FBC Jefferson City Calls a Female Pastor and is Ousted from the Tennessee Baptist Convention

“The First Baptist Church of Jefferson City is no longer a part of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, after a Tuesday vote that it would not allow the church’s messengers to be seated.”

citizentribute.com

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5548d0dee4b0520d1fdd755b/t/55b93c10e4b0a2d0fa07a7a5/1438202910894/FBCJeffOutside-128.jpg?format=1500wFirst Baptist Church – Jefferson City, Tennessee

Five months ago Reverend Ellen Di Giosia was named senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Here is an excerpt from her letter to the congregation (see screen shot below)

***********

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5548d0dee4b0520d1fdd755b/t/593537c4579fb398b1b62335/1496659909059/Congregational+Letter.pdf************

http://www.fbcjeff.org/pastor-ellen/Di Giosia began her pastoral duties on August 1, 2017, and delivered her first sermon at FBC Jefferson City on August 6th. She is pictured here with her husband and two children.

The pastor search committee put together a packet of information for the congregation, which included Di Giosia’s resume and other interesting information.

Last Tuesday (November 14) over 850 Southern Baptists from 390 Tennessee churches spent 15 minutes debating FBC Jefferson City’s recent decision to call a female pastor. The votes were overwhelmingly in favor of not allowing messengers from the church to cast votes at the state meeting. Here is how the story was covered by the local news.

We decided to check out the Southern Baptist Convention website, which addresses the following Frequently Asked Question: (link)

Can women be pastors or deacons in the SBC?

Here is the answer that has been provided:

Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women as they have ministered to advance God’s Kingdom. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) affirms the vital role of women serving in the church (see Article VI: “The Church”). The Convention recognizes the biblical language concerning the office of pastor. The BF&M statement says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” The passages that assign the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles.

The Southern Baptist Convention also passed a resolution in the early 1980s recognizing that offices requiring ordination are rightly addressed to men. However, the BF&M and resolutions are not binding upon local churches. Each church is responsible to prayerfully search the Scriptures and establish its own policy.

We expounded upon this topic in an article in SBC LIFE several years ago that may be helpful for further study.

The Southern Baptist Convention has not compiled a list of all the available avenues through which a woman may serve. The opportunities for women to serve in vocational ministry within the SBC are indeed vast.

It is important to point out that not all Baptist churches that cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention have embraced the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which specifically states that ALL pastors must be male.

Furthermore, ‘autonomous’ is a term that Southern Baptist leaders love to use to describe local Southern Baptist congregations. However, as the recent vote by the Tennessee Baptist Convention has clearly demonstrated to a watching world, autonomy goes out the window should a Southern Baptist church decide to call a female pastor.

A number of years ago there was a huge outcry for the Southern Baptist Convention to establish a database of pastors who are convicted pedophiles. And the reason given by SBC leaders for not being able to do so was the autonomy of the local Southern Baptist church. 🙁

The history of FBC Jefferson City is quite remarkable. According to the Church Profile for Candidate Consideration, First Baptist Church has worshiped and served in Jefferson City for over 181 years. We were happy to see that they believe in the Priesthood of All Believers.

As stated in their church profile, they also practice the “priesthood of the pocketbook” whereby members can direct where his/her contributions should be sent for missions purposes (see screen shot below).

************

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5548d0dee4b0520d1fdd755b/t/57868977cd0f688d44f80d74/1468434835359/Church%3ACommunityProfile.pdf************

FBC Jefferson City had been ‘dually aligned with the CBF [Cooperative Baptist Fellowship] and the SBC. Now that the congregation has been given the left boot of fellowship by Southern Baptists in its state, we assume that all future missions funding will go to CBF.

We will try to keep up with what happens at First Baptist Church Jefferson City under the leadership of its new senior pastor, Rev. Ellen Di Giosia.

We will be interested in hearing you thoughts on the recent hiring of a female pastor by FBC Jefferson City and the ouster of the church from the Tennessee Baptist Convention.


Comments

FBC Jefferson City Calls a Female Pastor and is Ousted from the Tennessee Baptist Convention — 387 Comments

  1. Why do churches talk like this? Is it some sort of king james-ish thingy? What does it even mean?
    “after a Tuesday vote that it would not allow the church’s messengers to be seated.”
    Back to reading the article…

  2. Ok so i am assuming that not seating messengers doesnt mean that 3 wise men came to visit and were refused chairs to sit on but instead it means that members from FBC Jefferson County went to vote also but were refused that right that everyone else had/has.
    it is obvious by their official statement that “the BF&M & Resolutions are not binding upon local churches” and their statement saying that churches are “autonomous” makes their decision go against their own rules. And because they gave the caveat that churches should prayerfully decide it seems they are breaking not only their own rules but over-ruling God!
    I agree with your conclusion that in SBC Churches autonomous means *you can do whatever you want unless we dont like it! It will be interesting to hear comments on this, glad you posted it.

  3. Last year out of boredom i posted a comment to a pastor of a foursquare church. My comment said ‘hey pastor i was wondering why women arent allowed to be pastors in the 4square denomination that was started by a WOMAN!’ (Aimee McPherson started the 4 square church) couple weeks later after some consternation probably, he answered, “they arent prohibited and if we have a really exceptional gifted woman apply i am sure our denomination would let her be a pastor”
    I dont think ever had a female pastor since Aimee but i resisted the urge to comment back to him about all the ‘really exceptional gifted male pastors they dont have. hehe.

  4. So much for the local, “autonomous” church not being ruled by other supposedly “autonomous” churches.
    Scratches head.

  5. The Anglican church in Canada has had female pastors for years. My friend’s Lutheran church has had a female pastor for the last 20 years. Women can lead just as capably as men.
    FBC Jefferson appears to be an established, prosperous church. They know what they’re doing.

  6. I also learned it’s leaf pickup time in Knoxville. We’ve been under snow for the past month

  7. Mae wrote:

    So much for the local, “autonomous” church not being ruled by other supposedly “autonomous” churches.

    FBC Jefferson City is autonomous. They still have their pastor and the Tennessee Baptist Convention (TBC) cannot remove Ms. Di Giosia. The only thing the TBC can do is to remove the church from the convention. The TBC is autonomous too.

    Removing churches that call female pastors is standard operating procedure throughout Baptistland. FBC JC knew this and called a woman anyway. They knew the possible result. I am sure that they will be fine without the TBC.

    Promoting homosexual marriage or ordination, along with accepting members not Baptized by immersion will get a church removed too.

  8. Bravo for them. My niece is an ordained minister with the A/G. My female cousin is an ordained minister in the Methodist church. My female cousin is studying to also be an ordained minister with the A/G. Need I say more.

  9. Mae wrote:

    So much for the local, “autonomous” church not being ruled by other supposedly “autonomous” churches.
    Scratches head.

    They are autonomous except when they call a woman Pastor.

  10. Ken P. wrote:

    They knew the possible result. I am sure that they will be fine without the TBC.

    There will be a record of these folks disfellowshipping this Church.

  11. mot wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    So much for the local, “autonomous” church not being ruled by other supposedly “autonomous” churches.
    Scratches head.
    They are autonomous except when they call a woman Pastor.

    Yes, I get that. It’s the usage of, “autonomous”, that is skewered.

  12. mot wrote:

    Ken P. wrote:
    They knew the possible result. I am sure that they will be fine without the TBC.
    There will be a record of these folks disfellowshipping this Church.

    What will the, disfellowshipping, state?

  13. Mae wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Ken P. wrote:
    They knew the possible result. I am sure that they will be fine without the TBC.
    There will be a record of these folks disfellowshipping this Church.

    What will the, disfellowshipping, state?

    What I mean is there is now a public record of the kicking out of this church. Sadly I saw this done locally 5 years ago where I live.

  14. I totally do not understand what the problem is.

    Why should the local association be required to co-operate with any particular autonomous church when they are in disagreement on some doctrinal position, any more than the church should be required to associate with any ‘association’ in spite of disagreements?

    What on the planet is wrong with an autonomous church on the one hand and a convention on the other hand being in disagreement and going their separate ways?

    Nobody owns anybody in the world of autonomy.

  15. okrapod wrote:

    I totally do not understand what the problem is.

    For me it is a major problem! Please study the history of the SBC and you will find a time that women were treated entirely different before the TAKEOVER.

    I in many ways lost my SBC pastorate because I dared to say publicly that disfellowshipping a local SBC church for calling a woman pastor was wrong.

    It is several years later and I still do not regret my decision to make a public stand.

  16. While I am at it here, one of the larger and more thriving baptist churches here allows its people to designate where they individually want their money to go-CBF or SBC, and that has been happening for many years now. What is the harm in that?

    This church, BTW has grown, built more buildings, has more members, and is increasingly more financially prosperous. Some former extended family members are there, and I was there for a while when I was still baptist and had rejected SBC mega for myself.

    Autonomy can be a grand and glorious thing, when it works.

    On the other hand, TEC which is lauded by some of the ultra liberals of protestant persuasion, is now officially and hopefully temporarily benched by the mother ship for being too liberal in the area of same sex marriage. Do not think for a minute that the liberal vs conservative struggles are limited to baptists or other evangelicals.

    Basically, autonomy looks better to me by the day if the only issue is church polity. And what is happening between this church and this association is classic freedom of choice in this matter.

    However, for me church organizational structure is not the only issue by far. Just saying.

  17. mot wrote:

    Please study the history of the SBC and you will find a time that women were treated entirely different before the TAKEOVER.

    Women were not ordained in the Baptistville in my time, and that goes back to 1934. Or where they ordained where you were? So, where were you and when? I was in Louisville first and then in a small town in NC from 1934 to the mid 1980s. And I did study some baptist history, mostly missions history of course, when I was at Carver School as a missions major back in the day. In fact, even women missionaries who under some circumstances taught/did preaching evangelism were not ordained, and ‘reasons’ were given as to why they were allowed to preach-there were no available men to do so.

    So talk to me here. When and where and for how long were women ordained in SBC participating churches?

    Now to be entirely up front, I personally do not think that such traditions as did/ did not ordain women carry any weight as to what said churches have to do in the future, so whether or not they ordained women in the past has no impact on what I think of female ordination. That said, I am interested in what you are claiming about the SBC past.

    BTW, the FWB did ordain women in the past and then they stopped that, at least their conservative branch stopped it. I do not know what their current position on female ordination is. I met one of their previously ordained women once. She was a good teacher/preacher in content and attitude and oratorical skills.

  18. okrapod wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Please study the history of the SBC and you will find a time that women were treated entirely different before the TAKEOVER.

    Women were not ordained in the Baptistville in my time, and that goes back to 1934. Or where they ordained where you were? So, where were you and when? I was in Louisville first and then in a small town in NC from 1934 to the mid 1980s. And I did study some baptist history, mostly missions history of course, when I was at Carver School as a missions major back in the day. In fact, even women missionaries who under some circumstances taught/did preaching evangelism were not ordained, and ‘reasons’ were given as to why they were allowed to preach-there were no available men to do so.

    So talk to me here. When and where and for how long were women ordained in SBC participating churches?

    Now to be entirely up front, I personally do not think that such traditions as did/ did not ordain women carry any weight as to what said churches have to do in the future, so whether or not they ordained women in the past has no impact on what I think of female ordination. That said, I am interested in what you are claiming about the SBC past.

    BTW, the FWB did ordain women in the past and then they stopped that, at least their conservative branch stopped it. I do not know what their current position on female ordination is. I met one of their previously ordained women once. She was a good teacher/preacher in content and attitude and oratorical skills.

    Have a nice Holiday.

  19. I looked at the FBC Jeff City affiliations listings on their website. I noticed that the Jefferson County Baptist Association is not included. I don’t know if the local Baptist association kicked them out or if FBC resigned, but FBC Jeff City was a contributing member a year ago.

  20. Ken P. wrote:

    Promoting homosexual marriage or ordination, along with accepting members not Baptized by immersion will get a church removed too.

    However, mishandling or hiding a pedophile situation gets you welcomed at the SBC conventions and seminaries.

  21. sandy c wrote:

    i was wondering why women arent allowed to be pastors in the 4square denomination that was started by a WOMAN!’ (Aimee McPherson started the 4 square church) couple weeks later after some consternation probably, he answered, “they arent prohibited and if we have a really exceptional gifted woman apply i am sure our denomination would let her be a pastor”

    I am quite sure that the 4 Square pastors are hardly any more more gifted than any average female pastor.

  22. From the OP: “We will be interested in hearing your thoughts on the recent hiring of a female pastor by FBC Jefferson City and the ouster of the church from the Tennessee Baptist Convention.”

    Apparently the FBC-JC lacked the courage to depart from the TBC prior to calling this person as their pastor. Seems kind of cowardly to me. Clearly this move is a paradigm shift of some sort, either for the FBC or the individual members. So why not publically leave the TBC first, or simultaneously with the hiring?

    Seems like a fairly gutless move to me, to do something just to be kicked out.

  23. John wrote:

    repent?

    I am waiting until they repent over the huuuuge number of mishandled pedophile situations. Women are far more dangerous than pedophiles I guess.

  24. dee wrote:

    However, mishandling or hiding a pedophile situation gets you welcomed at the SBC conventions and seminaries.</blockquote

    This is true. Giving a lot of money and being a "dude bro" helps.

  25. dee wrote:

    I am waiting until they repent over the huuuuge number of mishandled pedophile situations. Women are far more dangerous than pedophiles I guess.

    At least from the standpoint of the SBC.

  26. Ken P. wrote:

    I looked at the FBC Jeff City affiliations listings on their website. I noticed that the Jefferson County Baptist Association is not included. I don’t know if the local Baptist association kicked them out or if FBC resigned, but FBC Jeff City was a contributing member a year ago.

    They will gladly take your money until you call a woman pastor or dare to ordain a woman.

  27. Ken P. wrote:

    I looked at the FBC Jeff City affiliations listings on their website. I noticed that the Jefferson County Baptist Association is not included. I don’t know if the local Baptist association kicked them out or if FBC resigned, but FBC Jeff City was a contributing member a year ago.

    Interesting observation. Maybe someone will chime in and let us know what happened regarding the local SBC affiliation.

  28. Does anyone seriously believe that “the church” would be more Christlike if women were in control? We already have examples of entire denomination(s) that are run by women, and look what that has wrought: abortions paid for by the denomination.

    One could look to Word/Faith churches that are run by women, and see some of the most unbiblical behavior, greed, and corruption that you would find anywhere in the world.

    What is to be said about the millions of women that remained silent even though they knew that children were being abused? And what about the women who themselves have abused children? Or the women enablers?

    I have read countless stories about women “pastors” who are doing the same thing as their male counterparts; ignoring Christ and pushing Him to the perimeter.

    My opinion is that it does not matter what gender your “pastor” is because sin knows no gender. Greed, corruption, abuse of power, lust, et al, are just as prevalent in men & women. There are very few people who are pointing to Christ in our day, and until THAT changes then nothing will change. We are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world is watching and congratulating themselves that they are no worse, and often better than what they see coming out of the so-called “church”.

    The church has lost it’s voice. It will only get it back when it preaches Christ and Him crucified to both sinner and saint alike, and it will take at least a generation for any kind of true revival to take place. My opinion, your mileage may vary.

  29. I’m wholly a King James person and I’m not sure about women Preaching. I’m not fully against it either because there are more women in the mission field doing this exact thing and no men. So who am I to judge whether she should be preaching if she is following God’s word( I hate the term biblical by the way so I will not use it)? We have to many cavemen putting their own theology in the mix rather than doing what is right. I’m so sick of all the bible speak terminology, all of this bickering back and forth and sin checking people. How about you just preach the word of God and let God do the rest? Sorry I might have got off topic a bit. We have to many theologians not enough God centered men and women who will just speak the truth and do what is right. I’m done with the corporate worship, being a part of an organized religion. Just give me a group of believers who meet in a house for worship and bible study. I have also come to think that maybe the Sabbath is actually Saturday and not on Sunday’s as it is coming across as a man made Sabbath! This woman who is preaching all I can say is if God is working in her heart and she’s preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, good for her I would go listen to her preach!!!!sandy c wrote:

    Why do churches talk like this? Is it some sort of king james-ish thingy? What does it even mean?
    “after a Tuesday vote that it would not allow the church’s messengers to be seated.”
    Back to reading the article…

  30. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    The church has lost it’s voice. It will only get it back when it preaches Christ and Him crucified to both sinner and saint alike, and it will take at least a generation for any kind of true revival to take place. My opinion, your mileage may vary.

    I think this is correct. And not just a generation like x and y an millenial-more like on the 40 years generation model.

  31. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Does anyone seriously believe that “the church” would be more Christlike if women were in control?

    I’ve never heard anyone make this claim.

  32. @ A.Tumbleweed:

    Did someone here say that the church would be more Christlike with women pastors? I missed that. But since you said it, regarding polity it actually would be. Jesus “ordained” without gender prejudice.

  33. Patti wrote:

    Jesus “ordained” without gender prejudice.

    If you have a scriptural reference for that now would be the time to bring it forward. The largest denomination on the planet has some very good arguments to the contrary-some of which I agree with.

  34. Baptist Churches in the TBC made the decision years ago to adopt the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as the doctrinal confession for their convention.

    Baptist Churches in Tennessee have complete autonomy to operate the way they want to operate and to believe what they want to believe.

    But if they want to seat messengers at the annual meeting they must qualify and to qualify the church must subscribe to the denominational confession adopted by the group.

    I know people in this church. It is a fine fellowship, but their vibe really is more CBF than SBC or TBC.

    I believe that when churches join together to do works involving missions or Christian education, it is important for them to be in agreement on the things they think are important. If they are not together, there will be an energy sapping and divisive atmosphere.

    It’s better for all concerned for different churches to recognize where they fit and to join with churches of like mind.

    By all accounts Tennessee Baptists are not at all confused on this topic. They have addressed it in their confession, and they apparently voted overwhelmingly to follow their confession in their vote.

    The church has an existing and ready made partner in the CBF, so it can move forward and do ministry as they see fit.

    This is the best way for independent, autonomous churches to relate.

  35. ___

    “A Pound Of Flesh?”

    hmmm…

    It is pretty simple, if you want specific things out of an American 501(c)3 church, seek out one for that purpose. If that American 501(c)3 church does not meet your expectations, seek out another that does meet your expectations. If an American 501(c)3 church is abusing folks, then say or do something. There are many avenues of doing so. 501(c)3 churches have rules for a reason. Find out why. If you are not happy, if the freedom of religion or preference they demonstrate is not to your liking, step out and find another.

    ATB

    Sòpy

    Notes:
    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
    ___
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.” [4]

    [4] Haynes, Charles, et al. The First Amendment in Schools: A Guide from the First Amendment Center, p. 13 (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2003). Madison also proposed a similar limitation upon the states, which was completely rejected: “No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” Madison, James. “House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution” (June 8, 1789) via The Founders’ Constitution.

    😉

    – –

  36. My impression over the years has become that those who first led the “Conservative Resurgence” were primarily worried that more Southern Baptist churches would ordain women as pastors. I imagine that their formative conversations in building their strategy to overtake the denomination were as much about preventing women from taking to the pulpit as it was discussions about preventing “Liberalism” or promoting “Biblical Inerrancy”. These were highly intelligent people that wanted to move the role of women from a tertiary issue to a primary one within the denomination and used these other themes to form their framework.

  37. @ okrapod:

    The post subject is asking for a scriptural interpretation debate on gender roles. TWW has archived posts with plenty for you to research. My point was that I have never read anyone here say that they want women in charge of the church instead of men. My point is that all throughout the Gospels we have the example of Jesus who did not discriminate. In my opinion he did everything possible to convince the misogynist Jewish leadership that their hierarchy was never God’s way. Every scripture that the SBC uses to defend it are the same references that also tear down their logic, which is worldly in my opinion, not godly at all. Appealing to the SBC’s size only gives a nod to their clout, not their exegesis. In the same way that they kept their slaves ignorant on the Bible by prohibiting education, they keep their women ignorant about biblical equality with busy work and barring them from their seminary classes that lead to pastoral ordination. Reading the SBC’s interpretation of the Bible is not the same as reading the Bible.

  38. I meant the post is NOT asking for a scriptural interpretation debate on gender roles (sorry).

  39. Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Ain’t I A Woman?
    Delivered 1851
    Women’s Convention, Akron, Ohio

    Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?

    That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

    Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it? [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

    Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

    If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

    Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.

  40. Patti wrote:

    Appealing to the SBC’s size only gives a nod to their clout, not their exegesis.

    No, I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in its arguments concerning women priests. In the absence of specific statements in scripture they argue from tradition and church decision making authority.

  41. If the church and its members are really upset about this, why don’t they just find another Baptist association that would be fine with them having a woman?

  42. “Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women” – I’m calling BS. The SBC doesn’t actually believe this for a minute. It’s an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. I’m reminded of the old saying ”Don’t pi** on my back and tell me it’s raining”.

    Appoint a woman as pastor and the SBC will kick you out of the club. But go ahead and sexually abuse all the kids you want, the SBC doesn’t care. Just two of the numerous examples of the Gospel of Oppression preached by the SBC and their ‘evangelical’ ilk. They’re label has, in reality, changed from Evangelical’ to “Evilgelical’.

