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

There Is a Huge Difference Between Homosexual Sin and Women Preaching the Gospel

The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will meet on Monday, June 22, 2009 and more than likely approve a recommendation seeking to officially disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

Bill Sanderson, a pastor in North Carolina and a trustee of the International Mission Board, made the motion to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church at last year's Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. The messengers referred Sanderson's recommendation to the Executive Committee, requesting the EC to report back to the 2009 Convention. It seems gay couples who were attending Broadway asked to have their portraits appear in the church directory. Broadway's leadership, rather than taking a stand against homosexual relationships, led the congregation to vote in February of 2008 to publish a directory without individual or family portraits — simply candid snapshots of people instead. This solution, said church leaders, would allow members to recognize one another without making a judgment regarding homosexual relationships.

It is my belief the motion from the Executive Committee to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church, if presented to the Convention, will pass. In the mid-1990's the Southern Baptist Covention voted to change Article III of the Convnetion's Constitution.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution now reads:

___________________________________________

Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:

1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding.

____________________________________________

If in fact, it is reported that Broadway Baptist Church and her members are affirming homosexual relationships, I will vote to disassociate from Broadway. The Convention's action will be big news, particularly in light of President Barak Obama's push to overturn the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prevents the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage." However, the SBC has disassociated from churches that affirm homosexuality before, and we will simply be following our Constitution. You will be hardpressed to find Bible-believing, evangelical believers who would disagree that homosexual relationships are sin.

The Bigger Problem We Face as Southern Baptists

The much larger issue we face as Southern Baptists is not the disassociation from Broadway Baptist Church, but rather, the probable attempt by some to disassociate from churches that recognize and call women to vocational ministry, such as First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia. This historic Southern Baptist Church called Julie Pennington-Russell as their lead pastor, and have a number of women in ministry positions.

Though evangelical, conservative Christians agree that homosexual and adulterous behavior is sin, there is disagreement among inerrantists on whether or not women preaching the gospel to men, women teaching the Bible to men, or women spiritually leading men is actually sin. One conservative, inerrantist Southern Baptist pastor has written an excellent paper, while in seminary no less, entitled A Biblical Primer on Women in Ministry. Jon Zens, a fellow conservative evangelical Christian has written, Are the Sisters Free to Function?, an extraordinary defense of women in ministry, based on a very high view of the sacred text. Many conservative scholars write for Christians for Biblical Equality, defending their belief from Scripture that nowhere does God restrict women in ministry.

Sure, there is disagreement among Southern Baptists on this issue. But I predict that if someone from Georgia offers a similar recommendation to disassociate from First Baptist Church, Decatur because they have hired a female pastor, then the Southern Baptist Convention will face an extraordinary crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time.

The world may not understand our firm view on homosexuality. So be it.

But when half of conservative evangelical Christianity doesn't understand why we would disassociate from churches that call women as pastors, then we lose as a Convention.

Let's debate the women in ministry issue. Let's disagree with one another amicably. But for heaven's sake, let's not make fools of ourselves by equating women preaching the gospel with homosexual sin.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

313 comments:

1 – 200 of 313   Newer›   Newest»
Thy Peace said...

Pastor Wade, how is Debbie Brunson related to this post? I see her picture, but am unable to figure out the cause.

Wade Burleson said...

Ironically, the photo was the only picture in the public domain of a woman speaking behind a pulpit that I could find.

Other than that, she has nothing to do with the post - that is unless FBC Jacksonville calls her to be their next pastor.

:)

Chris Ryan said...

Amen.

Some issues we can discuss and disagree on. Others we cannot. And if we don't figure out which is which, our convention is headed for ruin.

Les Puryear said...

Wade,

I predict that if FBC, Decatur comes to a floor vote to disassociate, it will pass by a wide margin.

Les

volfan007 said...

Les,

And, well it should.

David

PS. Wade, I know of no one comparing homosexuality to women pastors. I hear people saying that Churches that are liberal, and would allow openly homosexual people to be members should be removed from fellowship. And, I hear people saying that liberal Churches that allow women to be Pastors should be put out of fellowship.

Texan said...

I find it ever so convenient for people to get paranoid and want to vote out anyone that has anything to do with homosexuality--yet we have pastors and church members who have adulterous relationships all the time and not a word is said. I am a pastor and happen to know quite a few gay Southern Baptist pastors as well as numerous gay staff members in state offices so don't think gay people aren't all around us.

Talk about picking one issue to harp on and this is it. I'm sure a bunch of you will hyperventilate over this post but just remember that the gay person might be your best friend--or even worse, your own child. Then what will you do? Vote to kick them out of the SBC?

I have known a lot of gay people over the years and would venture to say that about 90% of them come from Southern Baptist backgrounds--and the sad thing is that many of them despise church because of the Southern Baptist upbringing. Maybe we might actually want to consider doing things like Jesus did them.

Les Puryear said...

Texan,

You wrote: "I am a pastor and happen to know quite a few gay Southern Baptist pastors as well as numerous gay staff members in state offices".

Oh really? Gay staff people in state convention offices? Care to name the state conventions?

Les

P. Day said...

To be a woman who is a christian in America, one person's account:

My longterm church experience has been one in which all people, men and women, were given opportunity to develop their gifts and to use them for the strengthening of the entire church, whether behind the scenes or in public at a church service. On any given Sunday morning, men and women were both encouraged to share of themselves and of what God could do through them in teaching, exhorting, sharing insights, in testimonies, etc.

A few years ago my husband and I began attending a new church. While we loved a number of things about it, I began to notice something: where were the women? Indeed, the only time I ever heard a woman’s voice was during the announcements. In fact, everything about being in church was entirely male. This as well as a number of other more subtle things painted a picture of a church run primarily by men. All in all, the message I got was that women were valid only in terms of the husband they corresponded to. (I suppose single women were therefore considered invisible.)

I talked to the pastor about all my observations, and he mentioned something about “headship” (a new term to me) and confirmed that indeed it is the men who are to lead. Coming from an environment where every individual was seen for their humanity instead of their gender, this new discovery was very troubling. I proceeded to research this thing called “male headship” to try to understand this new dynamic against me, (which, of course, lead me straight to the SBC) and read large portions of “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. What I read was so deeply hurtful, demoralizing, angering… the thesis so articulately expressed made it clear that this subculture to which I belong largely discriminates against me because of who I am… and with such airtight arguments, it appears that God himself discriminates against me because of who I am. The book never words it this way, of course – but logically, discrimination is what it is. Experientially, a bruised and aching sense of my own dignity.

While I disagree with the conclusions of the “male headship” camp on grounds from scripture to logic to common sense, and am comforted in the fact that I am not alone by far, I have come to loath the fact that I am forced to be part of this entity known as christianity – because I am ashamed of it (for this viewpoint, which covers half the human race). But where else am I going to go? Jesus Christ is Lord, simple as that.

Jim Paslay said...

Texan said:

"yet we have pastors and church members who have adulterous relationships all the time and not a word is said."

I'm trying to connect the dots with your argument. Can I assume by your statement that you do consider homosexuality a sin along with adultery? And if there are homosexual pastors and homosexual staffer in Baptist convention offices as you say, does that legitimize homosexuality in the SBC?

Your other statement about 90% of homosexuals you've met coming from the Southern Baptist faith seems exaggerated to me. I can't imagine the Southern Baptist faith driving people in droves to homosexuality. On the other hand the homosexual agenda in this country advocated by most on the Left is hurting this country and causing teenagers to be confused about their sexuality. Whether people like it or not, Southern Baptists have been very clear about the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

One final thought, your use of the word "paranoid" concerning actions taken by the SBC is unfortunate. Would you describe Southern Baptists as homophobes? Most people who use that kind of language usually defend homosexuality. I hope as a Southern Baptist pastor you are not.

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade,

I am writing as one who affirms the role of women in ministry, but who also maintains a dually aligned status in Baptist life.

First, if the SBC does not disassociate FBC Decatur, would that make the SBC move towards overturning the statement in the 2000 BF&M that limits the office of pastor to a male?

It seems that if the SBC does not disassociate FBC Decatur, then it is going against its own statement of faith.

In regards to Broadway Baptist, they have recently called a new pastor, Brent Beasley. The SBC would be wise to wait and see what direction that they will go now.

I pray wisdom and love would provail in both instances.

Tom Parker said...

Wade:

I feel confident that both churches will be disassociated and the SBC will make the national news again.

I would vote to dissasociate from Broadway but not FBC Decatur.

I think those that can not agree to disagree about Women Pastors will do much harm to the SBC with their vote to remove FBC Decatur.

Joe Blackmon said...

Is there a difference between homosexual sin and women pastors? Yes. Does that mean that it is ok for a woman to be a pastor of a church? Of course not. I pray that the Georgia Baptist Convention will do what is right and disfellowship FBC-Decatur for their unbiblical stance.

Paula said...

Wade, I'm glad you "came out" and said it: women preachers is not a sin. I hope others here will be able to say the same in public. And FWIW, I don't even think men should "stand behind the pulpit". ;-)

As for the comment on practicing homosexuals in "ministry" in the SBC, are these who are indulging in sin being confronted? Sent to rehab? Taken out of leadership positions? I would remind anyone using the "we're all sinners" defense that the people of Corinth, sinners one and all, were charged by Paul with having to "expel the wicked man from among you". And that wickedness was "merely" a heterosexual one!

Yes, consistency is the big issue. Can the SBC allow women preachers yet force missionaries to sign statements agreeing that women cannot lead in that area?

Joe Blackmon said...

In regards to Broadway Baptist, they have recently called a new pastor, Brent Beasley. [However, that is really beside the point.] The SBC would be wise to [go ahead and remove that church the way a good doctor would remove a cancer by telling them they need to] go now.

I'm sorry. You had a few typos in there, Tim-may. I thought I'd help you out there.

Joe Blackmon said...

Les,

I wouldn't bet against that but rather would gladly pray for that to happen.

Todd Pylant said...

Regarding Broadway, and speaking as a pastor from their association...

Another issue is whether or not the SBC has done due diligence in determining whether or not the church endorses sexually immoral behavior or whether the church is open to ministering to sinners who are sexually immoral. And how does one measure the difference? I have heard the former pastor say to an associational committee that the church does not endorse or condone homosexual behavior. But, it appears that they might (don't know for sure) have unrepentant sexually immoral persons in positions of leadership. All that to say, if the convention will vote to "church" Broadway, they need to show the steps that they have gone through to investigate the accusations and the responses that Broadway has given when asked the questions.
Todd

Joe Blackmon said...

Another issue is whether or not the SBC has done due diligence in determining whether or not the church endorses sexually immoral behavior or whether the church is open to ministering to sinners who are sexually immoral. And how does one measure the difference?

Ummm, do they have openly homosexual members who are members of the church? Have they done ANYTHING resembling SOMETHING related to church discipline in order to call these folks to repentance?

Those are the ONLY two questions that have to be asked. Liberal christians have a "stay the course" mentality on open, blatent, unrepentant sin and would allow Broadway to remain an SBC church indefinitely. Christians recognie that associating with a church such as Broadway is embarassing and is a tacit endorsement of their obvious accpetance of people engaged in an openly homosexual lifestyle. The SBC does not have the burden of proof here. Broadway Baptist does.

Christiane said...

A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE . . .

Dear TEXAN,

you wrote this:

"I find it ever so convenient for people to get paranoid and want to vote out anyone that has anything to do with homosexuality--yet we have pastors and church members who have adulterous relationships all the time and not a word is said."

TEXAN, I was drawn to that word "CONVENIENT" in your first sentence. What I understand you to mean is this:

Given that: 'homosexuality' is more rare among the general population than 'heterosexuality';

so, the majority of sinners in the SBC, (ie. all the members) will be more vulnerable to sinning in ways 'heterosexual' (you name the variety, but 'adultery' is one of these main sins);

and, because heterosexual sin is so much more prevalent in the SBC, then it is a CONVENIENCE to somehow make it appear COMPARITIVELY 'more acceptable' by the practice of virtually ignoring it,
while damning publicly the less prevalent 'homosexual' sin practices, as much more 'unacceptable' in our OWN EYES, as well as in the Eyes of the Lord?
Considering also this fact:
that homosexual sinners are more 'visible' and heterosexual sinners are able to hide their sin better under a cloak of respectability (at least before the world) unless, like Sen. Ensign, they are threatened with exposure and choose to confess.

If this is the way you feel, I can then begin to understand your point. There would be a certain hypocrisy, if this was the case, as the outcry against heterosexual sinners is very faint in comparison.

Wow.

So the 'majority' would rule.
And the publicity focus is taken off of the heterosexual sins of the 'majority',
and placed stridently and fiercely on the homosexual sins of the 'minority'?

TEXAN, am I understanding you here?
Do you feel that there has been an 'injustice' in the concentration of 'rejection' of a minority's sexual sin to the exclusion of the pitiful absence of more formal strident rejection of the much more common, but EQUALLY SERIOUS, sins of the 'majority' heterosexual population of the SBC?
Is it almost like 'bullying' a sinful minority, if the sinful majority population can pull this off, and come away looking more righteous ?

Perhaps it is more 'convenient' to hate the sins of those who sin differently from ourselves, we, who ONLY sin in the 'natural' way?

I wonder how the Lord weighs our OWN sins in the light of what He sees in our judgment of others who are different?


I hope I have tried to understand you, TEXAN, but if I have not, could you please clarify your position for me. Thank you in advance, if you can help me. L's

Scott said...

The fact that so many good people are lining up on opposite sides of this argument means that there is alot left to be said and discussed.

I, for one, would recommend that if a motion comes up, then they refer it to the EC for study. Then we'll get the same one year moratorium on an official stance rather than an off-the-cuff response dictated by whichever side happens to have the most votes. Surely there can be a positive resolution that can avoid burning the bridges between so many godly men and women in our convention.

I believe that this is this year's powder keg. I would recommend a thorough study with the arguments from both sides of the aisle concerning women pastors being fully vetted. I know its been discussed in the past, let's discuss it again. Revisiting it will mend many fences and provide a wonderful teaching opportunity that will stretch far beyond the base issue at hand.

I believe that the example of civil disagreement while the matter is studied will provide more far reaching results than a knee jerk vote probably taken after the almost certain passionate discourse about the disfellowship of churches who affirm homosexuality.

I think that both sides need to prepare their arguments and discuss the issue, not each other, so we can put it up for a well informed vote.

We can get this done. I'll post more later.

Joe Blackmon said...

The fact that so many good people are lining up on opposite sides of this argument means that there is alot left to be said and discussed.

Actually, no. All it means is that there are people who are right and people who are wrong. Or rather, there are those who recognize that the cancer that is Broadway Baptist needs to be given the heave-ho and those who are wrong.

Joe White... said...

The BF&M states in Article 6 on the Church... "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

This is the confessional statement of the SBC. If we then follow this to its logical conclusion; (1) FBC Decatur is outside the confession of a cooperating church, (2) there is nothing to study or vote on since this statement has already been adopted by the convention and is "qualified by Scripture", and (3) if indeed we believe this is the qualifications of Scripture as we confess, then a female pastoring a church is "actually" sin. All disobedience is sin.

Paula said...

if indeed we believe this is the qualifications of Scripture as we confess, then a female pastoring a church is "actually" sin. All disobedience is sin.

That's a huge "if".

Is the SBC willing to call gifted servants of God "in sin" on the basis of its personal convictions? Is disobedience to the dictates of the SBC on a par with disobedience to God?

Wow.

Stephen said...

I am so confused. We will entertain the idea of disassociatian from Broadway and FBC Decatur, but no one is talking much about disassociating Wiley Drake? It is acceptable to disassociate a church because of homosexuality and female ministers, but there is no urgency to address the issue of a MINISTER AND FORMER SBC VP spouting hate in the name of the Prince of Peace!!!!

If Drake is not confronted and does not repent, I'll seek to get my church out of the SBC.

Joe Blackmon said...

That's a huge "if".

Only for someone who disregards the clear teaching of scripture. It's called I Timothy 2. Try reading it.

Paula said...

Only for someone who disregards the clear teaching of scripture. It's called I Timothy 2. Try reading it.

Try reading in context.

And pray tell, Mr. Plain Reading, what do you do with "if YOUR EYE causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away"?

And then, after all that, explain how men are exempt from "not so among you", "esteem others as better than yourself", and the example of Jesus in Phil. 2:5-11 on laying power and privilege aside?

What kind of Christians want to boss other Christians?

Paula said...

Excellent questions, Stephen. The double standards stink to high heaven.

Chris Johnson said...

The church would do well to exercise the wisdom of our Apostle Paul…..

1 Corinthians 4:14-21 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (15) For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. (16) Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. (17) For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. (18) Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. (19) But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. (20) For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. (21) What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?

Its always worth going to the children of God to implore for restoration,.. Paul was willing to dispense what was desired? Good advice from the Apostle.

Blessings,
Chris

Big Daddy Weave said...

Since their inception in the mid-80s, the Alliance of Baptists has affirmed women in all ministry roles. The Alliance was the first Baptist body to affirm these called women. In fact, many if not most ordained Baptist women pastors in the United States have either served or currently serve an Alliance-affiliated congregation or are or have been dues-paying member of the Alliance of Baptists.

In the mid-90s, the Alliance became the first Baptist organization to welcome and affirm gays and lesbians into the life of the church. The popular argument made by Alliance leaders was that this Welcoming & Affirming position towards both gays and lesbians was merely the logical extension of a biblical interpretive hermeneutic that had previously affirmed the equality, in both society and in the church, of women and African-Americans. Many progressive Baptists - even those who aren't affiliated with the Alliance - still make this hermeneutical argument.

Ironically, fundamentalists/conservatives like Al Mohler agree with this "logical extension" argument. Commenting on the Alliance of Baptists' decision to affirm gays and lesbians (specifically same-sex marriages), Mohler wrote that the Alliance's decision "comes as no surprise" and is merely "the logical extension of the denial of biblical inerrancy..."

As a side note, I'm pretty sure that numerous congregations that give to the SBC (in small amounts or large amounts) have homosexual members sitting in the pews. Their presence might not make the Dallas Morning News. But they exist. They're in the pews. They might not be in visible public leadership roles. In fact, I've never been to a Baptist church for any real length of time that didn't have at least one gay member. To be consistent with their Constitution, Southern Baptist messengers probably should oust Broadway. But if a witch hunt were to ensue, I suspect consistency would demand that a number of other historic Baptist congregations would have to be ousted as well.

Joe Blackmon said...

I am so confused. We will entertain the idea of disassociatian from Broadway and FBC Decatur, but no one is talking much about disassociating Wiley Drake?

I have said, on comment thread on this blog and others, that I think we should disassiciate from Drake. I've read and heard others say the same thing. What in the world are you babbling about? Oh, wait, I know. You don't think we should disassoiate from Broadway or FBC-Decatur. I get it. I bet you think that a church ought to call all fat people to repent of their "obvious" sin of gluttony in church before it EVER deals with homosexuality since the ONLY reason someone is fat is the have obviously overeaten.

Thanks. Have a nice day.

Texan said...

Les,

The state organizations that I know about specifically are Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Georgia. I'm sure there are gay people in all the others but probably well disguised.

Jim Pasley,

I did not say whether I defend homosexuality or not, but I do believe Southern Baptists (and specifically most pastors) are homophobes. Just listen to the talk in small groups of pastors or in some of the sermons they preach. Most gay Southern Baptists have left the SBC churches because of the sermons they have heard.

Christiane,

I appreciated your post a lot. Basically, I am saying that its easier for us in the pews and pulpits to harp on homosexuality than it is to confront adultery, lying, and jealously by straight people.

I once preached a sermon condemning homosexuality and got tons of amens; however, the minute I changed the specific sin to adultery and fornication, the amens disappeared. Kind of proves the point.

I think its time we stop and realize that Broadway is probably the only Southern Baptist church in Dallas and Ft. Worth that is even vaguely open to ministering to gay people. They deserve our respect and support--not a discussion about whether to remove them from our ranks.

kehrsam said...

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual sin is different in naure from heterosexual sin? If we disfellowship for the one, we must do so for both.

And why stop there? My church has a member who recently served time in prison for theft. As we have not initiated any church discipline against her, we must be disfellowshipped as well.

In the end, only the sinless will be left. But wasn't He the reason for all of this in the first place?

Paula said...

Let's see a show of hands:

Who believes that Paul was wrong to tell the sinners in Corinth to "expel the wicked man from among you"?

Dan said...

As I read these posts, one brief thought came to mind: Why do we assume God's grace is more than enough for our own sin, but not for that of another?
It seems to me that we're looking at this issue through the wrong lens. This is why we're okay with blanket statements that pit "the Right" vs. "the Left." If we take the creation account seriously and give God credit for creating all of us, then we must also acknowledge that God has no enemies, only rebellious children.

Wade Burleson said...

It seems to me that people are not making a distinction between homosexual orientation (or temptation) and homosexual behavior. We would welcome anyone in our church who struggled with sexual orientation issues but could personally acknowledge that homosexual behavior or lust is sin.

In the same manner, we welcome all men who have an orientation (or temptation) toward adultery, but could personally acknowledge that if they acted out on their orientation and committed adultery, they would be in sin.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF THIS POST.

The issue of this post is simply this:

Will we as a Convention disassociate from churches that call women who are gifted (or oriented) to preach the gospel because we believe acting out on such urges is sin?

I make the argument there is a HUGE difference between a woman preaching the gospel and a homosexual acting out on his desire to have sex with another man.

Blessings,

Wade

P.S. I am off to do a wedding and then to our youth camp. Unable to respond to questions.

Christiane said...

Dear TEXAN,

It kind of reminds me of Our Lord sitting down with the 'rejects' of His day. And the criticism He faced from those who were 'outraged'.

I wonder, sometimes, how much we HAVE LEARNED from His Example.

In my own faith, Catholic homosexuals are recognized as followers of Christ, who are 'challenged' in their sexual orientation. My Church accepts them in their nature, as they are, but asks them to practice celibacy.

In my own conscience, I know not to judge these people.
I worry for the young: the suicide rate among homosexual youth is very high. And I have wondered about the so-called 'chosen life-style' concept preached by some evangelicals: a concept which I must reject:
it makes no sense to me why these young people, with their whole lives ahead of them, would 'choose' a sexual orientation that would lead them to commit suicide? And why have so many of the young prayed: "God, why did you do this to me?' , if, in fact, they had willingly chosen to be homosexual?

I have no answers.
But I will not judge them. At least, I CAN make that 'choice'. Love,L's

P.S. The 'world' will watch and notice what the SBC does to this Church in Fort Worth.
But the Father is also watching.

The SBC needs to think about that, as their priority, and to remember that Christ reached out to the rejected of His day, and sat with them, and shared a meal with them, and ministered to them.

This should perhaps tell us something as we sit here in the semi-darkness two thousand years later, about that time so long ago, when the Lord walked this Earth and tried to bring us into the Light. Love, L's

Paula said...

I totally agree, Wade. As Paul put it, "And that is what some of you were."

To others: Regarding women peaching the gospel to men, is God now looking on the flesh? Is He a respecter of persons? Was Paul wrong to rejoice that the gospel was preached even if by people of ill intent, since you say he forbade women to preach the true gospel to men?

Is the SBC the Protestant version of the Magisterium, an infallible interpreter?

volfan007 said...

I also find it very interesting, Wade, that you put up a picture of Debbie Brunson, whom you have had issues with in the past, whenever there are many women pastors and preachers out there. Why not put up a picture of Joyce Meyer? Paula White? or a host of others that are on the tv?

I'm just curious. Were you trying to make a point with her pic being on the post? Were you trying to get across some kind of message? Just wondering. I just find it funny.

David

Texan said...

Paula,

If we agree with Paul and expel the wicked man from among us, the only ones left would be newborns.

Personally, I don't think women should be pastors but if a church chooses to have one, then that's fine with me too.

I do have a big issue with people that love to pick out gay people as their "whipping boy" while they tolerate gross sin on every other hand right there in the pew. It seems interesting that we want to be sure that gay people remain celibate while we tolerate fornication, adultery, drinking, lying, and backbiting from deacons and Sunday Schools teachers all the time. I doubt seriously that a double standard is what the Lord had in mind when He saved us.

Perhaps we should learn to practice love, restoration, and affirmation instead of judgment.

Paula said...

I agree that double standards are wrong. But are you actually saying you think Paul gave bad advice?

Joe Blackmon said...

If we agree with Paul and expel the wicked man from among us, the only ones left would be newborns.

This is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Are you daft? No, all Christians are not living in open, unrepentant sin. I'm not talking about occasionally sinning, repenting, and asking forgivness. Even Paul still sinned. I'm talking about living a homosexual life that is clearly in violation of scripture. A daily, unrepentant sin that is a lifestyle.

And you are a pastor? I weep for your church. A church with a pastor who won't call sin what it is--sin--is in a sad state of affairs.

volfan007 said...

Joe Blackmon is speaking the truth. This is about people living in open, unrepentant sin. It's not talking about people who sin and repent of thier sin.

There's a huge difference in a Christian messing up and failing God by sinning, and then them repenting of the sin; and with a person rebelliously living a lifestyle of open, unrepentant sin.

David

Texan said...

Please spare me your condescending evaluations of my thought processes and your crying about my church. You have no idea about whether I preach against sin or not but I can assure you that I do and my church is well pleased. However, I do consider Phariseeism just as intrinsically evil as adultery, fornication, and even being gay.

If you really want to be blessed, you should sit in a group of SBC pastors and listen to their banter. It would make even a hooker blush.

I understand completely what Paul (and Paula) were saying and my response was tongue in cheek. As usual, some of you leap to an unwarranted conclusion and promptly pass out judgment and personal evaluations.

Isn't our SBC world a wonderful place to live?

Thy Peace said...

"We would welcome anyone in our church who struggled with sexual orientation issues but could personally acknowledge that homosexual behavior or lust is sin".

