elders and there are members. There are those with certain gifts and those with other gifts. There is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are just a handful of examples of how “egalitarianism” seems to have little or no scriptural foundation, but rather a secular humanist one. I do not wish to appear harsh and please correct me if I have mischaracterized your views. Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.
Joe Garner III
I am certainly not advocating for people to be the same economically. And I do agree that people who cannot pay should not get loans. That was not my intent to convey otherwise in my comment. I do advocate better wages for work being done. Benefits which no longer exist. That is no longer available due to greed. The work done overseas because it can be done more cheaply(slave wages actually) is due to greed.
I also agree with you in that most people get loans not because they have the money to buy a house, car, etc. but because they don’t have the money. Now we are paying the piper. It was inevitable.
My point was that according to the law all people are to be equally considered for a loan. All have a right to apply for a loan. That is under the egaliatrian act. I’m sorry if I did not make that clear.
As for egalitarians in the church, I have stated that I would not put myself in either category, but may lean more toward egalitarian. As for the scriptural basis, this has been debated and still no end in sight to the debates. I’m sure you have heard the scriptural reasons given, I’ll not bore you with it again.
Tom,
Not kidding.
Debbie,
Does everyone have a right to a loan?
SOLA GRATIA!
Mr. Garner III,
Thank you for your erudite enunciation of conservative thought.
SOLA GRATIA!
Joe said,
“Oh, by the way Robert, would you please show where in my comment I said anything about women pastorettes? Comment # 10 above.”
Please show me where I said you said anything about women pastors.
Joe also said
“Further, it’s nice to be reminded that I am the only Christian who recognizes what the Bible clearly teaches about women in relation to the office of pastor.”
You always get this wrong Joe. It should read “what Joe believes the Bible teaches”, not ” what the bible clearly teaches
Robert
“I see that Joe has come on and totally disregarded to topic to preach his broken record message about what HE thinks the bible says about women in ministry.”
Robert,
Again, I’m the only person you hear saying that? I would’ve thought you read more.
Robert
I should’ve thought to mention this in my last comment:
Of course, your belief that women should be allowed to be pastorettes isn’t a personal opinion, right?
I’m not saying you are the only one that is saying it. It just seems to be your pet project. I read many different blogs, ones that share theological truth and yes, I occasionally read yours. I don’t have to agree to read it, right?
I guess you can say it’s opinion. But I must tell you that all my opinions are based on deep study of scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And I’ve never really said that I support Female pastors. I have said that I believe that the arguments that are made against them can not be supported Biblically, unless you read scripture without a knowledge of the context of time, place and situation.
Bobby
“I must tell you that all my opinions are based on deep study of scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. ”
As are mine. Good day to you, sir.
Joe,
Even though we disagree on some things, I must say that I am really impressed with your latest article on your personal blog. Excellent reasarch and biblical exegesis. I am saving it for future referral if that is ok with you.
Scott:
You and too many others are on a witch hunt for Liberals.
Scott:
You and too many others are on a witch hunt for Liberals.
Scott:
You and too many others are on a witch hunt for Liberals.
Tom
That is a serious accusation. Could you please show evidence that Scott is somehow on a “witch hunt.” How would this article or any action of Scott qualify as the actions taken by people in the past who have engaged in actual “witch hunts.”
Give me a break Robin. Everybody knows that’s what this blog is all about. It’s about agenda and steamrolling over those with opposing views. There are several posters that keep me comeing back, like Chris Johnson for his solid theological posts, and Joe and his fundamentalist battle that makes me laugh. We were not born yesterday.
Robin:
Scott and others are on a hunt for Liberals and will not hesitate to destroy people’s lives when they “find them.” Yes I make a serious charge, but I stand by it.
Robin:
Scott and others are on a hunt for Liberals and will not hesitate to destroy people’s lives when they “find them.” Yes I make a serious charge, but I stand by it.
Robin:
Scott and others are on a hunt for Liberals and will not hesitate to destroy people’s lives when they “find them.” Yes I make a serious charge, but I stand by it.
Robert
That is kind of you. And I say this with all honesty, it’s hard to believe that anyone would want to reference anything that I wrote. You’re welcome to use anything on my blog that you find useful. That should probably be a short list of material. Haa
Gentlemen
Your accusations are shallow without evidence.
I will agree on one thing, yes we do have an agenda as stated on our header. But others have agendas also. Just like you have your own agendas. Whatever that may be.
So again I ask for the evidence that Scott has either the power or desire to engage in a witch hunt.
Could you also show one life Scott is either seeking to destroy or has destroyed.
Comment #37 is right Joe. Both have a deep reverence for the scriptures, both desire to stay true to the scriptures, both have studied deeply in prayer for enlightment no matter what that enlightment takes us, yet both still come to different views.
That is why this must not be a test for being Southern Baptist, both must be allowed to exist in the SBC as agreeing to disagree.
Scott, the answer to your question to me in comment #28 is of course not, that is not what I said, I read my comments and it is quite clear what I have said. They do have the right under the law to apply and go through the same credit scrutiny as everyone else. I also don’t buy the fact that all in America get a loan knowing they cannot afford it or with no intention of paying it back. At the time of the loan they had every intention of paying it back(most not all possibly), but circumstances that I have already listed prevented that from happening. It’s not just bad loans, they were possibly good risks until the chain of events occurred. But, at the same time, there are always going to be price gouging, even on interest, and those who are out to make a profit. That’s a given. It’s not just one simple answer. This has been going to occur for quite a few years. Even people such as myself who are savvy in finances yet not experts or economists saw that. Anytime one goes against the money principles of the Bible, the end result is disaster.
Robin:
Would you at least agree that the term Liberal is the kiss of death for many in ministry. How many people have been labeled a Liberal by someone else and their ministerial lives destroyed?
Robin:
Would you at least agree that the term Liberal is the kiss of death for many in ministry. How many people have been labeled a Liberal by someone else and their ministerial lives destroyed?
Robin:
Would you at least agree that the term Liberal is the kiss of death for many in ministry. How many people have been labeled a Liberal by someone else and their ministerial lives destroyed?
Let’s just call it all what it is. Social egalitarianism is socialism…which is a kissing cousin of communism.
And, theological egalitarianism is feminism, and it’s a liberal idea.
And, yes, the boogyman still exists in the SBC, Tom and Robert. Liberalism is still out there, when you have women pastors and women deacons and homosexuality affirmed in churches. It still exists as long as you have Pastors and Churches out there who dont hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.
We should stay on an agenda to rid the SBC of the boogymen out there until the job is complete.
Grace,
David
Tom
I certainly will, on two premises. First, you show me someone who has been mischaracterized that way who affirms the inerrancy (without any mixture of error) of scripture and believes the office of pastor is reserved for men only. Second, I will also agree with you if you will also agree with me in that the term Fundamentalist/Landmarker has been inappropriately used by some bloggers to describe the team who compose this site and others in the SBC.
David:
When you get through ridding the SBC of all Liberals, only you will be left. By the way if you and the others fell so strongly about–Women pastors and women deacons and homosexuality affirmed in SBC churches start a revolution to remove them from the convention and quit taking the money they send to the SBC and then you will have credibility.
David:
When you get through ridding the SBC of all Liberals, only you will be left. By the way if you and the others fell so strongly about–Women pastors and women deacons and homosexuality affirmed in SBC churches start a revolution to remove them from the convention and quit taking the money they send to the SBC and then you will have credibility.
David:
When you get through ridding the SBC of all Liberals, only you will be left. By the way if you and the others fell so strongly about–Women pastors and women deacons and homosexuality affirmed in SBC churches start a revolution to remove them from the convention and quit taking the money they send to the SBC and then you will have credibility.
volfan
What you said.
joe
Tom,
I dont take money from these Churches. And, personally, I’m all for sending their money back to them with a little note…..either repent, or get out.
David
Tom
Your comment that only David would be left is a bit silly. Quite obviously based on the voting in the SBC for about the past 20 or so years, most of us are conservatives. It is the moderates/liberals who are in the minority.
I’m very Conservative.
And I don’t plan on leaving. I’m here to stay.
David: That’s calling it what you believe it is, not what it actually is. It’s simply not true David. And it’s bullying to say so. You complain the smaller churches are not treated as the mega churches in the SBC, but that is changing, that is the egalitarian social system in a nut shell. But since you don’t want it….
Joe: My statement to David is not meant to be taken literally. My point is for some like David only they are “conservatives.” They are on a Holy Crusade.
David: Thanks for your honesty. I just think some of the “Liberals” that are currently in the SBC would ask of you to repent of your “my way or highway” approach” and for you to get out.
Joe: My statement to David is not meant to be taken literally. My point is for some like David only they are “conservatives.” They are on a Holy Crusade.
David: Thanks for your honesty. I just think some of the “Liberals” that are currently in the SBC would ask of you to repent of your “my way or highway” approach” and for you to get out.
Joe: My statement to David is not meant to be taken literally. My point is for some like David only they are “conservatives.” They are on a Holy Crusade.
David: Thanks for your honesty. I just think some of the “Liberals” that are currently in the SBC would ask of you to repent of your “my way or highway” approach” and for you to get out.
Tom
If the power ever shifts back to the moderate/liberal side a la the CBF, I can promise one thing-this fat, bald headed white boy won’t stick around to fight it out. If they tell me to “repent” (chuckle) of holding to proper biblical doctrine, I’ll be all like “Undelay, undelay, areeba, areeba” with a little puff of smoke going “poof” where I was standing. Why? Because that would be based on my convictions. Now here’s a good question: Why would people who obviously disagree with what an organization taught want to remain part of that organization. If they really, as a matter of conscience, disagreed why wouldn’t they leave. I know I would.
Joe:
It will be argued forever but if the “Liberal” side of the SBC had countered some of the sneaky and underhanded tactics that the leaders of the CR used–busing people only to vote, etc. I do not think you would be saying what you are. People were forced out of the SBC, it was not so much disagreement. It is getting narrower and narower in the SBC. As I have said before to others “they” may find you too Liberal for them some day.
Joe:
It will be argued forever but if the “Liberal” side of the SBC had countered some of the sneaky and underhanded tactics that the leaders of the CR used–busing people only to vote, etc. I do not think you would be saying what you are. People were forced out of the SBC, it was not so much disagreement. It is getting narrower and narower in the SBC. As I have said before to others “they” may find you too Liberal for them some day.
Joe:
It will be argued forever but if the “Liberal” side of the SBC had countered some of the sneaky and underhanded tactics that the leaders of the CR used–busing people only to vote, etc. I do not think you would be saying what you are. People were forced out of the SBC, it was not so much disagreement. It is getting narrower and narower in the SBC. As I have said before to others “they” may find you too Liberal for them some day.
Tom,
I’m here to stay. I like the direction the SBC is going and has been going since 1979. I’m ecstatic about the CR and the turnaround. I just wish that it would happen in all the state convention leadership positions as well.
Debbie, social egalitarianism is socialism….it’s not about mega churches and small churches being treated the same.
Grace,
David
Tom,
BTW, I was at Dallas and Atlanta in the mid 80′s. It wasnt just the conservative Churches busing in people to vote. I know of many liberal ones that had busses coming to the convention hall. And, I know of many liberal/moderates who met behind closed doors, and who used their political pull and power to sway things, and to try to stop the CR. But, thank God….truth won out.
David
Tom
If the SBC ever adopts theology that I don’t agree with, they wont’ have to “ask” me to leave.
Oh, and Tom
We’re still waiting for that list of people who have been mischaracterized the way you describe who affirms the inerrancy (without any mixture of error) of scripture and believes the office of pastor is reserved for men only.
um, Tom……?
Someone please start naming the distinctly Southern Baptist churches that have women pastors…
Seriously. Who are they?
