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

The Dismissal of FBC Decatur: When Does a Convention Become a Cult?

During the November 11, 2009 business session of the Georgia Baptist Convention, messengers to the Southern Baptist state convention dismissed FBC Decatur, Georgia from fellowship for the church's calling of Julie Russell-Pennington as Senior Pastor in 2007. The SBC will not establish a data base to track ministerial child abusers out of fear of "violating local church autonomy," but when it comes to a church calling a woman to preach the gospel, church autonomy is slain at the feet of conventional conformity.

The notion that a woman cannot preach the gospel, or teach a man, or perform "pastoral" duties, is not biblical -- not even close. As time passes, more and more Bible-believing, conservative, Christ-honoring evangelicals are beginning to see that any prohibition against a woman ministering in the same manner as a man is a man-made restriction. God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by His Son's blood, has set His women free to function in the kingdom in the same manner He has His men.

As far back as the 1980's, conservative, Bible-believing men and women began voicing their beliefs that the inerrant, inspired Word of God declared full equality of men and women in creation and redemption. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, filled with Southern Baptist leadership, was formed to combat what they called "evangelical feminism." As I pointed out last week, Southern Baptists who wish to suppress women will even alter the sacred text to accomplish this goal. SBC Professor Dr. David Jones' article, posted by CBMW, alleges "scribal error" when Paul named a "female" apostle in Romans 16:7. I wrote that it is sad when inerrantist resort to pointing out error in the text to sustain a theological position. Dr. Bart Barber, an adjunct SBC professor himself and now a trustee at Southwestern Theological Seminary--a seminary at the heart of Southern Baptist attempts to anchor spirtual leadership within the male gender--was not happy with my post critiquing Dr. Jones' article. He commented:

Indeed, is there any published critical edition of the Greek New Testament that sides with Burleson and P46 in adopting "Julia" as the original text?

Suzanne McCarthey answers Dr. Barber's comment quite nicely in a comment of her own..

Let's examine (Dr. Jone's) statement (about Greek texts):

"... Greek minuscule manuscripts, which began having accents in the 9th century, all accent the name as though it were masculine -- without exception. It is interesting that Cervin catalogs so many modern editions of the Greek text, including the modern Greek translation, and shows how most support the feminine reading, and yet fails to mention the accentuation found in the older Greek minuscules dating from the ninth and tenth centuries, which support unanimously the masculine reading.55 The latter are certainly closer to the source and thus constitute more weighty evidence than modern editions. The fact that all of the manuscripts accented it the same no matter what part of the world they were found in suggests that the gender issue had been settled some time before. Thus, Tucker's tongue-in-cheek statement about the gender of Iounian being held unanimously as feminine up until her "sex change" around the 14th century is thus made at the expense of this evidence, which suggests otherwise."

It appears from this statement that David Jones article predates the UBS 1998 text of the Greek New Testament. In this text it is finally made clear that there is NO Greek minuscule which accents the name as masculine. Not even one, ever!

I don't fault Jones for not knowing this, depending on the date of his article. I am severely disgusted at his mockery of Brooten, Tucker, Grenz, Cervin, etc. when it now turns out that they are 100% accurate and he is 100 % wrong, due to the fact that UBS had previously published that there were manuscripts which accented the word as masculine, when there were not.

I think that the CBMW would do David Jones a kindness by removing such an outdated article from the internet.

The issue of women in ministry should NOT divide conservative evangelicals from cooperating in world-wide mission efforts, particularly when one side of the debate is having to alter the sacred text in order to sustain its position. When Dr. Barber, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Mohler, and other Southern Baptists, including messengers from the Georgia Baptist Convention, "disfellowship" and "severe relationship" with autonomous local churches who are following what they believe the Bible to teach, then they have placed others of us who wish to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in a very, very precarious position.

As I wrote two years ago:

If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to ‘question’ that Southern Baptist’s conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called ‘liberal’ when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it — in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call ‘a liberal’ someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!
The Georgia Baptist Convention last week sent money back to First Baptist Church, Decatur--money that FBC Decatur had given them through the Cooperative Program mission efforts the preceding year. The GBC said to FBC, Decatur-- "Keep your money. We don't want it, nor do we wish you to be identified with us."

Well, I've got news for the SBC. If we have come to the time when a conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptist church cannot follow what she believes the Bible teaches, and is forced to either conform to Convention mandates or else be removed from fellowship, then the SBC has stopped being a legitimate, historical Baptist convention of cooperating believers and churches and we have become a cult.

I, and the church to which I belong, want no part of a cult. 100 years from now, if the Lord tarries, and another generation of Southern Baptists are allowed to arise, it is my prayer that they will see there were some Southern Baptists in 2009 who refused to stick their head in the sand when the Bible stopped being the standard of faith for Southern Baptists.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

397 comments:

1 – 200 of 397   Newer›   Newest»
Lee Herring said...

Dear Pastor Burleson,

Thank you for this excellent post.

Yours, Lee

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cheerfuldougg said...

This is a sad day indeed for true Baptists. As a SBC pastor in Alabama, we have not yet been forced to face this particular issue. I am not sure how I will deal with it as a pastor, and as a leader of a SBC church when we do. If the fundamentalists continue to run the show and intrude on my freedom of conscience and the autonomy of my church, I believe that I will have no choice but to withdraw. In my experience, many churches and individual pastors have already withdrawn informally. The fundamentalists will not stop until it is just them in the room - then they will turn on each other - it is the only reason for their existence.

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade, you wrote:

"The SBC will not establish a data base to track ministerial child abusers out of fear of "violating local church autonomy," but when it comes to a church calling a woman to preach the gospel, church autonomy is slain at the feet of conventional conformity."

Excellent point...Southern Baptists are more concerned with other churches having the "correct" gender in their pulpits than they are protecting the children within their own walls.

Cultish? I don't know, but...

Wade Burleson said...

For missions and evangelism, Joe. Most likely not for the fellowship with folks who present themselves as caustic enemies.

Smile.

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Excellent point.

SBC cultish?

Well, not as long as there are people remaining in the SBC who are afraid to challenge the leaders and the positions those leaders take -- smile.

The concern is when all those kinds of people leave.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

The community at large is unconcerned with your doctrine.

As Solomon declares, "What is desired in a man is steadfast love” (Proverbs 19:22).

I would imagine, Joe, this is what Julie sees the community missing in your version of the SBC.

Blessings,

Wade

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
linda said...

Great article!

I believe the local church can decide whether or not they believe it Biblical to call a woman to pastor. (And members who disagree strongly can always change churches.)

But I say it again, soul competency and the local independent church have been booted out of the SBC

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

The "community" in this discussion--the "community" to whom Julie refers--is the community of lost people around her church. There can be no more common communication on this community till you communicate your common understanding of Julie's community.

Laughing.

Wade

:)

Cheryl Schatz said...

Wade,

As usual an excellent article! Thanks for speaking up and not being afraid.

Mr. Hyde said...

Wade,

Can you clear something up for me. Do you support women as pastors?

Thy Peace said...

Women In Ministry [Cheryl Schatz] > Church led by woman pastor is forced out of the Georgia Baptist Convention.

Brent Hobbs said...

I really like some posts on this blog. Then comes one with a lot of nonsense like this one. Makes me wonder about the ones I like! ::eek::

Wade says:
"The notion that a woman cannot preach the gospel, or teach a man, or perform "pastoral" duties, is not biblical -- not even close... a man-made restriction."

Yes, Wade, in your opinion. I disagree.

Tom Parker said...

Brent Hobbs:

Have you ever considered that what Wade and others are suggesting about women's roles in the SBC might be correct and your view wrong?

So you are ok with FBC Decatur being dismisssed?

Christiane said...

Pastor Julie, from all that I have read of her, has reached out into the community around her Church with the ancient message of Christianity:

"And let everyone who is thirsty come."

Like it or not, the truth stands that Pastor Julie has brought many into a place where they may drink from Living Water. She would not have been able to do this, unless the grace of Our Lord was upon her.

In the light of that, there is no 'group of people' who can disgrace Julie.

It's absolutely much too late to cut her off: when she has simply done all that was asked of her by Our Lord.

You see, Pastor Julie has born good fruit for the Kingdom.
And in response, now 'those in authority' would cut her off?

How strangely unbiblical.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Parker said...

Joe Blackmon:

Give it up, man. You're not going to win this one. Me thinks you are pushing the envelope with Wade in the way you are adressing him in your comments.

BTW are you celebrating in the streets now that FBC Decatur is no longer a part of the SBC?

I do not undertand why it matters to you since you are not a member of a SBC church.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thy Peace said...

Set theory and logic examples ...

Pastor Wade cooperates with:
1. Churches with senior pastors who are males.
2. Churches with senior pastors who are females.

Georgia Baptist Convention cooperates with:
1. Churches with senior pastors who are males.

Now of the above who is more cooperating? Pastor Wade or Georgia Baptist Convention?

Thy Peace said...

Stop Baptist Predators [Christa Brown] > Worse to have a woman.
So here’s the reality of how it works in Baptistland. It’s worse to have a woman than . . .

Christiane said...

MEETING JULIE: wonderful interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvxt6L8PUB4

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Hyde,

If by "support" you mean as Webster's defines it: "To bear by being under; to keep from falling; to uphold; to sustain, in a literal or physical sense; to prop up; to bear the weight of; as, a pillar supports a structure; an abutment supports an arch; the trunk of a tree supports the branches." I answer unequivocably, unconditionally and unalterably "Yes."

My Lord would have me do no other for one of His children.

Wade Burleson said...

Brent,

I hope you can say "You know, I really liked that guy's blog from Oklahoma, didn't always agree, but for heaven's sake, he at least caused me to think about my presuppositions and encouraged me to follow Scripture!"

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Joe Blackman,

Read Thy Peace's comment about cooperation. I would write you a comment of my own, but Thy Peace spells it out better than I could.

wade

Tim Marsh said...

Joe,

I think that you do make an excellent point that is misunderstood in "moderate" circles.

I understand that you disagree with women serving in ministry and to "cooperate" with churches that do would be to "condone" an action that is contrary to God's will.

Please understand me, I am not trying to throw you a bone, but merely trying to walk in your shoes.

However, what I cannot understand is why Georgia Baptists have acted quickly on this issue with FBC Decatur, GA and have failed to act on clergy sex abuse, sex offenders and ministers who commit adultery. What does that say when the SBC makes the former issue priority over the latter?

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

I understand Joe.

That's why you have to show him (and others like him) that he/they are off on Scripture before they will listen.

In my opinion, it's much better to begin with an attitude "I could be off on my interpretation" than to have to have somebody pound you over the head to tell you.

:)

But if you really love somebody, you'll do whatever it takes.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reagan said...

I am a member of Decatur First Baptist in Decatur, GA and was previously a SBC pastor's wife for 20 years. Upon the reading of the letter and the decision from the SBC on Sunday, no suprise came over me. In fact, I felt sadness on the part of the SBC and their decision to exclude a church filled with the passion of Christ and carrying out the Great Commission. It is not so much a debate on women vs. men, but on the elimination of support to further that mission. Our church will continue to reach those in our community sharing the message of Christ and His grace under the leadership of Julie. Isn't it our mission to lead others to Christ and salvation? Only one road leads to God, that is through Christ. Decatur First is on that road and it is our honor to be vessels for Him.

Jon L. Estes said...

We applaud the autonomy of the local church, as we ought... but do we support the autonomy of the state convention? If you don't like the fact they dis-fellowshipped from a local church and want to slam them are you considering their autonomous choice in the matter?