    As far as I know, prior to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the BF&M was silent on women as pastors and there were a number of women pastors at that time. The issue was ‘clarified’ in the BF&M in 2000 to disqualify women as pastors.

  43. okrapod wrote:

    No, I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in its arguments concerning women priests. In the absence of specific statements in scripture they argue from tradition and church decision making authority.

    And, yet, women were never involved with this church decision making authority. This could possibly be because tradition at that time was so very mixed with the cultural norms of that age. We don’t know for sure, but we can certainly see that Jesus treated women very different than what was the norm of his time and particular culture.

    It’s fascinating to ponder.

  44. okrapod wrote:

    I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in its arguments concerning women priests. In the absence of specific statements in scripture they argue from tradition and church decision making authority.

    I love that one. The RCC gives the excuse that ‘none of the Apostles were women’ as an excuse for excluding women from the priesthood. You know, all of the Apostles were ethnic Jews, but I don’t see the RCC requiring that as a condition for the priesthood.

  45. Patti wrote:

    If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

    Yeah. Ummmm….

  46. Pingback: Tennessee Baptist Convention Demonstrates SBC’s Duplicity | 1st Feline Battalion

  47. @ JeffT:

    If you have a scripture reference where Jesus either made any specific statement about the relationships between gender and the ministry issue, one way or the other, then please produce it and this whole issue will go away.

    If there is no such statement, then all that is left if the conversation is limited to what Jesus did or did not do is to observe what he did and did not do. And this was the initial comment-about what Jesus did or did not do. If one does that then it is far more complicated than the twelve. And it is not all that clear cut by any means.

    That then leaves the matter of who is going to make the decisions. One idea is that the people get to vote on it. One idea is that the church hierarchy makes the decision. One idea is to go along with the culture; or not go along with the culture; which ever packs the pew and fills the plate. One idea is to ignore the whole thing and let it play out until some decision has essentially been made by popular opinion.

    This, in my mind, is the heart of the matter. This church made its own decision. The churches in the association, through their representatives, made their decision. But now we hear voices that seem to say that the church is somehow entitled? to have the church’s decision basically validated by the other local churches through the association even if the others believe it to be non-scriptural.

    That dog won’t hunt. If there is freedom of decision then every group has that same freedom. If this church is simply making its own decision then there is no problem. If they are trying to bully the others into agreeing with them, then there is a problem, in my opinion.

    But do we actually have evidence that this church is even trying to do that?

  48. Did you read her definition of the Trinity?
    . The articulation of the Trinity is the greatest achievement of the ancient church, and it is the doctrine by which all others should be measured: a God who created all things and is creating still, and who invites us into the act of creation even now; a Savior who is somehow both God and human, giving up his own life to defy the forces of violence and chaos; a Spirit that both woos individuals and also lives in the relationships between those who listen.  The three persons of the Godhead are somehow one, joined in a community of love. This is the cornerstone of our faith.

    While i agree that the Trinity if a cornerstone of orthodox faith, this is a pretty poor definition of it. “giving up his own life to defy the forces of violence and chaos”? This sounds more like liberation theology than Christianity.

  49. Deb wrote:

    Ken P. wrote:
    I looked at the FBC Jeff City affiliations listings on their website. I noticed that the Jefferson County Baptist Association is not included. I don’t know if the local Baptist association kicked them out or if FBC resigned, but FBC Jeff City was a contributing member a year ago.
    Interesting observation. Maybe someone will chime in and let us know what happened regarding the local SBC affiliation.

    Sorry I didn’t include the quote earlier. They were kicked out of the denomination years ago for ordaining women deacons.

  50. Ben wrote:

    but FBC Jeff City was a contributing member a year ago.
    Interesting observation. Maybe someone will chime in and let us know what happened regarding the local SBC affiliation.
    Sorry I didn’t include the quote earlier. They were kicked out of the denomination years ago for ordaining women deacons.

    I might have misspoken if you say they were contributing members a year ago? It is not uncommon for local associations here to give churches the boot that ordain women as deacons and I thought I recalled that being the case with FBC Jefferson City. The negative of that with the association would be losing out on the money from FBC which I think would have one of, if not the largest budget in the association.

  51. It might be because I was near/in one of the centers of power in the SBC and thus by default was more in tune with the heartbeat and major themes in the SBC – but even as an individual I knew that once I left complementarinism I would necessarily have to leave the SBC. No one made me, I just knew it was one of their fundamental issues they wouldn’t budge on. So it didn’t line up with me as an individual or them to continue along and study with them or do ministry under them.

    It’s possible that a church further removed and just going about their business would not know that the SBC is in the spoken and unspoken complementarian. I’m not sure how it’s possible at this point, because it is one of the main issues that they fly their flag on over the past 15-20 years. Especially with the existence of CBMW.

    Watching the video, it seemed like both groups (at least the church) didn’t care much, and were just moving forward. I would be confused how the church wouldn’t know it would happen.

    Now, discussions about how in recent years the SBC seems to act more covertly as Presbyterian in polity and philosophy (minus infant baptistm) than Baptist. Or acts more like a denomination rather than a network of autonomous churches and organizations gathered around a common mission. Or whether or not complementarianism is actually true. Or whether or not the SBC values the right things or acts consistently and objectively in upholding these values – those are all totally different discussions underlying this.

  52. Ben wrote:

    They were kicked out of the denomination years ago for ordaining women deacons.

    Gee. Do you suppose there is any connection there? They voted in women deacons, and now they have a female pastor. What a shock. How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?

  53. sandy c wrote:

    it is obvious by their official statement that “the BF&M & Resolutions are not binding upon local churches” and their statement saying that churches are “autonomous” makes their decision go against their own rules. And because they gave the caveat that churches should prayerfully decide it seems they are breaking not only their own rules but over-ruling God!

    How are they overruling God? I agree with you that they are overruling the rules they set up, but how are the rules they set up actual decrees from God? It is my opinion that from the beginning the SBC provided loopholes, (intentionally or not), which permit local churches to allow for women pastors. They shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. Now they are trying to make new rules to apply to the old construct. What they should do is write a new BFM and new rules that don’t equivocate. Me thinks this sort of thing will continue to happen in SBC churches. I have no dog in the fight because I am neither a Southern Baptist nor an Evangelical Protestant.

  54. Harley wrote:

    Bravo for them.

    Indeed. We have women as pastors at my church too. It is fine. The world hasn’t ended. In fact, it’s great! If you want to preach equality, you need to practice it. Don’t give me this ‘roles’ garbage. That entire statement read like doubletalk and is part of the reason I am no longer SBC.

  55. okrapod wrote:

    Do not think for a minute that the liberal vs conservative struggles are limited to baptists or other evangelicals.

    Of course they aren’t. PCUSA/PCA for example.

  56. okrapod wrote:

    I totally do not understand what the problem is.
    Why should the local association be required to co-operate with any particular autonomous church when they are in disagreement on some doctrinal position, any more than the church should be required to associate with any ‘association’ in spite of disagreements?
    What on the planet is wrong with an autonomous church on the one hand and a convention on the other hand being in disagreement and going their separate ways?
    Nobody owns anybody in the world of autonomy.

    Bingo, Okarapod! You took the works right out of my mouth. Why is the Convention bad and the Tennessee Baptist church good or visa versa. I know I used simple verbs there but I hope I made my point. As you said, Okrapod, “Nobody owns anybody in the world of autonomy.” I will add that each local church has the freedom to make their own rules and so does the Tennessee Convention and the SBC. If people disagree, they are free to walk and start their own church or be disfellowshipped from those with whom they disagree. Hoorah! We don’t live in a Theocracy!

  57. FW Rez wrote:

    My impression over the years has become that those who first led the “Conservative Resurgence” were primarily worried that more Southern Baptist churches would ordain women as pastors.

    What is weird is that it seems like the ‘conservative’ side is all about making sure women don’t get uppity or something, and that is their sole difference, except sometimes some stuff about same sex marriage, which they mostly use to tell women what they need to do.

    Do none of these men ever realize that sort of a bizarre thing to focus on? It permeates their entire mentality, putting the focus on power dynamics and who is in charge, rather than loving others.

  58. Bridget wrote:

    And, yet, women were never involved with this church decision making authority.

    1. Exclude women from decision making authority.
    2. Ban them from the roles men want.
    3. Claim that they should remain banned because of ‘tradition’.

    Is that really the best way to make a decision?

  59. okrapod wrote:

    Patti wrote:
    Jesus “ordained” without gender prejudice.
    If you have a scriptural reference for that now would be the time to bring it forward. The largest denomination on the planet has some very good arguments to the contrary-some of which I agree with.

    LOL! Okarapod, don’t you know that one of the Apostles was named Suzanne, or was it Caroline? It’s somewhere in those lost Scriptures and will perhaps be found just like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

  60. @ me:
    It is also curious to note that in the information packet, “Christ” was only used once, and that was from a Bible verse, “Jesus” was only used once, in the introduction, and missing were: saved, evangelism, baptism, grace (in the biblical sense). Faith was used, but not in any way with reference to saving souls, and I didn’t really see any clearly articulated version of the gospel, unless I missed it.

    The packet was all warm, fuzzy, and squishy, but lacked any real substance or articulation of any fundamental doctrine. Apparently the standards for a pastor are quite low. I assume that this is what they gave to the congregation?

  61. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Do you suppose there is any connection there? They voted in women deacons, and now they have a female pastor. What a shock. How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?

    Funny, seems to men the run by the marketing departments and also men Baptist/non-denoms tend to be doing that sort of stuff constantly, without women involved. I’m not sure what your point was.

  62. FW Rez wrote:

    My impression over the years has become that those who first led the “Conservative Resurgence” were primarily worried that more Southern Baptist churches would ordain women as pastors.

    If they were that worried, then they should have closed the loopholes in their rules for autonomous churches. Autonomous except when it comes to X, Y and Z. You can’t have it both ways. The structure of the SBC to begin with allowed for these kind of things to happen.

  63. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Apparently the FBC-JC lacked the courage to depart from the TBC prior to calling this person as their pastor. Seems kind of cowardly to me. Clearly this move is a paradigm shift of some sort, either for the FBC or the individual members. So why not publically leave the TBC first, or simultaneously with the hiring?
    Seems like a fairly gutless move to me, to do something just to be kicked out.

    Perhaps the FBC-JC hoped to be the new movers and shakers in their denomination and change minds and hearts with regard to female pastors. Perhaps they were praying that they wouldn’t get kicked out but start a new precedent in which female pastors in autonomous churches could still have a voice in the SBC. Who really knows what their intentions were except them?

  64. Darlene wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    I totally do not understand what the problem is.
    Why should the local association be required to co-operate with any particular autonomous church when they are in disagreement on some doctrinal position, any more than the church should be required to associate with any ‘association’ in spite of disagreements?
    What on the planet is wrong with an autonomous church on the one hand and a convention on the other hand being in disagreement and going their separate ways?
    Nobody owns anybody in the world of autonomy.
    Bingo, Okarapod! You took the works right out of my mouth. Why is the Convention bad and the Tennessee Baptist church good or visa versa. I know I used simple verbs there but I hope I made my point. As you said, Okrapod, “Nobody owns anybody in the world of autonomy.” I will add that each local church has the freedom to make their own rules and so does the Tennessee Convention and the SBC. If people disagree, they are free to walk and start their own church or be disfellowshipped from those with whom they disagree. Hoorah! We don’t live in a Theocracy!

    You’re focusing on the wrong issue. It’s not about freedom of association and some run-of-the-mill theological issue. One of the issues is whether the SBC’s relentless pursuit of women in the pulpit can be morally squared with the SBC’s virtual silence and complete inaction on the sexual predators in their midst and those who cover up for those predators.It makes the SBC hypocrites – unless one believes that child molestation is Bibliclally OK.

  65. Darlene wrote:

    Who really knows what their intentions were except them?

    Perhaps they did what they thought was right and hoped for the best, but were prepared for the likelihood of being kicked out.

    I am sad that this is apparently the most important issue to the SBC. They will let all manner of other issues go, from abuse to child molestation, but a woman in charge is beyond the pale. Sad. I’m sad about this. It’s not that they don’t have a ‘right’ to do it, but I wish it wasn’t so.

  66. Lea wrote:

    Harley wrote:
    Bravo for them.
    Indeed. We have women as pastors at my church too. It is fine. The world hasn’t ended. In fact, it’s great! If you want to preach equality, you need to practice it. Don’t give me this ‘roles’ garbage. That entire statement read like doubletalk and is part of the reason I am no longer SBC.

    But is it not true, Lea, that your denomination had to split from the more Conservative Presbyterian denomination years ago in order to be free to ordain women as pastors? They paid the price and another schism was successfully commenced. I thought that this is how these things work within the Christian religion. Disagree, then start a schism and a new denomination. Problem solved.

  67. Darlene wrote:

    But is it not true, Lea, that your denomination had to split from the more Conservative Presbyterian denomination years ago in order to be free to ordain women as pastors?

    It’s the reverse actually. They took their ball and went home to make their own denomination. (although it’s kind of complicated because there was the northern, and the southern denoms, who had some civil war related splitty things and then decided to come together, and the conservatives didn’t want to, so they split off or something? Read the wiki page if you want the whole deal!)

    And you’re being snarky with this which is fine but I’m not sure why.

  68. JeffT wrote:

    You’re focusing on the wrong issue. It’s not about freedom of association and some run-of-the-mill theological issue. One of the issues is whether the SBC’s relentless pursuit of women in the pulpit can be morally squared with the SBC’s virtual silence and complete inaction on the sexual predators in their midst and those who cover up for those predators.It makes the SBC hypocrites – unless one believes that child molestation is Bibliclally OK.

    Okay, I will grant you that the SBC has shown itself to be inept with regard to reporting child sex abuse and sexual predators in their midst and disciplining them. But what if the SBC decided to truly clean up it’s act and responsibly deal with the sexual predators within their midst, and yet they still held to their guns prohibiting women from the pastorate? Would they still be hypocrites in that case? Can you argue from Scripture, tradition, and Christian history that if the SBC put all their ducks in order regarding sexual predators within their midst, that they would still be out of line by prohibiting women from being pastors? Because that’s my point. Religious organizations are permitted to make these kinds of rules and if a person, or local church doesn’t like it, they can walk with their feet.

  69. Lea wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    But is it not true, Lea, that your denomination had to split from the more Conservative Presbyterian denomination years ago in order to be free to ordain women as pastors?
    It’s the reverse actually. They took their ball and went home to make their own denomination. (although it’s kind of complicated because there was the northern, and the southern denoms, who had some civil war related splitty things and then decided to come together, and the conservatives didn’t want to, so they split off or something? Read the wiki page if you want the whole deal!)
    And you’re being snarky with this which is fine but I’m not sure why.

    No, I’m not being snarky. I just think you must recognize that there had to be some sort of schism in order for your denomination to be free to ordain women. Who actually started the schism is irrelevant with regard to the point I am making. I haven’t even given my personal opinion about what I think of what your denomination, or the other more Conservative denomination believes concerning female pastors.

  70. Darlene wrote:

    I just think you must recognize that there had to be some sort of schism in order for your denomination to be free to ordain women.

    We had to have a schism to get rid of slavery too.

    Not all schisms are bad.

  71. Lea wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Do not think for a minute that the liberal vs conservative struggles are limited to baptists or other evangelicals.
    Of course they aren’t. PCUSA/PCA for example.

    Tis true. There is a movement within the Orthodox Church (how large I do not know) to try and change our Church’s teachings on homosexuality and female priests. It seems to be a sign of the times. But when hasn’t there been conflict within the Church/Christianity? Read church history and it is replete with bishops disagreeing with each other, schisms, wolves creeping into the flock, strife….you name it. Nothing new under the sun.

  72. Lea wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    I just think you must recognize that there had to be some sort of schism in order for your denomination to be free to ordain women.
    We had to have a schism to get rid of slavery too.
    Not all schisms are bad.

    You are right. Slavery was a despicable evil that was a cancerous sore within the Southern Presbyterian church. Christianity and slavery are incompatible. It was inevitable that a split would occur if the Presbyterian Church in the South didn’t repent.

  73. @ Darlene:
    I was talking about the country at large, not particularly the church. The church was a symptom of the country itself…

    And generically about disagreements. Sometimes nobody is right or wrong, we just disagree. Sometimes, someone is clearly on the wrong side. The church seems to be sort of bad at sorting out the difference between the two, generically and historically.

  74. @ Lowlandseer:

    Thanks.

    I am finding it a bit difficult to decide if that fewer than on tenth of 1% was the glory days of women preachers in baptistland before the BFM ruined it all, or whether it was such a concern that an entire conservative resurgence was launched to protect the people from that.

    I am having an even worse time to think how, in the midst of the systemic cultural revolution in this nation at the time, people were not concerned with anything except that one tenth of 1% of anything.

    But I am comforted to know that I did not miss any great movement in my obliviousness to it all.

    We have all gone quite mad.

  75. The Dalai Lama can be a woman but she must first be reincarnated as a man.

    Why is this news?

    You might as well ponder on why the pope will not be a woman.
    Canon law does not permit.

    But on this specific issue the congregation should have already known this would be a problem with the SBC, and as such why is this news? Why go to the media?

    In this country we have freedom of religion by another document that was agreed upon many years ago. As such, a group of people that come together in agreement, who identify themselves as Christians can do such things.

    This is a big topic that will not be adequatley discussed in this small blog box.

    Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.

  76. *I want to clarify that my time in the SBC was very painful for me, and leaving was and is continues to be very painful. In case my previous thoughts sounded too clean, seemingly lacking empathy, or like such differences and understandings or misunderstandings of differences are simple, cut and dry, and cause no lasting hurt or loss or abuse or rejection.

    I left for a lot of other reasons – but the fundamental difference in how I came to see the place and life of a woman – with and before God and others and in the church and the world – made it impossible for me to stay.

    The SBC’s view on women is interwoven into everything they practice and in every spoken and unspoken social norm. It is at this time – and in the past 15-20 years (at least) – an essential non-compromising issue for the SBC.

    Where if their view on women was different I could have probably tried to work everything else out. But the woman issue being so central to their identity, it negated me staying and working through and challenging everything else.

    (Though a lot of the other issues at root dealt/deal with power and also overlapped with treatment of women – so if their fundamental understanding of power and also women was different in the first place, none of the other issues would exist either, and I would have had less problems and disagreements. But I digress. 🙂 It is all connected in some way. You have to figure out which is key and essential and unlocks or binds the other.)

  77. emily honey wrote:

    Though a lot of the other issues at root dealt/deal with power and also overlapped with treatment of women

    Yes. I think the power issues/control issues, and problems with treatment of women are all interwoven and it’s hard to separate them. They’re all a problem, but I don’t know that you can practically get rid of one without getting rid of the other.

  78. emily honey wrote:

    I left for a lot of other reasons – but the fundamental difference in how I came to see the place and life of a woman – with and before God and others and in the church and the world – made it impossible for me to stay.

    That is as good a reason as any. I took my kids and left for a lot of reasons also, but it was before the issue of women became one of their themes. Leaving is what it is, but it still has to be done some times.

  79. @ Lea:

    Yes. I agree.

    They all play off each other and enable the other. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on. And when you work for change in one area, you have to ask if that change isn’t simultaneously contradicting or inconsistent with what you are practicing or saying about this area over here.

  80. Why on earth would any church, Southern Baptist or otherwise, WANT to ally itself with any organization teaching contrary to what that church teaches.

    I say bravo to the convention. If that church believes women’s ordination is Biblical they should darn well do it. But that doesn’t mean the convention has to accept it. Or should.

    I can see it now–Baptist church wants full recognition by the RCC without abiding by their rules or teachings.

    Nah–no news here.

    You want to be part of the SBC you play by their rules. Or you tell them to take a flying leap. But you don’t play victim when you know the ground rules, break them, and get the consequences.

  81. Lea wrote:

    Funny, seems to men the run by the marketing departments and also men Baptist/non-denoms tend to be doing that sort of stuff constantly, without women involved. I’m not sure what your point was.

    My thought of exactly.

  82. Beloved Son wrote:

    You might as well ponder on why the pope will not be a woman.
    Canon law does not permit.
    But on this specific issue the congregation should have already known this would be a problem with the SBC, and as such why is this news? Why go to the media?

    What I do not understand is that they make a big deal about a woman pastor but have no trouble admitting a church led by CJ Mahaney into the SBC fold after he presided over the fall of his ministry due to serious problems with refusal to report sex abuse cases to the authorities. Sorry-but this makes no sense to me. Godly women in the pulpit are anathema but CJ Mahaney gets wined and dined.

  83. Darlene wrote:

    Okay, I will grant you that the SBC has shown itself to be inept with regard to reporting child sex abuse and sexual predators in their midst and disciplining them. But what if the SBC decided to truly clean up it’s act and responsibly deal with the sexual predators within their midst, and yet they still held to their guns prohibiting women from the pastorate?

    I personally would find them to be far less hypocritical. I think they love to focus on the woman thing because it is easy for them. But what would they do with all their men who have problems with concealing sex abuse in the congregations?

  84. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?

    Not Baptist, but is there something holy about the Baptist” in a name?

  85. Lowlandseer wrote:

    The two things are not comparable and your insinuation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    I have to say that Jeff T. makes good sense to me. Yes- the two things are comparable. Both issues are supposedly equal in concern-sex abuse and female pastors. Yet, the latter gets all the attention.

    I attend a church denomination which does not allow women as pastors. That will not change in my lifetime. I accepted that when I joined the church. However, this church allows women to read the Scripture out loud during the service and allows them to assist with the serving of communion- something lots of SBC churches will not.

    But, and let me make this perfectly clear, if my church eve attempted to cover up a child sex abuse situation, I would be out of there in a flash.

    In other words, I believe that the child sex abuse situation is far more important deal and one that I would never compromise on.

  86. okrapod wrote:

    If you have a scriptural reference for that now would be the time to bring it forward. The largest denomination on the planet has some very good arguments to the contrary-some of which I agree with.

    I havent come to a conclusion on the ordination of pastors yet but have been studying a bit on the view of women and men in the current churches. The question of the actual ordination to a particular office in churches aside, here are a few things i noticed:

    Genesis chapt 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

    It appears that they were equal before the fall in the garden…

    Genisis 3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

    Galations 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    The book of Acts and the apostle Paul talk about Priscilla and Aquila, it says that they (both) instructed Appollos more correctly in his doctrine. Paul said to greet Aquilla and Priscilla and the church that is in their house, he didnt say ‘greet pastor Aquilla and say hi to his wife who is in the kitchen baking dainty cookies’, or ‘greet Aquilla and if Priscilla is done changing diapies in the kids Sunday school class tell her hello too.’
    Hehe my two cents.

  87. Bridget wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?
    Not Baptist, but is there something holy about the Baptist” in a name?

    No, but it will be interesting to see if the ladies lead them to morph into a community church. A lot of churches are dropping the denominational identifiers.

    After listening to one of her sermons though, it can’t be long. Sounded just like the drivel that comes out of the community churches around here. Nothing to challenging, nice and safe and sing-songy stuff. I really feel sorry for those people where this is their only option. The sermon I heard was absolutely awful. I’ll try to listen to a couple more tomorrow. Hopefully they are better.

  88. The other thing that bothers me is that the SBC claims that each church his autonomous. Frankly, this is talking out of both sides of the mouth. My church is not autonomous from its denomination. They do not have autonomy to change how they view baptism, missions, and gender in the pulpit. Every church has its own flavor but the elements are the same. There is value in knowing the parameters.

    The SBC plays a bit of a game with the *autonomy* business. They are NOT autonomous and everyone knows it. They should state it out front.

    Let me tell you something that my denomination does that beats the SBC any day of the week. SBC churches spring up left and right and outright compete with one another and it is especially silly in my area. There are 2 mega SBC churches (although both rarely, if ever, tell their people they are Baptist which is a crock)

    When one opens a satellite to *spread the gospel in the Triangle” the other one suddenly sees the need to bring the gospel right around the corner (and I do mean around the corner.)

    One of those churches suddenly realized that the college kids don’t give lots of money to churches so they are opening a mega facility around the corner from me and about 8 other SBC churches with good donors who will be sucked out of those churches while they are pretending they are bringing the gospel to Raleigh. ROFL. That church will target those members and then pretend they are actually being quite gospelly than you very much. Mark my words, this mega church will damage other SBC churches in the process. I doubt there will be more *Christians* in the area after the move. Merely a shifting of membership.

    Thankfully, it will have ZERO impact on my church. My denomination does it right. The local churches get together and deiced where another church is needed. The local churches support the new church startup. They are not competing with one another. And all of them have no problem saying that they are Lutheran churches unlike the Baptist boyz who hide their identity like the plague.

  89. @ sandy c:

    You said, and I copy from your prior comment: ” Jesus “ordained” without gender prejudice.”

    I asked you to furnish scriptural evidence of that. You have quoted from Genesis and Galatians and talked about Paul. That is not Jesus. You made a comment about Jesus, and I don’t see that documented in scripture.

    What you have said is good, but that is not the issue I questioned. I see no evidence in scripture that Jesus did what you said he did. If that is somewhere in any of the gospels I would really like to know it; it would not be the first thing that I have overlooked. But if not, well…not.

  90. Lowlandseer wrote:

    The two things are not comparable

    I agree. Standing idly by and doing nothing while some of your members cover up child abuse is much worse than kicking out members who have a woman in the pulpit.

  91. The bible has the record of the Judge Deborah in the book of Judges and Exodus 18:13-20 explains the role of judges over Israel by Moses’ duties. After Moses was Joshua, Othniel, Kenaz, Ehud, and then Deborah. They weren’t judges like we think of judges-under the leader of government, they were the head of everyone.The judges judged over all Israelites, the common people went to the judge when they couldnt solve an issue, if there was a question about doctrine the priest went to the judge for the final say, if a wealthy businessman had a disagreement with someone he went to the judge. Again Moses was the first appointed judge, the others that followed him held the same office with the same responsibilities. I cant fathom a wealthy christian businessman today going to a woman to get the final say from God on anything! That was what Denorahs position was however, and she also prophesied in the Spirit of the Lord. Judges 4:1-

  92. I believe pauls instructions regarding women in church pertain to married women, he says if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands. If we read it with the view of it being directed at wives instead of all women it makes more sense i think and doesnt contradict Jesus.

    Paul said he doesnt suffer a woman to teach a man anything or usurp authority over a man.

    Jesus told the women at the tomb to instruct His disciples where to meet Him. ‘Matt 28:10 “…go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee and there they shall see Me.”

    Paul said women should remain silent in the church

    Anna the prophetess prophesied in the Spirit of God over Jesus in the temple when He was brought to the temple to be circumcised. If God didnt want women to speak in the temple He wouldnt have had Anna do it. Also Phillip the evangelist had 4 daughters that were prophetesses Acts 21:8-9.

    I think things have gotten to the point of quenching the Spirit because of this or that churches interpretation of the bible and their own power and authority. I dont really care what office is held by who anymore, i am however astounded at the millions of comments online lately about ‘ha the family values party supports pedos and hides them in their churches, and ‘christians are only pro-life when the baby is in the womb but not after, and ‘oh another anti-gay senator caught with a teenage boy, etc ad nausium

  93. FBC Jefferson City Calls a Female Pastor and is Ousted from the Tennessee Baptist Convention

    i.e. The Unpardonable Sin

  94. dee wrote:

    When one opens a satellite to *spread the gospel in the Triangle” the other one suddenly sees the need to bring the gospel right around the corner (and I do mean around the corner.)

    Like Home Depot and Lowe’s opening their Big Boxes right next to each other (or WalMart opening a Big Box right next to another of their own WalMarts).

  95. Bridget wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?

    Not Baptist, but is there something holy about the Baptist” in a name?

    It DOES identify the affiliation.

  96. Darlene wrote:

    Okay, I will grant you that the SBC has shown itself to be inept with regard to reporting child sex abuse and sexual predators in their midst and disciplining them.

    “Inept” is an understatement.

  97. Darlene wrote:

    If they were that worried, then they should have closed the loopholes in their rules for autonomous churches. Autonomous except when it comes to X, Y and Z.

    Like Calvary Chapel.
    Completely “Independent and Autonomous” when denominational affiliation is a liability, one Monolith in Lockstep when throuwing their weight around.
    Disperse for defense, concentrate for attack.

  98. @ dee:

    In this country we have freedom of religion by another document that was agreed upon many years ago. As such, a group of people that come together in agreement, who identify themselves as Christians can do such things.

    Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.

    As for Charles Joseph, he will remain in Kentucky as long as people continue to need an “oracle of G-D” and not open their Holy bibles and read for themselves the good news of salvation and eternal life in Jesus alone. For from him and through him and for him are all things.To him be the glory forever! Amen.

  99. We once visited a church in another city, which seemed opposite from most churches. Most of the time, men lead, and women help, quietly and behind the scenes. Unless they can sing or play the piano. But in this church, the main leader and those who seemed to be running things were all women, and I got the feeling that the men were helping. In fact, a husband was playing keyboards and singing. Total role reversal.

    And it was pretty wacky. Granted, it wasn’t SBC, probably as far from SBC as it’s possible to get. And it felt unbalanced, as if they had reacted to error by creating the opposite error. It was unbalanced in other ways too, but that’s another story.

    The goal is balance. Men and women, serving based on their gifts, not their gender. And not based on ordination either. I don’t think churches were meant to be places where the ordained put on a weekly performance to entertain the non-ordained. Where the talented shepherds entertain the passive sheep.

    This is why I’m not in the SBC. Wait, I was a member of First Baptist years ago. And I never “moved my letter,” whatever that means. I may still be on the membership list, and a part of the SBC!

  100. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    What is to be said about the millions of women that remained silent even though they knew that children were being abused? And what about the women who themselves have abused children? Or the women enablers?

    Some i think should be looked at with understanding and compassion. A woman that is born and raised in a closed sharia law bound society that allows beating wives and children and has children of her own growing up and also being abused is not held to the same judgement as a woman that is dating/married to a known abusive man if she can be free of him. Sometimes the brainwashing is so significant and becoming a social outcast with no means to support herself financially is a huge barrier to her being able to do anything. Being ostracized from a close knit patriarchal church in america can be the same, there may not be ‘honor killings’ but there have been wives dead from domestic violence done by husbands that hide their sin behind their church affiliation. Outspoken women and men that teach women to submit to domestic violence and people that bully the mothers of abuse victims into silence for the sake of the church reputation have the greater condemnation i believe. And the silence of the other churches and christians is complicity and regarded as approval. Thats why this site is so important i believe. Who is reaching out to women that have been indoctrinated to believe they cant stand up to abuse of themselves and their children, who is helping them have the courage to come forward? People like Dee and Deb, also people like the ones that stood with the catholic church victims,and the ones that stood with the soverien grace victims. Those people stood for them publicly and walked with them out of it and through court cases and heartache. Then on the other hand there are those that say women shouldnt stay in abusive situations but actually do nothing to help them get out. There really arent very many domestic violence shelters and its not a simple thing to pack up your kids and leave your home with no money, nowhere to go, no friends left, no one to help you through court cases, no babysitter. Its not like a woman sees her kid get abused and can just leave and move into a new house with a new job. That any get out is a show of extreme perserverence and having a support system,intense praying and hoping the judge you get in court (which is in the town the abuse occured in) isnt bff with your abuser.

  101. @ sandy c:
    Women that abuse children should get the same punishment as men that abuse do. That is happening often in society and is seen in the stiff sentencing of female school teachers that abused students even though they said it was “love” this website deals with christians that are abusive and i suppose if churches had more female pastors we would start hearing of more of those. There have been some cases of women in churches that abuse kids being reported and prosecuted but its been less than men.

  102. Robert wrote:

    If the church and its members are really upset about this, why don’t they just find another Baptist association that would be fine with them having a woman?

    The Martin Luther thesis posted on the door (the beginning of protestantism) wasnt about going off and finding another church, his love for his church led to his desire to meet with them and discuss the issues in hopes of changing the church he loved into more conformity with Christ. It was their refusal to discuss or amend even the most horrible abuse- telling congregants they must pay money to have their sins absolved or burning in hell was their top doctrine point at that time i believe- that led him to have to “go find another church”. Perhaps this congregation loves their denomination so much they thought it was important to do this publicly.

  103. okrapod wrote:

    That then leaves the matter of who is going to make the decisions. One idea is that the people get to vote on it. One idea is that the church hierarchy makes the decision. One idea is to go along with the culture; or not go along with the culture; which ever packs the pew and fills the plate. One idea is to ignore the whole thing and let it play out until some decision has essentially been made by popular opinion.

    Great point and i think exactly why there are so many different denominations!

  104. @ A.Tumbleweed:

    “Does anyone seriously believe that “the church” would be more Christlike if women were in control?”
    +++++++++++

    what a silly question. I imagine this church felt that Ellen Di Giosia was the most qualified and best fit.

    i’ve been reading your comments here… and i have to ask:

    what’s up?? why the ruckus and fracas?

  105. @ A.Tumbleweed:

    “My opinion is that it does not matter what gender your “pastor” is because sin knows no gender. ”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    your comments make me wonder how true a statement this is.

  106. @ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

    “By all accounts Tennessee Baptists are not at all confused on this topic. They have addressed it in their confession, and they apparently voted overwhelmingly to follow their confession in their vote.

    The church has an existing and ready made partner in the CBF, so it can move forward and do ministry as they see fit.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    they may not be confused on this topic. but the fact that women in leadership riles their righteousness in such critical mass but abuse cover-ups are tolerated shows they are very confused, indeed.

  107. The issue at hand regarding this church is NOT should women be ordained. And it really is not the business of any but those in the SBC (I am not and my denom ordains women) whether or not it allows churches that do ordain women to remain in the SBC.

    The issue is simply this: can a group (any group) set and enforce membership parameters. Of course they can. And if you don’t like said membership parameters you are free not to be part of the group.

    Can you imagine this? I’m part of a denom that traces its roots back to John Wesley. His roots were CoE. Which had roots in the RCC. But we have jettisoned many of the teachings of the RCC. We do not venerate Mary. We do not practice adoration of the consecrated host from communion. Now, can you imagine our church, our denom, or any of the parent denoms we trace our lineage through insisting on staying IN the RCC OR badmouthing the RCC for kicking us out?

    I cannot imagine any such thing. And I think it is flat out wrong to engage in what could properly be termed bashing the SBC for severing relationship with a church not adhering to their openly stated standards. (But really, looks like it was the Tennessee Baptists, not the SBC, that booted them.)

    I no longer loved the SBC and I left. I may return someday if there is a good local church. Same with the Lutherans. But I didn’t expect either group to change to suit little old me.

    Now if you want something interesting to chew on, try the Dickinson Press out of ND and see what J D Hall has been up to lately. I can’t make this stuff up.

  108. God does NOT allow women to be pastors. She was called by Satan. The SBC org made the correct decision.

  109. This move is all about power and control. Legalism. I was in seminary during the so called conservative revolt. Jesus was nowhere to be found. If a woman can lead people to Christ from the pulpit, where’s the problem?
    It’s a power play plan and simple.

  110. me wrote:

    While i agree that the Trinity if a cornerstone of orthodox faith, this is a pretty poor definition of it. “giving up his own life to defy the forces of violence and chaos”? This sounds more like liberation theology than Christianity.

    If Jesus of Nazareth didn’t defy the forces of darkness by making an open show of them (Colossians 2:15) and triumphing over them with his very life — What pray tell did he die for?

  111. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    How long before “First Baptist” is dropped in favor of “Community” or some other vanilla word?

    Why should the word ‘Community’ wind up as a pejorative? After all, didn’t Jesus teach that the Community of Humankind is to be preferred over tribal allegiance?

  112. okrapod wrote:

    What on the planet is wrong with an autonomous church on the one hand and a convention on the other hand being in disagreement and going their separate ways?

    I dont think anything is wrong with it and i feel that the issue of female pastors isnt clear enough to be able to say its wrong either way and thats why churches and denominations have the ability to decide. If the denomination ie baptist, Presbyterian, methodist etc have a all churches must share this view or not be voting members that is fine also and indeed necessary. I have seen some churches take a total oppisite view of a significant doctrinal issue than their denomination and insist on inclusion anyway and that isnt right in my opinion. What is murky in this, i think is the statements by the denomination that churches can be autonomous and still be members/affiliates. I think they should have been very clear about their position all together to begin with. Just my opinion.

  113. This is why I am a Baptist, who is Southern, but I don’t truly consider myself Southern Baptist anymore. I am a Baptist because it is the branch of Christianity I feel most comfortable in, because I believe in Believer’s Baptism, Priesthood of ALL Believers, Congregational polity, and Arminianism, the traditional aspects of being a Baptist. Sadly, now other than Believer’s Baptism, the SBC is becoming more focused on an Ordained Priesthood of Seminary Trained pastors, those pastors then rule their churches like small-time Popes, and are increasingly preaching Calvinism.
    In addition, it is the hypocrisy that bothers me most of all. While they all point to the words of the Bible to disqualify women from the pulpit, many of them become less fundamentalist if there is a divorced pastor or deacon in their midst, arguing that those passages are discussing polygamy, not divorce. If the accepted interpretation of a verse can change to include divorce and remarried men into the pulpit or among the deacons it is hypocritical to say that the interpretation can’t be expanded to include women.
    I am a firm believer that it is the Holy Spirit, working through the local church congregation that ordains people to the ministry. As God created us all, in his image, both male and female, it is the height of human arrogance to believe that God refuses to speak or lead through half of his creation, especially when the scriptures are full of times that God most certainly did like, Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Anna, and Phillip’s Daughters.

  114. Darlene wrote:

    ir decision go against their own rules. And because they gave the caveat that churches should prayerfully decide it seems they are breaking not only their own rules but over-ruling God!

    It wasnt meant to say that it was God’s rules, but if i say to a group of Christians they should pray about something and decide from that, i am implying that the answer to their prayers would be from God and they should follow that. Hope that makes sense! So (by the logic of their stating it this way) if i now disagree with the decision they have prayerfully made (i told them it was ok if they disagreed with my personal policy) i am going to be stuck with having to say well you prayed but i’m sure the answer you got wasnt from God, or well i trust you prayed and got an answer from God but i dont like it so lets ignore it. Its a really silly rabbit hole to go down. If they were going to dis-fellowship churches that ordained women they should have stated that without all the added ‘you can make your own prayerful decision we are all autonomous stuff’. I wonder why they wrote it up like that anyway. Who knows, lol pray about it and if God doesnt give you the same answer that He gave me then we cant be friends and you wont be seated at my table hehe sorry joking- it just gets ridiculous!

  115. Darlene wrote:

    Can you argue from Scripture, tradition, and Christian history that if the SBC put all their ducks in order regarding sexual predators within their midst, that they would still be out of line by prohibiting women from being pastors? Because that’s my point. Religious organizations are permitted to make these kinds of rules and if a person, or local church doesn’t like it, they can walk with their feet.

    There are alot of scriptural reasons that a church would believe that only men should be ordained as Pastors, the biggest being that in the qualifications for church leadership and the various positions it has, the descriptions are all for men. In 1 Timothy 3:2 for instance “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    There is nothing wrong with churches and believers wanting to follow scriptural instruction and everything wrong with changing biblical instruction to accommodate trendy things that the rest of the world is doing. If a particular church has a scriptural argument that another branch/affiliate is doing something contrary to the bible it should be brought up and discussed and deffinately heretic teachings should be cause for dis-fellowship. The issue in my opinion hasnt ever been about not following the bible but its been about not following it enough. This includes taking care of the welfare of women and children and sound doctrine. To try and pick only authoritative scriptures and ignore the rest is what i believe has happened in many denominations lately and it seems like power and control and legalism and not love at all.

  116. dee wrote:

    I attend a church denomination which does not allow women as pastors. That will not change in my lifetime. I accepted that when I joined the church. However, this church allows women to read the Scripture out loud during the service and allows them to assist with the serving of communion- something lots of SBC churches will not.

    But, and let me make this perfectly clear, if my church eve attempted to cover up a child sex abuse situation, I would be out of there in a flash.

    In other words, I believe that the child sex abuse situation is far more important deal and one that I would never compromise on.

    I think this is an important red flag issue regarding SBC. It doesnt seem that its enough for them to be steadfast on not having female pastors but they seem to insist on TOTAL control of women, including that they cant even speak in church. Dont know if this is calvinista recent or if they have always been like that. The thing is that they go so far overboard in telling women what they cant do and i think the control is the red flag issue. Especially because its control women- women are the ones that speak up about child abuse and if you cant control them it will get exposed. Mark Driscoll’s issue seemed to be part women trashing but even more so the control of men around him because, i think, men are more apt to speak up about financial mismanagement. Of course my theory isnt saying ‘always’ but it sure seems to me that churches that have been exposed for pedos have had the strictist views/rules on controlling women. Hmmm just thinking out loud here.

  117. okrapod wrote:

    You said, and I copy from your prior comment: ” Jesus “ordained” without gender prejudice.”

    I asked you to furnish scriptural evidence of that. You have quoted from Genesis and Galatians and talked about Paul. That is not Jesus. You made a comment about Jesus, and I don’t see that documented in scripture.

    the quote about ‘Jesus ordained…’ wasn’t from me, it was someone elses comment and included in my reply to your comment when i hit reply. Sorry bout that. Jesus never ‘ordained without gender prejudice’, He called 12 disciples and they were all men! Please dont think i agreed with that statement. I dont see anywhere that Jesus ordained any women in the gospels He only ‘ordained’ men as disciples so that indeed makes it gender!

  118. I don’t know if anyone from FBC Jefferson City Beloved Son wrote:

    By the way misspelling words and bad grammer drives those reformed guys crazy.

    I don’t share their religion, and in extreme cases * I don’t pray to the same God as they do, but I share their apparent taste in grammar and spelling. That said, good english isn’t always “correct” english and it certainly need not be elaborate.

    Slight tangent here, but… More often than not, the use of archaic or contrived theological terms is actually bad english. In the context of the good news, the idea is to speak/write so that we can easily be understood, not so that we can demonstrate our membership of a clique. The word “news” is a bit of a clue, really…

    * The ones who believe God’s ultimate act of self-disclosure happened when he convened a large gathering of Church leaders through subtle and largely hidden means and, through their diverse discussions, engineered the compilation of a book.

  119. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I don’t know if anyone from FBC Jefferson City Beloved Son wrote:

    The phrase “I don’t know if anyone from FBC Jefferson City” wasn’t supposed to be in that comment!

