Women aren't second-class Baptists, Charles Stanley says

charles stanley is in great error. he is very liberal in doctrine and he has taken a very unbiblical position in regard to women in the church

 

hmmm

 

This isn't the first time Stanley has compromised. I expected such a thing.

God is powerful enough to use anyone to proclaim his message. Paul says that in Phil 1. However, that does not give us the right to usurp God and alter his word. Oh well, I suppose popularity is more important than integrity.

 

So Charles Stanley doesn't believe what the Bible teaches about the role of women in the church and family. Ho hum...

Mark Osgatharp

 

Charles Stanley claims he was saved under the preaching of a Holy Roller woman preacher. Something I'd like to know about that - was he saved by grace through faith under her preaching, or was he saved by kicking his bad habits like the Holy Rollers teach.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark, if you examine his awful theology of salvation, you would see that it was only a matter of time.

Remember when he was having marital problems and said that he would step down if he got divorced? Well, he is divorced and didn't step down.

"A good name is rather to be chosen..."

 

If we don't believe in women leading churches why do we send them out as missionaries to convert others and start new churches ????

The Bible also states that a rape victim should be made to marry her attacker and that women shouldn't talk in Church. Much as I tend to the conservative side by convictions are challenged by these notions ( closet liberal ha ha ).

Why is it that really strict Christians don't enforce the rule on women wearing jewellary, make up, keeping their heads covered, marrying their rapists etc etc etc then rigidly enforce men only leaders ?

 

We don't.

No it does not. This erroneous assertion is based on faulty translation. By the way, this faulty translation is followed in the NIV, which is one very good reason for rejecting that translation.

And they shouldn't.

There is no "rule" in the Bible about any of these things, other than "men only leaders". You have displayed a very wreckless reading of the Scriptures by asserting they teach these things.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Brother Stanley had an opportunity to have a "say so" while the passing of the BF&M 2000's motion "lay on the floor" in the year 2000. The question I ask is---why is he almost 4 years late in saying what he did here?

Stanley doesn't have to believe it if he don't want to--he's got a right to be wrong! Just because he pastors a MegaChurch--don't always make him "right!" about things--his view on continueing to preach after his divorce, for starters!

Take a look at who's names appear on the panel of the BF&M 2000 compilers! The "Einstein's" of the Southern Baptist Convention---just may be Stanley is guilty of envy and pride as well--'cause his name isn't on the list!

Brother David

 

The biggest error Stanley makes is the same one that drives the charismatic movement (and many of us in our weaker moments) - He makes his experience the final authority rather than God's Word. "I know this is right because it happened to me." Perhaps a good reading of II Peter chapter 1 would be of benefit to our good brother, Charles. I didn't realize he had wandered so far.

 

While I don't agree that women should be pastors or preachers, I wonder what would happen to our churches if the women did not "talk in church".

Are you saying that some churches do not have women missionaries? Or Are you saying that some churches do not have missionaries?

I have seen churches that if women had not taken part in the leadership under a male pastor there probably would not have been a church.

 

In some churches I know about 90% of their problems would disappear overnight if the women would "keep silence in the church" like the Scripture says.

The churches of the American Baptist Association do not send women as missionaries. There are women who assist missionaries, which is fine and dandy, but not women operating as missionaries on their own.

So the ends justify the means? Does doing evil bring about good?

I know a situation right now where a woman has taken lead in a church that is without a pastor and where the men won't do it. This is not helping that church at all but is only confirming those men in their weakness.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Let us not forget that God designed women for certain roles and men for others. For a woman to fulfill her God given role is to prove her worth.

These people who try to cram all roles into one do a disservice for everyone. Men are taught that it is okay to be spineless and women are taught that it is okay to rule over her husband. It is these people who are making women second class citizens.

 

I agree with you Daniel David. We each have our roles.

So do you mean women working in the church is evil?

I also did not say that I thought a woman should be pastor of the church. I said working under the leadership of a male pastor.

 

It is if it involves a leadership position over a man.

 

Here are the qualifications of a pastor:
1Ti 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil


Notice in 3:1 it says MAN.

In 3:2 It says HUSBAND of ONE WIFE. Stanley qualifies here because he is not remarried, but he erred by saying a woman could pastor. How can a woman be thehusband of one wife?

In 3:4, 5 Stanley is disqualified now because he did not and has not RULED his house well.

In 3:7 he failed again because he did not take the advice of his peers in this matter, rather he did what he wanted to do. It can not be because God lead him, because that would violate what God gave as qualifications.

Now he seriously in error because he wants to let women usurp authority over men and teach men. This is a violation. Stanley can promote this if he wants to, but he is in err and is unbiblcal in doing so.

