Featured Call to Elect a Female SBC President Next Week

It would send a powerful message alright. The message that the SBC had gone to Hell in a hand basket.

 

A.G. ordained women as pastors. I put them in the same near worthless boat as Methodists.

 

Is that the same McKissic who was responsible for last years action to condemn the alt right & threatened to leave if they didn’t acquiesce? Should have let him walk then. Now the dye is cast.

 

McKissic's touting of Moore seems a little odd with his confirmed vote for Greear.
Voting Greear, Could As Easily Vote Hemphill, Tempted to Nominate Beth Moore, for SBC Presidency

 

The problem here is that there is a bible we hold to that is eminently sexist by modernity's ideas of sexism. I mean, modern ideas of "womanhood" amount to men and women being interchangeable with actual reproduction strictly manipulated and usually turned off. Thus, making the two truly interchangeable.

Modernity's ideas of womanhood completely fail to understand the created order, fails to understand the first woman, and fails to understand the biblical idea of family.

As for the subject of a woman heading the organs of the SBC, that is strictly unbiblical. She is exercising authority over men at all.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

I had enough grief at my old church, where I could not serve in a number of ministries because I would violate my conscience by being under a woman. If a woman led the SBC's organs I would doubt whether I should donate to SBC organizations anymore, and I would doubt whether a pastor could be in the cooperative anymore and still be biblical.

 

I don't regard that as humorous. Of course a woman can teach outside of the assembly, just look at Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos. Of course, a woman can be in a servant position under the authority of men. But if you are implying that Phoebe had binding authority in church over men, or was allowed to teach in the public assembly, then that would be a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. It is also out line with the passage, where Paul is asking for help for Phoebe, as she does what Paul has tasked her with.

 

I wanted to participate in the weekly Wednesday meal. We had fellowship, invited people to come by, and broke for bible studies. I wanted to be a server, but a woman was placed as the administrator of the ministry. I was told I would answer to her, and at the last minute I had to decline rather than go against my conscience.

I also desired to help with children's ministry and youth ministry, especially VBS. However, a woman was placed as administrator and leader of those ministries as well.

I did talk about my views at the church, and the pastor, who I had known for years, told me it was probably a good idea to find another church. Because my views on women and the bible were not in line with the church, and it would better serve my conscience to leave. That after thirteen years of being a member and ten years of having known the pastor!

This all happened just after the church had changed the by-laws to allow women to be ministry leaders and divorcees to become deacons and ministry leaders. I should have seen the writing on the wall at that point.

Thankfully, I found an SBC church close by that was much more "old fashioned," and had more opportunities. However, I am in a disagreement over tithing with the church's teachings, and might have to leave.

Is It Right to Stay at a Church If You Disobey the Teaching of the Pastor?

Thankfully, it seems many large fellowships in Orlando are "old fashioned," and I have a big list to visit if things fall through at my current church. My main concern now is singles ministries, as I don't even have a girlfriend right now. I'm getting old for a single Christian, and I feel it.

Thank you for asking about my experiences.

 

I guess I just don't understand your position. At my current church plenty of women do kitchen, children's work, and clerical work for these ministries; but they are never allowed administrative leadership of men.

That said, I have only been a genuine believer for two years, and having been trained in a moderate seminary before then, I have rejected all of Modernity and human tradition in favor of strict adherence to the Word.

 

You need to go back and look at 1 Corinthians more closely. Paul made a point about women having a head covering (because of the pagan practices of the day in Corinth) when she was praying or PROPHESYING in the meetings of the church. There is a lot of disagreement about the meaning of the head coverings, but not the basic issue of women prophesying just like the men (1 Corinthians 11:4-5).

At this point, some assert that the men and women must have met separately and this is an example of women teaching women. But if you go to one of the favorite proof texts, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, you will see that men and women were in the same meetings.

How do we reconcile the two passages from Paul in the same letter, just three chapters apart? We recognize that context requires us to translate the word γυναῖκες as "wives" instead of "women," a natural and appropriate translation. Therefore the two verses should read:

The wives are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is improper for a wife to speak in church...​

Now why would Paul place this restriction on wives since women were speaking as shown in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5? Because this instruction occurs in the context of the church hearing a speaker and then the congregation "passing judgment" (see verse 29). Paul wants to avoid a wife quizzing the husband in front of the congregation that might lead to marital strife, but instead showing deference in front of the congregation and then talking to him about it in the privacy of their own home.