The child abusive minister subject should be dealt with and conventions who ignore it need our prayers and maybe our autonomous exit. I do believe this needs to be a state convention issue first and what they gather can be made available to the national convention for cross state line relocation of ministers. Church pulpit committees need to do their homework better. It begins with the local church informing those other baptist entities of such minister behavior so a data base can be useful. It seems many churches don't want the embarrassment but don't see the bigger picture of the long term damage and embarrassment they will face when it becomes public.

We ought to dis-fellowship from churches who swept such abuse under the rug.

So Wade, when are you leaving the cult?

Christiane said...

Jon,

Don't you see, the 'cult' is leaving people of the Southern Baptist faith. Not the other way around.

Wade said...

Jon,

If, indeed, we continue cultic practices, I won't be going anywhere because the SBC doesn't affect my church. We'll just do missions ourselves and network with others.

Blessings,

Wade

Aussie John said...

Wade,

You said, "God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by His Son's blood, has set His women free to function in the kingdom in the same manner He has His men."

AMEN!!

Not a very comfortable statement for those who have been sucked in to the politics and power of religion rather than life in Christ.

Those who loudly proclaim their loyalty to a particular line of unchangeable thinking find it particularly threatening. I mean: Who wants egg on their face?

Been there so I know what I'm talking about.

One of your fellow Baptists, Professor Dave Black, made a statement in his new booklet, "Christian Archy" (Energion Publications), which needs careful thought, "We must have the courage to say flatly that human archys are nothing less than the contemporary resurrection of the pharisaic ethic."

Well! The evidence is clear, both in your country and mine, and in some of the responses to your blog.

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade,

I believe that you have been more than fair in your responses.

However, as one who is unapologetically moderate, others that I know simply cover the fact that the believe certain things like women in ministry must be accepted as fundamental and others who don't, like Joe, are simply close minded.

What moderates do not want to admit is that we can be just as "close-minded."

I think that your posts are more than fair and I hope that they continue to make a difference in SBC life.

rick t said...

Reagan, very well put. May the Lord bless your church as they reach out to folks in an attempt to introduce them to a loving God. Maybe if so many people would quit playing church police and start sharing the Gospel with a lost and dying world, God might be greatly glorified. After all, how many folks have come to Christ due to the teaching and influence of a woman? Keep on keepin on

Pastor Bob Farmer said...

Dear Wade,

I personally believe that a woman can minister as the scriptures indicate; however, I believe that the scripture is quite clear in its prohibition of women serving as bishops (cf. ! Tim. 3: 1-7). History has shown us that when the office of Bishop is compromised, whole denominations go under. We baptists think it astounding that other denominations could consider practicing homosexual men being bishops, but this argument didn't start there; it started with the idea of women serving in the role, and when this was compromised accepting homosexual bishops followed. Can a woman teach? Yes, I believe the scriptures clearly support this. Can a woman preach or prophesy, Yes , again I think the scriptures give us examples of this. Can a woman be a bishop? No, and if we do so it will be to our undoing.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Sweet Georgia Peach!!!

Praise da Lard and pass 'dem peach preserves!

I say we come up with "150" reasons why women cannot, must not, should be Senior Pastors/Shepherds/Elders/Overseers. But alas we can only come up with one: God has decreed in His sovereign wisdom that it should not be so. I am thankful to the messengers of the GBC for standing firm on a conviction to which I too hold firm. I am also proud that due process was given and that the church was given a chance to repent and be reconciled to the Body. Church autonomy is really a misnomer is Baptist Land. I am personally opposed to "Independent Christianity" and all of the ecclesiastical forms which flow from its stream, including the idea that a local congregation is the highest ecclesiastical authority.

But let us place blame where blame is due. The sheep of FBCD are not to blame for sheep are known to graze themselves off a cliff is not physically shepherded. The short-haired hyphenated last name lady preacher is not to blame, she is simply doing what comes perfectly natural to her kind as a result of the fall. I blame the pastors of FBCD for at least the last 20 years. Whoever they may be, they have failed to feed the sheep. They have failed to feed the sheep. They have failed to feed the lambs. The pour hungry souls have begun to feed from the same field as the souls of the PCUSA, ELCA, et al.

May this be a lesson to others. Take your women out of God's pulpits. And take your men's heads out of their arses.

The Lord bless all ya'alls midweek services tonight. :)


k

Word Ver: relyth (as in relyth on the Lord) :)

Thy Peace said...

Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] > another imaginary masculine pronoun.

Wade said...

Pastor Bob Farmer,

When one is looking to plant a crop, it is not just the seed which needs examining, but the soil as well.

Women ministering throughout the Scripture is without question. What may need to be questioned is your concept of "authority" or "office" of "bishop," in the New Covenant.

Not giving you answers, only asking you to ask and not assume.

Wade

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

Kevin,

Great to hear from you!

I, too, believe in a Sovereign God who is over all events and is the Author of all things. Since you write: "God has decreed in His sovereign wisdom that it should not be" then explain to your fellow believers how ...

Anna, an eighty four year old female, one whom Luke calls a prophetess sees Jesus in the Temple and "continues to speak of Him to all those (not just women) who were looking for redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:36)?

The above is just one of dozens of examples in the Bible that I could give you that seem to indicate the desires of our God regarding women teaching truth to men. How dost thou explain this?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Wade,

You said, "God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by His Son's blood, has set His women free to function in the kingdom in the same manner He has His men."

AMEN!!"

So saith Wade.

John Down Under,

Wade's understanding of the New Covenant (as compared to the old covenant), based on his discussions on this blog can be considered elementary at best. Grace does not negate the Law, nor does it make it "ok" to sin. (I guess that is how they do it in "OK") We are to see OT Covenants in light of the cross. Not the cross instead of the OT Covenants. We should also not forget that we are indeed the “Israel of God,” the progeny of Abraham and the heirs of those precious promises. Wade's misuse of gender-equalness is sad. In the OT, the wife and children were covered in the Covenant blessings of salvation through the faith of the father. Today, salvation is freely given to those whom the Father has given the Son, those whom the Spirit calls INDIVIDUALLY--male or female, Jew or Greek, and by grace alone.

Please take this teaching to all your peeps in the outback--and stop killing all the Koalas. :)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Oops.

I shall not dialogue with the "fake Wade."

That just seems wierd and wrong whoever you are.

K

Wade said...

Kevin,

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake" but I think you have been eating "covenant" cereal for breakfast at your Presbyterian seminary.

Smile.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Now I understand. My two previous comments were made under my Google account and not the Hotmail account to which my profile is attached. You clicked my profile and saw nothing and said I was a "fake" Wade. I fixed the problem.

Now, answer the real Wade's question above about Anna.

Laughing.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Show your face Fake Wade, or I shall "sprinkle" some of that cereal all over you--In the name of the triune God of course. ;)

Christiane said...

"But alas we can only come up with one: God has decreed in His sovereign wisdom that it should not be so."

Strange it is that Pastor Julie has been so very successful calling 'the lost' of her surrounding community to faith in Christ.
This is a great mystery.
You know, this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen unless the Holy Spirit is in on it.

And she called the lost without a great big P.R. announcement, and without wearing special fatigues and carrying guns onto a stage 'a la Patterson'.
No gimmicks for Pastor Julie.
She didn't need the gimmicks. :)

Maybe Julie didn't get the memo about God's 'decree'.
But, I guess when someone like Julie is out there on the frontlines of Christianity, it is a little hard for them to keep up with 'those important people who really know how things are supposed to be done'.

Honestly, what some men don't know about the wisdom of God, is a lot.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Aussie John said...

Wade,

So you have ostriches in the USA as well? Uncouth ones at that, with tender egos!

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Is it ok if I go to church first?

I am attending class 2 of "Membership 101" lol


I have been a member here since the late 90's. The class is awesome non the less.

More to come on Anna tonight. I promise.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Quick response to my sister in Christ, L's.

Blessings to you in the name of Christ, but Satan also calls the lost (successfully) to his service.

Gotta run,

K

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

So Pastor Julie is successful in an inner city environment with different races and cultures. Many are brouught to Christ from the community around her Church.

And a lot of male pastors are not happy about this.

Yes I can see Satan working. But it's not in Julie's camp.

Look at the fruit, Kevin.
Think about it.

Love, L's

Jeff said...

Wade, Do you have any ladies on your pastoral staff?

Wade Burleson said...

Three ladies who are part of our ministering staff, and a dozen ladies who are part of our support staff.

Of course, all the pastors' wives are included in staff as well - as equals.

Blessings,

Wade

Debbie Kaufman said...

At this rate, I think the committee of the SBC needs to be looking for a garage to hold our next annual meeting. I have one I'm willing to use.

Lydia said...

"History has shown us that when the "office of Bishop is compromised, whole denominations go under. We baptists think it astounding that other denominations could consider practicing homosexual men being bishops, but this argument didn't start there; it started with the idea of women serving in the role, and when this was compromised accepting homosexual bishops followed. "

Actually, History will teach you that patriarchal cultures were also very homosexual. And still are.

Lydia said...

"Wade's understanding of the New Covenant (as compared to the old covenant), based on his discussions on this blog can be considered elementary at best. Grace does not negate the Law, nor does it make it "ok" to sin. (I guess that is how they do it in "OK") We are to see OT Covenants in light of the cross. Not the cross instead of the OT Covenants."

The only problem you have Kevin is that women were not prohibited from teahcing men in the OT.
Nor from leading men. So why is there a "new" law prohibiting them in the NT? Why more legalism on this matter in the NT?

Lydia said...

"In the OT, the wife and children were covered in the Covenant blessings of salvation through the faith of the father."

So, in the case of Miriam, for example, her blessing was through Moses since her father was dead?

This would mean that if daddy was a rogue, they were out of luck?

Lydia said...

Wade, Do you have any ladies on your pastoral staff?

Wed Nov 18, 08:04:00 PM 2009

No bible believing or self respecting egal would practice affirmative action.

James Hunt said...

Wade,

You're wrong. Georgia Baptist Convention got this one right.

James

Suzanne McCarthy said...

I have also noticed that homosexual activity is normally higher in patriarchal socieities than in egalitarian societies.

Regarding women leaders, Hilda was a woman who taught five bishops in 7th century England, at the time that much of the best of early English literature flourished. It is true that at that time women were not normally bishops themselves, but they were respected abbesses and leaders of mixed communities. They most certainly had authority.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

As to Anna:

Everyone knows that Anna is short for Ananias (a man) and that there is a scribal error in Luke 2 that places the word "husband" where the word "wife" originally went in verse 36. Of course some pronouns and other language were also changed to...

Ok, seriously though...

Your question to me (off topic btw) was how does Anna "continue to speak to [men and women passing by]?

My answer: I am not qualified to explain to you the process by which one speaks.

My issue with Pennington--------------Russell is that she occupies an office the Bible (more specifically the knowledge of the truth of the Logos) declares to be reserved for men. I have no issue if she would want to sit outside her church and "speak of Him" (v.38, ESV)

There are 7 women in the Bible that I know of (now that is after some quick research) who were called a prophet. But ZERO who held the office of Senior Pastor.

The Bible seems to be open to the idea that women can teach in a variety of capacities. Paul personally limited that capacity as was his right we are led to assume. There is room for contextual interpretation leading to a variety of biblical praxises applying to women teaching, including women teaching men, there is no such room for interpreting that women can hold the office of Elder/Bishop/Pastor.

And so I wonder why you bring up Anna since she has no relevance to the OP.

Btw, I am curious Wade, would you support a vote to disfellowship a church on the basis that they accepted infant baptisms as valid? Or baptisms by method of sprinkling or pouring? Even if such baptisms were performed in the name of the triune God for the remission of sins? AND where the life of the sprinkled exhibited the fruit of the Spirit?