Pastor Wade, I am assuming you mean as Church Members.

But clearly, if anyone wishes to hear the Gospel, even though they are openly in sin and rebellion, they should not be forbidden to sit and hear the Gospel being preached. Then how else will their hearts be convicted, for The Spirit to move within them, by first hearing The Word of God being preached.

anon said...

LaneKiffinFan007 - read the second post on this thread for wade's answer to your question about why Deb Brunson's photo was used.(No, it is not stalking to post her picture.)

Also, I think FBC Jax should be disassociated from fellowship. Not for having a women pastor, nor for affirming homosexuals. But for allowing "unjust criticism" by members and former members. We can forgive homosexuals and restore them to fellowship. But evil bloggers must be outted, aggressively confronted and removed from fellowship without any regard to Matthew 18. (According to FBC Jax Deacon Resolution 2009-1) Also, they would never issue trespass warnings to homosexuals or women preachers, but they did to a blogger. I move we disfellowship FBC Jacksonville. Any seconds?

Paula said...

Thy Peace,

I think part of the confusion is due to the very nature of "churchianity". In the NT, we see that meetings were for believers. If unbelievers listened in, Paul urged the people to emphasize prophecy (over tongues) so that the lost could be convicted of their sin. But the primary character of the meeting was for believers.

The thrust of evangelism was exactly that: going out into the world to preach the gospel (and nobody has yet answered my question about who the Great Commission was for, since it involves preaching and baptizing). It was not to lure in the lost to meetings of believers.

With that in mind, we can better address the issue of practicing sinners in our "services". Preaching the gospel to them is one thing, but accepting them as part of the group week after week (members or not) is quite another. That in itself says that we condone their "lifestyle".

John Fariss said...

There is a fine line between affirming the practice of homosexuality (which I certainly oppose) and attempting to minister redemptively to those who are in homosexual lifestyles, at least as far as outward appearances go. Many churches and pastors would affirm the idea of ministering redemptively to those in homosexuality, but few actually do it. I think that is because in our zeal to avoid the former, we alienate most of those to whom we might minister, and thus throw out the baby with the bathwater. Are we sure which side of that fine line Broadway falls on?

A further issue to consider is the difference between "being" homosexual verses the "practice" of homosexuality. In other words, the question is, "What is this homosexuality we dare not affirm?" Is it defined by thoughts, desires, and tendencies, even if not acted upon? Or is it defined by practice? I know it is popular in conservative, evangelical life to catagorically state that one chooses homosexuality, and that when one is saved, God will take away all those sinful thoughts and desires. It is popular--but not necessarily true. Do we dare say that among those of us who are heterosexual and saved, none of us have ever had a thought or desire for a sexual experience with someone other than our spouse? Granted Jesus said to lust in one's heart was tanamount to committing adultary, and I believe Him. But am I the only heterosexual Christian man who has ever seen a beautiful woman and thought that anyway, not deliberately, not intentionally, but BOOM! There the thought is. Acting on such an impulse is a different question altogether. IF Broadway affirms people who are being identified as homosexual, are we sure their homosexuality is defined by behavior and lifestyle?

And as Todd Pylant aptly points out, there is a "due diligence" issue to consider. My experience from pastoring five churches, four of which were troubled and dysfunctional, is that many Southern Baptists have a tendency to give fewer "rights" to those in the church than are afforded criminals in the justice system in our country. Too, too many pastors have been fired or pressured to resign because someone accused him of some wrongdoing--frequently without ever revealing the name or names of accusors, and sometimes without ever naming the sin or wrong. Most of us know of instances where a deacon chairman came and said something along the lines of, "Well, pastor, there are some people in the church, and I can't tell their names for confidentiality you know, and they just aren't satisfied, they think you've done some wrong things, and that's where it stands. You need to find yourself somewhere else to go, and if not, then the deacons have no choice but to recommend that you be fired. And if that happens, it'll be hard for you to find a new church." I use the example of pastors because that is possibly more prevalent, but I have seen that happen to pew-sitting members too. A person accused of a crime has the benefit of an adversarial system involving specified rights, including knowing exactly what they are charged with and confronting witnesses; but that rarely happens in churches. Are we sure that has happened in Broadway's case, or is it possible that we are drawing conclusions based on too scant evidence?

If these issues are settled, I would have no problem disfellowshipping Broadway.
But all thses are light years away from the issue of women preachers.

And Joe: are you sure you want to take the position that anything the BF&M opposes is automatically sin in God's eyes?

John

Lydia said...

" if indeed we believe this is the qualifications of Scripture as we confess, then a female pastoring a church is "actually" sin. All disobedience is sin."

Thu Jun 18, 10:12:00 AM 2009

The irony of 'obeying' the BF&M is that it uses the word 'office' which was ADDED by translators.

There is no 'office' of pastor. What does 'Pastor' encompass since there is nothing spelled out in scripture. Some say it is an 'undershepherd'. Is it an elder? Some call them 'teaching elder'.

Seems we have made it into something it isn't. Who is the pastor of the church at Corinth? Philippi? If was such a huge deal, wouldn't we know?

Paula said...

Occasionally I hear a "pastor" call himself an under-rower. If only they knew what that meant!

An under-rower in a Roman galley was on the very lowest level of the ship. There was a level of rowers above him, with only a grate between the layers. Since rowers didn't get potty breaks, whatever they had to do fell through the grates and onto the heads of the under-rowers.

It should be obvious that under-rowers are not found up on the bridge, at the helm, wearing uniforms and being saluted and honored. One cannot be both an under-rower and captain.

missshunary said...

I think some of you need to find a homosexual and witness to them.

Especially those of you that have nothing else to do except make a post every other comment like Paula. Good grief, get a life. One or maybe two comments per post is enough, whether you are a genius on the topic at hand or just a "Paula".

No one cares what you think about every other person's comment.

Volfan - If the SBC votes to disassociate every fat pastor, where will you go?

ps The only reason I know you are fat is because you said you were.

Texan - You lose credibility when you say things like "I am not going to say whether I defend homosexuality or not."

I stopped reading your comments after you said that. I will never miss an opportunity to make it clear that homosexuality is sin. No matter who is asking.

Stressed today. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better.

Off to hand out bible study invitations.

Paula said...

Now we have two Blog Cops!

And can we sink lower than when a "missshunary" who thinks "no one cares" what others they happen to disagree with think?

Sheesh. Maybe you're right, missshunary. I'm truly wasting my time here.

And you can tell God, since He doesn't hear lowlifes like me, that He messed up in calling me to hold Christian leaders to scripture, to expose sinful practices, and to combat false teachings that rip the Body apart. In fact, why don't you just call me lost, so you can have sympathy for me like you do to those who wallow in sin?

The rest of you: Is missshunary speaking for you? I'm sure Wade will boot me out if you all feel I'm hogging the limelight such that poor missshunary can't get a word in edgewise.

Joe Blackmon said...

Paula

I disagree with some of what you've got to say--well basically the women pastors thing. However, it's a free country and this is a public forum as long as Wade allows you to comment, anyway (don't see that changing). So, if you've got the time to comment here and want to do so I say, in the words of that immortal poet laureate of the urban landscape Missy Elliot:

"Get your freak on.
Go"

Thy Peace said...

Paula, missshunary was venting. I carefully read all your comments and posts. I may not agree with you every time, but I learn much from you.

The same with Lydia. God bless you both.

Lydia said...

or maybe two comments per post is enough, whether you are a genius on the topic at hand or just a "Paula"."

Miss, your post was cruel. Please tell me you are not an SBC missionary.

Paula said...

Thanks, Joe and ThyPeace :-)

Sometimes I vent too.

volfan007 said...

misshunary,

Wow. You think that you're the first one to ever call me fat? You think that I've never had anyone to attack me with ad hominem statements like you just did? My skin is thick, misshunary, whoever you are. So, go ahead and call me names all day, if in some twisted way that makes you feel better.

God bless you.

David

volfan007 said...

Also, to answer your question. If all the fat people are kicked out of the SBC, where will I go? I'll go with all the fat people.

David

Christiane said...

So, it seems that Broadway Church is trying to 'serve' sinners, regardless of who they are?

Are we surprised that those in the 'Narrow-Way Church' are upset by this. After all, we who are nearly without sin (or at least possessing only 'minor' acceptable sin levels kept under control) , must be careful who we associate with, or we might lose our reputations. ?

Imagine that!


And some feel that they, regardless of who they are, male or female, have been called to serve the Lord as shepherds?
And they answer that Call.
I imagine they too, will serve sinners regardless of who they are, because they understand something important:
.
It isn't about WHO WE ARE at all;
It's about WHO HE WAS.

Daniel said...

Wade,

You are saying that there is a huge difference between acceptance of homosexual behavior and acceptance of women in pastor roles. I understand your point, but I think there are too many connections between the two to ignore. Both depend on exegetical gymnastics to explain away the clear meaning of the biblical text. Both arise out of a confusion of God's design for men and women. Both have been early steps toward rejection of biblical inerrancy in other denominations.

Here's the most obvious link: Both are relatively new issues that did not exist until the culture around us moved toward gender neutrality. Neither one of these would be up for debate if our churches were not tempted to appease the culture around us.

Mark Burleson said...

wait.. kinda fuzzy are what's being said here..

is it a woman can have the urge to preach, but can't?

and if a SBC church allows one to preach they should be thrown out?

Stephen said...

Joe Blackmon:

1. I rarely babble
2. Don't consider a job in the mind reading business....you are lousy at it. You may want to actually engage in debate rather than tell a person what they believe before asking them
3. Thanks for keeping this interesting

In Christian love......

Lydia said...

"Here's the most obvious link: Both are relatively new issues that did not exist until the culture around us moved toward gender neutrality"

Seriously? Homosexuality as an 'issue' is new. It is in Genesis. The Sodomites thought it was perfectly normal.0

Women taught men in the OT. So that is not new, either.

Daniel said...

Lydia,

I mean that the debates over whether to accept these two practices are both new within Christianity. I'm well aware of the ancient history to which you refer.

Paula said...

Both depend on exegetical gymnastics to explain away the clear meaning of the biblical text. Both arise out of a confusion of God's design for men and women. Both have been early steps toward rejection of biblical inerrancy in other denominations.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If you want to know what egalitarians really believe and why, ask us. It's much better to stand against actual arguments than straw men, and much more Christlike to let God do the mind- and motive-reading.

Lydia said...

I mean that the debates over whether to accept these two practices are both new within Christianity. I'm well aware of the ancient history to which you refer.

Thu Jun 18, 01:17:00 PM 2009

Homosexuals were "accepted" in Sodom and other pagan cultures.

Women prophetesses were accepted in Israel.

It is not as new as you try to make it out to be. but I know where you are coming from. It makes good CR propaganda to think we have this 'new' enemy to fight.

John Fariss said...

Daniel,

All of us have presuppositions. Most of us have presuppositions which we have not articulated, even to ourselves; but they are real, they are there, and they affect how we view and interpret things and events around us. May I share what I see as one of yours?

You wrote, "Both (acceptance of homosexuality and of female preachers) are relatively new issues that did not exist until the culture around us moved toward gender neutrality." You have a presupposition that 20th Century American/western Christianity, especially regards to church structures and organization, and what that allowed and considered normative, is the same that operated in 1st Century Christianity, especially with regards to church structures and organization.

My question to you: are you trying to understand the 1st Century church in the context of the 1st Century, or do you insist on interpreting it through the lens of 20th Century American/western "churchianity"?

John

Daniel said...

I know some of you would like to go back and forth with me, but I really just don't have time today. I'll have to let what I've said stand.

I hope you guys have a great weekend!

child of grace said...

-Where does this stop?

Should we remove SBC churches who are led by unrepentant gluttons who openly flaunt their flabby sin from their pulpits and at potlucks and confuse our young people about their body image?

Perhaps those who can't see their toes when they stand (and, sadly I am among them) should not be so willing to bend over to pick up a rock to throw at another brother or sister.

Jim Paslay said...

Texan said:

"I did not say whether I defend homosexuality or not, but I do believe Southern Baptists (and specifically most pastors) are homophobes."

I take issue with your petty generalization of our convention and of pastors since I am one. Number one, I am not afraid of homosexuals. Number two, I am not afraid to take a stand on a moral issue as you seem to be. Number three, homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin. I am probably more detested at adultery than I am at homosexuality because of the damage that has been done to families all across this country.

By the way, we need to quit using the colorful words like gay and an affair to make it more palitable for people. Both sins have done a number on the family in America.

Tom Parker said...

Child of grace:

You said--"Should we remove SBC churches who are led by unrepentant gluttons who openly flaunt their flabby sin from their pulpits and at potlucks and confuse our young people about their body image?"

Let's see how long it takes a certain person to show up with a rebuttal to what you said.

John Fariss said...

Jim,

"Homophobia" is not so much a fear of honosexuals as it is a fear of homosexuality, and therefore an internal one. It is when a person is "afraid" that there is some latent homosexuality in him or herself. Books I have read suggest that is the reason that lesbianism is popular pornography among men: it removes the suggestion or inference that they even might be sexually stimulated by male genitalia.

