charles_creech78
New Member
Are they doing the will of God by electing a women to pulpit.
-
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!
Southern Baptist Megachurch Makes History Electing Woman to Pulpit
- Thread starter MrJim
- Start date
I can't believe this thread is still going...
Crazy
Crazy
As an autonomous church, they can do what ever they want to do. I support their ability to make their own decision. I don't support their decision. I think it's wrong. But they can do whatever they want to do.charles_creech78 said:
No man tells the individual SBC church what to do. Whether or not they choose to follow the Lord's leadership, they alone make that decision.
charles_creech78
New Member
So as a sbc preacher you do not thank this is right. You said you don,t support their decision. As part of that church you have the right to say something. If they are doing evil and against Gods will you need to say something ether you are for God or not.What part is it that you do not support.
Last edited by a moderator:
charles_creech78 said:
I am not a part of that local church. I have no say so or "vote" in that local church.
No, I don't think that any church should have a woman as a Senior Pastor, but the decision is not mine to make. The Southern Baptist Convention nor the Baptist Association exercises any authority over any local church.
With that being said, I do support any church's ability to make their own decisions rather than to have some sort of organization telling churches what they must do.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I am a member of an Independant Fundamentalist Baptist Church
but that Church is NOT a member of organizations
for other IFBs.
My Local Church (the one I"m a member of) is a member
of the Union Association (of Cleveland & McLain counties).
I am not a membert of the Union Association.
My Local Church is a member of the General Baptist
Convention of Oklahoma /GBCO/. Union Association
is a member of GBCO. I am not a member of the
GBCO.
My Local Church is a member of the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC). The Union Association is a member of
the SBC. The GBCO is a member of the SBC.
I am NOT a member of the SBC.
When My Local Church made me a Deacon in 1977,
I promised never to lay hands on a woman (i.e. no
women Deacons, no women pastors in
My Local Church).
I went one time to a grief group (my first wife
died in 1999) in The First Baptist
Church of Norman, Oklahoma. The Senior
Citizens' Minister filled in as leader of the group one
day. She said: "My Deacon, she blah, blah ... ".
So if I want lay hands on a woman for deacon
I can go over to the Norman FBC and join with
them folks. I see no reason to lay hands on
a woman at my current Local Church (since I
did promise, you know).
but that Church is NOT a member of organizations
for other IFBs.
My Local Church (the one I"m a member of) is a member
of the Union Association (of Cleveland & McLain counties).
I am not a membert of the Union Association.
My Local Church is a member of the General Baptist
Convention of Oklahoma /GBCO/. Union Association
is a member of GBCO. I am not a member of the
GBCO.
My Local Church is a member of the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC). The Union Association is a member of
the SBC. The GBCO is a member of the SBC.
I am NOT a member of the SBC.
When My Local Church made me a Deacon in 1977,
I promised never to lay hands on a woman (i.e. no
women Deacons, no women pastors in
My Local Church).
I went one time to a grief group (my first wife
died in 1999) in The First Baptist
Church of Norman, Oklahoma. The Senior
Citizens' Minister filled in as leader of the group one
day. She said: "My Deacon, she blah, blah ... ".
So if I want lay hands on a woman for deacon
I can go over to the Norman FBC and join with
them folks. I see no reason to lay hands on
a woman at my current Local Church (since I
did promise, you know).
Actually it was closer to 30 years ago. My church was in the Association you are referring to. The local church was involved in "ordaining a woman to the gospel ministry", whatever that is supposed to mean. The woman was a chaplain at a woman's prison, if my memory doesn't fail me. And as far as I know she was never involved with any pastorate in any form. The local Association did withdraw fellowship from that church, at that time. As far as I am aware, the KBC and SBC did not. It turns out there is a bit more to that story, however, including some 'irregularities' with the event. The church, at a later meeting came back before the Association, asked to be, and was re-admitted.BaptistBeliever said:
About ten years later, another church 'ordained' a woman as a deacon. Another day; another controversy! An attempt was again made to withdraw fellowship from the second church, but failed due to the numbers required by the Association bylaws, as this was the second or third largest church in the Association, and had their full complement of members at the meeting, all of whom voted against that move, natch, and some churches who, while not fully agreeing, thought that the local church could do what it chose, and did not want to intrude on that local church's authority in that regard. The result of that controversy was that four of the churches withdrew from the Association over this, three of them that very night at that annual fall meeting. Interestingly enough, the church which 'ordained' the woman deacon, saying that they did not want to be the cause of splitting the Association, and would withdraw from it, withdrew the following week. (Several more churches were considering withdrawing, but were awaiting their own business meeting to decide on the course of action to follow with the Association. When the 'offending' church withdrew, the rest did not, since their 'reason for offense' was gone.) To my knowledge, all of the churches are still members of the KBC and SBC, with the church that ordained the woman taking a 'dual alignment' with the CBF.
I was there as a mesenger to that fall meeting.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Aaron said:
But in Aaron's defence, surely the context of his message shows that he was talking about other churches, other organisations, other mere human beings not having authority over the local church. Did you really imagine that in saying "As an autonomous church, they can do what ever they want to do," he was suggesting the local church is not answerable to God? (But perhaps I've got it wrong, and he did mean that . . .)
Usually when autonomy is invoked, it is in an effort to move an immoral and rebellious action into the realm of personal opinion to shield the action from public scrutiny, or to relieve one's self of the burden of making a judgment.
My point was to illuminate the futility of that tactic.
The Decatur church's act was a public act, and the public has the responsibility to judge it as right or wrong. We may not have the power to correct it, but we do have the power to judge it, and judge it we must.
My point was to illuminate the futility of that tactic.
The Decatur church's act was a public act, and the public has the responsibility to judge it as right or wrong. We may not have the power to correct it, but we do have the power to judge it, and judge it we must.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Aaron said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course you are writing from a US viewpoint. Over here, local churches that invoke autonomy do so (at least in my experience) for these reasons:
1. Because they believe that to be the biblically pattern
2. Because they feel their beliefs could be compromised if an organisation had some kind of authority over them. This happened in the so-called "Downgrade Controversy" of Spurgeon's day, and in the 1970s, when the president of the Baptist Union (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) openly stated that he did not believe in the deity of Christ. Spurgeon's church left that union, and so did many local baptist churches in the 1970s.
I have not heard of a local church claiming autonomy in order to hide from public scrutiny. But the fact that some may claim autonomy for the wrong reasons does not make autonomy wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please don't misunderstand. The local SB church is only answerable to God, not to any organizational head or office. The SBC doesn't dictate to the church what it is supposed to do. That means that the local SB church has every ability to make their own decisions, no matter stupid or wrong they might be. The SBC does not have the authority to require them to do anything. The SBC can choose as an organization not to fellowship with that church, but they can't require them to correct a bad decision.David Lamb said:
Although I don't agree with their decision, I agree that they have the ability to make their own decision.
As for the comment about the church of Satan, you know, they can make their own decisions too. And they, too, will one day answer to God.
Ed Edwards said:
This is clearly self contradictory.
How is it that one can be a MEMBER of a local church which IS a member of the SBC yet NOT a member of the SBC?
The local church is made up of people. You are a "people". It is utterly insane to think one may be a member but NOT a member.
av1611jim said:
One cannot be affiliated with the SBC on an individual level. In this sense, I am not a member of the SBC. I am a member of an SBC-affiliated congregation.
The CBF is different. One can be a member of the CBF on an individual level, but I'm not a member of the CBF, and my church is not affiliated with them either.
saturneptune
New Member
Another thought came to my mind. Can you imagine how long the sermons would be with a woman pastor, especially if she is married? :laugh:EdSutton said:
John Ellwood Taylor
New Member
From the article: "Pennington-Russell told the Tribune-Herald that she is "for anything that brings people together rather than divides them."
I wonder if this means she's soft on the gospel, after all the gospel is by it's nature divisive: Luke 12:49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
I wonder if this means she's soft on the gospel, after all the gospel is by it's nature divisive: Luke 12:49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
JustChristian
New Member
SBCPreacher said:
However, the SBC can and has withdrawn felleoship in similar cases.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Yes for $100 or $150 a monthBaptistBeliever said:
the SBC will make a point & take a stand.]
For churchs that donate a 10$million+ a month there
is no question: let 'em have women pastors if they wish.
More popular is women ministers and men pastors:
female Minister of Music;
male Music Pastor
female Head Minister;
male Head Pastor
female Minister of Finance;
male Financial Pastor
Let she who is without the right word
throw the first Dictionary! :godisgood: