"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

On Blacks and Women the SBC Is Not Innocent

There have been a few attempts by Southern Baptists to propose Judge McBryde's granting of Southwestern's motion to dismiss the Klouda lawsuit was a ruling of innocence on Southwestern's part. Anyone who attempts to cast such conclusions reveals a lack of understanding of the legal system or an inherent bias. For instance, one such writer concludes:

And, now, even after our legal system has definitively weighed in the balance of justice Professor Klouda’s case against Dr. Patterson and our esteemed institution, finding them innocent . . .

Whether this writer is an expert on the legal system and offering a consistent expert opinion or is infected with an inherent bias against Sheri Klouda and those who have sought to protect her can be discerned in the nouns the writer uses to describe myself and other supporters of Dr. Klouda (i.e. "jesters," "clowns," "a foot shy of moral antinoniasm,"producers of political porn"). I learned a long time ago that calling people names is bad, but not being able handle being called names is worse. I welcome the verbal abuse if it is thrown my way because of my assistance of the Sheri Klouda family.

But the point of this post is to correct the wrong conclusions of innocence on Southwestern's part. The judge simply ruled that discrimination based upon gender is protected by the First Amendment which separates church and state. In other words, a church can discriminate against women because of 'religious beliefs' and the courts cannot, according to the judge's interpretation of the United States Constitution, punish the church. That is the judge's ruling and I accept it. I don't, however, accept that discrimination against women is acceptable in the Southern Baptist Convention, nor is it a part of our belief system. The courts said they WOULD NOT intervene. That ruling simply stokes the fire for those of us who see that change is needed. We are Southern Baptists and we must do even more to change things. Let me show you what I mean.

A few years ago a pulpit committee in Mississippi expressed a desire to visit with me about being their pastor. I called a previous pastor of that church and asked him to tell me a little about the church. The pastor said the people are great and the church has huge potential, but there was something that bothered him. While he was pastor, there was discussion about bringing a black man on staff. A couple of deacons in the church came to the pastor and said, "We don't need a n____ on staff." The prejudice against blacks is not an official position of the Southern Baptist Convention - now. But as I have shown you before, Southern Baptists argued for a very long time that blacks were inferior to the white race and they had no business being considered equals. It took activists continually working toward reform to bring not only the Southern Baptist Convention, but eventually the United States Constitution, to recognize the equality of blacks.

The same, archaic view of women seems to be prevalent within the Southern Baptist Convention. It is a view that relegates women to an inferior status to men. People do not like to hear the issue stated so bluntly as in the sentence above, and will do everything within their power to shape the argument to something other than 'inferiority' - just as Southern Baptists did in decades past regarding blacks. For instance, it is argued that the physical differences with women are obvious, and as a result, they are different but equal. I am reminded that Southern Baptists used to point to the skin color of black men 150 years ago and used it as the basis for the 'different and UNEQUAL' view of blacks. In other words, 'different but equal' is at times nothing but a euphemism for 'different and unequal.' When TREATMENT of a person differs from that of a white man in the same position, then you have a 'different but unequal' mentality. Ask yourself a question: What two groups of people have been discriminated against in the Southern Baptist Convention solely because of who they are? Blacks and women. Adulterers, homosexuals, child molestors, etc . . . are rightfully discriminated against because of WHAT THEY DO.

Someone shouts, "Object!" We are not discriminating against women because of who they are. We discriminate against them in terms of what they can and cannot do! We are saying women can't teach men, women can't be in a position of authority over a man, women can't lead men, women can't teach men Hebrew, women can't be Vice-President of the IMB, women can't be . . . . Why not? Some will say, "Because the Bible says so." I say emphatically, categorically, unequivocably, and passionately - IT DOES NOT. Now, let us debate the issue - but recognize the implications for those of you who wish to relegate women to a 'position of inferiority to men.' You will be discriminating against women. Period. No matter how you spin it, you are discriminatory on the basis of gender.

The United States government, through the courts of the land, says that a church can discriminate against a woman because of its religious beliefs. They will not interfere. The United State's Constitution forbids interference. But the courts, unlike blog writers who pontificate differently, did not declare Southwestern INNOCENT of discrimination. It simply said 'churches' can discriminate on the basis of gender. The solution to skirting the laws of discrimination in this land is to somehow figure out how to get your institution or business to be recognized as a church and then terminate any competent person on the basis that she is a female. You will NOT be innocent of discrimination. You will be free from the long reach of federal laws that prevent it.

Blessings,

Wade

197 comments:

John Mann said...

Wade,

Your chosen language of using terms such as 'discriminate' and 'position of inferiority' I am sure has been carefully chosen to convey the message that you want to convey. However, you have said in the past that you are not an egalatarian, yet you continue to provide a platform for egalatarians to espouse their rhetoric. Therefore, it seems to be expedient to continue to ask you if you are changing (or maybe discovering?) your own position?

Referencing that some will respond "the Bible says so," you reply that "IT DOES NOT." My question to you...

If the Bible does not speak of complementarianism, and this is indeed a secondary issue, then how would you support your stated complementarianism in regards to women serving as pastors?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Surprise, surprise, surprise... what so many have speculated about, questioned, and accused you of has come to pass. You have laid out the options... either a person is a egalatarian or a discriminator. How sad, how truly sad...

It is not.... and I say this just as emphatically, categorically, unequivocably, and passionately as you... it is not discrimination to belief in God given gender roles.

Glad you finally came out of the closet (so to speak with your change of heart).

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

"it is not discrimination to belief in God given gender roles."

Where is a list of those gender roles in scripture?

Lucy

Anonymous said...

Oh, I am also reminded that the courts found abortion legal. Does that make their decision correct?

Lucy

robert said...

Not one of your better posts, Wade. Discrimination is a perfectly normal and neutral activity. You seem to believe it is a sin.

A women's restroom has all the facilities I need and is probably much nicer than a male restroom. But it is discriminatory. I would strongly object to an apartheid-style restroom for whites only.

Tom Parker said...

Robert:

It was sin what was done to Dr. Klouda.

believer333 said...

What is more important: labeling someone something that you have decided is inappropriate, or discussing the issues brought up?

Why not discuss the ins and outs of discrimination? Someone suggested that there are good forms of discrimination. Are separate toilets for genders an accurate definition of discrimination? Or is that rather charitably providing privacy where needed? What's the difference.

And most importantly is it correct that the courts basically said that because the Institution is determined to be a church that discrimination on the basis of religious privilege cannot be challenged in the legal system? Or did the courts say that Patterson and the institution were innocent of discrimination? I think it is clear that it is the former.

O RLY? said...

http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg

gmay said...

Wade,

I can't help but wonder how Baylor fits into the mix. According to the Lariat, 6 of 9 female professors recommended for tenure were denied while only 6 of 21 who were male. At any rate, six female professors now have one year on their contract at Baylor. I expect you have sources on this subject. Any light you can shed?

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

You can read the answer to your gender role question here...
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99791.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Lucy, here is the correct link... http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99791.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

For some reason this link does not want to post correctly. Just type in gender roles in the search and you will get your answer.

Joe W.

Jim Paslay said...

Wade,

Since you have quoted Peter Lumpkins, I was wondering if he is still banned from commenting on your blog?

Concerning your article, are we as pastors discriminating against women when we preach the God-given roles in marriage found in Ephesians 5? Has God relegated women to an inferior status by teaching the different roles in a marriage relationship? Should we blur the roles and teach a partnership relationship instead of a one flesh relationship? Can a woman be the head of her household? I remember listening to the wisdom of Dr. Adrian Rogers on this subject. He said in reference to the roles of a man and woman, "A body with no head is dead and a body with two heads is a freak."

By the way, if what the Bible says about the roles of men and women in the church is cultural as some adamantly say, what about homosexuality? Some who support same-sex marriage do so on the basis that Paul was a homophobe and we shouldn't be so narrow-minded about genuine, loving relationships between men and women of the same sex. Besides God created male, female and homosexuals, right? Are we ready to go down that road? I think not!

Paul Burleson said...

Robert,

Generally speaking, there is a distinction made in language between differentiation [male/female restrooms] and discrimination. [Which is generally used when speaking about prejudice or bias against someone because of natural differences as color or sex or race.]

This post, it seems to me, is about discrimination against natural differences [as opposed to behavioral ones] not differentiations. The first is to be avoided by all believers since in Christ there is no race, sex, color discriminated against in the work of the Cross. The second makes for modesty and a better way of interacting in life.

If our nations' laws catch up to Christians in this matter..good for the lawmakers. But for us as Christians, Christ has already removed any discrimination because of sex, race, etc. We should, therefore, be leading the way in removing discrimination with our decisions about people not reinforcing it.

Wade Burleson said...

John Mann,

I have stated my view of women pastors on several occasions. The BFM 2000, with very poor foresight, made that a standard of cooperation. I am in personal agreement with men being Senior Pastors, but have absolutely no problem fellowshipping and cooperating with churches who choose to call a female pastor. And, if someone were to ask, my personal prohibition of women senior pastors is only personal, cultural and confessional - I see NO such prohibition in Scripture. Therefore, to call 'liberal' a church in another denomination that calls a woman to be pastor or shepherd, or to oppose a academically qualified, God-called woman from teaching the Hebrew Scriptures to other God-called men in a seminary setting is beyond the Scriptures. The Bible is to be our sole and sufficient source for faith and practice.

If I ever found myself in a convention with no confessional prohibition on women pastors, or in a culture with no bias toward women, or a time when God raised up a woman pastor who fit the needs of a church to which I belonged, then I am saying there is NO Scriptural warrant to prohibit a woman from ministering.

And, just like every God-honoring Christian, I accept the inerrant, infallible, God-breathed, Word from God (the Bible) as my sole and sufficient source for Christian faith and practice.

We are making a MOUNTAIN out of a non-essential.

Wade Burleson said...

Jim Paslay,

Mr. Lumpkin is not banned from this blog, nor ever has he been. The only people banned are crude, unChristian commentors who intentionally lie.

Blessings,

wade

Wade Burleson said...

And Jim,

When will you stop associating being a woman with being a 'homosexual?" Describe for me the immoral conduct of being a woman please.

I will tell you the immoral conduct of being a homosexual - it is having sex with a man, and the infallible Word calls this a sin (Romans 1).

Now, tell me what behavior is immoral for being a woman? Maybe we will get somewhere when you answer the question.

Anonymous said...

"God-given roles in marriage found in Ephesians 5?"

Where are the roles in the verse? I don't see specific roles here.

" Has God relegated women to an inferior status by teaching the different roles in a marriage relationship?"

What roles? Does verse 21 NOT apply to husbands? Are they exempt from verse 21? How does that work...they submit to one another in the Body except their wives?

" Should we blur the roles and teach a partnership relationship instead of a one flesh relationship?"

What is a ONE Flesh relationship? Why didn't God make it clear in Genesis that Adam was in charge of or in authority OVER Eve? How come He never said it?

" Can a woman be the head of her household? "

Yes.

1 Tim 5

14"So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households,..."

Manage household in this passage is:

Oikodespoteo
-to be master (or head) of a house
-to rule a household, manage family affairs

This is where we get the word 'despot'. :o)


"By the way, if what the Bible says about the roles of men and women in the church is cultural as some adamantly say, what about homosexuality?"

You may want to be very careful here. Homosexuality was rampant in Roman and Greek Patriarhical cultures and still is quite common in patriarchal countries. You would be shocked. Your argument is a very tired strawman.

Lucy


Lucy

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I am really trying to view scripture through the lenses of the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to bait you. I am honestly trying to learn. When we say that the Bible is to be our sole and sufficient source for faith and practice, how can we say that our personal prohibition of women senior pastors is only personal, cultural and confessional - I see NO such prohibition in Scripture.

I am struggling with another issue that is personal, cultural, and confessional, but yet see no such prohibition in scripture. I'm just a rookie pastor trying to understand scripture. You're knowledge and I pray wisdom could help me immensely.

Brent L. Wiliams
Virden, IL

Wade Burleson said...

Lucy,

Good word. What is absolutely beyond the pail to me is how 'preaching the word of God' by a woman, and 'exegeting Hebrew to men' by a woman, and 'sharing the gospel to men' by a woman is as immoral, ungodly, and as much a sign of reprobation as . . . the sin of adultery, the sin of homosexuality, and other sins enumerate by the apostles.

Am I the only one astounded at the comparison being made by those who continually say recognizing and accepting the equality of women is the same as recognizing and accepting homosexual activity?

Lin said...

"When will you stop associating being a woman with being a 'homosexual?" Describe for me the immoral conduct of being a woman please."

Thank YOU! The insult that women ministering (what on earth is the Holy Priesthood, then? And are women are part of it or not?) will automatically bring in homosexual pastors is so insidious that it makes me want to counter that patriarchal-comp teaching brings in more wife abuse. After all, we can bring out the stats of abuse in fundy households. Spouse abuse centers do collect that information. It is a strawman and it is an insult to both parties.

Wade Burleson said...

Brent,

I have chosen to be a Southern Baptist - and the convention that I have chosen to affiliate with made a confessional prohibition of women preachers. I was silent, until . . .

The move to make a confessional prohibition against people who speak in tongues . . .

The move to make a confessional prohibition against people who drink alcohol moderately . . .

The move to make a confessional prohibition against people who are Calvinists . . .

The move to make a confessional prohibtion against people who . . . oh well, you get the idea.

These 'moves' were backdoor moves through policies - but a desire for them to eventually become 'confessional.'

The only way these extra-biblical prohibitions will ever end is when Southern Baptists themselves end them. I'm afraid most of the people who really care about such things may have already left.

Anonymous said...

Is Satan delighted that we are twisting and reading INTO scripture to shut up (or trying to) 50% of all true believers from proclaiming and teaching the truths of the Gospel to anyone? Male or female?

Perhaps if we have real persecution and have to meet secretly in our homes, this problem would disappear in a heart beat.

Lucy

John Mann said...

Wade,

But if I remember correctly, you have called yourself a complementarion in the past. Is that not true?

Wade Burleson said...

John Mann,

I am a complementarian culturally, personally, and confessionally -

But I see arguments from Scripture for both complementarianism and egalitarianism, and just like my eschatological beliefs where I understand (and teach) the four major views of Christians to my church, I believe that Christians should get along with each other and not separate over differences in the views of what women can - and cannot - do.

What may be fine for your congregation may not be for mine. I'll also not tell you that you are as wicked as a practicing homosexual because your view of women teaching men is different from mine and I expect the same treatment from you. Make sense?

In other words, I do not see this of women and their roles in the church as being a BIG deal. Where it becomes a big deal is if an agency of the SBC hires a woman to do a job - and then a man with a very narrow view of women - by fiat removes that woman because of her gender.

John Mann said...

You mean the instance where a woman is given two years to either find another position or to accept a position at the same pay and benefits?

You have said...

1). Scripture allows women to serve as Senior Pastors.

2). Scripture allows the purchase of alcohol.

3). Scripture allows lawsuits.

4). You have decried separatism.

and anybody who says otherwise is enslaved to cultural moores that are no longer relevant for today.

At what point does Scripture escape its enslavement to a cultural prison and become the living and active word of God?

