Christian Feminism...

[Timsings]

I have some problems with feminism, Christian or otherwise. But, then I have a problem with any position that pushes an extreme view. It's worse when the extreme view borders on or crosses the line into absolutism. That is dangerous territory for finite beings. Some feminists have crossed this line, but so have some folks on this thread. BaptistBeliever's list of scriptural examples (see post #19 on this thread) of how women were treated by Jesus and others in ways that contradict the prevailing sentiments here, cannot be passed over lightly.

The big danger, as I see it, is falling into the same trap that the Pharisees did. They began to take their interpretation of the scriptures too seriously. They thought they had all the answers, and they were very proud of themselves. But Jesus, as Revmitchell correctly pointed out, spent a great deal of time correcting them. Actually, he was ridiculing them and humiliating them for their narrow interpretations of sabbath observance, the nature of a neighbor, etc.

I submit that the most important problem with absolutist interpretations of the scriptures is that they limit God's ability to act. God wouldn't ever call a woman to preach! Well, as BaptistBeliever has already pointed out, the first person to proclaim, "He is risen!", was a woman. I have said elsewhere that, in my opinion, the Bible is a record of the new things God has done among the Israelites and now among the Christians (Cp. Isaiah 43.18-19). The Pharisees forgot that so they were stuck in the past. The question for us is whether we are are about to do or have already done the same thing. Have we made the Bible into an idol that we use to restrict God's movements and actions to the ones that agree with our interpretations of scripture?

If God has begun calling women to the preaching ministry, who are we to complain?

Tim Reynolds

 

[sag38]

In a way I agree with you Tim but we must be careful in that God in doing a new work is not going to contradict His word. Now, I'm not going to tell a woman that she can't preach. My wife preaches to our nine year old son all the time and does a great job of it. And, I'm not going to say that a woman can't preach from a pulpit although I'd be very hesitant in allowing that in my church. (Ann Graham Lotz is a good example. She can preach with the best of them and I see nothing wrong with her ministry). It's one thing to preach. It's quite another to be in the authoritative position of pastor. But, I can say with certainty that a woman, in the church, is not to be in a position of authority over a man. That's clearly Biblical. You have to split a few hairs and play around with the original languages to make it say something else. And, when it comes to a clear Biblical mandate then I guess I'll have to be called a dogmatist.

 

[go2church]

First, you folks need to read some Baptist history that doesn't have "Trail of Blood" on the front cover. For the most part it is only Baptists in the United States that have seen the role of women limited in the church, elsewhere women are allowed to serve as called and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Heck even B.H. Carroll had women deacons. Travel the world a bit and it would shock your fundamentalist socks right off.

Second, you need to read someone other he W.A. Criswell. His brand of fundamentalism, though moderated (you gotta love that I used a from of moderate when talking about Criswell) was still fundamentalism which seeks to restrict the freedom of the believer to whatever he felt was the right answer. Which of course is what fundamentalism does.

Lastly, do you really think that in your circles women serving as pastors is that big a problem? Really, the churches you run with are honestly debating this issue? In the "liberal" BGCT (5000+ churches) there are 4 women pastors! I doubt it is even on most folks radar. If you want don't women to do anything but clean the kitchen and watch the nursery that's your choice. As it is my choice to see anyone serve as they feel led by the Holy Spirit and confirmed by their local church. That is the historic Baptist way.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Timsings


This was a very interesting response.

Although I am a Baptist, lets leave “Baptist history” out of it, for a second.

You asked......

“Have we made the Bible into an idol that we use to restrict God's movements and actions to the ones that agree with our interpretations of scripture?
If God has begun calling women to the preaching ministry, who are we to complain?”

We all agree that God is Holy;

Now the dictionary definition of Holy is......
“Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system”

Doesn’t God’s Holiness, mandate that He obey His own word.
---------------------
I have been asked before.....
“If God is so Holy, than why doesn’t He simply take everybody to heaven?”

And my answer to this question has always been;
“It is God’s Holiness, that prevents Him from doing this, because God says in His Word...

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

“This is why Jesus had to die for us!”
--------------------------------------------------
Now the Bible says........

1 Timothy 2:12
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

How can this mean anything else, but what it says?

