Disagreement Concerning Women Serving As Pastors Is Sufficent Cause To Separate

Excellent points. I am at a loss for understanding how any church would want to remain in the SBC after calling a female pastor. If the SBC were to affirm some doctrine that I did not agree with and felt as strongly about as egal’s do, I’d leave the SBC so quick it wouldn’t be funny.

Joe Blackmons last blog post..Book Review: The Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Jesus

It would seem that the apostle Paul considered this issue to be above a third tier issue.

…As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Cor 14:33-40)

Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark

Stan: Are women allowed to speak in your church?

Bill: not in the manner in which Paul is addressing.

Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark

Excellent post. Excellent insight. I agree with you 100%.

David

Stan: By that you mean they are forbidden from asking questions in church?

When did the SBC vote to accept Dr. Mohler’s triage as the final hermeneutic on BFM? I must have missed that one.

Matt,

Dr. Mohler’s comments are fine, however, he is not the entire committee. Are you saying that the preamble statement is wrong?

Les

Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder

Matt,

One other thing, if you believe the Preamble statement does not mean what is says, then who decides what are first, second, and thrid tier issues?

Les

Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder

Bill: do you have a point to make?

Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark

Why are we debating about female pastors? I thought Baptist were setteled on this issue. I think the question should be: Are we going to change our position or stick to what we know to be true? In the effort to unite for the sake of missions how much common ground must we give up? In the keeping of one feminist church how many conservative, like minded will we discourage? We can’t please everyone, so lets just try to please Christ.

Stan: My point right now is to understand your reading of the passage you posted. Your last response didn’t answer my question, so I assumed you meant that Paul was forbidding women from speaking in tongues or prophesying, which is one way of looking at it. But Paul also forbids women from asking questions in church and I wondered if that was also your understanding and practice (or rather, the practice of your church)

Matt,
There are other ways to divide up the doctrines. For example, for many years it has been explained as follows.

1. Fundamental / Basic Doctrines. Foundational Christian Doctrines.
Examples: Divine inspiration of the Bible, Trinity, Deity of Jesus, Blood Atonement, Literal Resurrection of Jesus, etc.
2. Distinctive Baptist Doctrines. Doctrines that may separate us from other Christian groups. They don’t determine your salvation, but they are very important to being a Baptist.
Examples: Believers Baptism by Immersion, Symbolism of the Elements of the Lord’s Supper, Eternal Security, Religious Liberty, etc.
3. Secondary Doctrines. You are free to disagree on these and still be a good Southern Baptist. We will argue about these till our faces are red – then we’ll all go out to eat together. These would be secondary doctrines, both in the context of numbers one and two above.
Examples: Premillennialism, Amillennialism, finer points of Calvinism, etc.

Of course, then the question becomes, “Does a woman pastor fit into number 2 or number 3?” I think most would say the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, as well as 150 years of practice, make it a Baptist Distinctive, at least within the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow

very interesting post, i like this sort of discussion

in my opinion the issue of female pastors is a 2nd-tier issue, by which i mean good christians can agree to disagree, but cooperating in ministry will prove difficult. what if a female pastor wants to serve on the mission field? how can churches divided on this issue move forward? plus all sorts of other scenarios, like supporting theological students who are or will be female pastors, etc. etc.

Mikes last blog post..who would you put on arkansas’s mount rushmore of sports?

BFM2K Preamble: “We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”

Sorry for belaboring the point (and this will be my last comment). Personally, I see no place for anything other than BFM2K being a statement of our essential doctrines. Essentials are first tier. Non-essentials are either 2nd or 3rd.

Thanks for the topic.

Les

Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder

I am also waiting for Bill’s question to be answered. It should be interesting.

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Adam and his Ms. organ

Enjoying the discussion… we are for the first time at a church that allows female deacons, and though they are not the same position, I’ve always been taught the requirements were pretty much the same. Now, I am having to delve deeper.

BTW, what is the answer for the question asked above about women asking questions in church? Or speaking in church? One of my earlier posts here at SBC touched on that subject a bit…. I felt God telling me to stand up in the middle of church and ask prayer for a young man before he deployed (he would be leaving the service early to go back to Iraq) and I didn’t on the grounds that I had been reading women aren’t supposed to speak in church in recent studies. That young man almost died, several times, and I had to face up and repent for my failure in answering God’s call to do something.

In Christ,
Sallie

Sallies last blog post..Coupon Alert!!!

In the year 2009 that any SBC church would not allow a woman to ask a question in church is extreme. But once again we can thank the CR. Absolute control and power and women must be quiet.

I suspect that even the most conservative of SBC churches do not prevent women from asking questions in church. The answer we will probably hear is that women were not allowed to sit with the men and were shouting questions across the aisle and disrupting the service. There is no scriptural basis for this theory however and from what I understand, little historical basis. It presents a problem of consistency for those who think Paul’s restriction on women speaking in church refers only to tongues and prophecy.

In my opinion the issue of female pastors is a 2nd-tier issue, by which i mean good christians can agree to disagree, but cooperating in ministry will prove difficult.

How would this then agreeing to disagree?

Put me down as waiting for an answer to Bill’s question.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Men: If You Want A Happy Wife…Well Read For Yourself

Bill:
The answer we will probably hear is that women were not allowed to sit with the men and were shouting questions across the aisle and disrupting the service.

To what question was that an answer?

Stan: That is the answer I have heard to the question of why Paul forbids women from asking questions in church.

>”another second-order issue”

Where in scripture do we find “another second-order issue”? There is no such thing.

David R. Brumbelow above described “Fundamental / Basic Doctrines,” “Distinctive Baptist Doctrines,” and “Secondary Doctrines.” Again, there are no such things. There is only doctrine, better known as truth. All truth is from and of God. To reject truth (doctrine) is to reject God.

“Fundamental / Basic Doctrines” seems to be otherspeak for these are truth. “Secondary Doctrines” seems to be otherspeak for we don’t know if these are true. Come on. Baptists have been around for 300 years and Christians for 2,000. There is little excuse for waffling on what is truth (doctrine) and what is not. If its truth, then its of God, is doctrine, and is to be accepted. If its not truth, then it is not doctrine.

God bless.. +Timothy

Bill:
Was that the answer you thought you would probably hear from me?

Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark

sallie,

as far as women speaking in church – at least in the corinthian situation – was apparently a matter under the rubric “honor & shame.” same thing with men and the issue of covered/uncovered heads. corinth had a busy, booming, and profitable worship scene, with priests, priestesses, prostitutes, and all kinds of rituals and such. i think women speaking and men with covered heads addresses ways that people in the churches at corinth were trying to bring in the local flavors of pagan worship & local ways of being honored, or “one-upping” people at church, just like everywhere else. we see the same thing with the Lord’s Supper in 1 corinthians – people have broken unity in order to fight for who goes first, second, and third, everyone fighting for a little honor, that is, increasing their own significance. i’m an old testament guy, so i can’t get too specific, but maybe a new testament person can take this further than i have lol!

i personally think the clearest passage on women in ministry is 1 timothy ch. 2, because at the end paul stops addressing local, cultural, specific issues and appeals straight to the old testament story about the creation and fall. still, commentators are all over the map on that one too!

i don’t know if this is helpful, but i thought your question is valid and at least deserves an honest attempt at an answer. btw, i would shun any answer that doesn’t include a discussion of local, pagan worship in corinth in the 1st century, lest we make paul address our issues instead of letting his (and thus the Bible’s) issues become ours.

Mikes last blog post..who would you put on arkansas’s mount rushmore of sports?

Timothy,
My comment was not saying some things are true and some are not. Rather, some things are essential and some are not.

Fundamental / Basic Christian Doctrine is essential to Christianity. Distinctive Baptist Doctrine is essential, or at least viewed as very important to being Baptist.

Secondary doctrines can be disagreed on without it affecting Baptist fellowship and our working together.

I believe the Baptist Distinctive Doctrines are true, but I do not doubt someone’s Christianity if they don’t believe them. They are viewed, however, as what Baptists believe. They distinguish us from other Christians.

I believe the Premillennial view of eschatology is true and taught in Scripture. But, while Southern Baptists clearly believe in the literal return of Christ, we have never made one brand of eschatology a test of fellowship. We all have disagreements of the proper interpretation of some Scripture and doctrines. We don’t have to be super dogmatic over each one. We don’t have to divide over each point.

Remember the old quote, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love” -Rupert Meldenius, 17th century German Lutheran
David R. Brumbelow

Stan: Not you in particular.

Matt and Stan,
Its this question…
Stan: Are women allowed to speak in your church?