Don’t cite Julie Pennington-Russell or Amy Butler or anyone like that. You can’t claim victory on the Conservative Resurgence front and then cite CBFers to buttress your boogylady claims.
Joe Blackmon,
You are the one that made the claim. So start naming names. I’m curious as to who these Southern Baptist women are that pastor SBC churches?
BDW
To the best of my knowledge,
Fern Creek Baptist Church in Louisville, KY prior to 2008 had a female pastor.
Ok, I’ve named one. Your turn, Tom. (Crickets in the background)
Joe:
um, Joe? Many a good man and woman were mischaracterized during the CR. Many that hold to the views you have mentioned that are still in the SBC would not dare say they do not believe in innerancy and that they support women in the ministry out of shear fear of how “some” would attack them.
Tom
So you’re saying you can’t name one who was mischaracterized who holds to inerrancy (without any mixture of error) and to the fact that the only men can be pastors? Because if you’re saying the people who were mischaracterized did NOT hold to inerrancy and did NOT believe the office of pastor is reserved for men then they were NOT mischaracterized. If they were called libs and run out of the SBC that’s what SHOULD happen whne you hold to unbiblical beliefs.
Joe,
Fern Creek did have a female pastor. Too bad Fern Creek is CBF and has been for many years.
Notice I used the word “distinctly.” Not sure if Fern Creek is dually-aligned. They may be in the sense that they are actively aligned with the CBF while also allowing the little old WMU ladies to continue their financial support of Lottie and Annie. Let’s leave CBF churches out of this.
We’re back to square one. Who are these Southern Baptist women preachers?
Joe, I hope you understand that one can be an inerrantist (per Chicago Statement) and also be an egalitarian. Several of Al Mohler’s first hires as President of Southern Seminary were inerrantist egalitarians….
David: I think you are intelligent enough to know that I was using that as an example. It’s the same principle as egalitarians in the secular government.It’s everyone having the same basic rights. It’s humane. It’s why we are America and not like some other country.
david: I meant to mention this and it slipped my mind. You said that egalitarianism is communism. I am not saying that everyone should enjoy the same material wealth. That is communism, socialism. It seems you and Scott are wanting to falsely place egalitarianism in that category to try and then tear it down. That is called a straw man argument. And this is the mother of them all. That’s not what is being said, and I think you both know that. Equal treatment is different than equal in material things.
We have the poor, the middle class(barely), the upper middle class(again barely) and the rich. In some countries, the rich have all the rights, in early America and in other countries still, men were given all the human rights. Women were given none and seen as property. The church still can treat women in this way. As if we were the property of the church. Don’t try to equate socialism with the type of egalitarian society that we have in America. That is a bogus association.
Big Daddy Weave
Wow, you sure showed me.
Anyway, I don’t care that they were alligned with the CBF, they were also SBC. Further, the church in Decatur, GA didn’t leave the SBC until after they called their first pastorette. My point is and has been any churches that associate with the SBC regardless of any other affiliations they might have should be disfellowshipped if they have a pastorette, reject inerrancy, or affirm homosexuality as not being a sin. I never once said that such churches were exclusively (a much better description than “distinctly”) SBC nor is it important if they hold association with another group.
Joe,
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I visited FBC Decatur quite a few times and had a friend on staff. Giving a few dollars to SBC causes every Easter and Christmas does not make a church, Southern Baptist. No person familiar with FBC Decatur would describe that church as Southern Baptist. You can’t applaud the successes of the Conservative Resurgence and then claim CBF congregations as part of some current SBC women-pastor problem. You’ve yet to offer up any names of Southern Baptist churches with a female in the pulpit. That fact alone says much about your sorry argument or rather your assertion. Arguments tend to rely on facts.
Your use of the word “pastorette” is sexist and just a jerkish thing to say. Show some class.
You might not believe that women are qualified by Scripture to pastor a church. But you don’t have to use such insulting terms to get across your point.
When I read comments like yours, I’m reminded of the famous Gandhi quote:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
When you denigrate the service of committed Christian women with words like “pastorette” – you give credence to Gandhi’s quote.
BDW,
Wow, again you sure put me in my place.
You wrote
“You might not believe that women are qualified by Scripture to pastor a church. But you don’t have to use such insulting terms to get across your point. ”
I don’t believe that pastorette’s aren’t qualified according to scripture. I know that for an absolute fact. Thanks.
And don’t get your knickers in a twist—I can imagine you and your liberal CBF friends will get control back of the SBC. You’ll be able to take your revenge for the “takeover” and finally get your wish—to have an SBC that looks like the PC-USA except for infant baptisms and eschatology.
Your belief about women is based on YOUR Interpretation of Scripture.
That a pretty simple notion.
People interpret the text differently and actually inerrantists interpret the specific passages relating to women differently. But at the end of the day, it’s your interpretation. Nobody knows jack with absolute certainty.
“Nobody knows jack with absolute certainty.”
Spoken like a true CBF’er. Hold that line.
Joe:
You said: ” I don’t believe that pastorette’s aren’t qualified according to scripture. I know that for an absolute fact.” Spoken like a true _______. Hold that line.
Tom
I wear that title with pride. Even got myself a big, tricked out name tag. Thank you.
Oh, I’m still waiting for you to name someone who was believed in biblical inerrancy (i.e. no errors or mistakes) and who recognized that pastorette’s are not qualified according to the Bible who was “mischaracterized” during the “takeover”. Because, again, if they were called liberals and did not hold to those two doctrines, they were NOT mischaracterized.
Proudly holding that line.
Joe:
I will gladly answer you when you prove to me that Lottie Moon did not ever preach to men. Proudly holding that line.
That’s the problem with people like Joe. They can never be wrong, even when faced with facts. There is no interpretation but theirs. I hate to break it to you Joe, but it does not say anywhere in scripture that women can not be pastors, period. Your interpretation of certain passages has led you to that belief. That does not make you right. It also doesn’t make me right. It makes us Christian brothers with a disagreement.
Hang in there, Joe. You’re right. You are standing on the truth. Dont let the Devil get you down.
Women should not be Preacherette’s…preaching their little sermonettes to all the little Christianettes.
:)
David
David:
God will hold you reponsible for saying, “Women should not be Preacherette’s…preaching their little sermonettes to all the little Christianettes.”
You think you are cute, but IMO you just hurt your cause when you write the way you do about women. You show a very low view of women.
Oh, David, help me, did Lottie Moon ever preach a sermon where men were present. I look forward to your answer. Joe has not given me his yet. Maybe he will answer me if you go first.
One last thought. Would you by chance be calling me the Devil. If you are that is serious, man.
Tom,
You’re not the Devil. The Devil is a personal being of a spiritual nature. He used to be an angel…an archangel…the highest, until he fell. So, I really dont see how you could be the Devil. But, the Devil does use people many times..when they’re willing to be used. Are you being used by the Devil? I’m just asking.
Also, to whoever is reading this, I have a high view of women. I hold them in the highest respect. They are valuable to God, and they should be held in highest value by me and you. But, I dont have a high view for women who thumb their noses at the Word of God, and do things that the Bible teaches against….hence….preacherettes. Also, I’ll call a liberal, who denies the Bible and denies the fundamentals of the faith, while claiming to be a Christian what he is….a heretic. And, if he calls himself a Pastor/Teacher, then I’ll call him a false teacher. And, I’m saying this about anyone reading this that it fits. If the shoe fits, wear it. I’m not personally calling anyone in this blog anything. I’m just saying….if it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and waddles like a duck…well, yall know the rest.
Tom, I’m sure that Lottie Moon witnessed to men. Thank God that she did. And, just as Deborah had to be a Judge of Israel, due to there being no men around who were able to lead at that time…I’m sure that Lottie had to do the work of a man due to thier being no men around to do it. God can even use the things that are not best for His purposes. But, when there is a man around who is saved and spiritual….then he ought to do it. Men should teach men. Men should be Pastors, or Elders. When women, who are radical feminists, try to step into positions that God does not intend for them to fill, then they’re going against God…not with Him.
Held by His Grace,
David
David: It seems to me your prejudices are showing. And as a Christian, does that mean that you can call people demeaning names? Agree with you get treated with respect, disagree, and get called names?
You also equate your view along the same standard as holding the Word of God vs. thumbing one’s nose. Is calling someone a degrading name Christianity? Grace? Is it Biblical? The Bible that you say I am thumbing my nose at?
I disagree with you and I value God’s word implicitly. I believe more in scripture interpreting scripture rather than taking a verse here and a verse there to interpret. Yet I wouldn’t think of calling you a degrading name. I guess that’s the difference between us huh?
Just some questions I have off the top of my head.
Are you being used by the Devil?
Are you? By the tone of your comments, calling of names, demeaning, beating up, I’m just asking.
Volfan,
I would like you to please provide the Biblical reference that says “women are not to be pastor’s”. It seems to be missing from my bible. I do not deny the Bible, I just choose to read the whole thing and not use a piece meal approach to biblical interpretation.
David:
I will not attempt to disturb your state of denial about so many things. You surely do not know much about Lottie Moon. She preached to any one who would listen to her. She asked numerous times for men to come to China and help her but they were not willing to. The sad thing I hear you saying is you would have been willing to listen to her preaching.
Debbie,
No, I’m not. I try to be used of the Lord. My conscience is clear.
Robert,
1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Timothy 3:2 and 4-5 for a few.
Tom,
Apparently, you did not read what I wrote. When you said,”She asked numerous times for men to come to China and help her but they were not willing to;” that goes along with what I wrote in comment #83.
Held by His Grace,
David
I have not read (and will not) all the comments but let me make a very important point. There is NOTHING egalitarian about CEO’s walking away with millions in their pocket after they have lead a company into financial crisis.
This crisis had nothing to do with egalitarianism. It had to to with greed. And the bailout will only make sure it happens again in other venues. The bailout is socialism.
Robert, they are using a few unclear and much debated Greek words such as Kephale and ‘authenteo’ to prop up their position. And they have NO idea how far they are from ‘Teshuqa’ in their interpretations. But this will continue as long as they follow the writings of men and believe the translators were inspired. It keeps them from studying and asking the Holy
Spirit to illuminate the truth to them. But, it does feel their male ego’s in having authority over others. Which is the whole point and has been for centuries. Thankfully, our Lord was nothing like these hirlings.
<my conscience is clear
I don’t see that as a good thing David. This is how the classic Fundamentalist perceives things. Don’t just disagree but try and beat someone down with a few names thrown in just to show them. This is the spirit that is harming the SBC and why people are leaving in droves.
Debbie:
I think David believes he can bully people in the SBC to leave. I’ve been in the SBC for over 34 years and I aint leavin. My prayer is there is a mass return of those people that the SBC left. I’m sure that would ruffle David’s feathers.
Tom: I agree.
Serious question:
Why, if an organization does not believe as you do, would you stay in it? I guess the perspective that I have is if the SBC turns back toward a moderate/centrist/mainstream type of organization (unfortunately it may not be if but rather when) I am going to, as that immortal poet of the urban landscape says, “Drop it like it’s hot”. I’d leave the SBC so quick it wouldn’t even be funny. So seriously, why do people stay who feel like the organization has “left them”. Hope that things will swing back the other way?
Joe:
I am still waiting your reponse about whether Lottie Moon was a preacher, but I am patient. Also, I really hope you do not leave the SBC when it shifts back.
“So seriously, why do people stay who feel like the organization has “left them”. Hope that things will swing back the other way?”
Autonomy of the local church and the fact that our church alone has increased its designated funds every year. This year it grew by over 400,000 and giving has not increased that much. But disgust with the SBC has. The year before it was almost 200,000. And we are one of the big CP givers in our city. Some are not taking it lightly what is going on and paying these hirlings 6 figure salaries to lord it over others. I was shocked to see this but it seems the word is getting out.
