Featured Is Al Mohler Right?

In 1978, Southern Baptist Conservatives ran Anita Bryant for Vice President of the Convention.

"President Allen opened the floor for nominations for first vice-president. Gene Russell (Tex.) nominated Anita Bryant Green (Fla.). W. M. (Bill) Hinson (La.) nominated Douglas Watterson (Tenn.). Ballots were cast for first vice-president...Secretary Porter announced the results of the ballot for first vice-president: Anita Bryant Green, 3,273; Douglas Watterson, 6,807...Watterson was declared elected."
—Proceedings of the 1978 Southern Baptist Convention

 

101 years ago

1923 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, four Vice Pesidents were elected from sixteen nominees. A woman came in fifth place. That's right, Mrs. J. M Dawson was nearly elected, and even outpolled her fellow Fundamentalist, A.C. Dixon!

source: SBC Archives [pdf] pp. 2-3

 

60 years ago:

"President White called on Second Vice-President Mrs. R. L.
Mathis (Ala.) to preside during the evening session and called
attention to the significant fact that this was the first time a woman had presided over a session of the Southern Baptist Convention."
—Proceedings of the 1964 Southern Baptist Convention

[yes, that's K. Owen White who'd been pastor of "always doctrinally conservative" Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C.]

Baptist Press reported that Convention President K. Owen White presented Convention Vice-President Marie Mathis with a rolling pin to use as a gavel!

 

Marie Mathis who presided over the Conventon in 1964, with W.A. Criswell in a 1969 photo from the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archive

 

1981-1982 SBC Officers: Bailey Smith [President] & Christine Gregory [Vice-Pesident]
from the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives

 

Snippets of video from that Annual Meeting:

 

You believe it is a cultural construct because you don’t understand scripture.

Paul gives a biblical explanation for his statement. Adam was formed first, Eve second… Eve was deceived. That is a biblical foundation.

This admonition against female leadership in the church comes from God, not “cultural construct”

FTR, folks who are pro same s:x marriage make the same argument about the admonition being a “cultural construct”

Careful with the company you keep. The “cultural construct” argument is used to undermine all kinds of biblical truth.

peace to you

 

1Ti 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, …

Which of you are in submission to the teaching or authority of the SBC (contrary to the Baptist Distinctive of Local Autonomy)?

“Can a woman be a Crossing Guard?” would seem to be a question more appropriate to 1 Timothy 2 … she has the authority to command you to stop driving.

 

The golden rule has us treating others the way we would want to be treated. Thus would men want to be treated with the restrictions placed on women because of the gender rather than their qualifications and ability to do a job.

In Matthew 19:8 Moses is said not to allow divorce due to a cultural problem. Could 1 Timothy 2:12 we understood that because of the cultural constraints upon women at that time, Paul did not allow them to exercise authority over men?

 

Why not just follow Paul’s explanation in 1 Timothy? Paul lays a biblical foundation for the restriction, not a cultural foundation.

Now, when Paul states it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair (I Corinthians?) you could make an argument for cultural restrictions, but not 1 Timothy.

FTR, using the “golden rule” to nullify the very clear teaching of scripture concerning male leadership in the church is problematic at best and a gross distortion at worst.

It is really no different than the LTGBQ+++++ arguments that since scripture says “God is Love”, He approves of loving same s:x relationships, despite the clear admonition in the OT and the NT.

Just follow God’s Word, believe it and live it, and don’t look for loopholes around it.

peace to you

 

The conservative resurgence began in 79. In 81, liberals still had heavy influence in SBC.

 

So the fact that their is no difference between male and female means their is a difference between male and female, the same difference seen in paternalistic cultures. Got it!!

 

I see you are running away from what the passage of 1Timothy says and instead of attempting to understand the prohibition according to Paul’s reasoning (based on scripture), you are substituting a secular understanding that dismisses the prohibition as “cultural” and then you attempt to use other passages, out of context, to support your secular reasoning.

The statement there is no “male or female”(slave or free, Jew or Greek) lifts women to equal status with men in the eyes of God when it comes to salvation, which is the context.

It does not negate the teaching of male leadership within the church.

Di you agree with the pro same s:x marriage argument that prohibitions against same s:x marriage are “cultural”?, not biblical?

peace to you

 

Once again, you postulate a heresy, then ask (innocently) if I agree. Fiddlesticks.

Scripture says there is no difference, and you "add" in the eyes of God but there is a distinction in God's direction for people.
So the fact that their is no difference between male and female means their is a difference between male and female, the same difference seen in paternalistic cultures. Got it!!

Did anyone see where it was agreed that scripture makes cultural accommodations, but points the way forward to a better cultural norm. Nope.

Part of our history had laws against teaching slaves to read, keeping them in a subservient untrained condition. But still some slaves learned to read ( Fredrick Douglass springs to mind) and became a proficient public speaker. Certainly women were not trained as leaders in the first century culture, but scripture does indicate a male and female couple to work together to train up leaders.

The issue is not whether scripture indicated women were not to be used as leaders in the first century church, but whether this teaching has application is timeless, or could some women become qualified to serve as leaders within the bounds of sound biblical interpretation.

 

I submit to you that neither men nor women should use "authority" (αὐθεντεῖν) over a man or woman. That's not the way of Christ (Matthew 20:25). What's happening is that Timothy is dealing with false teachers in Ephesus, probably most of them women, who were highly influenced by the goddess worship of the Temple of Artemis/Diana that dominated Ephesian life and culture. Since the Christian faith also encouraged women as equals, it is likely that an enormous amount of corrupting influence was exerted on the church.

The New Testament is extremely clear that women served in prominent positions in the Jesus movement, including preaching (Acts 2:16-18; Acts 21:9) and teaching (Acts 18:26) roles. The assertion that women could not exercise leadership in the congregation fails when one simply reads the New Testament as a whole, instead of proof-texts.

You are alluding to 1 Corinthians 11:6, but you seem to have completely missed the context.

If you are going to speak to these issues, you should really be able to cite the passage with all of the appropriate context. You failed to point out the ONLY element of this passage that is not tied up in Greco-Roman customs regarding the honor of head coverings -- Paul clearly states that women preach (aka "prophesy") in the gatherings of the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5). Therefore, unless you think that Paul was wildly inconsistent, you cannot interpret 1 Corinthians 14:33b-25 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as a prohibition against women speaking/preaching within the congregation.

Here's the passage so you can see it:

1 Corinthians 11:5-6
But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for it is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, have her also cut her hair off; however, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, have her cover her head.​