And apparently Stan already knows what you are going to say

I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the question. The question was about Paul’s prohibition on women asking questions in church. I asked the question and also supplied a very common (lame, imo) answer that women were shouting questions to their husbands during the service. Absurd, given the status of women at that time.

Paul prohibits women from speaking, and praying without a head covering, without qualification. Some insist that the context dictates taht Paul is forbidding women from speaking in tongues and that a woman’s head covering is her hair. I don’t buy that but it’s a common interpretation. But the “women asking questions” passage proves more difficult.

Bill:
I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to answer your own question and call certain other opinions lame and absurd but it doesn’t seem to be very polite.

Stan: I asked the question, but I don’t think anyone (including me) answered it. I did supply answers that I have heard before that in my opinion were unreasonable (if you don’t like the term “lame”). I do hold fast to the term absurd to describe the notion that women were shouting questions across the aisle to their husbands. There are absurd ideas in the world and it isn’t impolite to acknowledge it. I think it is important to be polite to people, but ideas, notions, or theories need no such protection.

I think we should bring a motion to exclude the churches that were really the cause of females thinking they could be ministers – beginning with the Sandy Creek Baptist Church and every church that descends from it which, of course, will take in most of the churches of the SBC. While we are at it we might well imitate the Romanists who dug up the bones of John Wycliffe, burned, and then sprinkled them on a stream. Yes, we could do that, if it didn’t make us sick. The current junk about females in the ministry has little or no understanding of the Bible and how it works. Yes, I repeat: Most of the folks who backed this dead horse of anti-feminism have a suprficial understanding of how the written word of God functions. A few weeks ago I had anelder explain to me, very patiently, it would seem that there was a theological reason why a woman could not teach or usurp authority over a man (true as far as it goes) but basically a reaction to radical feminism. John Robinson, the Pilgrim pastor, declared: Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s Word? New light broke forth and religious liberty was established. New light broke forth and slavery was removed even though Baptists had argued that it was biblical (well, some did in the South. Some in the North argued otherwise and the latter won AND EVENTUALLY PEOPLE BEGAN TO RECOGNIZE THAT BLACK AMERICANS WERE HUMAN BEINGS, TOO. The fact of such failures on the part of our ancestors and predecessors ought to warn us that there might be more to this issue of women in ministry than simply an offense to the male ego and the paternalistic interpretation of Holy Scripture. Just think of this; SHUBAL STEARNS WAS A PURITAN. THE PURITANS (SOME OF THEM) ACTUALLY FIGURED OUT THE ANSWER AND THEY WROTE IT UP FOR ALL TO READ. I WENT BACK AND TRIED TO RECONSTRUCT THE CASE AS TO HOW THEY COULD HOLD WITH WOMEN BEING ELDRESSES IN A DAY WHEN THEY WOULD EVEN DREAM OF QUESTIONING THE WORD OF GOD. EVERY ONE OUGHT TO BE FOREWARNED, THAT, IF MORGAN EDWARDS WOULD REPORT IN 1771 ABOUT SANDY CREEK HAVING ELDRESSES AND THEN 3 YEARS LATER ADOPT THE VIEW AND WRITE ABOUT IT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING, THEN IT MIGHT BEHOOVE FOLKS TO BE A LITTLE MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YUP, A PURITAN WROTE IN HIS COMMENTARY THAT GOD COULD CALL AND USE A WOMAN AND THAT IT WOULD BE A SIN NOT TO HEAR HERE. SEE MATTHEW POOLE’S COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE ON I TIM 2. I won’t bore you with the details. Another Puritan whose name escapes me now after a quarter of a century also made a comment on the matter. That is why I wrote a paper titled, “THE GENIUS OF ORTHODOXY: ELDRESSES.” Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word? My field of training was intellectual history and when I considered that God is omniscient an reasoned that the Bible must reflect a depth of wisdom commensurate with that fact, then I began to see things I had never seen there before. Sometimes we simply do not know enough to comprehend what God is saying to us by the words of His Book. Add to it this: The eldresses of Sandy Creek as Morgan dwards pointed out exhorted without slightest degree of presumed authority over man. Ask yourself this: How did they do that? Ask yourself this question: How did Martha Stearns Marshall do such a good job of winning Samuel Cartledge to Christ that he became a preacher of the Gospel for the rest of his life…O I forgot that unchurches all the churches of Georgia, a woman preaching. The whole thing is silly. The really issue is what does the woman preach and how…the same as in the man’s situation…after the question: Did God call this person? One of the leading churches in Southwest Missouri was founded by a woman who believed in Sovereign Grace, a godly woman who probably talked to more people individually, seeking to win them to Christ, than most of the preachers who will read this. Also was it Lottie Moon who did some things reserved for the ordained ministry and said in response to a question: I was never ordained, but I was foreordained? I would like to know, if she said that. Some one tell me. God is getting ready to win the whole world to His Son and he is intending to do it with us poor, fallible, failing human beings without compulsion or manipulation or force or lies. He hasd promised it, and He will do it. We have His Word of Promise and you all know what David Livingston had to say about that. Judson also spoke to this issue saying in the darkest of hours of his mission to Siam that the future was as bright as the promises of God. Brethren, we are going to win the whole world, and it is going to take all of us, including the women as there are neither male nor female in Christ. A good woman, a godly woman, will be found standing at the end. A Baptist woman who was burned at the instigation of those noted Reformers Latimer and Ridley told them that the same would come to them which as all know it did – they just don’t know about that Baptist woman’s prophecy. If any one wonders where I am coming from, Just remember this: The effect of orthodoxy is to make one balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, and that includes all of God’s children. How could Shubal Stearns and others in the 1700s come to such conclusions? Did they know something about the Grace of God that we don’t know?

Thank you Dr. James Willingham, for sharing this very pertinent and enlightening perspective.

i personally do not believe women can be the preaching ministers of a church because of 1 timothy chapter 2. although i believe dr. willingham makes some great theological points, and i respect his well-reasoned comment, it is simply not convincing because, in the end, it doesn’t deal with 1 timothy 2.

like i said, i’m open to change, but in order to change i need the following:
1. someone needs to demonstrate that in 1 tim. 2 paul, although appealing to the OT and NOT culture, meant something else besides what it sounds like, which is that he is forbidding women from having authoritative teaching ministries over men in a church context.
2. i personally need the person taking up this task to believe in and suscribe to the authority of scripture (what i mean by this is that, if the bible in fact teaches something, it is binding)
3. i need the person taking up this task to recognize that the very next unit paul deals with is 1 tim. ch. 3, which is qualifications for ministry (immediately after forbidding women to have teaching ministries over men in a church context)

i’m glad this post continues to have a new comment from time to time because it’s an important issue for me. if 1 tim. 2 means what it seems to mean, women are not permitted to teach over men in church. how can women be preaching ministers and still treat 1 timothy as authoritative? but, if someone can demonstrate with real evidence and reasoning that this verse means something else, i’ll prayerfully listen with an open heart.

i suspect many young conservatives have this same attitude. we’re not trying to be androcentric and chauvinistic (spelling?), but we most certainly want to be scriptural . . . even when scripture runs counter-culture, which it most often does.

by grace,
mike

mikes last blog post..do i have a "radical" view of easter?

Mike,

The explanation that you are looking for is found in a 4 DVD set called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” It comes from a conservative position that treats the Bible with respect and as authoritative in that the Bible was written fully inspired including the words and grammar used. Recommendations for the DVD set along with a preview clip and purchase information found at http://mmoutreach.org/wim.htm and product is also available at Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/dp/B000FW4N60/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1235150881&sr=8-2

I think you will find exactly what you have asked for in this set and I think you will find it very thought-provoking.

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Adam’s sin imputed to Eve?