When churches figure out they do not need the SBC for missions it will get worse. They can start sending money to Heart Cry and not have to support PP or all the bureaucrats at the SBC.
Wanda,
It is you who are playing fast and loose with the Bible. You are twisting words to mean what they do no mean, nor have they ever meant what you claim. It’s sad that people will try to re-write the Bible to make it fit into a feminist agenda. I prayerfully plead with you to take the Bible the way it is and submit to it.
BTW, I’m not a hireling…which I notice that Debbie didnt jump on you for calling Joe and me such a name. I also noticed that I was accused of “bullying,” and was called a “classic fundamentalist.” I noticed that you didnt accuse Tom and Wanda of name calling, nor did you get onto them for being unChristian and the like. Debbie, that’s hypocritical.
Tom,
I noticed that you ignored my response to you? Why? I’ll be your Huckleberry. Talk to me about Lottie, or better yet, just read what I wrote above.
David
Tom,
There is a difference between someone sharing the gospel with lost people, as Lottie Moon did in China and preaching the gospel from the pulpit of an established church. Your attempt to depict Lottie Moon as a “preacher” or “pastor” is muddying the discussion.
Katie
Wanda, Tom, Debbie,
If people dont like the fact that the SBC is trying to obey the Scripture and stay true to God, and it makes them leave….then, so be it. People have left before. Sometimes you got to trim off the dead branches before the fruit tree will grow stronger and more full and be shaped in the right way to produce better.
I’m like Joe. I stayed in the SBC back in the CR days because the CR was taking place, and there was hope of change. If the SBC had not changed, then I’d been something else besides a Southern Baptist right now. Thank God, the CR took place, and the Lord turned our SBC around. Hallelujah!!
Held by His Grace,
David
Katie:
So to preach you have to be behind a pulpit. Wow, the gymnastics some people will go through to support their entrenched position. Oh, the water needs to be muddied.
Hi Tom,
Sorry that I used the word “pulpit.” I thought it would illustrate my point better, but apparently not.
There is a vast difference in the degree of authority held by a person who has been called by a congregation to serve as preacher or pastor, and the authority held by someone sharing the gospel with a lost person. In my understanding of scripture, the appropriate spiritual authority is given to man to lead the congregation and not to a woman. To confuse the issue by saying that Lottie Moon “preached” to men in China is not the same thing as one who has spiritual authority over a local body of believers, which includes men. Lottie Moon shared the gospel but she was not a pastor of a church.
Katie:
It is ok. You and I have different perspectives about Lottie Moon. I believe she preached and you do not. I appreciate your perspective and hope you will attempt to appreciate mine.
Katie:
It is ok. You and I have different perspectives about Lottie Moon. I believe she preached and you do not. I appreciate your perspective and hope you will attempt to appreciate mine.
Katie:
It is ok. You and I have different perspectives about Lottie Moon. I believe she preached and you do not. I appreciate your perspective and hope you will attempt to appreciate mine.
Katie
“To confuse the issue by saying that Lottie Moon “preached” to men in China is not the same thing as one who has spiritual authority over a local body of believers, which includes men. Lottie Moon shared the gospel but she was not a pastor of a church.”
Ditto.
Volfan,
Let me take a moment to talk a little bit about Bible study. It is always important when studying scripture to understand the context in which the passage is written. Context includes time period, history, the state of mind of the writer, who the passage was written to, and many others. For example let’s take the phrase “Timothy I want you to jump.” Is Timothy fat? Is he in need of exercise? Is he depressed? Is he on the ledge of a building and the writer wishes him to end his life. Is he happy? The way you read this phrase depends largely on the context. Paul wrote a letter to Timothy. Timothy was dealing with a church that was in a difficult situation. The worship of the local people included the use of temple prostitutes. It was important that the true church set itself apart from this practice. One way to do this was to limit the visual leadership of the women in the congregation. This set them apart. There was also some difficulty with certain women spreading lies and gossiping. Paul’s directive addressed these two aspects of life where Timothy was.
Paul was not writing a letter to the Jerusalem Baptist headquarters issuing a directive for all churches in the association. He did not preach the message in the SBC pastor’s conference telling them what they must all go back and do in each of their churches. It was a letter to a specific person, about a specific problem in a specific place.
If you are going to continue to use literal interpretation for every verse then I expect that you will soon have no eyes (gouged out for sinning) no hands (cut off for sinning) and carrying a cross with you everywhere you go (take up your cross and follow me).
“It is you who are playing fast and loose with the Bible. You are twisting words to mean what they do no mean, nor have they ever meant what you claim. It’s sad that people will try to re-write the Bible to make it fit into a feminist agenda. I prayerfully plead with you to take the Bible the way it is and submit to it.”
I have noticed in the past you do drive by comments on other blogs that I read. Your comments on this issue are to usually leave 1 Tim 2 and 3 as a comment as if that answers the questions. You never engage in the actual interpretations of those verses. You can’t. Your house of cards you have built along with PP and CBMW to have power over others would fall down immediately. (As we are seeing over their inconsistency with Palin) And I think another reason is because you have not studied on your own but can only parrot what your idols have taught you.
So, instead of being a Berean, you go for brow beating, bullying and saying only YOU ALL really obey the scriptures. The rest of us are heretics. Even though we sincerely research and are willing to discuss authenteo and why it is used only ONCE in all of the NT. Which is important when you consider that you are attempting to shut up over half of all Christians from exercising their spiriutal gifts and will answer for that. (I notice scripture does not have pink and blue spiritual gifts)
There are plenty of words for ‘authority over’ that the Holy Spirit could have inspired in 1 Tim 2 that are quite clear. I also would like for you to direct me to the ‘law’ that is referenced in 1 Corin 14 for women being silent in the church. I would like to read that ‘law’ in the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps you will run over to CBMW to see what they have to say about it before you actually study on your own.
All of this makes you a hirling because you believe the translators were inspired and follow the translations and teaching of men. Unless of course, you greet your brothers with a holy kiss.
“BTW, I’m not a hireling…which I notice that Debbie didnt jump on you for calling Joe and me such a name. I also noticed that I was accused of “bullying,” and was called a “classic fundamentalist.” I noticed that you didnt accuse Tom and Wanda of name calling, nor did you get onto them for being unChristian and the like. Debbie, that’s hypocritical.”
You are a bully and should not be a pastor. And the above is the classic tu coque argument that is not worthy of a grown man but of a 6th grade boy. But I can certainly understand why it is important for a man like you to need someone to be in authority over. Even though our Lord taught just the opposite.
“To confuse the issue by saying that Lottie Moon “preached” to men in China is not the same thing as one who has spiritual authority over a local body of believers, which includes men. Lottie Moon shared the gospel but she was not a pastor of a church”
Only the Word rightly divided has ‘authority’ in the Body. You are a mere instrument…a conduit. The word ‘office’ was added by translators working under a king. You are talking like Jim Jones.
Quit making yourself something you are not. You are to be a humble servant. Baptists do not believe in Apostolic succession.
What is the name of the pastor of the church at Corinth? Why wern’t ALL the epistles to the churches written directly to the pastors/ elders if they were the ‘authorities’ over the others?
Of course Lottie preached. And I have to wonder what you all think she did in P’ingtu alone with new converts? Told them to wait until a white Christian man came?
And she was careful in her approach and used room dividers because China was a pagan society that had a strict view of women being lesser beings like all pagan patriarchal cultures. She set up a room divider so the men would not have to look at her when she preached.
The patrafamilias of Rome and Greece were the same way about women. In Roman pagan families, the father was considered the ‘priest’ of his household and led the family in the worship of pagan gods. This is where we get the idea that the father only is the ‘head’ (translated by ignorant people as ‘authority’) of the family although that concept is not in the NT at all.
All this lording over women is a pagan construct carried over into the early church. And I can understand why men go along with it. For some women, they like the idea of not being responsible for their own spiritual growth.
Amen!
wanda
You wrote in response to me asking “why stay….”
“Autonomy of the local church and the fact that our church alone has increased its designated funds every year. This year it grew by over 400,000 and giving has not increased that much.”
I’m not trying to be a smart potato here, but I still don’t get it. Why iincrease funding if you disagree with the organization? Why not just withdraw all together? I’m asking because, again, I can forsee a time where the moderates in the SBC win out and gain control over the convention. At that point, because the SBC would not reflect where I stand theologically I’m gone. I’m just still not clear on why anyone would stay with an organization that they vehemently disagreed with.
I’ll say it once again. There is a big difference between sharing the gospel with lost people (evangelization) and holding a position of responsibility as an overseer of an established body of believers.
Wanda, are you insinuating that Lottie Moon baptized new converts? If so, will you please provide a reference to where you got this information?
Joe,
Do you always agree with the politics of the people who run this country? I know I don’t. Then why don’t we just move to Canada? I have always been a Southern Baptist, and frankly there is not another group out there that I would feel comfortable being a part of, even with the backbiting, theological ultra-fundamentalist in charge. I don’t want to leave the family just because of a little disagreement. Differing views builds strength in a family. As long as the SBC holds true to the autonomy of the local church, and it’s stance on what I consider to be foundational theological issues I plan to stay.
Robert
“Do you always agree with the politics of the people who run this country? I know I don’t. Then why don’t we just move to Canada?”
Not the same thing. There are other churches. There is only one USA. Actually, since I’m Calvinist I’ve thought, if it comes down to it, PCA (not PC-USA, the libs) would be the closest fit for me. Luckily, my family and I are in an SBC church that is reformed and SBC in name only. We don’t even give to the local or state assocation but rather directly to NAMB and IMB as well as other missions.
Joe
“if it comes down to it, PCA (not PC-USA, the libs) would be the closest fit for me.”
SBC is the closet fit for me. There is no one out there even close. I wonder how it is that you are here. You have mentioned in the past all the problems and liberals in the convention in the 70′s and early 80′s. Why didn’ you leave then? Or did you leave and come back?
Robert
I was a kid then. I got saved in, let me do the math, 1984. I will admit, my knowledge of what happened then related to the “takeover” is not first hand knowledge.
“I’ll say it once again. There is a big difference between sharing the gospel with lost people (evangelization) and holding a position of responsibility as an overseer of an established body of believers.”
Katie, what does ‘elder’ mean? It means ‘spiritually mature’. It is responsibility (as you said) NOT authority. And it is for the spiritually mature only. Only the Word has the authority in the Body. Exactly how does a human in the Body have authority over all the other humans? Are they the high priests? popes? Or, is the Body made up of the priesthood where all have anointing (1 John) and are gifted by the Holy Spirit. The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you. The scripture teaches servanthood. Not authority and lording it over others. As Christians we have human ‘civil’ authorities.
“Wanda, are you insinuating that Lottie Moon baptized new converts? If so, will you please provide a reference to where you got this information?”
I did not ‘insinuate’ anything. You read into what you wanted to see. What does preaching the Word have to do with baptizing? No she did not baptize and it was a HUGE problem for her. She had to send word and wait for a man to come and baptize and the wait could be a year!
The SBC was just as hypocritical back then as they are now. Of course she was preaching and teaching men. Who else was there to do so in P’ingtu? Of course they did not have a building with a steeple so it does not count for the BI people.
This is as silly as thinking Lydia was silent in the first home church she started in Europe. Or that the women at Pentecost were only prophesying to other women.
Katie, the beauty of our Lord and His sacrfice is that YOU, a woman, can be taught directly by the Holy Spirit through the Word. You do not have to wait around for some man to tell you what to believe. You have personal responsibility in the matter.
“I’m not trying to be a smart potato here, but I still don’t get it. Why iincrease funding if you disagree with the organization?”
Designating funds means to designate to something specific. In this case to the local church only. Undesignated funds go into the big pot and a portion automatically goes to state assoc and to the SBC.
Why stay? Because PP and Al Mohler do not own the SBC. It is supposed to be a bottom up organization.
