Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by go2church, Sep 22, 2004.
Found this interesting
ABP News story
Virgina WMU statement
Hmmmmmmm...it is sad that Proverbs 31:10-31 isn't enough.
Does that mean you support the statement or don't support the statement? I for one am glad they made the statment and am very supportive of it. I loved the brief history they attached.
Funny thing, today I recieved my Lottie Moon packet from the SBC, the same Lottie Moon that wouldn't be allowed to do today, what she did while in China years and years ago.
Sorry go2church, I don't support it. I do not discount the contributions of faithful women down through the ages, but where does it say in the Bible that women are to be placed in positions above the men in the church?
I realize not all hold that view, but I have seen nothing that persuades me differently. On this one we can just agree to disagree.
Well that is what I thought, but I was hoping it would be different. Agreeing to disagree is fine, we used to be able to do that, and very effectively I might add and still continue to serve together, now we have to go at it apart.
With everything they say they are rejecting, what they are really rejecting is the word of God.
But, I do have an issue with the chaplaincy thing. But, as said about deacons, what can I do that a being a deacon would not allow me to do?
It is about recognition.
Gender is not covered in scriptural passages referring to church positions. Sure, there are some verses where there's an implication (to be specific, in the role of pastor), but it is by no means scripturally clear. However, if you were to assert the position that women may never be "above men" in the church, then you would have to eliminate women from every church role where men are involved. Considering the fact that women ran house churches in the early church without condemnation from church leaders, this line of thinking is inconsistent with church history. Additionally, the Virginia WMU declaration does not appear to usurp the authority of men. Rather, it attempts to assert responsibility that all God's people are given, but that men often usurp from women.
There's no question to most that women can be leaders in the church. If a church insists that they be under men, fine. But do not forbid them leadership based solely on their gender. Doing so usurps the Great Commission, which applies to Christians regardless of gender.
I agree with you Johnv. Just think, what would be a great result for the Devil? First, have 50% of the Church relagated to minor roles because of a misunderstanding of the culteral context of the Bible. Second, have Christ's Church broken up into factions because they don't agree on minor theological issues.
John and others:
I do not view women as subservient. I just happen to believe that God established distinctive roles in the work of the church as men and as women. The Bible is very clear on these roles and although it is not very popular today, it is the role that God established for them.
Yes, each of us, as individuals and as members of the Lord's churches are responsible for our portion of the great work left to His children. However, God established an order we are to follow that is pleasing to Him and that maintains order among those that serve Him.
I believe the pattern for service and our work in the church has been left to us to follow. Ladies, I mean no disrespect. I simply believe that men should be men and women should be women. It is when either men or women try to do the work of the other that problems arise.