« Yale lecturer on The Great Calvinist Reawakening | Main | Brewton-Parker College to file an appeal on latest SACS report »

Jun 19, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joel Gregory

Peter,

Thank you for mentioning the book. A couple of observations. This was not an effort to select the best preachers but rather an effort to reflect representative preachers noted by their peers and BWA leaders. I join with you that it is a great sadness to have no SBC preachers in the book. Many are friends. I could make a long list of able candidates. It is sad that the SBC decamped from the BWA and we hope that some day they may find a common ground again.

In a larger context, the book contains remarkable preaching from global Baptist preachers that demonstrates Christ-centered. biblically based Christ-honoring preaching.

Regards, Joel Gregory

peter lumpkins

Dr. Gregory,

Thank you for clarifying your volume's overall purpose. In case you might stop by and glance again, would you care to offer a quick response to my question: "if Southern Baptists had been considered, who might fit the qualifications Gregory apparently used?

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Shaver

Joel:

Great to see you interacting here. Has been a while my friend.

volfan007

2 women preachers listed as 2 of the best? I hope they're just preaching to women, and I certainly hope that they're not Pastors.

David

Scott  shaver

VolFan:
Your religious jealousy of and bias toward females is showing.

Scott Shaver

Volfan 007 obviously wants to demonstrate the perceived superiority of his interpretive views on the roles of women in Christian ministry.

Richard

Volfan, I'm assuming your comment was tongue-in-cheek?

volfan007

No, my comment was not tongue in cheek. I meant every word. The Bible teaches that women should not be the authority over men in teaching doctrine, and women should not be Pastors of a Church. Of course, the Bible does teach that women can teach other women and children....but, they should not teach a man, or be the Pastor of a Church.

1 Timothy 2:12

1 Timothy 3

Titus 1

Titus 2:3-5

2 Timothy 3:15

David

Scott  shaver

VolFan:
You've waved your colors and proof texted your interpretive approach.

I guess the fact that I'm neither convinced or impressed leaves me weak on scripture and loose on doctrine.

What else "scary" do u have?

Lydia

Just curious, what age would a boy become a man and a woman can no longer teach him?

John Rollyson

If only SBC pastors were considered, I would have chosen: Tony Evans, David Jeremiah, Johnny Hunt, Fred Luter, and Robert Smith. Dr Evans and Dr Jeremiah are my two all time favorite preachers anyway :-).

Scott Shaver

Too much good logic in that question to be "scriptural" Lydia.

This comment definitely tongue-in-cheek.

volfan007

Scary? lol

It's the Bible. I just try to surrender my thoughts and beliefs to what the Bible teaches. 1 Timothy 2:12 seems very, very clear to me. Also, the qualifications for a Pastor talk about a MAN being a faithful husband and LEADING his family well....not a person, or a woman. It's just too clearly taught in the Bible.

It's not my culture, or personal preferences. If the Bible taught that a woman could be the lead teacher of doctrine over men, and a woman could be the Pastor of a Church, then I would believe that...I would teach that in my Church. But, it does not.

David

Lydia

"It's the Bible. I just try to surrender my thoughts and beliefs to what the Bible teaches. 1 Timothy 2:12 seems very, very clear to me. Also, the qualifications for a Pastor talk about a MAN being a faithful husband and LEADING his family well....not a person, or a woman. It's just too clearly taught in the Bible."

David, Some of us simply disagree. "Tis" means anyone and is not gender specific. And if it is so clear then you would also have to agree that single men would not qualify, according to your interpretation, since they cannot be faithful husbands or leading their family well. There are so many other considerations but I am sure Peter does not really want to go there. 1 Corin 11 where women are prophesying in the body but the question is whether to cover or not while doing it. Junia is a woman apostle (small a). Nevermind there is not one single prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men. Not one. Practice is another story. Prohibition?

The "rules" are not as "clear" as you want to make them. And historical context plays a huge part in all interpretation. The historical backdrop of Ephesians is a game changer for the typical specific gender role interpretation of 1 Tim.

I often wonder if the Philippians know of these specific "roles"? News traveled slow back then. :o)

peter lumpkins

Well, I'm not sure I wanted the thread to go in the direction of gender roles in ecclesial application, but I for one would not be afraid of the conversation. I'm what one would call a soft complementarian and believe the biblical data most comprehensively supports that perspective (not hard complementarianism, however). Biblical egalitarians--soft or hard and either justly or unjustly--were confessionally squeezed out of SBC in the latest edition of the BFM (2K). Clear and simple.

For all the scriptural evidences which support the role of women teachers and leaders in the church, I'm afraid there is no such thing in the NT as a female pastor. She doesn't exist, if at all, except through strained implication of a few proof texts. The ideals are tellingly absent.

Let the fight begin.

(just kidding!)

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Well, first of all, Pastors are to not only be faithful husbands to their wives, but they are also supposed to LEAD their families well. How can a woman lead her family well, whenever MEN are supposed to lead their families, and women are supposed to SUBMIT, or follow the leadership of her husband?

