It was Anne Lotz

Personally I don't have a problem with women accorded the same roles as men and I think it may well be good for a church to have a mixed leadership.

However, I know that's not the 'norm' because most conservatives reject it being Biblical to have females at the same level of leadership as males.

I know they hold this conviction very deeply and I respect that. What I tend to look for is how they treat women in those churches; do they treat them as valued, respected, members of the church, able to have responsibilities in the church although not to hold all offices that men do? If so then I'm pleased that they go as far as they can go without violating their own beliefs about what Scripture teaches.

So, I'm impressed by churches that have managed to bring in full leadership roles for women, but realize it's not the norm and therefore hard to do.

And I realize that people who believe Scripture teaches something, are not going to go against it. They would have to change their mind about what the Bible says or whether it applies today, before they would change how their church is structured. No offense - but that really would take a miracle of God

 

"And I realize that people who believe Scripture teaches something, are not going to go against it."

You make it sound as if you DON'T believe that Scripture teaches something.

 

Ok, ok, here's a rewording:

I realize that people who believe Scripture teaches clearly that women may neither teach men or be pastors or elders, in churches today, will not go against that.

My personal opinion is that one could argue either way from Scripture.

I mean, we could debate ad infinitum over this verses:

Judges 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.

Was she leading only because there were no men qualified to do the job? Or because God never really had the problem with women leading that much of His church does today?

"He shall rule over you" - Gen 3 - descriptive or prescriptive? Was it the consequence of the fall that men would try to rule over women or was it in the created order that they were supposed to lead - that much at least?

Junia(s) the apostle. It's female, right? A female apostle or an unusual name?

etc etc etc

So, on this point I don't see that Scripture is clear.

Does that clarify?

 

Agreed. Please allow this thread to remain.

Clint Kritzer
Administrator

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000737;p=3

This topic is closed.

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000757#000007

Due to the above link, this thread is now open.

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator

 

It doesn't, unless you are Al Mohler.

I too agree that women should not be senior pastors,..[/QUOTE]

I don't.

Just curious, do you thing women should be ordained and pastors and if yes should they serve as Senior Pastors, Associates or Co-Pastors and should they be allowed to serve as Children's Pastors or Youth Pastors?..[/QUOTE]

I think we should look at this a little differently. I don't believe that women should be ordained to satisfy some feminist agenda, but to satisfy the calling of God. This is not a matter of want the woman wants, but what God wants. For that matter, I don't think it should really matter what I think, but what does God think. If God calls a woman into the ministry, she is ordained already and there is nothing that I as a man can do to stand in the way of his will. If God calls her and ordains her, he will also equip her to do the ministry he has set forth for her to do.

There is my opinion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Originally posted by Joseph Botwinick:

I think we should look at this a little differently. I don't believe that women should be ordained to satisfy some feminist agenda, but to satisfy the calling of God. This is not a matter of want the woman wants, but what God wants. For that matter, I don't think it should really matter what I think, but what does God think. If God calls a woman into the ministry, she is ordained already and there is nothing that I as a man can do to stand in the way of his will. If God calls her and ordains her, he will also equip her to do the ministry he has set forth for her to do.

I don't know of anyone who believes God wants women in leadership, who believes any women should be there except those whom God has called to do it.

Evidently there are lots of women who believe themselves called by God into ministry roles of leadership.

Of course they can only serve in churches which are open to having women lead.

Maybe some people want to see women in church leadership for the wrong reasons. But I expect that some people who don't want women in leadership don't want it for the wrong reasons also. Just because someone is against women in church leadership, doesn't prove that their reasons are appropriate or Biblical. They might be using what most conservative Christians believe as a cover for prejudice against women.

My own church doesn't believe the Bible allows women to be pastors and I respect that. I appreciate that in practice, they respect women and encourage them to be involved in many different kinds of ministry. So I have no reason to think they are 'prejudiced' against women. They simply won't do what they believe God has forbidden. I respect that even though I don't believe God has actually forbidden women church leaders [along with men].

I think a case could be made that it's better to accommodate women who believe God called them to lead, and be wrong, than to not allow them to lead, when He called them to. I'd rather face the Lord knowing I might have done something wrong because I respect when people say "God called me to this" than because I might have stood in the way of what He was calling another person to do.

