Women’s positions in the church poll

[Alcott]

I don’t know about the wisdom of this poll, but it’s just a following up of the related thread, and also in the Baptist (only) section, as different churches have differeing views, as well as positions.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Good poll and already surprising (to me) results.

Four out of twelve (that is one-third if my public school math serves me) BAPTISTS think having a woman pastor is biblical????

Interesting.

 

[jaigner]

Good poll and already surprising (to me) results.

Four out of twelve (that is one-third if my public school math serves me) BAPTISTS think having a woman pastor is biblical????

Interesting.

There are lots of us. We're catching up with the rest of the evangelical world in that we at least thoroughly engage with the issue.

Anyways, all of the above, though I'm not sure why a woman would want to teach a men only class. Also not sure why we need men only class.

 

[Dr. Bob]

There are lots of us.

Sadly. But the bulk of Baptists are Souther Baptist Convention, the Black conventions, or historic Independent types (coming off the Northern Baptist Convention). NONE of these would condone women pastors.

So must be only the most liberal Baptists (my home church left the American Baptist Convention for its liberalism long before women's lib) that would so violate one of the clearest teaching of the Word.

A colleague of mine said that NO church has a female elder/pastor. If they put a female in such a role, they forfeit being a church by definition.

But on with the poll.

 

[freeatlast]

There are lots of us. We're catching up with the rest of the evangelical world in that we at least thoroughly engage with the issue.

Anyways, all of the above, though I'm not sure why a woman would want to teach a men only class. Also not sure why we need men only class.

I agree. You certainly are catching up with the rest of the world, but falling behind in the Lord. Everyone who hates the Lord jump on board!There was only two possible choices possible from the poll.
Sunday school teacher for children
Sunday school teacher for women.
What we are seeing is that we have allowed to creep in those who stand against the Lord and His word. Now the church will pay and is paying the price for its rebellion. We are now full blown into the falling away fueled by this postmodernism that is griping the world and church. Unless we repent the true church is doomed to die a death of sin and rebellion. Believing they are alive but dead.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Everyone who hates the Lord jump on board!

So are you saying that everyone who disagrees with your theological stance regarding women in the church "hates the Lord"?

There was only two possible choices possible from the poll.
Sunday school teacher for children
Sunday school teacher for women.

Hardly. Paul commended Phoebe, who was a deacon in the church, in Romans 16:1. Did Paul "hate the Lord"?

Unless we repent the true church is doomed to die a death of sin and rebellion.

The true church cannot die. The Lord sustains it and not even the gates of Hell can prevail against it.

 

[jaigner]

I agree. You certainly are catching up with the rest of the world, but falling behind in the Lord.

Uh...that was evangelical world.

Are you really telling me that the Church is going to die? That's way more disturbing than female leadership.

 

[jaigner]

Sadly. But the bulk of Baptists are Souther Baptist Convention, the Black conventions, or historic Independent types (coming off the Northern Baptist Convention). NONE of these would condone women pastors.

So must be only the most liberal Baptists (my home church left the American Baptist Convention for its liberalism long before women's lib) that would so violate one of the clearest teaching of the Word.

A colleague of mine said that NO church has a female elder/pastor. If they put a female in such a role, they forfeit being a church by definition.

But on with the poll.

Oh come on, Dr. Bob. You know as well as I do that female leadership is not a liberal idea by definition. It has very little to do with the true liberal influence on the Church, which goes so far as to deny the resurrection. My church is theologically conservative and still allows women to serve.

You also know that it is not so clear and that we must interpret instead of jumping straight from reading to application. Careful what you imply about those of us who strive to be faithful to the Bible and obey the Spirit's leading in our lives.

 

[RAdam]

If you were faithful to the bible you would accept the clear teaching of scripture rather than set it aside for modern society's ideas.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If you were faithful to the bible you would accept the clear teaching of scripture rather than set it aside for modern society's ideas.

That is the same line used by many Baptist preachers in the South used in the mid-1800's about slavery.

And I bet a fair number use this sentence or ones very close to it in defending segregation in the 1950's and 1960's.

 

[freeatlast]

So are you saying that everyone who disagrees with your theological stance regarding women in the church "hates the Lord"?


Hardly. Paul commended Phoebe, who was a deacon in the church, in Romans 16:1. Did Paul "hate the Lord"?


The true church cannot die. The Lord sustains it and not even the gates of Hell can prevail against it.

No I am not saying anything. The Lord says it. Unless we keep His commands we do not love Him.

The passage in Romans about Phoebe is not suggesting that she was a deacon in the official capacity. The word simply means one that serves. She was not an official deacon as in the church. That is made clear in 1Tim. A woman cannot meet the standards of the Lord.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So if they take the position that a woman is intened to be deacons then you rebel against the Lord.

You are correct that the true church cannot die, but what we are seeing today is not the true church. You make that clear in trying to defend women as deacons and not holding to sound doctrine.

 

[freeatlast]

That is the same line used by many Baptist preachers in the South used in the mid-1800's about slavery.

And I bet a fair number use this sentence or ones very close to it in defending segregation in the 1950's and 1960's.

WOW! How old are you! Do you have any tapes of what you are saying?

 

[RAdam]

That is the same line used by many Baptist preachers in the South used in the mid-1800's about slavery.

And I bet a fair number use this sentence or ones very close to it in defending segregation in the 1950's and 1960's.

Great red herring! Way to tie in racism! That'll surely shut me up.

The bible nowhere teaches that one should own slaves. I would like to see a verse in support of slavery from the bible. I see many verses that deal with slavery, but always the bible seems to be neutral on the subject.

This quote from you is ridiculous: "And I bet a fair number use this sentence or ones very close to it in defending segregation in the 1950's and 1960's."

Really? You bet? How about some evidence before assuming some preachers used this line during segregation days. If you don't have any, perhaps you should keep your "bets" to yourself rather than accuse people all the while having no idea whether your theory is true or not. But, then again, what does it matter to you? I mean, it served its purpose right? Whether you were right or not doesn't matter, only that you discredited my argument. If you had to make a false accusation to do it, it's well worth it.

You cannot find a single justification for promoting slavery or segregation from the bible. Not a single one. In fact, the NT plainly speaks against great racist views the Jews held toward the Gentiles. Oh man, that just ruined your argument. Too bad. On the other hand, the bible plainly and clearly assigns the leadership in the church to men and restricts the church offices to men. But you'd rather run around and try to link my arguments up with racism than be truthful concerning the scriptures. Par for the course with you.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Great red herring! Way to tie in racism! That'll surely shut me up.
The bible nowhere teaches that one should own slaves. I would like to see a verse in support of slavery from the bible. I see many verses that deal with slavery, but always the bible seems to be neutral on the subject.

And no where can you find verses condemning slavery. Paul seems to see no problem with slavery not did Peter.

But that does not negate the point that preachers in the South used the Bible to defend slavery … just as preachers in the North used the Bible to condemn slavery. My sentence holds … preachers did use the same type of sentence to defend and/or justify slavery as you used in your post.

"The Oracular Decisions of God have positively declared that the Slave-Trade is intrinsically good and licit, [and that the holding of slaves] is perfectly consonant to the principles of the Law of Nature, the Mosaic Dispensation, and the Christian Law" wrote one Raymond Harris in Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade. Thus, he said, slavery has "the positive sanction of God in its support."

http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html

If you want to read the entire book, “Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade” go to:

http://books.google.cz/books?id=1dU...&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This quote from you is ridiculous: "And I bet a fair number use this sentence or ones very close to it in defending segregation in the 1950's and 1960's."

Really? You bet? How about some evidence before assuming some preachers used this line during segregation days. If you don't have any, perhaps you should keep your "bets" to yourself rather than accuse people all the while having no idea whether your theory is true or not. But, then again, what does it matter to you? I mean, it served its purpose right? Whether you were right or not doesn't matter, only that you discredited my argument. If you had to make a false accusation to do it, it's well worth it.

On preachers and segregation. There is no doubt segregation was defended by preachers in the South.

Rev. Carey Daniels who was Vice Chairman, Texas Citizens Council aka White Citizens Council of Dallas and Pastor, First Baptist Church of West Dallas wrote: “God The Original Segregationist”

The sermon is contained in the book which you can buy from Amazon.
Almighty God Created the Races: Christianity, Interracial Marriage, and American Law by Fay Botham



Rev. Henry W. Fancher Sr. wrote: “Segregation: God’s Plan and God’s Purpose”.



Rev. Jerry Falwell gave sermons at his church justifying segregation as God's will --- although, to his credit, he later apologized for doing so.

I can remember preachers on the radio railing about the reasons God demanded segregation. I was just a kid and teenager, but remember it well. I seriously doubt that any of their sermons are available. It was local radio and I am sure there were no archives nor recordings kept. Also, on nightly news back then preachers in the South were interviewed who defended segregation.

We have our fullest revelation of God through Jesus Christ ... but we do not yet fully understand that revelation and all that God desires. In time we will, but it will be a long time before that is true.

Let me give you one last quote. This is a quote from a minister, G.T. Gillespie of Jackson, Mississippi:

"While the Bible contains no clear mandate for or against segregation as between the white and negro races, it does furnish considerable data from which valid inferences may be drawn in support of the general principle of segregation as an important feature of ... Divine purpose and Providence throughout the Ages.

Interestingly he quotes no scripture to back up his opinion.

Getting late here. No more today. Sleep well.

 

[freeatlast]

And no where can you find verses condemning slavery. Paul seems to see no problem with slavery not did Peter.

But that does not negate the point that preachers in the South used the Bible to defend slavery … just as preachers in the North used the Bible to condemn slavery. My sentence holds … preachers did use the same type of sentence to defend and/or justify slavery as you used in your post.



If you want to read the entire book, “Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade” go to:

http://books.google.cz/books?id=1dU...&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false




On preachers and segregation. There is no doubt segregation was defended by preachers in the South.

Rev. Carey Daniels who was Vice Chairman, Texas Citizens Council aka White Citizens Council of Dallas and Pastor, First Baptist Church of West Dallas wrote: “God The Original Segregationist”

The sermon is contained in the book which you can buy from Amazon.
Almighty God Created the Races: Christianity, Interracial Marriage, and American Law by Fay Botham



Rev. Henry W. Fancher Sr. wrote: “Segregation: God’s Plan and God’s Purpose”.



Rev. Jerry Falwell gave sermons at his church justifying segregation as God's will --- although, to his credit, he later apologized for doing so.

I can remember preachers on the radio railing about the reasons God demanded segregation. I was just a kid and teenager, but remember it well. I seriously doubt that any of their sermons are available. It was local radio and I am sure there were no archives nor recordings kept. Also, on nightly news back then preachers in the South were interviewed who defended segregation.

We have our fullest revelation of God through Jesus Christ ... but we do not yet fully understand that revelation and all that God desires. In time we will, but it will be a long time before that is true.

Again! How old are you that you know what preachers preached in the 1800's?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again! How old are you that you know what preachers preached in the 1800's?

Note, I said about segregation I remember preachers ...........

not about slavery. But any student of history can find information about preachers defending slavery.

 

[freeatlast]

Uh...that was evangelical world.

Are you really telling me that the Church is going to die? That's way more disturbing than female leadership.

No I am telling you that the church is already dead for the most part.

 

[RAdam]

Why didn't they use scripture to support them? Could it be that I was right in that the bible nowhere teaches in support of slavery or segregation? Hmm, interesting. There goes your argument.

Meanwhile you still haven't dealt with the fact that the bible clearly teaches against women being in leadership roles in the church and against women holding the two church offices. Unlike the red herring you brought up, the bible actually does clearly teach those things.

 

[jaigner]

If you were faithful to the bible you would accept the clear teaching of scripture rather than set it aside for modern society's ideas.

Oh my goodness. You are holding me down to your own particular convictions. We are not talking about one of the fundamentals of the faith here. I'm not denying the virgin birth or resurrection. This issue is completely bound up in interpretation. I have struggled, prayed, read and done my best to follow the Spirit's leading in this issue. In the end, this is where I have come. The implications of your statement are actually pretty insulting and judgmental. You are basically saying that the majority of evangelicals who do not see this issue as so clear cut are intentionally not being faithful to the Bible. That is crazy. Some of the most godly, thoughtful, earnest and intelligent believers either 1) believe that women can serve in any capacity or 2) believe that there are restrictions, but it is not an easy interpretive task figuring out what it means or how to administer it.

If, in our finite human minds and hearts, we are wrong, God's grace is enough to cover our mistakes, just as it is if you are wrong, which I'm sure you don't believe you are either. I've been in your shoes before.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No I am not saying anything. The Lord says it. Unless we keep His commands we do not love Him.

I think you have somehow missed the fact that faithful Christians may come to different interpretations of scripture in their effort to keep the Lord's commandments.

Fortunately, the Lord judges rightly according to the intent of the heart and our faithfulness to His leading, so it is likely that neither one of us is under condemnation.

The passage in Romans about Phoebe is not suggesting that she was a deacon in the official capacity.

On what basis do you make that determination?

The word simply means one that serves.

It is exactly the same word that is used for the male deacons in Acts. If you don't believe me, ask Dr. Bob. He is scrupulously honest about the word of God.

She was not an official deacon as in the church.

The way Paul specifically calls her out seems to indicate she is serving in an "official" position:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (deacon) of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me." - Romans 16:1-2

That is made clear in 1Tim. A woman cannot meet the standards of the Lord.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

As you probably know, many Christians understand that there are guidelines for female deacons in this passage:

"Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things."

So if they take the position that a woman is intened to be deacons then you rebel against the Lord.

I'll let the Lord judge His servants in this matter.

You are correct that the true church cannot die, but what we are seeing today is not the true church.

I see the true church all the time. The true church is full of people with issues and slight to serious doctrinal error. If the church in Corinth could be a true church, then any church that embraces the core of the gospel of Christ is a true church.

You make that clear in trying to defend women as deacons and not holding to sound doctrine.

Hey thanks for the condemnation!

I don't feel any strong urge to try to defend female deacons since Paul commends one in Romans. For me to try to explain that away would be to deny sound doctrine.

FWIW, I've been on the other side of this issue. What began the change in my understanding of this issue was E. Earle Ellis's chapter entitled, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman" in his book, Pauline Theology. Until his recent death, he served on the faculty of Southwestern Seminary at the pleasure of seminary president, Paige Patterson.

He was an extremely conservative interpreter of scripture.