    #badEnglish
    #WTFisHeTalkingAbout

  120. elastigirl wrote:

    @ A.Tumbleweed:
    “My opinion is that it does not matter what gender your “pastor” is because sin knows no gender. ”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    your comments make me wonder how true a statement this is.

    It seems like we are supposed to say ‘both men/women sin, so it’s cool if only men are in charge of things’.

    That is not the logic I would use.

  121. K.D. wrote:

    This move is all about power and control. Legalism. I was in seminary during the so called conservative revolt. Jesus was nowhere to be found.

    What’s fascinating to me in talking to people who attended the ‘liberal’ seminary next to a conservative seminary is how much it affecting community between the two. It made everything very unfriendly, where it hadn’t been before, was my impression.

  122. elastigirl wrote:

    @ A.Tumbleweed:
    “My opinion is that it does not matter what gender your “pastor” is because sin knows no gender. ”
    +++++++++++++++++++
    your comments make me wonder how true a statement this is.

    I stand by my statement. Sin does not discriminate between the genders.

    I really don’t care what gender your “pastor” is. Most of the people who claim that title are braying donkeys anyway. If a woman is going to claim that title for herself then she better be preaching Christ and Him crucified to sinner and saint alike, and she had better be properly administering the Word and the sacraments. If not, then she is no pastor and is as useless as Mark Driscoll, et al. And the church is no church where that is not happening, as many, if not most, of these evangelical social clubs are not actual churches.

    Judging from the materials and the links presented here, she may function just fine as the head of a quasi-christian non-profit, a CEO type, but so far I haven’t seen anything that makes her a “pastor”. Is she one just because she wanted to be one?

    Just because a woman claims the title for herself doesn’t make her any good at it. Same hold true for men. They are all judged by the same standard which is the Word of God, and will be held accountable to Christ when they stand before Him at the judgement. They will find out then if they were a “pastor” or not.

    As for me and my family, I listen to their sermons, check out their website and doctrinal statement, and investigate them to see if I want my family to be under their leadership & teaching. The Bible is the standard, and how they believe about the Gospel is where the judgment on my part comes into play. From what I have heard out of this woman’s mouth, she is very close to being a universalist, which is why I would anticipate that church to make a move away from any Baptist distinctives. They are already on that road, as her hiring demonstrates.

    I really don’t see any controversy here. The bigger issue is that this church decided to take a fairly lazy way out of their association by doing something they knew would get them kicked out, and playing the martyr now because their “pastor” is female. They should be more concerned that she is a lousy preacher.

  123. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    but so far I haven’t seen anything that makes her a “pastor”.

    Maybe she is truly pastoral, which is not a thing you will get from a sermon. Have we not talked about how sermons aren’t everything???

    Maybe she visits the sick, and ministers to the congregation in ways that you aren’t getting from ‘materials’. My first true introduction to a woman as a pastor was at a funeral and she was the most comforting wonderful minister I had seen in a long time. It was years later before I came over to the idea, but she planted the seed.

  124. Lea wrote:

    It seems like we are supposed to say ‘both men/women sin, so it’s cool if only men are in charge of things’.

    No, it means that the gender of the “pastor” is not the issue, and both men and women can be, and are, very bad “pastors”. Just because a woman is in charge doesn’t mean that things are going to be all sunshine and roses. Sin perverts everything, including women.

    Having been under both male and female leadership over the years, I have found that the one thing they have in common is the ability to be corrupted by power and oppress & abuse people. Their gender doesn’t matter.

    I would say the same thing to women as I have said to calvinist men in the past. If you are unhappy with the way things are, and you think that you can do a better job, then go out and start your own church and show the world how wonderful you are. No one is stopping you.

    And anyone that has spent time in a fundamentalist Bible church already knows that the pastor’s wife really runs the show anyway. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. My opinion, your mileage may vary.

  125. Lea wrote:

    woman as a pastor was at a funeral

    Well, good for you. Every woman I have ever heard preach a funeral was horrible.

    Preaching the Gospel has to be pretty important for a “pastor” doesn’t it? So far I can’t find anything that indicates she even understands the Gospel, let alone knows how to preach it. A telling clue was the question about which doctrine was non-negotiable. Her answer was some warmed over pablum that located the doctrine of the trinity as an invention of the ancient church. Not the Gospel. Not justification by faith. Not some Baptist distinctive.
    Good grief! Talk about a stupid answer! If I were a member there, I would be livid that they picked someone like that. How absurd.

  126. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    and both men and women can be, and are, very bad “pastors”.

    But nobody was arguing otherwise? And they are not being thrown out because she is ‘bad’ they are being thrown out because she is a woman. So it’s irrelevant to the topic.

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Every woman I have ever heard preach a funeral was horrible.

    Well, I’ve heard a lot of terrible funerals preached by men.

    You’ve listened to a couple sermons by this lady you don’t like. Fine. I have no attachment to her personally, but IMO actually being a decent person, and ministering to the sick and needy in your congregation and in the world are every bit as important if not more than the sermon on sunday. So maybe my perspective is different.

  127. Question for the OP: What is the connection between covering up the abuse of children and the Tennessee Baptist Convention? Were they the prime suspects in the coverup?

    If so, it would make their kicking out a church for choosing a female “pastor” while at the same time not kicking out churches who covered up the abuse of children somewhat relevant.

  128. Lea wrote:

    Well, I’ve heard a lot of terrible funerals preached by men.

    So have I. I have heard of/seen a lot of terrible funerals period.

  129. Lea wrote:

    And they are not being thrown out because she is ‘bad’ they are being thrown out because she is a woman. So it’s irrelevant to the topic.

    Not necessarily. Everyone in this situation may be taking the easy road out for reasons not stated.

    Btw, I don’t like her or dislike her. That is irrelevant and I don’t know her. But what I have observed from her so far is nothing but pablum. I don’t like pablum, but hey, maybe some people do.

  130. dee wrote:

    But, and let me make this perfectly clear, if my church eve attempted to cover up a child sex abuse situation, I would be out of there in a flash.

    Quick question: Did you check to see if your church body funds abortion services through the synod health insurance program?

  131. K.D. wrote:

    I was in seminary during the so called conservative revolt. Jesus was nowhere to be found.

    I was gone before the conservative rebound, but immediately before that I was in FirstBaptist SmallTown and Jesus was nowhere to be found there either. I can accept what you are saying about the conservatives, but my experience with the church immediately before that was such a disaster that I grabbed my kids and my check book and split.

  132. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Who said [“community”, and “vanilla” by analogy] is a pejorative? I happen to like vanilla…

    Point 1 of 2: culinary and somewhat frivolous

    I think the reason vanilla gets such a bad press is that it’s associated with ice cream, and it’s not a good flavouring for ice cream. Vanilla is more like a kind of seasoning – it’s really good for combining with other flavours. So, I never make cakes without it; it goes really well with apple, cinnamon, caramel, chocolate and many more (though not lemon). Likewise vanilla ice cream is an accompaniment – and a good one – but not a dessert, IMHO.

    Point 2 of 2: Frivolity aside

    If the congregation are indeed going to be shunned by their para-church umbrella organisation, then it might be an idea to change their name, and “Community” might be as good a word as any to use. To stick with the “vanilla” analogy for a moment: “community” is not a go-it-alone brandname that is easily taken over by some ambitious guru, nor does it make a show of allegiance to a para-church denomination.

  133. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    And they are not being thrown out because she is ‘bad’ they are being thrown out because she is a woman. So it’s irrelevant to the topic.

    Not necessarily. Everyone in this situation may be taking the easy road out for reasons not stated.

    Wait a minute. Are you honestly arguing that this may have nothing to do with her being a woman????

    That seems unlikely.

  134. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I think the reason vanilla gets such a bad press is that it’s associated with ice cream, and it’s not a good flavouring for ice cream.

    It’s pretty good when it’s vanilla bean, though. I think the problem with ‘vanilla’ ice cream is that there isn’t enough vanilla usually.

  135. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Likewise vanilla ice cream is an accompaniment – and a good one – but not a dessert, IMHO.

    I agree with this. With hot apple pie it is a great accompaniment. There is something not so good about it (to me) with pumpkin pie tho. Any berry pie and it’s great. New York vanilla please.

  136. Lea wrote:

    Wait a minute. Are you honestly arguing that this may have nothing to do with her being a woman????
    That seems unlikely.

    Maybe, but it is a possibility. Not saying it is or isn’t. In today’s world who knows the real reasons behind these actions.

  137. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Well, I’ve heard a lot of terrible funerals preached by men.
    So have I. I have heard of/seen a lot of terrible funerals period.

    I conducted a funeral where the family asked the the special music be Simon and Garfunkel’s “Slip Sliding Away.” I granted their wish.

  138. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Did you check to see if your church body funds abortion services through the synod health insurance program?

    I know just who to ask. I highly doubt it because it is Missouri Synod. I will get back to you with an answer after I hear back.

  139. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Quick question: Did you check to see if your church body funds abortion services through the synod health insurance program?

    Well that was a fast and most emphatic answer!! It is NO with lots of exclamation points.

  140. @ dee:
    Reason I ask is that I just ran across a list of church bodies who not only provide abortion services through their health insurance program, but also support Planned Parenthood. The list is long.

  141. dee wrote:

    because it is Missouri Synod.

    Curious regarding your churches view of communion. I attended a Missouri Synod church, but was asked to agree to their view of communion or not take it. Their view being that of transubstantiation.

  142. Lutherans hold to consubstantiation not transubstantiation.

    Wikipedia: Consubstantiation is a Christian theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) describes the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It holds that during the sacrament, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

  143. “It is important to point out that not all Baptist churches that cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention have embraced the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which specifically states that ALL pastors must be male.” (Deb)

    Yes, many Southern Baptist churches opted to not adopt the BFM2000 over the 1963 version for a variety of reasons. It was obvious in the 2000 revision that the statement was drifting into reformed theology in belief and practice … and as we know, the New Calvinists stand firm on complementarian gender roles, which exclude women from serving in leadership positions.

    In regard to women serving as pastors, note the not-so-subtle changes to “The Church” section in the 1963 vs. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message:

    1963: “In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”

    2000: “In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

    While some SBC churches have not been female-friendly for years, the situation has worsened as the reformed movement sweeps through SBC life.

  144. @ Bridget:

    Found this,

    Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

    I don’t see much difference, seems like splitting hairs.

  145. @ Bridget:
    @ drstevej:
    Both wrong. Consubstantiation was a medieval heresy denied by the Lutheran Confessions, and transubstantiation is the view help by the RCC.

    What you experienced was “close” or “closed” communion, where the church teaches that only those who agree with the Lutheran teaching on the Lord’s Supper are permitted to partake, primarily as a safeguard to the non-Lutheran.

  146. @ Bridget:
    Evangelicals & Reformed believe that you receive two things at the Lord’s Supper, bread and wine.
    RCC believes you receive two things: The real body & blood of our Jesus.
    Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that you receive four things – bread and wine, body and blood, without trying to explain how or why. They simply take the Lord Jesus at His Word.

  147. Bridget wrote:

    was asked to agree to their view of communion or not take it

    That sounds sort of in between closed and open communion to me. Rather than saying you have to be Lutheran, they are saying you have to agree?

  148. I like what seems to be the anglican approach to the question.

    Is the eucharist a sacrament? Yes.

    In the sacrament is there what is called the Real Presence? Yes

    How does that work? Danged if we know, but we will be glad to discuss it in the very best vocabulary and grammar.

  149. okrapod wrote:

    Is the eucharist a sacrament? Yes.
    In the sacrament is there what is called the Real Presence? Yes
    How does that work? Danged if we know, but we will be glad to discuss it in the very best vocabulary and grammar.

    Sometimes you just have to give up being Mister Know-It-All and just roll with it.
    A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Pretty much the Confessional Lutheran approach too. Works for me.

    And similar to the Catholic, though we Romish Papists have a pretty extreme interpretation of The Real Presence. See above about “just roll with it”.

  150. drstevej wrote:

    Lutherans hold to consubstantiation not transubstantiation.

    How about “pansubstatiation”, i.e. “It’ll all pan out”?

  151. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Well, I’ve heard a lot of terrible funerals preached by men.

    So have I. I have heard of/seen a lot of terrible funerals period.

    Internet Monk has a couple postings on the subject; most of the accounts of terrible funerals seem to cluster around a few types:
    * Wretched Urgency Altar Calls (sometimes with a side of Hellfire/Damnation)
    * Heavy Theology Time regarding Salvation and Eternal Destiny
    * When all you have is one favorite hammer/sermon…
    * Simple cluelessness.

    My mother’s funeral back in ’75 was an example of the last type. Looking back, it was one of those “What Were We Thinking?” moments worthy of a sitcom, but it wasn’t very funny at the time.

  152. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Just because a woman is in charge doesn’t mean that things are going to be all sunshine and roses.

    I prefer the term “unicorns farting rainbows and free ice cream for everybody”.

  153. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    How about “pansubstatiation”, i.e. “It’ll all pan out”?

    There is something to this. I was trained to believe there is not much more to “communion” than some kind of mystical remembrance. But not too long ago I did some research and did not find what I was hoping to find. I was hoping to have my belief confirmed. Instead, I learned that until the reformation the “church” always beloved in what sounds an awful lot like transbstantiation. I personally believe the Easten Orthodox view is the most solid. They basically believe that in the same way that Jesus has both a divine and human nature, the bread and wine likewise take on two natures: the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but they also become the real flesh and blood of Jesus. They don’t try to explain how this is nor the exact moment the “mystery” happens (no bell ringing). As far as closed communion, why would someone want to commune in a church if they don’t agree with what that church beliefs about communion?

  154. @ drstevej:

    “I conducted a funeral where the family asked the the special music be Simon and Garfunkel’s “Slip Sliding Away.” I granted their wish.”
    ++++++++++++

    seems to me it wasn’t up to you to grant or not grant their wishes at the funeral they planned for their loved one.

  155. Max wrote:

    Yes, many Southern Baptist churches opted to not adopt the BFM2000 over the 1963 version for a variety of reasons.

    Max, churches are not required to adopt the BFM. Many have their own doctrinal statements.

    The BFM is a confession adopted by churches who attend the Convention.

    It would seem odd that a church would want to remain in the SBC if that church disagrees with the convention adopted confession.

  156. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that you receive four things – bread and wine, body and blood, without trying to explain how or why. They simply take the Lord Jesus at His Word.

    Lea wrote:

    That sounds sort of in between closed and open communion to me. Rather than saying you have to be Lutheran, they are saying you have to agree?

    Bridget wrote:

    Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

    Bridget

    Luther explained it this way. If you put an iron in the fire, the iron become hot but the iron does not become the fire. The RCC would say that the iron becomes the fire. That is the difference.

    The Lutherans take communion very seriously because they believe that Christ is literally present in the communion. The host does not become the Body but the Body is still present. They also believe that it is a means of imparting grace. Here is what they say.

    http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=g&word=GRACE.MEANSOF

    The Luth. Confessions gen. speak of the Word and the Sacraments as the means of grace (Ap VII–VIII 36; SA-III VIII 10; FC SD II 48), specifically denoting the Gospel as the means of grace (AC V).

    The Luth. Confessions take a decisive stand against “enthusiasts,” who teach that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men without the Word and Sacraments (SA-III VIII 3–13; LC II 34–62; FC Ep II 13).

    “9. Necessity of the means of grace. The means of grace are necessary because of Christ’s command and because they offer God’s grace. God has not bound Himself to the means of grace (Lk 1:15, 41), but He has bound His ch. to them. Christians dare not regard as unnecessary the Sacraments and the preaching of the Word (Mt 28:19–20; Lk 22:19; 1 Co 11:23–28), as some “enthusiasts” do. But Luth. theol. does not assert an absolute necessity of the Sacraments, since faith and regeneration can be worked by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men through the Word without the Sacraments. Mere lack of the Sacraments does not condemn, but contempt for them does (Lk 7:29–30).”

    My church explains what they believe about communion in the bulletin and asks for each person to examine themselves. However, they do not stop anyone from participating in the communion. Some Missouri synod churches will not let anyone participate in communion without first getting the approval of the pastor.

    LCMS does not view communion as merely symbolic and I believe that the Scripture backs them up. They also do not believe in transubstantiation which is why the broader evangelical Protestant church accepts Lutherans as Christians within the greater Protestant community.

    I attended a Lutheran church in college shortly after I became a Christian. I found their view of communion very meaningful to me. For years, I have found something missing from the purely symbolic approach to communion that I found in many other churches and denominations. I find myself more at peace now in many respects, including communion so much so that I voluntarily assist with distributing communion (any member can do so).

  157. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    primarily as a safeguard to the non-Lutheran.

    Yes. Those others.

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that you receive four things – bread and wine, body and blood, without trying to explain how or why. They simply take the Lord Jesus at His Word.

    You are coming across the interwaves as arrogant and condescending.

  158. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    As far as closed communion, why would someone want to commune in a church if they don’t agree with what that church beliefs about communion?

    Simple – because they are a believer and come wanting to be a part of a gathering of believers and find they are not welcome as a brother or sister in Christ. Maybe these are simply passing through . . .

  159. drstevej wrote:

    I conducted a funeral where the family asked the the special music be Simon and Garfunkel’s “Slip Sliding Away.” I granted their wish.

    Great song!
    Paul Simon is the real McCoy when it comes to word smithing.

  160. @ Bridget:
    Maybe this will make sense. Only ordained pastors can consecrate the bread and wine (they use wine but always have some grape juice for those who cannot drink wine). Once the elements are consecrated, then it is a matter of distributing them.

    Think of it as a two step process. First the consecration which is always preceded by a church wide confession prayer, then the passing of the peace-shaking hands, hugs, etc. The ordained pastors (ordination is a requirement) then do the consecrations and take communion themselves.

    Those who are assisting with communion are then given communion first. Then they help the rest of the congregation along with the pastor(s). The pastor hand out the bread and the assistants help with the wine which can be taken in individual glasses or from a common chalice.This is for the Saturday evening service which is less traditional.

    Everyone comes forward and takes the communion without going to the rail unless they wish to do so for private prayer.

    On Sundays, all people in the church come to the rail.

  161. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Is not the Bible our final authority?

    In what way? Final for what? And what do you do when everyone interprets things differently-baptism, communion, gifts of the Sprit, etc.? It is quite obvious that men are making the final decisions on some of these.

  162. Mark Shriver wrote:

    God does NOT allow women to be pastors. She was called by Satan. The SBC org made the correct decision.

    Called by Satan? Calm down…

    SBC.org, whatever that is, did not make this decision.

  163. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Internet Monk has a couple postings on the subject; most of the accounts of terrible funerals seem to cluster around a few types:
    * Wretched Urgency Altar Calls (sometimes with a side of Hellfire/Damnation)
    * Heavy Theology Time regarding Salvation and Eternal Destiny
    * When all you have is one favorite hammer/sermon…
    * Simple cluelessness.

    I think good funerals focus on the person who has died, and the their lives and their family/friends. Cookie cutter alter calls are an incredibly poor substitute for informed warmth and celebration of a life well lived.

  164. 1 Timothy 2:12 is very clear

    It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity

  165. Bridget wrote:

    Simple – because they are a believer and come wanting to be a part of a gathering of believers and find they are not welcome as a brother or sister in Christ. Maybe these are simply passing through . . .

    Comments like this. You need to do a little bit of research on the subject before assuming you are not “welcome as a brother or sister in Christ”. Close communion has nothing at all to do with that. It has everything to do with the confession that the church maintains and the process by which one is prepared to receive the body & blood of the Lord.

    If a person did not believe that they were receiving the body & blood of the Lord – a.k.a. the Real Presence of Christ – in the supper, then they would be partaking to their own hurt as the Scriptures say. So therefore the practice of close communion is put in place so the church does not knowingly participate in something that would cause a sister in Christ to stumble into sin. That is the protective aspect of practice.

    In addition, when you commune together you are agreeing with the community of believers what they confess. If you don’t believe that a person receives the forgiveness of sins through the sacrament, then why would you want to participate in it? If you believe that it is merely a memorial meal – and nothing more – you do not agree with the confession of the church and participation in the sacrament would be pointless and a sin against the congregation.

    So it’s not intended to harm anyone, but rather to protect. In my own case, I am communing while my wife is not as she is working through the confession of the church and making sure she understands and believes what the church teaches. Everyone is perfectly ok with that.

    So drop the snark please.

  166. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    As far as closed communion, why would someone want to commune in a church if they don’t agree with what that church beliefs about communion?

    From my perspective, open communion sends a message that this is a gathering of Christians and all are welcome. Closed says you are ‘other’. It rubs me the wrong way for that reason, although I’m not telling anybody else what they have to do. Just my perspective.

  167. Lea wrote:

    I think good funerals focus on the person who has died, and the their lives and their family/friends. Cookie cutter alter calls are an incredibly poor substitute for informed warmth and celebration of a life well lived.

    I agree with you. At the last funeral we attended, my son was so disturbed by the service (which did not focus on the person who died, his grandfather) that he vowed to never set foot in one of those churches again.

  168. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Comments like this. You need to do a little bit of research on the subject before assuming you are not “welcome as a brother or sister in Christ”.

    Hard to do when visiting a church. My take is that if I am asked not to take communion because I don’t believe exactly like the church believes about communion, then I am not really considered a sister in Christ. How else is a person to view it?

    After reading the only info the church had in the pews about communion, I had decided not to partake of it in preference to the brothers and sisters who might have been offended.

    It ended up to be a mute point, although it was Easter, communion was not offered to anyone.

  169. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    liberal

    That’s it! Silly me. This is all about those liberals who don’t believe in the Bible, isn’t it? It sure makes things quite simple.

  170. Bridget wrote:

    It ended up to be a mute point, although it was Easter, communion was not offered to anyone.

    Really? I think my church does communion every week of Lent through Easter.

    I think whatever reasons churches give for how it is ‘stopping someone from sinning’, the preference to me would be showing love for brothers and sisters in Christ who attend regardless of their beliefs. What is most important here to God, I wonder.

  171. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    So drop the snark please.

    What snark? I have been a Christian for 36 years. I still don’t understand closed communion to actual Christians. I’m actually heart broken over it.

  172. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    What you experienced was “close” or “closed” communion, where the church teaches that only those who agree with the Lutheran teaching on the Lord’s Supper are permitted to partake, primarily as a safeguard to the non-Lutheran.

    Safeguard?
    How does that square up with Jesus’ teaching in Luke 14:13-24?

    13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

    14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

    15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

    16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

    17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

    18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

    19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

    20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

    21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

    22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

    23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

    24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

  173. Bridget wrote:

    Simple – because they are a believer and come wanting to be a part of a gathering of believers and find they are not welcome as a brother or sister in Christ.

    I think you would find my church to be incredibly welcoming. The pastors are so kind. They learn your name and show a great deal of interest in everyone who comes without breathing down your neck.

    Again, my church would not refuse you communion. However, they will ask you to consider their beliefs if you do come forward. If I am holding the communion tray, I look at each person who comes to the tray and say “The blood of Christ shed for you.” I do not question who anyone is and I know that no one else does as well. The decision is totally in your hands.

  174. 21st century church headline: “FBC Jefferson City Calls a Female Pastor and is Ousted from the Tennessee Baptist Convention”

    1st century church headline: “Paul Praises the Churches Held in the Homes of Priscilla, Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, and Nympha”

  175. dee wrote:

    However, they will ask you to consider their beliefs if you do come forward.

    But that is putting a barrier that conscientious people will not cross. It doesn’t matter if you’re not carding them at the communion tray so to speak, they get the message. I wouldn’t take communion at a catholic church because I know I’m not ‘supposed’ to. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s strange and offputting.

  176. @ Muff Potter:
    Amen. And Paul, iirc, did not say people were “to be prevented” or discouraged or turned away from taking communion, but they were to examine themselves.

    So istm that the onus is not on the church, but on the individual.

    So such churches “saving us from ourselves” are overstepping, I should think. But then, I hate it when people are patronizing, anyway.

  177. Bridget wrote:

    What snark? I have been a Christian for 36 years. I still don’t understand closed communion to actual Christians. I’m actually heart broken over it.

    Heart broken? So was Jesus over the religiosity of Jerusalem. So much so that he cried. Almighty God became one of us and knew pain enough to cause tears.

  178. Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

    churches are not required to adopt the BFM. Many have their own doctrinal statements

    True. Individual SBC-affiliated are autonomous in their faith and practice and are not bound by Southern Baptist Convention actions. Southern Baptists are not a creedal people as a rule, but generally agree on common principles of faith. The Baptist Faith & Message serves primarily as a guide to general belief and practice within the denomination, but is not binding on SBC-affiliated churches. As you note, an individual church may choose to adopt the BF&M in whole, or may create its own statement (which may or may not incorporate parts of the BF&M). When the BFM was revised in 2000, many SBC churches simply elected to ignore it in favor of the 1963 version – taking a “why fix it if it ain’t broken” stance. And, of course, there was the concern in many churches that BFM2000 trended toward Calvinism – a matter that didn’t sit well with the mainline majority of Southern Baptists, who are not Calvinists.

  179. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    That is an excellent point! I don’t care for the taste of vanilla by itself; I always have to have it with some other flavor. Like dumping chocolate all over vanilla ice cream.

    You’re right, it works well as a flavor enhancer, playing a supporting role for other flavors.

    Kind of like salt bringing out the sweetness of grapefruit, or again, salt smoothing out the taste of coffee and taking away the bitterness. (Someone in culinary school proved the latter fact to me. I never would have believed that adding a pinch of salt to a cup of coffee would improve the flavor!)

    There’s probably some good spiritual analogy in such supporting roles as salt and vanilla…

  180. Lea wrote:

    From my perspective, open communion sends a message that this is a gathering of Christians and all are welcome. Closed says you are ‘other’. It rubs me the wrong way for that reason, although I’m not telling anybody else what they have to do. Just my perspective.

    I prefer open communion. But as I’ve tried to understand the perspective of the older forms of closed communion I can see some solid reasons for it. To be in communion means to be in community. If I don’t agree with the community expectations then I am not really in community. And for me to disregard the community rules is both selfish and disrespectful. Also, in the case of taking communion, the Bible says we can take it in an unworthy matter and thereby bring judgement upon ourselves. This is not something to take lightly. Which goes back to my original question about why someone wwould want to take communion when they don’t believe in what that church believes about it. I am now in the process of trying to figure out what is best for me in this regard. I am shifting toward respecting closed communion, but for the 9marxist reasons.

  181. In our tradition we admit to the eucharist any baptized believer. We do have corporate confession at the time, and we do consider baptism to be in the name of the Trinity, but we don’t require anybody to believe what we believe about the eucharist beyond that, or even to understand it. In fact, we don’t all agree about it ourselves, except in some general way. We are about as ‘open’ with communion as you can get. And we do not have a doctrinal litmus test except baptized. That does not mean that we do not have official positions; it does mean that visitors are welcome to participate.

    And the class before confirmation is information only; there is no test to pass. Some of our people do believe in transubstantiation and some do not. There are no contracts to sign or religious police. Private confession to a priest is optional with the idea that anyone may, some should, none must. A lay person can hear confession also, or so I have read. We have both men and women deacons, priests and bishops. We are officially socially ‘liberal’ in some things with which I greatly disagree; and we are almost indistinguishable from the Romans in some ways which me very uncomfortable. We are in trouble with the mother ship for being too liberal.

    In my opinion whatever road one goes down one is sure to meet disagreements along the way. Grow up. Get over it. You (generic) and I are so far from perfection that it gets absurd to watch either of us pretend otherwise.

    Personally, including but not limited to personal experience, I think that for a young woman who is married with kids to also add to that a demanding profession/job, like senior pastor, is asking for problems which will probably impact herself, her family and the church itself. Choices will have to be made and priorities will have to be set and issues will present themselves. A study of women doctors some years back was very informative about this.

    Thank God for the Episcopalians. Nobody else would put up with me, nor I with them.

  182. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    High grade controversy, 1887

    Can you provide a link? I found info on the Down Grade Controversy from that year, but not High Grade. The Down Grade Controversy seemed to be started by Spurgeon reacting to what he viewed as liberalism. But I could not find info on when and where the liberalism started. Do you have info on when and where it started?

  183. Bridget wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    Comments like this. You need to do a little bit of research on the subject before assuming you are not “welcome as a brother or sister in Christ”.
    Hard to do when visiting a church. My take is that if I am asked not to take communion because I don’t believe exactly like the church believes about communion, then I am not really considered a sister in Christ. How else is a person to view it?
    After reading the only info the church had in the pews about communion, I had decided not to partake of it in preference to the brothers and sisters who might have been offended.
    It ended up to be a mute point, although it was Easter, communion was not offered to anyone.

    So you are complaining about something that wasn’t offered to you anyway, and about which you never asked anyone at that church, right?

  184. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12

    Is not the Bible our final authority?

    Interestingly, Paul said he himself did not allow it. He did not equate it with a command from God that everyone must follow.

  185. @ okrapod:
    But who says it has to be a young woman with kids?

    One of the best preachers I knew (thoughtful, down to earth, practical and realistic while loving and exhorting) was a retired guy who was filling in). An older woman could bring just as much life experience, I should think.

    The more I ponder the question, the more it appears to be a highly effective Screwtape move, to silence half of the followers of Christ…

    While, as was pointed out above, sin draws no gender lines (i.e. women are no “better” than men, but it’s also quite possible by the same logic that they are no “worse”, either), neither does thoughtfulness, giftedness, insight, or the ability to teach and present a message clearly.

  186. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    My apologies, distractions from grandchildren, it was the Down Grade , when Spurgeon addressed the liberal interpretation of the Bible.

    Thanks. Your original statement was, “It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity.” I am aaking when and where did this invasion happen. Did Spurgeon react immediately to something just breaking out in his location, or did he react to somerhing much older?

  187. @ Muff Potter:
    It has nothing to do with communion, so there is nothing to square.

    To the rest complaining about tone: Pfftt. I just love how people get “tone” out of words on a screen. You should talk. Are the thought police here? Opinion folks. Deal with it.

  188. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    To be in communion means to be in community.

    Ah, then the question comes down to what is ‘community’ when dealing with Christians. This church, this denomination, or all of us?

  189. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    If your conscious allows you to worship under female leadership, that’s your business. I honestly and sincerely believe Paul was speaking divine truth.

    Not to muddy the waters but how many churches with female leadership, also have weekly Sunday night worship services?

  190. Lea wrote:

    But that is putting a barrier that conscientious people will not cross.

    This is a difficult question to answer because I know people have very specific ideas when it comes to communion. Basically, it boils down to this. Are you comfortable taking communion when the pastor and the church all believe that the body and blood are somehow miraculously present and you don’t? In other words, you don’t believe what they believe and you are going to put a different spin on it for yourself.

    Some people who are confused and unsettled come forward with their arms crossed. They receive a prayer and blessing from the pastor. It is quite moving.

    One of my pastors is friendly with a Catholic priest who suggested that they do communion together. He did not fell comfortable doing so because he knew there were differences in belief about the communion. A man who was present said “Well, I do when I got to my daughter’s Catholic church. I don’t think that is wrong.” My pastor answered “I am not your boss!” In other words, he wasn’t going to tell him what to do. He merely said what he would do.

    For years, I have been uncomfortable with the lack of seriousness that I have observed in many of my former churches when it came to communion. Yet, I still participated.

    I cannot say the following enough. If you were to come to my church, you would not feel slighted and would most likely feel warmly received, even with your different thinking on communion.

  191. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Not to muddy the waters but how many churches with female leadership, also have weekly Sunday night worship services?

    You mean, just like the disciples who all had Sunday evening worship? I know it is in the Bible somewhere. Also, Lutheran churches do not have Sunday evening worship so I guess they are liberals as well? To make matters even worse, they have a Saturday evening worship service. Damnation is not far behind!

  192. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12 is very clear

    It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity

    Clear to whom?
    E.W. Bullinger (hardly a liberal) had this to say in his preface to 1 Timothy almost a century ago:

    ======================================================================================
    To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and, as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant
    whatsoever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.

    — From: E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible p-1799. —
    ======================================================================================

  193. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Also, in the case of taking communion, the Bible says we can take it in an unworthy matter and thereby bring judgement upon ourselves. This is not something to take lightly.

    What does that mean to you? I find that one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament.

  194. Lea wrote:

    Ah, then the question comes down to what is ‘community’ when dealing with Christians. This church, this denomination, or all of us?

    I don’t think there is an easy answer to this. As I read different perspectives I am seeing sensible rarionale for both “sides” of the debate. I had hoped to find my own desires confirmed by church history. But I found the opposite.

  195. @ dee:
    Always ready to pounce, my friend Dee, I am surprised you bother with this dialog, thought you would be sniffing out dirt on Chantry.

    Agreed, damnation is not far behind

  196. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    So you are complaining about something that wasn’t offered to you anyway, and about which you never asked anyone at that church, right?

    No, I am not. I didn’t know it wasn’t going to be offered until it wasn’t. I spent a portion of the service reading what was in the pew about what they believed about communion and then making a decision that I would not take it as not to offend them. It was not until part way through the service that it became apparent that they were not offering communion.

    I do not believe I would have been indicted by God for anything if I had taken communion. I do feel it would have offended the believers at this church.

  197. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Always ready to pounce,

    You are the one who brought up weekly Sunday night services as a requirement to know you are in a godly church.

    You are here under false pretenses, BTW, and you are going into moderation until you dream up another name and IP. I believe the victims of Tom Chantry. And ARBCA should be ashamed themselves and the Red Binder.

  198. Refugee wrote:

    But who says it has to be a young woman with kids?

    The subject of this post included a picture of a young women with kids. I am being specific.

    I was a young woman with kids practicing medicine. I am being authentic.

    The married with kids was the issue of the research about women doctors which I quoted. I am being precise.

    Paul’s comments were toward young women in the child bearing years when he advised marriage and reproduction and focusing on that. I am being biblical in limiting my comments to this specificity.

  199. dee wrote:

    What does that mean to you? I find that one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament.

    This an area where I wish the Bible was more clear. A few years ago I thought I had an answer. Now that I’ve been doing more reading I am much less confident. Ignorance truly is bliss. For now, I think I am supposed to respect the various opinions on it by not pushing for my way in any particular church, while also trusting in God’s mercy. Maybe in a few years I will have figured it out. But for now I have very mixed feelings and beliefs on what I am supposed to do with communion.

  200. Bridget wrote:

    No, I am not. I didn’t know it wasn’t going to be offered until it wasn’t. I spent a portion of the service reading what was in the pew about what they believed about communion and then making a decision that I would not take it as not to offend them. It was not until part way through the service that it became apparent that they were not offering communion.
    I do not believe I would have been indicted by God for anything if I had taken communion. I do feel it would have offended the believers at this church.

    Ok, so the next time you go into a new church, look up front at the altar. If the elements are there under the white hanky looking thing, then there will be communion. That would be the time to ask the pastor about it. But, even if you had communed, from my experience mind you, no one would have known either way and thus no one would have been offended.

    The only time I have heard otherwise was in a couple of small Bible churches where the elements were actually refused a person, (which was really awkward when they wouldn’t let me have them) and once that I know about in a WELS church where the person was just passed by at the rail.

  201. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    I honestly and sincerely believe Paul was speaking divine truth.

    I also believe that Paul was speaking dovine truth. The clear meaning of that passage is that Paul was stating what he himself did not allow. He did not state it as a rule for all time and all places. I find that many religious types harp on “the clear meaning of scripture” and yet project much more onto passages than they clearly state. This is one of those cases.

  202. dee wrote:

    I cannot say the following enough. If you were to come to my church, you would not feel slighted and would most likely feel warmly received, even with your different thinking on communion.

    I believe that. I believe the people at the church I visited could very well be welcoming and kind as well. Communion is an issue for them though.

  203. Folks

    I have banned Lloyd Jones.He is one of those ARBCA trolls who are upset that I am following the Tom Chantry situation and I believe the victims. Many of them are total creepsters. Remember the poorly written letter they sent about me>

    These guys try so hard to make inroads but they cannot help themselves. Chantry is some sort of patron saint in ARBCA and I am trying to figure out why.

  204. dee wrote:

    I have banned Lloyd Jones.

    Good call, but I was really hoping he would answer my question about when all the liberalism started. Many of the “liberal” beliefs are actually quite old.

  205. dee wrote:

    Are you comfortable taking communion when the pastor and the church all believe that the body and blood are somehow miraculously present and you don’t? In other words, you don’t believe what they believe and you are going to put a different spin on it for yourself.

    I am, actually. But I would not take it in a church where others were not comfortable with *me* taking it in such a scenario.

    BTW, my denom believes it is both a sacrament and iirc ‘real presence’ but has a different understanding of that I believe (was looking for something to quote and surprisingly hard to find and I don’t have my books handy). It is still quite solemn.

  206. dee wrote:

    If you were to come to my church, you would not feel slighted and would most likely feel warmly received, even with your different thinking on communion.

    I’m sure that’s true! I just prefer open communion, that’s all, for the reasons I’ve expressed.

  207. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Ok, so the next time you go into a new church, look up front at the altar. If the elements are there under the white hanky looking thing, then there will be communion. That would be the time to ask the pastor about it.

    Seriously?

    I’m sure most pastors want to have a lengthy dialogue about their theology of communion right before Easter Sunday service /s. Heavens.

  208. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    The clear meaning of that passage is that Paul was stating what he himself did not allow. He did not state it as a rule for all time and all places.

    Doubly interesting since at times Paul says ‘this is from me, Paul’ and other times he says ‘this is from not me, but the Lord’. [Leaving aside that Timothy might not have been Paul]

    So if you say Paul saying something is the same as the Lord saying it, you are actually arguing with Paul. In Scripture.

  209. Lea wrote:

    BTW, my denom believes it is both a sacrament and iirc ‘real presence’ but has a different understanding of that I believe (was looking for something to quote and surprisingly hard to find and I don’t have my books handy). It is still quite solemn.

    I would absolutely love to hear it if you can find it.

    Lea wrote:

    But I would not take it in a church where others were not comfortable with *me* taking it in such a scenario.

    Believe it or not, I do not think that most people are concerned about where you are at on the matter beyond understanding what our church believes. Communion is intensely personal. In fact I have found myself dwelling on Jesus and me a whole lot more in this communion scenario.It is really neat-we say the Lord’s Prayer, we confess our sins, our pastors remind us that our sins are forgiven in Jesus, we pass the peace to one another, we take communion and then we receive the blessing and benediction.

    Weird or not, I have found this church to be far less judgmental than many others in my past. Look at how the church and synod stood up for me in that letter scenario. The pastors and I talked it over, they sent a note out to those who had received the letter to basically ignore stand then life’s back to normal.

  210. Lea wrote:

    Nepotism?

    You have that one right. I have a feeling that there are many things that have been dealt with internally in that group that would send shock waves if revealed.

  211. dee wrote:

    I have banned Lloyd Jones.He is one of those ARBCA trolls…

    A point he (hypothesising that the person is indeed male) gave away exactly as one would expect: after half a dozen other comments, brandishing a claim to orthodoxy and engaging at least one other Wartburger in what might be taken as genuine discussion, he mentioned Chantry.

  212. dee wrote:

    Weird or not, I have found this church to be far less judgmental than many others in my past.

    I don’t find it weird at all. I’m happy you’ve found a place that you love.

    Although I have opinions on theology, I think what really matters is that people in the church care, treat each other well, do things for the community, etc. I’d rather be in a room full of people who I think are good people but disagree with, than a room full of people who think all the same things but are terrible.

  213. Bridget wrote:

    Communion is an issue for them though.

    You know, it has been for a long time. Since the start of the Reformation actually. It was Luther’s view on communion that prevented the reconciliation between the two German reformers-Luther and Zwingli. You might find this article interesting.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-4/zwingli-and-luther-giant-vs-hercules.html

    Zwingli and Luther: The Giant vs. Hercules: The Colloquy at Marburg was called in hopes of reconciling the two centers of the German Reformation—Zurich and Wittenburg, but conflict over the Lord’s Supper split their common cause.

  214. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    engaging at least one other Wartburger in what might be taken as genuine discussion, he mentioned Chantry.

    They just can’t help themselves!

  215. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I have banned Lloyd Jones.He is one of those ARBCA trolls…

    A point he (hypothesising that the person is indeed male) gave away exactly as one would expect: after half a dozen other comments, brandishing a claim to orthodoxy and engaging at least one other Wartburger in what might be taken as genuine discussion, he mentioned Chantry.

    One wonders why they even bother if they are just going to give themselves away like that.

  216. Lea wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    Ok, so the next time you go into a new church, look up front at the altar. If the elements are there under the white hanky looking thing, then there will be communion. That would be the time to ask the pastor about it.
    Seriously?
    I’m sure most pastors want to have a lengthy dialogue about their theology of communion right before Easter Sunday service /s. Heavens.

    Yes, seriously. In Lutheran churches (around here at least) that is when you ask if you can take communion. When I went to a new church, that is exactly what I did. There was no lengthy discussion, even when I wasn’t Lutheran. I got there about ten minutes before the service began and the pastor met me at the door. I asked to commune, he asked me a question or two, and that was it. You can also call ahead, go on their website, and/or email the pastor too.

    At one church the pastor told me, “If you receive communion from me you just joined my church.”

  217. Lea wrote:

    So if you say Paul saying something is the same as the Lord saying it, you are actually arguing with Paul. In Scripture.

    It could be divinely inspired for Paul to state his opinion without that opinion itself being a divine mandate. Perhaps falling into the descriptive vs prescriptive discussion. At the time this was written, it appears that there was not a lot of toleration for women leaders. But was that prescriptive for all times and places or was it more of a cultural expectation open for future negotiation?

  218. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    At the time this was written, it appears that there was not a lot of toleration for women leaders.

    But Paul himself offers praise for a lot of people who certainly sound like women leaders of the various churches and teachers such as Chloe, Phoebe, Pricilla, etc.

  219. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    But was that prescriptive for all times and places or was it more of a cultural expectation open for future negotiation?

    Yes, and that being the case is it reasonable to expect everybody to agree about which it is?

  220. Lea wrote:

    But Paul himself offers praise for a lot of people who certainly sound like women leaders of the various churches and teachers such as Chloe, Phoebe, Pricilla, etc.

    That passage also has wording to suggest Paul might have been saying this about one particular women who was not qualified to teach. He wanted her to not teach, but nit necessarily others. If this is true, there is no conflict with Paul praising other women.

  221. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    At one church the pastor told me, “If you receive communion from me you just joined my church.”

    If that were a tongue-in-cheek statement, basically meaning that in sharing the Lord’s Supper with him I was affirming my membership of the same Church as himself and his local expression of it… then I’d laugh with him and count it a privilege to join him in worship.

    If, on the other hand, it were a claim that Jesus has indeed irrevocably split his body into irreconcilable pieces, each with its own proprietary brand of Sacraments… I’d walk away and look for a recognisable part of the Church.

  222. dee wrote:

    These guys try so hard to make inroads but they cannot help themselves. Chantry is some sort of patron saint in ARBCA and I am trying to figure out why.

    “If he gets away with diddling kids, SO CAN I!”?

  223. okrapod wrote:

    Yes, and that being the case is it reasonable to expect everybody to agree about which it is?

    I agree with you on this. Is a Bible passage proscriptive, an allegory or culturally limited? People make this mistake all the time and it can lead to serious problems. For example, the relationship between Hosea and Gomer is sometimes used to convince women to stay with their adulterous or child porn loving husbands because “Hosea did stayed with his adulterous wife.” This was said to Karen Hinckley at TVC.

    But that is NOT the purpose of that book. This relationship was to be a living example of God’s faithful relationship with His adulterous people. That book does not mean that we all should either seek out such a relationship or stay in such a relationship.

  224. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Good call, but I was really hoping he would answer my question about when all the liberalism started. Many of the “liberal” beliefs are actually quite old.

    “Liberalism” has the same de facto definition as “Fake News”:
    “ANYTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH MEEEEEEEEEEE!”

    And if you’re familiar with SDA & Landmark Baptist church history, the “Liberalism” started right after the last Apostle, started/inserted personally by SATAN himself. And all was Apostasy until Our Founding Apostle (Chantry?)…

    Never mind that this is the same mythological church history as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the CoGs…

  225. dee wrote:

    For example, the relationship between Hosea and Gomer is sometimes used to convince women to stay with their adulterous or child porn loving husbands because “Hosea did stayed with his adulterous wife.”

    I read that as “Homer and Gomer” and flashed on The Book of The Simpsons.

    I really need to catch up on my sleep…

  226. dee wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Nepotism?

    You have that one right. I have a feeling that there are many things that have been dealt with internally in that group that would send shock waves if revealed.

    How does “that group” stack up with Nepotism against the Spanish Hapsburgs, Saudi Royal Family, and/or the Kims of North Korea?

  227. I understand why some churches do not have female pastors and I personally would not go to a church that did. I accept that other churches disagree. I think if they knew the denomination was against it. Why not just leave anyway?

  228. drstevej wrote:

    I conducted a funeral where the family asked the the special music be Simon and Garfunkel’s “Slip Sliding Away.” I granted their wish.

    Some months ago, I heard about a funeral for a young woman who was run over by a car. The special music there was Amy Grant’s “Angels Watching Over Me”. Apparently the family didn’t listen to the song all that close:

    “A runaway car ran out of gas
    Before it came my way;
    Near misses all around me,
    Accidents unknown;
    Though I never see with human eyes
    The hands that lead me home.”

    Not quite up there with Sting’s “Every Breath You Take” at a wedding, but still something that will be remembered…

  229. Deb wrote:

    @ Max:
    And the SBC continues to be in decline – regarding membership and baptisms.

    Are they going to pad the numbers like Scientology?

  230. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    It could be divinely inspired for Paul to state his opinion without that opinion itself being a divine mandate. Perhaps falling into the descriptive vs prescriptive discussion.

    “Meaningless / vanity / pointless / whatevuuuuh…” as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, concluding that the good news was – well, there isn’t any, but just fear God and honour the king. Was that divinely inspired? In which case we should accept that it’s true, and everything IS meaningless. If it isn’t, then obviously it shouldn’t be part of scribsher.

    Of course, we all know that the circle is squared by understanding that there’s a context to this text, and that it therefore doesn’t mean what it appears to mean to the unenlightened. Like the rest of the Bible. It obviously means exactly what I need it to mean. Perhaps I shouldn’t say “obviously” – perhaps I should say “perspicuously” instead.

    Joking aside, part of what I most love about God’s giving (among other things, One of them being infinitely more important) scripture to us is that it does not lift responsibility from us. As the men who wrote the New Testament stated (and before most, if not all, of it was written down): “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

  231. Abigail wrote:

    I think if they knew the denomination was against it. Why not just leave anyway?

    Perhaps to make a point that each church in the SBC is not autonomous? Seriously, why doesn’t the SBC come clean on that issue.

    Not only did they prove that but they also proved that the SBC is fam more concerned about women then they are about predators. The SBC couldn’t wait to make CJ Mahaney’s church a member of the SBC. I wonder if you questioned that move? I’d say that church proved a point. Well done.

  232. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Not to muddy the waters but how many churches with female leadership, also have weekly Sunday night worship services?

    What is the point to this question?

    Are churches supposed to have Sunday night worship services, and so those with male leadership that do so are following God’s explicit instructions to conduct Sunday night worship services?

    Or are churches that have Sunday night services somehow transgressing God’s explicit instructions that the only worship services should be conducted on Sunday mornings (Hint: I don’t seem to recall any explicit instructions about the specific timing.), and if a church has evening services and a woman (gasp!) leading them, it is somehow proof of perfidy?

    How does male versus female leadership relate to the timing of church services?

    Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I find the confusion engendered by this question has annoyed me.

    The waters definitely feel muddied.

  233. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I believe it was the former, with an emphasis on the fellowship aspect of communion.

    Phew. I like him, in that case.

  234. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    @ dee:
    Happy Thanksgiving
    Or as was said to me many years ago:
    “DEAD BIRD DAY!”

    We are such low-lifes and rebels that we had our family T-day on a day other than Thursday this year, as it was a day that fit everyone’s schedules to get together and give thanks and stuff ourselves with an amazing homemade feast that was hours in the making.

  235. refugee wrote:

    Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Not to muddy the waters but how many churches with female leadership, also have weekly Sunday night worship services?

    What is the point to this question?

    I believe the point (I use the word for want of a better, and you probably did as well) was hiding in plain sight. It was to muddy the waters.

  236. @ refugee:
    p.s. @Lloyd Jones,

    The church we attended for many years, that in the end appeared to quench the Spirit (certainly did in our case) and has resulted in many young people walking away from church and God entirely, had Sunday evening services in addition to Sunday morning services.

    So I guess that means that Sunday evening services are connected with people losing their faith?

    Which makes about as much sense as the original question I was responding to.

  237. dee wrote:

    Chantry is some sort of patron saint in ARBCA

    Worth a chuckle, maybe. I first read this as “Chantry is some sort of pagan saint in ARBCA”.

  238. @ okrapod:
    Ah. As you rightly surmised, I was responding to what sounded to me like a generalization. To be honest, I only look at the pictures in a post when I first read the post. After that, I don’t usually go back to peruse the photos unless someone specifically makes a comment about one of them. So my bad, I suppose, for not realizing that the comment was specifically referring to the photo in the original post.

  239. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lloyd Jones wrote:
    1 Timothy 2:12
    Is not the Bible our final authority?
    Interestingly, Paul said he himself did not allow it. He did not equate it with a command from God that everyone must follow.

    That is an interesting insight. Thanks.

  240. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Ok, so the next time you go into a new church, look up front at the altar. If the elements are there under the white hanky looking thing, then there will be communion. That would be the time to ask the pastor about it.

    Unless, of course, one has been so traumatized by spiritual abuse in a previous church that one is fighting a panic attack, just being there, even though one may have longed for months to go back to church, to join in corporate worship, and one is in a strange place with strange people one doesn’t know and who may very well be kind and empathetic, but may very well be cold and unloving, because… If you have never experienced a panic attack triggered by the mere thought of setting foot in a church, I envy you.

    We visited a non-9marks church recently. It was amazing. I would have sneaked in, sat in the back seat, sneaked out again, but it wasn’t to be. People welcomed us warmly. People talked to us. People let us know they would be happy to answer any questions we might have, but other than that, they didn’t push us at all. The worship was reverent and thought-provoking. The sermon was about ten minutes long! (compared to a 40- to 45-minute sermon in the 9marks church where the sermon is “the most important part of the worship service” and the patriarchal church that came before the 9marks church) …and yet, come to think of it, the entire service worked together to create a “sermon” that lasted through the entire service, from the people who greeted us at the beginning, through the worship and song and homily and prayers and scripture readings and serving of communion, to the last moments as we were going out the door.

  241. refugee wrote:

    The sermon was about ten minutes long!

    Undoubtedly, Matthew 5-7 is a truncated version of the complete sermon Jesus actually praught on the mountain (one school of thought is that it’s a summary of the kind of things he taught over time, rather than one specific sermon). But it wouldn’t take a lot longer than 10 minutes to read out!

  242. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    pad the numbers

    SBC has been reporting for years that they have 16 million members. IMO (from a 60+ years snapshot of SBC life), if each individual church were to clean up their membership rolls by removing those who have died, moved out of the area, or otherwise unaccounted for, the real number would be about 8 million folks. That could be trimmed further by including only those who actually go to church on a regular basis (rather than Christmas and Easter) … active membership (active based on attendance, not necessarily personal ministry) in SBC is probably around 4 million in 45,000+ churches across the U.S.

  243. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Joking aside, part of what I most love about God’s giving (among other things, One of them being infinitely more important) scripture to us is that it does not lift responsibility from us. As the men who wrote the New Testament stated (and before most, if not all, of it was written down): “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

    I suppose I’ll have wait for someone in the gospel glitterati to tell me 9 things I am supposed to know about your reply because a peon like me could not possibly know how to think through this on my own…

  244. ION: Cricket

    AWWBA, the Ashes commence in (at the time of writing) just a few minutes!

    With many pundits expecting another Pomnishambles, it’s hard to know how to feel about the series at this stage. Joe Root won the toss and England will bat first at the Gabba. I’ll find out when I get up (it’s bedtime the noo in Scotland) whether we were skittled, dug in, or left a finely-poised match.

    IHTIH

  245. Max wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    pad the numbers

    SBC has been reporting for years that they have 16 million members. IMO (from a 60+ years snapshot of SBC life), if each individual church were to clean up their membership rolls by removing those who have died, moved out of the area, or otherwise unaccounted for, the real number would be about 8 million folks. That could be trimmed further by including only those who actually go to church on a regular basis (rather than Christmas and Easter) … active membership (active based on attendance, not necessarily personal ministry) in SBC is probably around 4 million in 45,000+ churches across the U.S.

    HUG, I have a friend still in the SBC who thinks actuality attendance might be 3 to 3.5 million…

  246. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12 is very clear

    It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity

    The one passage that is ultimately adduced to claim that the New Testament prohibits women to teach or to have authority over men is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. However, the same section of Scriptures imposes similarly restrictive leadership and ministry prohibitions on men. According to it, a man’s family status provides the indispensable credential for his ability to lead the church (3:4-5, 12). The only men who may aspire to positions of church leadership, which include the ministries of teaching and managing the affairs of the church, must be married (“husbands of one wife”), and have children who are submissive and respectful, and who are believers (Titus 1:6). According to this text, ability to manage family provides indispensable proof of ability to manage the local church.

    Such requirements disqualify from service not only women, but also all men who are single; all men married but childless; all men married but who have only one child; all men married but who have children too young to profess faith; all men married but who have one unbelieving child or children; all men married and whose children are believers but not submissive; all men married and whose children are believers and submissive but not respectful.

    continues here:
    https://godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm

  247. @ dee:

    Dontcha’ get tired of guys helicoptering stuff out of the Bible and claiming an application in the here and now when there is none?
    Believe me, it has become an art form in those circles over the last 40-45 years.

  248. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    * The ones who believe God’s ultimate act of self-disclosure happened when he convened a large gathering of Church leaders through subtle and largely hidden means and, through their diverse discussions, engineered the compilation of a book.

    Is this describing the bible or is it describing SBC writing their odious book of rules? Hehe

  249. Lea wrote:

    Maybe she is truly pastoral, which is not a thing you will get from a sermon. Have we not talked about how sermons aren’t everything???

    Maybe she visits the sick, and ministers to the congregation in ways that you aren’t getting from ‘materials’. My first true introduction to a woman as a pastor was at a funeral and she was the most comforting wonderful minister I had seen in a long time.

    Your comment is the arguement that calvinistas use to say that women can be deaconnesses of mercy but not Pastors. I didnt make that term up its an actual office in some churches! Deaconness of grace, deaconness of mercy, etc. The new church planters and churches that came out of whatever re-formers that Driscoll was a member of. The job discriptions are that women can be ministers of grace and mercy at funerals and at kids sunday school and things like that but not Pastors that preach the word. I dont agree with them but a Pastor that doesnt preach Jesus and the word isnt probably a pastor as that is their first and formost role.

  250. Lea wrote:

    I think the problem with ‘vanilla’ ice cream is that there isn’t enough vanilla usually.

    I think the problem is not enough chocolate syrup on it. Lol

  251. drstevej wrote:

    Lutherans hold to consubstantiation not transubstantiation

    You mentioned that you had been a pastor, why do churches use such ridiculous terminology for everything. It almost reminds me of when the RCC did all masses in latin and i suspected that was to be just a bit higher than the lowly sheep and to keep commoners from understanding things. Is it something taught in seminary? One of my fav scriptures is “…the common people heard him gladly.” thanks for your comments on wartburgwatch btw

  252. Max wrote:

    1963: “In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”

    2000: “In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

    Reminds me of reading that when Jesus was teaching in Israel the Priests and Rabbis werent content with just the Word but had added lots of rules and traditions. Jesus brought up that they made the word of God of none effect through their tradition. Mark 7:13

    Do you think that when they wrote “limited to men as qualified by scripture” that refers to the scriptures like ‘a husband of one wife’ etc and how none of those descriptions are about women for those offices? I still have an issue here, why didnt Paul write ‘a wife of one husband’ also?

  253. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12

    Is not the Bible our final authority?

    Oh, of course! That’s why I gave birth to one child at the earliest virtuous opportunity and then to some spares, because deceived women cannot be too careful! 1 Timothy 2:15. 🙂

  254. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12 is very clear

    It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity

    Do you always say things like “The meaning of one part of an argument is clear” without understanding the entirety of the arguement? Because if that is what you are saying, then you are foolish, Mr. Jones. That is a ridiculous assertion, and no amount of testosterone can make it less ridiculous. “Very Clear” is not a substitute for an argument.

  255. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    1 Timothy 2:12

    Is not the Bible our final authority?

    The problem with taking one scripture and making it your whole view of the subject is that if you just read farther down to 1 Tim 2:15 you could use that single scripture to mean that women that dont go through childbearing can never be saved. And also one could say that if the man was ever not sober he would be unsaved. Calvinistas need to never have more than one glass of low alchol content wine per day i guess. Probably they should all be tee-totalers by doctrinal stance…but how could they keep meeting in bars then..Gasp!!

    1 Tim 2:15
    Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

  256. Lloyd Jones wrote:

    Is not the Bible our final authority?

    You show the exact problem with your whole Theology in this statement. Jesus is the final authority. Jesus is the Living word. Jesus calls people to forsake all and follow Him instead of following a particular churches interpretation of what they think He means. He’s alive

  257. emily honey wrote:

    The SBC’s view on women is interwoven into everything they practice and in every spoken and unspoken social norm. It is at this time – and in the past 15-20 years (at least) – an essential non-compromising issue for the SBC.

    Max and I may be the oldes living SBCers at TWW, so maybe I’m the oldest woman. IMO, the main problem is not the lack of female pastors. The rot at the core of the soul of the SBC and conservative evangelical churches which have followed the false siren call of CBMW theology is female subjugation and essential shame. That is what has changed since the Mohlerites and Deverites and Piperites have infested our SBC and evangelical churches with a noxious and toxic dogma that is destroying marriages, people, churches, and families.

    Women are now shamed for desiring as *part of our very natures as females* to overthrow our husbands’ God-ordained authority, and sometimes male authority in general. We as females are *rebellious by nature* in a way that males are not which is what makes us *unfit* when God has actually made the Woman a co-Regent with the Man in Genesis 1. The CBMW corruption of Genesis 1-3 is a Lie that is sold as the Truth to so many.

    Emily, that Lie is why you cannot go back into it. It is why I will not go back into it and why I tell everyone that my Cradle Roll, baptismal, marriage, church has been taken over by some spell or virus or toxic fog that I pray will lift before I die. For me the bitterest part is that I am a real conservative, but these fake Conservative Resurgents are radicals. At least the ones like Mohler and his loyalists are. They just make stuff up, and the Bible is irrelevant. Been in those meetings where the Bible is not even opened. Talking points. Gurus. Jesus?

  258. @ refugee:

    “We visited a non-9marks church recently. It was amazing.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i’m very happy or you, refugee! Could this become a regular gig for you?

  259. Max wrote:

    s you note, an individual church may choose to adopt the BF&M in whole, or may create its own statement (which may or may not incorporate parts of the BF&M). When the BFM was revised in 2000, many SBC churches simply elected to ignore it in favor of the 1963 version – taking a “why fix it if it ain’t broken” stance

    I am aware of one church that was a mission church that chose to become dually aligned with the CBF and the SBC (remember when that was the way churches were planted?) The mother church left the SBC outright and joined the CBF when it was founded. In both cases the issue was strict adherence to inerrancy/infallibility. So, the mother church can have female pastors while the daughter church cannot, and both can have looser ideas about the nature of the Bible.

    I am also aware of two churches that are dually-aligned with the SBC and ARBCA and they subscribe to 1689LBCF and BFM2K. Not sure why these two do the SBC except possibly for missionary perks and salary and seminary funding. Louisville vs. Escondido. Obviously the nature of the Bible is not an issue nor is female ordination. Trinity Hymnals, Psalters.

    In the SBC, a church may not have a female pastor in authoritative teaching roles over men, and practicing homosexuals. Those are third rails. Also questioning Mahaney. 🙂

  260. Lea wrote:

    I think whatever reasons churches give for how it is ‘stopping someone from sinning’, the preference to me would be showing love for brothers and sisters in Christ who attend regardless of their beliefs. What is most important here to God, I wonder.

    I think the issue is diluted and miss-used because different churches had added a bunch of their own views to what the bible says. Some say that anyone- believer or not- can take communion, some say that only those that are members of their particular churches beliefs can take communion at their church. This has made it into a disagreement over church doctrine instead of communion and it does indeed offend many christians. If i am a x-denomination christian on vacation in a small town i cant take communion at z-denomination unless i take a class and agree with their doctrinal stance on communion. This is not the same as communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, instead it becomes communion with the particular church in my opinion. If pastors simply explained the scriptures on communion instead i think it would eliminate all the divisiveness and christians could get back to taking communion with Jesus. If a RCC believer took communion in a baptist church they would be taking communion with Jesus as they understood it and it was always meant to be about the persons relationship with Jesus, not about their relationship with other believers. In my opinion anyway.
    As for stopping someone from sinning in taking communion that is a valid thing but again ‘church’ often takes away that real concept also and distorts it.
    1 Cor. 11:24-30
    For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

    24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

    25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

    26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

    27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

    29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

    30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

    Churches have done the same to baptism also. The bible says Phillip preached to the ethiopian man who believed in Jesus and wanted to get baptized. Philip said that if the man believed with all his heart he could be baptized and they went down to the water and he got baptized. Nowdays if someone believes, in order to get baptized they first have to join a church and take a class!!! Arghhh!!!

  261. dee wrote:

    Again, my church would not refuse you communion. However, they will ask you to consider their beliefs if you do come forward. If I am holding the communion tray, I look at each person who comes to the tray and say “The blood of Christ shed for you.” I do not question who anyone is and I know that no one else does as well. The decision is totally in your hands.

    A few months ago i was invited to a Lutheran service by a friend. Communion was open to all believers regardless of their denomination. I wasnt asked to consider Lutheran beliefs but my beliefs in the Lord Jesus and His death for me on the cross. I really enjoyed the whole service.

  262. Mark Shriver wrote:

    God does NOT allow women to be pastors. She was called by Satan. The SBC org made the correct decision.

    First, you misspelled “Satin.” Satin comments here from time to time, and perhaps will let us know how he/she feels about this development. Please supply a citation for your claim that God does not allow women to be pastors. 1 Timothy 2:12 by itself is not sufficient by itself, since it is a fragment of an entire argument (the book of 1 Timothy) which Paul is making.

  263. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    I am aaking when and where did this invasion happen. Did Spurgeon react immediately to something just breaking out in his location, or did he react to somerhing much older?

    I recently read the book ‘protestants’ by Alec Ryrie who was an oxford grad and has a prof of religious history position currently. He brought up the ‘liberal churches’ issue that occured during Luthers ministry and if i remember right there were churches that had gotten into obvious heresy by mixing weak doctrine with societial concerns and ministries. (They were different than Moravians) They concerned Luther in that they cared nothing related to personal purity or sound doctrine and many catholics and people in government were saying Luther was the same so Luther addressed the differences. Also much later in the UK the church of england addressed a similar thing going on in england but i noticed the ‘liberals’ were not entirely the same as Luthers ‘liberals’ but in some things they were. I bring this up because the current charges against those ‘liberals’ in todays society are sometimes actual doctrine issues but other times a ‘nasty liberal’ is used to describe some christian churches that are sound doctrinally but hold to the view that having soup kitchens for their community is a good idea. They are described as nasty liberals usually by calvanist churches that think that makes themselves look greedy and uncaring, in my experience. 🙂

  264. dee wrote:

    What does that mean to you? I find that one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament.

    I hope its ok if i share on this, not meaning to jump into your conversation. After alot of domestic violence i went through a very difficult divorce and got mad at the Lord for what had happened in my marriage (as if God caused it all) during that time i went to a new church occasionally and when they had communion i knew that my heart was not right and i didnt take communion. It wasnt about being divorced..it was that i had seperated my heart from the Lord in my anger and disapointment and taking communion as if it was just some routine thing that one does when they go to church i knew was wrong because communion is a Holy thing to me. After i dealt with my anger and disappointment and stopped blaming God for everything i resumed taking communion. I think it is something people that are born again will know in their own hearts when communion is offered if it is presented as the Holy thing it is and not treated lightly as just a routine church people do. I think thats why it is important for pastors to take time to speak about ‘communion’ before it is offered and i think it shouldnt be seen as the same thing as communion with or community with other believers in a building. I think people sometimes lose sight communion being of the body and blood of Jesus. Especially people that havent had church experience could actually not know its different than some ritual people going to church do, like singing hymns or kneeling etc .

  265. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Interestingly, Paul said he himself did not allow it. He did not equate it with a command from God that everyone must follow.

    I disagree with this, i think it is stated by Paul that his instructions in his letter to Timothy is for everyone, not just his personal view of things.

    1 Tim 1:3 “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,”
    Then paul talks about some pples bad doctrine and behaviour…then paul says:

    1 Tim 2:1-3 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
    2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
    3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;”

    1 Tim 2:7-9 ” Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
    8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
    9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with…”

    1 Timothy 3:14-15 “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    1 Tim 4:6 ” If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.”

    1 Tim 4:11 ” These things command and teach.”

    I didnt put all the instructions he gave in between the scrips i quoted but i think the chapters in 1 Tim are clear that Paul wrote them as directives for Timothy to give to the churches.

  266. Victorious wrote:

    Sorry but I didn’t remember Dee’s post saying Lloyd had been banned when I posted that. But he might be reading…

    Im not Lloyd but i am sure glad you posted it. I LOVE it!

  267. Gram3 wrote:

    In the SBC, a church may not have a female pastor in authoritative teaching roles over men, and practicing homosexuals. Those are third rails. Also questioning Mahaney.

    I noticed in many places that SBC has included the ‘woman’ issue beside the ‘homosexual’ issue as if they are totally equal issues. Astounding leap that.
    Sure enjoy your posts!

  268. sandy c wrote:

    I disagree with this, i think it is stated by Paul that his instructions in his letter to Timothy is for everyone, not just his personal view of things.

    It’s possible that Paul meant this as universal guidance. It’s also possible that he was just stating his own guidance. See 1 Cor 7 where Paul makes a distinction between his instructions and the Lord’s. There is also the issue of whether this was direction pertaining to all women everywhere or just to wives everywhere or just to one particular woman who was teaching wrongly (the Greek word for woman and wife is the same, and apparently in Greek this passage uses the definite article) The main issue is the scripture is not always as clear as some folks claim. Many good people walk away from texts with contrary interpretations.

  269. sandy c wrote:

    I bring this up because the current charges against those ‘liberals’ in todays society are sometimes actual doctrine issues but other times a ‘nasty liberal’ is used to describe some christian churches that are sound doctrinally but hold to the view that having soup kitchens for their community is a good idea.

    New-Calvinists get a lot of traction out of labeling their opposition as liberals. But when you get into the specifics some “liberal” viewpoints and practices are quite old. One could make a good case that the very early church was way more liberal then New-Calvinists would have us believe. This is why I asked him when exactly it started.

  270. An extended family member of mine is a member of a flaming liberal CBF church in the South. This church not only has a female pastor but markets their homosexual marriage openness. The leadership also knowingly brought a convicted pedophile on staff. The pedophile, formerly in ministry with a ministry degree, said sorry and served a little bit of time, so all forgiven. And yes, it bothers my family member very much. Been interesting to listen to her struggle with it. I just tell her church is voluntary. Not sure why people don’t eventually get that. It’s one of the few places left that is easily voluntary. You just won’t get your money back. 🙂

  271. This is typical of most baptists, especially those in the SBC orbit. They say the believe in local autonomy, etc., but they don’t really. And there is no sophistication in their thinking. Everything is black and white.

  272. What is interesting on this topic is the SBC decided to put no female pastors in the BFM2000. Frankly, the BFM was never mentioned by anyone in any SBC church I ever attended. It wasn’t promoted at conventions prior. Now pastors have a BFM series they get from Lifeway to preach on as if SBC creed. Yet churches are autonomous..So BFM is SBC Creed now. The time to stop the credal encroachment, passed. But who knew a creed would be enforced.

    There is a lesson here. Never trust these things from any direction. Do gooders never comfy anything they don’t intend to eventually 3nforce. It’s a lot like C-16 in Canada concerning “compelled speech”. Eventually it will be used against people or groups. You won’t be arrested. But you will be fined and if can’t pay, then jailed.

    As to FBCJC, what are they losing, really? At least it’s voluntary.

  273. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lloyd Jones wrote:
    My apologies, distractions from grandchildren, it was the Down Grade , when Spurgeon addressed the liberal interpretation of the Bible.
    Thanks. Your original statement was, “It was not an issue till liberal theology invaded Christianity.” I am aaking when and where did this invasion happen. Did Spurgeon react immediately to something just breaking out in his location, or did he react to somerhing much older?

    McArthur used to make many comparisons to the down grade controversy. He is a big Spurgeon fan. Remember, Spurgeon is famous for saying, Calvinism is the Gospel. I read up on the down grade historically with some of the doctrinal stuff mixed in. My take? They were simply moving away from Calvinism. Spurgeon broke with his own brother over this stuff. And that meant not even speaking. Ironically, during the same time period in the states, many Baptists were also moving away from Calvinism after the Civil War.

  274. Lydia wrote:

    Ironically, during the same time period in the states, many Baptists were also moving away from Calvinism after the Civil War.

    Weren’t the Calvinists in the South pro-slavery before the war? Was the move away from Calvinism part of the move against slavery?

  275. Lydia wrote:

    An extended family member of mine is a member of a flaming liberal CBF church in the South. This church not only has a female pastor but markets their homosexual marriage openness. The leadership also knowingly brought a convicted pedophile on staff. The pedophile, formerly in ministry with a ministry degree, said sorry and served a little bit of time, so all forgiven. And yes, it bothers my family member very much.

    Certain types of “conservatives” use stuff like this to label “liberalism” as bad. And then they dump other stuff into the mix that shouldn’t be there. In the case of the Down Grade, Spurgeon claimed that denial of substitutionary atonement was liberal. Calvinists normally mean penal substitution when they talk about substitutionary atonement. By this definition, liberalism dominated Christianity for the first 1500 years because no one believed in penal substitution until Calvin. But the early church did not condone many other things called “liberal” today. By now it’s almost impossible to know what anyone really means when they say something is conservative or liberal. It’s like we now need a glossary of terms for even basic conversation.

  276. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Ironically, during the same time period in the states, many Baptists were also moving away from Calvinism after the Civil War.
    Weren’t the Calvinists in the South pro-slavery before the war? Was the move away from Calvinism part of the move against slavery?

    Yes they were but we are talking about pro slavery Presbyterian, Episcopalians, Baptist, etc. it wasn’t limited to Baptists. And Boyce, etc attended Princeton, a Presbyterian Seminary . The move away probably had more to do with the revelation God was not on their side. It was a gradual thing as in questioning doctrine, etc.. Peter Lumpkins is doing a dissertation on Baptist history and has found some treasures. There were local and regional debates going on. He often shares some of his research on Facebook.

  277. sandy c wrote:

    I didnt put all the instructions he gave in between the scrips i quoted but i think the chapters in 1 Tim are clear that Paul wrote them as directives for Timothy to give to the churches.

    That’s fine and dandy for back then in the ideological chaos that may have been the 1st century church. And besides, who can say they know everything and every circumstance surrounding mail written to somebody else by someone else?

    Don’t get me wrong, Paul had some great and wonderful things to write down on parchment and papyrus, but I’m one of those nasty old present day liberals who believes that it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition.

  278. Lydia wrote:

    There is a lesson here. Never trust these things from any direction. Do gooders never comfy anything they don’t intend to eventually 3nforce. It’s a lot like C-16 in Canada concerning “compelled speech”. Eventually it will be used against people or groups. You won’t be arrested. But you will be fined and if can’t pay, then jailed.

    Chilling indeed. Not on these shores (USA), not ever. Free speech (from pulpit or soapbox) no matter how odious , and the freedom to print what ever floats your boat (even if it has no redeeming social value) will never be infringed.

  279. @ Muff Potter:
    Oh dear. I just saw the typos and autocorrect problems. Comfy is supposed to be codify. Enforce does not start with a 3. Anyone else hate the latest iPad update on the keyboard.

    Anywho. Wish I had your faith. The group identity, shame censoring and labeling has just about ruined us.

  280. Muff Potter wrote:

    And besides, who can say they know everything and every circumstance surrounding mail written to somebody else by someone else?

    It’s basically like listening to just one side of a conversation. It would help us quite a lot if we had the letters written to him. I’ve seen some who suggest that some of Paul’s more difficult statememts are him restating the problem and then providing an answer. That would explain some of the apparent contradictions.

  281. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    See 1 Cor 7 where Paul makes a distinction between his instructions and the Lord’s. There is also the issue of whether this was direction pertaining to all women everywhere or just to wives everywhere or just to one particular woman who was teaching wrongly (the Greek word for woman and wife is the same, and apparently in Greek this passage uses the definite article) The main issue is the scripture is not always as clear as some folks claim. Many good people walk away from texts with contrary interpretations.

    I personally am thinking that it is the leading of the Holy Spirit except where he says it isnt, as in the scrip you noted. Also i am leaning towards the “wives/women greek translations” explanation for these reasons- the scrpt says for them to ask their husbands (its directed at married women) and from what i could see in the bible all the women specified as speaking in the temple were unmarried women or widows. Deborah was married but judged under a palm tree and not in the tent/temple. That leads me to believe that its instructions for women that dont let their husbands have any authority. Also being taken together with Pauls instructions for husbands on how to treat their wives it would make for a balanced relationship instead of the husband ruling or the wife ruling with absolute patriarchy or calvinistic authority and instead of rabid feministic opposite control. Both extremes are noted in our current society also.
    Thats how I’m leaning, however i cant say i still believe absolute infallibility of all scripture since i have found absolutely no reasonable explanation for Pauls saying in 1 Cor 11:14 that nature teaches us that a man having long hair is a shame to him.
    Lions?? I cant think of any animal where the female has long hair and the male short! Also this would mean the vow of a Nazarite is shamefull? No way!

  282. “he scrpt says for them to ask their husbands (its directed at married women) and from what i could see in the bible all the women specified as speaking in the temple were unmarried women or widows.@ sandy c:

    Are you referring to 1 Corin chap 14?

  283. sandy c wrote:

    Also i am leaning towards the “wives/women greek translations” explanation for these reasons- the scrpt says for them to ask their husbands (its directed at married women)

    Sandy, if we keep in mind that the books of Corinthians often contain quotes from letters Paul has received, it becomes easier to separate those from Paul’s rebuttal.

    For example, there are 14 times, Paul uses what’s called an “expletive of dissociation” by some Greek scholars. It’s the equivalent of our “What?” or “Nonsense!” or “No way!!” today.

    The KJV correctly uses that little expletive in 1 Cor. 14:35 in response to the Corinthians insistence that women should be silent in the church and ask their husbands at home if they have questions. See it here:

    1Co 14:35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 
    1Co 14:36  WHAT? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 

    That very important little expletive has been ignored by some translations, but it helps to see and understand Paul’s astonishment at the erroneous statements contained in some of the letters sent to him.

    There are 15 other verses in the book of 1 Cor. alone where that expletive is found.

    That helped me to understand Paul’s instructions in context.

  284. @ Victorious:

    I found this very helpful explanation in a book entitled “Why Not Women?” by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton; copyright 2000. I bought it about that time and still use it for reference on some of Paul’s difficult words.

  285. Victorious wrote:

    That very important little expletive has been ignored by some translations, but it helps to see and understand Paul’s astonishment at the erroneous statements contained in some of the letters sent to him.

    That is what I was alluding to above, but you explained it much better. Whenever someone claims they are teaching the “clear meaning of scripture” on difficult passages like this it means they don’t know what they are talking about.

  286. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Whenever someone claims they are teaching the “clear meaning of scripture” on difficult passages like this it means they don’t know what they are talking about.

    You are right, Ken, and I suspect they will refuse correct exegesis if it does not support their agenda. But I thank God for those scholars who provide the context and background that leads to the truth for those who will receive it.

  287. elastigirl wrote:

    @ refugee:

    “We visited a non-9marks church recently. It was amazing.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i’m very happy or you, refugee! Could this become a regular gig for you?

    It might be possible. Not sure. Some family members are pretty invested in the 9marks church.

  288. Linda wrote:

    You want to be part of the SBC you play by their rules.

    Isn’t this begging the question? Their rules are not right or biblical – they just think they are.

  289. linda wrote:

    Of course they can. And if you don’t like said membership parameters you are free not to be part of the group.

    I was in the SBC for a very long time. I can’t say as though I believe I am SBC any longer. But, during my later years as a SB, I think I had every right to disagree with their position on women as pastors, Linda. I don’t think it’s out of place for members to speak up disagree, and hope for change (or demand it).

  290. Mark Shriver wrote:

    God does NOT allow women to be pastors. She was called by Satan. The SBC org made the correct decision.

    Is this a POE, sarcasm, or are you for real (I am sincerely asking, because I cannot tell).

  291. sandy c wrote:

    I dont agree with them but a Pastor that doesnt preach Jesus and the word isnt probably a pastor as that is their first and formost role.

    I was responding to the ‘why would they hire her if I don’t like her sermon’ comment. I didn’t listen and have no comment on her sermons, but there lots of pieces to being a pastor, and ministering should absolutely be a big part of it. But then I go to a church with a 15-20 minute sermon.

  292. sandy c wrote:

    I noticed in many places that SBC has included the ‘woman’ issue beside the ‘homosexual’ issue as if they are totally equal issues. Astounding leap that.

    I agree. Whatever you think on this, the conflating of the simple fact of being a woman, half the population!, and being gay is downright bizarre.

  293. @ Victorious:
    Yep. verse 36 is usually ignored. Verse 35 sounds like typical oral law stuff where women had to be totally silent in synagogue. Ask husband when get home, etc.

  294. Victorious wrote:

    Sandy, if we keep in mind that the books of Corinthians often contain quotes from letters Paul has received, it becomes easier to separate those from Paul’s rebuttal.

    For example, there are 14 times, Paul uses what’s called an “expletive of dissociation” by some Greek scholars. It’s the equivalent of our “What?” or “Nonsense!” or “No way!!” today.

    The KJV correctly uses that little expletive in 1 Cor. 14:35 in response to the Corinthians insistence that women should be silent in the church and ask their husbands at home if they have questions. See it here:

    1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    1Co 14:36 WHAT? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    That very important little expletive has been ignored by some translations, but it helps to see and understand Paul’s astonishment at the erroneous statements contained in some of the letters sent to him.

    There are 15 other verses in the book of 1 Cor. alone where that expletive is found.

    That helped me to understand Paul’s instructions in context.

    WHAT? How did i not know that! Hehe thanks Victorious, i never thought of that before! Hmmm gotta go read some things again…. Thanks

  295. Lydia wrote:

    Are you referring to 1 Corin chap 14?

    Yes actually i was. Trying to take everything i remembered that Paul said about women speaking in church.
    1Tim 2:11-12 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
    In all Pauls references to women, including the 1Cor:14, and the above 1 Tim scrips, i was looking at it as if he was speaking about wives and not all women in general.
    The problem i have though is that i dont know how to find out the original greek. Does anyone know a place i could do that online?

  296. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    That is what I was alluding to above, but you explained it much better. Whenever someone claims they are teaching the “clear meaning of scripture” on difficult passages like this it means they don’t know what they are talking about.

    I brought what i thought about this whole topic up on this public forum so that people would respond and i could learn more, not to ‘teach’ anyone anything and your comment seems to be doing exactly what you are saying others are doing. Since you clearly know everything and i dont know what Im talking about i apologize for bothering you.

  297. Lydia wrote:

    Yep. verse 36 is usually ignored.

    So is verse 34 ignored. There is no such law requiring women to be silent in the church. Desperate, however, for some evidence, many commentaries use Gen. 3:16 as the reference.

    Also absent anywhere is a law stating it’s shameful for women to speak in the churches.

    Jewish converts in Corinth, however, might try to carry over their synagogue laws and request agreement and/or correction from Paul knowing he was a Pharisee.

  298. sandy c wrote:

    I brought what i thought about this whole topic up on this public forum so that people would respond and i could learn more, not to ‘teach’ anyone anything and your comment seems to be doing exactly what you are saying others are doing. Since you clearly know everything and i dont know what Im talking about i apologize for bothering you.

    When I wrote about people not knowing what they are talking about I was not thinking of you at all. I had in mind the smug “teachers” who shut down conversation and inquiry. I think of you as someone who brings good thoughts to TWW discussions – your contributions are valuable. Over the last few years, in my digging out of the hole of New-Calvinism, I have lost lots of certainty in things I once believed were clear in the Bible. I’m learning that just about everything needs to be cross-examined, and TWW has been a good place for this. I’ve been hoping to help move conversations forward on TWW by providing info I have learned along the way that helped me. If I am coming across as a narrow-minded know-it-all then I am badly miscommunicating. I apologize for writing in a way that dishonored you – that was the last thing I wanted to do.

  299. @ sandy c:
    Going that route requires looking at secular use in same era. Many words hVe several meanings. In 1 Tim 2, as one example, the translation of ‘usurp authority’ is particularly insidious. Authenteo is only used once in the NT. It does not mean usurp authority. It has been translated as domineer which is pretty close. Used in secular Greek of the time to “compel” or use murderous compelling. It’s used in conjunction with the fertility cult of Diana in Ephesus so it’s probanly wise to start there. What did it teach? (One was that Eve was formed before Adam, women were priestesses inside the temple, etc). imagine these types looking into this new Christianity and having to learn about hope in Christ if one dies in childbirth. The born Messiah was their hope.

    Chrysostom wrote that husbands should not authenteo wives. So that gives us a broader clue it’s not about authority.

    And that is just for starters on ONE word!

  300. Muff Potter wrote:

    me wrote:
    While i agree that the Trinity if a cornerstone of orthodox faith, this is a pretty poor definition of it. “giving up his own life to defy the forces of violence and chaos”? This sounds more like liberation theology than Christianity.
    If Jesus of Nazareth didn’t defy the forces of darkness by making an open show of them (Colossians 2:15) and triumphing over them with his very life — What pray tell did he die for?

    While it is true that Jesus did do that – and many other things — but when talking about the Son of God, the most important thing is that He died for our sins. The fact that she did not mention that says a lot.

  301. me wrote:

    While it is true that Jesus did do that – and many other things — but when talking about the Son of God, the most important thing is that He died for our sins. The fact that she did not mention that says a lot.

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t subscribe to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

  302. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Whenever someone claims they are teaching the “clear meaning of scripture” on difficult passages like this it means they don’t know what they are talking about.

    As a survivor of The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay, whenever someone says “clear meaning of SCRIPTURE”, I immediately think of the demon locust plague in Revelation. You know, the one that was “clearly” helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and flown by long-haired bearded hippies? THAT was the “Clear Meaning of SCRIPTURE”!

  303. Lydia wrote:

    There is a lesson here. Never trust these things from any direction. Do gooders never comfy anything they don’t intend to eventually 3nforce.

    Every Knee Shall Bow,
    Every Tongue Confess,
    Kyle’s Mom is LORD….

  304. sandy c wrote:

    i have found absolutely no reasonable explanation for Pauls saying in 1 Cor 11:14 that nature teaches us that a man having long hair is a shame to him.

    Sandy,

    You’re asking great questions on this thread. Keep asking.

    1Corinthians 11 is one of the most puzzling chapters in the Bible until we find out that the Apostle Paul was answering a question on whether men had to continue the tradition of covering their head in worship. So Paul launches into this long discussion that doesn’t make any sense until we look at both 1Cor and 2Cor. Then we see the full context of Paul describing the history of Moses covering his head after speaking with God because the glory of God shone so brightly from his face that it scared the Israelites. How that cloth symbolized the separation of us from the presence of God.

    Then Paul writes in 2Cor 3:15-16 (BSB)
    “And even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”

    How Jesus’ atonement literally ripped apart the veil in the temple symbolizing that God didn’t want anything separating us from Him. Therefore we can toss aside all symbols of guilt and shame before God. The atonement of Christ has given both men and women the right to commune directly with God like Moses once did. Anyway, I did a really long comment on another TWW thread giving the full context of this so I don’t want to bore everyone by repeating all that.

