This certainly is a side topic… but,…..Some do place the term of “office” as the main context of thought when it comes to the actions and qualities of the terms associated with Overseer and Deacon. In other words, as long as I can make it into the office… I am qualified. That is anti-biblical type thinking. The Greek term and context surrounding the Timothy passages that address this matter help the Christ follower to understand the qualifications and actions of these men and women that are about the business of edifying the church. In our day, the “office” becomes the context, and not the “quality” required of the individual serving the church as Paul has clearly articulated.

It is unfortunate that the English translation “office of” preceding “overseer” has become the primary context in the contemporary American church culture, because unless the context (leading us to the qualities of an overseer) is understood while reading the translation, it becomes much easier to overlay the corporate understanding of an “office” into the meaning. So that “if I go to seminary and become voted into the Office of Pastor at an SBC Church”… leadership in the church has been accomplished. That type of thinking and definition is not known or taught by Paul throughout the early churches.

If the contemporary traditional SBC churches were to follow the “qualities and actions” required for maintaining God’s “overseer” within their body… the definition of “office” would no doubt become more accurate; maintaining and providing more men and women to lead and serve as commanded and ordered by Christ.

Blessings,
Chris

You are correct in #75. Scripture is clear concerning the order and responsibility of men and women in the church.

I consider Daniel Vestal a friend and brother in Christ,…but he, by his own admission to me a couple of years back… had to change his hermenuetic in order to change his view of women in the church. I find him honest in why he changed,…but even so, he is incorrect and inconsistent in his new findings. His new findings certainly have influenced many.

Blessings,
Chris

:-)

Not harshness but admission that all we do is not necessary nor efficient.

We know we will never abandon International Missions. Nor will we ever stop helping our neighbors who are devastated by nature or other calamities.

But shouldn’t Southern Baptists absolutely be open to discussing the merits of all other CP endeavors?

For example: Is the seminary model we are currently supporting one which will take us through the 21st Century or can it be replaced or supplanted by a more efficient model?

My point is this. Let’s talk about all these things. The CBF does not have the answers anymore than the SBC does. If we are truly moving deeper into post-denominational waters as some claim then preserving the status quo at all costs will prove to be utterly fruitless.

I have occupied a chair on two state convention executive boards and presided over one of those, so these are not conclusions I am coming to lightly.

Sincerely,

Jim Shaver

I must confess your first question/statement gave me a belly laugh. However, that laugh suddenly stopped and turned to concern with the harshness of your last statement. Do you really believe the IMB and Disaster Relief is all we as SB do well?

Blessings,
Tim

The original post misses the point.

There are more and more of us SBC Pastors and Churches who believe the value of the SBC Convention and the State Conventions is diminishing. It has nothing to do with doctrine.

Keep the IMB and Disaster Relief and Can the Rest.