Besides, if my church votes to leave the SBC, that will be fine with me. Keep in mind, The SBC does not own the name ‘Baptist’. And the term SBC now denotes for most of the world…those who sell gospel magazines under the counter like porn just because they have women pastors on the cover. Maybe they will burn books next to censor what their people read. Remember, many did not want the bible in English because then the masses could read for themselves and not have ‘authorities’ interpreting it for them. For others, it denotes an organization that fires women professors for teaching men even though they took her money for a PhD. Hypocrites.
I have to run. I will let the ‘masculinists’ have the last word. I like the word ‘masculinists’. It is the opposite of feminist…. as we are called who disagree with interpretations uninspired. I saw someone use it on another blog so I stoled it..
Wanda, Katie, Tom, & Vol007…everyone,
I’m just going to jump right in on the Lottie issue. After speaking with a church history professor friend, I have learned that Lottie herself rejected the claim that she was pastoring, and would never start a local church without a male candidate for pastor available to take on that responsibility.
That takes Lottie off the table for those in the egalitarian camp.
SOLA GRATIA!
Personally I don’t really care what Lottie Moon did or didn’t do or believe. It doesn’t change the fact that there is no where in scripture that says a woman can not be a pastor, unless you manipulate the text, interpret it incorrectly, or take it entirely out of context.
Tom, you wrote:
“Joe:
I will gladly answer you when you prove to me that Lottie Moon did not ever preach to men. Proudly holding that line.”
I guess Scott has done that for me in comment #120. Now, where’s that list of innocent people who were mischaracterized as being liberal who (a) believed in the inerrancy of scripture (full, complete, no mistakes or errors in the original autographs) AND (b) held that only men are qualified according to the bible to hold the office of pastor. Again, if they didn’t hold to those two doctrines and they were called liberals they were NOT mischaracterized.
So does that mean you are liberal if you study the WHOLE Bible and what it actually says without taking passages out of context and piece mealing verses together to serve your personal bias. I guess that makes me a liberal.
Robert
“It doesn’t change the fact that there is no where in scripture that says a woman can not be a pastor, unless you manipulate the text, interpret it incorrectly, or take it entirely out of context.”
You forgot to add “in my opinion” in there. If I have to do it so do you, now. Don’t you make me stop this car.
Actually that is not my opinion. There is not a verse that says “A woman shall not hold the office of pastor”. There are verses that are used to make the argument for women not to be pastors. Just the facts.
Ok so the interpret it incorrectly is my opinion. I’ll give you that.
Joe:
You may not believe this, but I love you in the Lord. I am so glad that heaven will be large enough for the both of us even though we hold different views on the role of women in the church.
Scott:
Lottie moon preached–There is a difference between preaching and being a preacher. But your mind is made up and you will never see this. You guys get way too technical because it supports your view.
Joe:
You may not believe this, but I love you in the Lord. I am so glad that heaven will be large enough for the both of us even though we hold different views on the role of women in the church.
Scott:
Lottie moon preached–There is a difference between preaching and being a preacher. But your mind is made up and you will never see this. You guys get way too technical because it supports your view.
Joe:
You may not believe this, but I love you in the Lord. I am so glad that heaven will be large enough for the both of us even though we hold different views on the role of women in the church.
Scott:
Lottie moon preached–There is a difference between preaching and being a preacher. But your mind is made up and you will never see this. You guys get way too technical because it supports your view.
Lottie was a pretty outspoken woman. In the days of Lottie, there were few opportunities for women. She was very educated, having learned several languages. She was one of the first women to earn a masters degree.
She was frustrated when on the mission field, wanting to evangelize and plant churches. She would not do anything without the permission of the mission board, but that doesn’t mean that she did not have the desire, because she wanted so badly for these peoples to be saved.
She wrote in one of her letters:
Recently, on a Sunday which I was spending in a village near Pingtu city, two men came to me with the request that I would conduct the general services. They wished me to read and explain, to a mixed audience of men and women, the parable of the prodigal son. I replied that no one should undertake to speak without preparation, and that I had made none. (I had been busy all the morning teaching the women and girls.) After awhile they came again to know my decision. I said, “It is not the custom of the Ancient church that women preach to men.” I could not, however, hinder their calling upon me to lead in prayer. Need I say that, as I tried to lead their devotions, it was hard to keep back the tears of pity for those sheep not having a shepherd. Men asking to be taught and no one to teach them. We read of one who ìcame forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd. “And how did he show his compassion?” He began to teach them many things. “Brethren, ministers and students for the ministry, who may read these lines, does there dwell in your hearts none of that divine compassion which stirred the heart of Jesus Christ, and which led him to ‘teach’ the multitude many things”?
And that is my point. We women desire to reach people for Christ. Protocol isn’t as important as the gospel for many of us. It’s our life to want people to come to Christ. Even if that means breaking some Southern Baptist rules.
I have a question for Joe, Volfan, Scott, or whoever wants to answer. I understand how you have come to your view of women and the pastorate. I am familiar with the verses in I Timothy that say women are not to hold authority over men. For a moment I will even discount all the examples of women in spiritual leadership roles throughout the old and New Testament and ask you this question. Why do you refuse to recognize the context of the passages in I Timothy? Paul was writing a personal letter to a friend and colleague with advice on how to handle a specific problem he was having. He was sharing with Timothy how he would handle the situation in the church where he was at.
Let’s say Timothy asked Paul for his opinion about a large tree that was damaging the building where the church met. Paul might write back, “ Timothy, you must cut down the tree that is damaging the building so it causes no further problems” So the personal letter becomes part of the Bible. So are we now to believe that all churches must cut down the trees on our property? The Bible says we are not to have trees. It is the infallible, inerrant word of God. I know the analogy is weak, but can you not see how ridiculous it is to take a single comment about a specific problem and make it a blanket command for all time?
Robert
Ah’ve dun seen the light, there bubba. I’m gonna go cut down every tree on the churches property and tell ‘em Robert told me to do it.
Actually, on a day where I wasn’t on my meds I mgiht have done that. Haa
My final word on the subject for the day—Lottie Moon was a great example to us all and she’s done more for hte cause of our Lord than I’ll probably ever think about doing. I don’t know nothing about role models, but she’s mine.
Wanda,
I asked if you were insinuating that Lottie Moon baptized because of this comment that you made:
“Of course Lottie preached. And I have to wonder what you all think she did in P’ingtu alone with new converts? Told them to wait until a white Christian man came?”
What would new converts typically wait for? Do you see how someone could question exactly what point you were trying to make?
You also asked “What does elder mean?” and then went on to define it as “spiritually mature.” Well, in the New Testament, it also refers to a leader of a group of local believers and that leader is always, in scripture, a man. The leader Paul refers to is responsible for the teaching, discipleship, correction, encouragement of the believers. To me it is quite natural that this “leader” ought to be a man. It would be quite unnatural for this person to be a woman, unless the group of believers, for some particular reason, only consisted of other woman and/or children. In over 2,000 years of Christianity, only in the last few decades has this been called into question.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you said, “the beauty of our Lord and His sacrifice is that YOU, a woman, can be taught directly by the Holy Spirit through the Word.” Praise God for that!
Debbie,
Thanks for the quote from Lottie Moon.
I agree with you when you say, “We women desire to reach people for Christ.” But, I have to disagree when you say “Protocol isn’t as important as the gospel for many of us… Even if that means breaking some Southern Baptist rules.”
For me it’s not protocol or rules instituted by Southern Baptists.
Maybe part of the problem is that men are not answering the call to lead – share their faith, lead small group Bible studies, be accountable, study, to deny themselves, take up their cross daily and follow Christ. But just because men may not be doing those things does not mean that women should start taking things into their own hands. Both men and women need to share their faith and reach out to the lost. If we were all more busy doing that, we wouldn’t have time for these silly arguments, would we?
Joe,
How come when it comes down to a question about what the Bible says you always have a joke and then bow out? I know you understand what Biblr study is, I’ve read your blog. This is your chance to convince me. How do you reconcile the context of the verses you use to say that women can not be pastors.
Where’s Chris Johnson when you need him. He would give me an answer based on scripture.
Katie: And I’m not trying to change you or your view, I am however saying that there are men and women in the Southern Baptist who view the scripture differently, with scripture to back their view, who also hold the scriptures as the final authority. They too should be allowed to be Southern Baptist. This is a debate that will never end. It can however be put to rest by simply respecting the fact that both exist. Either may be right or wrong. I think it’s wrong to squelch a woman’s desire to be non-traditional in the church just because someone see it differently. God uses both men and women. The Bible is written for both men and women, even though the words male or he are used. And remember God Himself is genderless.
Joe: What a great comment on Lottie. She is one person I would love to meet when in heaven.
But just because men may not be doing those things does not mean that women should start taking things into their own hands.
Katie: It has been shown in scripture by some of these posters, women in the OT and the NT who were involved in ministry. Why does this continue to be overlooked?
Debbie,
You said, “women in the OT and the NT who were involved in ministry.” Can you be more specific about what you mean when you say “involved in ministry”? I would consider myself to be “involved in ministry.” But, my ministry does not include giving spiritual guidance/leadership/direction to adult men. I don’t feel that doing that would be God’s will for my life.
Ironically, I have to admit that my husband and I do this for each other, so technically, I guess I am a sort of spiritual leader (even if just by example) for my husband. But, I think you would agree that a husband-wife relationship is unique. If I was the only one giving spiritual leadership in our marriage, I don’t think we would be in God’s will.
Katie,
For example, Deborah gave spiritual guidance/leadership/direction to adult men, the entire nation of Israel as a matter of fact. But as we know God then called a do-over so women can’t be spiritual leaders.
Brother Robert,
Your very kind…..I have just returned from Fort Worth, TX and the “Baptist Distinctives” conference delivered by SWTBS….so I have not had time to catch up on this string. I can probably weigh in a little later….
The conference was “interesting”….and maybe some of the guys and gals can post about it in the future. There were some provocative ideas posited. I am writing a review to send back to the presenters with a few questions of my own.
Blessings,
Chris
Katie:
Could it be God’s will for your life not to minister to men, but it be God’s will for another woman to minister to men?
Tom,
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Debbie: What do you mean when you refer to a woman as a “minister to men”? There is a difference in living out the gifts of the Spirit in relation to others versus leading/guiding/teaching/providing direction to others.
Katie: I think you already know the arguments I am going to give from scripture. I also think that you know what I mean. Look in the Old Testament and the New Testament, find all the references to women. That would be a good beginning. I could tell you but I researched it for myself, and I think instead of giving answers, I will point to the Bible for the answers.
Look and see how women were used in Christ’s ministry for example. Look who saw Him first when he arose, look at how many times women carried messages to men. Look in the OT, see the women who corrected men who were wrong or who tried to stop them from doing what they were doing.
I have no problem with you not wanting to teach men or anything else. It’s when I see it as more of a conviction with not a whole lot of scriptural backing. I am not wishing to rehash what has already been said by both sides for centuries. It’s time that both views co-exist.
I will point out this. The translations have divided so much of scripture that is not divided in the original manuscripts. For example Verse Ephesians 5:21 and 22 are not divided in the originals.
Katie:
You did not answer my question.
Brother Robert,
I’ll try to answer what I understand to be consistent concerning leadership in the church. I will probably get in trouble from the entire group of super-Dispensationalist’s in the crowd, but, I will try to base my answer on biblical content and not on extra-biblical norms established by pragmatic tradition, whether BC or AD, Baptist or other.