K. Michael Crowder said...

Once again Wade, you have mastered the use of the faulty analogy: blacks being equal in human status to whites/ women teaching men... and the appeal to ignorance: the fact that some of your readership are truly ignorant as to what Holy Scripture teaches regarding the roles of men and women.
The sad thing here is that you are not fighting for correct doctrine. You are fighting for the right of some to hold incorrect doctrine. Your church should demand a better use of your time.
The world is going to hell because they reject the truths of Scripture. Thanks man….for slickin’ up the slippery slope!
K

Wade Burleson said...

John Mann,

(1). Yes

(2). Yes

(3). Yes

(4). ? Separation? Don't understand.

The Scripture is not enslaved to culture at all. Rather, it may be that your religious culture has enslaved the Scriptures.

Wade Burleson said...

K Michael Crowder,

People are already in hell.

It is the glorious, sovereign, liberating power of Christ that gets them out through the proclamation of the gospel.

Preaching religious laws, according to Jesus, only makes the convert twice the inhabitant of hell.

volfan007 said...

wade,

you're sounding more and more like a liberal all the time. more and more people are thinking that about you are as well.

let's see...these beliefs are what would make you look so much like a liberal....you believe....

drinking alcohol is alright.

women pastors are okay.

join with those people and churche, who dont believe in the inerrancy of scripture and who believe that homosexuality is okay(nbcc), in church starting and other endeavors.

deny the clear, biblical teaching of God-given gender roles in the church and in marriage.

have i left out anything?

wade, do you see how many people would think that you are not just a moderate, but a full blown liberal?

david

ps. complementarians are not saying that women are not equal with a man, but that they are equal in worth and value to God... just given different roles according to the bible. would you at least get our position straight and not compare us to racists?

Wade Burleson said...

Volfann,

Usually, I am insulted when people call me a liberal.

Coming from you, I consider it a complement.

Thank you.

Wade

K. Michael Crowder said...

"I believe that Christians should get along with each other and not separate over differences in the views of what women can - and cannot - do."

What irony......I believe that we SHOULD in fact separate over issues such as this. Yet I remain a part of, dedicated to, and in cooperation with my Convention.

You, on the other hand, stand divisive, separated, foreignly aligned, and unwilling to budge and work with those who disagree with you on secondary and tertiary issues. You hold in one hand the orb openness and cooperation while in the other hand you hold the megaphone of malicious malarkey.

You and Ben need to get over your hatred of Dr. Patterson. Leave him alone. Get on with your lives. Let us Southern Baptists who still love the Convention and who do not verbally abuse her leaders move on as well. To the work of the Lord!


K

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Crowder,

It is because of people like you that I will remain Southern Baptist till Jesus comes.

Blessings,

Wade

K. Michael Crowder said...

"People are already in hell.

It is the glorious, sovereign, liberating power of Christ that gets them out through the proclamation of the gospel.

Preaching religious laws, according to Jesus, only makes the convert twice the inhabitant of hell."


What?

Is this a new doctrine you have created? I have a ways to go in my theological education, but this absurd! Sir, God's creation, His general relation to man is NOT hell. Not even at it's most depraved and degenerate states. I know of no place in Scripture which teaches that the atonement is efficient...or even sufficient...for those in hell.

SO are you purporting that we not preach the law? Not even the commandements Christ gave in the NT?

And...what on earth is that last bit? Do you call that "double hellenation?"


hehe


K

K. Michael Crowder said...

Awe....geez Wade.....how sweet of you.

I will be proud to stand with you in glory as well. :)



K

volfan007 said...

wade,

i didnt call you a liberal. i said that you sound a lot like a liberal. i said that many, many people out here are thinking that you're a liberal. that's what i actually said.

God bless you,

david

Lin said...

My goodness. The definition of Liberal keeps moving and I cannot keep up. It used to be things such as denying the Virgin birth or the Trinity. Now one is a liberal if they sincerely believe in the Holy Priesthood and that all...ALL... true believers have anointing.

Where on earth are these 'roles' in scripture that everyone keeps talking about?

And what on earth do you all do with single women who never marry when it comes to these elusive roles?

K. Michael Crowder said...

"And what on earth do you all do with single women who never marry when it comes to these elusive roles?"

Don't they get divided up amongst the priests?

Lin said...

"And what on earth do you all do with single women who never marry when it comes to these elusive roles?"

Don't they get divided up amongst the priests?

Fri Mar 28, 07:59:00 PM 2008

You are sounding more and more Muslim all the time. :o)

oc said...

Seems that anyone who rebels against the status quo is called a "liberal".

OOPS! Sounds a lot like Jesus.

John Mann said...

Wade,

In your post, you make it sound as if the only ruling of the court was that the court refused to rule because of ecclesiological concerns. However, having read the transcript, your assertion does not appear to be factual. Basically, (I will avoid quoting the verbiage as it has already been posted on elsewhere) the judge ruled that the defamation of character, fraud, and breach of contract were not proven. To make this out to be that the judge didn't want to be involved in a religious ruling (which we should rejoice in, as well)is dishonest.

Steve said...

Wade,
This may have been your "Harry Truman" post. Harry Truman made the Armed Services quit discriminating along racial lines, and is remembered as a plain-spoken honest man who was never talked into any foolishness. I'll leave it to others whether he was the last "Great" Democrat President.

You gave a simple and profoundly honest opinion, and the litmus test validating your post comes in the extreme lengths to which the defenders of past injustices must go to try to refute you. I am not making direct comparisons, but deacons like those in "Missi-pah" also were known for convulted, extended explanations when pressed about their prejudices.

Alan Paul said...

Wade said: I'm afraid most of the people who really care about such things may have already left.

bingo! you get the prize... a denomination full of narrow minded idealogues stuck in the mire of their own arrogance and self-righteousness.

oc said...

Lin said:
"Where on earth are these 'roles' in scripture that everyone keeps talking about?"


I'm looking hard for them too. Because inventing roles is an attempt to categorize and rank people, which in turn gives those who gave themselves rank the power to maintain that rank, which is actually an attempt at control over others.
I'm not seeing these kind of 'roles' in my Bible. My silly, simple, barely educated and unsophisticated heart keeps flashing back to Galatians 3:28. Not to mention the upside down stuff Jesus had to say about the first being last, and the last being first.

Anonymous said...

I am a woman. I was called to be a minister. For many years, I have taught women and men, developed female and male leaders, spoken in congregations with women and men in the seats. I have had an incredibly fulfilling life...an abundant life while constantly cognizant of remaining "worthy of the call" (Jn 9:39-42)

Doubters say that I was not called, because it is against scripture. Well, that sounds a whole lot like the discussion the Pharisees had with the blind man (John 9).

So, early on, I followed Jesus, and when I was not accepted as a messenger, I shook the dirt off my feet and followed His call that always goes before me.

"Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

Carol

Anonymous said...

Sorry...the citation should have gone at the end of the post.

Carol

believer333 said...

John Mann wrote: “You mean the instance where a woman is given two years to either find another position or to accept a position at the same pay and benefits?”

It was not my understanding that she was given two years. As for “another job” at the same pay rate. That sounds much like shackling a top notch police detective to a desk because he was black and expecting that man to be able to say “yes sir” (with a smile) to you everyday without wincing.

Volfan wrote: “ps. complementarians are not saying that women are not equal with a man, but that they are equal in worth and value to God... just given different roles according to the bible.”

It took me a while, but I did figure out that that is double speak. If a person is relegated to limited “roles” their whole life by reason of their inherent being, then they are not equal in their inherent being to those who are not so limited.

volfan007 said...

believer333,

men dont have babies...that doesnt mean that we're inferior to women...it just means that we're different. and, just because God gives different roles in life for men and women doesnt make men superior nor women inferior...just different. to not recognize that God has ordained different roles for men and women rips huge hunks out of the bible. those who choose to remain true to God and the bible choose to not rip pages out of the bible, but to humbly obey.

david

Tom Parker said...

david:

You are outright scary the things you put on any blog for someone to read. They are also very arrogant and you are not going to win many if any to your way of thinking.

John Mann said...

Wade,

In your earlier response to me you said that you could cooperate with another church that has a female pastor. Does that mean that you believe the Southern Baptist Convention should give full voting privileges with all of its benefits to churches who have women as pastors? (Of course, that would mean changing the BFM).

John Mann said...

Wade,

Please forgive my persistence, but as you have said your position has often been misrepresented, I simply want to ensure that I understand what you are advocating.

You said above, "And, just like every God-honoring Christian, I accept the inerrant, infallible, God-breathed, Word from God (the Bible) as my sole and sufficient source for Christian faith and practice."

Do you believe in the WHOLE inerrancy of Scripture, or in a limited inerrancy? That is, is it inerrant in everything it says, or only in matters of faith and salvation? I know this may sound like splitting hairs to some, but given you are as widely-read as you seem to be, I am sure you are familiar with why I ask the question. If it is indeed WHOLLY inerrant, how is man able to separate that which is culturally bound in Scripture from that which is not?

Anonymous said...

It took me a while, but I did figure out that that is double speak. If a person is relegated to limited “roles” their whole life by reason of their inherent being, then they are not equal in their inherent being to those who are not so limited.

Fri Mar 28, 10:12:00 PM 2008

Exactly. Then to add insult you are in sin if you do not 'joyfully' understand that.

What I want to know is:

Where is the manual?

I need to know at which age a boy becomes a man so that I don't teach him and have 'authority' over him

I need to know to what extent I can witness to men. If I am reading the bible on a park bench and a man comes up and asks me to explain what I am reading, can I answer him?

Can I answer questions about scripture to a guy at work who knows I am a Christian?

Am I allowed to have input at co-ed bible studies?

Am I allowed to ask questions in a Bible study or do I need to ask my husband at home?

What if my husband does not know? Does he need to call an elder and ask him my question for me?

Can I serve on committees that make decisions about the church that are not about carpet or childrens programs?

The questions are endless. We need a manual. We need that list of roles everyone keeps referring to in scripture. If we had a manual, Dr. Klouda would have known not to get the PhD.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

John Mann, Can you answer my questions for me? I do not want to be in sin and am confused as to what I am allowed to do and not do.

Lucy

Oh, a few more:

Am I allowed to read scripture before the Body?

Am I allowed to give a testimony before the whole Body?

Am I allowed to make any announcments at the pulpit?

John Mann said...

Wade,

Again, my apologies. But you say, "I am a complementarian culturally, personally, and confessionally -"

Does that mean you make theolgical conclusions based on personal opinion instead of Biblical revelation?

You also state, "What may be fine for your congregation may not be for mine."

Is that not a postmodern hermeneutic that allows for different truths in different times for different cultures? Is that not a statement that reveals a failure to believe in absolute truth? In other words, if the Scripture prohibits women pastors, then it does so for all people, at all places, and at all times. If, on the other hand, the Scripture endorses women pastors, then again, it is for all people, in all places, and at all times. Either way, honesty demands a clear statement of belief that leads to a definitive action.

Again, thank you for your patience as I seek clarity for a very important issue.

John Mann said...

Lucy,

I would direct you to your pastor to answer those questions for you.

However, if you would like my view on women serving in the role of a senior pastor, I would be more than happy to clearly articulate my understanding.

shadrach said...

Just to say it, in every church that I have ministered in, we have had women teachers, but never women pastors.

I understand that in 1 Tim 2 Paul is saying 'this is what I do' about women teaching, but what about 1 Tim 3?

Wade said that his objection to women pastors was confessional (he follows the direction of our convention), but please explain to me how the wording in chapter 3 can be taken to mean that women can be pastors or deacons. The pronouns are masculine and we're even ruling out single males. There is an aspect of the married male here that Paul apparently deems important.

Please do explain.

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

You asked... I need to know at which age a boy becomes a man so that I don't teach him and have 'authority' over him."

-At puberty (6th grade or 13 years old is a good time).

I need to know to what extent I can witness to men. If I am reading the bible on a park bench and a man comes up and asks me to explain what I am reading, can I answer him?

-Yes

Can I answer questions about scripture to a guy at work who knows I am a Christian?

-Yes, if you know the anwer.

Am I allowed to have input at co-ed bible studies?

-Yes

Am I allowed to ask questions in a Bible study or do I need to ask my husband at home?

-You are allowed.

What if my husband does not know? Does he need to call an elder and ask him my question for me?

-Yes, he does.

Can I serve on committees that make decisions about the church that are not about carpet or childrens programs?

-Yes, you can.

Hope this helps. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Lucy, I missed these 3 questions...

Am I allowed to read scripture before the Body?

-Yes, as long as you don't follow up with a lesson or sermon.

Am I allowed to give a testimony before the whole Body?

-Yes

Am I allowed to make any announcments at the pulpit?

-Yes, but I am not sure why you would need to.

Joe W.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Does anyone have an official count of SBC churches which have on staff women who are ordained?



K

Debbie Kaufman said...

JoeW: I'm allowed to read scripture just not to give a lesson out of it? Incredible!

Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe W: Are you Southern Baptist? Just curious.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Debbie,

You are "allowed" to do that which God allows you to do. You are commanded to obey. You are commanded to be obedient to Scripture and to the Lordship of Christ. Obedience is not a request of the Lord. Christians are REQUIRED to be obedient.

Why is it that you desire something less that perfect obedience to our Lord and our God?

Why do you shame the name of He who waits in session till He comes to take you home?

If Jesus Christ is really your Savior, then let Him be your Lord. We should each be praying for one another to have the power of Christ to mortify remaining sin. If we are not seeking Christ-like perfection then how can we be of Him?

Give up your pet doctrines and follow He who is called Faithful and True.

K

Wade Burleson said...

John Mann,

I perceive it is difficult for you to understand how someone can interpret Scripture regarding a non-essential, secondary issue and find it perfectly acceptable for another believer to come up with a totally opposite interpretation of Scripture regarding that same issue. Further, I believe you find it difficult to understand how a pastor can believe firmly as I do on different issues (eschatalogy, women in ministry, etc . . .) and not give a rat's rear end that anybody else believe the way I do and look forward to always honoring those Christians who may disagree (including you) and have no interest in denigrating, excluding or belittling those who don't believe the way I do - but will stand up to people who do belittle, exclude, or denigrate other Christians because of differences over secondary issues.

Until you can understand what I just said above you will not understand the answers I give to your questions. And, if you do already understand what I wrote above, then I'm more than happy to apologize for misperceiving what you think.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Debbie,

The question was... "Am I allowed to read scripture before the Body?"

I understood that to be a gathering of the Church, where the Pastor, Deacons, and other adult men would be present. In this case I do not believe the Lord wishes for a woman to teach. Why is that incredible?

What did you think of the other answers?

And yes, I am a Southern Baptist Pastor.

Joe W.

Jack Maddox said...

Based upon Wades last response and this post in total I am now officially dizzy!

jrm

Jim Paslay said...

Wade,

I was not associating being a woman with being a homosexual. I understand that homosexuality is a sin and being a woman is not. My comparison has to do with how the culture has caused us to redefine certain roles. Does the Gospel message change our culture or does the culture change the Gospel message?

The bottom line: If a woman can be a pastor and the Bible clearly teaches it, then have we been wrong as Southern Baptists all these years? Do we need to apologize to women the same as we did to blacks? Is there new revelation that has come to light that has now liberated women from repressive men?

I believe the slippery slope that others have alluded to is relevant here. Once you begin the slide and say that Scripture really doesn't teach that, then you open Pandora's box. There is ample evidence of mainline denominations that have left their biblical convictions because of the cultural whims.