I want L's to hear your answer.


Btw, I appreciate you grace in allowing me to chime in.

K

Byroniac said...

Wade,

I am obviously not Kevin but your question concerning Anna raises a question from me, which I believe is interesting.

Luke 2:38 ESV And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Now I notice beyond a shadow of a doubt she is instructing all that heard her, men included. But I also notice that Scripture records no direct quote from her, unlike with Simeon. I am a complementarian, so I believe that Scripture's refusal to quote directly from Anna here may help vaildate the injunction from teaching men. I could also be mistaken. However, complementarian or not, I have always wondered why Scripture did not quote her directly here.

Jeff said...

Wade, You didn't really answer the question. Do you have any ordained female pastors on staff?

Will you invite the female pastor from Georgia to speak at your church?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

I think you will find only male priests in the OT. Other than that we have no concrete biblical evidence one way or the other. Teaching was done "clan style." Women taught the young children and women, Fathers taught the older boys. At least that would likely be the historical evidence. Of course I am sure there were exceptions. Biblical roles from Genesis seemed to have guided many societies of old whether they knew it or not. As for a more defined teaching in the NT? I suppose as sin progresses so too does God's revelation.

As to the issue of Miriam or other women or girls who had no living father or who did not have a father of faith? Grace in election my dear Lydia. Covenant Family Blessings only occur if one is part of family of faith right? My post in no way suggested this was the ONLY way, just the "ordinary means" (Westminster Confession).

But thanks for trying. :)

K

Jeff said...

Why not make Rhonda Koehn associate pastor for early childhood development, and not a director?

Suzanne McCarthy said...

There seem to have been two kinds of teaching in the scriptures. In one type an older person teaches a younger person of the same sex.

In the other type, a leader - of either sex, or group of mixed sex leaders, teach or lead the whole group.

It is very unhealthy to have men leading women. I don't think that an all male team should ever be in charge of a mixed congregation. There are seriously distortions in teaching when it does not address the specific differences between men and women. Sometimes, it leads women to be privately disrespectful and dismissive of the formal leadership team, because some women clue into the latent but ever present sexuality of the leaders, while other women are taken in by it all and suffer greatly because men do the teaching on marriage and it can be very crippling for women.

I also have lost track of the verse that says women cannot be bishops. I thought it was 1 Tim. 3:2 "husband of one wife." However, it cannot possibly be that since the same regulation applies for a deacon and Paul is quite explicit that Phoebe was called a deacon, although she was not a husband.

Can anyone remind me of a scripture for why a woman cannot be a bishop. Thanks.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suzanne McCarthy said...

I think the point is that Phoebe was called a "deacon" regardless of what she actually did. Paul did not take care to say that she was not "that kind of deacon."

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"It is very unhealthy to have men leading women. I don't think that an all male team should ever be in charge of a mixed congregation. "

this is why I always teach women to think of God in terms of:

The Mother
The Daughter and
The Holy Spiritess

Because God forgot to accomodate women in His Bible.

k

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Okay, Mr Deleted comment. I know you were there but now you aren't. Oh well. Peekaboo. :-)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Susan,

Titus 1:9.

Now consider youself rebuked. :)

Suzanne McCarthy said...

"The Holy Spiritess"

It is very nice to see ruach hakodesh translated accurately for a change. :-)

I suppose that if there a man like Jesus alive today he might be qualified to teach women. But lacking that, we should abide by the scriptures.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Susan,

Titus 1:9.

Now consider youself rebuked. :)


Kevin, you have made my day. I burst into hilarious laughter.

Okay, now that I have read Titus 1:9 I am surely missing something. What would it be? What am I missing, and why can't David Jones be rebuked along with me for so fervently quoting manuscripts that don't actually exist?

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Clear meaning of Scripture when you put aside the feminism bias is that only a man be a pastor.

What about putting aside the bias against Junia that was inserted into the Nestle Aland 1927 Greek text? Let's put all the bias against women since the beginning of time aside and see what remains. (The bias that kept women from owning property, being able to earn a living, vote and protest marital rape - that kind of bias.)

Jeff said...

Why is NA1927 bias? Why are you not bias? Why should we believe your interpretations of historical data? Can you prove bias?

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Jeff,

I am hardly promoting a private interpretation. Not at all. That would be ridiculous.

In 1927 the different miniscule manuscripts were not as well known as now. Somehow, it became the general impression of a handful of influential scholars that the miniscules had Iounian accented as if it were a masculine name.

The miniscules were the first Greek manuscripts to have any accents.

In fact, there is not even one manuscript of any kind anywhere that had Iounian accented as a masculine. All of them accent Iounian as a feminine name. All of them.

This is attested to by every scholar now. The USB 1998 Greek text does not mention even one manuscript with a masculine accent, nor does it suggest that understanding the name as masculine is a possible variant.

Since access to these manuscripts is much more available now than before, it is so unlikely as to be considered almost impossible that there could be even one Greek manuscript which had Iounian accented as a masculine name.

The NA 1927 text is accepted now as a product of mistaken understanding or bias, whatever you will. Jake Epp has outlined the entire process in his book on Junia. It is a fairly detailed analysis of who said what about Junia over the years.

However, it is because of the near certainty that Junia is really a feminine name that gave Dan Wallace the idea that he should dispute the fact that Junia was among the apostles. This is the surest sign that he thinks she is a woman.

On the other hand, the very able Greek scholar Al Wolters does not see how it is possible that Junia was only known TO the apostles, as the Greek is clear to him that she was AMONG the apostles.

So, recently Al Wolters has written a paper that says that there is at least SOME possibility that Junia is the Greek transliteration of a possible Hebrew name for a man.

Mike Burer depends on proving that the notion that Junia was among the apostles is false because it is a notion promoted by egalitarians like Jake Epp. (Shame on him. :-)

All of this, since I can follow the permutations quite well, is terribly amusing and afford proof positive that the last thing God intended men for is to be in charge of women.

Jeff said...

You have not prove bias, but shown it. The same argument you use to promote the women pastors, is the same argument one can use to say that you have a bias.

Please quit using the word bias, since it is very difficult to prove and be littles your POV.

I will stick to those experts such as Piper and his companions to speak the truth about feminism.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Jeff,

Alright. I take it back. I was not there for the compilation of the 1927 NA Greek New Testament.

However, it is a recognized fact that no Greek manuscripts and no printed Greek New Testament texts have the name Iounian accented as masculine before Allford 1858. So it is 1858 that the first textual evidence for the masculine name of Junias appears.

It is true that one 11th century translation of Origen has a masculine Junias, but this is not considered to have any authority, nor does Epiphanius who also thought that Prisca was a man.

This is the sum of David Jones evidence. I do undestand that he is recording what he believed to be true. However, it is now recognized that there is not textual evidence for a masculine Junias. It does not exist. That is why I think that David Jones really ought to ask CBMW to remove his paper from the internet. It simply contains too many things that we now know not to be true.

I hope that I have not accused David Jones of bias at any time. I think he simply believed what he had read on the topic. However, the CBMW staff clearly are not 11 years out of date on Junia and they should remove this paper.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I am not trying to prove bias. I am saying that JOnes, as well as a good number of the men who have studied the issue of Junia, are simply wrong. Since they all contradict each other in numerous ways, the majority must be wrong.

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

Seven Prophetesses? Only seven?
Oh dear, this is going to be a long night, I can see that . . .

I assume you mean the prophetesses mentioned by the Hebrew sages?
They are Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda and Esther of course.

There are others, you know.
Even in the Gospels we find St. Elizabeth given the powers of a prophet:

" Mary rushed to be with her cousin Elizabeth when she learned that they were both pregnant.
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, she was filled with the Holy Spirit.
This was a phrase usually used to preface the speech or activity of prophets.
So we are not surprised when Elizabeth speaks prophetically and mentions Mary's baby.
Elizabeth's prophecy includes:
that Mary is a blessed woman
and her child is blessed. (Notice that she did not confer blessings; she described their already-blessed state.)
And Elizabeth acknowledges that the baby in Mary's womb was divine:
"the mother of My Lord"

Oh, and Mary (dare I mention the blessed Mother?)
In her canticle, the 'Magnificat', Mary prophesies correctly that 'all generations shall call me blessed'. And so it has been.

KEVIN, there are more than just seven prophetesses . . . .
don't get me started. :)
Love you dearly,
L's

G. Casey said...

Although I disagreed with you Mr. Burleson about female pastors, you did point out that the congregants asked her to be senior pastor. The term in Timothy indicates a teaching much as in a mentoring relationsip. I don't see why it would be wrong to allow Julie to be senior pastor and just put out a statement. How did this merit disfellowship and Joe why don't you meditate over Galatians 5 and 6for a while. I thought if there is disagreement on an issue that an attitude of gentleness was to prevail. For awhile I thought blogs would set forth a reformation but then I realized something,mentoring needs to be face to face.

Christiane said...

Hi Suzanne,

In the Eastern Orthodox traditions, (you may know this already), the Holy Spirit is considered to have a femnine aspect as the 'life-bearer of the faith'.

A very beautiful expression, it is, I think. :)

Pax Christi,
L's

Denn said...

If we ever have a granddaughter, I hope they name her "Phoebe Junia."

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's,

Of course one could infer the status of prophet on Mary, E'Liz, et al, but the quick research I did specifically named 7 whom the Bible declares to be prophets by the use of the word prophatas, or some variation of that specific word. To be filled with the Spirit would declare all believers to be prophets to one degree or another. We do not regularly consider the Spirit speaking to us to make us prophets, but I will give you that on one level.

I do know this about me: and that is that I am not close enough to the Lord to "get a word" aside from that which the Spirit reveals to me though Scripture. Hence I am limited to proclaim only that which has already been revealed.

k

G. Casey said...

What is needed is that chilvary needs to return to Western Christianity on both sides of the issue, it is not about woman ability.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"If we ever have a granddaughter, I hope they name her "Phoebe Junia.""

I am starting to get juniaphoebia.

Christiane said...

Imagine, on Resurrection Morning, if Mary Magdalene's announcement of the Resurrection was criticized by men who thought it 'indecent to hear the voice of a woman'.

They very well might have said it.

I wonder if people realize that the rabbinical tradition at the time of Christ was so culturally slanted that, if a woman came to them with a great announcement, they would have thought it indecent to just to hear her voice?

Knowing this, perhaps there is great significance in the fact that Christ chose a woman to announce His resurrection to the Apostles. In tradition, Mary Magdalene has always been known as the Apostle to the Apostles because of this great honor Our Lord paid to her.

Everything He did had meaning.
Everything He did HAS meaning for us, still.

Caritas Christi,
L's

Rex Ray said...

Debbie Kaufman,
You said you are willing to loan your garage for the next SBC annual meeting.
If I was on the location committee, I’d ask if your garage was single or double.

Now I could give you some competition as my DOUBLE garage faces a 50’ tower the big boys could speak from. (It’d still be short of their egos.)

Joe Blackmon,
Thank you for the medical analogy, but I believe it’s more like they left the patient with a cancerous tumor after cutting off a healthy arm. (BTW the smile is from ear to ear.)

Kevin Crowder,
You said, “I am personally opposed to Independent Christianity.”

It seems you are saying you are opposed to the ‘Individual priesthood of the BELEVER’.

If so, how strong is the thread you sewed the curtain ripped by Calvary?

Wade,
Love the picture! You said: “When Does a Convention Become a Cult?”

1. When they persecuted the ‘best’ like Russell Dilday because they were ‘Not One of Us’.
(Does anyone see the similarity of Patterson having Dilday’s position, and King Ahab having Naboth’s vineyard?)

