Suppose the church is voting on a new pastor - would you considered that "Spiritual authority"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should I leave my Baptist church because of woman pastor/elder?
- Thread starter Dancho
- Start date
Suppose the church is voting on a new pastor - would you considered that "Spiritual authority"
Yes. Absolutely.
It is also important to note that in the NT all elders were appointed.
Now I have pondered the process that of a congregation selected candidates who then underwent some type of doctrinal/leadership questioning as an ordination appointment, or just how that worked for Timothy and Titus.
But,could it be that a new pastor/elder shouldn’t be “elected” to the church as some consider a campaign is waged, but appointed by the men of the church who have thoroughly checked and can embrace the qualifications and leadership.
As such the men set as the ultimate elder body, and are the same group who can with just cause shown of one disqualified dismiss the overseer(s).
I know this questions wasn't to me, but I'll bite.
My answer is, "It depends." I am not really a fan of having the church as a whole vote whether to call a pastor or not because I don't really a strong basis for it in Scripture, but I don't have a strong case that it's improper, either.
The church where I am a member has a team of elders who determine who can be installed/ordained as an elder. The model we use is that nominees are presented to the congregation to request prayer for them as well as to give the church the opportunity to present any concerns directly to the elder team, which can then investigate and/or address the concerns. To put a man in a pastoral position who is not already on the elder team, the elders would have to come to unanimous agreement before they would add him to the team and appoint him to that position. Reassignments of responsibilities for existing elders I believe are also handled with unanimous consent, but I'm not 100% sure on that part.
As far as I know, the only time the church has to "vote" is on legal matters of property acquisition, etc.
For property acquisition and other legal matters, I have no issue with a woman voting.
For calling a pastor, I think it's less clear-cut, but if it's a broad-based, congregation-wide vote, I would hope that the vote would be such that individual votes wouldn't make much difference anyway. I would view it more as a matter of measurement of general discernment. It's therefore not as big of a deal, practically speaking, whether or not the vote is men-only or men and women, but I can see both sides.
If we are talking about a smaller group that is deciding, then that group needs to be men only because it is definitely exercising spiritual authority.
Where I think the ground is shakier is on "pastoral search committees." In many churches, the congregation-wide vote is little more than a rubber stamp of what the search committee has already endorsed. I think that it's questionable for the search committee to include women, but I'm not convinced it's definitely wrong. That being said, I think the search committee process itself is massively flawed, so it's hard for me to determine the proper way to do something I don't think is proper anyway.
Obliquely, not directly. In a sense voting for a pastor is voting for a man who will be entrusted with spiritual authority. If we are trying to draw a dotted line from our vote to spiritual authority it gets murky. While I am sure there are cases where the husband and wife have dissenting votes, those occasions are probably a minority. Single women or widows in the church would obviously be voting on their own. Again, unless we are talking about the fringe Patriarchy movement, most Baptists would not have a problem with women voting in church business meetings or on a new pastor. Unless I can come up with a direct link between spiritual authority and voting, I will not oppose it.
I visited an English speaking ("military" off base) church in Germany.
In that church - only adult men members were allowed in the meeting.
Non-members could not sit in the meeting -
Women could not sit in the meeting
A new pastor had just arrived - and very quickly changed that policy.
In that church - only adult men members were allowed in the meeting.
Non-members could not sit in the meeting -
Women could not sit in the meeting
A new pastor had just arrived - and very quickly changed that policy.
Was it a Baptist church?
All the elders were appointed in the NT? The NT seems mostly silent on that issue. We don't have Apostles to appoint elders. Who appoints the elders?
Yes - at the time - the name was Piedmont Baptist
"-Taking fire! Need assistance!"
-Counter Strike 1.6 Voice command
It's been long time since my OP and it seems like people liked the discussion.
SO, I finally talked with the pastor last Sunday. He was quick to mention the cultural context of the NT and asked weather I had read literature/commentaries. I said that I've only looked at the Greek of the specific passages and that I've checked interpretations of them. (In fact I've checked what most of today's orthodoxals have to say- Sproul, MacArthur, Baucham, James White, Washer, Todd Friel and even Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther). He said that he is going to send materials for me to read and see how women are actually alowed to preach. I said: Fine.
Few days ago his wife messaged me that she has sent me stuff (Oh boy, why she...). She wants me to read and talk with her. Seems like I have 3 options:
-Deny whatever they say and run away.
-Actually try to debate it with good arguments and then leave.
-Deny but stay.
I think that it is worth to actually put some argumentation in order that they see why I disagree so I will briefly translate the resource they gave me and I hope that someone will put a glance on it:
First it deals with 1 Corinthians 14 34-35:
Here the main argument is that Paul is talking about general order in the church, not about roles of men and women. On top of that women are allowed to exercise gifts which includes talking. Therefore it can't be said that women are forbidden to talk.
Then it goes to 1 Timothy 2 and it is stated that it is a very hard chapter to exegete because of the cultural boundaries. We don't prohibit braided hairs, right? Well maybe we shouldn't prohibit women to teach. 50% of 1 Timothy is about false doctrine and that's why we conclude that the epistle is not about general church order but about specific situation of dealing with false teachings. Furthermore it seems like women are taking big part in the spreading of those teachings. There were also some particularly immoral women in the Roman Empire, int that time and on top of that there was an Arthemis temple in Ephesus.
The word "silence" in " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection" actually doesn't mean silence. It means harmony because the same word is used in 1 Peter 3:4, 1 Thessalonians. 4:11 and 2 Timothy. 2:2.
And then we come to verse 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Well first of all-it can't be that a woman is never to teach (...obviously...) and Timothy was actually taught by women(2 Tim. 3:14-15 and 1:5) (...what?).
Second-"I suffer not" is epitrepsein in Greek and that verb is in present time so it is not a permanent prohibition.
Third-Paul could have meant that it is forbidden for a woman to teach that women stay higher than men because the word "teach" is rearly used in neutral form.
Fourth: We don't know what exactly the word for "usurp authority" means.
Fifth: It is doubtful that by mentioning the creation order Paul meant that women are more gullable because animals were created before humans but they are not above us. So therefore the order of creation has nothing to do with authority. (Say what???)
The rest of the article is about stuff like woman apostle (which probably doesen't exist), Lady Wisdom from proverbs, Deborah, Smart womеn fom 1 Kings etc.
I missed a big chunk of the article but my head already hurts and the minor concussion I suffered last week doesn't help.
Here is a link for it but sadly only the mentioned sources are in English and the rest of the article is in Bulgarian.
Мълчаливите и покорни жени
The thing that gets mostly on my nerves is how pushy egalitarians are. Not only are they messing up order but they insist that others should too because it's better.
Have a good night!
..or day.
-Counter Strike 1.6 Voice command
It's been long time since my OP and it seems like people liked the discussion.
SO, I finally talked with the pastor last Sunday. He was quick to mention the cultural context of the NT and asked weather I had read literature/commentaries. I said that I've only looked at the Greek of the specific passages and that I've checked interpretations of them. (In fact I've checked what most of today's orthodoxals have to say- Sproul, MacArthur, Baucham, James White, Washer, Todd Friel and even Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther). He said that he is going to send materials for me to read and see how women are actually alowed to preach. I said: Fine.
Few days ago his wife messaged me that she has sent me stuff (Oh boy, why she...). She wants me to read and talk with her. Seems like I have 3 options:
-Deny whatever they say and run away.
-Actually try to debate it with good arguments and then leave.
-Deny but stay.
I think that it is worth to actually put some argumentation in order that they see why I disagree so I will briefly translate the resource they gave me and I hope that someone will put a glance on it:
First it deals with 1 Corinthians 14 34-35:
Here the main argument is that Paul is talking about general order in the church, not about roles of men and women. On top of that women are allowed to exercise gifts which includes talking. Therefore it can't be said that women are forbidden to talk.
Then it goes to 1 Timothy 2 and it is stated that it is a very hard chapter to exegete because of the cultural boundaries. We don't prohibit braided hairs, right? Well maybe we shouldn't prohibit women to teach. 50% of 1 Timothy is about false doctrine and that's why we conclude that the epistle is not about general church order but about specific situation of dealing with false teachings. Furthermore it seems like women are taking big part in the spreading of those teachings. There were also some particularly immoral women in the Roman Empire, int that time and on top of that there was an Arthemis temple in Ephesus.
The word "silence" in " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection" actually doesn't mean silence. It means harmony because the same word is used in 1 Peter 3:4, 1 Thessalonians. 4:11 and 2 Timothy. 2:2.
And then we come to verse 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Well first of all-it can't be that a woman is never to teach (...obviously...) and Timothy was actually taught by women(2 Tim. 3:14-15 and 1:5) (...what?).
Second-"I suffer not" is epitrepsein in Greek and that verb is in present time so it is not a permanent prohibition.
Third-Paul could have meant that it is forbidden for a woman to teach that women stay higher than men because the word "teach" is rearly used in neutral form.
Fourth: We don't know what exactly the word for "usurp authority" means.
Fifth: It is doubtful that by mentioning the creation order Paul meant that women are more gullable because animals were created before humans but they are not above us. So therefore the order of creation has nothing to do with authority. (Say what???)
The rest of the article is about stuff like woman apostle (which probably doesen't exist), Lady Wisdom from proverbs, Deborah, Smart womеn fom 1 Kings etc.
I missed a big chunk of the article but my head already hurts and the minor concussion I suffered last week doesn't help.
Here is a link for it but sadly only the mentioned sources are in English and the rest of the article is in Bulgarian.
Мълчаливите и покорни жени
The thing that gets mostly on my nerves is how pushy egalitarians are. Not only are they messing up order but they insist that others should too because it's better.
Have a good night!
..or day.
Last edited:
Think spiritual authority among we Baptists usually refers to items such a spreach and teaxching the scriptures, and administrating the ordinances.
Well said!
Last edited:
so, 1689er Benjamin Keach is fringe?
Benjamin Keach: "The Sisters are not to vote in the Church."
in The Glory of a True Church, and Its Discipline Display'd: Wherein a True Gospel-Church Is Described (Keach's treatise on scriptural church government, was reprinted not long ago as part of the 9Marks Ministries' Polity book compiled by Mark Dever!)
I'm going to address the theology later, but the pastor is clearly using a high pressure tactic. I encountered those in Charismaticism. If you were me I would run at this point. I think a polite explanation of your theological position and uneasiness with how the pastor handled this would be best.
It is on the general order of the church, which includes how women should act in church. As to the point on women exercising gifts, only two things were mentioned: prayer and prophecy. To add to this without clear evidence elsewhere in scripture is to add to Paul the apostles rules, a bad thing.
As to the stuff on 1 Timothy, that gave me a literal headache to read through. They are obfuscating.
I would definitely leave if I were you since the basic principle seems to be that you must trust your elder and teacher to teach and disciple you rightly. This is liberal theological talking points, I should know I was training to be a pastor seven years ago at a liberal seminary. Before flushing 10s of thousands down the toilet to be biblically accurate and a conservative theologian.
Hello,
I am new to the forum, 18 years old, from Bulgaria and a believer since last year. The question is stated in the topic title so I am going to give a bit of a backgrwound info.
Our senior pastor allows his wife to preach (she is also a pastor according to the web page of the church) and for some time now there is even another woman from the church that gives sermons sometimes. It seems like women are allowed in the church leadership too (can't 100% confirm since I am not aware who exactly is in charge of the decision making). The senior pastor oppenly admits that women are allowed to preach in this church.
I've been struggling with this question for some months (since I became aware of the NT possition on church leadership). I asked a baptist pastor from another town on the issue and he agrees with the complimetnarian view but also told me that it is "not a dogma or in other words a salvation issue".
Do you think it is a good reason to leave those guys because I've been thinking to press them on the issue for some time. There are other smaller Baptist churches in the town (same church but gathering elsewhere for convenience) but they are a bit far from home-a hour of thravelling. There is also a very old Congregational church (one of the first protestant churches here) in a good location. They seem pretty conservative and also the only place I've seen to teach about the Puritans. B-b-but they sprinkle baybies for whatever reason reformed churches sprinkle babies).
I am hesistant to take a decision because it seems like God might have a good reason for me to stay that I have overlooked. However it is also a bit uncomfortable to stay in that congregation since I don't agree with them but at the same time have frequent contact with the pastor's wife because she is a youth leader too.
If you there isn't another church in your area that aligns with truth then I would first try going to your pastor and have him reconcile female elders with Romans or maybe just ask him to lead you in a Bible study in Romans and pray that he recognizes Gods will for wen in the church. But if he refuses then you need to try to find a good church avoid padeobaptist they tend to like sacraments and don't believe in faith alone in Christ alone.
Your pastor is a liar. Paul explains his teaching on women being silent and not having authority over men has to do with creation and the fall, not with the culture. Besides, the culture argument is misogynistic and trades on worst stereotypes of women.
Are you talking about v26, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation." Do you see the word "brothers"? Paul is addressing men, not men and women, or at least you can't assume he's addressing both. And v26 is within the context of v35 where Paul says women should keep silent in church. You're being dishonest if you think you can use v26 to trump v35.
Again, Paul's teaching on the position of women has nothing to with culture. But, does Paul's ban on braided hair have to do with culture? Do you assume that some pagan girls had braids and therefor Paul taught that Christians women shouldn't have braids? How does your your argument not strike you as stupid?
"Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." Paul doesn't forbid braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly attire. He's making a point about being respectable. Fancy outward ordainment counts as nothing toward character.
[/quote]Well first of all-it can't be that a woman is never to teach (...obviously...) and Timothy was actually taught by women(2 Tim. 3:14-15 and 1:5) (...what?).[/quote]
I'm not going to read any more of your post. When you're pointing to verses about someone's mom having faith as proof that women should be pastors, you remove the last bit of my doubt, I know you know you're full of bull. That's okay. Not all people can accept the word of God. Salvation isn't for everyone.