It appears to me that the church has consistently formed from the arrangement of men primarily being given the responsibility to lead the church by God from the time of Adam. There have no doubt been instances where women have obeyed God in a very visible manner (i.e. Lottie Moon) and I trust they will continue to do so in the future for the edification of the church. It appears that it pleased God to establish covenants and teaching for His church by way of man or by way of prophets and Apostles; Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. depending on how you accumulate your expression of covenants. I would also conjecture that if it pleased God to reveal the arrangement of leadership in reverse of what He has done through men (instead using women), we would no doubt still be having these same arguments (men are by in large more lazy than women, so the arguing would be diminished).
It seems clear in scripture that God has designed the church to glorify Himself, whether it is by way of men or women obeying His call. I believe we get our ecclesial definition from how God has revealed, through obedience, edifying one another and ultimately bringing glory to Him alone. So ultimately…the definition of how the church is ordered is established by way of “analogia scriptura” to define the proper norm and context.
So there is no doubt that the bible has been extremely clear that the norm for the church is that men lead. That’s not to say that they do a good job, or ever have done a good job. I mean, compare that with the Abraham or the leadership in the SBC. So the test of God’s analogy for leadership is not the evidence of doing a good job, but it is based upon what God has revealed. Men are called to lead the church….and Paul, in these last days, also makes it clear that multiple men clearly lead within the local congregation of the church. But, that is often ignored and pragmatically interpreted as well.
This term that is bantered about as “Pastor” is sometimes confused with what people are actually doing in the body of Christ and can become conflated with how God has organized His body and its Leadership. This can be an issue. The act of pastoring, caring for, etc. as seen in John 10, Acts 20, Ephesians 4, 1 Timothy 3, 2 Timothy 4, and 1 Peter 5 can be accomplished by both men and women, yet those acts should not be conflated to change the definition given by God for men to lead His church. To bring about motive to change the order as outlined and revealed in scripture will cause disunity in the body of Christ.
Women have no doubt shown themselves more than capable, and in many respects better equipped to care for the flock, act in pastoring, etc., and should not stop doing those things for the body of Christ. To embark upon a mission to lead the body of Christ (i.e. Elder) would be to misunderstand and diminish their edification to others within the body, because it would not be as God has defined consistently throughout the entire body of His Word.
Galatians 6:1-7 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. (2) Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. (3) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. (4) But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. (5) For each one will bear his own load. (6) The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. (7) Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
Blessings,
Chris
Thank you Chris for your attempt to jump in an already lengthy post. While your grasp on the subject you discuss is solid, and your writing stellar, it still does not really answer the question I posed in post #128. I am fully aware of all you pointed out, but my question was how do people in that “women can’t be pastor’s” camp dealt with the context and reason for the writing of the letter to Timothy. Why must they make Paul’s comments a complete commentary on women in leadership when it is clear they were not made with that intention.
Brother Robert,
My apologies,…. allow me to give some additional thoughts on Paul’s encouragement to Timothy.
It is clear that Paul is writing to encourage Timothy on specific matters for the edification of the church. So, yes… he is responding to previous knowledge and informing to bring about Godly resolution….and certainly hopes all will listen.
1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, (4) nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
First he exhorts the men…then exhorts the women. The exhortation is broad, but the analogy to glorify God is consistent and focused.
1 Timothy 2:8-11 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. (9) Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, (10) but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. (11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
He even takes for granted the church have been obedient to appoint multiple Elders for the benefit of the congregation.
1Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
I can agree with you that the 1 Timothy passage is not necessarily a proof text for anti-pastoring qualities or arguments to qualify or disqualify women from “pastoring”, because the context moreover is concerned with the Timothy’s ability to convey these exhortations that Paul has written in the letter for correcting order in the church, in hopes that both men and women will obey and bring glory to God. Some probably use these verses as “assumptive” conclusions to their thesis on how women should not be allowed to lead, but Paul is clearly correcting a not too uncommon scene in the churches that is causing disunity. In other words, I would not use this as my primary ecclesial text, that in itself is begging for bread, where only crumbs can be found.
As far as who is to the lead the church…that leadership order for Christ’s church is clearly declared throughout the entire body of scripture.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: I follow what you are saying, and I remember looking closely at the study you sent me a year or so ago, but there are those who have taken this same passage and applied it to women sitting on one side of the church service, and men sitting on another. Women sitting at a separate table to eat after the men eat. And they could make their case eloquently using these same passages and arguments.
BTW a very good blog in which both views can dialog openly yet peacefully, and where both views are seen side by side is the <a href=”http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/Complegalitarian blog”
Well I messed that up. Try again Complegalitarian
Sister Debbie,
There will always be Pastors and Teachers that will try to establish disunity where none needs to be generated. I thank God for the Ruth’s, Phoebe’s, Lottie’s, Corrie’s and others that continue to edify the church through the gifting of the Holy Spirit in obedience to the Lord’s commission. Their service and sacrifices stand as great reminders that Godly women should never fear the motives of men seeking to elevate their office while sacrificing the graciousness of a serving saint.
Proverbs 11:14-18 Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory. (15) He who is guarantor for a stranger will surely suffer for it, But he who hates being a guarantor is secure. (16) A gracious woman attains honor, And ruthless men attain riches. (17) The merciful man does himself good, But the cruel man does himself harm. (18) The wicked earns deceptive wages, But he who sows righteousness gets a true reward.
Mary gives us something to think about,
Luke 1:46-52 And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, (47) And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (48) “For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. (49) “For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. (50) “AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM. (51) “He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. (52) “He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble.
May the Lord teach me not to be proud.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
I’m sorry but I just do not know what you are trying to say in your last post.
Chris: This being admitted by one who considers myself neither, which may be a cop out, but I do see where you are coming from and can agree with you more than most who give Biblical defense of their view.Good job.
Brother Tom,
Some Elder/Pastors have difficulty understanding how women serve without subverting authority in the church. Usually pride or eisegesis will persuade the error.
That’s all really,
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
Thank you very much!
Sister Debbie,
The good thing for both of us,…it that it appears that we both agree that God has graciously revealed an excellent way for the church to live abundantly in Christ!
Philippians 2:1-4 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, (2) make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. (3) Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; (4) do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
Blessings,
Chris
Mrs. Kaufman,
I must agree with Katie and thank you for sharing such a poignant quote from Lottie in #127…
…and did you note that the stirrings of her heart did not cause her to violate Scriptural principles? And I honestly do not see how that helps your point.
SOLA GRATIA!
Tom,
I did respond to your question by asking more specifically what you mean. If you can’t be more specific, I don’t think I can give you a satisfactory answer.
Debbie and Robert,
We could examine the women in scripture and probably come up with differing opinions about what we should conclude. Robert brought up Deborah as an example. The book of Judges describes a dark period of Israel’s history when there were only fleeting times when Israel was truly fulfilling their role as God’s people. Judges is full of embarrassing and shameful events of God’s people turning away from Him and even the judges were seriously flawed people. The judges were primarily military champions but they also took part in arbitration. The judges functioned in legal and military roles.
Deborah was a charismatic leader and a great many people recognized her as wise and capable. Deborah fulfilled a critical role in Israel’s history, just as in today’s world, it is to our great advantage to have highly capable men AND women serve in our modern-day military and justice systems. Men and women are equally endowed by God with these characteristics. But, in my view, men and women are not equally endowed by God with the responsibility of the spiritual oversight of a local body of believers.
Thanks for the discussion.
Sister Katie,
Very well said!
“men and women are not equally endowed by God with the responsibility of the spiritual oversight of a local body of believers.”
And may I add…I am glad God has seen fit to organize His church perfectly for His glory alone…. Sometimes its difficult for a slow learner like me to be assured of His purpose.
Blessings,
Chris
Katie:
I agree my question was too vague. Let me try again. Could it be for you not to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or deacon is God’s will, but another woman feels called to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or a deacon would be God’s will. Sorry for being vague on the first question. it is not intentional.
Katie:
I agree my question was too vague. Let me try again. Could it be for you not to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or deacon is God’s will, but another woman feels called to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or a deacon would be God’s will. Sorry for being vague on the first question. it is not intentional.
Katie:
I agree my question was too vague. Let me try again. Could it be for you not to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or deacon is God’s will, but another woman feels called to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or a deacon would be God’s will. Sorry for being vague on the first question. it is not intentional.
Scott: She did violate scripture, according to your view, to mine she did not. She went through the proper channels. The point is it left her frustrated and heart broken more times than not.
I also point out that she died by giving everything, and I do mean everything she had, including her food, to the Chinese during the famine.
I know so much about her as I wrote extensively on her in my other blog, read her biography, and did extensive research. I think you would be surprised at what all Lottie did that would not be acceptable to your view.
Chris: I have heard that said concerning Deborah, but let’s look at it closely.
1. She was in a leadership role, whatever circumstance you may put there, and it is true that back in that day, it was partiarchal, God put Deborah in a leadership role. The why has to be mostly conjecture since the Bible is silent as to the exact reasons. The people accepted her, which would not have been done if all women were looked on as to be submissive.
2. There is Esther, who God used to save a nation of people. She was able to go where no one else could. Do what no one else could. God used her mightily.
3.Huldah was a female prophet who, while in leadership, brought reform both religiously and socially.
4. The Bible is written to both men and women. The same Holy Spirit, the same gifts are endowed to those whom God wills. He is truly no respecter of persons.
5. If Southern Baptists truly believe as you are saying above, then someone had better tell Beth Moore who is read and heard by both men and women, Ruth Graham Lutz, who is read and heard by both men and women, and Mrs. Patterson, who is heard and read by both men and women. We can’t say one thing and then do another. That is called hypocrisy.
Debbie
Just as an aside—I’d be willing to bet you that there is a zero percent chance of Lifeway ever pulling Beth Moore’s stuff off the shelf—it makes them way too much money.
Katie,
Thank you for you response. I think that you and many others continue to devalue what a judge was to the people of Israel during that dark time. The judge was much more than just the two things you mentioned, although Deborah was not a military leader since she allowed others to lead in that capacity while she was a judge.
Joe always argues that being a judge is not being a pastor. Well I agree. A pastor is strictly invloved with the leadership, teaching, preaching, shepherding, correcting, and all the other ‘ings you can come up with for the local church body. Deborah and the judges were all those things for God’s chosen people, the entire nation of Israel.
Hi Tom,
OK, I’ll try to respond to your question:
“Could it be for you not to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or deacon is God’s will, but another woman feels called to teach men in any situation–but not being a pastor or a deacon would be God’s will.”
If I understand your question, my short answer is no. In general, I don’t think that it is God’s plan for women to hold spiritual authority over men.
But, here’s more explanation. First of all, I don’t want to get caught up in semantics, but the way we define terms (like “teach,” “pastor,” “deacon”) has a great bearing on the discussion.
I have not said that I would not “teach men in any situation.” Teaching happens in many contexts. And I believe that more true learning is done in real life, not in a classroom, or while sitting in a pew. As Chris pointed out, humility is a prerequisite to learning. Adults can learn from each other regardless of gender. Men and women who are filled with the Holy Spirit are equally endowed with spiritual gifts and the God-given ability to reflect Christ-like characteristics, and we ought to humble ourselves and try hard to learn from our brothers and sisters in Christ. But, within the church, in assigning responsibilities for spiritual development, I do not believe that God desires adult women to exercise leadership, spiritual authority or responsibility for the spiritual development of adult men, as in our modern-day role of pastor or Sunday school (small group) leader. An adult men’s class ought to be taught by a man; an adult women’s class ought to be taught by a woman; a man could teach a mixed-gender adult class, but I think a man and woman co-teaching such a class would be ideal. And, if a man wants to sit in on Beth Moore’s Sunday School class, that’s up to him! But the church would be disregarding scripture to assign Mrs. Moore the role of sole teacher in a men’s or mixed gender class.
That’s just my opinion, based on my personal reading of scripture, old and new testaments.
Robert,
I think Barak would disagree with you about Deborah being a military leader. He refused to go fight Sisera without Deborah traveling with him. But she was not a priest and did not preside over Israel in any priestly way.