2. When they named ANYONE that did not agree with them ‘LIBERALS’.

3. When Patterson appointed 15 people that agreed with him to compose a SECRET BFM, and pushed it through the SBC without the churches knowledge.

The BFM 2000 should be named the ‘Patterson BFM’ which places women in a pecking order according to his thinking.

4. When missionaries were asked: “To have the confidence and willingness to follow the wisdom and guidance of GOD-APPOINTED leadership, whether we necessarily UNDERSTAND or AGREE.” (1997)

5. When missionaries were told to sign the BFM 2000 which was not asking but commanding them to comply with #4 above.

6. When 77 missionaries were force to give up their call from God rather than bow to a man-made paper that’s been made our DOCTRINAL GUIDELINE by the egos of SBC CULT LEADERS.

I could go on but the hour is late. I’ll just say, the sun’s glory of the SBC has set because they have disobeyed the warning of Jesus “…teaching as doctrines the commands of men.” (Matthew 15:9)

Pege` said...

Wade, WOW I am actually afraid to make a post on this topic...just read all 89 comments....WHEW!! There is much to consider, ponder and meditate upon. I have always been taught that a woman cannot lead a church as in the position of Pastor. I have held to that because I could see it in the bible as such. I need to take the time to prayerfully look again and see if I have interpreted the word correctly. Get back to you about what I discover. Thanks for the challenge.

rick t said...

Kevin, could you help me? I'm not a great biblical scholar like most but could you tell me where men in the Bible are referred to as senior pastors. I've tried to look at places that might refer to that but can't locate any. Thanks for your help.

Pege` said...

e, I am perplexed at how it
can be determined a woman can be an elder ,bishop,or Pastor when these verses are clear in 1 Timothy 3 and
Titus 1. The qualifications are from both compaired
· above reproach (v. 2)
· above reproach (v. 6)

· the husband of one wife (v. 2)
· the husband of one wife (v. 6

· temperate (v. 2)
· self-controlled

· prudent (v. 2)
· sensible

· respectable (v. 2)

· hospitable (v. 2)
· hospitable (v. 8)

· able to teach (v. 2)
· able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (v. 9)

· not addicted to wine (v. 3)
· not addicted to wine (v. 7)

· not pugnacious (v. 3)
· not pugnacious (v. 7)

· gentle (v. 3)
· peaceable (v. 3)


· free from the love of money (v. 3)· not fond of sordid gain (v. 7)

· ruling his household well (v. 4)
· above reproach as God's steward (v. 7)

· having children under
control with dignity (v. 4)
· having children who are not accused of dissipation or rebellion (v. 6)

· not a new convert (v. 6)

· of good reputation outside
the church (v. 7)

· not self-willed (v. 7)
· not quick-tempered (v. 7)
· loving what is good (v. 8)
· just (v. 8)
· devout (v. 8)

No provision is made for women to serve as elders.1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." Women are to be under the authority of elders, excluded from teaching men or holding positions of authority over them.

The reasons women must submit to the leadership of men are not cultural, nor do they reflect a Pauline prejudice, as some claim. Rather, the reason is rooted in the order of creation: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (v. 13). The Fall of man confirmed the order: "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (v. 14).

The balance of influence comes through the woman's responsibility of bearing and nurturing children (v. 15).

So far Wade, I do not see it in God's word how a woman can biblically take a Position as Pastor. If she is truely interpreting the word correctly she would see this in these 2 passages and could not do it in obedience. So if these can be compromised what other verses will she "adjust" to fit other situations? I know there are two very strong opposing views cconcerning this issue so far I have to go with God's word. When a church is part of a denomination aand clearly disagrees with a core belief of that denomination the honorable thing to do is with drawl so not to offend. The church in Georgia should have withdrawn their membership in honor. I think they forced the others hand. I do not agree how it was done. I will keep thinking and studying, so far this is where I strand. Blessings.

Rex Ray said...

Pege,
Your first comment sounded so sincere as if you were going to study ALL the Scriptures, but it seems your ‘CONSIDERING, PONDERING, MEDITATING, PRAYING and DISCOVERY in such a short time revealed ONLY Scriptures of fundamentalists.

Why is that?

Did you research the subject with an OPEN mind as your first comment would indicate?

Or did you have your second comment already prepared before writing the first?

Can you convince me not to think of your first comment as being deceiving which is typical of the leaders that I believe has the SBC on a road to being a cult?

Jeff said...

How sad that when someone presents an agrument based on their convictions they are accused of being closed minded. When someone opposes the feminist movement they are close minded....really really sad.

This is the same old argument about you must have a bias if you do not agree with me.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Rex Said:

It seems you are saying you are opposed to the ‘Individual priesthood of the BELEVER’.

Rex, the "cherished” doctrine of "The Priesthood of the Believer" does not mean that we are each our own High Priest nor our own Shepherd. Certainly we can each go to God through Christ for forgiveness and atonement. But we must still submit at times to earthly authorities. This is the real issue for you, Wade, et al isn't it? Submission (whatever that looks like). I submit to the Elders of my church. I submit to the Logos. If my denomination had a presbytery I would gladly submit to their authority insofar as they were submitting as well to the Logos.

If so, how strong is the thread you sewed the curtain ripped by Calvary?

Come on Rex, what the heck does that even mean?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Pege: If the reason is order of creation then the trees, animals, fish, birds, should be over us as they were created first.

Wade Burleson said...

Peg

You have asked a sincere and genuine question about the qualifications of a pastor. I will answer you in detail but need to get to a computer. I am typing this on ny blackberry.Be patient with me little.grasshopper! :)

All, Peg's a dear friend - and sharp.

Wade

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Chaplain Talley,

Allow me for a moment to dissect your post.

Kevin, could you help me?
Coming from a man of you age and position, this is purely condescending. But yes I can.

I'm not a great biblical scholar like most but could you tell me where men in the Bible are referred to as senior pastors.
Then might I suggest you become a "great biblical scholar" or at least a good Berean like you Pastor exhorts you to be. Btw, nice try, but again condescending. Downplay biblical scholarship to make the issue seem more simply than it is. Simpleton approach, but not the right approach. Still, yes I can.


I've tried to look at places that might refer to that but can't locate any. I am going to go out on a limb here Chaplain and purport that you did no such thing. I purport that you have told me that you actually attempted to do the research necessary to find the Greek or Hebrew equivalents of "Senior Pastor" yet in reality you did not. Again, in condescension, you are trying to make simply the idea of good biblical scholarship. Since the study of this topic has taken me and a good friend months--pouring through various NT Greek passages, your cursory "thoughts" while writing you post appear to be nothing more than a little fib. (Don't worry; you are already forgiven my brother)

Thanks for your help. An end to the condescending sandwich?


Ok, here is my true and honest reply. My use of the term "Senior Pastor" is contextual. We use it today, it was not used in the Bible in those exact words. But we find the words Shepherd, Elder and Bishop to denote office or duty. My issue is not just with a woman holding the office of Sr. Pastor, but any office given the title or authority of Elder.

k

Denn said...

Good Morning Kev.

Cute answer. Are you married?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

After you give a teaching to your dear friend, I hope you will consider answering my question (a simply yes or no will do). After all, I answered your question.

Actually, you could just answer it from you phone--even while driving to the Enid Temple Mount. :)

Rex Ray said...

Jeff,
I’m afraid you missed my whole point. I’ll admit the word “open mind’ could have been worded differently. (Maybe you could tell me?)

If Pege had made the second comment without the first, I would have respected her opinion.

But the first comment deceived me that she was going to study the Bible again to make up her mind, when the truth was she did not study the whole Bible in such a short time but quoted the Scriptures she believed to start with.

Jeff, if you can’t see my point, maybe you should check what kind of mind you have?


Kevin,
If you don’t believe the ‘ripped curtain’ made you a High Priest which is ‘Individual Priesthood’, then all your submission would fit quite well with a cult.

To sew up the Curtain is to restore the High Priest/Leaders over the people.

I’m hoping the thread you sewed the curtain is weak enough to be broken.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Rex,

I most certainly beg to differ with you sir. We are not our own High Priests. The tearing of the curtain changed the rules, not changed our position. I affirm the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers only so far as it deals with our access to the Father through Christ for daily communication and revelation and for forgiveness and atonement. Anything else you might want to attach to that doctrine I would flat out deny and call heresy.

k

Tom Parker said...

Kevin:

Please don't get started on heresy just because someone sees an issue a different way than you do.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Tom,

No grace for Rex today. He started it, I have have proven on many of occassion I can finish it. I am sure I would love Rex as a person, in person. But on here he is a copycat wanna be theologue. Besides, I have not used, nor heard the word heresy thrown around for a while. Last night I listened to an "Ask John Piper" video segment where he calls all Roman Catholic Theology Heresy. (Sorry my dear friend L's) But I got goose bumps listening to him go. :)


Reformata et Semper Reformanda!

Suzanne McCarthy said...

It appears to be a matter of human interpretation that some restrict the priesthood of believers. The scriptures are not explicit.

As to the "husband of one wife" this did not restrict either Paul, who was not the husband of a wife, nor did it restrict Phoebe who was also not the husband of a wife. It seems that it was meant to exclude those who were the husband of more than one wife. If it had meant that the person had to be the husband of a wife, the text would have said so. However, the text says "husband of ONE wife." This is the pertinent information.

As to 1 Tim, 2:12, this says that a woman may not dictate to men or put herself forward as an independent authority. This is clear from the BDAG and from all the evidence in Greek literature.

If anyone wants to argue about it, they can look for evidence from other Greek literature at the time of the NT that the word authenteo means "to lead, to have authority in a positive sense." This evidence does not exist.

Having a woman as a bishop does not go against any direct command of scripture.

The scriptures are not as ambiguous as some people think. For example, when it comes to cirucmcision, the text is completely explicit and uses the word MALE. This word existed in both Hebrew and Greek. It is used for priests and it is used for circumcision. It is not used for leaders. Obviously we have examples of queens, judges, prophets, deacons, and an apostle who were women.

We know of no man and no woman who was named a bishop in the NT.

Regarding the priests, they had to be male, of the right tribe and they had to have intact genitals in order to be priests. Do we want to reinstate an examination of the nether regions for the office of "senior pastor?"

I do know that tradition is hard to resist. I was raised in an environment where women were completely silent with their heads covered in the assembly. I was not used to women leaders. But now I realize that I have not been able to find a text which excludes women leaders.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

BTW, most of the time, when it says "he" in the English Bible, there is no pronoun of any kind in Greek. Greek verbs did not require a pronoun, so you cannot state that the "he" in an English Bible restricts women, because this pronoun is not there in Greek. It is an insertion into the text by a translator, in most cases.

Gene S said...

As my ultra-conservative commentators might guess--I happen to have been ordained by FBC Decatur in 1970!

Today I am even more glad to admit it than I was as a new preacher with the signatures of Bill Lancaster (then pastor), Dick Hall (Emeritus Pastor), Bill Self, Monroe Swilley, and others who would not let a stupid or immoral person pass their Counsel.

Let me tell you a few things about this church even more important than calling a woman as pastor:

(1) They have been pioneers at elder care and student ministry.

(2) They mothered many of Atlanta's suburban churches who are birthing more new churches as Atlanta continues to grow.

(3) They, at the time, had a large number of the HMB Staff as members and leaders.

(4) They were, before being ousted, one of the flagship churches in CP giving.

(5) They have a lay leadership composed of "above average" intelligence and commitment.

Knowing this, it was no surprise to me that a worthy Pastor, this time around, was recommended without regard to what sex she was. What she has done in responding is exemplary.

Now, what the Georgia Baptist Convention has done is reprehensible! We have moved from prayers of Jews-bashing to gay-bashing to ordained female bashing. The public is keenly aware each time this happens how high our Baptist monkey has climbed the tree so it is more easy to see his tail!

For those of you who believe in the new BF&M more than you do the Bible, just take a look at your mother.

Was she caring and committed to service in the church where she grew up, as was mine? Did she do stuff the men refused to get their hands dirty doing? Would she have washed Jesus' feet with her tears when the disciples were fussing and fighting over who would have a place of honor and forgot to do this common service?

Give me a break!

Not to be too blunt, BUT with this level of disregard for Godly women, you can kiss my monkey tail, monkey name, monkey Ordaination, all bred at FBC Decatur!!!

Am I clear enough for even the most fundamentalist to understand???

Jack said...

Gene -

You are abundantly clear! In fact -you are transparent

: )

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

Conventions are interesting critters. Obviously they are not a church, yet somehow represent whatever consistent thought of those that gather together to collect money for missions. So, in some ways I agree with you that conventions should are and should be very limited.

I also believe that it is the responsibility of the individual churches that assemble at a convention to be honest with the convention and its charter. If a church cannot hold to the conventions charter, then it (the church that is opposing the charter) is to cooperate by educating the convention of its (the conventions statement) error, or cooperate by submitting to and learning from others in the convention. If a church that is opposing a convention, is intent to antagonize being part of a convention that opposes specific activity (such as women made responsible to oversee the church…i.e. the SBC being different than some others) then it would be the responsibility of the church in opposition to remove itself from cooperation.

That is our churches stance with the SBC. If she (the SBC convention for instance) moves to a doctrine inconsistent with scripture, then it is my responsibility as one of the overseers of that congregation to inform the body and protect the body from that error. For instance,… if someday the SBC would put in its charter that churches are only served by “one” overseer (not a plurality of men), then we would have no other recourse but to remove ourselves from cooperation with that convention.

Blessings,
Chris

Gene S said...

Beam me up, Scottie, I have landed smack in the middle of the Planet of the Apes!

I though it was only a movie-- before I read all these hot posts!!

Am I still transparent????

Jack said...

Yes Gene, you are

: )

Jeff said...

Wade, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions. Why the game of dodge ball?

Why not ordained the ladies on your staff? Why not change their title from director to pastor?

Why not invite this poor lady pastor to speak at your church?

Jack said...

Gene

I need to correct you on one thing - "Planet of the Apes" and "Star Trek" are two entirely different movies. It is impossible for "Scottie" (Star Trek) to "Beam you up" (Planet of the Apes) if you have landed on "Planet of the Apes"

try to be more accurate when you post friend...

: )

Jack said...

WOW Gene - now you even have me confused! Before you know it I will be reading the writings of another famous GA baptist moderate....

somebody pass the peanuts...

: )

rick t said...

Kevin, you are right that i didn't look at all the Greek and Hebrew words, since i don't speak either or understand either. But i did look at possible sources that i do have. I was asking an honest question, for me, hoping to find an honest answer, not a belittling one. I did look up the word "elder" in the dictionary, and among the many writings about it one was: "In the Baptist and Methodist denominations,, missionaries and itinerent preachers, not the settled pastors, are spoken of as elders." What about women missionaries and husband/wife missionary teams.

Thy Peace said...

Posts from this blog for this year that are relevant to these discussions:

When Inerrantists Espouse the Bible Has Error: A Question for Southern Baptists About Junia in Romans 16:7 [NOVEMBER 11, 2009].
A Horrible Proposed Constitutional Amendment to the Georgia Baptist Convention's Governing Documents [SEPTEMBER 25, 2009].
A Personal Confession, A Public Challenge [AUGUST 08, 2009].
When Cultural Bias Leads to Interpretive Error [JULY 20, 2009].
A Sincere Question for My Inerrantist Friends [JULY 15, 2009].
An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head:" Are Women Really Free To Function Freely? [JULY 13, 2009].
I Believe Is Not the Same Thing as I Know [JULY 08, 2009].
God Made For Man One Equal in Power, Strength and Authority: An Exegesis of Gen. 2:18 [JULY 06, 2009].
God Calls Patriarchal Headship A Sinful Desire [JULY 02, 2009].
There Is a Huge Difference Between Homosexual Sin and Women Preaching the Gospel [JUNE 18, 2009].
The Problem With Inerrancy in the SBC [MAY 20, 2009].
Which Is More Important - Character or Doctrine? [MARCH 23, 2009].
The Absurd Notion that a Church Must Affirm the 2000 BFM to Be Considered Southern Baptist [FEBRUARY 01, 2009].
A Personal Testimony About My Journey [JANUARY 28, 2009].
A Tale of Two Churches and Their Leadership [JANUARY 26, 2009].

Christiane said...

THE BIG PICTURE

Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely.

"You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time."

THE VOICE
And yet, it is the voice of a woman, Mary of Magdala, that echoes to us down through the centuries: 'HE IS RISEN'

A woman's voice, clear, and wonderfully chosen by Christ the Lord, to announce the greatest news of all time.
We mustn't forget that.

"HEBREWS 1: 1-3
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Quoting obscure verses from other authors cannot take away from what Christ asked of Mary Magdalene.
There was no one entrusted and honored more with spreading the Word than Mary Magdalene: the Apostle to the Apostles. No one.


Caritas Christi,
L's

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Chaplain Talley,

I am sorry for my belittling post. I was showing off and had no right to treat you that way. You are my elder, in one sense of the word, and that was wrong of me to get carried away on this blog.

To more directly answer you, I am of the opinion that of many denominations, the Baptists and Methodists of old have used terms and titles a bit less ridged than were understood by the biblical writers. I am also aware that both myself and others make biblical titles and roles a bit more ridged than possiblity was the intent of the inspired writers. Still, I am firm in my conviction with regard to ordained elder leadership of the local expression of the Body of Christ being reserved for the male gender, specifically those who have been called out (ordained) afore by the Holy Spirit, and affirmed (ordained) by the Church.

Forgive my arrogance, it creeps out from time to time,

Kevin M. Crowder

rick t said...

Kevin, thanks for the apology. I'm just tryin to learn more myself. When getting a degree in religious education Greek isn't a prerequisite. If it was, and i went in 1982, i'd probly still be there tryin to figure it out. That's why i ask what appears to be goofy questions a lot. But my good traits are, i love Jesus, i love people, and i enjoy encouraging them and sharing my faith with others. He has done miraculous things in my life, as i'm sure He has done in yours, and He can do the same with folks we come in contact with every day.

Gene S said...

Jack--

What dog do you have in this match?

By the way, only a proof texter would use my 2nd "beam me up" to try and negate the "monkey climbs the tree / Planet of the Apes" to try and evade it.

Now, let me be perfectly clear (faous Nixon phrase so you should give me a little slack):

Planet of the Apes was future earth (or maybe just some of the fundies here now) where apes ruled. If you believe the theories of time and speed, it is perfectly possible the Starship Enterprise could visit future earth.

Another possible scenerio and future movie could be how the ancestors of the apes were full of fundy genes! I normally refuse to use such derogatory name calling, but you guys on this blog definitely deserve it or worse.

Are you trying to get even with your momma who spanked you?

Irregardless, I stand by my imagery.

By the way, Joe, what do you mean by your "transparency" imagery? Does this apply beneath your Pharisee robe as well?

Jack said...

Actually Gene, the Star Trek analogy would apply, BUT they would not be traveling through simple time itself, for in fact the Planet of the apes was a different dimension altogether if my memory serves me right, therefore they would have to enter into a diametrically different "time continuum". It would make a great movie! I do stand corrected in and that you have proven that the Star Trek analogy does indeed apply.

I guess your right about something! : )

for the record - I have no idea what you mean by the momma analogy - please refrain from going 'Freud' on us here

I have no Dog in a hunt, I do not hunt

and were you addressing me and called me Joe, or were you actually making a comment at Joe about whatever is under his robe?

Blessings
Jack

Jack said...

Another question Gene...

Are you indeed related to Rex Ray of Texas?

: )

(Love ya Rex!)

Gene S said...

Jack / Joe = about the same, but I meant Jack!

Like it or not, most developmental psychologist say a child's basic personality is laid down by age 5.

So why dodge my question about your momma and your desire to squelch women?

Rex---don't know him, sorry. Am I missing anything???

Afraid to look beneath the robe???

Jack said...

Oh Gene, you know the answer to that question. Us "Fundies" as you like to refer to us, we just hate our women...man, we are so fearful and cognitively backwards that we just can't see the forest for the trees! Now, I don't recall actually sharing a legitimate opinion on this thread one way or another, but man, you are so stink'en smart you 'dun' figered me out! Anyway, I got to get back to my cave draw'en and fire start'en and danged if that women of mine has'nt gone and run off without rubben my feet...I gotta go fetch her by her hair and drag her back to the cave...

by the way...Rex Ray very well may be your long lost brother!

Blessings....uh, I mean....uggggg

Jim Shaver said...

And 99.9% of all the pastors who voted to kick them out would give their eyeteeth to preach as good as BETH MOORE.

Jeff said...

Now Jim, That Missouri water has done caused you to dream impossible dreams.

Wade Burleson said...

Peg,

I would encourage you to read Suzanne McCarthey's excellent comment above. I would also encourage you to read Jon Zen's excellent article (which will be published next year as a book with supplemental support) entitled "Are the Sisters Free to Funcion?" In addition, I would highly recommend you go to www.http://www.cbeinternational.org and read every article posted and purchase Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian's book Beyond Sex Roles, probably the magnus opus of the issue at hand, written from a high, high view of the sacred text.

Finally, if after doing all the above, you still have questions, give me a shout. I offer ten reasons why the issue of women pastors should be a non-issue within the conservative evangelical church. Let me repeat: this issue should be a NON-ISSUE. In other words, it is of no interest to me what ANOTHER church believes or does according to this issue -- we should cooperate even though we disagree. Here are the reasons:

(1). Conservative, evangelicals disagree on this issue, and both base their views on interpretations of the sacred, inerrant text.
(2). There is NO functional or real inequality in heaven between males and females. Any attempt to act as if there is eternal subordination in the Trinity in order to defend the alleged eternal subordination of females to males crosses the line into real, not imagined, heresy.
(3). Women led, prophesied, taught, preached, served, and did everything else that men did in the Old and New Testaments - except serve as PRIESTS IN THE OLD COVENANT. I laughed, and laughed when I read Suzanne's comment above about the New Covenant church going back to examine the nether regions of pastors (the Old Covenant forbad eunuchs or castrated males from serving as priests) as IF THE OLD COVENANT WERE STILL IN EFFECT.
(4). The two passages that seem a forthright forbidding of women leading or teaching men are not nearly as forthright as one might imagine. Jon Zens does an excellent job pointing out the preponderance of New Testament evidence of gender equality, and shows how Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus should be viewed in context. You may not agree in the end, but one shouldn't separate in fellowship with conservatives who interpret those two passages differently than you--particularly when there is overwhelming evidence of females serving as spiritual leaders throughout the NT.
(5). There's a lost world out there that is in need of the gospel, and don't give one whit about differences in church polity.

The only reason I push back against what is happening in the SBC is because I don't think anybody is seeing the incredible damage that is being caused by exclusionary and divisive separatists who are disfellowshipping from everybody over tertiery issues.

Blessings,

Wade

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Just five reason and a double blessing. Sorry.

I started typing at 9:00 this morning and have been gone for the past several hours due to the tragic and sudden death of a 48 year old father of two who was a faithful member of our church. He died in a traffic accident. Forgive the errors in the post above due to the circumstances of not being able to pay close attention to the blog.