In my opinion, your crusade for Professor Klouda's situation at SWBTS has become too close and personal and has skewed you of your objectivity. This discussion about women being pastors is neither important nor helpful!

Wade Burleson said...

Joe W.

Are the lists you offered to Lucy available in print format? My church member, Debbie, asks you an additional question about what women can, and cannot do, and it would seem to me that it would be easier for her to get your instructions if they were available at the local Christian bookstore. I would suggest that if your list of do's and don'ts have not yet been published that you release them in manuscript form and maybe call them 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Joe. I'll call an SBC council and request they be cannonized.

Wink.

John Mann said...

Wade,

I do believe I understand what you have written above, though I humbly admit that I may not. Nonetheless, I would still be interested in how you would answer the questions I pose. I applaud you for you seeking to defend the defenseless, as we all should.

I do, however, find it interesting that you are saying this is a secondary issue, and not a tertiary issue. In an earlier blog you advocated 'secondary issues' being those which would prohibit a church or person from being a Southern Baptist. I quote...

Second Order -- "An Essential Doctrine Necessary to be Considered a Southern Baptist Christian, and if One Disagrees With It, He Cannot Serve in Leadership of the SBC."

Now you are saying that even secondary issues should not be considered divisive in denominational agreement. I cannot help but wonder where it will stop. As you are considered a leader among many people, unofficial as it may be, I am sure that you would desire to be clear on the very important issues that I have asked above. Thanks for an opportunity to dialogue with you.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Two questions...

1) When you say... "I am a complementarian culturally, personally, and confessionally"... Did you come by this belief scripturally?

2) Is not a complementarian culturally, personally, and confessionally a Discriminator based on your post?

I mean, even if you are willing to cooperate with women pastors, you still hold an "inferior" opinion of them personally, right?

The racist who owns a business, but hires different races to work for him, is no less a racist.

It sure seems like you are trying to do a tight rope act.

Joe W.

Wade Burleson said...

Jim,

You err. Show me the one Scripture where women are PROHIBITED from pastoring, teaching, prophecying, etc . . .

Then, after you quote I Timothy, recognize that other conservative, evangelical authors and theologians come to a different interpretation of the text than you and I would.

And it is no big deal.

Blessings,

Wade

Jack Maddox said...

This is without a doubt the post ridiculous post and comment stream I have read in a long while. The premise is absurd, the content confusing and the treatment of those who disagree with the author is unfortunate. How sad.

jrm

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

(1). No. I would have said biblically.

(2). Yes. That's why I said what I did in the above comment: If I ever found myself in a convention with no confessional prohibition on women pastors, or in a culture with no bias toward women, or a time when God raised up a woman pastor who fit the needs of a church to which I belonged, then I am saying there is NO Scriptural warrant to prohibit a woman from ministering.

However, unlike either the radical fundamentalists or the radical feminists, this is a non-issue for me, and I continue to ask the question, why are we making mountains out of non-essentials?

Jack Maddox said...

Joe W

Diddo

jrm

Wade Burleson said...

Jack,

Would you point out particularly the sad 'treatment' of those who disagree with the author within this comment stream? As my wife read through the comment stream herself she said, "I can't believe the awful manners of those who disagree with the content of your post." Then she read your comment and said, "What in the world is Jack referring to? He acts as if he disagrees with your post, but then says those who believe like he does are being attacked. Is he reading the same comment stream I am?"

I told her I would ask you for specifics so you could verify for us both why the post and comment stream toward those who disagree is sad. You may find, Jack, that others see it differently.

K. Michael Crowder said...

"I'll call an SBC council and request they be cannonized."


HA! What is funny about this is the fact that you actually think you have the power to do such a thing.

K The following verses of Scripture tell us all we need to know about you Wade...


Isaiah 47:1-3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



Isaiah 47
The Fall of [Wade]
"Go down, sit in the dust,
Virgin Daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne, Daughter of the Babylonians. No more will you be called tender or delicate.
Take millstones and grind flour; take off your veil.
Lift up your skirts, bare your legs, and Wade...will take vengeance; "




Oh how shameful of me. :)


Just sort of proves that one can take any part of Scripture and make it say anything one wants.

Wade Burleson said...

John,

Excellent, outstanding question. I mean it. And further, I commend the spirit in which it is asked.

The women issue is a tertiary issue made secondary (distinguishing Southern Baptists from other evangelicals) by a committee appointed by Paige Patterson to revise the BFM 2000. For the first time in Baptist history, a statement about women was adopted within a major doctrinal confession.

So, you have nailed it. A tertiary issue has become secondary within the past eight years, and the way we are moving within the SBC, unless checked, this issue and others will eventually become primary and one's Christianity will be contigent upon believing it.

Wade Burleson said...

Off to bed. No more answers to questions tonight. Blessings to all.

Bob Cleveland said...

K. Michael Crowder:

I see in one of your comments that you have a ways to go in your theological education; but in another comment you claim to know what Rev. Burlesons' church should be demanding of him. And THAT, despite what one or more of his members have said about him, in comment strings here and elsewhere.

Just wanted you to know that a really old, uneducated guy noticed that.

believer333 said...

"Am I allowed to read scripture before the Body? >>>

-Yes, as long as you don't follow up with a lesson or sermon."

It seems there are some Christians who have their own set of man made Mishna's to heavily laden the backs of women, of things they don't lay on their own backs.

Thankfully, it is not required that Christians believe every various and strange doctrine that humans propose. However, it is required that we build up one another, care for one another, love one another, bear one another's burdens, be kind and compassionate to one another, submit to one another, consider one another better than ourselves, be devoted to one another in love, and do our best to live in harmony.

Jim Paslay said...

Wade said:

"You err. Show me the one Scripture where women are PROHIBITED from pastoring, teaching, prophecying, etc . . ."

Where did I err? My quote: "The bottom line: If a woman can be a pastor and the Bible clearly teaches it, then have we been wrong as Southern Baptists all these years?"

The burden of proof is on those who say it does teach that a woman can be a pastor.

Alan Paul said:

"bingo! you get the prize... a denomination full of narrow minded idealogues stuck in the mire of their own arrogance and self-righteousness."

Last time I read scripture I believe your comments would be considered "judging." Your comments would be akin to Bill Clinton giving us a lecture on marital fidelity!

John Mann said...

Wade,

Since my questions have been quite scattered about in the thread, I will offer a reader's digest version for easy access.

1). Is it not dishonest to say that the judges ruling was simply a refusal to deal with ecclesiological issues since he documented finding no evidence of defamation of character, breach of contract, or fraud. [Fri Mar 28, 08:28:00 PM 2008]

2). Should churches who have women pastors receive full voting privileges and benefits in the Southern Baptist Convention? [Fri Mar 28, 10:53:00 PM 2008]

3). Do you believe in the whole inerrancy of the Bible, or limited inerrancy? [Fri Mar 28, 11:01:00 PM 2008]

4). Are you not practicing a postmodern hermeneutic by allowing certain doctrines to be valid for some congregations and not for others? [Fri Mar 28, 11:34:00 PM 2008]

5). Have you changed your view of secondary and tertiary doctrines? [Sat Mar 29, 12:20:00 AM 2008].

I have provided time-stamps for easy access to the context in which I asked each question. Thanks again.

Elisabeth said...

I like this post.

You know, with all this stuff that was written in the comments, several people seem to have forgotten a few things.

1) The statement about women's roles in the home was put in the BFM in 1998, a little less than 10 years ago.

2) The statement about no women pastors was put in the BFM in 2000, a little less than 8 years ago.

The first senior pastor in a Southern Baptist church was ordained in 1964. After 2000, some churches left the convention because they had women pastors, and keeping their pastors was more important to them than staying in the convention. Maybe the Southern Baptists have not been wrong for all these years, maybe just for the past 10 or so. The New Testament has ample examples of women teachers. Priscilla, Phoebe the deacon, the leaders of house churches whom Paul named in his letters. Ignoring them is also ignoring scripture.

Equating allowing women pastors with allowing homosexual pastors is extremely offensive.

truth, not religion said...

Boy oh Boy Wade, I love the post and I had to laugh as I read it. Before I even started on the response section I knew this one would bring out some wolves!

Fearing Only the God who can ordain, appoint, call and send out
who He wants to.


wtreat

Jack Maddox said...

Wade and The Better Half of the Burleson Clan : )

The treatment of others is not sad...I said it was unfortunate.

The whole premise of the post is sad

One example - the idea that you equate the complimentary view point as analogous with racism is not only offensive but rather silly.

But hey Wade...I am sure you have done nothing wrong...you never do. (wink)

jrm

Wade Burleson said...

Jim and John, one quick response for the two of you.

First, Jim Paslay. I respectfully disagree. If the Scripture does not explicitly prohibit women pastors, then the obligation is on those who do prohibit it to prove why they feel it is essential they must.

Second, John Mann, I answer your questions thus:

(1). Not at all. You don't have 'breach of contract,' 'defamation' or 'fraud' if you can LEGALLY discriminate - and the judge ruled a 'church' can discriminate - legally. Thus, the other three things - things that are all tied to a lack of following the tenure process for Dr. Klouda - are moot issues. Why? The seminary cannot be held accountable for doing them if discrimination is allowed.

(2). Women 'Senior Pastors' cannot be recognized at SBC Conventions as 'voting' messengers because they are in violation of our confessional standard. They would be 'allowed' to do those things if our standard of cooperation were not narrowed to exclude them. As I've said earlier - I'm not advocating the BFM reversal. I'm just wondering why some got so up in arms as to put it there in the first place. After what happened to Dr. Klouda, I think I now know.

(3). Inerrancy in all of it.

(4). No.

(5). See my last comment to you above.

Goodnight.

Jim Paslay said...

Elisabeth said:

"Equating allowing women pastors with allowing homosexual pastors is extremely offensive."

I am the only one who has commented about the subject of homosexuality and if you are referring to me, then you have incorrectly misstated what I said.

Anonymous said...

John Mann,

If you would read Dr. Patterson’s deposition and the answers He gave, I think you might find TRUTH. The Judge must have not read this deposition or he might have made a comment about it. He made his decision without having to read the deposition.

Anonymous said...

"I would direct you to your pastor to answer those questions for you."

My second 'head'? Or my other earthly priest?

Anonymous said...

"Where did I err? My quote: "The bottom line: If a woman can be a pastor and the Bible clearly teaches it, then have we been wrong as Southern Baptists all these years?""

Is this the ever present church history defense? A history that is replete with transubstantiation, infant baptism, Popes, the church/state marriage with the cross upon the battle shield, persecution of those who did want to attend a state church, forced infant baptism, sacralism, slavery, magistrates and much more? That history? Yes, men have gotten it wrong for thousands of years. Even some of our hero's of the Reformation loved position and power more than truth.

"The burden of proof is on those who say it does teach that a woman can be a pastor."

I cannot agree with this at all. It is not 1571. I can street preach as the Holy Spirit may lead and be totally within His will. And you are free to call me a sinner for doing so.

The scripture does not contradict itself and I find it amazing that so many believe they do and are happy to not even see that interpretations have been incorrect. How can that be? Because of sinful man living out what God said would happen in Genesis 3.

We have examples of women prophesying in scripture. So why the obvious contradictions? Why is it ok in one place yet sin in another? Does that sound like our Awesome and Merciful God?

The main difference between the
1st Century church and today are our big buildings that come complete with paid professional 'Christians' who believe there really is a Christian caste system. They like it because they are at the top level.

Was the temple veil torn in two for women or not? Are they part of the Holy priesthood or not?

I am quite sure the money from women within the Body is considered quite 'equal' when it comes to tithes and offerings that pay your salaries.

One last question for Joe. Where is the law in scripture that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 14:34?

Lucy

Chris Johnson said...

Sister Lucy,

You have asked some good questions along the way in this post…..especially this last one which is considering the Corinthian passage.

Go with me for just a few minutes and pretend that nothing in this post exists. What would you say is the reason that God gave man as the head of the woman in reference to His church? How would you put God’s reasoning in order.

Respectfully,
Chris

Anonymous said...

To Wade, Elisabeth, Lucy, and others who question the equating of women in the ministry with homosexuals in the ministry... I humbly sumbit to you that this line of thought is why many do it...

Wade writes... "If the Scripture does not explicitly prohibit women pastors, then the obligation is on those who do prohibit it to prove why they feel it is essential they must."

Does the scripture explicitly prohibit homosexuals from serving as Pastors? What if they are celebate?

And for those who may view this as a straw man argument, ask the Methodist, Lutherns, and Episcopalians how real the straw can be!

Why do you feel the Bible must always give the negative view, as in an explicit prohibition? The Word of God gives the qualifications for Pastor, and it takes some real gymnastics to get around the words (either stated or implied) "MAN", "HUSBAND", and "FATHER".

And Wade, I don't mean to always be disagreeable, but if you are not a complementarian "Bibilically", then I question if you are one at all.

As far as publishing and cannonizing the books of 1,2, and 3 Joe... that was pretty funny. However, I don't feel the publishing of those books will be necessary, as they would probably be mostly ignored. I mean, you are already willing to ignore the published and cannonized books of 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus.

Joe W.

shadrach said...

Wade says, "You err. Show me the one Scripture where women are PROHIBITED from pastoring, teaching, prophecying, etc . . . "

This is exactly the point of contention in many of the posts that I read here. Paul writes to Timothy instructing him in the better way. Deacons and elders are to be men, but not just any men, men with a good set of qualifications. So this isn't just discriminating against women, it's against singles, divorcees, guys who marry women who talk too much, guys whose children are unruly, guys who think they're better than others, and guys who don't have a good reputation.

This is the better way. The issue isn't about trying to do eveything that we're not prohibited from doing; it's about attaining God's best.

If we really do believe in scriptural inerrancy, it's not just that it's words are true, but that it shows us the best way to conduct ourselves in any situation. That does not mean every issue should be divisive, much the opposite, but it does mean we should live our lives and base our theology on God's best, not on His allowance.

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade,

I think we'd have to go clear back to the US Constitution to really get a handle on this. Does it really mean that all people are created equal, or only that men are? I think that answer is self-evident, at least as far as the law in concerned.

That statement is good reason not to discriminate based on gender or race.

Now, as to Biblical matters, the rationale used in the dismissal of Dr. Klouda seems chancy on a lot of fronts, and nowhere near as clear as the constitution. Unless, of course, one is predisposed to bar women in most ministries.

Paul said HE did not let a woman teach or have authority over a man. Had he meant that Timothy should never do that, it seems logical that Timothy would have been so instructed.

Why on earth would people stretch that 'waaaaaay out to prohibit any woman ever to teach any man anywhere, yet stretch the last half of that same verse in the opposite direction to say women needn't remain silent?

And you are dead right about discrimination. The court has said it is legal for a "church" to do that which the law of the land has said is illegal, and, in my opinion, immoral.

People who excuse what was done to Dr. Klouda based on what the court said, must now affirm abortion on demand as ok, or be guilty, in my opinion, of pure hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Bob Cleveland,

You wrote... "I think we'd have to go clear back to the US Constitution to really get a handle on this. Does it really mean that all people are created equal, or only that men are? I think that answer is self-evident, at least as far as the law in concerned."

Perhaps you have forgotten, but the Constitution was not interpretted as granting women equal rights to vote. That is why we have the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

Now, if you and Wade can just get a Holy God to admit His mistake and amend His Bible.

