Southern Baptist Megachurch Makes History Electing Woman to Pulpit

[Baptist Believer]

You're correct. But sometimes it's hard to tell which way the wind is blowing with Wade Burleson.

Doesn't seem that way to me. He's been surprisingly transparent.

According to my sources, Burleson SUPPORTED Frank Page in his first bid for SBC President.

Because Burleson seems to be interested in the issues of integrity and honesty instead of merely beating the drum for his theological viewpoints.

I find it interesting that a staunch 5-pointer would support Page, who has written a book critical of the TULIP.

Not hard for me to believe. I have fellowship with all sorts of people I don't agree with on everything. That's healthy fellowship.

 

[Timsings]

With that line of reasoning, one could justify anything.

That is certainly a danger. It is the dark side of being human. I see the important part of avoiding this kind of rationalization being interpreting situations in light of the whole record of God's actions in the Bible instead of a selected partial record of those actions.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Bible-boy]

Earlier in this thread av1611jim said:

Hmmmmmm. I am wondering why her nane is hyphenated? Typically and IMO ; women who hyphenate their name do not want to take their husband's name fully because they wish to remain an individual rather than becoming one flesh WITH their husband.

Then Baptist Believer responded:

While that may be your typical experience, that does not necessarily mean your assertion is true. I know a few women who hyphenate because they want to still affirm their heritage as a member of their birth family.

Right, and in the Hispanic community married women's names are hyphenated with their family surname followed by their married surname as a sign that they are not illegitimate. So once again we see that blanket statements fail the test of significant insight and sound logic.:BangHead:

 

[Timsings]

The only thing coherent about this is that you are pretty sure you are absolutely right. About what I have no idea. There isn't one passage of scripture that lines up with anything you have said. It appears you are disgruntled that anyone would take stand on doctrine based on the Word of God but then you make a failed attempt to do the same. You may want women in the pulpit but God has been clear on this issue. Nothing new about that.

That's always the problem with proof-texting. Too many times the Bible presents conflicting views on a subject (e. g., the death penalty), so the scriptural evidence cancels itself out, and we are left to figure things out on our own.

I would point you to the conflict between Jesus and the religious leadership (i. e., the Pharisees) of his day. He was not embraced as God's messiah because he did not fit their conception of what the messiah should be like. Their conception was based on the scripture available to them at the time. Through Jesus, God showed the Jews the messiah God wanted them to have rather than the one they wanted. Applying the Isaiah 55.8 passage that I quoted in my earlier post, it may be that what appears to be "God doing something new" to us is not actually "God doing something new" to God. The problem then becomes the human limitations of our ability to understand what God is doing. Gamaliel understood this. In Acts 5.34-39, he cautioned the Sanhedrin to be careful lest they find themselves fighting against God. That is all I am advocating. There are too many people on this forum who seem to be anxious to rush to judgment and to make pronouncements about the validity of some other person's experience with God. We are human, and that means that our capability of knowing is always flawed and incomplete.

Tim Reynolds


That is the danger we face today. Are we so immersed in the Bible that we have blinded ourselves to what God is doing in the world at this moment just as most of the Pharisees were blind to what God was doing in their time?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Thank you for the clarification. This is a different set of standards than the historical meaning of "liberal."

Let me further clarify. Anyone who supports women pastors (an oxymoron) has a diminished view of scripture and supports ungodly behavior.

 

[ShotGunWillie]

That's always the problem with proof-texting. Too many times the Bible presents conflicting views on a subject (e. g., the death penalty), so the scriptural evidence cancels itself out, and we are left to figure things out on our own.

I would point you to the conflict between Jesus and the religious leadership (i. e., the Pharisees) of his day. He was not embraced as God's messiah because he did not fit their conception of what the messiah should be like. Their conception was based on the scripture available to them at the time. Through Jesus, God showed the Jews the messiah God wanted them to have rather than the one they wanted. Applying the Isaiah 55.8 passage that I quoted in my earlier post, it may be that what appears to be "God doing something new" to us is not actually "God doing something new" to God. The problem then becomes the human limitations of our ability to understand what God is doing. Gamaliel understood this. In Acts 5.34-39, he cautioned the Sanhedrin to be careful lest they find themselves fighting against God. That is all I am advocating. There are too many people on this forum who seem to be anxious to rush to judgment and to make pronouncements about the validity of some other person's experience with God. We are human, and that means that our capability of knowing is always flawed and incomplete.

Tim Reynolds


That is the danger we face today. Are we so immersed in the Bible that we have blinded ourselves to what God is doing in the world at this moment just as most of the Pharisees were blind to what God was doing in their time?

1. What is the conflicting view concerning the death penalty?

2. Your second paragraph is exactly the ideals that have spawned several heretical movements. ie. Holy Laughter, Holy Barking like a Dog, Gays in the Pulpit, Holy Spirit Bartending, Holy Slithering, Were Little Gods, Faith Healings, Slain in the Spirit. And a mess of other ridiculous junk spread around by the Charismatics that spread into the Baptist church and into other areas.

Your typical argument goes like this...

Just because it is not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that God is not in the movement. Yes it does, because if it contradicts scripture, than your views are going against God and the Bible. Its's that old "God in a box" discussion.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Let me further clarify.