 

Sometime ago I was studying much about women in church, and I would like to quote here information that I had compiled and saved (cut and paste) for sometime.
Bound to make people break out in a sweat, but what do you say to it?

Here it is:
Recently, on another discussion board the verses in Ephesians came to light...

Eph 4:8-11
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(KJV)

Would you not assume that it would suggest that these gifts were given to “men”???
But look at the definitions for this Greek word “men”... (It is not the Greek word for only men.)

STRONG’s Definition:

444 anthropos (anth'-ro-pos);

from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:

KJV-- certain, man.


THAYERS’ Definition:

444 anthropos-

1) a human being, whether male or female
a) generically, to include all human individuals
b) to distinguish man from beings of a different race or order
1) used of animals and plants
2) used of from God and Christ
3) used of the angels
c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led
into a mistake or prompted to sin
d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt
and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

Would that not IN FACT support the role of women in the Ministry??? Hence, my question.


The scriptures that we are discussing are:

1 Cor 14:34-36
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
(KJV)

1 Tim 2:11-12
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(KJV)

What happened to me was that if you take verse 1 Cor 14:34 “literally as translated”, it conflicts with the Bible. Then, I noticed that each church divides that verse or interprets it the way they feel like it; basically how much a woman can participate in church. When you take it literally (just the way it is written) a woman cannot even pray in church. This of course opposes other Scripture where we are to pray without ceasing. I was thoroughly confused as I looked at many translations and discovered that most were translated the same way. (Most commentators bypass it all together or if they do mention it, it is pretty vague or generic.)
Did this mean that women should not go to church, I wondered? What are women doing in church if they cannot pray out loud or sing or prophecy or have a Word of Knowledge, etc. etc. There are many churches, I believe, that will not let a woman pass out communion and a host of other things, but I ask you, where is the Biblical support for that?

So, I went to the Greek manuscripts, and this is what I came up with after much study and reading on this topic:

This is my own translation:

1 Cor 14:34 Let your wives be in quietness in the assemblies, for it is not permitted for them to chatter, but let them be in subjection, as the law also says.
1 Cor 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a wife to chatter in the assembly.

(Another picture of marriage representing the Christ and the Bride of Christ, silent before God, and asking God privately for revelation.)

1 Tim 2:11 Let a wife learn in quietness with all subjection.
1 Tim 2:12 But I do not permit a wife to teach-as ruling or lording over her husband nor with her own words kills her husband but to be in quietness.

(A picture of the Bride of Christ and their Husband, Jesus)

Regarding the word “speak” in 1 Cor 14:34…in the Greek it is 2980 laleo: to talk, utter words, emit a sound, speak, use tongue, utter articulate sounds, to tell, declare one’s mind, disclose one’s thoughts (an extended or random harangue (to address in) a noisy or scolding speech---idle chatter, talk idly)

Here is the important note about the word “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12: Strong’s #1321 didasko 1) to teach, instruct by word of mouth: what is meant in this verse is teaching that is lording over her husband. Very important note—this Greek word “teach” is not 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1322 --- various other words for “teach” in the Greek. I would advise checking them out and comparing the various definitions for “teach”.

Also, regarding usurp authority --- that is #831 authenteo 1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself 2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic 3) an absolute master 4) to govern, to exercise dominion over one.

I believe these Scriptures are dealing with husbands and wives because they are a picture of Jesus Christ, ever Faithful (Our Lover), and His Bride, who Love and Respect HIM. I believe marriage should be a replica of this.

END OF QUOTATIONS

Please do not get worked up, but I think this might help when wondering why women and men are discussing this topic in the first place.

 

Elk, explain this QUALIFICATION. The husband of one wife. Don't worry about the "one" for this discussion, please explain the "husband" "wife" portion.

 

In 1 Cor. 14, Paul, as he did throughout the epistle, used the rhetorical eta to refute his opponents' argument after citing it. Having already commanded that women be allowed to pray (which would have been aloud) and prophesy (preach or forthtell the word of the Lord) if veiled, he did not contradict himself here but rather rebuked those in the Corinthian church who were silencing women.

In 1 Tim. 2, Paul made an exception to his usual practice by silencing the women at Ephesus who were teaching their superiority and primacy over men under the influence of the Artemis cult and the protognostic doctrine that Eve was created first and bore children without male involvement (and that Adam had been the one deceived).

As for 1 Tim. 3, the inspired text does not say "a man," it says tis, the indefinite pronoun best rendered "anyone." Regarding the qualification "husband of one wife" I'll at least hand it to those who take that as iron-clad, that they're consistent in thwarting the call given to any husband who is not a father and to any man who is single.

As an apostle, Junia outranked bishops. As president of the church at Cenchrea, the deacon Phoebe served in a dual role. Prisca taught Apollos. Paul commended a number of women preachers (for that is what evangelists do).