Featured Women in Ministry...a 3rd position:

These days I am not surprised by the lengths people go to in order to wedge their agenda into these situations. Case in point, women cannot be pastor's so we call them associate pastors.

 

It is interesting, and I can see the justification for it scripturally. Some of the breakaway Anglican groups have a similar philosophy.

Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

Agree that pastors/Elders, from the biblical mandate, were ALL men!

Question of spiritual headship/authority here...

 

Let women serve as they are led by the Spirit and affirmed by the church.

 

T.W., I must vigorously object to your assertion below:

you wrote: "Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation."

See, that is just wrong as it does not go far enough. Sometimes our shadow is in front of us when we walk, and that will not do. And you forgot that we only want them barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.

Seriously, man, do you believe what you just wrote? That may be your experience, but not mine over 3 decades of belonging to Independent Baptist Churches. Elder, Pastor, Bishop, Shepherd are all names for the Pastor of a church. You have no scriptural evidence that Jesus or the Apostles approved of a women teaching men, or preaching, yet you put this ad hominem attack out there because your strawman burnt up, no offense. I mean, since we are being frank here. That said, your church has a right to do whatever they want and we all will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and then we will all see what is what. Jesus was a champion for the downtrodden, and that is made very clear in Luke. Yet we do not find anywhere it is ok for women to teach men scripturally. Neither does Paul, except when he says that Timothy's grandmother taught him growing up. There are no guidelines for the character of women preachers or deacons, yet their are guidelines for their wives. How much plainer can you get?

 

Huh?

Charles Spurgeon preaching from Romans 16 (v. 3 "Priscilla and Aquila"):

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, 'Aquila and Priscilla,' but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, 'Priscilla and Aquila.'"

 

Hey Jerome,
How many woman deacons did CHS have at the metropolitan tabernacle?

 

Spurgeon called Lavinia Bartlett his best deacon, even a pastor.

Bio of Mrs. Bartlett in The Sword and the Trowel:

http://books.google.com/books?id=a7gVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113

 

Don't be dense, you're better then that, or are you?

A faithful, godly women can determine what the Holy Spirit is leading her to do without permission from any man. The same Spirit that lives in me, a man lives in them, no difference.

You want to use the various passages to confine women to certain roles while ignoring the other passages that do the exact opposite that's fine, your choice. But don't think you somehow love Jesus and the Bible more because you have made those choices. It's ignorant and unnecessarily divisive.

 

I guess what wound me up was that I would never suggest that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to nor is there a even the hint that I have ever done so, yet that is immediately where you went. AA

I will hold to my ignoring comment but with some explanation.

Ignoring means to refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. The complimentary interpretation that women can only serve in gender specific roles seems to me to be ignoring (as defined) the other passages, some a few chapters away, where women are serving as deacons, preaching, teaching, etc. One set of passages becomes the norm while other passages diminished. This has been and continues to be my major issue with the complimentary interpretation. Also, the example of Jesus elevating, including, teaching and relying on women seems again to be completely ignored.

Is it too strong a word? Can you suggest a more appropriate one?

 

That kind of thinking is why there is such a schism in the church today. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes, then says God said it was ok. That's why we are being bombarded with the world in our churches. Gay pastors, gay marriage, women preachers, etc. We don't use various verses, we use the only verses that deal with pastors and deacons. Husband of one wife for both, no qualifications for women for either. But there are qualifications for the wives. Can it be any clearer?

Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. Churches that are out of order have a problem with authority.

Finally, don't think that because you flaunt God's order in the church that you have women's best interest at heart.

 

Ok, what's your point? Nowhere does that prove that there is an office of a deacon or pastor. Spurgeon is mortal like anyone of us, and he, me, and you could all be wrong on any given point. Scripture is the guide, and it specifically says the offices are for men.

BTW, I was being facetious in the part you copied and pasted.