Southern Baptist Megachurch Makes History Electing Woman to Pulpit

Southern Baptists can neither be blamed nor congratulated for this event. SBC churches are independent, so the SBC has no control over what happens. Furthermore, the majority of voters of the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention voted to say that they don't believe women should be senior pastors of churches, and no convention since has modified that position.

Full Disclosure: I consider myself a former Southern Baptist (although my church still gives a small portion of our receipts according to the way our members designate gifts, so we are technically in fellowship with the SBC) and this woman's leadership does not bother me. I do not know her, so I can't speak to her character, calling or abilities.

 

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.

And before you become critical of women for that, think about what it would mean to you if our culture's tradition was for the man to change his family name to bride's family name. Remember, the scripture speaks of a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife to become one flesh. If any case can be made for name changing scripturally (I don't think there is any strong teaching on it), there seems to be more weight on the side of the man changing his name since he is specifically called to leave his parental family ties behind for the sake of his wife.

In my case, my wife didn't want to change her name because she was proud of her family's heritage (and I was fine with her not changing it), but I did not want her to hyphenate because you run into a problem when you have children... which name(s) do they take? If you give them all of the names, the children's names become unwieldy.

Ultimately, I let my wife make the decision without any pressure from me, and within a month or so she began the process of changing her last name to my family's name. And if that makes her happy, I support it.

 

With that line of reasoning, one could justify anything.

 

Oh well! There goes the neighborhood! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

The onmly thing coherent about this is that you are pretty sure you are absolutley 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.

 

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

 

Well said!

I'm also very skeptical of the so-called "mega-church" label. They've got less than 2700 members TOTAL. On a typical Sunday, most churches that size generally don't draw more than a third of their total membership. It's a good-sized church, but far from a "mega-church".

 

In other words, she's obviously a feminist.

 

Not necessarily... But what do you mean by "feminist?" Does that mean she is "concerned with the welfare of women" or that she is somehow promoting a certain certain set of political/social positions? And if the latter, what are the positions that this pastor is promoting?

 

There is no calling to leave your family ties behind. It was Jewish custom, before the wedding, the groom was to go back to his father's home and build on to his house, and when the work was complete the wedding took place.

Hence the reason Christ said that in His Father's House are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you.

Jewish custom. You did not leave your family ties, that wasn't the calling.

 

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8)

God and his teachings never change, what God said years before is what He means for today. Are you saying that God changes with the times and goes with the flow? Do you think He never saw this coming or He would have mentioned male and females in the position of senior pastor? He must of changed His mind and we failed to get the 2nd Edition.

The above statement is what is wrong with so many churches in so many denominations. This view and some of the others that have been posted is what causes the beginning of compromise in churches and the continuing of it.

 

Right! The something new that God will do (as quoted from IS 43) doesn't mean that He will do something contrary to His word.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth and nailed it right on the head!!!

 

I am IFB but noticed that the SBC convention was held here recently where I live. Isn't there still a definite division of the SBC in general between the liberals and conservatives?

 

Please note that I didn't say that I thought there was good scriptural justification for forcing anyone to change their family name, but I was simply making a point that if anyone wanted to make a case regarding leaving behind family, they could easily cite Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." There is a sense in which men are called to establish their own households with their brides, leaving behind the dominance of their parent's rule.

I don't know if the Jewish tradition you cite was uniform or not. In any case, the biblical teaching stands on its own. Just as divorce was rarely handled properly in Jewish society, and there seems to be no record of the celebration of the Year of Jubilee, the practices of ancient Judaism do not overrule explicit biblical teaching.

 

Most of the people that were maligned as "liberals" (most of them weren't) left more than a decade ago. Recently, I believe the old guard of the SBC tried to apply the label of "liberal" to the younger pastors of the convention who were known for blogging about the hypocrisies of the small group of people who control the denominational structure, but, because of the ability to get their points out to a large audience through the internet, everyone knew it was a lie.

If the internet had existed the way it does now back in the late 1970s - early 1990s, the so-called "conservative resurgence" would never have happened. The lies would not have held up under scrutiny.

 

Zenas, when re-reading the thread I see what you posted. And I apologize to a fellow Kentuckian for "stealing your line", albeit unwittingly. I did it as a joke. But I would like to ask, "What exactly is the matter of grave doctrinal error, here?" I do see a doctrinal error, myself. It may not be all that 'grave', but it is an error, nonetheless. That 'error' is confusing and confuting the office of bishop/elder, which is by definition limited to men, and has a host of qualifications involved, with the spiritual gift of pastor and teacher which is not limited, save at the discretion of the Holy Spirit, to any qualifications or gender, the same as for any of the other spiritual gifts, and all gifts are irrevocable, as well. (Rom. 11:29)

The offices are not necessarily irrevocble either, for if one does not fit, or no longer fits the qulifications given, then one is no longer qualified, and should not hold that office, in the local church, IMO.

Get it, gang! There is absolutely no Biblical prohibition or hint that a woman cannot have any one particular gift, including the gift of pastor and teacher, vs any other spiritual gift, or that gifts are ever gender specific.

And, by the same token and in the same vein, there is absolutely no room, Biblically, for a woman to be a bishop/elder, for that office is, in fact, limited to men, among the other limitations.

A person can do the work of a particular gift, without necessarily having the gift. For example, Timothy was told to "do the work of an evangelist". There is no hint, Biblically, that Timothy had that gift, unlike Philip, the deacon. Likewise, one qualification of an elder is "being able to teach". Again, there is no hint that an elder ever has to have the 'gift', only that he be able. Also, I believe the Scriptural model is that of a church to have a plurality of elders, not some "Big Behunah" so-called "Senior Pastor". Paul actually wrote to the church at Phillpi and greeted all the saints, along with the bishops and deacons. Apparently he was ignoring what we often today perceive as the most important person in most churches, the "Senior Pastor".

Sure seems rude of Paul, don't you think?

Again!

Not trying to get a row started; just presenting what I believe Scripture teaches.

Ed

 

Yes, and the libs are still working to call those who restored the biblical doctrine of inerrancy to our colleges as liars. The new division is created by the Emerging Church movement. Guess who supports that.

 

What is your definition of "liberal"??? Is it merely someone who does not support everything that Paige Patterson does? The bloggers are NOT liberals by any sane and honest definition.

Actually, the whole so-called "conservative resurgence" concerned the seminaries and convention agencies, not colleges. I don't think Southern Baptists had colleges until sometime in the mid-1990s when Southeastern started their program.

Huh? Wade Burleson is a representative of the emerging church movement?

Emergent Christians?

 

Rick Warren