I have no idea whether or not you have any degree of homophobia, but like Texan, I believe most heterosexual men possess some.

John

Jim Paslay said...

John said:

"Homophobia" is not so much a fear of honosexuals as it is a fear of homosexuality, and therefore an internal one.

John, it is also a code word for the radical homosexuals in this country to describe anyone who has the audacity to call it sin. I don't know what books you have read, but I assure you I have no internal fear of homosexuality. Does your books describe someone as a "adultophobe" if they happen to speak out against adultery?

Joe Blackmon said...

John, it is also a code word for the radical homosexuals in this country to describe anyone who has the audacity to call it sin.

As they say in the hood, "True dat".

John Fariss said...

Jim,

I certainly did not say you were homophobic, not that it matters to me one way or the other. But I know, and suspect you do too, many men who are less than 100% confident in their own sexual identity. In fact, some of the "worst" adulterers are those who do this repeatedly in an effort to prove to themselves their sexual identity as heterosexual. It is a case, like Shakespeare said, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks ."

I shan't even respond to your rhetorical question about "adultophobes" because any answer would be as ridiculous as the question.

And I know little about homophobia being a code word. If that is your refefrence rather than the accepted psychological meaning. . . so be it.

John

John Fariss said...

Have a lot of experience with "the hood," do you Joe? What do your African American friends think of that quote?

John

Lydia said...

"I know some of you would like to go back and forth with me, but I really just don't have time today. I'll have to let what I've said stand."

Daniel, No problem. Just consider something. The gender neutral "dots" of women's roles and rise of homosexuality do not connect.

The most patriarchal of ancient and modern cultures were and are homocentric. It has ALWAYS been prevelant (and seen as somewhat normal) in those patriarchal cultures. Do some research on it. It is quite shocking. Even in the male dominated patriarachal ME. It is just hidden better.

Soon after the war in Afghanistan, many aid workers who went in were shocked at the evidence and even open acceptance of homosexual (many were pedophilia) relationships of those under the Taliban. In the rural areas many had their own 'boys'.

So the dots of emancipation of women (into traditionally male domains) and increased homosexual behavior do not connect.

It is a myth many have bought into.

Joe Blackmon said...

Funny you should ask, John. I worked for a company in Hunts-vegas, Alabama where about 75% of the employees were African-American. Had several good friends there. They got a pretty big kick out of some bald-headed white guy talking like they did. They knew it wasn't mockery.

As to living near the hood, no, I don't guess there's ever really been too much "hood" anywhere I've lived.

I mean, don't be gettin' all up in my grill just cause I be keepin' it real, shawty. Don't front. And while you're at it, don't back and don't side either. But definitely don't front.

Chris Ryan said...

We all have our pet sins to preach against. Too often, they are the ones which we don't struggle with. It is so much easier to call something sin when we are not affected by it. We all now the pastor who preached a roaring sermon and then got told, "It was good, but when are we going to give us a good sermon against homosexuality?" To which the astute pastor responds, "Do you struggle with homosexuality?" Congregant responds, "No." And the pastor finishes the conversation by saying, "Then why do you need a sermon against homosexuality?"

We all have our sins we too easily excuse. These are usually those to which we are most inclined. Few overweight pastors will admit that their problem has anything to do with eating habits. It's all the fault of a "low metabolism," etc.

Double standards exist. That doesn't make them right. The BFM and SBC constitution both affirm these double standards. The constitution says it a church is out of good-fellowship if it supports homosexuality (not actively ministers to, or has members who struggle with homosexual urges). It does not cast from fellowship those who purposefully persist in other sins. The BFM says a woman who preaches is outside the will of God, but offers no rebuke to the male pastors whose sin isn't their God-given gender (sarcasm alert).

Everyone assumes that anybody who doesn't agree with them must do "hermeneutical gymnastics" in order to arrive at their conclusions. Never mind that all of us pick and choose our verses and our exegetical details.

Too bad nobody is ever willing to listen to those with different opinions. To learn from those who have reached across to the isle to the struggling homosexual without compromising and approving of sin. To listen to those who are egalitarian or complimentarian to see where each has stronger arguments and weave from those insights a more wholistic and faithful position on gender relations. To see where Democrats and Republicans both have biblically faithful positions, and learn to speak to both parties where they fall short.

But no, we will persist in our 'holier-than-thou-ness' until we arrive at the gates of heaven and realize that none of us were near as holy as we imagined ourselves.

Joe Blackmon said...

Few overweight pastors will admit that their problem has anything to do with eating habits.

[sarcasm]That's right because the ONLY the that could POSSIBLY cause a weight problem is eating. There are absolutely no other reasons at all for someone to be overweight.[/sarcasm]

The fact is, lib christians (Mainstreamers) don't want to confront any sins unless it's the "sin" of someone having what they consider too much money and not giving it all away or the sin of judging someone by calling their behavior sinful.

But don't get your knickers in a twist, my little sprog. When the Mainstream Resurgence [(c) 2008 Joe Blackmon] takes place, you guys can do away with nasty things like [shudder] doctrine and [gasp] faithfulness to God's word. I imagine it'll be nice to finally have a doctrinal statement that'll easily fit on a postage stamp.

Christiane said...

Mother Theresa said something like this: 'If you judge people, you have no time to love them.'

Well, that's the jist of it.

I think the 'holier' people get, the less likely they are to notice the sins of others;
because when they think of 'sins', they are blinded by tears for their own. Love, L's

Christiane said...

Hi JOE BLACKMON,

It's me, L's

You wrote this: "I imagine it'll be nice to finally have a doctrinal statement that'll easily fit on a postage stamp."

Someone has already done it.
There was once a postage stamp that had the word 'Love' on it.

"LOVE." The One-Word Doctrine. All else is commentary.

Love you dearly, L's


P.S. And, JOE, stay the heck out of the hood! Please!
Now you've got me swearing! People get killed there, doesn't matter who they are, either. Love, L's

Scott said...

After reading these comments and all the associated links and related websites, I still think that the SBC would be wise to table for examination any motion to disfellowship churches based on the fact that there are women pastors. The SBC took a year moratorium to examine homosexuality which will come to a head this year. I think that the wise thing would be to give the female pastor issue a year moratorium as well.

I just really think that this would be the wise course of action.

Besides, I need some more time to really dive into this myself and I know that I'm probably more like most congregants.

feetxxxl said...

does the baptist church allow for the 2nd commandment being the summation of all new covenant law(love your neighbor............). that would mean for something to be a sin, according to the new covenant of christ, it would have to come against the second commandment.(romans)

that asks the question how does women preaching and being homosexual(as compared with being heterosexual) come against it?

so how does it?

Lydia said...

Frank Viola's open letter on women in ministry. Viola is co author of Pagan Christianity

http://ptmin.org/role.pdf

It is very interesting.

Wade Burleson said...

I am postng with my Blackberry and must make this quick with no follow-up!

Friends, you are MISSING my point.

If we disassociate from a church for condoning homosexual sin while at the same time disassociate from a church for condoning a woman ministering the gospel - we are comparing homosexual sin with a woman preaching the gospel.
HOW CAN ANYONE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE SAY THOSE TWO THINGS ARE SIMILAR SINS?

I would say the same thing about adulterous sexual sin and a woman ministering the gospel if those two thimgs were being compared.

One is certainly sin the other is certainly not.

Wade

Joe Blackmon said...

If we disassociate from a church for condoning homosexual sin while at the same time disassociate from a church for condoning a woman ministering the gospel - we are comparing homosexual sin with a woman preaching the gospel.

Nope. Total red herring. Paul gave clear teaching that women are not to pastor a church. Does that mean it's the same kind of sin as homosexual relations? No. It just means both are wrong.

I'm actually pretty excited about this now, though. I didn't figure FBC-Decatur would come up at the national convention. Now that would be a wonderful suprise.

Lydia said...

What about those who harbor and coddle pedophiles and sexual predators in the church and on staff. Why are we not voting to remove them?

feetxxxl said...

or...........how do they?

feetxxxl said...

again.......... i repeat how what you are calling sin come against the second commandment?

Joe Blackmon said...

What about those who harbor and coddle pedophiles and sexual predators in the church and on staff. Why are we not voting to remove them?

I'm asking this as sincerely as I can--was the situation(s) you're referring to an issue where the church allowed this or the pastor found out one of the other pastors was doing things and did nothing? In either case, the SBC should do something. My only question would be can the church be held accountable if it was something the pastor did? I ask that because I have no idea. However, without question something should be done.

Thy Peace said...

"What about those who harbor and coddle pedophiles and sexual predators in the church and on staff. Why are we not voting to remove them?"

Because the SBC Churches are autonomous. At least, that is the reasoning I hear.

If SBC went the route of equating homosexual sin and kicking churches out of SBC, and doing the same with churches that allow women to preach, then SBC is poised to self-destruct soon.

Lydia, your comment on patriarchal systems is true.

feetxxxl said...

let me put it another way. in regards to the law, how can it be a sin, under the new covenant, if it doesnt come against the second commandment?

Texan said...

OK, I give up. I will now support the following motion:

That we remove from fellowship with the SBC any church that:

1. Has an overweight pastor who is unrepentant in his eating habits.
2. Has a female as a pastor.
3. Has members who practice homosexuality.
4. Has members who practice adultery and fornication.

Now that we have removed EVERY CHURCH in the SBC, what are we going to do? Maybe we can start over Biblically and do what is right. Hopefully we can get it right the next time around.

Nate said...

What I find interesting about this conversation (and this conversation as a whole not just on this blog) is that many who will take the position of allowing women into the office of pastorate firmly believe that God has put the husband in the role of leader in the home. The scripture also teaches us that a wife's primary responsibility is her home and her children. Contrary to popular belief this is a very powerful role. The home is the focal point of society. It is what makes or breaks society. Why is it easy for us to accept that God has designed this position to be held by a woman. Is it only the physical and genetic design that makes it easy for us to accept this role for a woman, but not accept the role of men being the pastors of the church?

If God can give unique roles within the home and marriage, why is it so hard for us to believe he would do the same in the Church?

Joe Blackmon said...

Nate,

Because some people want what they want and will do whatever hermenutical gymnastics they need to do in order to get there.

John Fariss said...

Nate,

You said, "What I find interesting about this conversation (and this conversation as a whole not just on this blog) is that many who will take the position of allowing women into the office of pastorate firmly believe that God has put the husband in the role of leader in the home." Would you be so kind as to point out the comments in this thread which indicated that?

John

John Fariss said...

feetxxxl,

Can you hear the crickets chirping over the din and rush to answer your questions?

John

Nate said...

John,

When I said "and this conversation as a whole not just this blog" I was referring to the topic of women holding the office of pastor. Obviously the intent of the blog article was not to determine whether or not women holding the office is Biblical or not, it is about whether or not SBC churches should be allowed to stay in the SBC if they allow women pastors. I was just throwing in some inconsistencies I've heard in the arguments for women pastors.

But for one example of something similar to this look @ P.Day's post. She talks about how angry it makes her that Christians would hold to this position. I just wonder if it makes P.Day angry that we hold to roles within the family and marriage.

I mean soon we'll be twisting Scripture that says "Children obey your parents". Why shouldn't parents have to obey the children? That seems unfair discrimination to me.

Jim Paslay said...

Wade,

I did get the point of your post but when someone comments like Texan did about Southern Baptists being paranoid about homosexuality, I think that deserves a response.

We live in a world today where seing things black and white is looked down upon. How dare we call homosexuality a sin. How dare we call anything sin. I think some on this blog operate in gray and like it that way.

Several weeks ago I shared with my congregation about my weight problem and asked for prayer. I have a daughter who had a baby out of wedlock and I still preach on the subject of fornication. I had an individual who came in shared about her daughter's lesbian lifestyle and I still preach that homosexuality is an abomination. And you know what, the parent thanked me for preaching the truth in love!

For those of you who have a fragile self-esteem, you might want to remember that Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, but neither did he approve of her adultery. "Go and sin no more."

feetxxxl said...

"We live in a world today where seeing things black and white is looked down upon. How dare we call homosexuality a sin".

my question has nothing to do with black or white............but is about the letters of paul.

possibly my question threatens those who desire to keep one foot firmly planted in the old covenant.

Texan said...

Jim,

If by your comments you are assuming that I do not preach that homosexuality is a sin then you are sadly mistaken.

Hope this clears up your confusion about what I actually mean when I write something.

Lydia said...

"The scripture also teaches us that a wife's primary responsibility is her home and her children. Contrary to popular belief this is a very powerful role. The home is the focal point of society. It is what makes or breaks society. Why is it easy for us to accept that God has designed this position to be held by a woman. Is it only the physical and genetic design that makes it easy for us to accept this role for a woman, but not accept the role of men being the pastors of the church?"

Ah Nate. You have gone and dangled a rotten carrot in front of me.

Would you point out the scriptures that have specific roles for men and women in the home?

If you are referring to 'head' there is scant evidence that it means authority over. That is a presupposition that is very popular.

The Holy Spirit had clear words to chose from that would have communicated authority over quite
clearly. But He did not choose them.

There are head/body metaphors throughout scripture and neither the head nor the body can do without the other. It is about love. Not position or authority. YOu are trying to elevate yourself. Not nice. That is not scriptural.

The other thing that worries me is that many of you guys (Like Driscoll) are saying that God instituted authority over by men because women are easily deceived. (Never mind that Adam sinned on purpose so that better qualifies men, right?)

Then women should NOT be teaching kids! They cannot be trusted! And if they teach other women then the easily deceived are teaching the easily deceived. A recipe for disaster. Even Driscoll is consistent in that he says women's ministries are pits of gossip.

Now, tell me how Titus 2 corresponds with roles and the Proverbs 31 woman. Basically you are saying that women in the OT had more freedom in roles than women in the NT. Maybe it is about money? If you have servants you can be a proverbs 31 woman and run businesses?

Now, you and Joe are NOT allowed to come back and say scripture is clear and I just don't like it. (Nevermind that you might like it because it puts you on top)

Seriously, you need to grapple with the hard questions. Why are women MORE restricted in the NT than they are in the OT.

Joe Blackmon said...

Now, you and Joe are NOT allowed to come back and say scripture is clear and I just don't like it.

Lydia,

Scripture is clear and you just don't like it.

Lydia said...

Lydia,

Scripture is clear and you just don't like it.

Thu Jun 18, 04:38:00 PM 2009

Can't handle the hard questions or obvious NT/OT contradictions, can you?

But maybe you like it because it elevates you over a woman. You know, men are more prone to sin on purpose so that would make sense. Women are just easily deceived. :o)

Joe Blackmon said...

Lydia,

Men and women who have studied far more than I ever have in my life have already done this. As such, anything I have to say would be pretty worthless compared to folks like Albert Mohler and Nancy DeMoss (sp, -5 pts).

Paula said...

Joe has appealed to Caesar. And that's that.

So I guess none of us is allowed to talk about scripture, because there is an Infallible Interpreter whose pronouncements we dare not question. All we're allowed to do is nod in agreement and stop thinking.

If any preacher does more than quote edjamakated infallible interpreters, they are sinning and prideful. They don't know their place.

But seriously, if one side can appeal to Caesar, so can the other. And then it's a case of "my experts can beat up your experts". So blogs like this are actually promoting sin because they let people express opinions that aren't approved by a divinely-appointed interpreter.

How about this instead: you answer questions put to you? I know, radical, but whaddaya say?

Chris Ryan said...

Joe B,

Your condesention is completely unnecessary and unbecoming. I realize that over-eating is not the only thing that can lead to being overweight, but I can't believe that every overweight pastor has some problem that isn't rooted in our famous potlucks.

And I don't want a doctrinal statment that is the size of a postage stamp. I could talk theology with you all day. And I could do it without resorting to namecalling. It's a passion of mine.

What I don't want is a doctrinal statment that makes a matter of fellowship matters which will not matter as we fellowship in heaven. If we can agree to disagree and still worship God together, then why draw attention to the arguments and away from God?

Joe Blackmon said...

I don't think there is a divinely appointed interpreter. I just figure if you're going to argue the point with them you're going to argue the point with me. If you want to say you won the arguement, fine, you win. It's not going to make a hill of beans worth of difference with my family, my church, or my life. I'll go to my comp church--you'll go to your e-gal church.

Christiane said...

THE "APOSTOLA APOSTOLORUM"

My Church does not allow women to be ordained as priests in the Order of Melchisidek.
No women allowed.

But, for a Church with such restrictions on women clergy, we have a strange title for Saint Mary Magdalene.

Our Church calls her the
'Apostola Apostolorum', which means 'the Apostle to the Apostles'
in honor of her faithfulness in coming to the Tomb of Christ and in being asked by the Risen Lord to announce to the Apostles the News of the Resurrection.

Our Church leaders cannot deny the existence of this honor given to the woman Mary Magdalene, in spite of later attempts to ruin her reputation.

Today, she is quite simply,
St. Mary Magdalene,
the Apostle to the Apostles. :)

Paula said...

I don't think there is a divinely appointed interpreter. I just figure if you're going to argue the point with them you're going to argue the point with me. If you want to say you won the arguement, fine, you win. It's not going to make a hill of beans worth of difference with my family, my church, or my life. I'll go to my comp church--you'll go to your e-gal church.

Yes, you do think there is a divinely appointed interpreter, the ones with doctorates who have already told you what scripture means. You appealed to them instead of explaining yourself why you believe as you do.

You've been saying all along that you have already won; "plain reading" and all that. You keep ignoring questions about scriptures you cannot take "plainly", or the ones about esteeming others better being in conflict with your beliefs about male superiority (and I've had my fill of "separate but equal"). Jesus laid down privilege to serve His bride; can men do less?

But supremacism cannot coexist with any other position, because it gags half the Body and has decided that God does look on the flesh. This is division; this is what the apostles warned us against. If you can call that following Jesus, if you think "the first shall be last" doesn't apply to men, that esteeming others better is only for women, that women play the role of "son" to men's "father", then by all means, go your own way.

Just don't keep calling my way "sin"-- unless you're prepared to defend it with more than an appeal to Caesar.

Lydia said...

Just don't keep calling my way "sin"-- unless you're prepared to defend it with more than an appeal to Caesar.

Thu Jun 18, 05:44:00 PM 2009

That really is the sticking point, Joe. You call a different interpretation of a secondary, non salvic doctrine: Sin.

Joe Blackmon said...

What I don't want is a doctrinal statment that makes a matter of fellowship matters which will not matter as we fellowship in heaven.

Homosexuality will not matter in heaven. You're right--absolutely right. It won't.

Because there will be no practicing homosexuals there. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, and all Christians realize this, for the church to consider affirming homosexuality and not calling it sin a matter of fellowship. Of course, Mainstreamers have no problem with it because again Mainstreamers don't want to call anything sinful unless it's something George Bush did or it involves not funding some sort of social program.

IS ORTHODOXY OF MEN INERRANT? said...

Texan,

I defy you "openly" to prove there is one gay person in the direct employment of the Missouri Baptist Convention. You can write me personally and respond and I will post a "yes or no" on that you proved it to me.

If you cannot then I will "openly" call you a liar and gossip monger.

In His Truth
wtreat

Joe Blackmon said...

That really is the sticking point, Joe. You call a different interpretation of a secondary, non salvic doctrine: Sin.

Yep, you're right. I do. And will.

See, here's the thing. The conversation would end up something like this.

Me: Well, I believe...because...
You: Well, you're wrong because...

It's like the Backyardigans sang "I can't sing without a song, and I can't ping without a pong". Amd I'm not trying to change your mind. The church I go to will never bend on complimentarianism and if someone visits and figures out that's where we all stand they leave. No cussing. No fussing. No throwing chairs or flying elbow drops. If we ever went to a church and they were egali---oh bleh I can't spell it--I'd take my family and leave. No scene. No fuss. If I have a chance to vote churches with women pastors out, I'll take it. You'll vote the other way. Yawn

And your side is going to win the convention back. Good for you. Congratulations. My life will go on with or without the SBC. No big whoop.

Paula said...

Which is all to say, one more time:

Don't call it sin when you have no scripture that calls it sin.

Joe Blackmon said...

Paul said pastors were men (I Timothy 3). He also said women were not supposed to teach or have authority (I Timothy 2). Don't have the specific verses right in front of me this second, sorry.

Therefore, a woman pastor would violate those two conditions. Since that would violate something in scripture, it's a sin. I will not back off of that. Period. You are welcome to do what I told you that you were going to do and tell me I'm wrong just don't hold your breath waiting for it to matter to me. I mean, I did tell you this is how the conversation would go before hand.

Christiane said...

Easter Liturgy of the Risen Lord

Please note the following: the Church has had male clergy 'standing in' to represent the three Marys in the Easter liturgical celebrations.

But in the Gospels, the three Mary's stand on their own authority, proclaiming the Good News, as they had witnessed it first-hand. :)

The Liturgy:

"Two cantors stepped forward towards the altar steps, on which the clerics were standing, and addressed them in these words of the Sequence: Tell us, O Mary, what thou sawest on thy way?

The first cleric, who represented St. Mary Magdalene, answered: I saw the sepulcher of the living Christ: I saw the glory of the Risen One. The second cleric, who represented Mary the mother of James, added: I saw the Angelic witnesses: I saw the shroud and cloths. The third cleric, who represented Mary Salome, completed the reply thus: Christ, my Hope, hath risen! He shall go before you into Galilee. The two cantors answered with this profession of faith: It behooves us to believe the single testimony of the truthful Mary, rather than the whole host of the wicked.

Then the whole clergy joined in this acclamation: We know that Christ hath truly risen from the dead. Do Thou, O Conqueror and King, have mercy on us!"

If we go back to the Gospels, we must recognize there, that women served in great roles in the life, at the death, and at Resurrection of Christ, and in the spreading of the Good News. To deny this is to deny the Gospel witness.

Paula said...

I know all too well how these conversations go, Joe. This is nothing new to me.

Since you won't read my extensive studies, I'll try and summarize. FWIW. And I know it means squat to you, but it might help someone else. But it might take two replies, which will be up shortly.

Paula said...

What is 1 Tim. about? Stopping false teachers. That's the larger context. It is NOT about stopping those who teach truth, or Paul contradicts himself from Phil. 1:18.

In ch. 2 Paul begins with "therefore", meaning the instructions he is about to give are the remedy for falsehood. When he says "I want men everywhere..." do you think women are exempt? If Paul gives instructions to a group, does that mean other groups are exempt? Of course not. If one child misbehaves in a classroom, you don't give a lecture to all the children. And if you tell the misbehaving one to "stop pestering her", does that mean everyone else is allowed to pester? No. Likewise, Paul is telling men what they needed correction about, and women what they needed correction about. In Ephesus.

Notice that through vs. 8 the pronouns are all plural, but there is an abrupt shift in vs. 11--15a. Here is the word-for-word Greek rendering in vs. 11-12:

woman in quietness let-her-be-learning in all subjection to-be-teaching yet to-woman not I-am-permitting not-yet to-be-domineering of-man but to-be in quietness

A or The woman. She is to learn respectfully like everyone else. But this woman is not permitted to do something: autheneo, used only here in the NT. It is rare in secular literature too. It is not the word for any and all authority; in this very sentence Paul used epitrepo for that. It means oppressive rule. And Paul's "permitting" is in the present indicative, meaning "I am not presently permitting". So Paul is not permitting this woman to teach at this time, because she is teaching falsehood and oppressing A or The man.

There is an idiom here which means "not this, nor even that". Paul is saying "She doesn't even have permission to teach, much less to oppressively control the man; she must be silent!"

Now vs. 13: The Greek reads "and Adam not was-seduced the yet woman being-out-seduced in beside-stepping has-become".

Paul names Adam and Eve as a chronology, a sequence. There is no hint either here or in Genesis of any sort of authority attached to that sequence. Then he adds that Adam was not deceived, so we know Paul is tying sequence to deception. But instead of naming Eve the second time, Paul he says "woman". And this woman is STILL IN SIN. The parsing is indicative, meaning a past event with continuing results. Some argue that Eve's sin still lives in her daughters, but where does scripture ever even hint at this? We all know how Adam's sin affected every person, male and female. But no scripture says there is a sin that only affects women.

So Paul is saying, "Adam was made first and Eve second, but Adam was not deceived. Yet this woman, being deceived, has fallen into sin." Which woman? The one he's been talking about, the one teaching falsehood, the one passing her error to the man. It cannot be Eve because she was dead; it cannot be any woman that wasn't alive when Paul wrote this.

The last verse, 15, is typically altered to suit prejudice. It reads, "she-shall-be-being-saved yet through the childbearing if-ever they-should-be-remaining in faith...". SHE. NOT THEY. She who? This same woman Paul is still talking about. Who are they? The woman and the man he's been talking about. Are only women to "play a role" to be saved? Are only women to "remain in faith..."? Of course not. This is clearly about a woman and a man living in Ephesus at the time of Paul.

Next: ch. 3.

Paula said...

Chap. 3

The Greek of vs. 1 reads, "faithful the saying if any supervision is-craving of-ideal work he-is-desiring". The word is "any", NOT "any man" (also in vs. 5). Neither does the word "office" appear in any form. And in the list of qualities, the consistent "plain reading" must concede that not only must the supervisor be male, he must also be married and a father. This of course would disqualify Paul and Timothy. And remember, "plain reading" cannot say, "Well, it doesn't mean that...", or I get to use that excuse too.

Is Paul saying who CANNOT serve as a supervisor? No. He's saying who CAN, and the qualifications are matters of character-- not the flesh. And the word for "ruling the home" is identical to that used for Phoebe in Romans 16. So either Phoebe was a "ruler over many", including Paul, or the supervisor is not a ruler.

Verse 11 about women begins with "Likewise". The qualities for women are no less than those for men. And the phrase "one-woman man" is an idiom which speaks of character; it is not a rule that all be males. (The mirror image of that idiom, "a one-man woman", is used in Titus and refers to widows!)

Can Paul's other writings be ignored when we come to these precious few proof texts for male supremacism? Can context be ignored here as well? That's what it takes to turn instructions for dealing with falsehood into "pink" and "blue" gender roles. Phoebe was a prostatis; Junia was an apostle; as you say, "deal with it".

my blog

Chris Ryan said...

And Joe, who on here has said we should actively affirm homosexuality??? I've told you before that I told a friend that I would not be their best man at a homosexual ceremony. So don't say it was me.

The question with Broadway is whether they actively affirm homosexuality or have members who are homosexual. If the former, then sure, don't seat messengers from the church. If the later, then there are a great many churches around the world that we will have to disfellowship because homosexuals sit in their congregations and there are under gospel teaching and gospel fellowship. With the two of those, they can flee from the sin which pursues them.

It seems to me, from our many conversations on the subject, that any church which has a person who struggles with homosexuality among them should be given the boot from your perspective. I say that God can save a person no matter what sins they have and continue to struggle with. And as long as they are people whom God can save, they should be welcome in our churches.

Elizabeth Prata said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth Prata said...

OOPS I had to delete the above comment because a one letter typo changed the point from yes to no.

Sorry, here is the corrected

Mark Burleson said...

wait.. kinda fuzzy are what's being said here...is it a woman can have the urge to preach, but can't? and if a SBC church allows one to preach they should be thrown out?
--------------------

YUP, that is my read on what is being said here. Though, I'd phrase it this way: a woman can have been given the call by the Holy Spirit to teach or preach, but are not allowed due to man's insistence.

The SBC made a dangerous move in affirming the 2000BFM. I do not agree with the 2000BFM. However, I believe the convention, once having accepted it through due process, is now ethically bound to follow through in ALL cases.

Christiane said...

Hi Elizabeth,

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to get rid of the BF&M2k and KEEP the people?

I mean, a man-made document can be easily discarded. It is not the Gospel and, in the case of the
BF&M2k, it is not even close.

Whereas, discarding people and whole churches?
Ethical or not, it is tragic, especially when you consider it isn't just a bunch of people who 'disagree on a doctrine', it's the old people, and the children, and the mentally and emotionally handi-capped in that church? What did THEY do? How have they offended the Lord? Or is it just the SBC they might have offended, by their presence in that Church?

Do the innocent get discarded along with 'the trash'?

I am not sure if you were speaking facetiously or seriously about all this, so don't take my comments personally. In any case, I would respect your opinion as your own to have.
But, if you were speaking seriously, this is one time I would have great difficulty understanding.
I find 'disfellowship' applied to innocent people to be most disturbing, when done 'formally' by a Christian group, who are acting 'in the Name of the Lord'.
It hurts me to see it even being considered.
Love, L's

Stickler said...

Joe:
"He also said women were not supposed to teach or have authority (I Timothy 2)."

Hi Joe,

I suppose then that you can Prove that Paul prohibited women (pl) from teaching, in 1 Tim 2? That'll be the day. There is no way to prove that Paul stopped more than one woman from teaching one man. It can only be concluded based on what he wrote, that he stopped one woman from teaching one man. That's the way it goes. So your belief against women teaching is NOT scripturaly justified by 1 Tim 2, since it cannot be proven.

Stephen said...

Joe Blackmon wrote:

"Paul said pastors were men (I Timothy 3). He also said women were not supposed to teach or have authority (I Timothy 2)."

Paul also said slaves should be loyal to their masters. Joe, you just condemned abolition and supported slavery. You can't have it both ways. I'm just saying.

Joe Blackmon said...

It seems to me, from our many conversations on the subject, that any church which has a person who struggles with homosexuality among them should be given the boot from your perspective.

Then you either need new glasses or need to learn to read plain English. If a person struggles with the desires but acknowledges that they are sinful and does not act on them there is no need to bring church discipline against them or the church.

Stickler said...

Joe:
"Nope. Total red herring. Paul gave clear teaching that women are not to pastor a church. Does that mean it's the same kind of sin as homosexual relations? No. It just means both are wrong."

Really? Where did Paul say women are not to pastor a church?

Chris Ryan said...

Elizabeth,

The convention is not ethically bound to follow the BFM. That makes it a creed. The convention set that forth as what those who wrote the document believed at the moment they wrote it. No other Baptist is ethically bound by it, nor are the Baptists who wrote it ethcically bound to maintain those positions should they be guided elsewhere by the Holy Spirit. Now, if we no longer believe all those things then we should probably alter the document to make our cooperation more peaceful. But by the very nature of a statement of faith it is by no means (ethically, spiritually, legally) binding.

Chris Ryan said...

Joe,

I just got a new pair of glasses last week, so your suggestion may be more timely than you realize. Sorry for misrepresenting you.

Elizabeth Prata said...

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I have a hard time understanding why a Convention (Denomination, let's not fool ourselves) would take the time to formulate, debate, vote, pass, and adhere to a generally agreed-upon message if they don't have to follow it ethically, legally, or spiritually.

If it is, as you say, "by no means (ethically, spiritually, legally) binding" then what is the point of having a message? To me, that would be a totally empty exercise and a misuse of time and energy.

My personal opinion is that the BF&M is a creed, all the way. Definition of creed as applied to religious doctrine: "religious doctrine: the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group"

The problem with creeds like the BF&M, especially ones that go beyond the bible, and are adopted by the body, but are not to be followed by the body when prompted by the Holy Spirit, is that it tends to create a climate ripe for confusion, haphazard application based on subjective interpretations, heartache, misunderstandings and well, a situation generally where we are now.

G. Casey said...

I am not understanding the removing Broadway Baptist from the Convention. Instead they should have ran off the "wolvish" false pastor. I know from a fact from a former member that the conservative loyalists in THAT church were being run off and the so called pastor was being very deceptive to them trying to baptize members "in private". I even consulted a professor from the seminary to look into the matter of disciplining the manipulative pastor when I was told by a member what was going on. Should we flee strongholds like this or stand together like a moose protecting the sheep?

Chris Ryan said...

Elizabeth,

I understand your confusion, especially as it pertains to our use of the BFM 2000. And I agree with you that the BFM 2000 is being used as a creed. I just wish that now we would call a spade a spade and that the non-creedal Baptist people will admit that we have now written a creed of our own.

As to why you would take the time to write, vote on and approve a statement of faith that should be by no means binding is twofold in my mind. Firstly, it helps those who are writing and approving think through the issues on their own. Secondly, it helps those outside determine the beliefs of those who would uphold that particular confession. But because the messengers to the SBC Convention meeting vote to approve the BFM 2000, that does not mean that any church is required to adhere to that statement. It does not mean that any state convention is required to adhere. All it means is that the Executive committee and the SBC entities agree that at this point they and the messengers to that SBC convention meeting believe that this confession adequately represents their beliefs. It means that later they can choose not to follow the BFM because it was binding only for the two seconds it took to sign it.

That is why I have such a hard time with the SBC offering to kick out churches based on the BFM 2000. I have no problem with them basing the rulings on the constitution because the constitution determines rules for partnership/seating messengers to the convention meeting. Unless the Constitution of the SBC requires its churches to affirm the BFM 2000, then it should not refuse to seat messengers because a church has, let's say, a woman pastor. To my knowledge, no such clause exists.

But if the BFM 2000 is a creed, then I can understand why they would use it in this way. But if it is not, and Baptists (this one included) have always chaffed against creeds, then let's not treat it as such.

Chris Ryan said...

And let me add, I agree with you that we are in a state of confusion. I do not agree with you about the cause. I believe we are so confused because we wrote a confession and some are trying to treat it as a creed and nobody knows how a creed works in Baptist life because it has never been done.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not it has been adopted and then "haphazardly applied." It has everything to do with nobody agreeing on what we wrote and why we wrote it.

Elizabeth Prata said...

Christiane, I agree with you all the way on everything you said.

The problem for me is if I choose to belong to an organization and accept that the majority rules in a fair vote, then I choose to abide by that vote. That was what I meant by following the BF&M. If it was legal, agreed upon, and passed, then it is only fair to abide by it. Now, I am told that the SBC does not have to abide by it. Hmmm.

I am sad that some care more about a man-made document than God-made people. I think dis-fellowshipping over women pastors is ridiculous. But now the SBC is stuck with this document. They made their bed and this is where adding to the bible had led them.

Elizabeth Prata said...

Chris,

thank you again. That was a great explanation. And well stated. I agree with what you wrote, especially about the part about refusing to seat messengers based on the Message. I understand the procedure better now.

Stephen Pruett said...

Joe, volfan, et al.,

I assume you would not attend a church in which there were women with short hair or who did not wear a covering on their head or men with long hair or women who wear jewelry or fine clothing? If not, you are an inconsistent interpreter of scripture. My point is that the women pastor prohibition is not the absolutely clear teaching of scripture that you imagine. The passages about these other issues are just as "clear", so why don't you demand them in your church and disfellowship any church that disagrees?

You are doing exactly what liberals are so often accused of doing; picking and choosing which scriptures to obey and which to ignore (unless of course you do obey ALL the instructions about women in Paul's letters, but I don't know any Baptist church that does this).

I wonder if it is possible you could be wrong about the proper interpretation of scripture on any of these issues? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. Yes you could be wrong. Wade and probably many others who post here are more complementarian than not, but they have enough sense to realize that this is not a critically important issue, that it is not an open and shut case in scripture and some points made by egalitarians simply cannot be effectively refuted, and that it would be ridiculous for the SBC to further fragment over this issue.

feetxxxl said...

"Paul said pastors were men (I Timothy 3). He also said women were not supposed to teach or have authority (I Timothy 2). Don't have the specific verses right in front of me this second, sorry."

paul makes the point that he personally has made this decision.

why would paul would said several times we are not under the law, but instead under grace, that we, under the new covenant, are led and serve of the spirit,( grace is spirit. the holy spirit is spirit), then turn around and make new laws for believers to be under (led by).

he said also "that all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial."

"women teaching is permissible, but in my church i have not found it beneficial."

there could have been a hundred reasons that paul may have found it not beneficial, but that in no way makes it a sin, or means paul is making a regulation about women not teaching in church.

paul also said also "test everything, keep the good"

everything means everything.

by your creating unchallengable regulations for believers you live by, you like the magisterium are negating this passage.

G. Casey said...

The Broadway pastor also had to gone members on the role who were only E to C attenders to vote on various policies in order to marginalize the loyal conservatives who got disgusted. They should not ignore how a "wolve" takes over a church. Making a exclusive statement or decision on Broadway is not the cure.

Jon L. Estes said...

My point is that the women pastor prohibition is not the absolutely clear teaching of scripture that you imagine.

Maybe it is very clear for many of us. I have not heard or read on this forum where it says a church can not call a woman pastor, rather that a convention which believes it is wrong can separate themselves from such wrong.

I will support any church to call any person they desire but I don't have to support them beyond that.

Crystal clear, for me and many.

Jon L. Estes said...

I am sad that some care more about a man-made document than God-made people

It's not about a man made document over God-made people. It is about what we believe concerning a God-given word. For me, the word of God comes before people.

volfan007 said...

freetxxl,

Jesus said that those who love Him will obey Him. Obedience is seen as the proof positive that someone a)truly is saved..1 John; and b)really loves Jesus. Of course, we're free from the law's condemnation if we're saved. Of course we're forgiven forever, if we're truly saved. Of course we dont have to live according to OT laws, because the Lord Jesus fulflled them and raised them to a higher plane.

BUT, we still must obey our Lord, and that means obeying the clear, black and white teachings of the NT. The Lord Jesus expects us to obey Him if we're saved and truly love HIm. If we want to please our LORD, then we must obey Him out of love and devotion to Him.

Grace should not lead to antinomianism.

David

Joe Blackmon said...

Paula

What is 1 Tim. about? Stopping false teachers. That's the larger context. It is NOT about stopping those who teach truth, or Paul contradicts himself from Phil. 1:18.

Nope. I don’t see that there is any contradiction involved.

In ch. 2 Paul begins with "therefore", meaning the instructions he is about to give are the remedy for falsehood. ..No. Likewise, Paul is telling men what they needed correction about, and women what they needed correction about. In Ephesus.

Sorry, but I don’t agree simply because you say he is correcting and give a few examples. There is nothing in the verse that proves it was a problem and it only existed in this church. I believe he is giving universal instruction about how things ought to be done. Otherwise, he would have said things that pointed out he was talking about a problem as he did in Corinthians or named names like Eudia and Synthice (Sorry for the misspelling) in Phillipians.

Notice that through vs. 8 the pronouns are all plural, but there is an abrupt shift in vs. 11--15a.

So what? We do things like that in English too. It does not prove that he was going from talking about more than one person to one specific person. If he was talking about one specific woman, he would have named her like he does other specific people in other epistles. Therefore, the more logical deduction would be he is saying “a woman” and using that to mean “any woman”.

And Paul's "permitting" is in the present indicative, meaning "I am not presently permitting". So Paul is not permitting this woman to teach at this time, because she is teaching falsehood and oppressing A or The man.

Nope. Sorry. Present tense means, in Greek, an action that begins now and continues forward into the future (continuous habitual action that often reflects a lifestyle). The indicative mood simply means in Greek that an action really has occurred or will occur and is therefore a statement of fact. It does not mean that “I will not allow a woman to teach right now” but rather “I will not allow a woman to teach right now or at any time in the future”.

As to the remainder of the passage, Paul is explaining his universal prohibition of women teaching or having authority over men by referring to the account of the fall in Genesis.

Now, as I had said, you’re just going to come back with “You’re wrong because…” This is it as far as I’m concerned. I am not playing ping pong with you. I have told you now why I stand where I stand. I don’t have to go until I’m the last one standing and you have no comebacks. This isn’t a contest where you can claim victory if you have the last word, which I’m going to give you. As I’d said, there are tons of people who have forgotten more than I’m ever going to know who have studied this longer than I have. It’s not like I’m alone in my conclusions. You’re welcome to believe whatever you like. I will continue to call a woman preaching or teaching men sin and hope that someone brings a motion to remove FBC-Decatur from the SBC.

You have the last word, Paula.

Paula said...

BUT, we still must obey our Lord, and that means obeying the clear, black and white teachings of the NT.

We'd all agree to that. The rub is in determining what is clear and black and white. There is much inconsistency, as already pointed out, in how people choose.

Nope. I don’t see that there is any contradiction involved.

You don't see a contradiction between allowing even unbelievers to preach the gospel, but not allowing godly believing women to preach it? Wow.

Ditto for all your other objections (they're certainly not rebuttals). You aren't debating, you're just denying. You see universal rules without anything in the text to indicate such. And we've already been over when and why Paul names names. "So what" is not a rebuttal either. Or your own verbose method of saying "You're wrong".

Sorry Joe, you just don't have a grasp of exegesis or Greek grammar, only baseless assertions.

But I will say this: Read Phil. 2:5-11 and then ask yourself why Christian man would not want to follow Jesus in laying privilege aside instead of greedily clinging to it.

Read Jesus' many statements about being a servant to others and ask yourself why any Christian man would want to boss them instead.

Read Paul's frequent exhortations of MUTUAL submission and ask yourself why you men alone are exempt.

Read scriptures about the Body of Christ, the need for workers for the harvest, etc. and ask yourself why God would turn around and hogtie half of those workers on the basis of the flesh.

Above all, Joe, ask yourself why, if you are merely accepting a humble burden placed upon you by God, that you fight so fiercely to keep it.

I won't bother you again with these pesky, ugly truths you can't face. Have a nice day.

Jeff said...

I think we need to tighten our terms/phrases. I think there is a difference between preaching the gospel, and being a pastor. Non-pastors preach the Gospel all the time.

Joe Blackmon said...

Paula,

If you really want to get my goat why don't you just try saying something about my momma. Or since it's father's day weekend my daddy. I'll get you started:

"Your momma/daddy breath is so stank..."

Elizabeth Prata said...

Jon said in response to me: "It's not about a man made document over God-made people. It is about what we believe concerning a God-given word. For me, the word of God comes before people"

I agree. Bible before anything. I was referring to the BF&M, and moving forward on the basis of a created document rather than the holy inspired Word.

Joe Blackmon said...

You see, Jeff, what Wade and the Mainstreamers (wasn't that a band in the 60's) want is to make the claim that anyone who stands against the idea of female pastors or teachers in the church stands against any woman sharing the gospel. Total red herring.

Paula said...

Jeff,

Our traditional paradigm of what "church" is can be a big part of the problem of defining terms. To "pastor", or guard from falsehood and teach truth, per the NT's teachings, is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and no such gifts are ever qualified by the flesh. No one in the NT is ever called by a title like "pastor", but only described in terms such as apostle or servant, which Paul included women among.

This is a Body, not a chain of command. One part still cannot say to another, "I have no need of you", nor can it say "You must go through me to get to the Head".

Joe: If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I've had more than my share of being insulted around here. :-)

Joe Blackmon said...

I've told you before that I told a friend that I would not be their best man at a homosexual ceremony. So don't say it was me.

Chris

Would you allow them to become members of a church if you were the pastor or would you object to them becoming members of a church of which you were a member? I'd be willing to be you that you would have no problem with that whatsoever.

SBC in my rearview mirror said...

Wade states:"You will be hardpressed to find Bible-believing, evangelical believers who would disagree that homosexual relationships are sin."

That's only because we aren't looking in the right places! Check out this link:
www.glorytabernacle.com

This will provide fodder for those seeking to forge a connection between openly loving in same gender relationships and women pastors, but so be it.

SBC in my rearview mirror said...

Here's another place to look and discover evidence of what Wade & others are hard pressed to find: www.balmministries.net/?mpf=frame&

SBC in my rearview mirror said...

One more link to round out this trinity of resources for evangelicals who look at scripture from a different perspective than most on this blog:
http://whosoever.org/index.shtml

Joe Blackmon said...

SBC Rearview,

You're right. There are evangelicals who have a different take on the issue of homosexuality. You're exactly right. However, Christians recognize that homosexuality is always wrong 100% of the time without any exceptions whatsoever. And the last time I checked, and admitedly it has been a while, being evangelical doesn't prevent one from going to hell. Just a thought.

Texan said...

Orthodoxy,

Thanks so much for your kind and loving post. It tells me a lot about you...

I will call my gay friend in Missouri today to see if it is alright to post his name on this blog. Somehow I doubt that he will give his permission. I'll also give him your contact information and if he so chooses, he can write you personally and tell you his name. Until one of these occurs, you will just have to know there is at least one gay person in Missouri...

Since I am sure there is nothing I can say to pacify you, I will forever be a liar and gossip monger in your eyes. So be it...

And you wonder why gay people stay in their Baptist closets.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

That Broadway Church: has the SBC made a study of HOW it is trying to minister to its members who have homosexual tendancies?

What POSITIVE ministries are being offered to these vulnerable members?

Sometimes, we need to remember that it is in the midst of our own 'discomfort', that God is placing an opportunity for our Christian growth.

This may be a time to look past our own willingness to 'reject' someone different; and seek instead to serve them with loving care, according to the Commandment to love one another.

Are Christians being challenged?
Always. To reach out to the whole world for Christ. No comfort levels allowed, people. The Lord Himself, 'had no place to rest His Head'.

Can we learn more about how to serve one another? Oh yeah.
We have only just begun to follow the Gospels in this.

What can we learn about letting go of our own fears and prejudices against the 'lepers of our own time',
and noticing instead that the wounded and vulnerable state of someone we would have reviled and rejected is so much more important than our own self-righteousness?

Maybe that Broadway Church was called to reach out and serve, instead of reject.
If any good can be learned from their experience, let it be learned.
And shared. And used.
In caring for the wounded among us, something broken within our own hearts is healed and we become closer to the Lord. That is part of the great Christian Mystery: that it is in the giving, we also receive. :) Love, L's

Chris Ryan said...

Joe,

That would depend entirely upon how the church constitution defined church membership. If it said that no member may be involved in homosexuality, or that no member may be involved in willful lifestyles of persistent sin, then I would tell them they cannot be members.

If all that the church requires is a confession of faith and believer's baptism, then as a servant of the church that is all I will require. Unlike you, I believe a homosexual can be a Christian. I believe that God just has not begun to deal with them in that area, or they have not yet ceded that area of their life to God's will. We all have had areas of our lives which it took a while to learn to yield to God. Unless the church constitution consticts me, I am not going to tell an imperfect person whom Christ has called to Himself that he or she cannot join a church of imperfect people to learn to follow God better. That person just better be comfortable hearing that homosexuality is sinful if they want to be in the church I pastor. I will never tell them that their behavior is acceptable to God.

Joe Blackmon said...

Unlike you, I believe a homosexual can be a Christian.

Chris, Chris, Chris--I don't believe that a homosexual can't be a Christian. I don't believe that at all.

I know it for an absolute fact.

Chris Ryan said...

Joe,

Good to "know for an absolute fact" that sinners can't be saved. Or that when they are saved they are immediately perfected.

feetxxxl said...

if you are referring to 1tim and 1cor. then you will have to explain how "homosexual" was legitimately transposed for (kjv)"defiling themselves with mankind"

the historical background about the transposition is that first it was done in a country in the 1800's(the Victorian era was responsible for a number of sexual repressive attitudes) where there was no seperation between church and state. the royal monarch of england was head of the church.

second there has never been found any written explanation for the transposition.

third the transpositon took place at the end of a 400 year period where there was a king henry 8th law on the books that punished homosexual sex with hanging. it was because of this cultural influence that in the 1700's, that english settlers upon arriving in this country immediately instituted new laws against homosexuality with different punishments. it is only recently that finally after 700 years, that homosexuality was deemed legal in english speaking society.

in 1cor and 1tim, defiling oneself is to degrade the essence one was made, an essence that was created thru the spirit of christ. to defile this essence causes inner shame which brings on its" due penalty"(romans1).....self hatred and self loathing. none of this is of the essence of being homosexual. its is the antithesis of what is experienced by those who come out of the closet. which is a lifting of a burden off their shoulders, a new sense of joy, the relief that one is free from having to live a lie, and a sense of inner peace.

this has no resemblance to the defiling shamebased self loathing of 1tim and 1cor(kjv).

furthermore homosexuals do not bond in a spirit of defilement(shame and self hatred) and as expressed in romans (shameful lust), but in a spirit of mutual love, devotion, affirmation, trust , and respect for shared committed life together, in the same way as heterosexuals.

and there is no indication that the legal gay marriages in mass. are trending anywhere near the divorce percentages(50%) of those heterosexuals that were married during that same period.

Paula said...

feetxxxl,

Of course you know that it isn't wise to get doctrine from any translation, but to always consult the Greek and make sure we understand the semantic range of words, idioms, genre, etc. What various cultures have done since the first century really isn't the place to look.

While I agree with your definition of "defiling oneself", I disagree with your restricting it to something like today's "be true to yourself". That is, in fact, a change of the meaning of scripture in context.

Sin is not "self loathing" but defiance of the will of God. And since God, in both Testaments, has made it abundantly clear that having intimate physical relationships with one's own sex is an abomination to God Himself, then homosexual practice is sin.

Nobody disputes the fact that we all sin, but scripture is unmistakeable in its commands for us sinners to throw out of fellowship anyone who either refuses to acknowledge sin, or who willfully indulges in it.

The "shameful lust" you mentioned is defined as shameful by God, not by our reaction or feeling.

Darby Livingston said...

"Also, to answer your question. If all the fat people are kicked out of the SBC, where will I go? I'll go with all the fat people."

... to wander on the earth for awhile like all the other Christians and then on to Heaven where you'll enjoy fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore with all the skinny Christians. Thank God for Jesus Christ!

feetxxxl said...

about arsenokaitoi.........there is no widely agreed understanding as to what paul was referring to when he created this term.

again if paul said in romans and in ephesians that "we are no longer under the law", why would he turn around and create another law to put believers under. particularly when paul did not teach thru the law even about the man who had his father's wife. and of course there were other terms he could have used to identitfy same sex relations.

then there is the difficulty in even determining what spiritual essence in being gay that makes it a sin.

and finally, for one to embrace that something as a sin purely out of regulation is embracing the old covenant relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28. to do this nulllifies the new covenant, christ being given all judgement and authority, and all of paul's writings that we are led and serve of the spirit........jesus teachings "we will recognize them by their fruit(fruit of the spirit) and a "good tree cannot bear bad fruit."

homosexuals celebrate, support, affirm same sex intimate relations, yet gay believing marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as heterosexual believing marriages.

would this same thing be true of believing marriages, if they celebrated, affirmed,and supported murder, adultery, and thievery.

feetxxxl said...

according to romans 1, shameful lust(niv) was a spirit that persons were given over to, because they worshipped and served the created (powers and principalities...those things that jesus said we were to battle against), shameful lust, because that spirit served those powers and principalities. how does one not experience a spirit one is given over to. every place in scripture where god have given someone over to a spirit they have experienced the all attributes of that spirit.(1samuel........saul)

child of grace said...

Legalism or Grace?

That's what this debate (and the vote on the convention floor)is ultimately about.

Like so many scriptural concepts Legalism and Grace co-exist in tension: (Let those without sin cast the first stone / Go and sin no more).

However, throughout The Gospels we find Jesus choosing Grace over Legalism --- and The Legalists crucify him for it.

If this is about following scripture let those without sin among us cast the first votes for Legalism at the convention.

The rest of us should follow Christ and take a stand for Grace.

Paula said...

I'm familiar with the standard arguments concerning the word arsenokaitoi, but for more detail on that please check this article by a former gay activist.

Your question about Paul and the Law is a good one, one which can be asked on many topics. But no one can deny that in Christ we are "dead to sin", so it follows that to practice sin is not something we are free to do. As Paul so plainly put it, "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:2).

Homosexuality is not a matter of law, but of sin against God. No disclaimers are found in scripture to qualify this sin, as if it can be not sin in certain situations. I can find no exceptions.