Joe W.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe W.

Our church sings worship music written by Dennis Jernigan. Dennis was a practicing homosexual for many years. Now, he is a happily married man with several children. Obviously, his behavior before conversion was immoral - but God has forgiven him. I am having trouble equating homosexual activity with being a woman. I still cannot follow your argument.

You specifically ask 'What if a church hires a practicing homosexual? Well, I suppose a church could hire an adulterer, a child abuser, a homosexual, a murderer, a drunkard, etc . . . But obviously, the Scripture prohibits all that activity and they would be wrong in hiring that pastor. Again, I still have a really hard time understanding how you would place a 'woman' in the category above. It makes no sense.

Bob Cleveland said...

Joe W: God should admit what? That men who don't want women in the ministry take a relatively narrow statement as to what Paul doesn't allow, and apply it to everyone for all time?

As I understand it, the word used for the "woman" in 1 Timothy 2:12 is the same as the word for "wife" in 1 Timothy 3:2. Why would that not mean that a wife should not teach or usurp authority over her husband, then? Why widen it to include any man; or why don't we so restrict 3:2 as to allow men to speak only to their own wives?

You said the Constitution was interpreted in a way that men later had to correct ... in order to clear up an inequity. It was the interpretation that was at fault.

Just like we do now. And I bet with the constitution, it was men that did the interpreting to start with, too.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I must admit I get such a kick over all the wrangling you SBC folks do, but I must admit I do think the devil is laughing all the way to hell with souls that you were lost while the SBC became so political! Remember I was saved in about 127 SBC churches growing up...but at least they were busy sharing the gospel!

You entry stating: and not give a rat's rear end that anybody else believe the way I do...caused my wife and I a tremendous laugh as last Sunday I brought up in my sermon something of non-eternal importance and said who gives a Rat's...before stopping just as the a was being formed! I had not said that in 20 years...back in those days I got saved every week...the staff at the church had a good time with that one!

Ron F

Elisabeth said...

We talk so much about what a woman should or should not be able to do in a church. In too many churches women aren't in leadership positions, so the women of the congregation aren't sure which women they should trust to talk to. So these women talk to male deacons or pastors, and some of these aren't godly, or can't withstand the temptation. According to some polls, as much as 14 percent of pastors in our denomination have admitted to some form of inappropriate sexual contact with a woman of their congregation. I think that the focus shouldn't be on limiting the role of women in our churches; it should be on expanding it. Even if women should not be "senior pastors" they can biblically be deacons like Phoebe, or group leaders like the women that Paul addresses. You get the idea.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

To help you better understand the point myself and others are trying to make, may I humbly suggest to you Wayne A. Grudem's book titled Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?

The mainline Protestant denominations began to ordain women in the mid-1950s, and it took some evangelicals less than twenty years to move in the same direction. Grudem's concern is to demonstrate that the hermeneutical moves necessary to justify the ordination of women to the pastorate subvert biblical authority. Furthermore, these same interpretive maneuvers open the door for a complete reshaping of Christianity.

In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through "a predictable sequence" of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to "high leadership positions in the denomination."

As Grudem observes, "This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority. Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the direction the New Testament was heading but never quite reached."

At this point, a crucial question arises. If this hermeneutical method is legitimate, how can we stop at the ordination of women? This is the very argument made by proponents of normalizing homosexuality and ordaining homosexuals to the ministry. If the New Testament is to be superseded by a later reality based in a more modern understanding, how can the church justify relativizing some texts without relativizing others?

Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. "The approval of homosexuality," he notes, "is the final step along the path to liberalism."

Wade, this is not a new road that you and others are traveling down, we know where it leads. You yourself may never accept it, but there will be many others that will.

Joe W.

Tim Guthrie said...

I would add (just so I can be the 100 comment) that I do appreciate you using an example of one church to make a claim on the whole. Every SBC church I have pastored as had a mix or races. Every one of them. Now I know that some Christians, Some SBC people, etc have an issue, but the SBC has made this right and the SBC is not racist. You have way over stepped on this one.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I know I am getting in on this conversation a little late, but I am compelled to response to believer 333’s assertion: "It took me a while, but I did figure out that that is double speak. If a person is relegated to limited “roles” their whole life by reason of their inherent being, then they are not equal in their inherent being to those who are not so limited."

This statement is problematic in so many ways, but my concern is the theological implication of what you are saying. My friend, if this is “double speak” and roles equal value, then Jesus cannot be God. Jesus is in a position of submission to the Father and plays a separate and distinct role in our salvation (The Father didn’t die on the cross). The Holy Spirit cannot be God because He is in a position of submission to the Father and the Son. He also functions in a specific role in our salvation. Therefore, based on your assertion, Jesus and the Holy Spirit must be less than the Father. There is a name for this theology- heresy!

God is One in Three. When a man and woman come together the two become one. There is one purpose, one objective, but both have roles to serve in that purpose and objective. Children cannot be produced unless both fulfill their unique and ordained roles!

Complimentarians simply interpret God’s Word as saying men and women are created equal, exist for one common purpose and have distinct roles to play in accomplishing that purpose. Denying God’s ordained roles for men and women is not only disobedient to God, it is dangerous and destructive to churches, families and societies.

I have no illusions that this post will convince believer 333, but hope he will at least acknowledge the reason for the Complimentarian position is an honest attempt at being faithful to God’s word, which seems perfectly clear on this issue. It in no way advocates demeaning women. In fact we desire to exalt women to their God ordained and privileged place of bringing glory to Him and is therefore not “double speak.”


Humbly submitted by,
Steve Suttill-

Debbie Kaufman said...

Bob Cleveland,

You wrote... "I think we'd have to go clear back to the US Constitution to really get a handle on this. Does it really mean that all people are created equal, or only that men are? I think that answer is self-evident, at least as far as the law in concerned."

Perhaps you have forgotten, but the Constitution was not interpretted as granting women equal rights to vote. That is why we have the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

Now, if you and Wade can just get a Holy God to admit His mistake and amend His Bible.

Joe W.


Joe: Could you clarify this statment for me? I don't think I like where this is heading.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Steven: I would suggest you read Paul Burleson's post on this subject. It's very good.

Tom Parker said...

Tim:

I can can never hear what you are saying in your comments for the sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

Adolecent Christian male need men "tors" not legalists. That is the problem with this issue. Did not Deborah send out Barak to confront the issues in the culture. Barak did not force Deborah to step down, rather he stepped out and led.

Tom Parker said...

Joe W.

I am very thankful I am not going down the road you are going. It is much to narrow for me.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe W.

To say that women in ministry always leads to 'liberalism' is like saying driving a car always leads to a wreck with fatalities.

It's just not true.

Liberalism is a much different bird than the one you seem to be gazing at in your theological binoculars.

By the way, I have read the book you suggest. Twice.

It says many good things with which I agree, and I would not argue that some denominations have become 'liberal' regarding the essentials. However, to say women in ministry is the 'cause' of such liberalism is a premise I do not swallow. The issue is the sufficiency of Scripture and Scripture does not prohibit what you seem to wish to prohibit. As always, I have NO problem with you prohibiting whatever you wish to prohibit in your life and church. It is when you wish to make universal prohibitions of your personal prohibitions that you cross the line of Christian charity - particularly when Scripture makes no such prohibition.

Only By His Grace said...

Joe W
"Does the scripture explicitly prohibit homosexuals from serving as Pastors? What if they are celebate?"

Joe, you know homosexuality is a sin prohibited by both Torah and Romans 1-3. When you use that analogy, you are equating women in the ministry with homosexuality, and you may not mean to do so? Just reading your comments, I think I can ascertain about you that you do not.

If they are celibate, they are not homosexuals unless you believe that once a homosexual always one.

The Scripture speak of practice, not inherent traits or tendencies as I understand Scripture. I was an active alcoholic when I was saved, I am still an alcoholic though I have not had a drink in forty-seven years, eight months, seventeen hours and forty-two minutes if the church clock was not wrong.

Phil in Norman.

Only By His Grace said...

k. Michael Crowder,
"Your church should demand a better use of your time."

What Wade does and his church demands is absolutely none of your business unless you are a member of that local fellowship.

To fool around with a Senior Pastor's church is akin to fooling around with a man's wife; way below the belt.



Phil in Norman

Only By His Grace said...

Volfan,

"you're (Wade) sounding more and more like a liberal all the time. more and more people are thinking that about you are as well."

We are going to hit you with exactly the same question with which we hit Tim the other day about two articles ago. I asked the question; he never answered; he was asked by "Parker"; he never answered; he was asked by Wade; he never answered. Tim is no different than ninety percent of all those who use the label. They use it, but never define it.

If you are going to use the "tag" or "label" to libel the character of someone to destroy them because that is exactly what the "label" does, I will ask you,

WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A LIBERAL?

You have just called Wade one and proven by your listing out of examples; plus whom else do you have in mind?.

Would you be surprised to find out that the great Finney drank a flagon of brandy before entering the pulpit? Finney is a liberal; C.H. Spurgeon chained smoked cigars? Spurgeon is a liberal. Pentecostal Holiness allow women pastors? Pentecostal Holiness are Liberals.

David, you come across a very judgmental and mean spirited. I do not know you and hope it is not the case. But the question remains: Would you please define in your terms what is a Liberal?

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

"…..especially this last one which is considering the Corinthian passage.

Go with me for just a few minutes and pretend that nothing in this post exists. What would you say is the reason that God gave man as the head of the woman in reference to His church? How would you put God’s reasoning in order."

Sat Mar 29, 09:10:00 AM 2008

Chris, Respectfully, you are doing what they all do: Changing the subject. Where is the law Paul is referring to in 1 Corin 14:34?

Lucy

Lin said...

"Does the scripture explicitly prohibit homosexuals from serving as Pastors?"

Yes. They are not above reproach.

Karen in OK said...

Dear Phil,

I agree sometimes with David, and sometimes I don't. But for so many people, including you, to constantly cut him down, and ignore Tom Parker's cutting comments is problematic for me.

Wade commented that his wife could not see that this comment stream was unkind towards people that are disagreeing. I reference the many comments directed towards David.

There is nothing that seems to irritate people more than anyone with any degree of certainty, that differs from their own irenic and nuanced position. LOL

By the way, Phil, my son is an OU student and has heard you preach several times. He was favorably impressed.

Anonymous said...

"Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. "The approval of homosexuality," he notes, "is the final step "

Grumden has flawed logic. But it certainly sells well. Sin is sin and that is why we have homosexual ordinations. It has NOTHING to do with women. Let me explain how his logic is flawed.

I know you do not want to believe this but some research on the Roman and Greek Patristic cultures will show you that homosexuality was rampant. In these cultures women were relegated to second class status and seen as only good for specific roles. These culture were certainly NOT egalitarian. Yet homosexuality was a normal practice.

Fast forward to today and you find the same thing hidden yet known by those who are familiar with Patristic cultures... that it goes on today.

I know this first hand: It is considered a sign of wealth and prospertity for a man in Afghanistan to own a 'boy' for his private pleasure. A shocking discovery there were the underground photo studios were men had 'glamour' pics taken complete with make up and hair dos, etc holding their machine guns. They had these pictures made for their 'male' friends. There were thousands of them.

I know it is compelling to believe what we read because of someone's stature within our community. but we really need to hold it up to scrutiny. His logic is flawed.

Even magistrates could not contain sin with coercion. We are always looking for the scape goat.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

"Complimentarians simply interpret God’s Word as saying men and women are created equal, exist for one common purpose and have distinct roles to play in accomplishing that purpose. Denying God’s ordained roles for men and women is not only disobedient to God, it is dangerous and destructive to churches, families and societies."


First of all, Steve. We are talking about men and women NOT the Trinity. If you trying to make a parallel then who in this scenerio is Jesus and who is God? Is 'man', God and 'woman', Christ?

Secondly, we have repeatedly asked for a reference to the so called 'ordained specific roles' for each gender. Where are they?

Lucy

Wade Burleson said...

Karen,

I read your comment before I did Phils and thought he really must have said some really terrible things to David. You wrote:

. . . so many people, including you, constantly cut him down . . .

Then, I read Phil's comment. He simply gave historical anecdotes and closed with these words:

David, you come across a very judgmental and mean spirited. I do not know you and hope it is not the case. But the question remains: Would you please define in your terms what is a Liberal

I find it incredulous that you consider what Phil wrote to be 'cutting down David,' (I don't) and then proceeded to do the very same thing that to Phil with which you chastize him.

Seriously, Karen, either be consistent or learn that people who come into comment streams need to have thick skin - including you.

Jack said...

Tim Guthrie:

To say the SBC does not still have an issue with race ignores the fact that the highest ranking African American man inside the SBC HQ building is the Chief Custodian; ignores the treatment of Dwight McKissic as a trustee @ SWBTS; and ignores the sea of white faces at every convention.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Joe W,

Grudem states "FIRST, biblical inerrancy is abandoned." (emphasis mine)

I would agree with Grudem here, but unless Wade is advocating this, then the logical sequence you brought up would not apply to him.

Yes, I think there is a "Women's right [or rights]" foundation that does not arise from any interpretation of Scripture. And yes, I think the inerrancy of Scripture is seen by some [or many, most, all?] who hold this view as a hindrance to their social agenda.

Therefore, I think, for them, inerrancy must go and once inerrancy is gone, then the door is open for folk to sit in judgment upon the Bible--declaring this to be true and that to be false according to their desires.

However, I do not believe this is the thinking of ALL egalitarians.

And, if my church history is correct, the egalitarians [of the Jon Zens flavor at least] have not been the backbone of any denomination that has gone liberal. Therefore, I think the appeal to the historical trends of the denominations that have gone liberal would not apply to them.

Accordingly, I think discussing/debating whether or not women can be pastors is fair game, but I think to try and say ALL egalitarianism ultimately leads to liberalism is not dealing with the diversity within egalitarianism.

Grace

Benji

Tom Parker said...

Karen in OK:

David makes it too easy for himself not to receive cutting comments. His comments I feel are also out of line and I call him on it.

Chris Johnson said...

Sister Lucy,

That's ok, I did not mean to offend you. You don't have to answer the question.

Thanks,
Chris

Chris Johnson said...

Sister Lucy,

In response to your question concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul is referring to the principle laid out in Jewish culture for women speaking in the synagogues, based upon Mosaic writings beginning in Genesis.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris Harbin said...

Lucy,

I find it interesting that Jesus himself submitted to the authority of a woman, even at the age of 30 (Jn 2). Are we to believe that men today are on some higher level of authority and position than Jesus? He questioned Mary, but followed and did her bidding in Cana.

Joe W.,
Would you then say that Jesus was in sin, as he submitted to the presumed authority of a woman in following Mary's directions for him at the marriage feast in Cana?
BTW, he also allowed the Syro-Phoenician woman to seemingly correct him (Mt. 15, Mk 7, Lk 16).

shadrach said...

That is a rediculous argument. That was his mother and not to honor her would have been in direct violation of commandment #5.

shadrach said...

May I please get an answer to my question. I know there are many other things going on in here, but can someone please explain to me how, in light of Paul's clear direction to Timothy in 1 Tim 3, it is a good thing for women to be pastors. I am really open to having this explained scripturally, but no one seems to want to own up to it.