 

[JustChristian]

Doesn’t God’s Holiness, mandate that He obey His own word.
---------------------

I also believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Oh, it has minor factual inconsistencies but insignificant to the major truths it illuminates. However, I always have a problem whenever anyone claims to be able to put God in a box and to completely understand Him. Even to place limits on Him. If we could do that we would be God's equal.

I also believe that God has revealed Himself to man since the Bible was written and has intervened in people's lives. Maybe not in any formal way but otherwise what is the point of prayer?

My major perspective right now is that the central message of the Bible is so simple that children can understand it. (That's pointed out in the following passage.)


Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.


Jesus wasn't interested in scholarly theological debate. He was interested in giving humanity a chance for a better, more fulfilling life on this earth and an eternity spent with God. He taught us to love our neighbor and even our enemies. This is Sunday School 101 but it's the most important thing we'll ever learn in our lives.

Jesus loves me this I know,
Cause the Bible says it's so.

Little ones to Him belong.
I am weak but He is strong.


I'll bet this brings back wonderful memories. It does to me. But the hope and the power aren't in the past! Tomorrow might be the best day of your life. I pray that for you (and me) that will be so. May the Force (of our Risen Savior) be with you.

 

[Timsings]

. . . I have been asked before.....
“If God is so Holy, than why doesn’t He simply take everybody to heaven?”

And my answer to this question has always been;
“It is God’s Holiness, that prevents Him from doing this, because God says in His Word...

It is the person who sins that will die; a son will not bear responsibility for his father's guilt, nor a father for his son's. The righteous person will have his own righteousness placed to his account, and the wicked person his own wickedness. Ezekiel 18.20 (REB)

“This is why Jesus had to die for us!” . . .

This quote provides another example in support of my previous post. I'm not questioning your application of this verse, but, in the context of the whole chapter, it shows God redefining how guilt is applied to sin. The proverb in 18.2 is a cynical or satirical restatement of Exodus 20.5 and Exodus 34.7 which include the same words: punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those that reject me. The Ezekiel passage continues in 18.3-4 to set aside the proverb and the two Exodus passages so that now each person will be held accountable for their own sin. This is God doing something new.

One way to look at this would be to say that God is setting aside, or violating, if you will, God's own word. Another way to look at it would be to say that the person who wrote down the Ten Commandments, and this elaboration on the Second Commandment, made a mistake. A third way to look at it could be to say that God did not give the Israelites everything at once, but led them along and gave them more of God's revelation as they could handle it. I make no judgment on the truth or falsity of any of these possibilities.

As we move through the OT prophets, especially those who were active after the Exile, we see a progression of changes in the religious practices of the Jews. I am going to give one example from Amos. At the time of Amos, it was thought that, when two peoples came together in battle, their gods also engaged in heavenly combat. The victor on the field was also the victor of the celestial battle. In Chapters 2 through 8, Amos declares that the destruction of Israel (the Northern Kingdom or Samaria) will come from God. God is going to destroy God's own people. What Amos is saying is that God does not need the Israelites in order for God to continue to exist. This is also God doing something new.

My point here is the same as it was in the earlier post. The Bible is the record of God doing new things. Just because the canon of scripture is closed, are we to suppose that God has quit doing new things? God may have done just that, or not. Our problem is that we cannot afford to make a judgment one way or the other. If we do, then we will find ourselves in the same place as the Pharisees: assuming we have all the answers when, in fact, we are clueless.

Tim Reynolds

 

[donnA]

God never ever calls anyone to disobey His written word. If so then none of matters to us at all, because any and all of it can change at a moments notice. Yet God said I change not, means He isn't changing His mind and now calling women to do something against His word. To say that God is now calling women to violate His written word is evil. Plain and simple, it comes from satan not God.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is where the term "liberal' is never more fitting. If anything does not line up with the word of God then it is not of God Period. The Bible is the true and only standard for all faith and practice. If the so called "New" is contrary to scripture it has no value and is not to be followed. Liberals always work to take God out of the boundaries He has revealed of Himself in scripture so as to set up their own standard. As best I can tell it is certainly a BGCT thing. And the more I see it the more it becomes apparent we need to evaluate our seminaries and what is being taught. I knew if I waited long enough the true animosity toward biblical standards would be revealed in an obvious way.

 

[stilllearning]

Everyone knows that old question, intended to get people’s attention:

“What is the only thing, that God can’t do?”

And you lift the flap, to reveal the answer........

“God can’t sin!”
--------------------------------------------------
Well in this case, sin is disobeying His own law........

1 John 3:4
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”

It is not putting God in a box, when we say, that God can never contradict His own Word.

 

[superwoman8977]

First, you folks need to read some Baptist history that doesn't have "Trail of Blood" on the front cover. For the most part it is only Baptists in the United States that have seen the role of women limited in the church, elsewhere women are allowed to serve as called and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Heck even B.H. Carroll had women deacons. Travel the world a bit and it would shock your fundamentalist socks right off.

Second, you need to read someone other he W.A. Criswell. His brand of fundamentalism, though moderated (you gotta love that I used a from of moderate when talking about Criswell) was still fundamentalism which seeks to restrict the freedom of the believer to whatever he felt was the right answer. Which of course is what fundamentalism does.

Lastly, do you really think that in your circles women serving as pastors is that big a problem? Really, the churches you run with are honestly debating this issue? In the "liberal" BGCT (5000+ churches) there are 4 women pastors! I doubt it is even on most folks radar. If you want don't women to do anything but clean the kitchen and watch the nursery that's your choice. As it is my choice to see anyone serve as they feel led by the Holy Spirit and confirmed by their local church. That is the historic Baptist way.

Amen! I am certainly not a nursery worker or Sunday School teacher or kitchen worker and I get so tired of people calling me and telling me thats where I need to go serve in the church. Women can do so much more. I attended a church where a woman was the senior pastor and it was amazing to see all the work being done in that church, in a military town no less, where soldiers attended with their families, and respected her and the compasssion and love that flowed in that church and the Holy Spirit moved in that church that was nothing short of amazing! Women can add so much to a church yeah men are great as pastors but its the love and compassion that a woman can bring to a pulpit that can lead hundreds if not thousands to the Lord.

 

[stilllearning]

go2church said........

“For the most part it is only Baptists in the United States that have seen the role of women limited in the church.........”

Well it looks like we are doing something right.

 

[donnA]

I've never read Trail of Tears, or W.A. Criswell. But I have read the bible. And it is never out dated, it is unchanging, it means the same today as it did 2,000 yrs ago.
As my mom always told me and my brother, if all your friends jumped oof a bridge would you. Just because it's popular for women to be pastors or deacons, does it make it right? No, not when scripture says otherwise.
Of course women can do something other then clean the kitchen or watch the nursery, to say this is what people believe is silly, and misimformed.
People 'feel' lead to thing sunbiblical, and sinful all the time. But is it God leading them to 'feel' that? No. God never leads anyone to violate scripture.

 

[donnA]

go2church said........


Well it looks like we are doing something right.

Amen, and thank God.

 

[Timsings]

This is where the term "liberal' is never more fitting. If anything does not line up with the word of God then it is not of God Period. The Bible is the true and only standard for all faith and practice. If the so called "New" is contrary to scripture it has no value and is not to be followed. Liberals always work to take God out of the boundaries He has revealed of Himself in scripture so as to set up their own standard. As best I can tell it is certainly a BGCT thing. And the more I see it the more it becomes apparent we need to evaluate our seminaries and what is being taught. I knew if I waited long enough the true animosity toward biblical standards would be revealed in an obvious way.

I feel like an accident victim whose doctor and family members are standing by his bed talking about his condition in the third person as if he couldn't hear what they were saying about him. If you've got a problem with me and my views, talk to me!! Don't preach to some larger audience as if I can't understand what you're saying. You've made me into a thing, nailed me to a cross, and put a sign above me that reads LIBERAL. Also, what's the BGCT got to do with this? You've slapped them around a few times lately. I'm assuming that you 're referring to the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Why? You don't live in Texas. I don't live in Texas. So, what gives?