    The bottom line is that in 1Cor 11:14—Paul was making the point that there’s nothing in nature that requires men to have short hair or women to have long hair. But that both men and women can aspire to become more like Christ.

    “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.” 2Cor 3:18a(NASB)

  305. Gram3 wrote:

    Max and I may be the oldest living SBCers at TWW, so maybe I’m the oldest woman. IMO, the main problem is not the lack of female pastors. The rot at the core of the soul of the SBC and conservative evangelical churches which have followed the false siren call of CBMW theology is female subjugation and essential shame. That is what has changed since the Mohlerites and Deverites and Piperites have infested our SBC and evangelical churches with a noxious and toxic dogma that is destroying marriages, people, churches, and families.

    And the oldest living SBCer-man at TWW shouts AMEN and AMEN!!

    Hoping that the Mohlerites, Deverites, and Piperites experience a boomerang effect soon … and that the Church of the Living God begin to subordinate them.

  306. Victorious wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Yep. verse 36 is usually ignored.
    So is verse 34 ignored. There is no such law requiring women to be silent in the church. Desperate, however, for some evidence, many commentaries use Gen. 3:16 as the reference.
    Also absent anywhere is a law stating it’s shameful for women to speak in the churches.
    Jewish converts in Corinth, however, might try to carry over their synagogue laws and request agreement and/or correction from Paul knowing he was a Pharisee.

    And the fact that Paul mentioned prophesying women in chapter 11!

  307. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Over the last few years, in my digging out of the hole of New-Calvinism, I have lost lots of certainty in things I once believed were clear in the Bible. I’m learning that just about everything needs to be cross-examined, and TWW has been a good place for this. I’ve been hoping to help move conversations forward on TWW by providing info I have learned along the way that helped me. If I am coming across as a narrow-minded know-it-all then I am badly miscommunicating. I apologize for writing in a way that dishonored you – that was the last thing I wanted to do.

    Thank you, i did feel it was directed at me but i am also super sensitive during this time of year and i have chronic pain. Also i realized that when i am on facebook commenting on a news article the open hostility and derision and profanity is so horrible that i dont always shift gears when i come here to comment and i am often in defensive mode. So I apologize right back. I truly learn alot from your posts and others here. The other thing that i do like about facebook though is that with emoticons i can be clear when i am joking or angry sticker when angry and its hard for me to express that i really am wondering about my own opinion on a subject when i post my understanding of something.
    Also i get frustrated at trying to find out the validity of my beliefs when sometimes people take a view that all the bible is only reflection of what was socially relevant in the era it was written in so that it doesnt apply to us today because i have heard people follow that line of reasoning all the way to saying Jesus didnt physically die but only metaphorically, etc. When you said this: “in my digging out of the hole of New-Calvinism, I have lost lots of certainty in things I once believed were clear in the Bible.” I realized i am doing the same thing but from a Pentecostal Foursquare and Assembly of God background. I have only attended church for about 12 yrs my whole life but some things i was taught in those churches i am way questioning. Not so much the scriptures but the way churches and people can use them to coerce use or manipulate others with them. Thats why i like to post here, to see what other people have learned about topics and then i can see if what i am thinking is even reasonable.

  308. Daisy wrote:

    Is this a POE, sarcasm, or are you for real (I am sincerely asking, because I cannot tell).

    I think he is a True Believer, and that’s why it is so difficult to discern the difference.

  309. Lydia wrote:

    Authenteo is only used once in the NT. It does not mean usurp authority. It has been translated as domineer which is pretty close.

    That is how i interpreted that myself but i wasnt totally sure, thank you for posting it. I should say the reason i am not totally disregarding the whole passages of Pauls comments on women- one of my grandmothers was a very controlling domineering woman and my granddad never was able to stand up to her and as she got older it turned to actual abuse and at 90 psychotic. My granpa died at 60 of a heart attack (we always said he died to get away from her!)
    So i see some use of those scriptures for correction for people like my grandmother but i have only seen them used in churches as a power-tool to dominate women. Also though there are other scriptures that clearly show women teaching and speaking in church so thanks for helping me try to understand this issue.

  310. Avid Reader wrote:

    1Corinthians 11 is one of the most puzzling chapters in the Bible until we find out that the Apostle Paul was answering a question on whether men had to continue the tradition of covering their head in worship. So Paul launches into this long discussion that doesn’t make any sense until we look at both 1Cor and 2Cor. Then we see the full context of Paul describing the history of Moses covering his head after speaking with God because the glory of God shone so brightly from his face that it scared the Israelites. How that cloth symbolized the separation of us from the presence of God.

    Wow! That is awesome and makes perfect sense!!! Thank you for sharing that with me!

  311. Victorious wrote:

    Jewish converts in Corinth, however, might try to carry over their synagogue laws and request agreement and/or correction from Paul knowing he was a Pharisee.

    I never thought of that. To this day there is argument over women praying at the western wall.

  312. Victorious wrote:

    So is verse 34 ignored. There is no such law requiring women to be silent in the church. Desperate, however, for some evidence, many commentaries use Gen. 3:16 as the reference.

    I actually looked for a long time trying to find any law remotely like that in the OT and never found one! I think that is a very important point

  313. sandy c wrote:

    i dont know how to find out the original greek. Does anyone know a place i could do that online?

    My favorite is Biblehub.com where you can find an interlinear with links to Strongs. On the Complementarian question, Victorious is one of the scholars who posts here who has very good info. I’m not that, but I learned the hard way that there are really just a very few Clobber Verses with lots of puffery filler. The big ones are 1 Timothy 2:12 (the plain reading. That Creation Order injunction by God against females is supposedly explained by the almighty “gar” in verses 13 and 14 which refers back to Creation. Except when you look at the Creation account in Genesis 1-2, there is nothing in the actual text that says anything *AT ALL* about male authority over females or any Order of Creation. In fact, Genesis 1 explicitly grants the Creation Mandate jointly to the Man and the Woman. So, if the Complementarians are correct, the Apostle Paul who studied Torah did not know the Scriptures (unlikely) or did not know how to frame an argument (also unlikely.) I think it is more likely that the Complementarians have misunderstood Paul’s argument because they have come to Paul’s letter with their own pre-understanding.

    Then there is the problem of the next verse, 15, which trips up every single Complementarian scholar, ***and they are not honest about it.*** You can spend a fun afternoon reading Don Carson, Andreas Kostengerger, Tom Schreiner, and some others I cannot recall at this moment. The CBMW website has their journal which is always amusing. The one interpretation you will not find is the “plain reading” of “saved through childbearing.” So verses 12-14 mean what they plainly say but all of a sudden verse 15 means who knows what and the sky’s the limit except what is plainly says which is that women will be saved through childbearing. That is a huge tell that there is something hermeneutically very fishy going on. This past summer, the Complementarians lost their war when they had to admit defeat over ESS in 1 Corinthians 11, but they have yet to acknowledge it. That is the pillar which supports the subordination of women in their Order of Creation argument which they subtly use via Ephesians 5 and Genesis 2 because subordination is not there so they have to link subordination of women to the Son in 1 Corinthians 11 and then to women in Ephesians 5 and then to Genesis 2 and then to 1 Timothy 2. That is why Ray Ortlund had to make the hilarious statement in RBMW that Genesis 2 whispers male authority or something to that effect. It is ridiculous, but that is how they do it. And that’s the magic secret Complementarian recipe.

    The Order of Creation Male Authority Hierarchy Clobber Verse Challenge is still open. I am still waiting for a call back from the Pastors at my most recent former church about that as well as a few commenters at TWW who disengaged with what I thought would be a fruitful discussion of said Clobber Verse when it was produced.

  314. Lydia wrote:

    Used in secular Greek of the time to “compel” or use murderous compelling. It’s used in conjunction with the fertility cult of Diana in Ephesus so it’s probanly wise to start there. What did it teach? (One was that Eve was formed before Adam, women were priestesses inside the temple, etc). imagine these types looking into this new Christianity and having to learn about hope in Christ if one dies in childbirth. The born Messiah was their hope.

    Lydia, another scholar! And an illustration of some other rules of interpretation that Complementarian “scholars” break to make 1 Timothy fit. They ignore the genre. They ignore the cultural setting of the audience. This fact is usually dismissed dishonestly by saying that objectors desire to capitulate to modern culture. That is plainly and simply false. It may even be a lie.

    The textual context for 1 Timothy 2:12 is the entire chapter, the entire epistle, Paul’e earlier epistles, and earlier Scripture. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he was very aware of his experience with the worshipers of Ephesian Artemis, but I cannot think of a single Complementarian “scholar” who even mentions Paul’s lengthy discourse in Romans or the rather peculiar parallels of the Ephesian cult with the weird “difficult” verses in 1 Timothy. Isn’t it interesting how those difficult verses resolve when you read them as correctives for Ephesian syncretism?

  315. Avid Reader wrote:

    1Corinthians 11 is one of the most puzzling chapters in the Bible until we find out that the Apostle Paul was answering a question on whether men had to continue the tradition of covering their head in worship

    And another scholar! A couple of years ago I wrote a Gramsplaining rambler on covering and shame in 1 Corinthians 11. Not nearly as clear as yours!

  316. Gram3 wrote:

    The Order of Creation Male Authority Hierarchy Clobber Verse Challenge is still open. I am still waiting for a call back from the Pastors at my most recent former church about that as well as a few commenters at TWW who disengaged with what I thought would be a fruitful discussion of said Clobber Verse when it was produced.

    Hehehe. Thank you for such a wealth of info!

  317. Lydia wrote:

    Going that route requires looking at secular use in same era. Many words hVe several meanings. In 1 Tim 2, as one example, the translation of ‘usurp authority’ is particularly insidious. Authenteo is only used once in the NT. It does not mean usurp authority. It has been translated as domineer which is pretty close. Used in secular Greek of the time to “compel” or use murderous compelling. It’s used in conjunction with the fertility cult of Diana in Ephesus so it’s probanly wise to start there.

    Usually i dont look into things that have to do with ‘what was going on in society at that time’ because i have heard so many people dismiss scripture based on nothing more than ‘those scriptures were just for those people at that time so ignore them’ This is really eye opening though, when i read this and gram3’s post about how Timothy would have heard about the Epheses riot over Diana. Timothy was with Paul right before and right after the Ephesus uprising when they were upset that Paul was teaching against idols and the silversmiths were losing money over it. It would totally make sense for Paul to be addressing an issue like that. Thanks!

  318. @ sandy c:
    I dont mean i think its wrong to look at what was going on at the time- i just mean i had conditioned myself to ignore it because of so much mis-use. Also i think the church i had been in was very used to not taking whole chapters or verses in context put instead putting several different scriptures together to lead one to come to a particular conclusion they believed or wanted others to believe.

  319. @Lydia i just looked at 1 Timothy again and the very first few scriptures are to Timothy and how Paul asked him to stay in Ephesus…. 1Tim 1:3-4

    So this whole book 1Timothy is the instructions Paul gave Timothy regarding Ephesus, or at least when Timothy was in Ephesus to give them Pauls instructions so they wouldnt teach other doctrines. Why did i never see that before? Wow. Thanks again!

  320. @ sandy c:
    Hee hee. Its a joy to read through the Jesus filter and historical context. Chapter 1 gets more interesting as Paul lays out and focuses on those who deceive out of ignorance and those who deceive on purpose. The latter–he names names. Hy and Al The former, he includes himself and subsequently calls for mercy and teaching.

  321. sandy c wrote:

    So this whole book 1Timothy is the instructions Paul gave Timothy regarding Ephesus, or at least when Timothy was in Ephesus to give them Pauls instructions so they wouldnt teach other doctrines.

    Wade Burleson wrote a terrific blog post on the temple of Artemis (Diana) and the erroneous teachings against women based on Ephesians. You may like it… I certainly did!

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+Ephesus

  322. Gram3 wrote:

    Then there is the problem of the next verse, 15, which trips up every single Complementarian scholar, ***and they are not honest about it.

    Gram3,

    Great point. You are so right about this. After reading hundreds and hundreds of pages of all the leading Complementarian books, yes, they really can’t figure this verse out.

    The answer is simple. In the literal Greek, the Apostle Paul was referencing God’s promise to Eve that her seed would crush the serpent. That women who had suffered under the crushing oppression of patriarchy would be saved through “THE CHILDBEARING” meaning the birth of Christ.

  323. sandy c wrote:

    I have only attended church for about 12 yrs my whole life but some things i was taught in those churches i am way questioning. Not so much the scriptures but the way churches and people can use them to coerce use or manipulate others with them. Thats why i like to post here, to see what other people have learned about topics and then i can see if what i am thinking is even reasonable.

    Thank you for your reply. I’ve found TWW to be a great way to get exposure to other ideas without all the negativity that pops up in other venues. I’ve learned quite a lot here. Still, every now and then there are misunderstandings – I have misunderstood others and have been misunderstood. I think I comment her the same reasons you stated.

    I don’t think I was ever a Calvinist, but I was heavily influenced by it. I did not make that connection until the last few years. The crisis that eventually led me here was the destructive impact of New-Calvinism on my sons. They have now both escaped its clutches. However, my faith was injured in the process of me critically examining. My own theology, By now I am now closer to Eastern Orthodox than anything else (but I still attend a SBC church). EO theology is deep, beautiful, and in some ways very different from western Christianity. They have a very Chistlike view of God, which is something I need to recover.

  324. Gram3 wrote:

    The big ones are 1 Timothy 2:12 (the plain reading. That Creation Order injunction by God against females is supposedly explained by the almighty “gar” in verses 13 and 14 which refers back to Creation. Except when you look at the Creation account in Genesis 1-2, there is nothing in the actual text that says anything *AT ALL* about male authority over females or any Order of Creation. In fact, Genesis 1 explicitly grants the Creation Mandate jointly to the Man and the Woman. So, if the Complementarians are correct, the Apostle Paul who studied Torah did not know the Scriptures (unlikely) or did not know how to frame an argument (also unlikely.) I think it is more likely that the Complementarians have misunderstood Paul’s argument because they have come to Paul’s letter with their own pre-understanding.

    Exactly. Their reasoning says that being first in order of creation gives Adam authority over Eve. According to that reasoning—John the Baptist would have authority over Christ because he came first! Then Peter would have authority over the disciples James and John because Peter was picked first by Jesus! Oh, wait. Their logic doesn’t work—does it?

    Remember when the disciples wanted to know who was the greatest, what did Jesus think? Jesus crushed that desire for power by picking up a little child and telling the disciples that “whoever is least among you is the greatest.”

    In 1 Tim 2:12-15—I think that Paul was dealing with the deeply rooted religious beliefs in Ephesus that taught that Eve had gotten some spiritual guidance from the serpent. Their religious groups taught that woman had been created first. So Paul was probably correcting the misconceptions by making the point that Adam was created first and that Eve didn’t get some great spiritual guidance from the serpent but was taken advantage of.

    Then some scholars believe that Paul was actually saying, “I don’t allow a woman to teach that she was the originator of man for Adam was created first, then Eve.”

    Other scholars believe Paul was actually saying “I don’t allow a woman to teach violence against a man.”

    Either way, this passage NEVER banned women from the pulpit. Especially because Paul actually encourages women to speak/pray/teach in church in the NT.

    And by the way, while we’re on this topic, in case some of the group here hasn’t heard this yet—

    God never cursed Eve in Genesis 3:16. In the literal Hebrew, God told Eve “A lying-in-wait has increased your sorrow and your suffering.” God recognized the damage that the snake had done to her. Then God warns her that when she turns to Adam for comfort, he’s going to wrongly try to control her. Again we see the heart of God towards women, always trying to protect them.

  325. Avid Reader wrote:

    God never cursed Eve in Genesis 3:16. In the literal Hebrew, God told Eve “A lying-in-wait has increased your sorrow and your suffering.” God recognized the damage that the snake had done to her. Then God warns her that when she turns to Adam for comfort, he’s going to wrongly try to control her.

    Exactly! The passage in Gen. 3 lists a number of prophetic warnings of the life outside the garden both Adam and Eve will face. The garden was designed specifically for them and God’s presence was always there. The focus of Satan’s deception was that the Tree of Life in the center of the garden would assure they would not die.

    Scripture nowhere attributes any curse to her or Adam; only the serpent and the ground were cursed. Eve is mentioned in scripture only as having been deceived. Since God differentiated between intentional and unintentional sin in the Torah and I’m of the opinion that Eve did not deliberately choose to be deceived.

  326. Victorious,

    Great points. Continuing on that thought—I believe that the root of much of the misogyny in the church is how much the devil fears women. He knows how powerful we are. That it only takes one woman of God to shut down his whole plan. (i.e. Esther) That as we begin to rise up into our gifts and callings, there’s nothing he can do to stop us.

    I wonder if Jesus was thinking about God’s promise to Eve when He said, “Look, I have given you authority to crush snakes and scorpions underfoot. I have given you authority over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will harm you.” Luke 10:19 (CEB)

  327. Lydia wrote:

    And ignore the reference to the Ephesian cult made strikingly clear in Acts! How can scholars ignore that?

    They (scholars and regular folks) ignore it at worst, or find ways at best, to minimize the Scriptures that conflict with the ideology they want to take precedence.
    Like I’ve commented several times before here at TWW, it’s evolved into an art form in Fundagelicalism over the last 40-45 years.

  328. Avid Reader wrote:

    Their reasoning says that being first in order of creation gives Adam authority over Eve.

    Which would also mean that animals have authority over humans, plants have authority over animals, and dirt has authority over everything living.

  329. Gram3 wrote:

    The Order of Creation Male Authority Hierarchy Clobber Verse Challenge is still open. I am still waiting for a call back from the Pastors at my most recent former church about that as well as a few commenters at TWW who disengaged with what I thought would be a fruitful discussion of said Clobber Verse when it was produced.

    Just don’t hold your breath while waiting. We want you around awhile longer!

  330. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Which would also mean that animals have authority over humans, plants have authority over animals, and dirt has authority over everything living.

    Ken F,

    You are BRILLIANT!!! I’m still laughing at that one.

  331. Avid Reader wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Then God warns her that when she turns to Adam for comfort, he’s going to wrongly try to control her. Again we see the heart of God towards women, always trying to protect them.

    Well that’s a mouthful right there. 🙂 God has certainly being teaching me that hard lesson the past few years, in regard to daily life and also life in scholarship, particularly.

    “Let no man or group of men (particularly evangelical men) control you or decide you.”

    I realized how much that was happening and seeping into my life indirectly, sometimes directly. The answer was to purge that system out of my life and then reorient and adjust.

    Christ is my only mediator to God. The Holy Spirit is my best prayer partner and counselor and I have equal access to that Spirit as much as men do.

    Men either walk alongside women in friendship and equality and respect or they can politely get out of our/my way. Women don’t serve men as god.

    Men don’t have the divine only power or authority to speak life and existence into women. Women were created and thought up and spoken into identity by God.

    I am made in the image of God not evangelical male systems, and it’s important for women to make sure their identities are not getting hijacked and misappropriated.

  332. @ Gram3:

    Yes. Subjugation and shame. Both antithetical to life in Christ. Ironically anti-Baptist, as well.

    My biggest awakening came when I realized complementarianism isn’t actually compatible with basic Baptist philosophy and theology –
    the essentials and signifiers (i.e. soul competency, etc.)

    Or at the least, women can’t truly be Baptist in a complementarian setting. The men can. But are men truly being Baptist either if they are denying basic Baptist tenets to a large group of people?

  333. emily honey wrote:

    My biggest awakening came when I realized complementarianism isn’t actually compatible with basic Baptist philosophy and theology –
    the essentials and signifiers (i.e. soul competency, etc.)

    Yes! Exactly! It does not fit with priesthood of believer, either. Thank you for pointing that out.

  334. Lydia wrote:

    emily honey wrote:

    My biggest awakening came when I realized complementarianism isn’t actually compatible with basic Baptist philosophy and theology –
    the essentials and signifiers (i.e. soul competency, etc.)

    Yes! Exactly! It does not fit with priesthood of believer, either. Thank you for pointing that out.

    Definitely worth repeating. New Calvinism isn’t a fit in Baptist life for a lot of reasons.
    Long-standing Baptist doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of the believer must be thrown under the bus for the reformed movement to merge into SBC life … which is what is taking place by the Mohlerites, Deverites, and Piperites.

  335. @ Gram3:

    Great comment Gram3. And yeah, the puffery filler you mention plays a large part in Fundagelical doctrine.
    One of the big ones touted in the Calvary Chapel brand is that God says what He means, and He means what he says.

    So when 1 Timothy 2:12 comes up, there you have it, a gnarled cudgel guaranteed to shut down any and all dissent with the fear factor.
    Fear that in doing so (dissent), you (generic you) are going against the very words of God.

  336. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Avid Reader wrote:
    Their reasoning says that being first in order of creation gives Adam authority over Eve.

    Which would also mean that animals have authority over humans, plants have authority over animals, and dirt has authority over everything living.

    The Great Chain of Being meets “The World Turned Upside Down”.

  337. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    And ignore the reference to the Ephesian cult made strikingly clear in Acts! How can scholars ignore that?

    They (scholars and regular folks) ignore it at worst, or find ways at best, to minimize the Scriptures that conflict with the ideology they want to take precedence.

    Reality must always bow to Perfect Ideology, Comrades.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *