a woman teaching

Actually, that is correct. If you are invited to a secular place to do a presentation, by all means, do it ... together even. But in teh church, we should honor God's instructions.

Actually, that is not acording to me. You are perfectly welcome to help him. You are not allowed, according to Scripture, to teach or have authority if men are in the group. Remeber, I didn't make this stuff up. This is what God revealed to Paul for the church.

You are correct. But the explanation was wrong, and if yoru friend is a Greek scholar, then he knows this. I asked for Barry's references for a couple of things he said, and he has not produced them. I would like to see them.

But overall, this issue has been well addressed by men like Piper and Grudem in their book.

Yes, but whether or not it conforms to Scripture matters. And in this case, the text appears to indicate that your practice does not conform to Scripture.

But if the churches you speak in are fine with that, then that is fine with me. You presented here for a discussion, and I gave the exegetical evidence for my side. You accused it of absurdities, but never pointed them out.

 

The BB is not a church. Scripturally, a church is recognized by, among other things ...

1. Being biblically organized (with pastors and deacons).
2. Meeting at regular and stated times.
3. Observing the ordinances.

The BB does none of these things. It is not a church.

 

Does this mean our deaf ministries should only employ male sign language interpreters?

 

For the preaching that would be optimal, though not necessary since interpreting is different than teaching, IMO.

 

2 Tim 3:16 ALL the bible is our authority!

http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield1.html

 

Helen,

I am a SBC pastor and associate with SBTC in Texas which is the more conservative of the two state conventions in Texas. You and Barry are obviously committed to the Lord. I want to say that I do not feel that you were dealt with fairly. You are in what I consider to be gray area in terms of a solid defensible position. Proponents of what is referred to as the complementarian position may object to your role, however, you are not trying to serve as the pastor of a church. As of right now the SBC has only agreed to state that there is a prohibition of women in the pastorate. There are many SBC conservative women who have preached in mixed company, eg Dorthy Patterson, Ann Graham Lott, and Beth Moore for starters. What I or anyone personally believes here is really unimportant because you and Barry have to answer to the Lord. I want to commend you for if nothing else the fact that you sincerely wrestled with this issue within a biblical framework. That is ultimately all anyone can ask of you. May God bless you in your ministry.

 

Sorry to see that Barry has not interacted with any of the evidence or arguments put forth against his position.

1. He has not provided any documentation for his position, particularly on the original languages. On the other hand, documentation was provided that shows Barry's position to be inadequate.

2. He has not interacted with the context, either near or larger context, in which those commands were given. The context has been shown to mitigate against Barry's position.

3. He continues to participate in name calling of those he disagrees with, rather than interacting with their position.

4. He continues to espouse a faulty doctrine of inspiration that essentially denis that "All Scripture is God-breathed." This is the most serious issue. His position is a liberal position, historically speaking. It is hte position that some have used to deny Mosaic authorship and the historicity of Genesis. It is a faulty position on it face.

I would like to see Barry interact with these things.

 

I have stayed out of this particular debate due to Barry being answered very clearly on many things. I personally do not hold what you are doing is instructing in the word like a pastor or bible teacher but as one(s) who are bring confirmation to the word. But again this does include some teaching of the scriptures to a group (it typically is the church body being presented to) for better clarification and biblical context and so it is in this respect as stated is a grayish area. But "IF" you are ones guest I would say to make it a point to explain what you (as in both of you) will specifically be doing as to keep any further conflict in your ministry.

I do however see some very harmful things that cast/will cast (if not careful) over his ministry. One is of his analysis of scripture that is greatly lacking and shows poor understanding of the basic principles of hermeneutics, then tries to super-impose intent to the authors writting that is clearly established given its full context. There is also the sad and mean spirited nature in which he casts dispursion of those who stand for their beliefs and disagree with his...umm...rendering of scripture.

A word of Caution: If this is on a site that is accesable to those who would like your ministry to come to speak with their people and the Pastor see that - study of his - he may change his mind. I'm not trying to be rude here but I would hate to see a great work given a bad rap over trying to substantiate 'your' speaking which sets in a gray area.

Just minister as the Lord leads and if there are "special" rules to follow then submit to those who asked you to come minister to them.

May the peace of "our" Father gently guide in turbulent waters. And if your boat is sinking, just stand up and walk with Jesus on those waters and let Him say who is boss. :tongue3:

 

I noticed those who believe scripture are called legalists.
As I said before, people are going to do what they want to do.

 

I would just like to say that since none of us have actually seen Barry and Helen's presentation, we should be careful how we judge our brother and sister.
raying:

 

Please elaborate on the highlighted comment.

Also, what about a lady teaching a college Bible course?
Or a husband and wife privately instructing a preacher in proper theology?

Helen was told that even public reading of scripture by a lady was proscribed, yet the very couple who undertook to "correct" Barry and her were ministering the music together.
Some songs are directly adapted from scripture, while others teach Bible truths.
Since songs are didactic and not merely aesthetic, one would think that a mixed duet might approximate the Setterfields' situation.
Weren't some great hymns of the faith even written by ladies?

 

Many question what the exact meaning of speaking or teaching is because those words are easily twisted into fitting our own opinions. If you really want to know what the Bible has to say about the subject look up the word "silence." Its not very popular but it is Bible.

 

So which is the greater authority? SBC, or the Bible?

 

Not sure what you would like to elaborate on. The principles of teaching roles should be endeavored to be followed.

Why would a woman teach a Bible college course? Most Bible colleges aer in churches.

Why would a preacher need to be instructed by a husband and wife? He is to be the student of hte word to teach others. But in this case, the husband should do the teaching, as we should presume was hte case with Aquila and Priscilla.

Music in Scripture, while serving the purpose of teaching, is different according to the text. If some are not committed to following the text, this would not be evident; but if we are committed to following the text, it would not be a problem.

Again, I think this is as simple as the words on the page. We have seen people go to great things to win the battle by definitions (without support), by ignorign the context, by playing games with it. Why not just follow it? I don't understand the need to put women in this situation?

 

My point was nothing of the sort, to suggest that you seriously think that was my point is preposterous.

My point is that I am a conservative in the SBC and the SBC is one of the most conservative Baptist denominations and all that we have officially agreed to is a prohibition of female pastors. I would add that the overwhelming majority of SBC pastors object to female deacons. However, the matter of speaking in mixed company is very much a gray area, and is not exactly something that you will gain overwhelming support for or against. Having a female SS teacher over a mixed class is not the same thing because the SS teacher holds a type of authority over the class and therefore those in the class. I am not saying that I would encourage other woman to preach to mix company but I am objective enough to see that Helen's case is not easily resolved amongst contemporary Baptist brethren.

 

You stated that women teaching (& preaching) Bible doctrine to the men in your church was a conservative (SBTC) stance.

I do not know what to make of this statement.

Ironically, I find these statements in a thread about teaching outside of the church.

Maybe I should read back through the thread again . . . but I am tired.

I hope that I misunderstood.

 

No I never said that women teaching and preaching the Bible to mix company in my church was a conservative stance.

I said that there are several examples of who have done so and listed them for your info.

All I am trying to do is soften the rhetoric in this discussion because truth be told there is little overwhelming support for either side in an issue like Helens.

You are entitled to your opinion but this is a gray area for sure.

 

I honestly didn't know if you were, yourself, agreeing with the stance of the SBC. But you stated something about the SBC that contradicts the Bible, and I raised the obvious issue -- which has more authority? What the SBC considers permissible, or what the Bible forbids?

Now you've limited the scope to speaking in mixed company. In your former message, however, you mentioned people who have gone much farther than that, such as Beth Moore.

This tells me that contemporary conservative Baptist brethren have gone horribly astray. They're folding under social pressure.

I know you can say that is simply my opinion, and you disagree, but it isn't a gray area at all. I do believe that if you truly let the Bible speak for itself and forget what the SBC thinks, I believe you will find that the issue is quite black and white, and people like Beth Moore are being openly disobedient, whether they realize it or not.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the fact that conservative SBC leaders believe it is a gray area gives no weight whatsoever to whether or not it really is a gray area. If they're wrong, they're wrong.

 

I really do not think the Op was really interested in what is right or wrong according to Scripture in the first place since they have gone to such great lengths to defend themselves.

It has been my experience that truth never needs defending. It will be vindicated whether we agree with it or not.

The Scripture is plain. In a church setting, no woman ought to teach or hava authority over men. Period.

Mental, verbal, or greek gymnastics notwithstanding, the Pastor is the one accountable for his flock and the OP ought to have submitted to that authority.