I can and do appreciate Mike’s perspective on the issue. After all, it took me about 28 yrs. to come to the point where I would even consider changing my mind. The point made by the puritans, esp. Matthew Poole, is that God does not suffer a woman to teach or usurp authority over men (I Tim 2) except….then Poole named off all the prophetesses of the Old & New Testaments as well as other women duly note as exercising some function normally reserved for men. In essence, there are two reasons, namely, the same rule of exception on which God operates in our salvation. Our salvation is an exception to the law. A female performing a ministry would be an exception. However, if she is truly called and gifted (if memory serves correctly), then it would be rebellion on our parts not to hear her. The other reason is God’s sovereignty. God is free to do as He pleases in such matters. I suppose the due order would be Sovereignty first and then Exception. The Phila. Confession (I think it was) states that God can work with means, by means, or even against means. The lady who founded the church in Southwest Mo was an American Indian. One of her sons was a fellow student of mine at St. Louis Baptist College. We use to tell her that women were not meant to be out there like the men (she was then a visitor for the Florissant Valley Bapt. Church.). She jut smiled and went on about her business (I think I heard at one time that she had knocked on 10,000 doors or maybe she spoke to some 10,000 people. Years later, she and her husband came by the funeral home during the tragic loss of my mother and family, and she told me she was then reading Arthur Pink’s Sovereignty of God. That we in ’72. Ten or twelve yrs. later I heard she was in southwest MO pastoring a church. Fast forward to 2007-2008. I finally caught up with what she had done. I spoke with a Sovereign Grace Baptist Preacher who had preached for her in her church (I think it was a revival). Then I got up with her other son (the one who had been my friend had died back in the 60s) and her daughters. It seems that she gave her church to the Southern Baptists in that area. The word was that they would never acknowledge that she was the cause for that church’s existence. I just about died laughing. My friend is now in a convalescent home unable to converse due to problems associated with aging. I knew that woman to be a godly, Christian woman, a soul-winner who won more than the average pastor will ever win. I still look back on that with amazement. Another frind had been a missionary to Japan. She founded 10 churches and never pastored a one of them and always made sure the called a native male as pastor. A male minister to Honduras founded 16 churches. Of course, he did not believe a woman could preach or pastor. Some woman who once performed some ministry reserved for men is supposed to have said in answer to the enquiry about being ordained: “I have never been ordained, but I was foreordained.” Personally, I think God has a great sense of humor. I think God has given us the differences on this issue in order to stretch our minds and enable us to cope with difficulties in life in a way that shall lead to the time of the Third Great Awakening in which we win the whole earth in one generation and perhaps for a thousand generations. Some of the hardness on the issue on the part of some springs from bad experiences with radical feminists. When I was working on my M.Div., a female student (a moderate for sure then) said to me, “Your a male chauvinist pig.” Since I had said nothing out of order to her,I was dumbfounded. I just turned and walked away without replying. A friend of mine who was more or less in the moderate camp was very forceful about the matter. The radical female ministers who lived in the dorm evidently had planned to insult a lot of stodgy ministers. In any case, one of them said the same thing to my friend. Now he had been a sargeant in the air force, and, as any one from the military can tell you, sargeants are the people who put the military’s bluff on people to get them to do what it required. My friend in full, firm, and loud sargeant’s voice roared at her; ‘LADY, IF YOU EVERY AGAIN SAY THAT TO ME, I WILL KNOCK YOUR TEETH DOWN YOUR THROAT.’ That radical feminist turned white as a ghost, turned and ran out of the building. Every one died laughing (well nearly). My friend actually would not have laid a finger on her; he even sympathized with the moderates. Gentlemen, I propose we lighten up on such matters. I would guarantee to you that the lady who founded that church was as tough spiritually and as godly as any male minister, a soul-winner from the get-go. The woman who served in Japan (on her own) was a truly rare and godly person. Balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic (attractive), that is what Christian teachings can do for God’s children. LOVE is the word that says it all.
Mike take about 28 yrs to think it over, and be kind to the females while your mulling about the matter. Hey, Great Things are coming down the pike from our Savior. Is there a sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees?

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand

The Scriptures directly prohibit a woman preaching or teaching a man.
Since they do, we must separate from those who do it. It’s a matter of obeying God’s Word.

Scripture does not say to separate from a woman who does not discriminate against teaching men. This is going beyond the scriptures.

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Adam’s sin imputed to Eve?

Dear Bro. Foltz: If we follow your advice then we must dismiss Sandy Creek Church and all of its offspring (which pretty well covers most of the Southern Baptist Convention). I mean, if they just had women doing such things that was a violation of the rule. But dear brother God blessed them rebels with the First and Second Great Awakenings and the Great Missionary Movement. Has he blessed us with the same? I am praying for one as you are. Godly women are no threat to godly men and vice versa. The sad thing I heard was how the ministers here in North Carolina at some meeting treated Ann Graham Lotz with disrespect, turning their backs on her, when she preached. Now she was not a pastor; she was acting in the character of an evangelist. I almost wept at the thought of such conduct. The Bible clearly teaches Courtesy (love does not behave itself unseemly – I Cors.13:5). One of the things that blew my eschatology to pieces years ago was the fact that the literal statement of Jonah 3:4, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” did not come to pass even though Jonah wanted it to be fulfilled and sat down and looked for it though he did not expect it. (See Jonah 4). I have read where some preachers thought Jonah said, “But if you repent, God will spare the city. There is no indication of such a thing. To the contrary. Now if that is so, then some of the harsh statements of the New Testament might be intended to accomplish the same end. After all, we must say in this case, it is not the statement, but the purpose for which the statement is made. I also refer to the fact that our analytical approach to every thing is a part of our problem. I had a regular old Aminian type of Southern Baptist preacher say to me one day, “Did you ever read where God told a man to do what the woman said?” The man was my pastor for a about 3 years. He was talking about when God told Abraham to do what Sarah said about Hagar. I was embarrassed. I had forgotten to apply my own principle (the synthetical principle – the putting of two things side by side in order to get the full truth), something I had picked up from our ancestors and predecessors of the Great Awakening periods. It is the old saw of comparing scripture with scripture. Even when you think you understand what the Bible teaches, when it seems absolutely clear, it might surprise you as my church member was when he looked down into a mountain stream and thought it was only 2-3′ deep because he could see grains of sand rolling along the bottom. He stepped off into that stream and nearly drowned as it was 18-20′ deep. The Bible’s clarity is a problem due to the fact that it is another medium and we do not see its depth. The intellectual depth of the Bible reflects the fact that it was inspired by the omniscient God. As one who has studied intellectual history, I can tell you I am impressed by the intellectual depth of Holy Writ. The ideas of the Book will stand up to any perusal of the most astute nature and generally will elude comprehension in the fullest sense of the word. Our methods will tell us that we have really determined what the Bible actually teaches. And that is our problem – our methods. One of the things that impresses me is how God’s great goodness and love are hidden in the depths of His precious word, and they will so stretch the human mind that it is unimaginable. We allow for exceptions with our children, because they differ. Also when a child is suffering we give that child more attention than the other child, and usually the other child understands. Also when God needs a servant he can and will raise up whomsoever He pleases. The old confessions stated, rather astutely, that God can work with means, by means, or against means. Here is one of the areas (women in ministry) where we need to be very careful. I spent years never budging an inch on the issue until God began to open my eyes. I think some one in Sandy Creek knew Greek. After all eldresses is the erm that could be used to translate “aged women” in I Tim.5:2…please note the Greek for elder in 5:1 and aged women (?) in 5:2. Seems to me there is a rule in the Greek that would require a translation in line with the first term. Well, I must close. I hope you enjoy this. After all, it is not an issue for me that requires me to go on a crusade but I do think those folks who believe other wise ought to know there are Bible believing Southern Baptists who have come to think other wise. Discussions in this area could lead to better discussions in other areas and that in turn could lead to what we are all praying for, namely, for the whole earth to be filled with His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea. God bless.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand

dr. willingham,

with all due respect, your answer is basically that you know better because you’ve been around longer. i respect and appreciate your wisdom, but you haven’t dealt with 1 tim. ch. 2, as i mentioned above. again, i would love to say that women should serve as teaching pastors. it would save evangelicals a lot of face in our culture today and make so many things easier. my problem is that 1 tim. ch. 2 to clearly prohibit women from serving as teaching pastors in the church context.

in the end, we may have to respectfully disagree, having a reason vs. scripture disagreement. but i think, either way, this illuminates one of the discussion points in this post. women as pastors is a 2nd tier issue (not a 3rd) because:
a) it means churches with opposing positions will have a tough time doing missions together, and
b) it means those with opposing positions have different views of scripture and authority.

again, all due respect, sincerely.

mike

mikes last blog post..barth, anselm, and "faith seeking understanding"

oh, and another point. there is nowhere in the NT where a woman is a pastor. some basic points:
a.) appealing to women prophetesses and judges in the OT is a fallacious argument b/c 1 tim. 2 isn’t dealing with OT leaders . . . it’s dealing with women serving as teaching pastors in a church context
b.) 1 tim. 5:2 is part of 5:1-2, which deals with age group relations in the church. i don’t believe “eldresses” in a formal sense is an appropriate interpretation
c.) there is a distinction btwn. elders and deacons in the church. a major distinction is that elders must be “able to teach” (i tim. 3:2), but no such qualification exists for deacons or deaconesses as far as i can tell (3:8-13).
d.) the primary undertanding of a “deacon” in the first century was a dispatched messenger, or letter-carrier (see BDAG, “diakonos”). that’s why phoebe is a mentioned as the “deacon” at the end of romans . . . exactly where the letter carrier and amenuensis would be noted

mikes last blog post..barth, anselm, and "faith seeking understanding"

Mike,

Hang in there, Brother. You are speaking the truth. I would also say that women should not be Deacons, either. The qualifications for a Deacon and his wife are also found in Timothy.

It’s always amazing how people want to change the Bible according to the culture that they’re living in at the time. Sometimes, we have to stand out in the crowd as Christians.

David

The Bible forbids women ursurping authority over a man anywhere in the local
Church iE. Pators, Deacons, trustees. No woman is to teach men in a Bible class.

David:

Should we separate from churches with deaconesses?
Do you think the authors of the BFM2K were bowing to the culture when they specified pastors and deacons as the only 2 NT offices but only specified the office of pastor as being restricted to men?

To all who replied to my post re: eldresses: One feels immense pressure in taking a position which vis-a-vis produces anxiety as to whether there is trust in Holy Scripture. Point two of Mike’s first reply to my statements needs to be addressed first. Mike, you stated: b) it means those with opposing positions have different views of scripture and authority. My answer is simply this: I believe the Bible from cover to cover is the verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. Period. That means it is authoritative (authority in the healthiest sense of the word and also authority tht has the power to back it up). As to a) why should churchs that are supposed to be practicing the two great Commandments (love God and each other) have a tough time doing missions together? Love is to be exercised in points where there are differences and an effort without rancor is to be made to fully explore the issues until God is please toshow us the real light of His precious word. I pointed to the past, to a time when Baptists (a few) did have eldresses, at that tim they would nothave questioned the word of God as to inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. I referred to where Sandy Creek might have secured suchjustification, namely, Matthew Poole. The historianwho reported the anomaly, Morgan Edwards, perhaps one of the most educated pastors in America (he was a graduate of Bristol College in England and had been recommended by Dr. John Gill to be pastor of the FBC of Philadelphia) changed his views on the issue three years later (1774)and wrote a paper on the matter. Yes, I think that it might save us a lot of face in today’s culture, but my reason originally was simply to see if there could be justification for such action accordin to the word of God. Even then I questioned the matter. Eventually, as I evaluated what the word of God stated on the issue of women and the relationship of men, I came to see that the Bible presents a far deeper, more balanced and healthy and authoritative (note: not authoritarian) view of the whole matter. Justhere I want to add that this ain’t my thing, I don’t feel called on to campaign to set things right. My business is to preach God’s word and o advance His whole cause in the world. More specifically, I long for, pray for a third great awakening. It was from people in those awakenings that the practice of eldresses came. They are also the people who united the Separate and Regular Baptists, used both educated and uneducated ministers in the service of God, secured religious liberty, worked with deistic types like Jefferson and others, persuaded without trying to do so some 255 congregational churches to become Baptists during the period from 1740-1820, established our educational efforts and more, much more. Now as to the second communique: The prophetesses were not limited to the OT. Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. It is true that the NT no where presents a woman as pastoring or as teaching men in the church, though it does seem to indicate that Priscilla was theleader in the husband wife team of Aquila and Priscilla in teaching Apollo. As to women speaking in church, that does seem to be indicated in I Cors. The prohibition there regarding their speaking must have dealt with something disorderly as the very same words is used for a man speaking out of order in the same chapter (14). The age viewof I Tim has some problems too, after all Paul is dealing with the ministry. So eldresses could be an appropriate rendering, if, for no other reason, than that they have a ministry to the younger women. Interestingly enough, references to eldresses are to be found in the first two centuries after the NT period, then the office ceases as the monarchial bishops began to rise. When you set the parameters for Deacons (there are no deacnnesses in the NT as far as I know), you can automatically read out the female from any ministry. However, Phoebe is termed with the masculine for Deacon; she is not a deaconess. A further consideration also needs to be considered, mainly, the tendency to read the Bible, especially in the NT as a law text, an inviolate rule. Literalism contrary to the expectations of many does not always mean the exact literal statement of the text (R.
C. Sproul did an admirable work on this matter but I forget which book covers the issue). Literalism means of and according to the nature of literature. Statements can be made which have another purpose. Take for example, Jonah’s message to Nineveh, In forty days the city was supposed to be destroyed. Jonah wanted that city destroyed. He sat down to look for its destructon, though he expected God would, contrary to his prophecy, actually spare the city. In fact, it was the purpose of the prophecy that it shouldbring the Ninevites to repentance so that God could spare the city. I once preached on the 3rd chapter about 7 years after a man who had a high school education (I think) and was a body shop mechanic asked me ths question: Have you ever thought about the fact that at any one time every last soul on the face of the earth could be the elect of God? I said, “NO.” Seven yrs later that question came back to haunt me, and, inconjunction with Jonah 3 & 4, itblew my eschatology to pieces along with my legalistic approach to Holy Scripture. God argued wih Jonah!!! He wanted to spare Nineveh for the sake of the babies and animals!!! I will leave you all wth the process of working out the reason. As to women and the issue of authority, God told Abraham once to do what Sarah said. The question is what do you do with exceptions, especially, when, for example, your very salvation depends on God making an exception?
Gentlemen, this is not something to getbent out of shape over. We must get bent out of shape over taking the whol world fo Christ. I cameacross something in Spurgeon where he realized that praying for the whole earth migh well be past his lifetime, but nevertheless he still desired such a thing for the glory of his Lord and Savior. My methodology is based upon what I think I found the Baptists to be doing in the 1700s; it is a synthetical approach, two tracks maintained with out any attempt to resolve differences. I must cease due to weariness. God grant us grace to love one another to the point where we would not let any point of differenceon second or third tier issues to cause a separation between us. I shall never forget, I suppose, those yrs. of research and how the stories of the inquisition gave me nightmares. Neither can I forgetthe nightmares I had from viewing photographs taken of a German concentration camp by a member in my second pastorate. Likewise, I cannot forget the nightmares I had upon reading how badly many blacks were treated in times of slavery. I have also known of cases where male dominance has led to murder. The sweet relationship of husband as leader to a wife is not to be denied, but the moment authoritarianism (the sick exercise of authority) enters in. we hve a problem. Some times thewife has the duty as well as the right to speak to or even for her husband. Likewise in the church there can be exceptions. Why is it people cannot be courteous as agape love requires (I Cors.13:5 love does not behave itself unseemly – the positive spin is courtesy) in situations like this where there are differences. I would add one other thing: God is sovereign over his word. It does not mean what we think it means or what we want it to mean or what our poor methods determine that it must mean. It means what God wants it to mean. In other words, it is His purpose that is the issue. I am nearly exhausted so I’ll quit for now. My desire is for a Great Awakening, to take the whole earth for Christ, and even a discussion like this can be used by our Lord to advance His cause of righteousness and love!

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand

bill,

i think the authors of the BFM2K were trying to be cautious because of ongoing scholarly discussions about women and deaconship. 1 tim. 3:8-13 deals with deacons (right after dealing with pastors). after giving qualifications in vs. 8-10, vs. 11 addresses “women” (gunaikas). most translations render “women” as “their wives” (NKJV, etc.). of course, the very next verse says deacons must be the husbands of one wife, so that may end all discussions. but of course later in the letter (ch. 5) much is said about relationships among the people in the church, specifically older men relating to the younger men and the same for women. i think good conservative, evangelical scholars are still debating whether or not a woman could serve as a deaconess (literally a designated, officially recognized servant) to other women in the church, with men serving as deacons for men. that would be in the same spirit as 1 tim. 5. i personally think the BFM2K dealt with pastorship and not deaconship because the pastor thing is obvious, while good conservatives are still discussing the deacon thing. i’m not taking a side here, just trying to bail them out a little, although i think fairly.

i have to disagree with dr. foltz a little. the bible never addresses church trustees! i’m personally in favor of women having ministries in the local church, just not a ministry which involves authoritative teaching over men. again, my basis is 1 tim. 2:12-15. i’m open to change, but i can’t change my mind until someone proves to me that these verses aren’t saying what it appears they are obviously saying.

mike

mikes last blog post..barth, anselm, and "faith seeking understanding"

Along with DR Willingham, I too long for, and am praying for An SPIRITUAL AWAKENING. We must have it soon, or our Beloved Nation, will go down the
Tubes.

Mike: I suspect you are correct. For what it’s worth, our church is led by a plurality of (male) elders and we elect male and female deacons. Let’s face it folks, if your church recognizes and affirms women in any type of servant role in the church, she’s a deacon, whether you call her that or not. God is not fooled by titles.

dr. foltz,

i just realized you said above that the bible forbids women being deacons. would you mind if i ask where? i’m not familiar with a passage saying that.

i suppose someone might say that deacons have authority, so that’s why women can’t be deacons. i would simply answer with this: the bible doesn’t describe the task of deacons – what it discusses is their character! 1 tim. 3, for instance, gives character attributes and qualifications without ever saying “a deacon is supposed to do this.”

of course, some might argue that acts ch. 6 shows deacons serving at the money tables, but i think those servants were chronologically ahead of the deacons discussed in 1 tim.

mikes last blog post..barth, anselm, and "faith seeking understanding"

Bill,

There’s a huge difference in someone being a servant in the Church, and in someone being ordained, or set apart, to be a Deacon. Now, of course, Deacons should be servants in the Church. And, women should serve in the Church in many ways. But, when someone is set apart for the office of Deacon…then, they are set apart for helping the Pastor/Elder to serve the Church, settle problems, and be an example to the Church. It is an office. The requirements are told to us in Timothy.

David

“In the preamble of BFM2K, it specifically says that these are the “essentials” of our faith. Thus, the preamble of BFM2K has rendered its entire content as 1st tier. ”

Hogwash. Les you need to read the entire preamble. It is a self negating document allowing for the full autonomy of any group of baptists in crafting their own statement of faith. The BFM is a eunuch. The corpus of the SBC is founded in the Constitution and By-Laws, and not the BMF. Any SBC body can craft a statement of faith that rejects every jot an tittle of the BFM, endorse female pastors or whatever.

That said I agree with Matt up to this point, it is not at the SBC level, nor can they do anything about it other than issue an emasculated resolution signifying nothing, or they can get some cajones and actually change the constitution forbidding such deviations from “baptist distinctives.”

As I wrote at Wade’s it is up to the GBC what will be done, and not the SBC. If the GBC has made it mandatory for their cooperating churches to adhere to the BFM and whatever interpretations the ecclesium of the GBC have decided, that is one thing. But, I have yet to get a hold of their constitution and by-laws to see if they have allowed themselves such authority. It certainly is not part of the SBC’s. And if it is part of the GBC, having an ecclesiastical structure of that type certainly doesn’t make them distinctively baptist, but rather presbyterian.

Where are the duties of the deacon articulated in the NT? Where is the command to ordain deacons in the NT? When a woman is elected by the church body to fulfill a particular role and position within the church, she is a diakonos. As I said, God isn’t fooled by titles.

God isnt fooled by titles. That sounds cute, but titles do mean something to God. God is the One Who told us to use titles. Pastor/Elder/Bishop. Prophet. King. Deacon. Apostle. Priest. Judge.

Hummmm….looks like God likes titles, because they mean something.

David

David: Nice try, but I didn’t say God didn’t care about titles, I said He wasn’t fooled by them. I’m still waiting to see the specific instructions as to the duties of NT Deacons.

Matt: Obviously the framers of the BFM2K don’t share your view. My question was about where the duties and responsibilities of a deacon are explicitly spelled out in the NT.

To whoever is interested: The framers of BFM2k do not necessarily represent the views of all Southern Baptists and not even of the founders. Shubal Stearns carries a whole lot more weight than they do. After all perhaps the majority of the SBC churches would be traced back to him and Sandy Creek Church and the one I preached in on Feb. 8 & 15 which was originally one of the campuses (arms in that day) of Sandy Creek when Stearns was pastor. Even the educational effort of the SBC, vide the seminaries begins with Basil Manly, Sr., who was converted in 1815-16, elected delegate to Sandy Creek Assn. in 1816, elected clerk of the Assn. that yr., served on the committee of the Assn. chaired by Luther Rice who drew up the Confession of Faith that clearly stated “that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which h was primarily placed,” “election for eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” The BFM2k framers did not hew the line very closely on those issues (the Charleston tradition (London Confession,1689 & Phila. Confession 1742) were even tougher ). If they were not true to the original framers in every respoect on man’s inability to save himself and of the necessity of irresistible grace, why should we be so careful about the issue of females (BFM2Ks failure to follow Stearns on that issue (tho’ Charleston did not allow it at all))? What we are talking about is a whole church consisting of servants with deacons and elders being special servants to equip te mass of servants for what? Service! Every body is a servant, and every servant can – in a time of need or a time of special movement by the Lord – can step into the gap and serve. The requirement of being specially called and equipped for service is not gender based; it is based on Sovereignty. God can and does call whoever He pleases. Just think about Judas. Jonathan Edwards used him as a warning against too aggressive movements at unconverted ministers. As one said long ago, “God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.” In fact every one of us is a crooked stick by nature and at times (too frequent, too frequently and grievously so) by practice, and yet we are all that God works with. Remember this. Every time you read those inspiring, comforting, encouraging, helping, and etc. words by or about adulterers, murderers, practitioner of fraud, con artists, know-it-alls, people who called God a liar and accused Him of falsehood. doubters of even the best evidence until it smacked them in the face, swearers, etc. I could go on but surely the reader will recognize many of the saints of the OT & NT. These were God’s children and God’s servants. I would not want to set in judgment on any of them or find myself in opposition to them, when they were on His errands. I could rightly stand against them when they were doing wrong, but when they turned I would have to cease my opposition or find myself in opposition to Him that sits upon the throne. All of this is children having a spat on the playing field; it is a challenge to them to grow up, mature, become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, the real effects of biblical teachings. Remember we shall be the better for this down the road and do even more effective service. Praise God from whom all the true and real blessings flow.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand

Matt,

Any idea of which of these two things are given more emphasis in the teaching of the Bible: 1) Women shouldn’t be pastors or 2) the unit of the church?

Bradley

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

oops … i meant UNITY

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

Yes, but it raises another question :: If that’s your reason for believing that egalitarianism is reason enough to split a church (i.e. because it compromises sound doctrine), you would have just as much reason for believing that arminianism is reason enough to split a church, for I assume you would agree that Calvinism is sound doctrine. The question, then, is how you might now qualify your reason to avoid this dilemma by differentiating between different kinds of sound doctrine, some of which are worth dividing over, and other of which are not.

For it seems to me that you must consider in doing so, that the doctrine of the church’s unit itself is at the heart of sound doctrine.

Your thoughts?

Bradley

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

By “Calvinism” I only need to mean any part of Calvinism that you believe, not necessarily all five points.

B

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

I see,

But that takes us back to my first question: Which does the Bible emphasize more? 1) that women should not be pastors or 2) the unity of the church?

For if the Bible, as you have admitted, emphasizes the latter more, then it should be higher on the “tier” list, or at least as high as complementarianism. I find it odd, therefore, that the doctrine of the unity of the church does not have a prominent role on our doctrine lists, or in our systematic textbooks, and that you would be willing to compromise the unity of the church (which the Bible emphasizes more) in order to not compromise your complementarianism (which you have admitted that God emphasizes less in the Bible).

Your thoughts?

Bradley

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

“Unity is important, but it isn’t necessarily a doctrine within itself. … Unity is a characteristic of the church, not a doctrine of the church.”

I don’t know. Can we really say the church is unified in light of the fragmentations that took place during the Pre-Reformatin, Reformation and Post-Reformation era’s? It’s a miracle, I think, that we baptists are able to cooperate on the level we do with all the factions within the SBC. (i thank God for the level of unity we have, and that’s one of the reasons that I became a Southern Baptist :: unity is essential for cooperatin, which is essential to fulfilling the Great Commission).

Your observation, as stated in the context of our discussion, however, raises another question: Do you mean for this observation that unity is a characteristic of the church to rule out the possibility of its also being a doctrine? That doesn’t seem like a fair way to reason (if in fact that’s what you statement implies). After all, sanctification is also a characteristic of the church, but ever systematic textbook has a doctrine of “Sanctification.”

Also, given the fact that believing in “one, holy catholic church” has been considered a core aspect of the Christian faith since the inception of the church (as evidenced in the apostles creed and the writings of the early church), it seems rather convenient for you to now distinguish it from the category of “doctrine.” What does the word “doctrine” mean anyway? What about its meaning would exclude a doctrine of the unity of the church? Is not the unity of the church also a subcategory of our doctrine of the church?

Also … Paul’s usage of the term “sound doctrine” demonstrates that he considered the more practical exhortations (such as not forbidding marriage, considering all foods to be clean in light of the gospel, etc.) to be a part of “sound doctrine” (e.g. I Tim 4:3-7). Unity was heavily emphasized on Paul’s practical exhortation, therefore, I have no reason to think Paul would have not considered practical exhortation on the unity of the body of Christ as somehow outside of the scope of “sound doctrine” as he used the terminology.

True, complementarianism is broader than just that one ecclesiastical restriction. Still thought, I’ll bet I could find almost twice as many references and NT content on the unity of the church than on complementarianism.

Your thoughts?

Bradley

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

You folks sure like to waste a lot of elexctronic impulses. Dr. Finn has called attention to the fact that 2000 BFM has people who disagree with it over the issue of closed communion. Such being the case, the issue of women in ministry is a moot question. Have fun. Theological ferment was going on among the Baptists in the 1700s when they achieved their greatest successes, and perhaps it will be so again while we argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or was it whether women can perform any ministry in the church or brethren can set down to communion together? Understanding the word of God, even when it is clear, is a challenge the likes of which we can scarcely imagine. Like my friend who could see the bottom of a mountain stream and the grains rolling along the bottom and figured it was only 2-3′ deep; it was 18-29′ and he nearly drowned. And if Jonah’s unconditional sermon of doom did not turn out as he desired and wanted, then mabe, just mabe, the verses on women might have other implications than we fondly imagine our little methods of understanding determining exactly what they mean. A fellow with a high school education who worked on repairing the bodies of Buick automobiles was the wisest man I ever met. With one question he tore my eschatology all to pieces (7 yrs after he asked the question). Balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, when you get biblical theology right, that is what it makes you. Also you will be empowered to endure in virtually any fiery furnace though you would not think so. And ou will be able to appreciate what people do accomplish with very limited perspectives. God bless your explorations, but do learn to think out side the box a little bit. And, yes, God does give help to His children. Like any good parent He bestows extra care on the ones just starting out.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

Matt,

Thanks. I also appreciate your tone in dialogue, and your evangelical ecumenism (EVillage) that is open to hearing lots of sides on any given issue.

:: “There are objective realities in these doctrines, but the way they work themselves out are purely subjective.” ::

Valid point, but I’m not sure exactly how you intended it to bear in our discussion, given the fact that the objective reality that men and women (although equal in value) are designed for different roles also works itself out subjectively.

“one holy, catholic church” was understood in the time it was written to not merely refer to the kind of objective unity that automatically exists whether we pray for it or not, whether we live out the commands and exhortations about unity or not, etc., but in the early church, it can be easily demonstrated to refer (at least by implication) to the unity of the visible church. St. Augustine’s attitude that “the worst heretics are the schismatics” (referring to the Donatist controversy) was not some eccentric view, but represents an attitude that the early church had that we fragmented Protestants have lost. It’s more convenient to assume that the unity Jesus prayed for is not the same unity Paul exhorted the church to, for then we can assume Jesus’ prayer for unity as something that happens quite apart from whether we obey Paul’s commands about church unity. I’m not convinced that such interpretations which neatly absolve Protestants from worrying about whether we are disobeying Jesus’ prayer by assuming Jesus had to be referring to the “spiritual / invisible” unity that exists in the invisible church. I think Paul’s practical exhortations and emphasis on visible unity is the same unity Jesus prayed for. I’m not convinced by arguments that presume Jesus’ prayer MUST have been for invisible unity because otherwise it would involve Jesus’ prayer not being answered, which we assume is impossible. If Jesus had prayed that the church be kept pure from immorality, would make the same assumptions? (i.e. that his prayer would necessarily have to be answered perfectly or else Jesus is not God?) Is it a safe assumption that all of Jesus’ prayers have to answered perfectly? Given his human nature, this does not seem to be a safe assumption.

At any rate … if the we are taking our queue’s from the Bible, and the Bible emphasizes unity more than complementarianism, then we must place the unity of the church higher than complementarianism within the second tier. This poses a problem, then, for your paradigm for splitting with churches that are egalitarian, for it seems to give the higher priority to complementarianism than to unity.

NOTICE: I’m not saying your wrong, ultimately, that we have grounds to “do church” independently from, say, egalitarian Presbyterians (although perhaps this is wrong), but the reasons you give for such disunity seem insufficient given the predicament apparent misprioritization I have attempted to spell out. Perhaps, then, the implication of point means that we must come up with a more sophisticated grounds for such disunity than the neat-and-easy 3 tier approach. At any rate, I see the doctrine of the unity of the church as being a much neglected and disobeyed doctrine that evangelical Protestants are inclined to turn a blind eye to, giving it scant attention and little obedience in spite of it’s prominence in the New Testament.

I realize you will probably still disagree, but I just had to say that.

Peace and Blessings,

Bradley

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God

Sirs: This whole discussion is flawed and serious lacking in informed knowledge needed for perceptive and critical discussion. Consider the appeals to the holy catholic visible church. That doctrine is suffers from being utterly out of balance. That doctrine lead to persecution and the Inquisition in the 1200s. Having done research in all 2000 yrs. of church history, I had nightmares especially about the horrors that were visited upon the Waldenses, and they were only one of many so-called schismatic or heretical groups through out existence of the Christian Faith. The reason for the invisible church is simply that we worship an invisibleGod, the God who is Spirit. The church consists of more than those who are seen in a place of worship, attending and submitting according to some one’s prescribed pattern. Don’t forget that Augustine recommended the use of the sword to deal with the Donatists (and it seems that they, too, might have desired the same). Gentlemen, your arguments are one-sided. The BFM2000 was poorly informed on Bapist History. They never even addressed what went on at Sandy Creek and why. After all, they had a clear statement in the Bible declaring that women were not to teach, etc. And that’s all you need. Right? Wrong! Well, it’s cultural! That was the Moderates’ view, and probably why they did not make any more than the vaguest reference to my paper on the subject, simply reporting in the Biblical Recorder in 1985 that I delivered an address on eldresses. Your discussions are all one-sided like the Moderates. The truth isthat the Bible speaks on issues with two or more presentations and one opts for one or the other at their own peril (trouble with God for misinterpretation). Part of this is due to the age in which we live and tothe scientific method which dominates interpretation, e.g., the problem with the scientific method is that it is too analytical and fails to consider two-sided and apparently contradictory aspects which together constitute the true reality, a phenomenon which skews the null hypothesis. As Dr. Jesse Moody said over 40 yrs. ago ( and it is still true, obvously), we are suffering from the paralysis of analysis. Th scientific method is in need of serious over-haul. Gentlemen, I suggest you all need to look at what the Bible has to say about women apart from thse verses that give hegemony to males. Your failure to do so is skewing your presentation of the true biblical male leadership that God seeks to implement. Note, Gals.3:28, “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Biblical orthodoxy produces balance, flexibility, creativity, and magnetism (attractiveness) of character. When a wheel is out of balance on a car, it leads to problems (tire wear, etc.), so we put a balance on the wheel. Male dominance and authoritarianism is not the same as male leadership and authoritative (read healthy authority) performance (responsible, beneficial conduct as a leader). I have known of examples of the emphasis on male leadership that is paternalistic, domineering, and harmful to the cause of Christ. A whole nation that emphasized male authority was led down the road to dictatorship and disaster (I refer to Germany). One did not question the father’s leadership and position there, and the results we all know. I have known of men who were Christians and even Pastors who used the information on male leadership in ways that caused great harm. I stress, again, the need for a two-sided approach to all of teachings of Holy Scripture. And all I mean by that is that you carefully weigh both presentations of the Bible on a subject. Clearly, holy catholic church doctrine is implied by the spiritual nature of the church whih is clearly taught inthe Bible., Consider I Cors.12:13:”By one spirit were we all baptized into one body.” Paul says “we” which includes himself, the Corinthian believers and all believers to this day (I Cors.1:2). He is speaking of a spiritual incorporation of believers into one, spiritual body. There are other verses which support such a doctrine. See John Thornbury’s book, The Church, also E. C. Dargan’work on the church. As to the local visible church, one contribution J. R. Graves made to ecclesiology is that he clearly established the nature of the local church in his study of ekklesia and oklos in Acts.19. K. Schmidt’s article in TWNT is serious wanting, because he never knew of it. However, this is not to approve of Graves or his landmarkism in toto. Indeed, his writings on the ekklesia are worse than Schmidt’s simply because he cannot believe the evidence before him in the Bible. All landmarkers crash on I Cors.12:13, and other references to the spiritual nature of the universal church.

Galatians 3:28 was an eye-opening revelation to me when I discovered that verse when asking GOD to reveal to me the role of women in this Age of Grace. It helped me to see that GOD is no respecter of persons. While I generally submit to male leadership of those who are genuinely called of GOD, and especially my Christian husband, it helped me to see that GOD could use me in teaching positions in the church that just might have men in attendance, when there were no men willing or qualified to teach Sunday School Classes. Small churches often have this problem.

A week ago this past Sat., I almost quitted this earthly realm. Such interruptions will give one pause for thought. God’s word to me is precious as I was converted under a literal fulfillment of two verses (Jesus standing at a door knocking (very hard on an atheist) and the Lord opening the closed door of the Heart (Rev.3:20 & Acts 1614). One of the most difficult things in the world is how to understand what God is saying in and by the words of Holy Writ. Over 50 yrs have been dedicated to trying to understand what He is saying. Just when I have it down pat, I find some new and unsettling fact coming in to tear up my neat little system. Thinking outside the box seems to be a norm for grasping what God is about in His teaching of His truths to us. Somehow or other, I wound up in the field of intellectualism which is concerned with ideas and concepts and how the influence human behavior. The scientific method of the past century, the analytical, very successful, experimental approach to problems has become so dominant, so pervasive, that it influences all of our thinking, try as we might to escape the confines of restrictive thinking. Andyet it is obvious that we do suffer from the paralysis of analysis in our approach to practical everything in life, especially in our understanding of what God is saying to us in Holy Scriptures. A synthetical approach, however, has its merits, one demanding a two-sided approach to teachings. It is at this point that I found the wherewithal to face the short-comings of my methodology. Ravi Zacharias well said, “A text without a context is a pretext.” True! To which I would add, “A context can also be used to turn a text into a pretext.” When we go back and look at how others have interpreted scripture and why and why and how we do the same, then we might be able to break outside the confines of our narrow systems and really grasp the breadth and depth and heighth and length of the goodness and healing power of the His teachings. I Cors. 13 sure put a hitch in my getta long on so many issues. Soon, and very soon, I pray this Great Awakening is coming upon us.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

If you want to see more on this subject, then click on the link below. This will take you to a Scriptural view of the role of women and Pastors and Deacons.

http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

And if you want to see more on this subject from an opposite point of view than volfan007 check out the link below that takes the view of what the Apostle Paul would say if he were alive today.

Oops here is the link http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/05/13/paul-women-pastors-8/

Matt,

You are right. The Apostle Paul wouldn’t say anything different than he said in the bible. He would just correct our wrong views of what he said. God doesn’t contradict Himself and Paul didn’t either. God’s Word does not change nor was there a new “law” created in 1 Timothy 2. Paul always upheld the OT and he did not add to its message. Paul’s fellow workers who worked right along side him are proof that he treated male and female followers of Christ as equal workers.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Matt,

And, therein lies the problem with feminists and thier attempt at twisting the Scripture. You have hit it on the head. We cannot change the Bible to fit our culture of today.

David

The problem is when the culture of the world has convinced the church that the bible supports the world’s way. The majority of the world’s culture of our day keeps women restricted in their education, their right to hold property and their right to follow God without their husband’s approval. The view that God approves of having a male mediator between God and women is not the view of Paul or the view of Jesus. It is a cultural view for sure but it is not the Christian way. In contrast Paul was a wonderful example of a culturally biased man who was transformed by the power of Christ. Paul was above all in his elevation of women as workers right alongside himself in the gospel. When we release women to serve the Lord Jesus in speaking forth the gospel message, we are following the Way of the Master who was the first one to send forth a woman with His message given for the rest of the disciples. Jesus never sent the women to women alone but for the benefit of the whole body of Christ.

Matt,

“And I will always treat male and female followers of Christ equal. ”

And will you listen to a female follower of Christ as she preaches the message that God has given her? Jesus turned the church upside down by giving the very best message to the women first. He did not restrict them but sent them to their brothers in Christ. Or is because you don’t read material from a woman? How then do you treat male and female followers of Christ the same?

Have you read the article? If not why not?

Matt,

The fact is that we live in a small part of our world where Christianity has done much to free women. Where Christianity is not a major influence, the women have little to no rights. That is the majority of the worldview. Once cannot use our small world view and ignore the majority view of the world.

“This argument might work if we lived in part of the culture that restricted women.”

The argument certainly does work as you said in the culture of the world since women are without a doubt restricted. Even in our own culture women have been greatly restricted until our generation. God is at work sending out laborers into the harvest field for the work is great.

I do not agree with secular feminism and I do not consider myself a feminist. I am a Christian and a fellow laborer in the harvest fields. I do not deny my brothers in Christ my gifts just as the women at the tomb did not deny the men from hearing the message. The world system may say not to listen to the women because she has no value, but Jesus and Paul valued women and sent them forth with their blessing.

Matt,

“I obviously disagree with women being pastors, but that does not mean I think it is a salvific issue. An autonomous church and convention are within there right to disfellowship with one another. There is no wrong being done by the GBC by disfellowshipping with FBC, Decatur.”

Paul disagreed with Barnabas about John Mark. Even when they had a split, they did not disfellowship from each other. Paul needed faithful men in his ministry and he was unwilling to accept John Mark who had previously abandoned the mission. Faithfulness is key to the ministry work and Paul would need men and women around him to support him just as Jesus needed support in his last days.

What is quite interesting is that in the end Paul looked on John Mark or “Mark” as one who was very useful to him. It is my prayer that my dear brothers in Christ who do not see a usefulness for women ministering to the men may one day have a change of heart by seeing God’s Spirit at work in His women. God has always had faithful women who did not run from the challenge and who went towards Him even when most of the men were running away from Him. What may seem impossible with men is truly possible with our Almighty and Sovereign God.

Matt,

“Doug, was probably the worst example of a comp, Paul was kind of a jerk, and yet the arguments were the same.”

No, not at all “Doug” was just trying to be faithful to the text. He has a good heart and cannot see past his own blind spots.

“Paul” was not a jerk but one who tells it like it is. Sometimes he did that because men had hardened hearts by their tradition. If you read through the interview from the first one on, you will see that Paul is typically Paul. He speaks with boldness and yet with love for one who also is at a position that Paul was at before he had his eyes opened. And “Paul’s” questions are very important because the Bible cannot contradict itself.

Warmly,
Cheryl

Matt,

“It is quite arrogant to ’speak as Paul’ as if you and other Egalitarians understand him better than comps. ”

It is just another tool to help people to clearly see the contradictions in their own position. I can accept Paul without any contradictions. I have yet to see comps do this. By the way I was a comp most of my life. It was until the Lord took me out of my own prejudice against women that I was freed to serve anyone without fear.

“Paul did disfellowship with those who preached a false gospel and I would argue that he would also disfellowship over ordinances and other secondary issues, female pastors being one of them.”

Women who believe as I do, do not preach a false gospel. Your women also do not preach a false gospel in whatever capacity you let them preach. This is a straw man since I don’t think either one of us believe that we have a gospel that is false. If so we wouldn’t be brothers and sisters in Christ. However I think you are very wrong to say that Paul would disfellowship other Christians on secondary issues of faith. I believe that this is putting down the Apostle Paul who stressed unity in the essentials and freedom to disagree in the non-essentials. Paul had a strong disagreement with Peter and he rebuked his hypocrisy, but he did not disfellowship from Peter. Your statement was a very unwise statement and I would think you should prove your point from scripture rather than make Paul one who believes that the body of Christ can be broken apart by disfellowshipping over secondary issues. I believe this brings shame on our Head.

“You keep speaking as if comps dont value women. That makes me think you dont understand the comp position.”

I didn’t say that comps don’t value women. However I do believe that many comp men do not value women as their teachers. They choose to devalue and disallow a woman to use her God-given gifts for their benefit or for the benefit of other brothers in Christ. If you read the post that I linked to, you will see that Doug is a comp like I was – one who is prejudiced against women (as I was) and who does not have an equal prejudice against men from the very same passage. This was the point that I was making. Paul was consistent and he was filled with the love of God for the body of Christ. He did not hold back women from teaching for his benefit or for the benefit of the body of Christ. If there was such a “law” that could be taken this way out of the context of Paul’s letter, then it is most unfortunate that it has no second witness, no historical tie to the Old Testament with any restrictions on women teachers in the OT and no unraveling of the marvelous “sonship” given to all of God’s children with equal inheritance rights. None of this makes sense if we remove the scriptures from their inspired context.

All I ask is for those who think they know Paul, to revisit Paul in context and answer “Paul’s” questions. I had to face those questions and the answers myself and it drew me closer to the Lord Jesus and his infallible Word.

Matt,

“This is another arrogant statement. Obviously, comps believe that accept Paul without contradictions. ”

Do you not see this as a contradiction? It isn’t arrogant to say that you can believe Paul without contradictions but it is arrogant to say this as an egal? This is prejudice and a judging of the heart which we are not supposed to do.

“1 Timothy 2 and an Egal interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is a clear contradiction, but you obviously say it isn’t.”

Well apparently you haven’t read my exegesis because if you had I would ask you to show me where my understanding has a contradiction.

“How about we stop with the arrogant statements about the other side.”

This is the division that comes very naturally with comps who confuse confidence with arrogance. I am sure that you don’t mean to be this way, but it isn’t a good example of promoting unity in Christ. That is unless you think charging someone’s heart with arrogance would most likely draw them towards you.