Okay, I was satisfied with your last answer...

Anyone who supports women pastors (an oxymoron) has a diminished view of scripture and supports ungodly behavior.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I used to think that way myself. And I did it with intellectual honesty, reverence and pure motives.

 

[TomVols]

The church is CBF. This is not really a SBC church. No news here.

The one in Louisville someone mentioned is also CBF and ABC dually aligned. Linda has been there some time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The church is CBF. This is not really a SBC church.

It is actually both, but the thrust of your point is certainly correct. The church primarily supports CBF causes and is not part of the mainstream of Southern Baptist life.

The article is making this situation sound as if it is a seismic shift in the way Baptists do things. While it is certainly notable that a church of this size has called a female pastor, women have served as pastors in Baptist churches for a number of years, although they were usually smaller congregations.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

That's always the problem with proof-texting. Too many times the Bible presents conflicting views on a subject (e. g., the death penalty), so the scriptural evidence cancels itself out, and we are left to figure things out on our own.

I would point you to the conflict between Jesus and the religious leadership (i. e., the Pharisees) of his day. He was not embraced as God's messiah because he did not fit their conception of what the messiah should be like. Their conception was based on the scripture available to them at the time. Through Jesus, God showed the Jews the messiah God wanted them to have rather than the one they wanted. Applying the Isaiah 55.8 passage that I quoted in my earlier post, it may be that what appears to be "God doing something new" to us is not actually "God doing something new" to God. The problem then becomes the human limitations of our ability to understand what God is doing. Gamaliel understood this. In Acts 5.34-39, he cautioned the Sanhedrin to be careful lest they find themselves fighting against God. That is all I am advocating. There are too many people on this forum who seem to be anxious to rush to judgment and to make pronouncements about the validity of some other person's experience with God. We are human, and that means that our capability of knowing is always flawed and incomplete.

Tim Reynolds


That is the danger we face today. Are we so immersed in the Bible that we have blinded ourselves to what God is doing in the world at this moment just as most of the Pharisees were blind to what God was doing in their time?

I was asked for my definition of a liberal. This low value of scripture is a prime example.

 

[preachinjesus]

Lots of misplaced accusations being made around here.

I'm pretty much out of this thread, it has gotten down to rubbish and gossip-mongering accusations against people. I don't think it's in spirit of conversation but just bashing people.

 

[go2church]

Let me further clarify. Anyone who supports women pastors (an oxymoron) has a diminished view of scripture and supports ungodly behavior.

Count me among the diminished and ungodly.

Anyone who does not support woman pastors is refusing to follow the example of Jesus in elevating women and calling them to ministry

 

[Baptist Believer]

Anyone who does not support woman pastors is refusing to follow the example of Jesus in elevating women and calling them to ministry

Let's be careful not to unfairly characterize those who, out of genuine conviction and careful study, have come to a different conclusion. For many years I did not support women in the role of a pastor because it seemed to me that the New Testament did not allow it and I had not heard anyone clearly explain to me, from a biblically-responsible point of view, why they believed it was acceptable. It has been only a few years since I finally came to my current position on gender and roles in the church, and it didn't come quickly or easily.

Throwing stones at fellow Christians (even if they threw first) doesn't help anything.

 

[Zenas]

Anyone who does not support woman pastors is refusing to follow the example of Jesus in elevating women and calling them to ministry

Woah! Not so fast! Jesus called 12 MEN as his disciples. Later he called another man--Saul of Tarsus. There were a number of women Jesus could have ordained--Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Mary the Blessed Mother, etc. But He did not. And don't start with that old worn out line that it was a cultural thing, that a woman pastor could not have been successful in the first century Palestine. Jesus was not at all bound by the customs and mores of His time. If he were, He would not have drawn such scorn from the Pharisees. The truth is that women are gifted to serve in many areas but not in the pastorate.

 

[Baptist Believer]

There were a number of women Jesus could have ordained--Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Mary the Blessed Mother, etc. But He did not.

He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost. And speaking of Pentecost, both men and women were in the Upper Room. Both men and women received the fire over their heads and preached in other tongues to the crowds outside.

 

[Tom Butler]

He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost.

Just a brief deviation from the discussion to correct a mis-statement.

Mark 3:14 "...and he ordained the twelve..."

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I applaud this church for recognizing that having different reproductive organs has no bearing on one's ability to teach, counsel, and perform the functions of pastor.

 

[JustChristian]

Legally, yes. Spiritually, no. A church does not have the right to violate God's commandments. It merely has the ability.

Which commandments?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just a brief deviation from the discussion to correct a mis-statement.

Mark 3:14 "...and he ordained the twelve..."

Okay, good catch. I'm wrong on that one.

I didn't think of it in that regard. The translations I usually read render that word, "appointed," so I didn't make the connection. I went to Acts 1 to see what they did for Matthias, and as far as we know, when the lot fell they said to him, "you're in." And he was on to live in famous obscurity.

 

[Bible-boy]

He didn't ordain men either... at least, before Pentecost. And speaking of Pentecost, both men and women were in the Upper Room. Both men and women received the fire over their heads and preached in other tongues to the crowds outside.

Yes, but preaching the gospel is not the sum total of being a pastor.