As for your comments about the seminaries, I, strange as it may seem, agree with you (sort of), especially SWBTS. That seminary has been going downhill since the trustees were browbeaten into firing President Dilday. It has been in freefall since Paige Patterson became president. He has nurtured an atmosphere of fear and suspicion among the faculty which has resulted in many leaving for less stressful academic environments. Now, Rev, I know you see this as a good thing. But, I see it as deplorable. It is no wonder that the president's home, renamed "Pecan Manor" by Mrs. Patterson, is affectionately referred to, by many on campus, as "The Nut House".

Now, to address your rude, insulting, and self-serving comments: I have not declared that God is doing something new in the here and now. First, I said that the Bible is a record of God's actions that could be considered new. Here are a few examples (which I have listed elsewhere): the Creation; the appearance to Abram; the appearance to Moses; the Exodus; the Exile; the Restoration; the coming of Christ; the Crucifixion; the Resurrection; Pentecost; making the Gospel available to Gentiles. Many of these examples did not correspond to the prevailing understanding of God at the time they occurred (e. g., see Jeremiah 27-29). Second, I said that we should not discount the possibility that God is doing now or will do something new in the future. But, above all, we should not declare that we are sure that God will not be doing something new. Are we God's servants? Or, are we God's judges?

Tim Reynolds

 

[Revmitchell]

I feel like an accident victim whose doctor and family members are standing by his bed talking about his condition in the third person as if he couldn't hear what they were saying about him. If you've got a problem with me and my views, talk to me!! Don't preach to some larger audience as if I can't understand what you're saying. You've made me into a thing, nailed me to a cross, and put a sign above me that reads LIBERAL. Also, what's the BGCT got to do with this? You've slapped them around a few times lately. I'm assuming that you 're referring to the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Why? You don't live in Texas. I don't live in Texas. So, what gives?

As for your comments about the seminaries, I, strange as it may seem, agree with you (sort of), especially SWBTS. That seminary has been going downhill since the trustees were browbeaten into firing President Dilday. It has been in freefall since Paige Patterson became president. He has nurtured an atmosphere of fear and suspicion among the faculty which has resulted in many leaving for less stressful academic environments. Now, Rev, I know you see this as a good thing. But, I see it as deplorable. It is no wonder that the president's home, renamed "Pecan Manor" by Mrs. Patterson, is affectionately referred to, by many on campus, as "The Nut House".

Now, to address your rude, insulting, and self-serving comments: I have not declared that God is doing something new in the here and now. First, I said that the Bible is a record of God's actions that could be considered new. Here are a few examples (which I have listed elsewhere): the Creation; the appearance to Abram; the appearance to Moses; the Exodus; the Exile; the Restoration; the coming of Christ; the Crucifixion; the Resurrection; Pentecost; making the Gospel available to Gentiles. Many of these examples did not correspond to the prevailing understanding of God at the time they occurred (e. g., see Jeremiah 27-29). Second, I said that we should not discount the possibility that God is doing now or will do something new in the future. But, above all, we should not declare that we are sure that God will not be doing something new. Are we God's servants? Or, are we God's judges?

Tim Reynolds

Dilday needed firing. Considering the liberal mindsets of a number of young SBC Pastors we need to evaluate what lib professors may have slipped through again. SBC cooperative funds do not need to be supporting those who diminish scripture like I have seen in this thread.

I wasn't addressing any one person but I was addressing a number of comments thoughout the thread. If it doesn't apply to you let it go.

We should be declaring that this percieved liberal "new" needs to be held up to the standard of God's word. And when it fails that test it is not of God.

 

[preachinjesus]

Dilday needed firing. Considering the liberal mindsets of a number of young SBC Pastors we need to evaluate what lib professors may have slipped through again. SBC cooperative funds do not need to be supporting those who diminish scripture like I have seen in this thread.

I've got to get in here because this is just plain wrong. Who in this thread has been doing this? I want specific names and posts.

Also, I was at SWBTS during the recent transition in administrations. There were no "liberal" (which I guess means whatever you don't agree with) professors there. If there were I'd like a list of libeled liberal professors in your estimation to be presented. Also I'd like a list of the professors at SWBTS who were "liberals" during Dr. Dilday's tenure. I'd like to know how Dr. Dilday diminished Scripture...even after affirming things like the ETS and Chicago Statements?

Rev, you make such quick, sweeping generalities and such pointed accusations but never back them up. When confronted with serious questions you disappear. Will you give us the "evidence" for your claims and not some blind fundamentalist rhetoric?

We should be declaring that this percieved liberal "new" needs to be held up to the standard of God's word. And when it fails that test it is not of God.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal" every who agrees is a "conservative"? Who gave you the authority to make such sweeping claims. Why is it that when someone asks you, a pastor, a serious question about Scripture you demean them and libel them ad nauseum?

What if your "standard" of Scripture isn't correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

I've got to get in here because this is just plain wrong. Who in this thread has been doing this? I want specific names and posts.

I am not really concerned for what you want. It isn't all that impressive. But you are welcome to go back and look for posts that suggest that "God's plan needs some tweaking", And Paul makes women 2nd class citizens. Others stand against the "Correctness of Doctrine", or biblical absolutes.

Also, I was at SWBTS during the recent transition in administrations. There were no "liberal" (which I guess means whatever you don't agree with) professors there. If there were I'd like a list of libeled liberal professors in your estimation to be presented. Also I'd like a list of the professors at SWBTS who were "liberals" during Dr. Dilday's tenure. I'd like to know how Dr. Dilday diminished Scripture...even after affirming things like the ETS and Chicago Statements?

You now have put words in my mouth.

Rev, you make such quick, sweeping generalities and such pointed accusations but never back them up. When confronted with serious questions you disappear. Will you give us the "evidence" for your claims and not some blind fundamentalist rhetoric?

Yea so you say. However, there is no doubt that I hold to fundamentals.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal" every who agrees is a "conservative"? Who gave you the authority to make such sweeping claims. Why is it that when someone asks you, a pastor, a serious question about Scripture you demean them and libel them ad nauseum?

Nothing factual here. There are several folks on this board who I disagree with form time to time and who are conservative. They, however, do not set up standards for faith and living outside of God's word or stand against biblical absolutes. They do not see a need to tweak scripture or revise God's Plan. They don't have problems with Doctrinal correctness.

What if your "standard" of Scripture isn't correct?

This question is inane. Now.. just what serious question has been asked?

 

[annsni]

Amen! I am certainly not a nursery worker or Sunday School teacher or kitchen worker and I get so tired of people calling me and telling me thats where I need to go serve in the church. Women can do so much more.

So seeing to the needs of the youngest of the flock and helping to lay a foundation that will prayerfully last a lifetime is "less" than what women can do? Wow. Yes, women can do more than be a nursery worker, Sunday School teacher or kitchen worker but those jobs might be even more important than the senior pastor in a church and by your putting it down, you are insulting a LOT of people who are working for the Lord and not "glory" or "fame".

In our church, we follow the Scriptures and women are not to be in authority over men or to preach. However, here are the roles of the women in our church off the top of my head:

counseling to women and children (huge ministry)
premarital counseling (with their husbands)
office manager
secretaries
missions ministry intern
workplace ministry intern
service coordinator (organizes the service and makes sure that everything is set for Sunday and other services)
drama director
worship leader (one of the worship teams)
worship team members
special events coordinator
nursery director
nursery workers
preschool director
preschool teachers
media specialist
website management
bookkeeping/accounting assistants
small group leader coordinator
"Welcome Center" staffers (the information desk in the lobby)
media ministry workers and coordinators
leader in our ministry to the disabled
deaf ministry coordinator
ladies' ministry study leader
Spanish teacher
sign language teacher
interpreter for the deaf


Some of the women in our church cover more than one job - mine are media specialist and website management. I just got off the phone with the service coordinator and planned out a funeral, coordinated timing for computer work, got some more information for the website, got the contacts for the two families who will be having funerals (one this week and the other one is a family where the mom/wife just passed away) so that I can contact them and coordinate getting pictures, songs, etc. for the service.

I don't see any women in our church who is not working to their giftings nor being held back from doing what God designed them to do. I also don't see any women in our church working against Scripture.

 

[donnA]

nor being held back from doing what God designed them to do

Thanks for this post Ann, God has a specific design for women, and He tells us what it is in scripture. Some women are not happy being the woman God designed them to be, they want to be men too.

 

[Crabtownboy]

go2church said........


Well it looks like we are doing something right.

Americans are so arrogant. :laugh: