SBC and Women Preachers???

I agree with you in many ways. But I would ask then if a missionary is different than a pastor then what would you call Paul? He was a misionary and pastor of pastors. But you have to win them before you can pastor them. Which is what he did. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul was first and foremost an Apostle. The Holy Spirit of God specifically directed him to share the gospel with the gentiles. His work as a pastor/teacher and missionary is bound up in his overarching role as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a difference between being an "Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ" and being an "apostle" (meaning one who is sent) like our modern day missionaries.

 

OH, what about 1 COR. 11 where it says that "when" a woman prays or prophesies...(I know, another topic on headcoverings, but it seems implied that women would be doing these things.)
My husband is an SBC pastor who also teaches at an SBC seminary. I never knew of an SBC female student called to preach during my days there, and honestly, in mainstream SBC-dom, it wouldn't fly. One gal, an AOG pastor who attended the seminary kept her position hush-hush so as not to dela with the criticism, but she didnt feel she could get a better education in her field of study elsewhere. A church in my state was ousted for having a female senior pastor. Subordinate roles have mostly been accepted, at least in my experience. I very highly doubt the accuracy of the original claim.

 

Although I'm SBC, I'm not sure if the BFM2K is a compulsory document. Perhaps an SBC pastor on the board could answer that. If it is, then the SBC would have the right to disfellowship if they so choose. If it is not, then it would not be able to. However, it could be argued that in cases where there is conflict between the BFM2K and the distinctives, then the BFM2K should not be compulsory. I'm sure someone can make the arguement that implimenting the BFM2K as canon would violate the Distinctive of Local Autonomy. But since I ain't a pastor, I wouldn't know fer sure. My gut would be inclined to agree with you, however.

 

Clearly the Bible speaks of women praying and even prophesying. However, it is not nesessacy for a woman to assume authority over the body of believers (the local church) to do these two specific things. Likewise, the passage does not imply a preacher/teacher/pastor role for these women. They simply prayed and spoke prophecy.

[ December 12, 2003, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Thanks. However, there is not a "Southern Baptist Church" in the sense of the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Anglican Church" etc. There is the Southern Baptist Convention which is a large association of like-minded Southern Baptist Churches who agree to cooperate together for the purpose of missions and evangelism. Yet, each individual Southern Baptist Church remains completely autonomous. So I'm not quite sure who you mean will be proud.


I notice your use of the term "creed" are you trying to make the case that Baptists have never used doctrinal or creedal type statements throughout their history?

 

And all of this rigid adherence to the "no female preacher" doctrine goes out of the window when Lifeway (the Former Sunday School Board of the SBC) happens across a successful female Bible teacher/preacher named Beth Moore who's mere name sells millions of dollars of books for them.

If you don't think she is preaching listen to her tapes. Watch her videos. Go to her conferences and see the growing number of men in the audience.

Does she have a word from the Lord?

My wife certainly thinks so. The ladies of my church surely think so. Most of the SBC women I know think so.

What do I think? I think she preaches better than most of the "male preachers and pastors" in my association and state convention.

 

There is something else about Beth Moore. She states up front that she primarily teaches women, but men continue to attend. Should she throw them out of her conferences before the opening prayer?

I've listened to a Beth Moore video once. She is a ladies teacher in both material, style, and presentation. The messages and lessons she puts together do reach into the hearts of a lot of women. While I can recognize that the messages and lessons she presents are godly and scriptural, her presentation doesn't reach me as well as it reaches my wife. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm saying here.

 

Bible-boy,

You said: "However, there is not a "Southern Baptist Church" in the sense of the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Anglican Church" etc.

Well, there is now.

Baptists have had doctrinal statements but not creeds. The BF&M used to say that confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience. I don't know if the BF&M 2000 still says that; I haven't read the thing in quite a while.

 

If you don't know, and you haven't read what you call "the thing," how can you say "Well, there is now?"

 

Because the new Baptist Creed (BF&M 2000) is just one symptom of the new "Southern Baptist Church."

 

There's a Bill O'Reilly word!

Michael Wrenn, again I ask - If you haven't read it, how can you know?

 

Didn't say I hadn't read it--just that I hadn't read it in a while.

 

As I have stated in most of my posts, I am a new Christian. So, don't beat me up for my ignorance The church I attend is a SBC and the pastor has told members of the church that no woman will ever be deacons in this particular church. The pastor is a single, 30-something male. What are your feelings on this?

 

You mean the new old Southern Baptist?

The IFB church I grew up in was formed in 1950 by Southern Baptists that saw liberals (aka, moderates) taking over the convention. Now folks cry foul because the conservatives have reasserted themselves?

 

You mean the new old Southern Baptist?

The IFB church I grew up in was formed in 1950 by Southern Baptists that saw liberals (aka, moderates) taking over the convention. Now folks cry foul because the conservatives have reasserted themselves? </font>[/QUOTE]HELLO!

 

How so? How has the BF&M 2000 made it possible for the SBC (which only technically exists once per year when the messengers are gathered together during the annual meeting) to assume authority over any local church and specifically how has it removed your local church's autonomy?

Please define what you mean by the terms "doctrinal statements" and "creeds." How are they different?

The Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary defines "Creed" in the following manner:

Pronunciation: 'krEd

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti

Date: before 12th century

1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

- creed·al or cre·dal /'krE-d&l/ adjective

Therefore, a "creed" is nothing more than a statement of belief(s). Likewise, a "doctrinal statement" is a statement of doctrinal beliefs. The two terms are synonymous.

Additionally, the phrase (or lack thereof) that seems to cause you concern is still very much a part of the BF&M 2000. The Preamble of the BF&M 2000 states (in part):

So what is the problem with the BF&M 2000?

[ December 06, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Oh, but remember Lifeway is a business. Doesn't that sound like the denomination that told its people not to drink caffeinated beverages until they prucahased a soft drink business. Seems like a lot of theology is changed by what could be financial gain. Lifeway is even handling charismatic books and other books that would not support the theology taught in SBC seminaries. It's one thing to appear to have the right theology and another to adhere to it.

Also what about Mrs. Criswell all these years teaching Sunday School at FBC Dallas? I'll just bet her Sunday Schol class has mixed genders and it is larger than many SBC churches.

 

Oh, but remember Lifeway is a business. Doesn't that sound like the denomination that told its people not to drink caffeinated beverages until they prucahased a soft drink business. Seems like a lot of theology is changed by what could be financial gain. Lifeway is even handling charismatic books and other books that would not support the theology taught in SBC seminaries. It's one thing to appear to have the right theology and another to adhere to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Does selling Beth Moore's books in Lifeway mean that the SBC endorses having female pastors? I don't think so. That is a 1 + 1 = 5 type statement. Besides, you guys are missing the point. It is not simply about a woman "preaching or teaching" it is about women not usurping the God ordained order of authority in His created order. Beth Moore is not serving as a pastor of a local church, nor does she assume authority over any one body of believers (a local church).

Additionally, the selection of books at Lifeway containing Charismatic resources is not a problem. If it is then I had better head on over to the Library here at SEBTS and start a book burning. We have books by Liberal Scholars, by Catholic Scholars, by Presbyterian Scholars, by Charismatics, by Mormons, by GWs, by Muslims, and the list goes on. One of the purposes of Lifeway is to provide the resources for our Baptist people to be Theologically well educated. You can not be so educated if you don't know what the other side is saying and teaching.

[ December 06, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]