Duke McCall's Niece Ordained

mia gunaiko in no way prohibits single men from the pastorate. It means "one woman man." This is accepted widely across conservative expositors. If single men could not pastor, then men whose wives have died could not pastor since they are not the husband of one wife either. The idea that the pastor must be married is a cultural idea and not a Biblical one. It is eisegesis, reading into the Scripture rather than letting the Word of God speak.

John Gill writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for Joshua's post, no, I do not believe this is the tip of the iceberg. The SBC is opposed to women serving as elders. FBC Memphis does have a past history of support of the SBC, but my understanding is that is no longer the case. You might have a dually alligned church here or there who will do this, but this will be the rare exception.

 

Micahel Wrenn, while it is true that the whole scope of the issue of ordaining women may not be a conservative/liberal issue, it is the general case among Baptists. To think that it doesn't pretty much break along "conservative/liberal" lines in the SBC seems to be a sticking of the head in the sand to me.
Question for you SBC folks - since this is Duke McCall's niece and his name has been thrown around several times, I'm wondering where you all place him in the "conservative/liberal" spectrum??

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Mr. Curtis

I am sorry for getting off the original subject of this thread, but if preachers have to be married, wouldn't that exclude Paul from preaching the gospel of Christ, since he was not married.

 

I praise God that yet another woman has had the courage and the God-given strength to do what God has called her to do. Despite all the criticisms she will get from well meaning, yet culturally conditioned people, I am confident God will use her - probably even more so because of the criticism.

Daniel Payne http://communities.msn.com/ModerateSouthernBaptists

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
I praise God that yet another woman has had the courage and the God-given strength to do what God has called her to do. Despite all the criticisms she will get from well meaning, yet culturally conditioned people, I am confident God will use her - probably even more so because of the criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fallacy here is that God never leads people to do anything contrary to his revealed revelation. It seems to me, Daniel, that those of your persuasion are the ones culturally conditioned. It is us who are bucking the tide of opinion.

An interesting article on this topic was sent to me this morning. In the article the following quote sums up the issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The words seem plain enough. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in
faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:11-15). But here is the catch: the words are plain only to those who are willing for them to be plain. For those reckoned among the unwilling, the passage is full of mysteries.

But the existence of debate within the Church tells us far more about the muddiness of our hearts than it does about the obscurity of any text. Those Christians who do see what these passages say will frequently be sucked into a tactical debate because they foolishly believe that their opponents have accepted the authority of the text. But this is not the case at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My personal opinion, from outside the SBC, is that this doesn't say much at all. The SBC has been divided over the issue for a long time and a big name or relative of a big name, or even the acceptance by a big church, will not change much. In the long run, my suspicion is that one of two things will happen: 1) Those who oppose ordination of women will leave the convention; or 2) those who support ordination of women will leave the convention. I do not think the two can long co-exist, at least if either side holds its position dear.

 

Joshua,
Ordaining someone for the sake of chaplaincy and ordaining for the sake of eldership is two entirely different things. The 2000 BFM says: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As you can see, the BFM doesn't rule out women serving in other areas, such as chaplaincy or others.

As for FBC Memphis, they are no longer active supporters of the SBC. Based on figures found in the 2000 Tennessee Baptist Convention Journal, FBC Memphis did not send in an ACP to the Shelby Association, but did contribute a minimal amount to CP. I suspect that they are in that fringe group of churches who have leadership that are CBF but want to placate some members who want to see money go to the SBC.

 

I would like to meet her wife. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6). Do they live in San Francisco?

 

Pastor Larry wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In the long run, my suspicion is that one of two things will happen: 1) Those who oppose ordination of women will leave the convention; or 2) those who support ordination of women will leave the convention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

#2 is what is happening since the overwhelming majority of SB churches oppose women as pastors. See the above quote from the 2000 BFM which was sweepingly adopted and continues to be.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

The New Testament never limits leadership to men, it simply describes what kind of men can be in leadership. A whole new passage referring to women would have to be added to the I Timothy passage on church leadership, because, as of now, the Bible is silent on women leadership. The inclusion of instructions pertaining to one sex (male) does not necessarily exclude the other sex from performing the same duties.
It is really pathetic to see posters referring to the "husband of one wife" passage. All this scripture is stating is that a male pastor must be married to one woman. It does not say anything about female pastors, so they should not automatically be excluded. For example, if I were going to draw up a job description, and I wrote, "A man applying to this job should have such and such education....", I am not excluding a woman from the position. I am simply stating the qualifications a man should have.
As for the whole issue of Adam being created before Eve, and Eve making Adam sin, etc. - Paul likes to contradict himself when it comes to Adam and Eve. In some places, he will refer to Eve being the one who passes on sin and Adam being created first and so on. In other places, he writes of guilt associated with Adam's sin. So, who is at fault, Paul? Was Adam too weak to make up his own mind, or does Paul quote the Scripture that happens to make his point (sort of like fundamentalists)? I am quite sure that will provide enough fuel to keep this thread going for quite some time

Daniel Payne

 

I don't always think God lays everything out in black and white (although I do think he makes it very clear about women being pastors). I think it takes spiritual maturity to follow the things of God. It takes reading his Word in its entirety. I know that the convictions I have now are not the same ones I had when I was saved a few years ago. We grow in grace and wisdom and as we do we learn what is acceptable to God and what is not. As a woman I believe it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor. For all the same reasons given by the others refuting it on this board. It is hard for me to believe that anyone could find it acceptable for women to preach after reading the admonitions given to women in the Bible and also the verses to the qualifications of a bishop.

 

No contradiction in Paul's teaching on Adam's and Eve's sin when interpreted correctly! But that's not what this forum is about anyway.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It does not say anything about female pastors...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>because there were no female pastors. Now I'm sure you will say that was cultural, but it is, nevertheless, a fact. BUT I wish someone would go back and read my question about the uncle of this modern day woman pastor. OK? I am not in the SBC, and am no authority on it, but I seriously doubt one finding very many SBC churches on the "right" side of the conservative/liberal controversy who will endorse ordination of women.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

You're right, rlvaughan - most (i.e. the majority) SBC churches do not accept the ordination of women.

Daniel Payne

 

Rlvaughn,
To answer your question, I for one do not consider Dale Moody's theology to be Biblically sound. That is certainly the case in the contemporary SBC and at our seminaries on the whole. You probably have a smattering of folks who still would accept it though.

 

Tom, I didn't mean Dale Moody. I meant Duke McCall.

 

Daniel, Please explain in your own words what was Adams sin.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kellisa:
Mr. Curtis

I am sorry for getting off the original subject of this thread, but if preachers have to be married, wouldn't that exclude Paul from preaching the gospel of Christ, since he was not married.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everybody can preach the gospel. But the bishop of a church must be the husband of one wife. I understand, thru my studies, that Paul was a missionary, not a bishop. I am all for women spreading the gospel, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the office of bishop of a New Testament church.

 

Brian,

Adam's sin was simply rebellion.

Daniel

 

Mr. Curtis,

Was Timothy a bishop? Was he married? I really do not know, but would like to find out.

Daniel Payne

 

Rlvaughn,
I'm sorry, I don't know where I pulled Moody's name from. I'd guess the same applies to McCall though.