So it is a false accusation to claim standing against God-defined sin as some kind of return to the old Law. The nature of God never changes, and this sin is labeled by God as against His nature.

Feetxxxl, are you free TO sin or free FROM sin? What do you do with Rom. 6:2? Is Paul self-contradictory, or is it that you have misunderstood him and his arguments about law and grace?

feetxxxl said...

inner shame is experienced when one consciously choses to do something that defile one's inner essence........the spirit of christ. inner shame fosters self hatred and self loathing. it is the "due penalty", because it is the antithesis of the love of god.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Wade wrote: "You will be hardpressed to find Bible-believing, evangelical believers who would disagree that homosexual relationships are sin."

Oh gosh. I got $5 that says at least one of the Bible-believing, evangelical believers that you'll be sharing the stage with at the upcoming regional meeting of the New Baptist Covenant welcomes and affirms homosexuals in the life of the church.

Further, it's a safe assumption that many of the organizers of the event would not choose to divide over the issue of homosexuality and unlikely would cast their vote to oust Broadway from the SBC if they were still in the SBC...

feetxxxl said...

"God, in both Testaments, has made it abundantly clear that having intimate physical relationships with one's own sex is an abomination"

in lev, not all prohibitions of themselves were sins.

num 15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

under the new covenant, household chores and household chores on the sabbath are not sins.

and a number of lev prohibitons were called abominations including women wearing men's clothes( the crime that joan of arc was executed for by the church.

romans 1 persons were given over to shameful lust. this spirit motivated them to abandon relations that were of their natural inclination that brought them peace, to engage in relations that were not of their natural inclination, and were without peace(peace.... one of the fruit of the spirit)

they abandoned relations of love
with THEIR WOMEN to engage in lust ridden relationships.

homosexuals have no women, not from their earliest sexual memory.(that is the essence of being homosexual) they cannot abandon something they never had.

if as you say homosexual sex of itself is a sin, then why the necessity of mentioning powers and principalities, the essence of natural inclination, a spirit of shameful lust, and abandonment.

scripture need only mention that persons engaged in same sex relations, a sin.

Texan said...

I guess I need to go contact my gay Christian friends and tell them they aren't saved. Hopefully some of you will find time to call your friends who are adulterers, fornicators, and backbiters that they won't be making it inside the Pearly Gates either...

By the way, some of those gay friends include SBC pastors. BE ON GUARD--they might actually be some of your closest friends and you don't even know it.

Paula said...

Of course there were abominations that God specified only applied to Israel, but as we both agree, we are not Israel and not under those laws. But homosexuality is repeated as such in the NT.

Your attempt to change Paul's statement from "their women" to "women they used to have" is a stretch to say the least. Did you read that article yet?

You didn't answer my question about Paul. Do you think he contradicts himself? Is the Paul that wrote Rom. 6 the same Paul that wrote Rom. 14?

Lydia said...

"I guess I need to go contact my gay Christian friends and tell them they aren't saved. Hopefully some of you will find time to call your friends who are adulterers, fornicators, and backbiters that they won't be making it inside the Pearly Gates either..."

This is what I was trying to explain on the last thread. If we are New Creatures we cannot stay in willful, consistent sin knowing the truth and believe we are saved. If we are truly saved, we will be convicted of it by the Holy Spirit and we will have godly sorrow and repentance.

We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. God only disciplines those who are His. Sanctification can look like death to the worldly.

The way we tend to get around these truths is to redefine sin. And that is what we are doing here.

John Fariss said...

Has anyone noticed: the topic of Wade's article was essentially that there is no comparison between women preaching and the sin of homosexual practice. Very few of us--myself included--have stayed strictly on topic; we have instead veered off onto the nature of Broadway BC's practice, what we would and wouldn't support, what a church should and shouldn't be disfellowshiped for, the nature of homosexual relationships, the "degree" of sin (for lack of a bertter term--is one sin worse than anmother?), Scripture and homosexuality, and very, very little about Wade's thesis against equating homosexual practice with female preachers.

That says two things to me: one, homosxuality is a hot-button issue for all of us, regardless of which side we espouse, so we all want to say something about it, and will take any excuse to do so; and (2) related to this is the fact that we are powerfully polarized over the issue.

And before anyone suggests, "Well, we should be!" I will point out that to be passionate about something is not the same as to be polarized over it. Polarization is an escalation which, if left unabated, always leads to other problems. We have enough of those without creating more. And it is still possible--I believe--to disagree in Christian love without being disagreeable. That is how polarization can be "ratcheted down" to a level where we can still hear one another, still fellowshipo with one another, still be willing to seek Scriptural answers together.

Any takers?

John

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

From the string I have read so far on this post,...it appears that your title is working itself out.

One thing that will help me see this a little clearer. Are you making an assumption or distinction that "preaching the gospel" is different than "overseeing the church"?

Respectfully,
Chris

Paula said...

I disagree that we've been off-topic. And isn't that for Wade to say?

The topic is about not equating homosexual sin with women preaching the gospel. It logically follows that we must first establish what should be a no-brainer to all believers: that homosexuality is in fact a sin. That's what Lydia is saying, that's what I've been saying. We cannot even discuss why women preaching is not in the same boat until then.

As for civility, that too is "in the eye of the beholder".

I just wish everyone would leave the policing of this blog to its owner.

Joe Blackmon said...

Homosexuality is not a matter of law, but of sin against God. No disclaimers are found in scripture to qualify this sin, as if it can be not sin in certain situations. I can find no exceptions.

Ok, I can't believe I'm about to type this.

I agree with Paula. There, I said it.

I just threw up in the back of my mouth a little bit.

feetxxxl said...

john fariss

if you read the tread you would see that a number of us addressed it by saying that neither were a sin. that his comparison premise was not supported by the new covenant of christ.


paula

i think i made around 10 points you have attempted to address one with a mere ridicule without providing any confronting points of your own.

Paula said...

Joe: peppermints are good for that. ;-)

feetxxxl: I have not ridiculed you. I've only showed how your approach to scripture twists its meaning. And I'm not aware of any missing 10 points you've made and I haven't addressed. Did you ever read that article? It answers most of them. It's too long to cut and paste here.

feetxxxl said...

"But homosexuality is repeated as such in the NT."

same sex relations are treated as a prohibition in the old covenant.

in the new covenant we are not led by regulation, but instead are led by and serve of the spirit.

is it that you know murder is sin because it is written or because in christ you know the essence of spirit of murder is against him.

are you attempting to now discount romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

do you think that even though we are made thru the spirit of christ that inwardly we are unable to determine what is of him and against him by merely witnessing the essence of anything.

Christiane said...

Part of the problem is how words are used.

What does 'homosexuality' mean?

1. If it mean a condition where a
person has 'homosexual
tendencies' through no fault
of their own; and yet they
choose not to act on these
impulses, that is one possible
definition.

2. If you mean a situation where
persons with 'homosexual
tendencies' are engaged in
acting out those tendencies,
that is a very different
definition.

Celibacy is one way for a Christian with homosexual tendencies to actively participate in the life of the Church and to make a full contribution to the Body of Christ. We cannot throw anyone 'away'; all are needed; all are important. Love, L's

feetxxxl said...

paula

i see no contradiction between 6 and 14...............be more specific.

Paula said...

feetxxxl, I've already explained that homosexuality is not a matter of law. But you still have not answered my questions about Rom. 6.

So again I ask: are you free TOsin?

Suppose someone is "at peace" in their "essence" that they should beat their wife. Is that okay? In other words, is your personal conscience the final arbiter of what is sin and what is not?

Paula said...

Romans 6 is that bit about not being free to sin because we died to it. Romans 14 is about "disputable matters". Which is it? You keep telling me that pretty much EVERYTHING is a "disputable matter" because it depends solely upon your inner feelings.

Darby Livingston said...

Paula, you wrote:

"Suppose someone is "at peace" in their "essence" that they should beat their wife. Is that okay?"

Of course not because that someone would be hurting his wife which wouldn't be loving. A more revealing question might be, "Suppose someone is "at peace" in their "essence" that they should have an affair with the girl at work whose boyfriend just dumped her to give her a confidence boost. Is it okay to serve her in this way? Is a marriage vow just a law that we're no longer under?"

Paula said...

Is inner feeling the arbiter of right and wrong, or is it not?

Who decides what is "loving"?

Do our standards come from scripture, which the Holy Spirit would never contradict, or from our essence?

feetxxxl said...

"What does 'homosexuality' mean?"

it means that in bonding with another human being("it is not good for man to be alone"). with humans, bonding, naturally involves a one flesh relationship(sexual intimacy). homosexuals bond out of mutual love, devotion, affection,trust, and respect for shared committed life together the same as with heterosexuals.


where is the sin? a person bonds with a person of the same gender, someone who he has been attracted to from his first sexual memory, 24/7 his entire life( rather than with someone of the opposite sex whom he has never been attracted to from his first sexual memory.)

the the marriage of these 2 believers is filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as the marriage of 2 believers of the opposite sex.

Tom Kelley said...

Paula said...
I just wish everyone would leave the policing of this blog to its owner.


"If I can dream of a better land
Where all my brothers walk hand in hand
Tell me why, oh why, oh why cant my dream come true?"
--The King (aka Elvis)
:)

Darby Livingston said...

feetxxxl, Would your explanation also be applicable to two brothers or a sister and brother or two sisters who choose to "bond out of mutual love, devotion, affection,trust, and respect for shared committed life together the same as with heterosexuals"?

Paula said...

Tom: Now I've got a bunch of "dream" songs in my head. :-P

Darby: Excellent question.

feetxxxl said...

paula
i never used the word dispute.

as far as what is a sin. ive said it three different ways. romans says the summation of all new covenant law is the 2nd commandment. therefore sin is anything that comes against the 2nd commandment.(love your neighbor...........)

in regards to homosexuality, how does it come against the 2nd commandment?


in regards to women teaching in church, how does it come against the second commandment?

Darby Livingston said...

"in regards to homosexuality, how does it come against the 2nd commandment?"

And how does incest?

feetxxxl said...

any other issues stand or fall on their own merit.

Paula said...

Feet, I ask you simple questions, you ignore them and just keep repeating "love means there's no such thing as sin if you have inner peace about it". And your response to Darby was vague and evasive.

Nobody can say I didn't try.

feetxxxl said...

you keep trying to mischaracterize my words, and have yet to offer any points of your own. nice talking to you.

Jesse said...

Regarding the issue of this particular blog;

what denomination that has accepted/embraced women as pastors has not entered into serious discussions as to whether homosexuality is just another lifestyle and should be accepted as normal and right.

If you can name one, just wait, it won't be long until they do.

Matt said...

WADE,

I am NOT looking to pick a fight,and it seems as if you're wanting to keep the topic on disassociating from FBC, Decatur rather than on the topic of homosexuality BUT

Help me out here. I don't think that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle as far as scripture is concerned. But isn't divorce and re-marriage seen as just as sinful?

Would you (or anyone else) vote to disassociate from churches that have openly post-divorce/re-married
individuals in them?

I'm not trying to lay a trap here. Just thinking out loud. What's the difference?

IS ORTHODOXY OF MEN INERRANT? said...

texan

just about what I expected from someone who writes from hiding with wild rumors.

Notice I didn't say anything about the gay issue, just that you WOULD not prove your words.

I stand by what I said, there are NO gays in the direct employment of the Missouri Baptist Convention. you will not prove your words because you cannot prove your words. only excuses.

In His truth

wtreat

Paula said...

Jesse: if you want to play "slippery slope", then male supremacists must accept blame for giving divine sanction to wife abuse.

The same "slippery slope" fear tactic was used regarding slavery. All sorts of dire warnings were made on how society would break down should slavery be abolished.

Texan said...

Orthodoxy,

Sorry to disappoint you but I called my gay friend in Missouri today and he declined permission for me to post his name on this blog--especially since it is none of your business. I also gave him the option of writing you personally and sharing his name with you but he declined.

I hope you can get over your disappointment. Whether you think I am a liar or not is totally irrelevant to me. I was just stating facts that there are gay pastors and staff members and gay denominational workers. That's just life as it is...

Joe Blackmon said...

Texan

See, here's the thing. If you mean a pastor or denominational worker that struggles with gay attractions but acknowledges they are sinful and does not live them out that's one thing. I'd personally be understanding of another Christian who was in that situation. They're not have sex with members of their own sex and they know that their same sex attraction is sinful and they struggle to keep that in check. Shoot, there are sins I struggle with on a daily basis and keep in check.

If I ever found out a pastor of mine was gay and participating in same sex activity I would do everything in my power to expose their shame to the public the same way as if I found out he was having an affair or stealiing money. That's just how I roll. So if your gay friends are as I described in the 1st paragraph, I pray for them that God will strengthen them and encourage them as they struggle with sin. If they are hiding their sinful habits and you are not willing to expose them I'm calling that cowardice. If you know a shepherd of a church is not who he claims to be and you'd let their congregation suffer under that wicked man's leadership you're as much a part of the problem as he is.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 313   Newer› Newest»