Comments on: Women and SBC Ministry: Clarifying the 2000 BF&M http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/ Southern Baptist News & Opinion Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:52:44 +0000 hourly 1 By: Women Preachers: Is Lottie Moon Our Standard? — SBC Voices http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7789 Women Preachers: Is Lottie Moon Our Standard? — SBC Voices Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:31:42 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7789 [...] in the SBC is that Scripture is our standard not any one female’s example (See some comments here exalting Moon for teaching men).  That there have been women who could preach better than men is [...] [...] in the SBC is that Scripture is our standard not any one female’s example (See some comments here exalting Moon for teaching men).  That there have been women who could preach better than men is [...]

]]> By: Jim Pemberton http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7651 Jim Pemberton Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:32:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7651 You are making assumptions whether you realize it or not. You apparently assume that I've always been conservative theologically by saying things like "if you had the experiences that Tom and I have had..." and "You need a greater fund of informtion (sic) and experience". No, through my studies and my experience, the Holy Spirit has delivered me from the foolish counsel of liberalism which I followed for a time. Likewise, Christ has saved me from sins that would astonish most Christians - so I don't consider myself a good man beyond the grace of God. I can tell you for sure that they have been forgiven although I have met Christians who don't agree with me. Should I assume a balance between what I believe and what they believe and doubt that perhaps my sins have not been forgiven? The logic that you apply doesn't work or this reason. As it is, I am not only educated, I am very educated, although my education has been less traditional. I am an autodidact and learn much faster than most collegiate courses can teach, so it didn't take too many years and courses of study to leave the institutions of learning for my own self-study. I taught myself logic at age 9 and music theory by the time I started high school. I was composing orchestral works by my junior year and had a fully-developed philosophy by the time I graduated that could be likened to a dualistic existentialism. I dubbed it Paradomy. I was wrong, of course, but such things must happen. I don't trust my intellect on its own. It will always fail. And I don't trust intellectuals who trust in their intellects over the revelation of God. I don't trust history, opinions, cultures or practices outside the revelation of God as something to refute the revelation of God. For example, the fact that there have been men who have lorded authority sinfully over women doesn't change the fact that they may be technically right about some aspect of the scripture. That doesn't mean that we are bound to legalistic obedience, but we are bound to the work of the Holy Spirit who will never contradict the revelation of God. And his purpose in us is less our behavioral obedience and more our intentional obedience, just as Joseph said to his brothers, "You intended it for evil but God intended it for good." Understanding the difference between the living God who cannot sin and men who are sinners is important. If I get egg on my face for being right, then I'll not waver. I've been in ministry where I have been spit on, physically attacked and cursed and sometimes for nothing more tame than offering a Bible as a free gift. Nevertheless, I cannot go against what is true even if my life is sought for it. I've been in war. Death doesn't frighten me. I had made a decision to assume that your duplicitous approach to scriptural interpretation, in search of the "balance", was formed on the observation of much theological tension. However, I doubt now that this is the case. You haven't elucidated much except to say that there are "two-sidedness of Holy Scripture in its teachings on practically all truths that it presents." I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I have an idea of several possibilities of what you could mean by it and none are apologetically sound. It is true that God is univalent and we are bivalent in our thinking. But this doesn't mean that God, in translating univalent truth into bivalent propositions, intends that multiple interpretations are valid. Rather, the bivalence of created logic serves to focus us on one univalent truth despite the theoretical wranglings of many philosophers throughout the ages to the contrary. In any event, I must beg off this discussion for a very practical matter. My grandmother has passed away and I am endeavoring to reach the funeral in time. It is several states away and in a very snowy area. My wife desires to come with even though she doesn't have to, bless her. So we are packing up the kids and braving the weather to commune with the extended family for a while during this time. Grace and peace to you. You are making assumptions whether you realize it or not. You apparently assume that I’ve always been conservative theologically by saying things like “if you had the experiences that Tom and I have had…” and “You need a greater fund of informtion (sic) and experience”. No, through my studies and my experience, the Holy Spirit has delivered me from the foolish counsel of liberalism which I followed for a time. Likewise, Christ has saved me from sins that would astonish most Christians – so I don’t consider myself a good man beyond the grace of God. I can tell you for sure that they have been forgiven although I have met Christians who don’t agree with me. Should I assume a balance between what I believe and what they believe and doubt that perhaps my sins have not been forgiven? The logic that you apply doesn’t work or this reason. As it is, I am not only educated, I am very educated, although my education has been less traditional. I am an autodidact and learn much faster than most collegiate courses can teach, so it didn’t take too many years and courses of study to leave the institutions of learning for my own self-study. I taught myself logic at age 9 and music theory by the time I started high school. I was composing orchestral works by my junior year and had a fully-developed philosophy by the time I graduated that could be likened to a dualistic existentialism. I dubbed it Paradomy. I was wrong, of course, but such things must happen.