Sister Debbie,
I think you may have been addressing Katie concerning Deborah. But, none the less, the political, social, and spiritual aspects of the Nation of Israel are different from the aspects demanded of the New Covenant congregation that we are now members of. I am not at all defending “Dispensational Systems of Theology” with that statement whatsoever btw. As I mentioned earlier in the post,….the entire body of scripture maintains that God created man to glorify Himself and to lead His church from Adam until now.
I am not following how the leadership that Deborah performed so brilliantly is diminished by God ordering men to lead His church.
Maybe I’m missing your point.
Blessings,
Chris
Tom,
Could it be for someone not to be a liar, or live in adultery in any situation is God’s will, but another person feels called to lie, or to commit adultery in any situation would be God’s will?
Debbie,
No one in here is saying that women cant share the Gospel with men. No one in here is saying that women cant be used of God in many, many ways, and they are used of God to do glorious things for the Kingdom of God. No one in here is saying that a woman cannot be a Judge in Israel, nor the President of the US. I will vote for McCain/Palin, BTW, mostly because of Palin. Also, no one in here is saying that women cant teach women and children…and if men sit in on the sessions…well, that’s their business…that’s between them and God.
What we are saying is that men should lead their families….according to the Bible’s teaching. Men should be leaders of the Church, i.e., Pastors/Elders/Bishops…according to the teaching of Scripture. That’s all. If a woman jumps into that position, then she goes against the very clear teaching of the Bible…that has been held to down thru the centuries, BTW….that is, until here lately when radical feminism has moved into the philosophical world.
Keeping it real,
David
David007,
Thank you. I simply detest the over-generalization and stereotyping of the complementarian perspective.
I, like you…& Dr. Mohler, etc., find no problem with a woman serving as a CEO, VP, or POTUS…
…so, Mrs. Kaufman & Ms. Wanda, et al., refrain from patently misrepresenting complementarians in said manner.
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott:
Please do some research yourself about Lottie Moon. She was a preacher, pure and simple. I try and take my blinders off, but I am not sure that your try very hard in this regard.
Scott:
Please do some research yourself about Lottie Moon. She was a preacher, pure and simple. I try and take my blinders off, but I am not sure that your try very hard in this regard.
Scott:
Please do some research yourself about Lottie Moon. She was a preacher, pure and simple. I try and take my blinders off, but I am not sure that your try very hard in this regard.
Chris, Katie, and others
I appreciate your imput about Deborah and the passages you feel call men only to lead in the church. As I mentioned before, I am not able discount what I believe God has already shown us by example all throughout scripture. I believe that God is always consistent and never contradictory throughout the entire Bible. I am unable to “split hairs” and give more weight to one passage over the other. Whether you call it pastor, leader, director, or whatever, there are clear cut, undeniable examples of God calling women into positions of authority over men. I don’t believe God does that then tells us we can’t.
I also still believe that Paul was giving Timothy advice about how to handle a situation that exsisted in a particular place and time. His directive was not meant to be a directive for all God’s kingdom. That’s where I am.
Robert and Wanda,
Let me narrow to the crux of the argument and focus on the women pastors issue…
You seem to wish to take the verses in 1 Timothy 3 to task (3:2= ‘elder/pastor’ is to be the husband of one wife)..I would add that the instruction extends to deacons as well (1 Tim. 3:12).
Wanda, you claim we will not take on the context. Please explain to me what context you see in relation to these passages.
Robert, you claim that the issue is limited in discussing these passages to a specific issue for young pastor Timothy. Please explain for me then why Paul would use the exact same advice for pastor Titus (1:6). Did he not understand what you so boldly assert? Perhaps you should inform him, too?
…oh, and Tom…thanks for the clarification on Lottie…I think….but it’s hard to see with these blinders on.
SOLA GRATIA!
Also, to add to what Scott said, Robert and Tom and Debbie and Wanda, the passage in 1 Timothy where Paul instructs a woman to not teach a man as the authority over a men is not localized to that particular Church only….Paul gives as an example of what he’s teaching in the form of Adam and Eve… verses 13-15 in chapter 2. That makes it a universal appeal. That sends it out to all the Churches and Christians everywhere. He was teaching them something that was to be applied everywhere and in all times in the Church.
Also, Tom, in case you, or others did not understand my comment in #164….it was a play on your comment #158. Situational ethics….oh, how ugly they are when misapplied.
Held by His Grace,
David
I have decided that it is time to start my own group that will seek to take over the convention. I am not sure what I will name the resurgence, but we will have one. We will call ourselves the BI people. BI stands for Baptist Ignorance. You can only be a part of our movement if you have no knowledge of Baptist heritage or how Baptists did business before 1970, or you have disregarded it. You must also check your brain and Bible at the door. There is no need to use either in this group. Myself and a few close friends that are almost as righteous as me will tell you all you need to know about what God says. Here are some other important rules.
1. I am always right.
2. If you agree with me, you are right.
3. If you disagree with me you are wrong and will be called a liberal.
Liberals are our main enemy. And remember all people that disagree with me are liberals. We will not rest until our enemy is destroyed. We will get them fired, bad mouth them in public media, and sabotage any ministry the try to create. If you’re not sure whether someone is a liberal ask them what they think about a theological issue. If they quote scripture then you know they are a liberal because our group only listens to me or my righteous friends.
The sign outside our office will say “ He-men women hater’z club” just like the sign from the Little Rascals tree house. Women can be a part of our group, but only if they bring us coffee and tell us how spiritual we are.
SO…Robert…
You cannot or refuse to answer my reply to you?
SOLA GRATIA!
Oops. There is already a group like that.
Scott,
No one has yet dealt with the obvious and undeniable instances of God placing women in authority over men in scripture.
Robert,
In authority for what purpose? In what instance?
…and have you not read what I have written?
…and, REALLY, that hinders you from being able to jump all over this issue…or is it that you cannot?
SOLA GRATIA!
Please read post #170. I am now always right and you are all liberals.
Scott,
We have answered Robert many times, in regards to his question in comment #172. Methinks that fair Robert doest not want the answer that thou nor I giveth. He doth not like it, thus he refuseth to acknowledge it.
Maybe it’s time to move along as the true “haters” in here call us names, and imply that we’re just ignorant, and mischaracterize our position.
Scott, stay the course, Brother. I love you in the Lord and appreciate you.
David
I have read what you wrote Scott and I have stated til I am blue in the face why I disagree with it. I must continue to take the Bible as a whole. I do not have the luxury of believing one passage while ignoring others. I have said in authority and for what purpose, and in what instance.
Have you not read what I have written.
“Methinks that fair Robert doest not want the answer that thou nor I giveth. He doth not like it, thus he refuseth to acknowledge it.”
Volfan,
That is the whole frustrating stinking point. No one on your side acknowledges that anything outside of your limited understanding of scripture could possibly have value. Guess what? My understanding may be limited too, but I am not wrong just because I disagree with you.
Robert,
Surprisingly, for you, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been called a liberal.
SOLA GRATIA!
Volfan,
I get mad, and angry, and throw out generalizations only in defense. There are “haters” on both sides. I try to enter these things and bring pertinent information but it always turns into someone with a rude comment. Scott is the king of the backhanded insult. then we all sign.
In God’s Love.
That’s sad.
Brother Robert,
Would you agree that the church is made up of both men and women since the beginning of the world and that God has provided order for His church down through the ages? I think you will find that the man and the woman’s responsibility is consistent throughout with reference to how we conduct ourselves in the household of God.
If you do agree with that,… then God has also laid out norms in order to bring glory to Him and Him alone. Men or women can exercise authority and can be successful in their endeavors. But success and ability are not the measure for order, and sometimes even those successes work counter to God’s purpose, but we still plow ahead anyway. Yet, God’s order does not diminish the Holy Spirit’s use of each of His servants to the fullest for His Glory. Your argument for changing the norm (analogia scriptura) of what God has revealed is not uncommon….we all have our own analogies of scripture and apply our own hermeneutic…. But, I would just encourage you to continue to pray, study, serve, and edify the body of Christ with me. These arguments will still be around when you and I return from doing what Christ has called us to do.
Blessings,
Chris
Thank you Chris.
In comment 167, Robert says, “Whether you call it pastor, leader, director, or whatever, there are clear cut, undeniable examples of God calling women into positions of authority over men.”
Can you give an example of this, Robert? To help you narrow your search, I’m curious if you can find not simply an example of God calling a woman into a position of authority over a man, but an instance of God calling a woman into “spiritual authority” over a man.
Thanks.
Katie,
I have given examples, Debbie has given examples, Tom has given examples. You don’t really want to hear them and frankly I am tired of giving them.
Robert,
I confess, I am a blog nerd and I have read ALL the comments here. Deborah the judge, Lydia, Mary, Esther and Hulda have all been mentioned, but I don’t think anyone has shown that these or any other woman in the Bible held a position of spiritual authority over a man. Frankly, I don’t think you can name one.
Prove me wrong and give an example where a woman held spiritual authority over man.
Katie:
Me thinks your mind is made up and no proof would change your mind, but you have plenty of company.
Katie:
Me thinks your mind is made up and no proof would change your mind, but you have plenty of company.
Katie:
Me thinks your mind is made up and no proof would change your mind, but you have plenty of company.
Notice that no women were Pastors/Elders in the Early Church. Notice that no women were a part of the Twelve Apostles. Notice that there were no women chosen to write any of the NT books.
Hummmmmmmm….ought to tell us something.
Katie, you are right on target. You go, Girl.
David
Katie,
You just gave a few examples, but as you said,
“but I don’t think anyone has shown that these or any other woman in the Bible held a position of spiritual authority over a man.”
So why waste proof on someone who has made their mind up. Instead I encourage you to read your Bible and not just take what those in power say for granted. There is alot of stuff in there that they would like you not to read.
Tom,
Your right, my mind is made up. I hope it’s made up for good reasons (based on scripture). Hopefully, I would be open to another perspective, if given enough evidence for that perspective.
I’ve done a little research myself to find a woman in the Bible who exercise “spiritual authority” over a man. Here’s what I found:
The witch of En Dor: 1 Samuel 28:8 Saul asked this woman to conduct a séance for him so he could consult the dead prophet, Samuel.
Solomon’s wives: 1 Kings 11:4 When Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.
These examples only serve to reinforce my idea of God’s order of lines of authority in the church. Do you have any others?
Notice that Volfan can’t prove there were no pastor/elders in the early church.
Notice that some scholars attribute the writing of Hebrews to a woman, and it’s a very good argument.
Notice that Volfan rarely quotes scripture but has plenty of snide remarks.
Shake the dust off, read a little, then jump back in the conversation.
Judges chapter 4- Deborah relays God’s command to Barak. God speaks to Deborah and she makes sure Israel folows his will.
2 Kings 22:14 Hiljiah the priest and 4 other men go to Huldah the prophetess for spiritual guidance. She relays God’s message of judgement.
That’s all I have time for.
Katie:
How sad that you can only find 2 examples and they have nothing to do with what we are talking about. End of discussion from me with you.
Katie:
How sad that you can only find 2 examples and they have nothing to do with what we are talking about. End of discussion from me with you.
Katie:
How sad that you can only find 2 examples and they have nothing to do with what we are talking about. End of discussion from me with you.
Robert,
First of all, thanks for the discussion and your continued dialogue on this subject. Although we don’t agree, the discussion has challenged me.
As for your examples, we will disagree on these. Deborah and Hulda are both described as “prophetess.” One who speaks or proclaims the word of God is different than one with responsibility to teach, correct, discipline and hold authority over others. It’s similar to the Lottie Moon situation. She did not overstepped her role as a woman while at the same time “ministering” to the lost with the good news of the gospel. She proclaimed the truth (evangelization) yet was not a pastor or shepherd of a group of believers.
