Baptists and Women Pastors

Also, I would assert that having a female pastor would not necessarily indicate a liberal theology. In know of a number of female theologians and pastors and preachers who believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, miracles, and all of the things that liberal theology discredits. Female leadership is, in itself, not a liberal view.

 

Something that has got me wondering about women pastors--Charismatic/Pentecostal churches have them, and their sermons tend to be more evangelical than what are preached by women pastors in mainline protestant churches (to include Baptist bodies that endorse them).

 

No, but the defining characteristic of theological liberalism is a denial of the "supernatural" claims of the Bible, and it began in the 1900s and especially how it was manifested in mainline Protestant denominations at its height in the beginning of the 20th C.

 

And once again it is ignored

 

Okay, okay.

The only time that this issue is tossed back to the creation narrative is in 1 Tim., so I'm assuming that's what we're talking about.

A single mention of this hardly suggests Paul is making a once-for-all, normative connection between female leadership and Eve being easily deceived any more than verse 15 suggests women actually find their eternal salvation through childbearing. After all, if women were unfit for leadership for this reason, they would be unfit to teach or lead anyone, including children and other women. Furthermore, we also know full well that Adam fell into temptation and sinned as Eve did, which is reiterated time and time again in Scripture. This is likely intended to be an argument to a particular local context, since we see in the fuller context of 2 Timothy and Titus that female ministry was affirmed.

Keep in mind again that this is not just an issue of bending and contorting the text to say what we would like it to say. God knows we all, every single one of us, does that at one instance or another. The problem with living out to the letter all of Scriptural (especially the NT) prescriptions for all the 1st-century believers is that it will almost always break down. So where does it end? Should men be able to have long hair? Should women not weird braids or jewelry? Because that sort of thing is proposed as often as them keeping quiet and submissive. Is it okay for women to teach Bible classes in university and seminary or to write books on theology or Biblical study? Because that would be teaching an audience inclusive of men.

This (the gender issue) is a legitimate question of exegesis and, though this is certainly not an essential of the faith, its ramifications on all of our lives, especially for the 51% majority, is great. We would do well to pretend this was so entirely obvious either way. I confess it is a very difficult question that I've grappled with for years, which is the case with the best minds on either side of the fence.

Enough for tonight. I have a sick wife and a sick poodle and a class of children who will be waiting for me in 6 hours.

Blessings.

 

You're right that all of those things are fulfilling and the work you do is important in the life of the Kingdom, as is the work of your husband.

Frankly, female leadership during 1st century or previously would not have worked. In fact, women during Paul's day were just then beginning to be allowed to learn (which Paul discusses several times - how women, like men, should be learners. Of course, God could have made this work however God pleased, but He generally makes accommodation to the human-made constructs of the fallen society for the greater good of the Kingdom, which is seen throughout Scripture.

 

Well, with something like 40 or more different kinds of "Baptist" churches, you have all kinds of beliefs and doctrine--some of which are contrary to God's word, like ordaining women.

 

Hold it, sir. There are many who are just as committed as you, believe in the authority of the Bible like you, earnestly seek to properly interpret the Bible as you do, and pray for God's guidance who have come to different conclusions on the places of men and women in ministry. To speak with a closed fist like this is to draw a line in the sand and say, "I have truth here." It implies these people just read into the Bible whatever they want. That's not the case any more than it is with you or I. We all bring agendas, but the most authentic and earnest of us will still come to different conclusions on non-essentials like this.

 

But it is not credible nor is it in most cases an honest evaluation of scripture.

 

Hmmm...talk about shutting down a discussion.

Most of the leading and honest and credible evangelical scholars say one or both of the following:

1) female equality in ministry is the Biblical ideal

or

2) it's a very difficult Biblical issue with a lot of variables, not cut and dry

Of course, everyone to a point believes their position is correct, but most, believing in the difficulty of the issue, leave the door open for discussion. We're not talking about bodily resurrection or virgin birth here.

 

Evangelical has become a very broad term and includes all kinds liberals who are never credible. Evangelical does not impress me. The issue is not difficult at all and quite cut and dry. It is only difficult to those who need it to be to justify their personal unscriptural agenda.

 

I don't think it is a matter of whether or not women have the ability to preach or not. It is whether or not it is a matter of God's call. When this was such a hot topic in the Episcopal Church, every time the pro woman's ordination people debated it seemed to come from sociological grounds. The anti-womans' ordination people debated this from the theological side. I don't think you can come to God's word with a social agenda seeking to make it fit. St. Paul refers to God's creation (Adam and Eve). God placed Adam in authority to name all the animals. When St. Paul refers to God's creation in his letter to Timothy, he explains how this is the basis for the relationship between men and women in the Church.

 

So let me get this straight. Even if I have a high regard for Biblical authority, emphasize the need for a personal relationship with Christ, in that I would affirm inerrancy and infallibility, believe in the essentials of the faith, and the need to further Christ's Kingdom, I'm a liberal because I don't believe in male headship?

That's bizarre that you would deny that a huge number of theological conservatives are dishonest in their approach to Scripture.

So, if women should be submissive, can they wear gold jewelry? Cause that seems pretty cut and dry, too. Is it unbiblical for men to have long hair? Cause it's in there. Where do you draw the line?

And, brother, we all have an agenda, no matter how hard we work to eliminate it. It has a root cause: the parasite of sin, the broken mirror, our flesh.

Blessings.

 

First I never said you were a liberal. But the way in which twisted my words to get to that is in line with the twisting of scripture to allow women pastors. Anyone who misuses scripture to impose women pastors are not credible. It cannot be reached honestly.

 

Really? Cannot be reached honestly? Not credible?

I get there honestly. Looking at the text and all the commentary on both sides, I honestly believe this position is faithful to the Scriptural text. And I know a number of other people of integrity who get there and I know other people of integrity that wind up with other positions, but it is a grave mistake to pretend that we have the final word on everything in the palm of our hand. It's not an agenda for me. I just want to hear God's voice and respond.

Are you saying that you think it's possible to wind up with the right position on all issues, or just this one? Because I'm still wondering about the context of the 1 Timothy text, the one that forbids women to wear their hair in braids. Should we follow that one? Cause it's what the Bible says.

Blessings to you, friend, in spite of our differences.

 

Not even anywhere near the same. I know you want to convince everyone it is a cultural issue and therefore temporary but it is not. Ann has already cleared that up.

 

A response from one person doesn't clear it up. It's just part of the dialogue. I could say that I cleared it up with my post from last night, but I did not. It was yet another statement in the discussion. Examined beliefs are more vital and strong. That's what I'm about.

Just curious - in what capacity are you a reverend?