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

"Poor lady preacher?"

You are asking why don't we have "this poor lady preacher" speak at Emmanuel?

I would be honored for her to speak.

As far as ordination- we set aside men and women for special service.

We reject any notion that "ordained" people have any higher authority than any other believer in Christ.

Jeff said...

Wade, Ordained the two ladies who are on staff and change their title to associate pastor.

Have you invited her to preach at Emmanuel?

Gene S said...

Wade--

Bless you for raising this "non-issue" but, by its quick draw of putting women down supporters, it seems to be an issue for them

I turn to Paige Patterson whose voice encouraged this stir. Why is his wife "Dr. Patterson if she is to tend to the knitting and ironing? From his President's Article in the SEBTS days, he admitted Dorothy made him get his dog out of her pretty house---and he obeyed (while muttering women should be subservient likely).

It is a classic case of disconnect and trying to find "the good old days." If it's the "good old days" of I Love Lucy, then guess again. Pre-WWII women may have stayed at home, but not after they got factory jobs and began to show their abilities to produce more than babies.

I am amazed how many conservative and spiritual denominations proudly show their pastor's wife on their advertising as "co-minister." Even the Church of God has women ministers!

I just don't understand why the SBC is being so rediculous. Is there any "behind-the-scenes" explaination along the lines of your exposure of the IMB Board of Dictators?

Oops--typo--Board of Directors!

Thy Peace said...

Jeff: Why are you so anxious to "trip up" Pastor Wade and Emmanuel?

Pastor Wade tried to get Anne Rice to come to his church (but she could not due to health reasons). Similar to the invite of William Paul Young of The Shack.

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

It is my desire to treat you with the respect due a fellow brother in Christ. I pray that over the past few months I have done so.

You have now asked twice:

"Why not invite this poor lady pastor to speak at your church?

Your questions to me about inviting Julie Pennington to preach at Emmanuel sound to me, and I could be wrong, impertinent. I define impertinent as Webster's defines it: "intrusive or presumptuous, as persons or their actions; insolently rude; uncivil: a brash, impertinent youth."

Since I do not know you personally, and since I could be wrong in my assessment, please accept my apology in advance.

I do not as a practice, however, answer impertinent questions.

In His Grace,

Wade

Jeff said...

I have no desire to trip up Wade as if I could. He is far too smart for me. I just want to know if he practices what he preaches. There is nothing evil in my intent. His position and essays on this subject seem incomplete until he takes action in his own church.

He has two ladies on staff listed as directors, while most all male staffers are listed as pastors.

I just want to know why?

Wade has my number he can call me privately with his answer without fear of being recorded on my end.

Jeff

Gene S said...

"If it looks like a duck--quacks like a duck--walks like a duck = IT IS A DUCK!"

"If it demeans like a fundy--tries to start a fight like a fundy--puts women down like a fundy = IT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST OF BF&M 2K variety!!!"

Thy Peace said...

From my reading, Pastor Wade does not "run" "his" Church. He is not authoritarian. And he does not run the church as a person fiefdom. Unlike some mega church pastors. He does practice what he preaches.

Jeff said...

Thy Peace, How can he when he has only females listed as directors on his church's website and only males as pastors. I really am not trying to be hard...I really want to know. I believe Wade is an honorable man. I am just curious if he is putting into practice what he is writing about concerning women in the ministry.

Pege` said...

Wade, thanks for the double blessing to even post on here takes courage, I will read and seriously consider what you have suggested I read. I will engage you again on this topic. I do avoid posting on your blog Wade because of the mean spirited accusing replies from people who do no know me and there is no sense of freedom to disagree...to sincerely discuss topics and differences of thot , I know you and the wonderful freedom to discuss and explore, pick each others brains, debate and even agree to disagree with a spirit of friendship and brother/sisterhood with out shame or belittling. I wil be honest to you, some posters here need to learn from your example. To set the record straight I am not a fundalmentalist, a legalist and I am looking for the truth of the word... I simply posted what I read in scripture, I did not make up the verses. If I am misunderstanding, God will show me He is a patient teacher. Wade I think in the future I will just e-mail you in private, I do not like the spirit of this. I will continue to read.
Off to study,
Blessings,
Padawon Pege'

Thy Peace said...

Pege': A good place to have gentle conversations is this blog: Women In Ministry. Cheryl Schatz runs the blog.

Jeff: I am assuming that whatever processes are in place for the running of Emmanuel is just more than Pastor Wade himself.

Jeff said...

I think I will just give Wade a call, and ask him privately since he doubts my sincerity.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"The only reason I push back against what is happening in the SBC is because I don't think anybody is seeing the incredible damage that is being caused by exclusionary and divisive separatists who are disfellowshipping from everybody over tertiary issues."

If the issue really is cooperation aside from disagreements on tertiary issues then would you please answer MY pertinent question?

"Would you support a vote to disfellowship a church on the basis that they accepted infant baptisms as valid? Or baptisms by method of sprinkling or pouring? Even if such baptisms were performed in the name of the triune God for the remission of sins? AND where the life of the sprinkled exhibited the fruit of the Spirit?"


The pertenancy of this question is based on the idea that cooperation is actually based on personal theologies, not whether a theology is really primary or tertiary. It is my opinion that the Bible speaks more clearly to the matter of the gender requirements of the Elder than it does to the method and mode of Baptism. I would not vote in the affirmative if a vote such as this were to ever come up.

And for the record, I would have voted to remove FBCD, but I would have never have in my wildest dreams brought the motion to the floor. A “no dual alignment credential” like we have in Missouri would have taken care of the issue without getting into the nasty genital debate.

K

happy gram said...

this discussion and others on interpretation remind me of the current health care bill debate. one article of the bill can be read word for word and yet both sides interpret what it says differently.

wade, i am sorry for the tragedy in your church; i know how difficult it must be for you and your priority right now is ministering to this grieving family. i also know how deeply something like this affects the pastor - especially the unexpected death of a young father whose family is devastated. prayers for you and your staff as God uses all of you to bring comfort and hope to this family.

Lydia said...

"My issue with Pennington--------------Russell is that she occupies an office the Bible (more specifically the knowledge of the truth of the Logos) declares to be reserved for men. "

There are no 'offices'. That word was added by translators. And pastor is only mentioned once and is a spiritual gift.


"I have no issue if she would want to sit outside her church and "speak of Him" (v.38, ESV)"

You mean like outside Lydia's house? Or perhaps away from the Body gathering at the river?

Kevin, Please tell me you are not wearing robes now behind a big pulpit to show off your 'office'. :o)

Lydia said...

" think you will find only male priests in the OT."

What does that have to do with teaching?


" Other than that we have no concrete biblical evidence one way or the other."

Huldah and Deborah just to name the ones off the top of my head.


" Teaching was done "clan style." Women taught the young children and women, Fathers taught the older boys. At least that would likely be the historical evidence. Of course I am sure there were exceptions."

So Deborah was the leader of the clan and a prophetess. (Perhaps you are one of those who believe God could not 'elect' any men and was forced to use Deborah?)

" Biblical roles from Genesis seemed to have guided many societies of old whether they knew it or not."

What Biblical roles? Are you speaking before the fall or after the fall where you guys are trying to sanctify sin?


" As for a more defined teaching in the NT? I suppose as sin progresses so too does God's revelation. "

So, a big sin like that is never mentioned in the OT. Hmm. Not in the law or any where else but now I am to believe it is a sin in the NC.

"As to the issue of Miriam or other women or girls who had no living father or who did not have a father of faith? Grace in election my dear Lydia. Covenant Family Blessings only occur if one is part of family of faith right? My post in no way suggested this was the ONLY way, just the "ordinary means" (Westminster Confession)."

Sorry, this is why I don't do confessions or creeds. Would this mean all of Isaiahs family was saved? So, it is not faith like Hebrews was teaching but Covenant family blessings. So that means you believe all of Israel was saved, right?

Scott said...

So here's a good question:

Why do we limit the exclusion of women to just the role of Senior Pastor?

The scriptures are clear in that there are no caveats.

Also, why do we have two major offerings a year named for women and their work in teaching, witnessing, and as missionaries? Why aren't these named for their husbands or the men obviously working with them as their superiors and supervisors since a woman cannot be in a pastoral leadership role.

Aren't missionaries also pastors when in the field or are we playing semantics at that point?

Also, why do we continue to send female missionaries at all? Obviously they'll be in a teaching, preaching role at some point over men and that'll be against scripture.


Or...

Is it just simply about power and control?

Of course, too many Christians have had their lives ruined in the name of conservatism. McCarthyism wasn't even this bad. Perhaps Salem...

Lydia said...

"Rex, the "cherished” doctrine of "The Priesthood of the Believer" does not mean that we are each our own High Priest nor our own Shepherd. Certainly we can each go to God through Christ for forgiveness and atonement. But we must still submit at times to earthly authorities. This is the real issue for you, Wade, et al isn't it? Submission (whatever that looks like). I submit to the Elders of my church. I submit to the Logos. If my denomination had a presbytery I would gladly submit to their authority insofar as they were submitting as well to the Logos."

I know some children who did that and were molested. I know another person who submitted to their elders and were told to cover up some very bad things.

So, I guess you mean above that Jesus is NOT our High Priest or our personal Shepherd. Only a human male can be that to us?

Civil authorities have their own category. The Body is made up of sinful individuals saved by grace. There are not those who always remain the most mature spiritually and everyone else is always more spiritually immature. The object is to grow mature believers. Not keep them under your thumb as their 'leader'. But it does keep a lot of folks in a living.

Lydia said...

pege,

According to your 'clear reading' of those texts, single men cannot be elders either. :o)

Gene S said...

O-o-o-o-h----what great questions that none of the fundies can answer!!!

Right on!!!

Lydia said...

"I most certainly beg to differ with you sir. We are not our own High Priests. The tearing of the curtain changed the rules, not changed our position."

And therein lies the real problem. We are not our own high priests...but we are ALL priests if we are truly saved. Jesus is our High Priest. Not another depraved sinner saved by grace, too.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

No one is arguing with you.

But as to the molestation cases, those issues are not systemic. They are a result of isolated sin on the part of men. You will never put a system in place to stop sin.

Better to pray for protection from the evil one.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Wade,

Jeff might come across as a little snooty but I don't think the questions he has been asking are impertinent or invalid.

Over the last 2-3 years, you've been a strong online advocate for women-in-ministry through what seems like a gradual shift from "cultural compliementarianism" to full-fledged egalitarianism.

Some egalitarians may call you a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue. But, I say Better Late Than Never. So, I commend your advocacy on behalf of women in ministry. At least someone is attempting to be the conscience of Southern Baptists on this issue.

In addition to words, some of us would like to know what you're doing on behalf of women-in-ministry beyond blog posts and comments? Jeff has a valid point to note that your church does not employ any ordained female ministers despite having a large (at least from my perspective) pastoral staff. Others might wonder how many women pastors you have invited to preach in your absence?

As you surely know, Julie P-R - who was for a time my pastor and for a much longer time my family's pastor - is not the only ordained female Baptist minister around. Others would cherish the opportunity to preach to your congregation in Enid, I'm sure.

So yes, the do you practice what you preach question is relevant. Or are your words just words? Too many Baptist "egalitarians" I know have not moved beyond their verbal affirmation of WIM to affirmation of WIM in practice. I think these are valid questions especially since you put yourself out there in the public eye so much with these pro-WIM posts. And you do write A LOT about this issue.

My critique of many "moderate" Baptists (and a critique that many of my Baptist friends share) is that many Baptist egalitarians have done an absolutely lousy job of putting our words into action. And Al Mohler is correct to point out our inconsistency when he notes how few moderate congregations have called a female to serve as senior pastor or as an associate pastor.