Paul's 'better way' seems to imply that women can teach and host churches and do lots of other things, but he pretty clearly directs that deacons and elders should be men. I even know that we have a feminine form of the word deacon, so would someone just step up and explain how this works scripturally?

Bill said...

The trouble is, where do we draw the culture line? Egalitarians draw it at the bottom of the continuum, assuming all references of female subordination is culturally based. Complementarians make up the rest of the continuum. Women can't be senior pastors, but can participate fully in every other respect. Women can't be pastors or deacons, but can participate fully elsewhere. Women can't pastor, deacon, or teach men, but can do what is left. Women can't pastor, deacon, teach men, speak in church, or wear jewelry or cut their hair. There are few complementarians who take the last view.

So clearly not all complementarians are created equal. The BFM takes the most liberal view within complementarianism, but that is clearly not good enough for many in the SBC. Dr. Patterson clearly goes beyond the BFM. Many would restrict the deacon role to men. Some here on this thread would restrict women from speaking in church or in any way instructing men.

So how do complementarians (like me) justify adopting some of the restrictions on women but not all of them? I'd be interested in hearing the answers.

believer333 said...

Steve Suttel, thank you for the respectful response.

If you can find an inherent hierarchy in the Trinity before Christ was born, I might be willing to consider your ideas.
To my knowledge YHWH willingly took a subordinate and limited “role” upon Himself in becoming clothed in human flesh and form for the grand purpose of bringing any who would accept His sacrifice into an eternal relationship with God. Thus subordination was not an original part of YHWH’s inherent being. I see no similar grand purpose in limiting women to a subordinate role to men in which the men define, control and manage the women’s actions according to authoritative whims.

I happen to strongly believe in the complementarity of the sexes including within the marital relationship. But I do not find male authority/control over women to be complementarity.

believer333 said...

Bill wrote:"So how do complementarians (like me) justify adopting some of the restrictions on women but not all of them? I'd be interested in hearing the answers.

I don't know about justifying as perhaps that is what causes all the division. But certainly any individual church is free to organize themselves in many various ways including restricting roles. The problems arise when each church thinks there choices of organization are God ordained and every other church is wrong if they don't order themselves the same.

Karen in OK said...

Dear Wade,
You are correct that I do not have a thick enough skin to comment on this blog much. I rarely do.

(No, I am not saying that Phil did the worst or even very much of it.)
I was addressing him because I have some knowledge and admiration of his church, and he posted close to the time I did.
Some have used terms such as narrow-minded ideologues, stuck in mire of arrogance, scary, mean-spirited.

I stumble over this kind of stuff and then have trouble hearing the real arguments made.

Many of you are pastors. I don't believe for a second that you would actually talk like this face to face. Even with your most disagreeable deacon. LOL

Yes, I am inconsistent, because I am probably much closer theologically to you, Bro. Wade, in many ways than to Bro. David. But Bro. David is not the enemy.

Anonymous said...

"In response to your question concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul is referring to the principle laid out in Jewish culture for women speaking in the synagogues, based upon Mosaic writings beginning in Genesis."

So you are saying this is in the Mosaic law, the 'oral law of tradition' or a 'law' because women could not be priests in the OC?

Lucy

Wade Burleson said...

Karen,

I agree. Good points.

I also feel that you miss the fact that David is often abrasive, accusatory, and resorts to name calling. He has every right to do those things if he feels he must. I have chosen to not correct him, nor to delete his comments.

I just think that if people call down people who are questioning David's tactics, people such as Tom or Phil, that the same level of concern exhibited in correcting those who are calling David out should be given to David.

Thanks for your response and your comment. I do believe you to be one very sharp lady for whom the Southern Baptist Convention is blessed to call one of her own.

Anonymous said...

That's ok, I did not mean to offend you. You don't have to answer the question.

Thanks,
Chris

Sat Mar 29, 04:44:00 PM 2008

Thanks for answering my question. I find it frustrating when someone changes the subject. The answer to your question about 'head' has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. You asked:

"What would you say is the reason that God gave man as the head of the woman in reference to His church? How would you put God’s reasoning in order."

I do not agree that is the meaning at all. I have a hard time with why Jesus Christ would take the Wrath we deserve on the Cross so we have direct access to Him, tearing the temple veil in two with NO more earthly priests EXCEPT to leave women with a layer she must have between Him and her. It makes no sense to me at all considering the whole of NT scriptures.


Kephale is much debated in Greek and is not the usual Greek word used for authority over. As 'origin' or 'source', it fits the passage perfectly within the context.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

That is a rediculous argument. That was his mother and not to honor her would have been in direct violation of commandment #5.

Sat Mar 29, 05:05:00 PM 2008

Thank you for pointing out an exception to a woman not having authority over an adult man.

Moms are exempt from this rule with grown sons?

Any other exemptions you can think of? We need to know them for the manual Joe is developing. :o) (smile, Joe.)

Anonymous said...

Paul's 'better way' seems to imply that women can teach and host churches and do lots of other things, but he pretty clearly directs that deacons and elders should be men. I even know that we have a feminine form of the word deacon, so would someone just step up and explain how this works scripturally?

Sat Mar 29, 05:10:00 PM 2008

Where do you see women forbidden as elders in 1 Tim 3?

What is the female form of deacon in Greek? I missed that one.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

So how do complementarians (like me) justify adopting some of the restrictions on women but not all of them? I'd be interested in hearing the answers.

Sat Mar 29, 05:35:00 PM 2008

Bill, this is the big question. And it is why we need a manual that spells it out. The Jews had the Talmud so we need our own oral law traditions that add to scripture.

Russell Moore is even calling for more Patriarchy as he thinks our brand of 'comp' is NOW too soft.

The comp gamut runs from women not speaking at all in church to allowing everything except the pastorate. Is this not a clue that interpretations within the Protestant camp vary quite a bit on the subject?

Every single bit of it starts with reading into Genesis 1-3 what is NOT there.

Chris Harbin said...

shadrach,

If there is an exception for how Jesus would be required to respond to his mother, then how does that square with a view of 1 Tim as all-pervasive over other NT texts in which women are viewed and esteemed in ministry?

My mother is then allowed to teach and preach and pastor me, just not my children, friends, contemporaries? Where is the line? Must I obey her directions when they counter God's express will, or is that beyond the limitations of your exception on respect?

You will recognize that at the Cana marriage feast, Mary's comments are in opposition to Jesus' statement as to his time. How do you handle that?

As to the Syro-Phoenician woman, Jesus allows her to redress the context and essentially move into a teaching role that appears to include himself, but definitely includes his male hearers. He is granting her authority to teach men.

Only By His Grace said...

Karen,

I read Wade's blog long before I ever made comments on them, like months and months. I enjoy argumentation. It is what keeps us on our toes, and prevents our traditions from becoming primary practice over what Scriputres teach.

I have read David's comments time after time. I have no idea how old David is, but he reminds me of Me when I first went into the ministry between my first and second year at OBU in 1962. The good thing about David is that he zealous for the Lord and the Written Word, he just has to make sure his zeal is controlled by the Holy Spirit Whose first fruit is love. I still tend to be much more scathing than the Lord wants me to be.

I had a lot of sharp, rough edges that came across in acriminous words even when I was not angry. It was not long before my churches began filing them down with a pretty rough file before they ever started using sandpaper or emery cloth.

One time I was in the showers at Brotherhood Dormitory, two classmen came into shave, one asked the other, "Lawrence, how did it go last night in your church." To which Lawrence replied, "Well, I had a good time. I made them feel like I sent them down a twenty foot razor blade into a pool of alcohol."

When I think of Lawrence, I think of him connected to that statement. I thought to myself, "Phil, Is that how you want your people to feel about you and your preaching." It was not and is not.

I feel some comments here are unwarranted attacks on Wade and not on his arguments. We just need to leave the libelous labels off and deal solely with the propositions at hand.

I remind my wife ever so often that Ephesians 5 says, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church."

She reminds me that the same chapter says just a couple verses before that, "Submitting yourselves (husband to wife, wife to husband) one to another in the fear of God" and the much harder one, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ love the Church and gave Himself (to die) for Her."

Janey says, "Phil, if submission does not go both ways, neither does love. If you do not have to submit to me when I am right and you are wrong, then I do not have to love your ornery hide."

She's right. I love her enough to die for her, and I sure want her to love me the same way.

Please don't tell her.

Phil.

Only By His Grace said...

Karen,

I may be wrong, but this is the first time I have ever commented to David on "Grace and Truth to You." I may be mistaken; David could probably tell us if I am wrong.

Phil

Debbie Kaufman said...

What I don't understand is how longing to get the gospel out to men and women is rebellious?

Chris: If I may jump in for a moment...did Paul use women in his ministry or did he not? I believe in scripture interpreting scripture. I am not complementarian nor am I egaltarians. I am in the middle. But it seems the scriptures given concerning women and their roles in Christianity are being overlooked. Also do not women hymnwriters teach doctrine to men and women? The old hymns are filled with good theology? Fanny Crosby, Gloria Gaither are just two off the top of my head. Can you honestly tell me God himself did not give these ladies the words they have penned and that are in our Southern Baptist hymnbooks?

shadrach said...

Lucy and Wade,

Please reread my question. It is not about forbidding women to serve as deacons and elders, it is that Paul, writing in divine inspiration, chose to exclude all sorts of people from ministry in those positions including men who couldn't control their children and singles.

In Rom 16:1 the word used is diakonos for Phoebe.

So to my question, how is it upholding the 'better way' that we are shown in scripture (1 Tim 3) to allow women to be elders and deacons?

For sure we are 'allowed' to do so, but what makes it the right thing to do?

shadrach said...

Chris, your understanding seems incomplete. One scripture is not set 'over' another, but they all work together. In 1 Tim 2, Paul tells us what he does about women in Church. In 1 Tim 3, Paul tells Timothy who to set in positions of 'leadership' (servanthood) in the church.

Only if you are a dispensationalist, do you think that the OT law has no application today. Rather than being abolished, it is fulfilled. So Jesus was loving in his submission to his mother. And with the S-P woman, you will see that he was looking for her response. When her response was good and faith-ful, he granted her request. Seeing that situation as her 'teaching' him, while off topic, is stretching things a bit.

Anonymous said...

Here is good example of where a woman is better than a man on a particular expertise. Let's take Dixie Lee Ray on the environmentalism (she was in the Reagan administration), she is a much better researcher than Al Gore who is a Southern Baptists. This proves the criteria on dealing with liberalism has little about dealing with women who teach. She credits volcanic activity as many more times dangerous than any human activity.

Chris Johnson said...

Sister Lucy,

Thanks for your reply…

I do not think there has been any discussion in this string about men as ‘head’ in accordance to the order God has established for His creation and for His church just yet. Although, there has been much emotion expressed …

God’s order in creation and order in the church does not and has never caused any breach in access to God for women. When the veil was torn, it was representing the dividing wall between Jew and Greek, not man and woman.

2 Corinthians 3:14-17 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. (15) But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; (16) but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (17) Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

There were those in the time of the Old Testament writings that had the veil lifted as well, so anyone man or woman is saved by grace through faith from the beginning of God’s creation of man and woman, even as today.

Before sin entered into the world, God ordained man to compliment the woman as well as the woman to compliment the man. This model is the same in His people Israel that he selected out of the world and it is no different in His advance on Israel, His church. Certainly, God’s church is not under Mosaic law any longer and his creation worships with even greater light today with the knowledge and power of the gospel of God as never before. Woman are not enslaved to man, they are enslaved to God with man in the same position he was in sinless creation. Man has responsibility to serve, protect and care for the woman, just as in the beginning, and this is the model for the church as well. The model has never changed, just the impact of sin on it. Eve was in wonderful fellowship with Adam, and both Adam and Eve communed with God without fear. The only difference from the garden scene is that there is sin, yet God has never changed his model for protection and pattern for redemption. Sinful man (qualified to lead) remains primarily responsible to lead, but this does not in any way lessen the responsibility of the woman to minister.

For instance, we have women in our church who lead in our mission efforts to Africa. They speak, teach, minister to our entire church in Nashville. I, in the same way as the Apostle Paul, have all the confidence to call on them to minister. If any of these women were disruptive, and begin to impede the work of the Gospel in the worship of the church in the same manner as the women at Corinth, I would have them be silent and I would have full authority to do so, because of how God has ordained His church to serve one another. That is the responsibility God has place on the man that is qualified to lead the church.

This is also the general acknowledgement that Paul is making to the Corinthian church in the 11th Chapter concerning God’s pattern of authority. It is very obvious that there were women in the Corinthian church that did not agree with Paul in this matter of authority and that disagreement will continue until Christ returns.

Even the disagreements cannot undo this wonderful pattern established for both the man and woman, before sin entered the world, and now it is the pattern that has flowed through Israel and to the church. One day in glory there will be no need for the pattern of authority, because all the church will be dining with the King glorified. But until then, we (both men and women) should enjoy the protection that God has afforded His church until His son comes to take us home.

Blessings,
Chris

Anonymous said...

Wow! This blog got lots of comments. I'll offer a few, knowing that by the time these are posted, everyone will be worn out.

1. Judge McBryde did not find Dr. P or SWBTS "innocent", but he did find that even if the court had jurisdiction, the undisputed facts in this case showed that there was NO fraud, breach of contract or promissory estoppel or defamation.

It is important for both groups - people who like the results of the ruling and people who do not like the results of the ruling to speak accurately about the ruling.

2. I understand why opponents of this ruling and the SBC's position on gender (as stated, or as applied) would want to appeal to the slavery/race issue. Slavery/race are very strong, emotional and effective debate tools. (Look at how proponents of gay marriage always trot out the prohibitions on interracial marriage as support for gay marriage).

However, the issues are separate, and for clear, level headed discussion, should be treated separately.

Implying that people who do not agree on the gender issue are just as bad as, and the progency of their racist forefathers, is not a fair or persuasive argument.

3. The tone of the argument that occurs around this and so many other religious issues turns people off. It makes religious people look petty.

4. The impact of culture on religious interpretation and application cannot be overstated. People who disagree with any distinctions based on gender often cite the culture as influencing both OT and NT passages on this issue. It is an issue that should be considered and not dismissed lightly.

But the same thing could be said in the other direction. Americans in the year 2008 are heavily influenced by cultural history. Which of us is not affected by the history of the West, our country and the women's movement over the last 40 years? I would suggest that our thinking is heavily influenced by that history to the extent that we have to start from the premise that many of us cannot even conceive of divine distinctions based on gender.

Historical/cultural influences also affect our views of church government (Baptists are big on "Democracy" and against any heirarchy, but we all have to admit that the history of U.S. Democracy, more than biblical mandate, often affects our feelings on this), church discipline, alcohol consumption and other matters.


5. Finally, I have read so many arguments on gender that appear to turn on almost microscopic examination of one or two texts. What I have found persuasive on the issue of whether there may be gender distinctives that are divine in origin has come from not a hyper, microscopic examination of one or two passages, but from the span of God's dealing in human history.

Here's what I mean:

God created males first.

God looked to the male for certain leadership issues.

God's dealing in the OT began with the Patriarchs, not matriarchs.

The twelve tribes are all based on descendants from males.

When God delivered Isreal, he called a male.

When God established the nation, the priesthood was exclusively male.

When God established the kingdoms, the kings and their descendents were male.

None of the books of the OT were penned by a female.

The major and minor prophets were all male.