I don’t trust my intellect on its own. It will always fail. And I don’t trust intellectuals who trust in their intellects over the revelation of God. I don’t trust history, opinions, cultures or practices outside the revelation of God as something to refute the revelation of God. For example, the fact that there have been men who have lorded authority sinfully over women doesn’t change the fact that they may be technically right about some aspect of the scripture. That doesn’t mean that we are bound to legalistic obedience, but we are bound to the work of the Holy Spirit who will never contradict the revelation of God. And his purpose in us is less our behavioral obedience and more our intentional obedience, just as Joseph said to his brothers, “You intended it for evil but God intended it for good.” Understanding the difference between the living God who cannot sin and men who are sinners is important. If I get egg on my face for being right, then I’ll not waver. I’ve been in ministry where I have been spit on, physically attacked and cursed and sometimes for nothing more tame than offering a Bible as a free gift. Nevertheless, I cannot go against what is true even if my life is sought for it. I’ve been in war. Death doesn’t frighten me.

I had made a decision to assume that your duplicitous approach to scriptural interpretation, in search of the “balance”, was formed on the observation of much theological tension. However, I doubt now that this is the case. You haven’t elucidated much except to say that there are “two-sidedness of Holy Scripture in its teachings on practically all truths that it presents.” I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I have an idea of several possibilities of what you could mean by it and none are apologetically sound. It is true that God is univalent and we are bivalent in our thinking. But this doesn’t mean that God, in translating univalent truth into bivalent propositions, intends that multiple interpretations are valid. Rather, the bivalence of created logic serves to focus us on one univalent truth despite the theoretical wranglings of many philosophers throughout the ages to the contrary.

In any event, I must beg off this discussion for a very practical matter. My grandmother has passed away and I am endeavoring to reach the funeral in time. It is several states away and in a very snowy area. My wife desires to come with even though she doesn’t have to, bless her. So we are packing up the kids and braving the weather to commune with the extended family for a while during this time. Grace and peace to you.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7650 Dr. James Willingham Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:46:55 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7650 ??? Why in the world would I want to make assumptions about your education or lack of it, I am simply not interested in playing superior/inferior games, I consider such approach to be down right stupid. What Tom and I have been trying to get you to do is to think and reason in other ways than simply a narrow, analytical focus on a statement in which you make it the norm and explain all else in that light. What you are failing to do is to see the two-sidedness of Holy Scripture in its teachings on practically all truths that it presents. True education looks for truth - and is not deterred by eduction or the lack of it. About two weeks ago, I lost one of my dearest friends, the wisest man I ever met. He had a high school education, was a body shop mechanic (he repaired buick auto bodies). The man had done 16 yrs of research in Baptist church history on a home made microfilm machine and wrote one pamphlet and a few other manuscripts. I quoted him in a thesis in intellectual history. His influence on me was profound. He asked me one question that 5-7 yrs later went off like a bomb in my views of eschatology and totally demolished them. So it is not your lack of education (for all I know you could have an earned doctorate); it is your arguments. They are in need of more careful reflection, You need a greater fund of informtion and experience. And please don't feel bad, if I call attention to such deficits. After all, I have been in the same boat. I just wished some one had given me warning that I was going to wind up with egg on my face (mtaphorically speaking) (and some really did, but I was too obtuse to see it then). This is not to say, I am now closed to changes. But we are carrying on an extended discussions, and the arguments can get heated without intending any derogatory results. That is how I take them - as the main thing is to pursue the truth and possess and present the same. I would imagine you are a good man, intending good. You profess faith in Christ. Our task is mutual, namely, to get a true understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about the position of women in society and life. How we answer that issue will determine how we treat them. Mr. Parker has pointed out, and I must second what he has said from my own experience and knowledge, that all too often the man is dominant crowd involves treatment that is less than Christian. Remember, if you had our experiences, you might feel differently. There are women who can and do function as ministers of the Gospel, and they are as faithful as any man and as good, too. There are bad ones just as there are men who are bad. What has always bothered me is to have men who believe like I do who are also bad. That is when your pain threshold is overwhelmed with grief. As to cultural and traditional stuff, I am more interested in the ideas involved, regardless of the dress they wear. I have found that it is in the balance of the ideas that one finds the most effective Christianity expressed. I have an article which I wrote back in 1977/78 for the newsletter of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. on the subject, The Climax of The Reformation. One of the greatest periods in world history involved the years from 1740-1820 with the two great awakenings and the great century of missions. During that period Protestantism transformed from being a Gospel recovery, feuding, persecuting movement into an outgoing, winsome, determined to win the world by persuasion effort, and Rome, dragging its feet, seems to be starting to follow along in the past 50 years. We still have the promises awaiting our pleading in prayer and God's answer in awakening the whole world. Clarity and paradoxes are the secret that hides the answers in my opinion (which probably is worth very little) to a brighter tomorrow than any on earth have a right or even the idea to and of such a thought. I have been praying for a world wide awakening like Mr. Spurgeon in his Evening devotions for Aug.6 and Dec. 24, since 1973, when I first spoke to the pastors prayer meeting of the Sandy Cree Assn. on the subject, A Great Awakenng. I would preach the 5th and 10th anniversary sermon to that prayer meeting. The 10th was on the subject, A Third Great Awakening. It is interesting to me that the folks so blessed as to be converted in the First Great Awakening and found the churches and Association that would experience the Second, people who were sound in their theology (Sovereign Grace believers) and on the Bible (they thought so much of it that they could hardly swallow a Confession of Faith for fear it would be turned into a creed (they did have their abstracts of principles)) and yet they had Eldresses. My efforts to reconstruct their case found help in Matthew Poole's brief remarks in his commentary (later I saw another Puritan who followed the same line) to the effect that their could be exceptions. I thought,"Wow!" These are the people who helped to produce the United Baptists, Southern Baptists, the Great Missionary movement, religious liberty (also note in conjuction wth Regular Baptists), and etc. As I reflected on their approach, I came to believe that it was more rational, biblical, reflective of the true spirit of the Christian Faith. I must close. Plase do remember, you are in the public arena, and arguments will be hot and heavy without necessarily meaning any harm. I do not take your remarks as harmful in any sense of the word. They are just as subject to being trounced as mine are. This is the ferment that went on among the Baptists in the 1700s which others pointed to with derision, but which merely showed they were alive, excited and involved to the degree that they blessed the whole world with religious liberty, missions by persuasion, etc. We will argue, but we will seek for the truth to prevail which what we all desire for His glory, surlely! ??? Why in the world would I want to make assumptions about your education or lack of it, I am simply not interested in playing superior/inferior games, I consider such approach to be down right stupid. What Tom and I have been trying to get you to do is to think and reason in other ways than simply a narrow, analytical focus on a statement in which you make it the norm and explain all else in that light. What you are failing to do is to see the two-sidedness of Holy Scripture in its teachings on practically all truths that it presents. True education looks for truth – and is not deterred by eduction or the lack of it. About two weeks ago, I lost one of my dearest friends, the wisest man I ever met. He had a high school education, was a body shop mechanic (he repaired buick auto bodies). The man had done 16 yrs of research in Baptist church history on a home made microfilm machine and wrote one pamphlet and a few other manuscripts. I quoted him in a thesis in intellectual history. His influence on me was profound. He asked me one question that 5-7 yrs later went off like a bomb in my views of eschatology and totally demolished them. So it is not your lack of education (for all I know you could have an earned doctorate); it is your arguments. They are in need of more careful reflection, You need a greater fund of informtion and experience. And please don’t feel bad, if I call attention to such deficits. After all, I have been in the same boat. I just wished some one had given me warning that I was going to wind up with egg on my face (mtaphorically speaking) (and some really did, but I was too obtuse to see it then). This is not to say, I am now closed to changes. But we are carrying on an extended discussions, and the arguments can get heated without intending any derogatory results. That is how I take them – as the main thing is to pursue the truth and possess and present the same. I would imagine you are a good man, intending good. You profess faith in Christ. Our task is mutual, namely, to get a true understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about the position of women in society and life. How we answer that issue will determine how we treat them. Mr. Parker has pointed out, and I must second what he has said from my own experience and knowledge, that all too often the man is dominant crowd involves treatment that is less than Christian. Remember, if you had our experiences, you might feel differently. There are women who can and do function as ministers of the Gospel, and they are as faithful as any man and as good, too. There are bad ones just as there are men who are bad. What has always bothered me is to have men who believe like I do who are also bad. That is when your pain threshold is overwhelmed with grief. As to cultural and traditional stuff, I am more interested in the ideas involved, regardless of the dress they wear. I have found that it is in the balance of the ideas that one finds the most effective Christianity expressed. I have an article which I wrote back in 1977/78 for the newsletter of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. on the subject, The Climax of The Reformation. One of the greatest periods in world history involved the years from 1740-1820 with the two great awakenings and the great century of missions. During that period Protestantism transformed from being a Gospel recovery, feuding, persecuting movement into an outgoing, winsome, determined to win the world by persuasion effort, and Rome, dragging its feet, seems to be starting to follow along in the past 50 years. We still have the promises awaiting our pleading in prayer and God’s answer in awakening the whole world. Clarity and paradoxes are the secret that hides the answers in my opinion (which probably is worth very little) to a brighter tomorrow than any on earth have a right or even the idea to and of such a thought. I have been praying for a world wide awakening like Mr. Spurgeon in his Evening devotions for Aug.6 and Dec. 24, since 1973, when I first spoke to the pastors prayer meeting of the Sandy Cree Assn. on the subject, A Great Awakenng. I would preach the 5th and 10th anniversary sermon to that prayer meeting. The 10th was on the subject, A Third Great Awakening. It is interesting to me that the folks so blessed as to be converted in the First Great Awakening and found the churches and Association that would experience the Second, people who were sound in their theology (Sovereign Grace believers) and on the Bible (they thought so much of it that they could hardly swallow a Confession of Faith for fear it would be turned into a creed (they did have their abstracts of principles)) and yet they had Eldresses. My efforts to reconstruct their case found help in Matthew Poole’s brief remarks in his commentary (later I saw another Puritan who followed the same line) to the effect that their could be exceptions. I thought,”Wow!” These are the people who helped to produce the United Baptists, Southern Baptists, the Great Missionary movement, religious liberty (also note in conjuction wth Regular Baptists), and etc. As I reflected on their approach, I came to believe that it was more rational, biblical, reflective of the true spirit of the Christian Faith. I must close. Plase do remember, you are in the public arena, and arguments will be hot and heavy without necessarily meaning any harm. I do not take your remarks as harmful in any sense of the word. They are just as subject to being trounced as mine are. This is the ferment that went on among the Baptists in the 1700s which others pointed to with derision, but which merely showed they were alive, excited and involved to the degree that they blessed the whole world with religious liberty, missions by persuasion, etc. We will argue, but we will seek for the truth to prevail which what we all desire for His glory, surlely!

]]> By: Jim Pemberton http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7648 Jim Pemberton Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:31:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7648 Dr. Willingham, Please forgive my typing. Looking back over my previous posts, I sure have been misspelling your name and not even realizing it. So many people are very touchy about that I have been most oblivious to the fact. I'm not sure if I will get forgiveness from you, however, given that you are increasingly ungracious toward me. You've become most haughty, arrogant and belittling, I'm afraid. I ask your forgiveness in any case. You have mused on “presbuteras” in 1 Tim 5:2 and to prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Corinthians 11 is of no consequence. No mention was made of limits to whom one may prophesy in 1 Cor 11. Paul doesn't get to that until 1 Cor. 14. You seem to have missed that connection. But I made an observation on Paul's logic in 1 Tim 2 as well as the context of this section of his discourse. If I am truly in over my head, then you should have no trouble correcting my observation. (Please do so, for I desire to know the truth more fully.) Instead, however, you continue to berate me. You've characterized me Pharisaical and uneducated. And despite my stated desire to see women have the ministry that God would have for them, even building my own wife up, referencing Elisabeth (Elliot) Gren's own history and standing on the matter, and even expressing the grace that I have shown to those who disagree with me on this matter, you proceed to question my character as though I were all about male dominance. I've said I need no defense for myself and I will give none except what I have already written. Such attacks on my character don't anger me except where they could sully my own ministry, but I have to wonder at the source of your assumptions. I've already said that my only pursuit in this matter is Truth. I urge you to speak to me on those grounds rather than from baseless assumptions about my character. For this is most central to Paul's teaching here. We are sinful creatures. Justified, yes, but yet undergoing sanctification. How does God take creatures who are yet being sanctified to mortify their sins on the one hand and free them up for his purposes on the other? He creates levels of relational structure that serve to humble us, hold us accountable, and fulfill our immediate emotional and spiritual needs so that we might minister in his Truth. Paul gives us the expected relational structure between husbands and wives in Eph 5 where both are to submit to each other. The wife to the authority God gave her husband and the husband most sacrificially to his wife's needs. They were designed to be a revelation of the relationship between Christ and the Church in their own relationship. This structure should not be controverted by the structure of local church. The Bible doesn't explicitly say that so I could be wrong on that point, but it makes sense. I believe that's why Paul referenced Adam and Eve as the reason for the place of women in the church structure. Regardless, Paul indeed gave Adam and Eve as his reason. He did not give a reference to the current culture as he dis with some other instructions. In the churches I am working with in India, for example, many women cover their heads when they speak in church (yes, you read that correctly - there are occasions when it is good for a woman to speak). It is right for them to do so being mentioned in the Bible, but it is a cultural thing as Paul clearly says and not required. It is a statement of submission and respect for the Lord which is clearly recognized by all who observe women so moved. In such a way the Holy Spirit draws a distinction in the hearts of observers between the world and the body/head relationship his people have with him. But it requires mutual submission and I'm having trouble seeing that quality in you. Dr. Willingham,
Please forgive my typing. Looking back over my previous posts, I sure have been misspelling your name and not even realizing it. So many people are very touchy about that I have been most oblivious to the fact. I’m not sure if I will get forgiveness from you, however, given that you are increasingly ungracious toward me. You’ve become most haughty, arrogant and belittling, I’m afraid. I ask your forgiveness in any case.

You have mused on “presbuteras” in 1 Tim 5:2 and to prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Corinthians 11 is of no consequence. No mention was made of limits to whom one may prophesy in 1 Cor 11. Paul doesn’t get to that until 1 Cor. 14. You seem to have missed that connection. But I made an observation on Paul’s logic in 1 Tim 2 as well as the context of this section of his discourse. If I am truly in over my head, then you should have no trouble correcting my observation. (Please do so, for I desire to know the truth more fully.)

Instead, however, you continue to berate me. You’ve characterized me Pharisaical and uneducated. And despite my stated desire to see women have the ministry that God would have for them, even building my own wife up, referencing Elisabeth (Elliot) Gren’s own history and standing on the matter, and even expressing the grace that I have shown to those who disagree with me on this matter, you proceed to question my character as though I were all about male dominance. I’ve said I need no defense for myself and I will give none except what I have already written. Such attacks on my character don’t anger me except where they could sully my own ministry, but I have to wonder at the source of your assumptions. I’ve already said that my only pursuit in this matter is Truth.

I urge you to speak to me on those grounds rather than from baseless assumptions about my character. For this is most central to Paul’s teaching here. We are sinful creatures. Justified, yes, but yet undergoing sanctification. How does God take creatures who are yet being sanctified to mortify their sins on the one hand and free them up for his purposes on the other? He creates levels of relational structure that serve to humble us, hold us accountable, and fulfill our immediate emotional and spiritual needs so that we might minister in his Truth. Paul gives us the expected relational structure between husbands and wives in Eph 5 where both are to submit to each other. The wife to the authority God gave her husband and the husband most sacrificially to his wife’s needs. They were designed to be a revelation of the relationship between Christ and the Church in their own relationship. This structure should not be controverted by the structure of local church. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say that so I could be wrong on that point, but it makes sense. I believe that’s why Paul referenced Adam and Eve as the reason for the place of women in the church structure. Regardless, Paul indeed gave Adam and Eve as his reason. He did not give a reference to the current culture as he dis with some other instructions. In the churches I am working with in India, for example, many women cover their heads when they speak in church (yes, you read that correctly – there are occasions when it is good for a woman to speak). It is right for them to do so being mentioned in the Bible, but it is a cultural thing as Paul clearly says and not required. It is a statement of submission and respect for the Lord which is clearly recognized by all who observe women so moved. In such a way the Holy Spirit draws a distinction in the hearts of observers between the world and the body/head relationship his people have with him. But it requires mutual submission and I’m having trouble seeing that quality in you.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7647 Dr. James Willingham Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:02:49 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7647 Thank you, Tom, for getting my name right. Bro. Jim P. seems to be stuck on misspelling my name as if he has a hard time staying focused which is exactly the problem with folks who really have a hard time believing the Bible reflects the intelligence of the Omniscient Being who inspired it. Bro Pemberton, don't you believe Jesus, when He says, "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves?" and Peter when he says Paul had written "some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" ? Evidently, you have never wound up with egg on your face as bro. Tom and I have across may years of being so down right sure we knew exactly what the word of God said. Well, like Jonah we could say what it clearly and exactly says, only, unlike that prophet, we didn't have the sense in those earlier times like some we could mention to realize that the clear statement can have some other purpose involved than what is exactly stated. Do you gather what I am saying, dear bro. Pemberton? Like my friend on the mountain stream up near Danville, Va., many years ago, you have stepped off in water that's over your head. Bro. Tom is quite right the folks that are running the show right now would put Ms. Moon out for doing some of the things she did then just like a bunch preachers turned their chairs around and showed Dr. Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, their back, when she had the temerity to preach to them at some one's invitation in some meeting a few years back. Mrs. Lotz was not pastoring; she is like her father only an evangelist though primarily to women but like Lottie Moon willing to proclaim the Gospel to the men, too. I should say also that like Mary Magdalene, whom some in the early church referred to as an Apostle to the Apostles, she could bear the news of His resurrection to others, including men. Would you turn your back like those preachers did (I understood it might hve been several hundreds of preachers)? I repeat from years of experience that far too many of those whom I know that really push the issue of male dominance have been people who mistreated women. Me thinks I smell the presence of Old Rome in worst times long and, hopefully, forever past. Go back and read the female comments above. One as I remember plainly pointed out that they would have no problem following a man, if he truly followed Christ, but there was no call to follow one who ordered a female to do wrong or ordered the good in hateful ways. That sunded like the voice of experience speaking. Even Paul made a point of saying follow m as long as I follow Christ. Thank you, Tom, for getting my name right. Bro. Jim P. seems to be stuck on misspelling my name as if he has a hard time staying focused which is exactly the problem with folks who really have a hard time believing the Bible reflects the intelligence of the Omniscient Being who inspired it. Bro Pemberton, don’t you believe Jesus, when He says, “Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves?” and Peter when he says Paul had written “some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” ? Evidently, you have never wound up with egg on your face as bro. Tom and I have across may years of being so down right sure we knew exactly what the word of God said. Well, like Jonah we could say what it clearly and exactly says, only, unlike that prophet, we didn’t have the sense in those earlier times like some we could mention to realize that the clear statement can have some other purpose involved than what is exactly stated. Do you gather what I am saying, dear bro. Pemberton? Like my friend on the mountain stream up near Danville, Va., many years ago, you have stepped off in water that’s over your head. Bro. Tom is quite right the folks that are running the show right now would put Ms. Moon out for doing some of the things she did then just like a bunch preachers turned their chairs around and showed Dr. Billy Graham’s daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, their back, when she had the temerity to preach to them at some one’s invitation in some meeting a few years back. Mrs. Lotz was not pastoring; she is like her father only an evangelist though primarily to women but like Lottie Moon willing to proclaim the Gospel to the men, too. I should say also that like Mary Magdalene, whom some in the early church referred to as an Apostle to the Apostles, she could bear the news of His resurrection to others, including men. Would you turn your back like those preachers did (I understood it might hve been several hundreds of preachers)? I repeat from years of experience that far too many of those whom I know that really push the issue of male dominance have been people who mistreated women. Me thinks I smell the presence of Old Rome in worst times long and, hopefully, forever past. Go back and read the female comments above. One as I remember plainly pointed out that they would have no problem following a man, if he truly followed Christ, but there was no call to follow one who ordered a female to do wrong or ordered the good in hateful ways. That sunded like the voice of experience speaking. Even Paul made a point of saying follow m as long as I follow Christ.

]]> By: Tom Parker http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7646 Tom Parker Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:30:07 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7646 Jim: You say I am exaggerating. I am not. Read some of the publications written about Lottie Moon and notice all she did on the mission field and you will find there would be no place for her in the current SBC environment. She went way beyond the parameters set for women today. I'm glad you find the Bible clear on this issue, but I and others do not. But always remember you have the 2000 BF&M to fall back on. You get to have it your way. Jim:

You say I am exaggerating. I am not. Read some of the publications written about Lottie Moon and notice all she did on the mission field and you will find there would be no place for her in the current SBC environment.

She went way beyond the parameters set for women today.

I’m glad you find the Bible clear on this issue, but I and others do not. But always remember you have the 2000 BF&M to fall back on.

You get to have it your way.

]]> By: Jim Pemberton http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7645 Jim Pemberton Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:26:15 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7645 Tom, You're exaggerating. It's been awhile since I've mentioned my wife and all she does. Lottie Moon wouldn't have any trouble today. And I mention hermeneutics and say "it's only clear if you want it to be." I didn't invent reason, I only use it. Please interact with the text we have been discussing. I have given my reasons based on scripture. I didn't bring any preconceived notions to the scripture that I haven't had to abandon because the scriptures proved me wrong. There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I have had to change my mind over the years as former presuppositions of mine have failed when pitted against the revelation of God. Tom,
You’re exaggerating. It’s been awhile since I’ve mentioned my wife and all she does. Lottie Moon wouldn’t have any trouble today. And I mention hermeneutics and say “it’s only clear if you want it to be.” I didn’t invent reason, I only use it. Please interact with the text we have been discussing. I have given my reasons based on scripture. I didn’t bring any preconceived notions to the scripture that I haven’t had to abandon because the scriptures proved me wrong. There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I have had to change my mind over the years as former presuppositions of mine have failed when pitted against the revelation of God.

]]> By: Tom Parker http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7644 Tom Parker Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:07:22 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7644 Jim: I am not the only one to arrive at a different conclusion about the role of women. The 2000 BF&M however slammed the door on women and any significant role in the life of the SBC. It is pretty much an all male leadership club today. In the current envirnoment Lottie Moon would not have a chance. You keep saying the role of women is clear, but it is only clear if you want it to be. Jim:

I am not the only one to arrive at a different conclusion about the role of women. The 2000 BF&M however slammed the door on women and any significant role in the life of the SBC. It is pretty much an all male leadership club today.

In the current envirnoment Lottie Moon would not have a chance.

You keep saying the role of women is clear, but it is only clear if you want it to be.

]]> By: Jim Pemberton http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7643 Jim Pemberton Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:46:08 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7643 Tom, You must understand with regard to the role of women, that the hermeneutics required to arrive at your conclusions on the role of women where applied to the passages where the gospel is elucidated change the meaning of the gospel. That's why I appeal to the clarity of 1 Timothy. If it's not clear, then the deity of Christ, much less penal substitution, is not clear either. There are areas of theology that are debatable because the supporting scriptures are not clear. I believe this is by design. This is theological tension which is fruitful for focusing us away from what is less important to what is truly important if we approach it with the earnest desire to know the truth of the matter aside from our pet beliefs. The role of women as an area of theology related to salvation is decidedly unimportant. However, God has chosen to make this an unambiguous passage. There's not much wiggle room here with regard to solid hermeneutics or I would be glad to concede the point. Tom,
You must understand with regard to the role of women, that the hermeneutics required to arrive at your conclusions on the role of women where applied to the passages where the gospel is elucidated change the meaning of the gospel. That’s why I appeal to the clarity of 1 Timothy. If it’s not clear, then the deity of Christ, much less penal substitution, is not clear either.

There are areas of theology that are debatable because the supporting scriptures are not clear. I believe this is by design. This is theological tension which is fruitful for focusing us away from what is less important to what is truly important if we approach it with the earnest desire to know the truth of the matter aside from our pet beliefs. The role of women as an area of theology related to salvation is decidedly unimportant. However, God has chosen to make this an unambiguous passage. There’s not much wiggle room here with regard to solid hermeneutics or I would be glad to concede the point.

]]> By: Tom Parker http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/#comment-7642 Tom Parker Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:28:04 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=2080#comment-7642 Jim: The problem is that you do not see the different understandings of the scripture in regards to the role of women. It is clear to you and that must mean you think we are wrong. The problem is with you not with Dr. Willingham and I. Jim:

The problem is that you do not see the different understandings of the scripture in regards to the role of women. It is clear to you and that must mean you think we are wrong. The problem is with you not with Dr. Willingham and I.

]]>