There are, however, a number of Baptist egalitarians who have for years supported women-in-ministry in their publications and columns as well as behind the scenes in various different ways. Unfortunately, there are many many "conservative evangelicals" females with degrees from Baptist-affiliated seminaries who were called to pastoral ministry yet can't get an interview even in a supposedly pro-WIM moderate Baptist church. I'm good friends with a number of such unemployed female ministers - some of which have been out of seminary for 5+ years and still can't get a position and many struggle to find guest preaching opportunities. It is sad because these women were truly called to preach and pastor.

Lydia said...

"But as to the molestation cases, those issues are not systemic. They are a result of isolated sin on the part of men. You will never put a system in place to stop sin."

But you just said these sinners with the right titles were our authorities.

So, unless we are to have spiritual discernment about false teachers or wolves, this is dangerous stuff you are teaching. And to have spiritual discernment would mean we go right to the High Priest and His Word being taught by the Holy Spirit. Isn't that what you tell folks to do? Or just to listen to the guy with the title?

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

I think people must put systems in place to TRY to stop predators. If there is a known predator allowed to teach or minister to young people, then those who know of the risk to the young are:
1. Responsible for what might happen to innocent ones
2. Responsible for allowing a potential perpetrator into a situation where he/she will be sorely tempted to act out.

In either case, knowledge is responsibility. The innocent must be protected, as best we can.
Not to do so is a great sin of omission.

Love, L's

Wade Burleson said...

Would you support a vote to disfellowship a church on the basis that they accepted infant baptisms as valid? Or baptisms by method of sprinkling or pouring? Even if such baptisms were performed in the name of the triune God for the remission of sins? AND where the life of the sprinkled exhibited the fruit of the Spirit?"

No. No. No.

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Big Daddy Weave,

I neither feel the necessity nor the desire to prove to you my support of and for women. I say to you, as I do to Jeff, impertinent questions go unanswered by me.


Blessings,

Wade

Gene S said...

Example: Randall Lolley's own daughter was advised by her father to seek ordaination in another denomination than Baptist.

Her daddy is an egalitarian, but reality forces him to give his daughter the same advice I would give mine: BECOME A METHODIST!!!

What a shame! Knowing now what happened since 1979, if I had to do it over again, I would take my Emory credentials to the Candler School of Theology and become Methodist, myself.

Why?

Because, first, all their clergy have to submit to an MMPI test for sanity. Next, they have to have an education and earned MDiv. Next, they have some protection for their honesty with the congregation from the District Superentendent.

Finally, because if any of them gets caught with sexual abuse of women, children. or any others--his ass is grass--to use a term all will understand!

Baptists, of late, have become about the most pretentious group I know. Because of this I have to agree with the wise old sage: God invented an insane assylum for the religious and he called it-----The Baptist Church!

This whole blog proves my point! Some of you be crazy!!! Are you afflicted with "dancy eyes???"

Huh?????????

Jeff said...

Wade, I try to call you on your cell phone to reassured you that there is no malice on my part. It appears to be that you have been backed into a corner and are scare to answer publicly.

I left a message on your cell. You have my number. Remember I was Christian enough to answer your calls early this year.

I have more questions:

Will you bring a resolution at SBC supporting the right of women to serve as pastors in the local church?

You accused me of impertinent questions. I guess I can accuse you of be a hypocrite.

Jack said...

Gene

It's not to late for you to go! Todays 60 is yesterdays 40!!! By the way, why the potty mouth? Maybe your momma did not 'Spank"you enough : )

Big Daddy Weave said...

Wade,

Thanks for the response.

You can dodge questions that you might not feel comfortable answering by labeling them as "impertinent" but that does not make such questions truly impertinent. Instead, this approach tends to shed more like on you than on the question or the person asking the question(s).

Bottom line, Christians should not be ashamed to share with the world how they practice what they preach/teach.

You continuously put yourself out there as a champion of Women-in-Ministry. You also have a large public readership. Surely such basic questions are indeed PERTINENT in this context.

By speaking out on this issue, you set yourself up for the question. The fact that you can't answer the question or simply are unwilling to do so reveals much to your readers and the casual observer.

Jeff said...

I am thankful for Gene S. He reminds me to be thankful for the CR. :)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's,

I completely agree and would do everything and more to put a system in place to stop predators. But my point was that it is neither the system nor the lack thereof which makes people sin. Nor do we change our ecclesiastical structure because of the fear that some may sin. We do our best, but if our best is not good enough does not mean we defrock (de-robe for Lydia's benefit) the rest of the good Shepherds.

Wade,

Thanks for the reply. I too believe that believer's baptism by emersion should not be a prerequisite to church membership in an SBC church nor should it be considered the only valid baptism. I know that your church allows baptism of alien emersion (which I am happy about) but do you also accept into membership those who have been regenerated through God's divine grace having been received into the new covenant through the sign and seal of infant baptism? Obviously having grown in the Lord to a full knowledge of His saving act on their soul?

K (Please, please, please)

PS: I would however always submit to the authority of the Body which I serve allowing their understanding of the Divine Logos guide our membership credentials.

:)

Thy Peace said...

Jeff: I would direct you to this video from Emmanuel: It's titled "Moving Toward Maturity", March 1, 2009 - Part 8 of series (1 Jn. 2:12-14), when you watch the video. Please watch the segment 10:10 to 20:06. This involves the hiring of Great Commission Pastor and the process being followed at Emmanuel. And the members vote by a secret ballot too.

Scott said...

The Conservative Resurgence



Another question:

Do the ends justify the means?

Jeff said...

I am not interested in watching a video. Tell me what's so special about it. We are moving toward calling a staff member, and it will be by secret ballot. Secret ballot is nothing new in baptist life.

Jack said...

Scott

ABSOLUTELY!

Gene S said...

Jack / Jeff--

You are bad boys. My "potty mouth" is nothing in comparison to your disregard for the right of a female to feel "called" and to answer that calling.

Several of my NC Youth Minister friends no longer carry their group to Ridgecrest BECAUSE too many speakers tell the girls they cannot be "called" because God doesn't call females to ministry.

This is "potty mouth" of the worst sort!

The NT used Kion Greek. It is a language of the streets. What appears in the KJV and Holman is a far cry from the explicit language used to translate Jesus' Hebrew to the language of the day.

Do you really think Matthew 23 was not more blunt and "potty mouth" than it appears in any of today's translations?

Jesus told it like it is and so do I--in language you can clearly understand!!!

Accuse me all you want BUT it is what it is with no Bill Clinton saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is!"

Jack said...

Gene

I am sorry I called you a potty mouth. Your excellent presentation of the Lingual background of Jesus' day has convinced me of my legalistic ways. So based upon that...cuss away!

May I quote you and use you as a source this Sunday. I am preaching on this subject "Gods plan for cussing"

: )

Gene S said...

Suit yourself!!

HOWEVER I think it would be a better subject for Thanksgiving to "Thank God for Women."

Your choice, old buddy!!!

Wade Burleson said...

Big Daddy Weave,

You write: The fact that you can't answer the question or simply are unwilling to do so reveals much to your readers and the casual observer.

You have made it known that you believe me to be a hypocrite. You seem to think that the issue is that I should try to convince people that I practice what I preach and am NOT a hypocrite.

I must not be getting through clearly. You wish me to prove to you that I am not a hypocrite when it comes to the defense and treatment of women. Trying to convince you I am not a hypocrite is not even on my radar.

The only people who would concern me with a charge of hypocrisy are the women who know me and serve with me, not two males whom I've never even met and seemingly have an agenda.

Blessings,

Wade

Jeff said...

You wish me to prove that I am asking sincere questions. You don't get by not answering you are revealing more about you than about me.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Intolerance and Hypocrisy are two separate things.

Did I call you a hypocrite?

As much as you like to play wordgames with other commenters, you know the answer to that question.

For someone who has demanded transparency on so many different occasions, it is more than odd (actually it's telling) that you choose not to answer a simple inquiry from a reader regarding IF AND HOW you practice what you preach in terms of your relatively newfound egalitarianism.

If you remember, it was Jeff not I who originally posed the question.

And Wade, you need not inject an "agenda" into this conversation. For everyone here knows that you are a man of many agendas. And in my opinion, agendas are not always a bad thing. We all have them. Surely you agree.

I think Jeff was looking for a simple answer and you failed to oblige.

Jeff said...

Big Daddy, I even called Wade on his cell phone, and left a message. He will not return my call and he has judge me as someone who has an agenda.

Wade Burleson said...

Gentlemen,

Let me put a capstone on this discussion about me. Hopefully I will be clearer than what I have been in earlier comments.

I enjoy dialoguing with the two of you. I also seek to show respect to you both. One of you (Jeff) comes from the far right and believes I'm a liberal. The other of you (Big Daddy) comes from the far left and believes I'm a fundamentalist. I respect both of you and enjoy our discussions. But I must not be making myself clear, so let me give it a final shot.

The two of you seem to think that I should try to convince you and others that I practice what I preach and am NOT a hypocrite.

I have no interest in proving to you that my actions in support of women are backed up by my words. Trying to convince you I am not a hypocrite is not even on my radar.

The only people who would concern me with a charge of hypocrisy are the women who know me and serve with me, not two males whom I’ve never even met and seemingly have an agenda against me in the first place.

Again, I am thrilled to dialogue with you about issues, but when I become the issue, the dialogue ends because it necessitates me to form a personal defense.

Defending myself is of no interest to me.

I hope that’s clearer.:)

Smile. Keep trying if you think I'm missing something.

In His Grace,

Wade

Big Daddy Weave said...

Wade,

You really are a character.

You want to end this discussion about YOU but then you proceed to characterize ME as being from the "Far Left"

Wow. That's a fine strategy.

I frankly do not think you're a fundamentalist. Where have I said that you were a fundamentalist? You have, um, evolved quite a bit in your views over the last few years. It's kinda hard to put a "label" on you.

However, your characterization of me as being from the "Far Left" is unfounded. At least in my attempt to describe your intolerance towards Muslims and Atheists, I cited YOUR OWN WORDS.

Those who know me and who have read my hundreds of blog posts, thousands of comments, publications and paper presentations know that I am hardly from the "Far Left."

Wade Burleson said...

Forgive me Big Daddy Weave.

I apologize for labeling you as being from the far left and do ask you to forgive me.

I neither know you personally, nor have had any discussions with you about your theology. I have just read a few of your blog posts and I should not make a judgment of your theological positions upon them.

I will not make that mistake again. And, you are right! I am a character!!

Smile.

Blessings,

Wade

P.S. Jeff, I will go ahead and ask your forgiveness for labeling you as being from the far right. I will refrain from making such statements in the future. I do not know you either.

Gene S said...

Now Gentlemen--

I think we are getting a little bit fiesty!!!

Shall we all stop this tit-for-tat fist fight and discuss the real question:

"When does a Convention become a Cult?"

For me, a cult is based on worshiping a human leader in the present age rather than trying to worship God and his earthly presence, Jesus, the Christ.

Worship means to "pay obedience to" or "to use the example as an inspiration for my life today."

In this respect, Jesus always honored women. He told John to care for his mother as he hung from the cross.

He loved Lazrus, Martha, and Mary. In this respect he found women to trust him and the dialogue with Martha and Mary gives us some insights with women who believe in works vs. those who follow him in faith.

He sought out the Woman at the well in Samaria. She had a reputation for being a "hot momma" and he got word of her as he talked with other wandering salesman who had enjoyed using her for carnal pleasure. Jesus met her and offered the "water that never runs out" in the place of her making a living off men and their lusts.

Mary Magdaline was depicted as a harlot by the Church Fathers rather than to admit Jesus was honoring a woman who washed his feet with her tears.

You can name others, but you cannot deny Jesus trusted and respected women with his life and witness.

When all the disciples were cowering in the Upper Room after the crucifixion, it was the women who had the guts to go to the tomb and annoint his body. There they saw with their own eyes something that had never happened before: he who was dead but his body missing and appeared to them alive!

Even pompous Peter had cursed and sworn that he did not know him. So much for male courage!

I think it would be wise if the sermon for this pre-Thanksgiving Sunday would deal with giving thanks for courageous women in the history of faith.

How many of you dare to preach such in light of the rediculous actions of the Georgia Baptist Convention? After all, Georgia is a crossroads of seminary graduates from all our schools. Of late, most of those graduates are taught that women cannot be ordained!

Hooie--women count just as much, and perhaps more, in the eyes of
God. No man ever brought a new life into this world in 9 months of pregnancy!

Why did Jesus have an earthly mother???

Even God could not do without a woman to bring his Son to earth!

Think about it and put your male egos aside so women may be honored this Thanksgiving! I dare you!!!!!

happy gram said...

gene s, i don't know you but, while "your mother never spanked you" and some have said you have "potty mouth" i like the way you think AND the way you talk!
refreshing in this comment stream.

Jeff said...

Wade, Apology accepted! My questions were not meant to be anything but information gathering. Your post got me curious about your church. However, I accept the fact that you do not want to answer the questions. The offer for a private call is still there.

Darby Livingston said...

"When all the disciples were cowering in the Upper Room after the crucifixion, it was the women who had the guts to go to the tomb and annoint his body. There they saw with their own eyes something that had never happened before: he who was dead but his body missing and appeared to them alive!"

It always shocks me when people use the "Jesus had the utmost respect for women so they should be elders" line. It actually proves the opposite. Does anyone believe that Jesus didn't foreknow the faithfulness of the women who followed him? Did Jesus not realize that women would be the first to look for him? Did Jesus not understand all the many ways that women are better disciples than men much of the time?

And yet... And yet... And yet...
Not one was picked as an apostle. It actually furthers the argument of egals to say that there was something structural in place that kept Jesus from picking such well-qualified women. The alternative is that Jesus knew how terrific all the women around him were and picked less qualified men. So is Jesus a) sexist, b) ignorant, or c) God who picked men because that's what his plan has always been?

Be honest, Jesus wouldn't pass an Equal Opportunity investigation based on how he picked apostles, with all the equally qualified women all around him to choose from.

If one argues that he picked how he did due to cultural considerations, just realize you're making the Lord of the Sabbath, who gladly ruined almost every other cultural assumption of his day, cow down to the culture instead of Lord over it.

Jeff said...

Darby, Your comment is one of the best ever. I am going to print it and save it. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Wade Burleson said...

Darby,

I think your comment is one of the most ill informed ever. Wink.

Think about this:

Jesus fully accepted women as his disciples and they accompanied him in his travels with the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3). These women also supported the mission of Jesus with their own resources. These facts may be much more significant that it initially appears. In the first century it was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi to have female followers. Luke reports this rather matter-of-factly, yet this band of women, men and Jesus was hardly kosher to the curious onlookers as they went from city to village. John Zens

Add on top of that the naming of Junia as one of the foremost apostles in Romans 16:7 and your comment is filled with absolute inaccuracies.

:)

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

No phone call needed! I enjoy the dialogue here with you, but there's no need for me to call you. If you would like to visit with me for some reason, feel free to call me at the office next week on Tuesday 580-237-0602.

Blessings,

Wade

Jeff said...

Wade, I am not sure what dialogue you are talking about. Not to cast a cloud, on a thaw in the cold war. :) I ask questions. You never answered. You informed me you never intended to answer them. I have no need to be recorded at your office. I'll pass.

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

No problem.

Happy Thanksgiving.

:)

Darby Livingston said...

Wade,

I understand how radical Jesus was concerning women in his day. That actually works toward my argument. Jesus was radical by accepting women as followers. Why not go all the way then and name some apostles? I realize you've mentioned Junia (of which I have no problem accepting was a woman). You're giving me the example of Junia referenced once in Romans 16:7 as a counter to my entire argument based on dozens of texts with his male apostles throughout the gospels.

The quote by Zens (though I respect him a lot) doesn't refute my point, but brings it even more into focus. With all these tremendous (and I mean this sincerely) women among his followers, why not at least one among the original twelve? Paul even says Junia was in Christ before him. Why wasn't she, if she was so eminent among the apostles, more center stage?

You're making that one mention in one verse carry a lot of water. That doesn't mean you're wrong about it because one word in an inspired, inerrant text can carry the Pacific Ocean. But I'd want to be darn sure I'm reading that one text rightly if it seems to counter a whole lot of other texts.

You're also conversing with someone who believes that women can and should be deacons based on our elders' understanding of 1 Timothy 3. We've (our church elders) come to that conclusion, not because we have an agenda to be "fair to women" but because we are really trying to be faithful to the text and land wherever it leads us - even if it gets us kicked out of our convention. We're just not textually convinced on female elders. But we're not at all afraid of the discussion because we weren't always for female deacons.

Jeff said...

Lost in all this hoopla is another question I have:

What right does the Georgia Baptist Convention have to set standards of cooperation?

I don't believe that the GBSC has told FBCD they couldn't have a lady pastor. They just stated we have the right to exclude as a cooperating church.

Jeff

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Darby,

Many consider the number of the 12 to be a symbol of the 12 tribes of Israel and a link to the OT. Not all of the "12" actually were godly leaders.

I am not aware that complementarians in general consider the 12 apostles or the roles of men and women during Jesus' ministry to be models at all. It appears that the women provided for the men, and the men forsook their families. I don't think this relates much to biblical manhood and womanhood.

Even throughout Paul's life, women were protectors and providers, explicitly. So, my sense is that complementarians don't actually consider the apostles to be models of church leaders.

It seems that the role of the apostles fits into some special category that is not usually applied to present day churches - otherwise all the women would be out working and paying for other men and women to leave their families, wander around and preach.

I don't think you can just take one point from the gospels but not all the others. If you wish to declare women to be the providers and protectors, and men the apostles, then it might appear to have at least some bit of consistency. But I don't think you are doing that.

Next, you agree that the "husband of one wife" phrase does not exclude women, so I am curious about why you think the scriptures exclude women from senior leadership.

Jon L. Estes said...

Suzanne...

Many consider the number of the 12 to be a symbol of the 12 tribes of Israel and a link to the OT. Not all of the "12" actually were godly leaders.

Who are among the "many" you reference?

Which of the twelve were ungodly leaders, outside of Judas? Can you give reference or example?

Darby Livingston said...

"Next, you agree that the "husband of one wife" phrase does not exclude women,"

No, in fact I never said that anywhere.

Rex Ray said...

Kevin,
You said, “We are not our own High Priests…I affirm the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers only so far as it deals with our access to the Father through Christ for daily communication and revelation and for forgiveness and atonement.”

Thanks for contradicting yourself.

Other than “through Christ”, what did the Old Testament High Priest do other than what you named we can do?

Would you explain yourself in saying, “No grace for Rex today…he is a copycat wanna be Theologue.”

You said, “We must still submit at times to earthly authorities. This is the real issue for you, Wade, and all isn’t it?”

You’ve revealed the root of our disagreement because I believe someday you plan to be one of those “earthly authorities”, and you don’t want a congregation full of priest, but rather a flock of dumb sheep that hears the message of God from their Shepherd.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

"Next, you agree that the "husband of one wife" phrase does not exclude women,"

No, in fact I never said that anywhere.


Okay. I missed something. Your church agrees that women can be deacons. Deacons are to be the husband of one wife. This does not exclude women from being deacons, so why does it exclude women from being bishops?

I am not trying to be difficult. I simply don't understand the biblical basis for women deacons but not women bishops.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Darby: To be an apostle, one must have seen the resurrected Christ. He appeared to the women first. These women saw the resurrected Christ and then went and told the men. That sounds like an apostle to me.

Darby Livingston said...

Suzanne,

It's simple. The deacons who are men are to be one-woman men. The deaconesses who are women are not to be one-woman women.

There are roughly three ways to interpret this text with minor details differing: a) the women are deacons' wives, b) the women are deaconesses inserted between instructions concerning deacons, c) the Paul's gender distinctions are conflated so that they no longer mean anything. Our church believes the second option to be best.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Wade: You do not need my defense, but I just have to say(because it's hard to sit back and watch you slammed, I love you and your family so much)that as a long time member of the church you minister in, you are far from a hypocrite and I am proud to be a woman and to have served at Emmanuel Baptist Church. I know some may think I put this church on a pedestal, but coming from the fundamentalist background that I do(35 years) and after some of these discussions, I want to go to our church and just kiss the walls. :) Sorry, but I couldn't not say anything.

Darby Livingston said...

Debbie,

Non sequitur.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Darby, Debbie's post is VERY relevant. For all the disagreements I have with Wade, his pastoral ability and his repsect of women in general are not among them. If I lived in Enid I would be proud to join Emmanuel.
***************************

"What right does the Georgia Baptist Convention have to set standards of cooperation?"

None, but the messengers to the convention have EVERY right to reserve the right to "refuse service to anyone."

This boils down to my interpretation is better than yours. I have been trying inadvertently for years to find out what Wade actually would separate over. If Wade has one issue over which he would separate fellowship then by golly the GBC has every right determine their own issues of cooperation. No one person has the right to triage doctrines on their own for the determination of cooperation for a group.


K

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Right, my confusion, I see that now. So women can only be deaconesses but not deacons.

You would think that somehow if God wanted there to be "deacons" and "deaconesses," He could have invented or at least inspired different words for these two.

There are too many times when you have to add to the English, and insert presuppositions and simply contradict much of the scripture, to keep women on a different level of existance.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Debbie,

You are a wonderful woman, spiritual leader and friend. I think you know, too, that any criticism that might come from you regarding my treatment of women would be taken quite seriously. The "slams" (your word) that come my way are like nerf balls compared to anything critical you would say to me if it needed to be said.

Smile.

Wade

Rex Ray said...

Gene,
I’ll confirm that you and I are not related because I don’t even own a white hat.

“Gottcha!!!!!!” in tool design would be what we called a ‘Checker trap’. The designer would make an error on purpose just to make sure the Checker was doing his job.

I suppose we will get another “Gottcha!!!!!!” about your statement of how Jesus learned the woman at the well had five husbands.

Jesus knew her just as he knew Nathanael under the fig tree, or do you have an imagination to explain that also?

I’d suggest that crying ‘wolf’ or “Gottcha!!!!!!” gets old fast and some people may think you’re off your rocker.

Darby Livingston said...

Kevin,

I was referring to Debbie's 12:03 comment to me, not her comment concerning her appreciation of her church - which is highly commendable.

Suzanne,

"There are too many times when you have to add to the English, and insert presuppositions and simply contradict much of the scripture, to keep women on a different level of existance."

I've done no such thing, but whatever you say. I'm not going to argue this with you because you won't listen. You just bait and then look for a point of attack. If you can't see that there's a real difference between men and women, and it has nothing to do with keeping women on a different level of existence, then you're the one with the problem. Deacon-Deaconess, Baron-Baroness, Count-Countess, Mister-Mistress, Sir-Madame, Father-Mother, Son-Daughter, Nephew-Niece, Snips & snails & puppy dog tails-Sugar & spice & all things nice. Are you asexual? Or maybe hermaphroditic? If not, then please stop trying to conflate the genders to something akin to earthworms.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 397   Newer› Newest»