Secondly, it is well worth noting that only MEN are mentioned in the NT as being Pastors/Elders. And, the 12 Apostles were all MEN...even though women followed Jesus around, as well... still all the 12 Apostles were men. Why weren't any of the women included in the 12? I believe it's very telling that only men are mentioned as Pastors in the NT, and only men were picked to be the 12.

Thirdly, even look at the first Deacons, who were picked to serve the jerusalem Church...they were all men, as well. And, when you look at the qualifications of a Deacon, it's all about being a man of God. AND, the DEACON's WIVES are given qualifications....their wives are actually given qualifications to meet.

Also, 1 Timothy 2:12 looks to plain and clear to me.... especially when you look at the context of the verse, with Adam and Eve used as illustrations in the following verses. If you can explain this to me....and help me to see this any different...please do. Because, for the life of me, I cannot.

David

Scott Shaver

VolFan007

You my friend are the portrait of the modern day Southern Baptist Convention my friend.

Doesn't matter whether you're "reformed" or "tradtional" FUNDAMENTALIST.

Since Fundamentalists (of both reform and "traditionalist" stripe) appear to have no capacity for inductive reasoning, and actually think God despises such capacities of the human brain and intellect", the rest of Christianity is stuck with the same one-note-johnny tune from both sides of the Fundamentalist spectrum..."I believe my bible harder than you do".

Sell it to the people doing the SBC cheer-leading but don't expect all other intelligent Christians to partake in your kool-aid drinking.

Truth of the matter is, you interpret the bible your way (since you have the Holy Spirit cornered) and any deviation from your superior logic is inferior for edification and instruction in the Christian Faith.

Guys like our friend from TN, like to plant their flags, throw a few proof texts around...but in the end are incapable of engaging in discussions of context, history, application etc because that's not what they're about.

They're about declaring their superiority in the eyes of God because of their attention to theology. What a pitiful joke.

And just to give you some relief here Peter, I'm not at all even thinking about whether or not the Bible confines the role of pastor to males.

I'm thinking about the way the subject thread was hijacked to detract from list of superior "proclaimers" of God's Word to some nuanced and neurotic Fundamentalist argument about the role of women in ministry.

I wouldn't come or allow my family within 100 miles of this guy's church because he thinks his views are equal to God's base on his biased interpretation of scripture.

Lydia

"For all the scriptural evidences which support the role of women teachers and leaders in the church, I'm afraid there is no such thing in the NT as a female pastor. She doesn't exist, if at all, except through strained implication of a few proof texts. The ideals are tellingly absent."

Ha! That surely does not tell us much except for what things were like in the 1st Century. Unless you were a wealthy Roman woman with choices, women were pretty much considered chattel and sought position where they could in that pagan environment such as with the Temple of Artemis. We took the paterfamilias from the Greeks/Romans. Not God. God is a mutualist. :o)

I am often astonished when I read the implications of say something as seemingly benign as Luke 8 1-3. Now that is radical for the 1st Century.

But then I see many say that pastor/elder are interchangeable. Not sure I agree so I would ask for the references to specific "pastors" as it is not really mentioned in any event. For example, who was the pastor of the church/es in Corinth? Seems all we know is that "Chloe" had people.

So the question might not be whether "she pastors" exist in the 1st Century NT but if there is a specific clear "verboten" command for no "she pastors" on this earth. Since Deborah or say Huldah were not in sin for teaching men, I am wondering.....how we got so narrow over the last 30 years. After all, Mrs. Criswell taught a very large mixed class and was on the radio. Is that not a form of pastoring since most of this seems to be a problem with a woman in the pulpit and men in the audience?

We know female apostles, prophesiers, deacons, etc existed even though few, admittedly.

Seems Jesus was more radical than we give him credit for, sometimes.

Since I am not interested in the title of "pastor" only the practice of pastor, I get to do it all the time!

Scott Shaver

If the Old Testament pattern of God's interaction with humanity and self-disclosure on the basis of His being "no respector of persons", holds true in both a pre and post completed revelation, Why would we not expect exceptions to the rule of VolFan007's personal interpretation of gender roles?

I would add especially in light of the fact that such exceptions have occurred in both recorded and unrecorded history since the first century church.

volfan007

Peter,

Your comment moderation is throwing me off....lol. Please discard the first response, and use the second one. I think it's written better. Thanks.

David

peter lumpkins

Lydia

We're not talking about the context of the "pagan environment" but of the specific context of the NT church. And, you're correct, what we read in the NT most certainly reveals "what things were like in the 1st Century." But, in this case, in the 1st century church. And, Scripture reveals not even a hint of an elder (i.e. bishop = pastor) who was also a woman. It does reveal women who were servants (i.e. deaconesses). No women were pastors albeit they did some pastoral duties as does every other NT believer for that matter.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Scott,

Instead of going on a long diatribe about the evils of fundamentalism, and using personal attacks on me, why don't you deal with the text???? If I'm wrong, please show me where and how? I don't think I am wrong....I have studied these passages a whole lot...but, if you can show me different... then, by all means, go for it.

Lydia, there are NO female Elders/Pastors or Apostles or Deacons mentionoed in the NT. A person would have to jump thru small hoops and leap over huge hollers to make the NT teach that a woman can be a Pastor or a Deacon, or was an Apostle. Now, did women do great things? Most certainly. And, can women do great things for God, today? Yes, yes, yes, and they do great things for the Lord, today.