“We all are trying to figure out what Paul said, so the arrogance on both sides does not help.”

I guess you will have to judge your own heart here if you say there is arrogance on both sides. What I see prevalent is a willingness to hold the opposition to a standard that is different than what the comps set out for their side. If one is willing to walk outside of their own box, it is much easier to deal with the issues instead of with personal attacks. If one’s position is strong it makes it easier to care for the other brother or sister in Christ without attacking their character.

“It is hard for me to take Egals real seriously when Egalitarianism only got popular with feminism.”

I happen to think that popularity is a poor measuring stick. If something is popular but it contradicts God’s word, it really doesn’t matter the number of people who believe it. Only God’s Word is the straight edge and public opinion is a rubber ruler.

“It isnt a historical belief in the church, it is a cultural belief. ”

The comp belief is the cultural belief in most of the world. The cultural argument is a very poor one because it too is a rubber ruler. Only what God’s word says will count.

“It is complementarianism that is against the grain in every culture under the sun. Every culture has either male dominance or feminism, only the comp view goes against both and that is because the Bible teaches against both.”

Male dominance is just an extreme form of male preeminence. Every culture has a mixture of levels of male privilege. Once again culture is a rubber ruler to establish truth. It is God’s Word alone that will help us to see what God’s law is.

Matt,

““I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”
Paul

You dont see a contradiction? Lousy hermeneutical gymnastics are what account for Egalitarianism.”

This is removing the verse out of the complete context. Paul did not say this verse in isolation. Paul gave the end result of the prohibition in verse 15. Without the beginning and the end, people are apt to twist the hard passages of scripture anyway their heart desires.

Individual verse hermeneutics without a care for the context has resulted in many people taking on false doctrine.

Personally, you folks get too excited, when cooler heads will prevail. We egalitarians are not quite so lacking in intelligence. If you don’t consider that we are all equal in a sense as the people of God, then consider that we are called the family and the children of God. IF A CHILD IN A FAMILY IS LACKING IN SOME ATTAINMENT, THE PARENT WILL IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION TO ALLEVIATE THE DISTRESS THAT THAT CHILD’S LACK CAUSES. THE OTHER CHILDREN MUST DO WHAT THEY CAN TO RAISE THAT CHILD’S ESTEEM. WE CALL IT AGAPE LOVE, FOLKS. I keep saying that Morgan Edwards, the man who reported about Shubal Stearns havin Eldresses in 1771, changed his mind on the subject, and in 1771 wrote a pamphlet which indicated that he had come toaccept the idea of women in ministry. Also we need to remember that Stearns and his crowd were Puritan Baptists; the Puritans were among the leading intellectuals of their day, and they could do literary analysis of a text with the best scholars. I think this is a delightful set-to. I clicked Ms. Schatz’s site and can tell you that she had done some astute thinking and close reading of I Tim.3. Most of us make the mistake of thinking that our understanding of the Bible is the same as the word of God which does not change and that just ain’t so. Our thinking and reasoning can be and often is flawed.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

Matt,

“The great thing about being Baptist is that we are autonomous and can choose to fellowship and disfellowship with whoever we’d like!”

Which verse does this one fall under?

True brotherly love is required as followers of Christ and we are taught to live at peace with each other as far as it is possible with us. To live outside of this peace over a secondary issue of faith, I am sure hurts the very heart of our Father God. If you are okay with that, then so be it. I feel great sadness. And I am not even a Baptist.

Thanks for the conversation. I am not one who just wants to hear it all. I am interested in touching the heart and/or the conscience of a fellow Christian brother. Thanks for allowing me to speak out. I appreciate it.

Agape!
Cheryl

Matt,

The issue is one of disfellowshipping is it not? This is what I was talking about that hurts the heart of our Father God. Are we allowed to disfellowship one another over secondary issues? The scriptures do not allow for this cutting apart and disfellowshipping of other brothers and sisters in Christ inside these churches over secondary issues.

Matt,

I think you should check your word usage.

Disfellowship (according to dictionary.com): (in some Protestant religions) the status of a member who, because of some serious infraction of church policy, has been denied the church’s sacraments and any post of responsibility and is officially shunned by other members.

I have had the privilege of ministering to former Jehovah’s Witnesses in person for sixteen years as I led a support group for ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. (I have never been a JW myself but have much love and compassion for them and want to lead them to Christ). Let me tell you, that is a group that knows a lot about disfellowshipping and the very hurtful things that it does to people.

If you are misusing the word and you actually mean that you merely choose to go to another church while remaining connected and supportive of your brothers and sisters in Christ, then that is a denomination. We certainly can go to different churches and hear different worship music and have different secondary issues. However we do not disfellowship our brothers and sisters in Christ by removing them.

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Round 8 Interview with the Apostle Paul on women pastors

Dear Matt: It would only be fair, if Decature might suggest that no one is pure in this matter as the first Baptist Eldress of Sandy Creek Church and Assn. movd to GA with her husband. I refer to Eldress Martha Stearns Marshall who, when her husband was arrested by authorities for preaching, began preaching herself and won one of the officials to Christ, a man who became a noted Baptist minister in GA & SC. I refer to Samuel Cartledge. If there was an eldress at the beginning of GA Baptists, then every church must be in disorder and unable to act on the matter. The whole thing is kind of hilarious except for the people who will be hurt by such harshness. I suggest GA Baptists need a more biblical reason for taking such action. YES, THEY CAN DO IT, BUT THAT DON’T MAKE THEIR ACTIONS RIGHT.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

Matt,

You said:
“When a church disagrees with the BFM on third tier issues we are proud to unite for missions and evangelism, but once that line is crossed and we now disagree on issues that ‘frame our understanding of the church’ it is time to “disfellowship.” ”

Matt, I would recommend that you stop using the term “disfellowship”. I did read your article again to see what I missed and I still got the same idea from your word usage. Perhaps it would be better to pick a term that doesn’t have the common meaning of shunning or putting one out of the church.

But I am still confused. You think that it is “within one’s right” to stop cooperating so that they will no longer “proudly unite for missions and evangelism”?

I have had people remove themselves from my friendship because I refuse to turn away men from my bible studies. And if they refuse to evangelize with me because I am a bible teacher and refuse to work side by side with me in missions, what does that tell the world about Christian brotherly love?

I guess I just feel the hurt of those who have been forced out of fellowship as if they are not worthy to work alongside you. If they are deserving of your brotherly love, then I have very confused about how you see it as Christ-like to refuse to work with them in ministering to the lost?

We all have human weakness, but it seems to me that the more we accept one another even though we do not agree with everything each other believes, the more the world will see Jesus because of our love and acceptance and care for one another. If one has a false doctrine that distorts who Jesus is or what the gospel is, I personally try very hard to evangelize them. I do believe that there is a time when we should stop cooperating with a so-called Christian but that is when the Christian is one who calls himself a brother but who lives an unruly lifestyle in swindling, immorality, etc. But how can one who loves Jesus and is using his/her gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ deserve to be shunned or refused when they would like to work together for a city-wide evangelism campaign? I am sorry but I just don’t see what you see. Perhaps if you have been the recipient of evangelism shunning, you may see things differently.

Other than that, you seem like a decent and God-fearing young man. I will pray that God will soften your heart so that you will truly love and accept everyone of your true brothers and sisters in Christ because love and pushing away (non-cooperation) just don’t go hand in hand. I may be wrong, but I will have to face Christ one day and give an account of my own prejudices. I desire to have as few as possible when it comes to the body of Christ.

Be blessed!
Cheryl

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Round 8 Interview with the Apostle Paul on women pastors

Matt,

There is a big difference between going to a different church and a refusal to worship with a brother or sister in Christ. I can worship with a person who has a different secondary theology. If they accept me as a sister in Christ we are united. Matt, are you united too? Or would you refuse to worship with someone who believes differently in a non-foundational area?

Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Round 8 Interview with the Apostle Paul on women pastors

I wouldn’t switch either but I would cooperate with a Presbyterian and witness to the lost with him/her. How about you?

And perhaps I should clarify that when I asked you if you would worship with someone from a different secondary background than yours, I mean would you worship with them on a neutral ground? Could you knowingly gather together with those who do not believe as you do on the issues of women in ministry for example, and gather with them for one Sunday in a home church and worship with them? Would you witness on the street to an unsaved person beside them as a brother in Christ together sharing the gospel? Or would you shun them because they believe differently in the secondary issues of faith and refuse to cooperate in street level missions with them? What I am asking is, is there any level of cooperation that you will freely go to that will show your togetherness in Christ without having to separate yourself from them? How uncooperative are you really?