God ushered in the kingdom through John the Baptist, a male.

God is not a particular gender, but He has revealed Himself as "Father."

And when God took on flesh, he took on the body of a male human. Is anyone prepared to argue that Jesus could have been a female? (As an aside, I did hear a moderate pastor one time proclaim that before Jesus returned, he would send his only begotten daughter as a test tube child. I am not kidding).

Jesus, who is very God and the greatest fulfillment of treating both genders with equal dignity, called disciples - they were all male.

The apostles were all male.

All of the writers of the NT were male.

The people discipled to leadership by the apostles were all male. There is no record (that I have read) of the "Early Church Mothers" who were leading the churches in the way that the men did.

Church history is filled, at the upper echelons, with male leadership, males priests, male pastors, etc.

We are quite aware of great women in the Bible, including Deborah, the Proverbs 31 woman, Priscilla, Lydia etc. But are we really prepared to build, and is there sufficient evidence to build, entire doctrines on the brief references to these women and ignore the weight of the above reflections?

It is with this background and the confirming history that we consider and view Paul's instructions to the church on gender issues.

Well, was God simply doing His work among man based on the existing cultural forms? One could make that charge with more confidence if there were no examples of female religious and political leadership in that day. But we know from the ancient world that there were examples of both. So, God clearly could have had priestesses in the OT, just as other religions of that day. God could have lead the nation through a queen (as was the case with the Queen of Sheba, and some Egyptian monarchs). Even today, there are ancient tribes and cultures that are based on matriarchy.

The fact is, the records shows that God did establish gender distinctives in the OT and the NT.

The question then becomes what to make of all this?

The culture around us says, "make nothing of it at all. It's just a historical artifact, and we have moved beyond it. People wore sandals too, but we don't." They say the same thing about the distinctive gender ethics in the Bible about the home.

The other argument that is made is one from silence. You see, slavery withered away over thousands of years and so, too, the gender distinctions also should just wither away. Cited as mandatory for the proposition are "there is no Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female ..."

The only problem with that is that the very person who wrote that, also gave instructions regarding gender distinctions.

Also, I submit that comparing slavery (not a God-established, but wholly culturally established institution) with explicitly God-established institutions - the home, the nation, the partriarchy, the twelve tribes, the major and minor prophets, the disciples etc.) is not careful comparison. We are truly treating unequal things, equally.

I am well aware that there are many extremes and "lessons" that one could draw from some of the examples given above. For exmample, some could argue some strange interpretations on the basis that God created a male first. So, there's a lot of room for danger here.

But in the end, we must admit that nature, history, and the history of God's revelation to man from the beginning until now seem to confirm the presence of divine gender disntinctions that have some impact on function in the Christian world.

It requires wisdom on our parts to try and figure out what correct lessons to learn from this, and what are unnecessary applications or extensions of this truth.

For me, the BFM is good - the prohibition on women pastors/elders. But from there, I think we need be careful in how, and if, we go further.

God bless.

Louis

believer333 said...

Shadrach wrote:” So to my question, how is it upholding the 'better way' that we are shown in scripture (1 Tim 3) to allow women to be elders and deacons?
For sure we are 'allowed' to do so, but what makes it the right thing to do?”

Why do you think in terms of “allowing”. Why not just recognize those who have the abilities and if some are women then at that time consider where their gifts can be used best at YOUR church. Leave each church to do it their way. That USED to be the Baptist way of doing things.

believer333 said...

Let's see if anyone here has any funny bones left in their body. If not, I'm in big trouble. :)

Stolen from a Google Search:

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained (think David Letterman)

10. A man's place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Anonymous said...

"In Rom 16:1 the word used is diakonos for Phoebe"

I am not seeing any difference in definition/function for that and diakoneō. The definitions are the same. And most resources I have seen quote all passages for deacon with both words.

Lucy

Bill said...

What should an unmarried woman do if, after having sat under the teaching of a man, decides from her own prayerful study of the scripture that the man is in fact, wrong? Since only men can teach men, she has no way of conveying to this man, either directly or indirectly that his teaching is in error.

Anonymous said...

"Sinful man (qualified to lead) remains primarily responsible to lead, but this does not in any way lessen the responsibility of the woman to minister. "

Where do you see in Gen 1-2 that Adam was meant to lead Eve? I thought it was a ONE FLESH union. They were to rule together as a ONE FLESH union. Where do we see God telling Adam he is in charge of Eve or is her authority?

Anonymous said...

"This is also the general acknowledgement that Paul is making to the Corinthian church in the 11th Chapter concerning God’s pattern of authority. It is very obvious that there were women in the Corinthian church that did not agree with Paul in this matter of authority and that disagreement will continue until Christ returns."

That is NOT at all what that chapter is about. I am amazed you think that. It is about headcoverings and Paul was giving them FREEDOM within their church and marriage (not to embarass their husbands) to decide whether to cover or not. Paul sums it up:

1 Corin 11

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Anonymous said...

"But until then, we (both men and women) should enjoy the protection that God has afforded His church until His son comes to take us home."

Chris, since you believe that women are really just being 'protected' in this hierarchical view of scripture that relegates them to a specific role in marriage and church, what do you say to a woman married to a professing Christianor who is even and elder who hits her? What do you say to a pastor who rapes his son? Or women?

At this point, is he her head? Or, does he stop being her head during that time? How does that work? Who decides? (And yes, it happens all the time)

Another one for the manual!

Oh, and what would you do if MEN were being disruptive in ministry? How would you handle that since you are not their authority?

Lucy

Lin said...

Louis, YOu do a great job of seeming to think through both sides of an issue but you do get your subtle jabs in there, don't you. :o)


"However, the issues are separate, and for clear, level headed discussion, should be treated separately.

Implying that people who do not agree on the gender issue are just as bad as, and the progency of their racist forefathers, is not a fair or persuasive argument."

Actually, Louis, if you study the these issues in depth, the exact same type of arguments were used. We even see them using 'Ham' as the reason for slavery as if was meant to be. WE also see them saying that obviously God condoned slavery in the OT because He did nto outlaw it. That is no different than saying women cannot teach men because God made the OT Priesthood Levite men ONLY. So we HAVE to assume the same for the NT.

"3. The tone of the argument that occurs around this and so many other religious issues turns people off. It makes religious people look petty."

The 'tone' or the fact we debate? Besides, Louis, you and I are NOT religious people. We are followers of Christ. Isn't that something altogether different than religion or even being Baptist?

BTW: It may look petty to you but I can assure you that those women who have been called Jezebels think it is very important.

"4. The impact of culture on religious interpretation and application cannot be overstated. People who disagree with any distinctions based on gender often cite the culture as influencing both OT and NT passages on this issue. It is an issue that should be considered and not dismissed lightly."

Culture (today or past) has not one thing to do with it at all unless specific to the passage like headcoverings. It is simple Biblical interpretation.

"But the same thing could be said in the other direction. Americans in the year 2008 are heavily influenced by cultural history. Which of us is not affected by the history of the West, our country and the women's movement over the last 40 years? I would suggest that our thinking is heavily influenced by that history to the extent that we have to start from the premise that many of us cannot even conceive of divine distinctions based on gender."

This is the red herring Grumden uses. I am not surprised you subscribe to it at all. But it is illogical. As a matter of fact, the entire Patriarchy movement and the term complimentarian came from a back lash to the feminist movement. It has become increasingly legalistic over time. Where does it stop?

You are also blaming women for liberalism/false teaching in the church when it is SIN and ironically came mostly through male pastors.

If the Biblical interpretations on either side of the women preaching issue is colored by the culture and NOT ONLY by interpretation, we are fools.

"Historical/cultural influences also affect our views of church government (Baptists are big on "Democracy" and against any heirarchy, but we all have to admit that the history of U.S. Democracy, more than biblical mandate, often affects our feelings on this), church discipline, alcohol consumption and other matters. "

What? Why cannot we not just go to scripture? Hierarchies within the church...a caste system with 'special priests' who have power over others is not in the NT. Come away from the Reformation and Calvin, Louis, and just read scripture.


"Here's what I mean:

God created males first."

Louis, Do you not see that an argument could be made for 'saving the best for last'? :o) It is a moot point. Some animals were created first. What does THAT mean? Why did God plant the Garden AFTER Adam was created?

"God looked to the male for certain leadership issues."

Before or after Genesis 3? Be specific

"God's dealing in the OT began with the Patriarchs, not matriarchs."

If you read the OT, God almost always worked within sinful man's world. He did not outlaw slavery but made laws about it. Does that mean slavery is good? The Patriarchs are a simple outcome of what God said would be the consequence of the fall.

God shows His Glory throughout scripture working through and in spite of sinful men and women. There are instances when Pagan kings show more integrity and fear of God than some of the Patriarchs!

"The twelve tribes are all based on descendants from males."

See above.

"When God delivered Isreal, he called a male."

Deborah was non normative as a Judge, right? A fluke in the perfect Patriarchal system.

"When God established the nation, the priesthood was exclusively male."

And Levite

"When God established the kingdoms, the kings and their descendents were male."

There is an exception with one evil Queen (and many evil male kings) but do you really think they would have rebelled any more under a woman in a Patristic culture that was a result of Gen 3...remember, the OT is leading us to Christ! Redemption from the FALL

"Jesus, who is very God and the greatest fulfillment of treating both genders with equal dignity, called disciples - they were all male."

No Gentiles, either. Should we be worried? :o) They could go where women could not. But, I guess that does not matter. He did not come to start a cultural revolution, ya know!

"The apostles were all male.

Wrong. Junia was female. Many early church fathers write of her as a female apostle...grudgingly.

"All of the writers of the NT were male."

How do we know who wrote Hebrews?

"The people discipled to leadership by the apostles were all male. There is no record (that I have read) of the "Early Church Mothers" who were leading the churches in the way that the men did."

Read Romans 16. Are you also telling me Lydia had a church in her home but did no talking, teaching, prophesying? She was not the 'despot' (smile) of her home?

"Church history is filled, at the upper echelons, with male leadership, males priests, male pastors, etc."

Church history all the way around is an indictment on humans. There is a trail of blood a mile wide with lots of heresy paved into it...this proves nothing.

"We are quite aware of great women in the Bible, including Deborah, the Proverbs 31 woman, Priscilla, Lydia etc. But are we really prepared to build, and is there sufficient evidence to build, entire doctrines on the brief references to these women and ignore the weight of the above reflections?"

Louis, Jesus did not free slaves, either. BUT His behavior and teaching turned the Jewish system on it's head. Seeing through your male lens and current culture lens you cannot graps how revolutionary it was for Jesus to have a conversation with the woman at the well. There are tons of such examples. Same with Paul. Just the fact that women followed Him around was scandalous. So Jesus did not demand all social systems change. He demanded WE change. A slave was now a brother in Christ. There is no caste system. IN Christ...we are all equal. We are all gifted by the Holy Spirit, IN CHRIST. As in worship, fellowship, etc. Being IN CHRIST together. We are all to go and make disciples. The GC is for all of us.

"It is with this background and the confirming history that we consider and view Paul's instructions to the church on gender issues."

Sorry, we have to use interpretation. There is NO law in the OT saying that women cannot prophesy or teach the scriptures. But there is a law in the NT now? Where?

And there is NO longer an earthly priesthood, either.

"Well, was God simply doing His work among man based on the existing cultural forms? One could make that charge with more confidence if there were no examples of female religious and political leadership in that day. But we know from the ancient world that there were examples of both. So, God clearly could have had priestesses in the OT, just as other religions of that day. God could have lead the nation through a queen (as was the case with the Queen of Sheba, and some Egyptian monarchs). Even today, there are ancient tribes and cultures that are based on matriarchy."

Louis, Genesis 3 is the answer to this. God is showing Himself through HIS chosen people, the Jews. If you read the OT close, you will see that God saved very few in Israel. He always saved a remnant. They were very rebellious and HE WAS working within their sinful hearts. You can see it all the way through the OT.

Louis, I could make a case that sending your daughters out to be raped so that your guests would not be sodomized is ok according to the OT but you would think I was insane if I did that. That is what you are doing here. You are claiming a 'law' based upon God working through man's sinful, prideful heart.

"The fact is, the records shows that God did establish gender distinctives in the OT and the NT."

Childbearing? Or, are there other specific roles outlined?
Where?

"The only problem with that is that the very person who wrote that, also gave instructions regarding gender distinctions."

Where?

"Also, I submit that comparing slavery (not a God-established, but wholly culturally established institution) with explicitly God-established institutions - the home, the nation, the partriarchy, the twelve tribes, the major and minor prophets, the disciples etc.) is not careful comparison. We are truly treating unequal things, equally."

The subjection of women as property was culturally establised, too. It started with Adam but Lamech was a serious creep and for someone reason God did not punish Him thta we know of. Does that mean polygamy is ok? None of this was from God. He allowed it for a reason...Redemption. The OT is living out the consequences of Gen 3 and pointing us toward a SAVIOR.

"But in the end, we must admit that nature, history, and the history of God's revelation to man from the beginning until now seem to confirm the presence of divine gender disntinctions that have some impact on function in the Christian world."

No we don't have to admit it and we can use interpretation of scripture ONLY as our guide.

Women are not the ONLY ones to be left with an earthly priest in the New Covenant.

volfan007 said...

only by His grace phil,

i'm not just out of seminary. i'm 46 yrs old. i've been married for 25 years. i have two children in college and one in high school. i've been in the ministry for 27 yrs. i've been to college and seminary. i've studied the bible for years...i've preached and taught it for years.

phil, i tell you all of this because of your insinuation that i'm some young pup who doesnt know how the cow chews the cud. i've lived a little. i've been around the block a few times. my knees and my eyes are telling me that i've been around the block too many times. :) but, God is good.

karen, thanks for sticking up for me. i've come to accept that when i comment in here and share my thoughts that i will be called names and ridiculed by a certain crowd. i've been called everything from an ignorant hillbilly to fatso to arrogant to immature to a troll to narrow minded meany to bigot to a juvenile who shouldnt be pastoring. it's alright, karen. i just consider the source and praise the Lord and move on. but, i do thank you for your defense. may the Lord bless you real good.

david

Tom Parker said...

david:

You just don't quit do you. You just keep coming back for more. My prediction is if you continue to comment the way you do it will stay the same way for you.

volfan007 said...

tom,

so?

i dont live to please man. i live to please my Lord.

david

Only By His Grace said...

Lucy,

You raise a good point.

Betty walked through our church door about eight years ago. I spoke to her and the group of ladies, mostly shut in widows who came to church on the church van. Betty came to Norman from California where she was about as high up in the New Age movement as one can go. She was in mental health. When Easter came around, I preached a series of sermons on Isa. 53 and of course the resurrection.

The Sunday after Easter, I was standing in front of the office when Betty came walking into the church. She walked passed, stopped turned around and said to me, "Pastor, I want you to know I really disagreed with your last few messages. I do not believe in resurrection. I believe in reincarnation."


I would get calls about Betty emptying all her apt contents into the trash bin: furniture, birth certificates, books and everything she could carry, and she was doing all this completely nude.

I came to find out that Betty was reared in a strong Lutheran family; the Dad was a drunk who came home to beat her mother mercilessly. When Betty married, she married her mental focus, the man she hated, her father. Her husband, also a drunk, would beat her, breaking bones and putting her in the hospital. She went to her Pastor who said, "Oh, that is just the lot of a wife. You need to bear your cross with dignity."