But it's not a case I would make unless asked, because when people have made up their minds, there's generally no point in arguing with them and it has so much 'downside risk' of causing disunity in the Body of Christ, which is clearly unScriptural. Ephesians 4:2-3 says:

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

This becomes hard when Christians can't come to agreement on an issue - but, all things are possible with God, aren't they?

 

Respectfully, AITB, the folks here who accept what the bible says are not the ones causing all the disagreement, it's the folks who question it. It's the folks who are afraid of what others will think of them if they take a biblical stand.

You don't find many KJVO fundies arguing with each other, do you ?

 

Quite a few of them do argue with other Christians, though.

And I see that as dubiously justifiable based on the passage I posted (and other similar ones).

People in cults don't tend to argue with each other either. We need to be careful that our unity is a free choice to submit to one another for Christ's sake, and to choose unity over division, rather than coerced by "if you don't agree with me then God will be angry with you".

That's what I believe, anyway

I don't think it's wrong to ask questions and discuss issues. But it requires a certain humility on both sides, to work. Otherwise it could lead to broken relationships. Realistically, only God knows...whatever it is. Even if we say "Ah, but God's Word is clear" then, what we are actually saying is "I believe this verse cannot be legitimately interpreted any other way than I interpret it and I believe God meant it to apply today and I believe He has superintended both its original inscription and its preservation" - with all due respect there are a lot of assumptions in there and the reality is that not everyone who is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ agrees with all of them.

And Romans is clear that we are not to cause someone to stumble who holds a strong opinion we disagree with, or don't think important.

Anyway, if I knew some KJVO folks well, they probably do have - <AHEM> - 'passionate debates', among themselves, over various things. I respect their diligence in studying the Bible. I'm happy for them to hold their beliefs except when they venture out and tell me that Bibles written in today's English have been corrupted by Satan or whatever. I think that's rather inflammatory and to anyone who knows about the issues, the differences in translations don't affect any major doctrine anyway. So - I don't think it's worth making a big deal over, either way. What bothers me is when the beliefs of some hurt others. And I do think it must make life a lot harder for kids in KJVO churches, that they have to struggle with the KJV instead of being able to read another version whose only significant difference is that the words in it still mean the same as when it was written.

But it sure was simpler when we only had one English version!

We're supposed to be free in Christ. If you're not even free to read a Bible translation in contemporary English, because someone else is going to condemn you for reading a corrupt version, where is the freedom in that???

And - going back to the original topic - if women aren't free to follow God's call, where's the freedom in that?

 

According to the Bible, God doesn't call women to hold church offices. It's really that simple.

[ June 12, 2002, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

Moderator's note:

WE WILL NOT ARGUE BIBLE TRANSLATION IN THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I see us get off topic in that direction again, I will close the thread.

Thank You,

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator

 

Have you taken time to read why quite a few people believe the Bible teaches otherwise?

I think it's a little unfair to imply that they are all wrong, if you haven't even given them a fair hearing.

It's always hard to go against tradition and ask whether the Bible really teaches what people have thought it teaches.

I daresay that there was a time in the US when people said "according to the Bible, African-Americans are inferior to white people - it's that simple". Or "according to the Bible, slavery is fine - it's that simple".

But, we have changed our minds haven't we?

So, it may be that one day more Christians may change their minds and decide that the Bible doesn't prohibit women in our churches today, from sharing certain leadership roles with men. Or so it seems to me.

It's in God's hands, anyway. If He wants things to change, He'll change them.

 

AITB, I'm done with this. I will put the bible over human reasoning, like I am commanded, & will answer only to God for it.

Take care, God bless.

 

You know, the Bible says, it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that, the judgement. I have always considered that women are included in that term; all women die as well as all men. I thought this was a good example of a generic use of the term "man". So could it be that the verses about qualifications of pastors are ALSO generic usage? After all, we go so far as to tolerate single pastors without a qualm, even tho the literal passages seem to say they should be married . . .

 

Who tolerates single pastors ? The bible doesn't, so why should we ?

To me, husband of one wife means husband of one wife.

 

Hi Multimom...

No, I don't believe God calls polygamists to pastor.

And you could argue that a widowed pastor is still a husband of one wife. That, I just don't know about. Good question.

I also don't know much about Charles Stanley. My immediate thought is a divorced pastor should bow out.

[ June 13, 2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]