But, the roles that God has given men and women are different, and they're very clear.

David

peter lumpkins

Hurrah! David posted only one comment this time and not two! :^)

P.S. I turned moderation off. So fire away...

Scott Shaver

Paul said he "suffers not a woman to teach" what's your point VolFan007?

You've obviously directed the comment thread toward the role of women in ministry to make a point so I'll play your little one-note game.

School me with your superior apprehension of all things Christian.

Scott Shaver

Seems to me that if VolFan007 claims to surrender his thoughts and actions to what the Bible teaches, it must have been the Bible, not VolFan, that interjected gender roles in ministry into a discussion about a list of good preachers (proclaimers).

Despite it's own instruction against sowing strife and dissension.

VolFan, what do you do with the segment of Christianity that does not follow your strict interpretation of NT gender roles in ministry?

Scott Shaver

I can follow Peter.

Context is 1st century church. You've concluded along with me the lack of biblical evidence for women "pastor" according to biblical text.

My question has to do with the gut motivation behind all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over women doing what they've been doing in the church for thousands of years without the title "pastor".

Reality on the ground, NT supported or not, is that some Christian churches these days have elected to place women in the office of pastor and my question has to do with whether or not God completely writes off such fellowships.

I have my doubts that He does.

We're all in trouble over breakdowns in accurate interpretation if that's the case.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

I personally lament Southern Baptists making, as a test of fellowship, whether the church is egalitarian or complementarian. I wish the BF&M2K had not addressed it, leaving local churches alone as to whether it would pursue one or the other. That's an idiosyncrasy I hold I suppose, along with my Separate Baptist ancestors, an inherent aversion to confessions generally.

Whatever my personal leanings are, however, we cannot unring the bell. We did it. We officially voted ourselves a complementarian denomination in 2000. That's who we are.

Hence, the writing off so to speak is a two-way avenue. CBF writes us off as clearly as we do them on the notion of gender. They don't want to be a part of us anymore than we do them and, as a denomination, they cannot confessionally be a part of us for that matter.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Scott,

God blesses and uses people, who love Him and OBEY Him. God blesses and uses people, who are truly seeking after Him, and are willing to FOLLOW Him. So, what about a Church, who has a woman Pastor?

I believe a church with a woman Pastor will suffer for it. There's no way that they can be all that God wants them to be, if they're not following the revealed will of God for the Church.

I notice that you keep hurling the personal attacks, rather than dealing with the Scriptures, which I gave you. Nice touch. Very classy.


Also, the reason I commented on women preachers is because Dr. Gregory listed women preachers in his top 5 list. SMH

David

Lydia

Peter, Pastor as in verb or noun? Does one "do" pastor or is it used as a postitional title? And where do we see only one? Is pastoring the same as preaching? I am at a loss where there is some specific outline of how the Body is to function. So I am to deduct that a woman could be an apostle but not pastor.

David, 1 Tim 3 grammar is singular. "A" woman not all women. Was Paul actually teaching I would be saved by child bearing? How cruel to barren women Surely not. But that is the "CLEAR" teaching of that passage, right?

I have not even started on authenteo yet. :o)

I still do not understand how there is a new prohibition on women in the New Covenant specifically concerning women teaching men when it was not in the Old one. Strange.

Is no one going to respond to Mrs. Criswell teaching men in her very large SS class of both genders? Some churches were that size. David?

Lydia

When Lottie Moon moved to Pingtu all alone for all those years as the only Christian there, she was "teaching men".

Lydia

I admit to not being a scholar but the closest thing I can find in the NT to the word "role" is hypocrite. As in acting. I could not fail to see the irony of such as thing as "roles" for believers in the Body. I totally affirm biological difference but spiritual ones? That is where I fail to see a pink and blue Christianity.

With Roles so "clear", what I am do to with a male Savior? Can I be like Him?

Bill Mac

Scott: I've sparred with Volfan over the years more times than I can count, over Calvinism, alcohol, and even women's roles. I'm a much softer complementarian than he is, especially regarding deacons. But your characterizations of him are unfair. I don't see eye to eye with him about his level of complementarianism, but his is hardly a "private interpretation", but a fairly common and mainstream understanding of the biblical texts. Disagree with him but don't paint him as some sort of rogue misogynist seeking to exert his fringe views on the SBC. I would happily visit his church as long as they turned the Yankee-detectors off.

Bill Mac

For David: The verse about Deacon's wives is actually the word for women, not wives. Some translations actually render it as deaconesses, not wives.

volfan007

A Pastor/Elder is a position in the Church. It is an office that a man holds, because he is leading and teaching the Church. It is not just a description of ministering to others. It is an office of the Church.

Also, the verse says that a woman should not teach over a man...period. It's not talking about some local woman in the Church...it's saying that a woman should not have that authority over a man....to be the authority in the room about doctrine. And, the illustration of Adam and Eve is used in the following verses, which backs up the meaning of this verse.

Also, a woman being saved in child bearing DOES NOT have anything to do with redemption, or salvation of the soul. It's about the fact that Eve fell in the Garden, and part of her punishment was to have pain in childbirth....but, women have a certain glory restored to them in childbirth, as well....men can't have children...women can...so, even though a woman was deceived and caused the creation to fall in the Garden of Eden, she will be restored to a certain amount of glory by bearing children, raising those children, and teaching those children about the Lord. Even though she can't be a teacher over men, she can teach her children.

Sometimes, God has to use women to do certain tings...if there's no men around to do the job. But, it's certainly not what God intended. And, the Church will suffer if women are doing what God calls upon men to do.

David

volfan007

Bill Mac,

I could see a Church having Deaconesses, who minister to the women of the Church, as being an interpretation of that passage. I know of some Churches, who have Deacons, to minister to the men, and Deaconesses, who minister to the women. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I can see it.

I really think the passage is talking about the Deacon's Wives, who would serve as a Deacon's Wife. She would be there to help her husband minister to people in the Church.

Also, thanks for your words above. And, if you're ever in W. TN, I would love for you to come to my Church to worship with us....in fact, right now, I'm preaching thru the book of Romans....I'm in Romans 9 at this present time. :)

David

Scott Shaver

Bill Mac:

Thanks for your "softer complimentarian" gesture.

I say "Bull Feathers" to your assessment of my characterization of David, VolFan or whatever his handle is.

I think I've pegged him right regardless of your relationship with him. All he's done is throw out texts. He hasn't dealt with them in any exegetical fashion except to take a prohibitive posture against women pastors.

As far as dealing with the texts themselves, what's he done other than offer his opinion that a church with women in leadership roles will "suffer".

Tells us how and give us examples of this "suffering" smart guy.

Again, Bill Mac may think this guy's motivations are pure and without guile. I say he's a spiritual sexist who can't avoid an opportunity to interject his views...whether they're on topic or not.

He's got his personal interpretation and views, I've got my opinion of his views.

Wouldn't darken the door of a church he pastors on paid invitation. I don't care whether his interpretation is correct or not.

It's his spirit I can't get around.

You've already offered him one point of correction on his selection of texts there Bill Mac. Since he's not offering any further exegesis or discussion of context except to whine about my "personal attacks", why don't you go ahead and explain what he means.

Especially since I've got him mischaracterized.

Good thing you're not a "scholar" Lydia, it makes for bad attitudes. Believe me, this guy is no scholar either.
Posted by: Scott Shaver |

Scott Shaver

Additionally Bill Mac:

"Rogue misogynist" are your words not mine.

And what you label as "fringe views" in the SBC appear now to be the mainstream.

A little late don't you think for anybody to counter "fringe views" in the SBC?

eric

Why is Scott so contentious about the issue of women?
Isn't the SBC's position that women are not to be pastors.
Scott, what Church are you affiliated with. I ask because if, for instance, you are an Episcopalian, I can understand your contention.

Scott Shaver

Eric:

"Contention" or addressing a wider frame of reference?

I'm affiliated with a local "First" Baptist church aligned with the BGCT.

Bill Mac

Read it again. I think you'll find that I did not labels his views as fringe, in fact I argued just the opposite. No, he is not suffering, just being the target of mean-spirited and exaggerated attacks for a view that I disagree with but is hardly novel or the product of unreasonable exegesis. Blog comment streams are not an ideal venue to provide in-depth doctrinal analysis and exegesis, which by the way you have not provided either.

Yes, contentious is the word.

Bill Mac

Living in the frozen north, I don't travel in SBC circles in meatspace, so I've never heard most of the big name SBCers preach. But I have heard Henry Blackaby preach several times and I've always thought he gave pretty moving sermons.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

With Bill Mac I agree you're not striking rock with David Worley. He may be a "fundamentalist" but no more "fundamentalist" than I am. He gave his views citing biblical texts albeit not fully exegeting the meat from the texts. He could do it as could I, and I'm confident you could too. But to brush his view aside or imply he's nothing more than a "fundie" slobbering at the mouth is entirely unfair. Worley is an honorable Christian man and faithful SBC pastor. He's also a man I count as friend. What's up with that?

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Lydia,

Not sure the relevancy of your questions. "Pastor" a "noun" or "verb"? Well, to be precise, it's not either noun or verb but both noun and verb. As I said, women may do "pastoral" work since there are many "pastoral" acts all believers do regardless of whether they are male or female. But the NT terms pastor, bishop, elder used to denote an office in the church are all contextually male-driven. As I see it, that's fairly indisputable. There's just no way around this exegetically.

Now, you can go to the egalitarian website and pull answers to what I've just indicated. Granted. Then, I'll turn right around and offer scholarly counterpoints I find on another website to each and every point you log. We'll get nowhere.

The fact is, the Southern Baptist Convention is officially a gender complementarian denomination and has been since 2000. I can lament we became one all I want. But since I am a complementarian myself--albeit a soft complementarian but a complementarian nevertheless--I have no personal reservation with the statement. That doesn't mean every SB is necessarily a complementarian. What it does mean is any and all convention employees ought to be a gender complementarian since our statement of faith is gender complementarian.

As for "pastoring" being the same as "preaching" the answer is no. All pastors preach but not all preachers pastor (pastor in the specific sense of filling a NT ecclesial office). The NT specifically limits the role of pastor to males. Hence, all pastors are male. However, the NT does not seem to limit the preachers to males only. Thus, it follows that preachers per se do not necessarily have to be male. At least I do not find evidence in the NT all preachers necessarily must be male.

Know the view I just expounded does not settle well with my more hardened complementarian brothers--a hardened version I perceive is taking place within the CBMW at SBTS. A hardened version that fundamentally denies a woman, for example, a teaching role "over men" in institutions outside the local church and perhaps outside the pastoral office within the local church. That's one of the distinctions between hard complementarianism and soft complementarianism, the latter to which I myself identify.

Yes, a woman could be an "apostle" but not "pastor" if you use the former in a broad, general sense and the latter in a restricted, ecclesial sense of being a church officer. However, it's clear in the NT that neither "apostle" nor "pastor" used in a restricted, ecclesial sense of "church officer" is applicable to anyone other than males.

If that's being a fundie then fundie I shall remain.

With that, I am...
Peter

Lydia

A Pastor/Elder is a position in the Church. It is an office that a man holds, because he is leading and teaching the Church. It is not just a description of ministering to others. It is an office of the Church. "

Are you sure about the word "office"? Was it not added by translators? Just as "symbol of" was added to 1 Corin 11 by translators. It is not in the Greek.


"Also, the verse says that a woman should not teach over a man...period. It's not talking about some local woman in the Church...it's saying that a woman should not have that authority over a man....to be the authority in the room about doctrine. And, the illustration of Adam and Eve is used in the following verses, which backs up the meaning of this verse."

Actually that is not what authenteo means. It is a poor translation. It is much worse than that and is something Chrysostom said husbands should not do to wives. If a clear word for authority was used in that passage I would have to agree with you. But it wasn't. That word is only used once in the NT. It is a mistake to ignore the pagan backdrop of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus (a fertility cult) that taught that Eve was created first.

Autheteo has a sinister meaning. It has been translated as domineer. But again, it is something Chrysostom (who was no where near an egal) said husbands should not do to wives.

Now as to women teaching men, what about Mrs Criswell? Was it wrong for her to teach men (a large SS class of mixed gender) or not. If not, why?

Joel Gregory writes about it "Too Great a Temptation".

Lydia

"If that's being a fundie then fundie I shall remain."

Ha. Well there seem to be many interpretations of what is "Fundie". Actually all this talk of "offices" and specific job descriptions sounds more "High Church" to me. I am just glad you guys don't wear vestments!

Is there any NT character that describes himself or another actual person as a pastor of specific church? Peter, maybe? I just don't see it used in the way you all are describing.

Scott Shaver

Pete:

My intention was not to brush aside VolFan's views as "fundamentalist slobbering". I think my references to your exegesis and my admission of agreement on lack of NT support for office of female pastor, perhaps a teacher or two in the context of Corinth.

My questions/comments had more to do with the motivation behind the introduction of the subject of gender and ministry in the local church into a thread that began with a list of preachers highly thought of by another.

Volfan's leading comment was "I hope the women are not pastors". Additionally, I'm not arguing his characterization as an honorable Christian man and SBC pastor.

I'm arguing my perception of his throught process being that of a spiritual sexist... a long way I might add, Bill Mac, from your substitute designation "rogue misogynist".

I have no indication whatsoever that VolFan "hates" women.

Will argue, however, whether or not he has the right or the evidence to suggest that women leadership roles carried out in the context of local autonomous congregations "stunts" the spiritual growth or blessing of that fellowship...whether or not he has evidence to suggest that God's Holy Spirit will withdraw from that fellowship.

Bill Mac: if my questioning of VolFan's motives with his introduction of the female pastor issue seems "contentious or mean-spirit" to you...so be it.

No less no more mean spirited in my opinion than one's dropping the subject of women's roles in ministry into a totally unrelated discussion for the purpose of reminding us that some churches are more "doctrinally" correct than others.

No less no more mean-spirited than the labels and misguided characterizations thrown around daily by SBC baptist pastors toward others (clergy and laypersons) who may find themselves in disagreement with their views. SBC pastors and convention leaders are, in my opinions, the world leaders at creating labels and unnecessary divisions among church members and their leaders.

Finally, with no disrespect intended Bill Mac, this forum is or isn't the place to offer doctrinal analysis? You say on one hand it isn't, with the next line you invite me to offer one up.

I have no disagreement with either you or your friend VolFan in practicing your views on women in the church...in the context of your own local churches.

But to infer that disagreement with your views, no matter how contentiously stated" is proof of spiritual disobedience or stunted development in other local church settings where female teachers/preachers are utilized is definitely a point of contention with me.

That's the reason I would not subject my wife or three daughters to a fellowship that promotes a sexist spirituality in terms of the exercise of gifts.

peter lumpkins

Lydia,

I am uninterested in an exchange over gender complementarianism vs. egalitarianism (I'm quite sure you've noticed since I don't think I've posted over one or two posts about the issue--IF THAT,--since 2006). The fact is, it's a dead issue for SBs. It doesn't matter. We are officially a complementarian denomination. To argue about it does exactly jack squat toward solving anything. The most it would do, it seems to me, is a) prove complementarianism is universally accepted neither among SBs particularly nor evangelicals generally. But we already know that now; b) get riled up at each other over something we can neither change nor need to be riled up about.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Ya'll play nice as I have to excuse myself for the time being...

volfan007

Lydia and Scott,

I think that you'll find that my position fits perfectly with not only the BIBLE, but also with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and with most Biblical scholars from history. It is not some way out, fringe, wacko, spiritual sexist viewpoint. It is what the Bible teaches. So, if yall don't like it, then you'll have to take that up with God. Because, I'm just trying to follow what His Word plainly and clearly teaches. And, I'm sorry if the Bible doesn't fit into today's, PC, feminist culture....but, it does say what it says...whether we want it to say that, or not....whether we like it, or not. Our response to the Word of God ought to be one of submission and obedience....even if the whole world doesn't go along with it.

Now, let me say this....I do think there's a little wiggle room for disagreement.....like with Bill Mac and Peter saying that they take a more soft complementarian view that what I would....Scripturally, they would have a leg to stand on...I still don't think they're right, but I can say that I respect their viewpoint. But, to try to twist the Scriptures, and distort the Bible to try to make it fit a feminist agenda is not right. It's wrong.

David

Scott Shaver

Here we go again David. I have no interest in a "feminist agenda" or any other spiritual conspiracy currently under the magnifying glass of SBC leaders.

Pete Lumpkins is correct: This is a dead issue in the SBC...an "officially complementarian denomination". Arguing about it does exactly jack squat.

Your position may "fit perfectly" with the BIBLE (caps yours)as your understand it's import and it may line up squarely with the BFM2000.

WHOOPEE.

From my perspective, your oft and continuing emphases (using last post as case in point)on gender roles and their utilization in Christian ministry are eschewed. Yet because of this, you also seem to imply that my handling of the Word of God is based on something less than spiritual obedience (i.e. "a feminist agenda" if not outright disobedience to God).

Fine, I reject both your interpretation as well any exhortation to course correction from you. Additionally, and I'm not alone in SBC life, the 2000BFM was rejected in toto by many of us JUST as soon as it was printed and reviewed.

Have never considered the BFM2000 as a test of fellowship. My opinion is that the document was poorly written for all the wrong reasons and it serves to deemphasize some axiomatic and historic baptist principles.

Would probably be best to conclude our interaction at this point.


Lydia

"To argue about it does exactly jack squat toward solving anything. The most it would do, it seems to me, is a) prove complementarianism is universally accepted neither among SBs particularly nor evangelicals generally. But we already know that now; b) get riled up at each other over something we can neither change nor need to be riled up about."

I totally agree with this. But I don't think the SBC leadership (or those with power) are comp. They are patriarchal in interpretation. Russ Moore said that comps are wimps and we need more Patriarchy. That was in an article he wrote several years ago. I think it was Henry Institute. CBMW has become a caricature of comp (made up word that does not mean complimentary at all). They sound positively Mormonistic at times when they are musing about "eternal" gender roles.

Lydia

"I think that you'll find that my position fits perfectly with not only the BIBLE, but also with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and with most Biblical scholars from history. "

It would be interesting to check the timeline to see if Mrs. Criswell stopped teaching men before the BFM2000. Frankly, there are some scholars on both sides of this issue who are able to disagree amicably realizing it is not a salvic issue.

" And, I'm sorry if the Bible doesn't fit into today's, PC, feminist culture....but, it does say what it says...whether we want it to say that, or not....whether we like it, or not. Our response to the Word of God ought to be one of submission and obedience....even if the whole world doesn't go along with it."

I think this is where the real problem lies. You tend to respond as if it is a culture war issue which is understandable as that is how it was presented with the Danvers statement which is really where this all this focus came from as being some sort of "law". (Again, there is no prohibition to women leading or teaching men in the OT. 1 Corin 14 is referring to the oral law. Check it out)

My mother and grandmother did not experience this SBC because it was not considered a salvic issue. They were certainly not feminists in the way it seems you are using it here. My grandmother graduated from Moody and taught men all the time in various missionary type venues. My mother witnessed to and taught young Muslim men from University the scriptures. Yes, they were "feminists" if you are talking about women's right to vote or civil rights. They did not think in culture war terms because there was work to do.

But again, I must say that you seem to be approaching it as a salvic issue and that, I think, is unfortunate for all of us.

You have not addressed anything of substance I have offered up as interpretive considerations. You continue to ignore Mrs. Criswell teaching men which is a fact of record.

Last of all, my heart grieves when this is made a salvic issue. There are serious, decent believers on both sides of this issue. While you might not want to attend a church that believes in mutuality on this earth, you might be forced to spend eternity with them.

volfan007

Lydia,

I never said that someone holding to your views was not saved. I never made it a salvation, or not issue. You seem to have taken it that way.

I do think it's a rightly dividing the Word of God issue. It's definitely an issue of holding to God's World accurately.

BTW, I would not agree with Mrs. Criswell teaching a class of men. In fact, it would make me feel sorry for the men... that there wasn't any men in there, man enough to teach it, themselves. God bless Lottie Moon, and Mrs. Criswell, and whatever other lady was willing to do what a man should have been doing, but apparently wouldn't. of course, in Lottie's situation...as a missionary....she had to do something, until some man was spiritually mature enough to take it over.

Also, Lydia, I didn't say that a woman couldn't teach a man doctrine. I'm thankful that Priscilla and Aquila took the time to teach a young preacher named Apollos. And, I'm glad that Lottie, Annie, and any other woman would "preach" the Gospel to a man...to lead him to salvation.

What I said...and, what the Bible teaches...is that a woman shouldn't be the authority over a man, and be seen as the teacher and leader of a group of men. I understand Peter's position, and I believe it was Dr. Criswell's position...I'm guessing...that this verse means that a woman shouldn't be a Pastor/Elder in the Church...she shouldn't exercise that kind of authority over men. I see it as meaning any situation where the woman would be seen as the authoritative leader/teacher over men. And, the example that 1 Timothy 2 gives us of this statement is that of Adam and Eve. When you take that 1 Timothy 2:12 in it's context....the preceding verses stated that a woman should "learn in silence with all submission".....and, Eve was deceived when she was away from Adam's protection and leadership. Her listening to Satan, instead of her husband...possibly pride involved here, with Eve wanting to be the head of the family...have the knowledge of good and evil....Adam wouldn't...she fell, and she took Adam down with her, and all of creation fell with them. Now, Adam doesn't get off the hook, here. He could've told her no, but he didn't. He chose to eat the fruit along with Eve. And, that's the illustration that God used for telling a woman that her place(her role) in the family is to follow the leadership of her husband...and her role(her place) in the Church, is to be follower, not a teacher over men, or exerting authority over men.

Now, that's plainly what the Bible teaches in this passage.

David

Scott Shaver

Would be interesting to know what the dress code is in VolFan's church.

If, there's not one....why not and why are they disregarding Paul's words on jewelry and modesty of attire?

Why are we relegated only in this discussion to the areas of teaching and preaching?

Scott Shaver

Hey VolFan:

Why are you overlooking the suggestion in Genesis that the "man was consenting before he took and ate"?

The Bible plainly states that as well.

volfan007

Hey Scott, maybe you missed the part where I said that Adam doesn't get off the hook? Maybe you missed the part where i said that Adam could've told her no? Did you see that part?

Also, a dress code? in my church? Nope. But, when I do get that passage of Scripture, I preach it. I preach that women should dress modestly....not to try to tempt a man to lust after her....and that she should be more concerned with her inner being than with her outward appearance....which is what the passage is all about.

You know, it's just amazing how good and true the Bible is, and how it all fits into place, whenever we try to understand the Bible in context...instead of trying to take some verses out of context, and try to downplay what the Bible is actually teaching.

David

Lydia

David,

I have never understood the whole "authority" in the Body issue as a Baptist who believes in the Holy Priesthood and soul competency for adults.

I just don't subscribe to thinking of "authority" positions in the Body except for Jesus Christ, of course. There are functions and gifting's, that I do get. But actual "authority" over people? Another very bad translation usually proof texted from Hebrews 13:17.

I do think in terms of us all being servants.

Scott Shaver

No David:

I caught the part where you said "Adam doesn't get off the hook."

I also caught the very next lines which focused on the "possible pride" of the woman and how she was deceived "by being away from the protection and leadership of her man".

Where does that part come from...assumption, theoretical possibility, or text. I was always under the impression that he (Adam) was kinda waiting around twiddling his spiritual thumbs, observing and waiting to see what might happen next.

Additionally, you've indicated that when you get to the passage about modest dress "Your preach that WOMEN should dress modestly...not TRY TO TEMPT A MAN to lust after her.

Bible says we're "tempted" or drawn away by OUR OWN LUSTS and ENTICED which eventually culminates in sin.

"You preach that women should be more concerned with her inner being than with her outward appearance..."

Your list of what you DO preach when you approach the passage about modesty of dress is directed at women only.

Any guys in your congregation wearing earrings or tattoos or dressing less than modestly by comparison with biblical texts to the point they might be confused with the temple prostitutes utilized by the followers of pagan dieties in the first century there Dave?

I forget, Eve was the one deceived. Well, Dave, what can you expect from one like me who's goal is to "take verses out of context" and "downplay what the Bible is actually teaching."

Congratulations on your ascendancy to spiritual and biblical perfection.

Might want to double back from time to time and judge where (if any area) your own congregation may be departing from your letter of scriptural law and interpretation. Sounds like you guys are doing a good job of keeping women in the their place but maybe not so good a job at keeping both the women and the men dressed properly according to the letter of scripture as you interpret them for practical application.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Lydia. Will continue to see pastors, in the best sense, as servants and co-laborers who earn their stripes and respect from selfless acts of love and devotion to God and to their fellow members... not intimidation, fear-mongering and thinly-veiled accusations of doctrinal and spiritual inferiority against other Christians with whom they disagree.

volfan007

I've said my piece. I'm moving on to other things. God bless yall.

David

volfan007

One last thing...I just want Lydia and Scott to know that I don't look down on women. I admire and respect women. My wife, and daughter and my Mama are some of the greatest people I know, and I love them very much. Also, at every Church that I've Pastored, the ladies all seemed to love me in the Lord, and knew that I appreciated them greatly. In fact, tonight, before Church began, I had the best time with a group of senior adult ladies....laughing and talking. Also, one of the groups that have grown the most in our Church has been YOUNG COUPLES with children.

God is good.

David

eric

David,
You don't owe Lydia and Scott a comment that you don't look down on women.

I have friends who are Presbyterian pastors, we have talked at length about infant baptism. I absolutely reject the validity of it. At the same time, I do understand how they have come to believe it.

Scott is so entrenched and contentious, he may be incapable of understanding your, and the Baptist churches, position as being Biblically based and then accept that your point has some validity while disagreeing with it.

Scott, Step back and take a breath and unload your guns.
You simply cant logically infer that David doesn't:

"double back from time to time and judge where (if any area) your own congregation may be departing from your letter of scriptural law and interpretation".

What has David said to lead you to think he doesn't regularly encourage his flock to examine themselves.

And what did David say which leads you to make this comment, "Congratulations on your ascendancy to spiritual and biblical perfection."

Scott, how do your words and accusations align with Gods direction on how we should relate to one another.

As contentious as you are with those who you don't agree (I have been on the receiving end), my desire is to love you in Christ and encourage you to show that same love to your brothers by not being so contentious. What are your heart issues that drive you to attack. The same goes for me and all others. If I'm being nasty to someone, I want to be shown the sin in my heart, I trust you do as well.

volfan007

Thanks, Eric.

David

Lydia

David, I will go back to my original question but tweak it a bit:

Just curious, what age would a boy become a man and a woman can no longer "have authority" (whatever that is) over him in the Body?

Scott Shaver

Godspeed David.

Eric,

I'll not respond to your assessment of my spiritual state as it would further encourage your arrogance in offering prescription.

If I be "contentious and entrenched", I learned it from good models within the SBC over a couple of decades.

Guys kinda like yourself....albeit a little older. I agreed with you guys, I would be "contending" for the faith.

Can't have that can we?

volfan007

Okay, Lydia, I'll come back into this conversation to answer your question.

When do you think a boy becomes a man?

David

Lydia

David, Your question does not really have any relevance to me because I do not have the same view of human "authority" over others in the Body or spiritual gender roles.

That is why I asked you the question as it seems it would be relevant to your position.

volfan007

Lydia,

I was just wondering when you thought a boy becomes a man. I guess my answer would be whenever a local Church considered a boy to be a man. Each Church would have to decide that. At my Church, the rule of thumb has been upon graduation from high school. We just consider a right of passage of sorts from childhood to adulthood. But, we're not really told in the Bible when a boy becomes a man, so this is one of those things that would be left up to each Church to decide.

David

volfan007

And, Lydia, by authority, I don't mean like a dictator, or CEO, or Master. I mean, a leader...one who is seen as the authority in the matters of teaching doctrine....one who is leading the people to know God and His Word. And, of course, he should be a servant leader.

Same with a husband. He shouldn't be a CEO, or a dictator, or a Master looking down at his slaves....no, no, no...but instead, he should be the leader of the family. And, his wife should willingly, lovingly, gladly follow the leadership of her husband. She should want him to be a MAN, and not some feminized, wimpy, shell of a man.

David

Lydia

Thanks David for an answer. It is probably getting harder to ascertain as there are more and more 30+ males living with their parents in this economy and not independent at all.

I guess it does not really matter at what age a girl becomes a woman? :o)

If we were following the Jewish model it would be interesting to note the reason Jesus began His ministry at age 30 in terms of Rabbinical readiness. And why the original 12 were not studying with a Rabbi but working a trade. But then we have Paul who was on the Rabbinical track but after conversion ended up focused on the Gentiles. :o)

Scott Shaver

I had a neighbor once who took some ribbing from some guys on the street. Their assessment of him could be summarized as "wimpy" and "feminized".

One day at a barbecue the mild-mannered girly-man decided he'd had enough. Threw two punches, broke two noses and still managed to show his feminine side by giving his victims fresh towels to mop up the blood.

Can't always judge a book by its cover.

Lydia

"And, Lydia, by authority, I don't mean like a dictator, or CEO, or Master. I mean, a leader...one who is seen as the authority in the matters of teaching doctrine....one who is leading the people to know God and His Word. And, of course, he should be a servant leader."

Well, I was around in the days Ken Blanchard was taking his "servant leadership" training model to mega staffs. And it was all about positioning the "authority over people" to appear kinder and gentler coining a phrase that sounds good. Seems our Western concept of leadership cannot quite shake the "I'm in charge" part when it comes to the Body of Christ.

I still think it is interesting so many have an aversion to simply being a servant in the Body to others. It is not a put down. It is a joy and honor. Guess it is part of the Chain of Being that still plagues us even though believers.

The comments to this entry are closed.