Thanks to the witness of a very understanding and loving church, I was able to lead Betty to a saving faith and baptized her. She still has her bouts with mental illness; we will probably lose her to it; but someday when the Lord comes to take her home… The shame is that her Pastor could have intervened, did not because he believed the woman should be submissive in all things, even beatings.

So much for compassion and love. These analogies have a context with real people.

Phil.

Wade Burleson said...

Wow Phil.

That comment above should be a post.

Wade Burleson said...

David,

Do you feel that others believe you call people names yourself? Just asking. You sound like you are the victim, and have no culpabiblity yourself.

Anonymous said...

Lin:

Thanks for responding to my comments. I didn't think anyone would notice so late in the thread.

You credit me with having read more than I really have. Have never read Grudem. I know who he is.

You muster the arguments as best you can, but we won't come to an agreement on this.

God bless you in all things.

Louis

Chris Johnson said...

"Chris, since you believe that women are really just being 'protected' in this hierarchical view of scripture that relegates them to a specific role in marriage and church, what do you say to a woman married to a professing Christianor who is even and elder who hits her? What do you say to a pastor who rapes his son? Or women?"

You have them arrested and put in jail...

Blessings,
Chris

truth, not religion said...

Phil, what a great, truthful, (tragic) story.

I have been doing some kind of ministry work for over 30 years. I have preached from flat bed trucks at truckstops, in prisons and in biker rallies, in youth camps and revivals. I have been in my current church for almost 11 years.

I say all that, not to blow my horn but to say "thank you" for sharing this and to add that in all these years, no matter if it was truckers, inmates, bikers or church folk, I have spent (at times) 50% of my time doing damage control with folks who had a misguided Pastor like the one you mentioned.

It amazes me how many ( uh-hmm), Pastors can be so ungodly in wisdom, advice, and actions

grace
wtreat

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

As I was catching up reading this thread tonight (and getting so naseous I'd swear I could hear satan laughing) I came across this hidden little gem from Lucy:

The main difference between the
1st Century church and today are our big buildings that come complete with paid professional 'Christians' who believe there really is a Christian caste system. They like it because they are at the top level.


For me that about sums it up. Now I'm going to bed.

Justa Believer said...

I think most would agree that we need to try to set aside our cultural presuppositions, influences, and conditioning when it comes to interpreting Scripture. But how good are we at doing that? I really wonder.

The changes of roles of men and women in recent history, in virtually all aspects of life, are self-evident, and certainly reflect a change in mindset and values. And, clearly, not all of the changes have been for the better. The philosophy of “feminism” is at the heart of much of the change. Those who would call themselves feminists tend to see the changes in gender roles as more for the good than the bad. But those who are concerned about or opposed to the impact of those changes on traditional male/female roles (particularly within families and churches) generally consider feminism a less than positive mind-set.

It is commonly stated that a move toward accepting women as pastors is a reflection of and accommodation to a feminist worldview, and that those who attempt to find support for the concept of female pastors within the Bible can only do so by ignoring the plain teachings of Scripture and injecting contemporary cultural (feminist) values into the text. But are we so certain that the values and norms of our culture regarding the proper roles women prior to our modern age are truly God’s intended order? Is the Ozzie and Harriet model of family, with the husband as the sole breadwinner and authority over the wife, a reflection of a more godly society to which we should return? What if we have it backwards? What if the idea of male as authority, ruling over his family, or over his church if a pastor, is itself a cultural value that was not God’s intent? And what if our reading of Scripture as supporting a patriarchal model is a result of imposing that long standing (yet not God-ordained) cultural value onto the text?

The assumption that male authority is God’s intended model for the church seems to be at the heart of the arguments used by Grudem, et al, as indicated by the summary provided by Joe W is his past dated Sat Mar 29, 01:46:00 PM 2008, which I quote thusly and like so:

In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through "a predictable sequence" of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to "high leadership positions in the denomination."

As Grudem observes, "This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority. Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the direction the New Testament was heading but never quite reached."


But if we acknowledge that the Fall has distorted human society and relationships, we might consider whether God had in mind a very different pattern for male/female roles and relationships than that held through much of the world’s history, and our historical analysis might go more like this:

In a brief historical analysis, Justsa Believer demonstrates that church history has moved through “a predictable sequence” of theological legalism. First, biblical sufficiency (the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice and that no rules and regulations made by man are necessary for full obedience to God) is abandoned. (As with the Pharisees, in adding rules on top of the laws of God, or as in the Roman church, in declaring the teachings of the church leaders to be as authoritative as the Bible.) Then, in turn, the religion endorses the establishment of hierarchical and male-dominated patterns of church leadership and governance, rejects the full priesthood of all believers, sidelines women who would like to utilize their God-given gifts, approves authoritarian conduct by husbands and pastors as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains authoritarians, and elects authoritarians to “high leadership positions in the religion”.

As Justa Believer observes, “This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority. Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the rules that should have been spelled out in the New Testament but weren’t, so we had to fill them in for ourselves later.”


Those who approved and promoted ownership of human beings and restrictions on their freedoms did so on the basis of history and culture, but few today would assert that slavery was God’s intent. Most would agree that any attempt to justify slavery on the basis of Scripture were just reading into the text on the basis of long-standing (thousands of years of human history) cultural prejudices. Are those who approve and promote restrictions on the roles of women in the church so certain that their historical and culture assumptions about male/female roles are God-ordained?

Chris Harbin said...

Chris Johnson,
"When the veil was torn, it was representing the dividing wall between Jew and Greek, not man and woman."

The temple mound was divided in various sections. About 2/3 was marked off by the dividing wall, by which Gentiles were prohibited further access. Women could enter past this wall of separation. The Jewish men only could enter the temple itself. Only priests/Levites entered the holy place. The veil separated off the Holy of Holies.

If as you state, the veil addresses equality of Gentiles, it must needs also address equality of women, as they were already allowed closer access to the sanctuary of God's dwelling than any Gentile. If we are talking a hierarchy, women were on a higher plane than male Gentiles such as ourselves.

Chris Harbin said...

Shadrach,

You are ingnoring the fact that Jesus allowed the Syro-Phoenician woman to teach other males in her hearing, even if you disqualify that encounter as teaching Jesus (though that is the import of her words from her own perspective).

shadrach said...

Chris, reread the passage. She was pleading, not teaching. She got one sentence in and Jesus rewarded her for her faith.

But this is not the issue, I am not against female teachers and am definitely not in with the fundy crowd. I am just looking for a simple answer to one question:

When Paul wrote to Timothy, by the inspiration of the Spirit, telling him who to appoint as elders and deacons, he excluded all sorts of people in his list of qualifications. If he has given us this 'better way,' why should we appoint women as pastors and deacons?

p.s. Lucy, in Greek, the gender has to agree. That is why 'deacon' is female when it refers to Phoebe.

Chris Harbin said...

Shadrach,

Yes, one sentence, but that sentence effectively packs a punch. I alters the definition of an appropriate response to her plea for mercy. It may not actually educate Jesus, but it educates his hearers. He brings her into his teaching and allows her to participate in his teaching ministry.

I am glad you are not against women teachers.

As to the Timothy passage, question has been raised as to whether the reference is "one-woman man," or "one-man woman". There is also the question of whether Paul says, "likewise the wives," or "likewise the women (who are deacons)."

In either case, the NT church did not have a structure with Sr. Pastor as we know it. In Paul's day, structure was still a fluid concept, looking differently in different contexts. We seem to read structure from a later period onto Paul's day. Junia is called an apostle. Is that a lesser position than pastor or deacon?

believer333 said...

“Are those who approve and promote restrictions on the roles of women in the church so certain that their historical and culture assumptions about male/female roles are God-ordained?”

Good question. The area that comp/patri's leave silent is the implications of obeying everything that is not considered sinful. The husband can take that statement to the farthest limit and just boss and control his wife on everything. The fact that the statement doesn't just leave the door open, it fully defines domination, means that many comp/patri men will consider it their right to be boss. And what kind of life is that for a wife?

God ordained that the two come together as one flesh. This describes something much deeper than sex. When two live as one, it does not look anything like boss and subject, or leader and follower. And is much more fulfilling to both.

believer333 said...

Christ Harbin wrote: “As to the Timothy passage, question has been raised as to whether the reference is "one-woman man," or "one-man woman". There is also the question of whether Paul says, "likewise the wives," or "likewise the women (who are deacons)."”

The phrase “one woman man” is a colloquialism referring to marital fidelity. One does not have to be married to be that kind of person. As such it can be referring to either men or women. And since the statement is referring to “anyone who desires a good work”, then it is clearly referring to anyone.

The word gune can be translated as women or wives depending upon context. In 1 Tim. 3 there is nothing in the context to indicate wives, thus it must be women in general that are being addressed. Phoebe being addressed as a diakonos solidifies that.

That is my take on it.

Justa Believer said...

shadrach said...
That is why 'deacon' is female when it refers to Phoebe.



Ummmmm ... no, it isn't.

believer333 said...

That is correct justa believer. There is no deacon"ess" in the Greek. That would be something like "doctoress" or "lawyeress". Its a description of activity and has no male female endings.

Paul Burleson said...

Lin and Justa believer,

You two [some others with you] have really rung a bell about this thing of culture not causing us to twist our interpretation of scripture. That cannot be argued as you both have so well said. But, as you both have also indicated, which view of scripture is being twisted because of culture. I've got my thoughts on this that will jive with yours but are too many and too long to state here..so I'm going to write a post on it. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks to the witness of a very understanding and loving church, I was able to lead Betty to a saving faith and baptized her. "

Praise God! She will need the love you provide from the Body to undo years of damage.

Phil, I am reluctant to say that the abuse is quite common because I know the jeers it will bring. But abuse is quite real and more common than we think in Christendom.

When one is constantly told they are the 'head' over someone, they can start to believe it in the wrong way, too. There are some comp teachers at CBMW, I believe one of them is Lepine, who teaches that a man is a woman's priest and he must correct her in ALL things. She, however, is NOT allowed to ever correct him in anything.

How do we know that the men who are taught this have the spiritual maturity to live it out? It can become dangerous.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

"When Paul wrote to Timothy, by the inspiration of the Spirit, telling him who to appoint as elders and deacons, he excluded all sorts of people in his list of qualifications. If he has given us this 'better way,' why should we appoint women as pastors and deacons?"

Shad, In 1 Tim 3, Paul writes (inspired by the Holy Spirit)....

If any man....The Greek is:

Tis
-a certain, a certain one

It is used in many other passages to mean anyone. WE apply it as 'anyone' in tons of passages but for some reason most do not with this specific verse.

Some translation use wife for verse 11 (gune) which can also mean woman. But since 'aner' was not used in verse 1 to describe any man, it does not mean husband and wife in these passages. It means anyone...and then he also addresses women specifically and gives them more qualifications....likewise...not to be slanderers, etc.

How else can we view this since Phoebe was a REAL deacon? (that is why many want to say she was NOT a real deacon because it blows 1 Tim 3 up for them)

The 'husband of one wife' is a misnomer. It does not mean single men cannot be elders, does it? It can't because Paul would be disqualified from being an elder.

Most likely it means no polygamists could be elders which were more common in that era. (sorry but culture does weigh in here) Polyandry was not allowed then so they did not have to worry about the women having more than one husband. :o)

We can imagine the chaos that mulitple wives would bring in a local body!

Lucy

Lin said...

"I've got my thoughts on this that will jive with yours but are too many and too long to state here..so I'm going to write a post on it. Thanks."


I am looking forward to that!

BTW: I have a serious question. Is there anywhere in the OT where God says that Polygamy is a sin?

Lin said...

Justa Beleiver, Great points! I think all of this points to the Fall- Genesis 3.

I praise Jesus Christ for our Redemption!

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Chris Harbin,

Thanks for your reply on the temple veil.

Actually, the answer I gave was extremely general and trying to point back to the atonement. The work of the church is not about who is king of the hill....only about who is King.

The veil being torn was more about Christ than us....so I did not do the definition justice. He carried out what we can never do whether through the strength of a man or a woman. That is kind of the point. We spend most of our time in prideful endeavors, while Christ continues to lead His church triumphant.

Blessings,
Chris

Anonymous said...

"Chris, since you believe that women are really just being 'protected' in this hierarchical view of scripture that relegates them to a specific role in marriage and church, what do you say to a woman married to a professing Christianor who is even and elder who hits her? What do you say to a pastor who rapes his son? Or women?"

Chris writes: You have them arrested and put in jail..."

Agreed.

Now, is he still her 'head' when he is in jail?

Lucy

shadrach said...

justa believer and believer333, deacon is female in Rom 16:1 and I would posit that (due to it being masculine or feminine by nature and it being masculine in 1 Tim 3:8) it is feminine due to it refering to Pheobe. 333 your parallel is incorrect. Look at French and any number of other languages. There are masculine and feminine forms of many occupational words to fit whether the practitioner is a male or female. You are only comparing to English (which is quite removed from Greek). Also, one of the best ways we interpret subjects in Greek is looking at the gender and number because they agree. Hence Pheobe (a woman) gets deacon(ess) (feminine). Yay, languages are fun! I'm going to learn Arabic next.

Chris, in 1 Tim 3:8, it actually says 'deacons (masculine usage) likewise honorable not double tongued'. 11 says 'women likewise,' and 12 says 'deacons (masculine again) be one woman men.' Now 2 says one woman man (note, all singular), but this is not the case in 12. Does 'be a one men woman' make any sense?

No, so we should interpret both structures the same way. 'Be a one woman man' in 2 and 'Be one woman men' in 12. This context is also what has historically driven the interpretation of 'women' as 'wives.' How does the issue of being 'one woman men' make sense otherwise?

Lucy, you are correct in that vs. 1 says if 'anyone,' but that one neutral word doesn't rule out the qualifications given in the rest of the passage.

Also Chris, I agree that most of this is placing these words into our context, a context that is very different from the time of its writing, but that is why we must be so careful. We need to look at the office of elder and deacon at that time and figure out what, if any parallel there is in the way we do church today and then apply the scripture accordingly.

So, please do continue explaining. I am really not against you in this, I've just never really thought about it that deeply before and am intrigued. I may almost be convinced about the 'single' issue, but I would need to see where Paul refers to himself as an elder, overseer, or pastor. My quick search through the NT didn't reveal any.

If Paul is never called an elder in the Bible, then the point gets weaker. Peter calls himself an elder, but he was married. So someone find where any of the other apostles are called elders in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

"justa believer and believer333, deacon is female in Rom 16:1 and I would posit that (due to it being masculine or feminine by nature and it being masculine in 1 Tim 3:8) it is feminine due to it refering to Pheobe. 333 your parallel is incorrect. Look at French and any number of other languages. There are masculine and feminine forms of many occupational words to fit whether the practitioner is a male or female. You are only comparing to English (which is quite removed from Greek). Also, one of the best ways we interpret subjects in Greek is looking at the gender and number because they agree. Hence Pheobe (a woman) gets deacon(ess) (feminine). Yay, languages are fun! I'm going to learn Arabic next."

Shad, not sure why it matters. The definitions for both are the same.

Here are some thoughts from a another blog:

I noticed that the word used in Rom. 16:1, diakonon, is also used of Christ in Rom. 15:8. diakonos would be the “lexical” or dictionary form which is always the nom. masculine. We should also note that the feminine (acc. sing. fem.) form diakonian is used of Paul himself in 1 Tim. 1:12.

Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon shows diakonon as both masc. and fem.; that is, the form itself does not indicate grammatical gender.

Which is another important point: grammatical gender has no bearing whatsoever on biological gender. Only English does that.

"Chris, in 1 Tim 3:8, it actually says 'deacons (masculine usage) likewise honorable not double tongued'. 11 says 'women likewise,' and 12 says 'deacons (masculine again) be one woman men.' Now 2 says one woman man (note, all singular), but this is not the case in 12. Does 'be a one men woman' make any sense?

No, so we should interpret both structures the same way. 'Be a one woman man' in 2 and 'Be one woman men' in 12. This context is also what has historically driven the interpretation of 'women' as 'wives.' How does the issue of being 'one woman men' make sense otherwise?"

It makes no sense unless we see it through the lens of that time. Polygamy was legal and in that time they would not call a divorced man who is remarried the husband of one wife. He would have only ONE wife if divorced and remarried. But if a man did not practice polygamy, it would be normal to refer to him as 'husband of one wife' in that time.

To interpret this verse as applying ONLY to men means we would have to apply it to single men, too. Can we say that single men are not qualified to be elders? Is that clear from the text or even early church practices?

"Lucy, you are correct in that vs. 1 says if 'anyone,' but that one neutral word doesn't rule out the qualifications given in the rest of the passage."

It does when you consider that Pheobe was a real, bonafide Deacon. That is why some push very hard to not recognize that fact.

If the text referred to married men only and then 'likewise' wives...it would use the words 'aner' and 'gune' which are husband and wife and are almost always used together in that sense. But 'tis' is used...anyone.

"Also Chris, I agree that most of this is placing these words into our context, a context that is very different from the time of its writing, but that is why we must be so careful. We need to look at the office of elder and deacon at that time and figure out what, if any parallel there is in the way we do church today and then apply the scripture accordingly."

There is NO parallel to what we do today in our big buildings with a professional and paid Christian class. As a matter of fact, there is some scholarship that the word 'office' was added later to translations to describe these functions in the church. There is NO clergy/laity distinction in the NT.

"I may almost be convinced about the 'single' issue, but I would need to see where Paul refers to himself as an elder, overseer, or pastor. My quick search through the NT didn't reveal any."

Where did you get this? I am confused? Someone used the example that if the 'husband of one wife' meant that only married men could be elders then Paul would not qualify to be an elder, himself. It was only an example to make a point.

Do you really believe that only married men can be elders?

Lucy

R. L. Vaughn said...

WB: "By the way, I have read the book you suggest. Twice.

"It says many good things with which I agree, and I would not argue that some denominations have become 'liberal' regarding the essentials. However, to say women in ministry is the 'cause' of such liberalism is a premise I do not swallow."


Whether one agrees or disagrees with Grudem, his premise is not that women in ministry is the 'cause' of liberalism. IMO, a better representation of his premise is that he believes many of the methods of interpretation/argumentation used to defend/promote egalitarianism are undermining of the authority of Scripture -- from William Webb's "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" to Paul's selective silencing of only disruptive women/false teachers/gnostics, etc. This undermining he represents as a path to liberalism.

When one talks of meanings of Greek words, I am ready to study. If someone mentions from Scripture that Philip had four daughters that prophesied, that Priscilla taught Apollos, that Phoebe was a deaconess, I will sit up and listen. But when non-Biblical arguments that are neither historical nor logical are made, I start tuning in to a different station.

shadrach said...

Lucy,

Deaconess matters because they said I was wrong about it. I think you proved my point: the word can be masculine of feminine so it is key there that they used the feminine to match the subject (Phoebe).

I think you misread the text. The implication would be a woman with multiple husbands, not polygamy. And I am the one asking why we shouldn't just interpret it the way it's written (excluding singles).

I agree that Phoebe was a 'real' deacon. That's part of why I brought it up. Remember, you asked me where deaconess came from.

Lucy said, "If the text referred to married men only and then 'likewise' wives...it would use the words 'aner' and 'gune' which are husband and wife and are almost always used together in that sense. But 'tis' is used...anyone."

You are incorrect. 'tis' is in verse 1. Every other verse uses a form of 'gune' and 'aner'. Specifically, verse 11 says "gune likewise".

Does this mean you agree with my interpretation now?

By the way, I'm using the Textus Recptus Greek New Testament, just in case you wondered about the version from which I am reading.

I disagree about the lack of parallels between then and now. That would basically mean that this entire discussion is completely pointless. We find that a worker is worthy of his wages and also that Paul works whiel among the churches even though he could have made his living off of the church. I would say that draws at least some parallels.

I got the part about singles being elders and deacons specifically from the statement that it would exclude Paul from being an elder. Was Paul an elder? Were any of the single apostles elders?

I'm just asking. I am not one of those who selectively applies scripture. Truth is truth and so the closer we get to it, the better. All of this is not an argument I am trying to win, but for me it is a chance to learn.

I really do want to know why it is a good idea to have women pastors and deacons. I am nto trying to prove you wrong, just keep us grounded in scripture throughout this conversation.

Anonymous said...

"Deaconess matters because they said I was wrong about it. I think you proved my point: the word can be masculine of feminine so it is key there that they used the feminine to match the subject (Phoebe)."

You know, Shad, I was looking at the definition not the gender base. There are enough masculine words in the Greek/Hebrew to describe women (ezer) that I hardly see where it matters. the definition for deacon is exactly the same in both forms. It would be like calling an actor an actress. Or a doctor a doctress. :o)

"I think you misread the text. The implication would be a woman with multiple husbands, not polygamy. And I am the one asking why we shouldn't just interpret it the way it's written (excluding singles)."

Because Polyandry was illegal and there would not have been an issue. No need to mention a woman of one husband. There were ONLY women with ONE husband.

"You are incorrect. 'tis' is in verse 1. Every other verse uses a form of 'gune' and 'aner'. Specifically, verse 11 says "gune likewise".

Huh? Verse 2 is aner describing a 'husband of one wife' and verse 5 uses 'tis' again.

"Does this mean you agree with my interpretation now?"

I am not sure what your interpretation is?

"By the way, I'm using the Textus Recptus Greek New Testament, just in case you wondered about the version from which I am reading."

Thanks for letting me know that.

"I got the part about singles being elders and deacons specifically from the statement that it would exclude Paul from being an elder. Was Paul an elder? Were any of the single apostles elders?"

Well, I have never thought of it like that. I cannot imagine there would be a prohibition of single elders, male or female.

That was a typical way to refer to one who was not a polygamist at that time. Why would it not read: Must be married. I think we take a leap when we say 'husband of one wife' means he has to be married. It means: No polygamists can be eldersd.

"I really do want to know why it is a good idea to have women pastors and deacons. I am nto trying to prove you wrong, just keep us grounded in scripture throughout this conversation."

Well, I cannot argue that it is a good idea. That would be silly. That has nothing to do with it. The question is are we denying the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit to women? Are we denying that they are part of the Holy Priesthood in ALL things. Can we say to the eye, I have no need of you....

Personally, I do not see our notion of 'pastor' anywhere in the NT. Where do you see one guy speaking for 20-30 minutes on Sunday morning when the Body gathers?

We have made it so official and institutionalized it is hard to get our head around the fact that these folks were sitting in a 1st Century home like Lydia's, taking turns praying, prophesying, teaching, singing, etc. as the HOLY SPIRIT led as we see Paul discussing in Corinthians. The Lords Supper was a MEAL!

We do very little we see in the NT when it comes to practices. And that means we have allowed the world to interpret much of this for us.

Blessings Shad!

Lucy

othoniel a valdes sr said...

Dr:Wade
If Dr Kouhla is over qualified to be on your church staff because of her Hebrew specialty you are under qualified to speak on the SBC role in slavery & prejudice against blacks,women and others.

truth, not religion said...

Almighty God, Judge of All,

I just want to pray for all the knuckleheads.

Amen

wtreat

Anonymous said...

David Dockery has written a great book emphasizing the need for consensus and renewal amongst Souther Baptists. It is titled Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Proposal (B&H Academic, 2008). The book will be available in June in bookstores and also at the SBC annual meeting.

T Lynn

Anonymous said...

Sorry . . . that's Southern Baptists.

TL

shadrach said...

Deaconess doesn't really matter for our purposes, but you guys need to understand that in many other languages, that is exactly what they do. In French specifically, since I live in a Francophone country, a female (insert occupation) would feel insulted if you didn't use the (occupation)-ess form of the word.

About tis: in 5, the rest is tou idiou meaning his own (both in the masculine). Thus 'if one, his own house rules not'

In 12 it specifically says 'be one (the number) woman (singular feminine) men (plural masculine).' You cannot change that to say he was talking about polygamy. The only option apart from be the husbands of one wife is polyandry.

Since you say that polyandry was illegal, the only option left is it saying 'be the husbands of one wife.'

I am not trying to be a 'knucklehead' nor am I trying to deny the gifts of the Spirit to women. It is not about prohibition, it is about seeking to understand the 'better way' that Paul has written to us about in the inspiration of the Spirit.

I just want us all to live out God's best intention for us and not try to live 'close to the line' where we don't have clear biblical prohibitions.

By the way, this does matter in my context. In a country where the Church is very new, we need to be able to deal with these issues scripturally; not seeking God's prohibitions, but seeking God's best.

Anonymous said...

"In 12 it specifically says 'be one (the number) woman (singular feminine) men (plural masculine).' You cannot change that to say he was talking about polygamy. The only option apart from be the husbands of one wife is polyandry."

You have lost me here, Shad. Why would he use plural for wife?
'husband of one wife' was not an uncomon term then to describe those not in polygamy. I am not following you on this.

Are you thinking he is referring to divorced men? Or, are you thinking it is referring to married men only can be elders.

I am not sure how you do interpret the verse at all.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

":About tis: in 5, the rest is tou idiou meaning his own (both in the masculine). Thus 'if one, his own house rules not'"

that is not what I am seeing. I am seeing "idios" for his own which means as far as I can tell with a quick search:

Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one's own; by implication private or separate: - X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

truth, not religion said...

Would the thoughts change if I told you the original KJV says "spouse of one spouse" instead of "husband of one wife".

I know, I know, some attacker will holler "prove it, prove it!"

Don't waste your breath, get permission to go see for yourself.


Lord, I'm still praying for the knuckleheads.

w

shadrach said...

Lucy, I'm sorry this is going on so long and that somehow we are misunderstanding each other.

Verse 2 says 'be (a) one woman man'

Verse 12 says 'be one woman men'

If you are going to reverse the historically interpreted word order in these verse, then verse 2 would say 'be the woman of one man' and verse 12 would say 'be the woman of one men' (which doesn't make any sense.

Thus, the only appropriate interpretation is 'be the husband of one wife' in verse 2 and 'be the hundbands of one wife' in verse 12 because the subject (deacons) is plural.

Also, both make reference to showing ability in managing a household and children.

That is the proof (not specifically mine, but historically) for saying that elders and deacons should be married (not divorced) men who manage their households well.

If we are calling Paul's writing 'inspired,' then it should be a model for how we do church.

The task posed to you is to use scripture to show why we should have women elders and deacons. I thik we have affirmed that this passage cannot be interpreted that way, but use all the rest of the Bible. The point is to interpet scripture in light of its entirity. I am asking how the rest of scripture shows that women (and singles and men with unruly children, etc.) should hold these 'high servant' positions.

Hopefully that will get us stright to the issue at hand and stop the prolongation of this thread.

I'm sorry I aparently didn't lay that question out as clearly earlier on.

Anonymous said...

"Thus, the only appropriate interpretation is 'be the husband of one wife' in verse 2 and 'be the hundbands of one wife' in verse 12 because the subject (deacons) is plural."

Shad, I think this is stretching it a bit. You are saying both would hvae to be plural (husbands) in order to fit. I disagree and believe the use of 'tis' proves that it is not just for men. the 'one wife' criteria needed to be spelled out in that day and time for men. Jews who were not priests were allowed to have, I believe, up to 4 wives. So new Jewish belivers who are polygamist could be a problem in the Body.

Now, as far as saying that single men cannot serve this would mean for both deacons and elders. That, to me, is really stretching it.

One of the problems we have is that we do not know if all were married or widowed or what. Was Stephen married? Apollos? Lydia?

(I have heard many a pastor describe Stephen as an elder. What do you think?)

Lucy

shadrach said...

I think you are not really understanding the grammatical situation here and that you cannot seek to put your (or my) interpretation into the words, but must let the words say what they say.

I also think that no one has shown why we should appoint women, singles, etc. as deacons or elders in light of the 'better way' prescribed by Paul.

I think that Acts 6:2 uses the word diakonein (a verb form of deacon) to describe who they are picking. That would make Stephen a deacon who preaches, not an elder who serves tables. That would also highlight why Paul's credentials in 1 Tim 3 are so important for servants of the Church.

Finally, I think that this is a periphery issue and that since you all have not listened to my (what I consider) clear textual, grammatical arguments and that no one has used any similar arguments to persuade for the other side, that you are not interested in finding God's scriptural best, but rather proving an agenda.

That is rather sad. I really was interested in seeing why we should be about changing SB's historic interpretation of women's roles in the church, but until someone can show scripturally why we should, then we won't.

I am all for women teaching in the church and being some of the most fierce evangelists and disciplers. But since no one has evidenced why they should be pastors and deacons, then I have no reason to join the movement to let them.

Trust me, I was really hoping to see a reason to scripturally challenge men like Dr. Patterson, but that never happened.

So, I'm out. Peace be unto you all. This week I'll be bringing water to the desert. Change your world.

shadrach said...

Just so it's posted somewhere, in light of Wade's two latest posts, I simply do not see scripturally where women should serve as deacons or pastors. There is definitely no prohibition of it and all of this nonsense about removing them as SC's and professors is utterly rediculous.

Here in West Africa, God is using young, single women to make huge impacts on extremely patriarchal societies. Journey-girls, you guys keep rockin on.

Ezekiel said...

Wade,

It is been called to my attention that you are leading Gods people down a deep hole that keeps them from developing a divine light relationship with the true father. Believe me that it is no coincidence I have been lead to you today. Your church is guilty of a multitude of crimes against the people. You have claimed to know the lord and taken a position of power and authority in his name. You take no inventory on yourself and are stuck in your wicked ways. You find yourself further away from his divine grace more every day. You twist his words and replace them with your own agenda promoting blatherings. I know you have wondered to yourself why he has never spoken with you and it is because you refuse to listen. It is not to late for you to know God but, it will take some big steps. You can not hear god if your always talking and thinking about how you can use his passages. The new passages are delivered direct and it is through silence you receive. I know its hard to see that you are wrong but you will one day either way. Please take a week to be secluded from man babylon has you jaded. Go to the forest and fast in meditation for one week (meditation not prayer he knows what you want, and he know you want to serve him). Silence and soul searching connect you and if you do this in hernest you will talk with God. I suggest you do this soon there isnt much time left. Love is the only truth. I love you Wade. -Ezekiel-

Ezekiel said...

I want to make it clear that it is the potential you have to be a voice of fareness and love that calls you to walk a path outside of the established babtist church. I know you know this in your heart.