But, this is a complex issue and I see that it’s important to be careful to respect everyone, man and woman, who are striving to humbly serve God and one another. May we all do so.
Katie,
I would contend that a judge was someone
“…with responsibility to teach, correct, discipline and hold authority over others.”
The other’s being God’s chosen people.
I see your point about Huldah. She only provided spiritual leadership for a priest that eventually led to Josiah’s covenant and the entire nation returning to God.
I have never heard of a pastor today sharing God’s word with the people and then trying to lead them back to follow God. So your right. They are completely different. Apples and oranges ya know.
Katie: I hope you are not saying that women mislead when teaching men spiritual things. That is simply not true. These women were not Christians either. Big difference. Bad examples. I frankly take huge offense to your comment # 188. There are many men who could be added to that list as well. Paul and Christ spoke of them often.
Just the fact that you are commenting among men, speaking spiritually, ought to say something. You are trying to teach men right now. It would seem to me that you are going against the very thing you advocate. Now I will hear that it’s ok, but I respond by you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe and practice what you say or you don’t. You can’t change it to suit. Either a woman is allowed to teach to both men and women or they aren’t. A blog should not make on iota of difference. :)
Chris: My point on Deborah is that it was Patriarchal and that would have included in society as well. Yet, Deborah led. That cannot be denied. She was a judge.
Scott: Being a former complimentarian, having been raised in it. I do not think I have misrepresented anything. Don’t take for granted that I always believed this. I know the complementarian view better than Complementarians do. Read my comment to Katie. Beth Moore etc. was included in my statement yet you skipped right over that. It just seems to me that your view is tweaked according to circumstances. If it benefits, it’s fine.
one more point. There are several complimentarians who would disagree that women can work or go into politics etc. which once again proves that on this and other non-essentials, we are going to interpret passages of scripture that are not clear differently. That is why it is important to not be so quick to say that those who disagree with you choose to disobey the scriptures, because there will also be those from the complimentarian camp who will say you are choosing to disobey by allowing women to work outside the home or to run for office. So who is right? I don’t think we’ll know for sure until heaven. So why debate it? Why have websites devoted to it? I don’t know. I think it divides further.
Got it,…thx Debbie
Debbie,
Anne Graham Lotz is wrong to preach to men. Anyone in the SBC who asks her to preach is wrong.
Beth Moore should not preach to men. Anyone who asks her to teach and preach to men is wrong.
And, once again, Debbie, you seem to not understand the complementarian position at all, yet you claim to have been one at one time. Katie can discuss the Bible all she wants to with men. You can discuss the Scriptures all day with men, and that’s fine. My Momma could come in here and talk about the Bible all she wants to, and that would be fine…according to the Scriptures. But, if my own Mother were to set herself up as the authoritative teacher over men..teaching the Bible….in a classroom setting, or as a Pastor, or whatever; then, I’d be the first to tell her that that was not what God wanted for her to do….that she was going against the clear teaching of Scripture.
Robert, You said,”Notice that some scholars attribute the writing of Hebrews to a woman, and it’s a very good argument.” How long have you been a comedian? That’s good stuff!
David
Not a joke Volfan. Wrote a paper on the authorship of Hebrews when I attended SWBTS. There were some pretty strong arguments for female authorship. I wouldn’t however expect you to know anything about research or critical thinking. I wonder some times if someone doesn’t have to read this blog to you. Like I said before, read a book every once in a while, maybe even the Bible.
I would love to take a class with your mother. I would bet money she knows more than you.
David: I fully understand. Having lived it for many years. Taught it as much as I was taught eschatology and the OT. Immersed in it.
There would be complimentarians that would disagree with you david. They would tell you that women cannot discuss scripture with men. If men are present, especially their husband, they are to be quiet and learn. This within the SBC. So again, it is a difference of opinion and interpretation. That is my only point. Not to continually rehash this hot button subject that is discussed in every Christian forum, which still gets the most hits. Websites dedicated to it and whole books written on a subject that is not black and white or theologians and Christians would not be debating it year after year. It’s the hottest debate topic next to do we celebrate Halloween or can there be a Christmas tree in the church.
Don’t have anything new. Just wanted to be the 200th post
Robert,
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
In this quote, “…with responsibility to teach, correct, discipline and hold authority over others” I should have put the word “spiritual” before the word “authority.” In my opinion, there are times when a woman can have authority over a man, but not in the church.
Debbie,
I’m sorry that you took offense at the examples I gave in comment #188. You are right that there are also many examples of men, both Biblical and nonbiblical, who misused spiritual authority.
You also said, “Just the fact that you are commenting among men, speaking spiritually, ought to say something. You are trying to teach men right now. It would seem to me that you are going against the very thing you advocate.”
Back in comment 162 I wrote, “Teaching happens in many contexts. And I believe that more true learning is done in real life, not in a classroom, or while sitting in a pew… But, within the church, in assigning responsibilities for spiritual development, I do not believe that God desires adult women to exercise leadership, spiritual authority or responsibility for the spiritual development of adult men, as in our modern-day role of pastor or Sunday school (small group) leader.”
Hope that helps you understand my position a little better.
Katie,
I don’t have any trouble putting the word “spiritual” in front of “authority” in my description of what a judge was responsible for.
Brother Robert,
It appears that the question of serving the church is not one of authority, yet it is always tied to submission. For instance, even with the authority granted, self-realized, or self-granted by some of the Judges….their ultimate submission was to the Mosaic Covenant established through God’s servant Moses. So the shaping of the nation of Israel contained the church (those God called to himself), but not all Israel as Paul would conclude. Yet, the Mosaic Covenant benefited the entire nation which was penultimately under leadership given and sustained by God through Moses.
The New Covenant certainly reveals a clearer design where the penultimate leaders for her (the church) are men. This was clearly carried forward by the advancing Jewish contingent and the understanding of the previous covenants. So…Moses would as penultimate authority be responsible for the reception and distribution of the Mosaic covenant, including its Judges (whether self assigned or not)….the New Covenant is Christocentric, with the penultimate responsibility for leading placed before men. It is a pretty simple and straight forward reality.
The point I am trying to make,….is if we take out the emotional aspect of who is gifted better, performs better, more apt to do a good job etc., the pedagogical reality of the covenants declared where the submission occurs. As you are aware we all submit to God (kingdom of priests), and as the Apostles are doing and teaching….. Qualified men are especially given to Christ’s church by the power of the Holy Spirit for its edification. Now, I will be the first to say that not all men that have been voted in or call themselves Pastors are qualified, and that is a real problem in the churches. But the penultimate design of order for humankind actually follows the same thread of evidence throughout the entire canon, and should not be judged by the lack of qualification or if we have a new and better way.
These are good things to discuss….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
As always, your post was excellent. I personally will never be able to explain away the instances where I believe God clearly places women in a position of power, authority, control, or whatever word you decide to use. No there was nothing like the church of the New Testament in the Old, but God clearly set apart certain women to do things that I believe are parrallel with Pastoral duties we read about in the New Testament. Because of this and the context in which the Timothy passages are written, I can not say with any certainty that God has excluded women from the position of pastor as we see it today. I believe God is completely and totally consistent throughout his word, from the Old Testament to the New. We can not continue to use the Bible as a proof text for our beliefs. His word is complete, we must use it completely.
Question: Who was more faithful in Christ’s last hours, the twelve disciples or the women?
I ask this as there was a point made by David that the twelve were all men, but how did they fare next to the women?
I disagree that any books of the Bible were written by women. I do agree that they were all written by men. But I also believe that scripture interprets scripture.
Another question: It’s in the fall that hierarchy is first mentioned. Before the fall, both were equal, both were to rule the earth. Thoughts as to why that is? The Cross of Christ changed everything, liberating women, slaves, and others who were oppressed. Yet when Christ dwelt on this earth, it was a male dominated society. Christ subtlety changed that, but subjection of the woman was an indication of sin. I believe Christ’s speaking on the divorce issue is clear on this.
Robert: The last sentence in your comment is important. It’s something that needs to be said over and over as a reminder.
Brother Robert,
A Pastor and friend of mine from the 80′s, Daniel Vestal, served with me in the work of the church in Midland, TX. We are still friends, I trust, but we disagree on this doctrine as well. He did admit to me that he had to change his hermeneutic to accommodate his view.
All I can say,….is that the analogy of scripture is very strong on this particular issue and runs parallel with a consistent hermeneutic. As you have already pointed out ….I can also testify to many Godly women that use pastoring skills and lead in the commission of our Lord very well, yet they understand the importance of the analogy of scripture and the command to bring unity to the body of Christ.
I trust we call all have that as our aim. Thank you my brother.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:I know I am not Robert, but this needs to be clarified. In what context did Dr. Vestal say this? A change in hermeneutics is not bad. It doesn’t mean a twisting of scripture. I’m sure that is not what he said. Scripture interpreting scripture is a change in hermeneutics.
BB Bruce wrote:
It is very naturally asked what criteria can be safely used to distinguish between those
elements in the apostolic letters which are of local and temporary application and those
which are of universal and permanent validity. The question is too big for a detailed
discussion here. Where the writings of Paul are concerned, however, a reliable rule of
thumb is suggested by his passionate emphasis on freedom—true freedom by contrast
with spiritual bondage on the one hand and moral licence on the other. Here it is:
whatever in Paul’s teaching promotes true freedom is of universal and permanent
validity; whatever seems to impose restrictions on true freedon has regard to local and
temporary conditions. (For example, to go to another area, restrictions on a christian’s
freedom in the matter of food are conditioned by the company in which he or she is at the
time; and even those restrictions are manifestations of the overriding principle of always
considering the well-being of others.)
Sister Debbie,
That was his admission to me. Both he and I followed and taught the same grammatical historical interpretative scheme before he changed, so by his admission he is now using a different method. I’m not sure what technical name he would call his different method.
I did not say that about him to denigrate him whatsoever, …only to point out that whether it is me or him a change was required to get a different answer.
Blessings,
Chris
Just to be clear. I am not changing anything. I am not changing words, putting more weight on one issue over another. Quite the contrary. Persons with an opposing view on this issue must go to some length to explain why what God did in the Old Testament doesn’t apply to the New Testament church. I look at the whole picture that scripture paints and see how the verses relate to and support each other, not how one explains away another.
Robert,
It’s a little confusing to me when you say that you aren’t changing anything. From the time of Jesus’ resurrection until a few decades ago, no one questioned whether a woman should be allowed to be a pastor. The belief that a woman can be a pastor represents a major change in two thousand years of Christian thought.
The burden really lies with those who assert that women should be pastors to explain how scripture supports this. I don’t think my view will change, but I would like to have a better understanding of why you hold to your view. Without actual scripture verses or more detailed explanation, I’ll just have to assume that your reasons are not based in scripture, but rather, something else.
I have quoted and referenced at least two different passages in the Old Testament that I believe show that God specifically chose women to be in spiritual authority. There are a few others that I did not, for time sake as I mentioned in #190. In order to hold to the theory that the Timothy passages are a blanket statement of how the church should operate, you must explain away these instances in the Old testament. That is what I mean by not changing. I am not puting more weight on one issue over another. I am trying my best to take scriupture as a whole and not just use it as a proof text to support the 2000 years of Christian history you speak of.
The belief that a man shouldn’t own another man also represents a major change in two thousand years of Christian thought. People picked and chose verses to support that to.
It probably was never questioned because it wasn’t an issue. Women were in ministry.
Luke 8:1-3, “And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.”
John 4:1-42;
Acts 2:17-21, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
It wasn’t just men who were martyred for their faith, but women too. Both were making a big impact in the church. Both had to be destroyed.
Lydia opened her home to both men and women in order to preach the gospel. Lydia surely acted in the pastoral authority.(Acts 16:40)
Priscilla and Aquilla taught men and women. They taught Apollos of Alexanderia who was an important leader in the church.(Acts 18:25-26)
Robert,
This will be my last word on this issue. Thanks for the dialogue. Your example of Deborah from the OT is the only specific one given. At the same time there were OT judges there were also priests. While there was one female judge, there were no female priests.
Debbie,
Thanks also for your examples. I am not trying to exclude women from “ministry.” Your examples show women doing ministry, but I don’t think that they show us that the role of pastor/shepherd of a flock of believers can be held by a woman. There are gazillions of ways for women to be “in ministry” without functioning in the office of pastor. The truth is that the church needs more servants! There is plenty of work to do, and I plan to continue working in roles of service for my brothers and sisters in Christ and for those who still need to join the family of God.
Brother Robert and Sister Katie,
It appears you are talking past each other in the dialogue concerning Deborah.
Would it be fair to say that Deborah was no doubt assigned by God to bring the worship of this small part of Israel into order? This is the way God works. It is not independent of His order that He establishes, but with great care He will make sure that His children return to worship whether it be by way of revealed revelation, men, women, boys, fish or the jawbone of an ass. Yet His returning us to worship and Christ is always in order.
For instance…. Deborah’s short stint in biblical history, stunningly important, was assigned by God to bring a failing segment of Israel back to God’s order, not to supersede the order in any way whatsoever. The same happens even today,…Godly woman should and are required to stand up in the churches if great heresy abounds,…if the church is dying…like in Deborah’s day. Deborah knew the law, obeyed God, understood the grace of the gospel…therefore was willing to lead and correct the rebelling Israelites back to the order God had established. Her corrections were not required by some other Judges, because other parts of Israel were following God. We need this today. We need Phoebe’s and Priscilla’s abounding.
There are men in the church that are leading it down a failing path, or have allowed it to be anti-Christ, whether it has Baptist on the marquee or not. I pray that we have women that would not for one moment sit by and allows God’s family to die on the vine resulting in pagan or idol worship. Deborah was courageous and we need the same women today that will lead the family of God back to the order establish by Him in worship.
Deborah knew this, loved God, understood what God had delivered in terms of the tabernacle, sacrifices, order, etc….she loved her God and her people and was submissive to His will and a return to what He had established. She proved that she would never supersede the priest, she would gladly submit to the worship established by her God.
Blessings,
Chris
Katie,
In my second example I mentioned Huldah. The priest during that time went to her for spiritual guidance and she conveyed him the message from God. God chose her to preach Hiss word over the priest and it brought Israel back to Him.
Chris,
“Would it be fair to say that Deborah was no doubt assigned by God to bring the worship of this small part of Israel into order?”
This is part of my problem with how people deal with the passage concerning Deborah. While only a small part of her ministry is recorded, we know by reading the entire book of Judges what they were responsible for. So why then do we trivialize what Deborah did? That is just not consistent with the rest of the book.
“She proved that she would never supersede the priest, she would gladly submit to the worship established by her God.”
I am sorry, but there is absolutely nothing that says or implies that this statement is true. There are many examples of priests that were corrupt or inadequate and God used others to lead Israel. Very much like Huldah did when the priest came to her for guidance. She had the word from God. Not the priest.
Mrs. Kaufman,
“Lydia surely acted in the pastoral authority.”
WOW! Could you share with us your keen insights? Because if not, I do not think that your suppositions hold any weight in this discussion. My wife opened our home and hosted one of our youth summer Bible study nights this year…did that make her the youth pastor?
Chris,
Thank you for your well reasoned explanation of the role Deborah filled in biblical history. I also appreciate your approach to the discussions we have here. I need to learn such diligence and diplomacy and deference as you have often expressed. Thanks for your contributions and comments.
SOLA GRATIA!
It takes a truly gifted man to hurl sarcasm and insult, then comment on how you wish you could “learn such diligence and diplomacy and deference” You are a piece of work.
It is very dangerous when we cheapen what God has revealed to us in scripture, like explaining away the role he gave to Deborah. “Yeah, she was a judge but she really didn’t do what all the other judges did. God’s call for her couldn’t have been the same as for the others, even though there is no evidence it was any different. And the priest really didn’t go to Huldah for spiritual guidance. That must have been a typo. Huldah was probably there washing the dishes and looking after the children when God’s word was spoken. The priest would have recieved the teaching anyway.”
Robert,
Thank you.
SOLA GRATIA!
Robert,
For you to equate a prophetess of the OT with an Elder of the Church in the NT is such a stretch that it would cause one’s pants to split wide open.
I go to my mother for spiritual advice. She is not my Pastor/Teacher in an authoritative position. She’s my Mother who is helping me, a man.
Deborah was a Judge…an OT Judge. She was a ruler of Israel. She was not a Pastor of a NT Church as the authoritative teacher over men. Not only that, as you read about Deborah, there were no men who would take up the mantle….and she would. IOW, she was a reluctant leader. She felt that a man should do it. But, there were no men acting like men at that time, so she had to do it.
Once again, I will try to explain something….I will vote for McCain/Palin for Pres. and VP. And, I will be mainly voting for this ticket due to Palin. I’d rather have a Ronald Reagan or an Abraham Lincoln to vote for….but they’re not out there. Thus, I have to vote for McCain/Palin. And, there’s nothing in the Bible which teaches that a woman cannot be a Pres., or a Gov., or a Mayor, or a Judge over Israel.
But, the Bible does prohibit a woman from being a Pastor/Teacher over men….it prohibits a woman from being that authority over men….it goes against the way God has set up the Church, and the family.
David
John the Baptist was not much of a diplomat. He didnt have much tact about him…niether did Peter.
But, they did love the Lord and stood on His truth.
There’s nothing more pathetic and sad than to see a Mr. Milquetoast sitting in the crowd, while his wife teaches him.
God help us.
David
TO ALL,
In the final analysis…in our world today those who wish to hold to the time-honored complementarian world view are simply too ‘old-fashioned’ to be given credit for espousing truth.
The culture of our society has turned many to desire to update biblical teaching to keep up with the times. Certainly, we must all be wary of potential error in our convictions. Such has always been the case even within leaders lives throughout Christian history. We must never leave the text of Scripture when searching for the truth by which we are to live. God help us if we do!
I will readily admit that my debate tone is often reactionary and pugilistic. I readily admit that is a weakness in me on which I need to work. To those who have been offended by my caustic and ascerbic retorts, I am truly sorry. I do, however, stand behind every word of conviction based on biblical texts and my challenges to those with whom I have differed here to produce evidences to refute those challenges. To this point in our discussion I have not read adequate responses to those challenges. The comments placed here by those seeking to bolster the complementarian perspective have provided a more thorough reasoning and explanation than I could have provided myself.
Thank you, one and all, for a spirited (if at times tooo spirited) discussion on this issue. Feel free to continue. I will only be able to check in over the weekend as I will be out for some family time and my high school 20 year class reunion.
By Grace Alone!
First, My desire is not to update Biblical teaching. Much to the contrary. My desire is for us to once again give weight to the OT and use it’s passages as well as the NT to guide our beliefs.
Second, Thank you very much Scott for your post. I think every one of us is guilty of being a little too passionate and too biting in our retorts. When someone stands up for what they believe scripture says it is always frustrating when others do not see our point of few. I too must seek to change my sarcastic nature, although I do think my post on starting a new group was funny. I’m just too bad.
Thank you too Volfan for your reply as well. I really do understand the differences between an OT judge and a pastor of a New Testament church. My point has always been the ease with which we remove any and all pastoral characteristics displayed by women in the OT and completely discount them because it was a different time and situation. God did choose her. She was authoritative leader and teacher over the entire nation including men. The difference between her and a political leader of today is we are not expecting to hear a message straight from the mouth of God from our elected officials. Deborah was God’s mouthpiece. she conveyed God’s word and guidance to the nation. If that is not teaching I do not know what is.
And sorry for bringing you mom into this. I’m sure she is a great woman.
Brother Robert,
I am not comparing Deborah to any other Judges,…they all came about into their positions in various ways and means and all have exciting backgrounds and stories, missions, etc.. Some good, some bad.
What I understand of Deborah is not that she had a small part in God’s work or that what she did was trivial. Quite the contrary. With the small amount of information about Deborah, we see how important her role was in leading the church back to their God, at least the ones that would obey God (Not all Israel is Israel). She was very willing…I don’t necessarily agree with Vol that she was reluctant. It appears to me that she saw the need, God provided the way, she obeyed and God was glorified. And even through all of that she worshipped God in the order prescribed through the Mosaic covenant to the glory of God, never once (at least as recorded) went against the pattern God has established for his church.
None of the Judges are inserted within the order of the Mosaic Covenant, they simply work within what God has provided to bring the nation back to the order that God established for worship given in the scriptures.
Deborah’s motivation for returning to the worship God had established is spelled out in clearly in Judges 4:1-9 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, after Ehud died.” They were prosperous, fat and happy ignoring the ways that God had established for them. Deborah rose up to lead them back. But, you can’t project what other Judges do on Deborah as well…she probably wouldn’t care for that….some of the others were worthless.
(2) And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; and the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. (3) The sons of Israel cried to the LORD; for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years. (4) Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. (5) She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. (6) Now she sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali, and said to him, “Behold, the LORD, the God of Israel, has commanded, ‘Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men from the sons of Naphtali and from the sons of Zebulun. (7) ‘I will draw out to you Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his many troops to the river Kishon, and I will give him into your hand.’” (8) Then Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” (9) She said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
I love Deborah’s response to Barak…. The guy wanted the glory…but she said either way this group of evil doers will understand that it was a women that led this fight that God delivered to restore worship in the manner He has shown worthy.
Blessings,
Chris
Scott: When scripture is read in it’s historical setting, yes, I do believe Lydia could have acted in a Pastoral role. To put a twenty first century meaning to scripture written in the first century is as you know a grave misreading of scripture.
David: I take offense to your comment 223, we should always learn from each other. Both men and women. It makes a man strong who is willing to be humble enough to learn from someone else, even a woman. We have a brain, a soul, and the Holy Spirit to enlighten. We can glean many truths that frankly is being missed by many men.
It shows your attitude toward women in my opinion, we are bought and paid for by the blood of Christ just as you are, and frankly I’ve heard more scriptural truth coming from women lately than from men. There is a lot of wrong doctrine out there, and not all of it from women. Even in the Southern Baptist realm.
Scott: In thinking about your question, yes, your wife could be a youth minister. If she is teaching both male and female teenagers, where is that any different than teaching in a church building? The church is not a building as you well know, but people whether in a house or a church building.
Chris: We may disagree on some things, but I find your deep study in this refreshing. From a Christian woman to a Christian man, I have gleaned a lot from you in the past and now. I have a wonderful pastor and church, but would definitely attend your church if I were in your area.
Sister Debbie,
Please come, worship and minister with us when your out this way. As Paul would say….
Romans 1:11-12 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; (12) that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: Thank you I will.
david: You speak of John the Baptist or Peter not being diplomatic, speaking the truth. Where did either of them call women or anyone for that matter derogative names? Where did any of them treat women badly? Where in all of scripture did Peter tell the women who came to him with the message that Christ had risen from the grave, appeared to them first, to mind their place? That it would make him a milquetoast to listen to them?
If you are going to use them as examples to follow, let’s follow all of their example, not just what suits.
Scott:
Can you not think of something else to write or can not some else write a new post for this blog. The one I am posting this comment to has been here since September 25, 2008–8 days.
Scott:
Can you not think of something else to write or can not some else write a new post for this blog. The one I am posting this comment to has been here since September 25, 2008–8 days.
Scott:
Can you not think of something else to write or can not some else write a new post for this blog. The one I am posting this comment to has been here since September 25, 2008–8 days.
Pingback: What is Wrong with Biblical Terminology? | SBC Today