-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Woman senior pastor
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
I believe in the autonomy of the local church. They are free to do as they please (even if it displeases the Lord).
However, if they are a member church in an association wherein women senior pastors are forbidden, it is within the purview of the association membership to remove them and disfellowship them.
However, if they are a member church in an association wherein women senior pastors are forbidden, it is within the purview of the association membership to remove them and disfellowship them.
I don't know which one you are referring to, but Calvary Baptist Church in Waco called a female pastor nearly 20 years ago. I think they were looking for someone recently, so this might be the same church.
Anyone and any group that had a problem with it nearly 20 years ago has probably already acted.
Churches have autonomy to do whatever they want to do in terms of leadership.
This is current news, but not new news in the sense that Calvary broke the pastor gender barrier years ago.
My thoughts are:
- Women pastors are not supported in the light of the New Testament.
- Baptist churches are autonomous, which means (a) Calvary can call a woman pastor if they wish, and (b) those of us who disagree can publicly rebuke, reject fellowship, pass resolutions and/or make any other moves that we wish. If we have no previous fellowship or associational connection with them, it is unlikely to make any difference (other than preaching to the choir). (Their minister of music is an acquaintance I see about once a year, but I will not mention it to him, since our acquaintance is not based on church fellowship.)
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Baptist Believer, post: 2314589, member: 381"
Churches have autonomy to do whatever they want to do in terms of leadership.[/QUOTE]
Autonomy from n earthly authority but it seems they have ignored scripture.
Churches have autonomy to do whatever they want to do in terms of leadership.[/QUOTE]
Autonomy from n earthly authority but it seems they have ignored scripture.
I doubt they have "ignored" scripture. I'm sure they see it as interpreting scripture differently.
Uh huh.............
I doubt the church sought membership with the SBTC since they are fairly new and a breakaway convention from the BGCT. I know my own church had no interest in being a member of the SBTC.
The SBTC is not fairly new as they organized in 1998. This became necessary as a result of the unfaithfulness of the BGCT to scripture.
New is a matter of perspective. It's new to me. In denominational and personal terms, it is a new convention. There haven't been many new Baptist conventions born since then.
I was there in Houston at the BGCT meeting where the founders of the SBTC staged a walkout after a vote didn't go their way. Those of us who remained, entered into prayer asking for God to bless the work of the SBTC while they were still making their exit.
Many of us who are associated with the SBCT are faithful to scripture. Some are not. Many who are associated with the SBTC are faithful to scripture. Some are not. Blanket assertions are foolish.
This is merely my opinion, but "breaking the gender bearer" is not just a single matter concerning this issue.
The standard this church espouses is the church reflects that certain scriptures do not and cannot be taken as originally stated and foundational in this modern society. However, are able to be ignored or relegated to merely applicable to the early church.
Is this thinking not assuming doubt upon the whole Word of God and what can be agreeable and what can be ignored without rebuke from other believers?
The standard this church espouses is the church reflects that certain scriptures do not and cannot be taken as originally stated and foundational in this modern society. However, are able to be ignored or relegated to merely applicable to the early church.
Is this thinking not assuming doubt upon the whole Word of God and what can be agreeable and what can be ignored without rebuke from other believers?
sigh the primary issue was over the stance on scripture. Specifically the inerrancy of scripture.
A church I used to attend had a woman senior pastor. Her husband had the title of pastor and preached the sermons. She wore the pants in that family and completely controlled him. Even though she was not on the payroll and had no title, she ran the show. Consequently, that church stayed in constant turmoil.
How is it that a Baptist congregation is content to fellowship in a convention with those that would doubt the verascity of Scriptures?
This isn't a matter of how to interpret a passage, rather standing on the unsupported opinions that certain scriptures can be ignored, and in effect are no longer the Word of God.
Baptist are supposedly recognizable as Bible believers. Do they no longer hold to the saying, "God said it, I believe it." ?
To clarify, I did not mean to imply they did -- only intended to reference what I felt would be the response of the SBTC had they been affiliated. I note that this church can be found in church searches of the four associations listed, but not in the SBTC. I suppose that WBA, BGCT and CBF do not take a position against women pastors, and maybe the SBC doesn't deal with it at the national level?
Last edited:
The specific issue in 1998 was that the BGCT did not affirm the most recent update to the Baptist Faith and Message that had been passed at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention that summer.
Those tightly aligned with the Southern Baptist Convention takeover movement (aka "The Conservative Resurgence") had not been able to win major votes in areas where they had campaigned for certain issues/candidates for many years and they took the lack of interest in the 1998 "Family Amendment" to be the last straw.
The walkout had been planned and announced well beforehand, with all of the mechanisms to set up the SBCT in place, so it wasn't a surprise.
Everyone I talked to about the "Family Amendment" who opposed it did it on the basic of the authority of scripture, so it was hardly an "inerrancy" issue.
Take over? By the way the entire issue from the resurgence to the addition another convention in Texas was about inerrancy an scripture the lack lack of fidelity by liberals who had for some time run the convention. Whether or not there were things in place to begin a new convention is irrelevant to the cause. If you talk with most any conservative in Texas to include Richards you will find they support what I have said.
Further, there was grave concern that the BGCT was trying to move away from the national convention as a result of the conservative leadership and a new understanding of statement of faith's at our seminaries. Guys like Dilday were crying "preisthood of the believer" of which liberals use to justify every ungodly thing under the sun. Criswell even preached on that matter around that time.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood my meaning in light of another poster's accusations about "unfaithfulness" to scripture and "inerrancy" of scripture.
When I talk about faithfulness, I am talking about obedience.
These issues have everything to do with interpretation, not about the veracity or authority of scripture.
And most Baptists do. But not all Baptists are obedience. There are many who ignore what the scripture says about telling falsehoods against one's neighbors and name-calling while claiming to believe it as inerrant. We will be accountable for our words on the Day of Judgment.
That is certainly their position. There are at least two sides to every story. Neither major side was completely right nor completely wrong. I know a number of the major players personally.
I am not interested in rehashing something I lived through and is largely irrelevant now. It will all be sorted out at the end of the age.
You need to repent of your bad habit of throwing out the accusation of "liberal" toward everyone with whom you disagree. I makes you look foolish and is a sin against God and your neighbor.
I have not sinned as liberal is nothing more than a world view. I use conservative and I use liberal equally.
- Status