Baptist's have bishops and archbishops?

T2U, First you said:

and now you're just saying Baptist. African American Baptists might call their senior pastor's bishop. I don't know. Just like some pastor's use the title Rev. I had one pastor who we called Preacher Tom. We still write each other even tho we moved years ago. Some I call Brother. One, in town, demands to be called by his last name.

I'm super good friends with a black guy in town who is Baptist. If I see him at visitation tonight I'll ask him about the terminology in HIS church.

And this matters, why?

Diane

 

Yelsew,

Just a general observation on one of your recent posts in this thread. Not all Wesleyan denominations (Methodists, Wesleyan, Nazarene, CCCU, etc.) have a "trust clause" in each church's property; that is the phrase used which gives the annual conference or denomination ownership of all church real property. The Evangelical Methodists, for example, hold that the local congregation owns and controls it's own real property (like Baptist churches). They also are similarly congregational in that each church calls and elects their own pastor. Nor does the EMC have Bishops, although we do elect District Superintendants and one General Superintendant. Ordained clergy, including the DSs and GS, are simply Elders. We also have the order of Deacon/Deaconess ; laity may be Local Pastors, Speakers, Stewards or Trustees or hold other positions; and we are all "ministers" (or should be).
The Methodist Church in America, as envisioned by John Wesley (after it had become a fact), had no "Bishops" either. Wesley was not a Bishop and had no authority from the Church of England to ordain anyone. Yet the United Methodist Church [the "big" Wesleyan (so-called) denomination] has bishops, so-called,and they are not, as a group, a very good example of what bishops should be - IMO.

Diane,
It seems obvious to me that Trying2Understand is not.

For the general discussion on this topic,
I have seen some General Baptists who use the term "Bishop," but it's fairly rare, I think, and usually reserved for those who oversee several ministries (in the scriptural sense of the term).

 

Thanks for the clarification Dan Stiles. It was perhaps careless of me to make the blanket statement regarding Methodists in general, as they are nearly as diverse as the Baptists regarding denominationalism. Even so, I have not been in a Methodist church building that wasn't "owned" or controlled by the denomination.

It's good to see you posting here.

 

Can you document this claim? I've never heard of a SBC Church with a woman pastor. It amazes me how a catholic is so aware of these oddities in the SBC and those of us who have been SBC for over 50 years are unaware.

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]Only a few miles from where I pastored was a woman pastoring an SBC church She was in our association. There are loads of SBC churchers that are in NC that are led by women. In many other churches they may not have an official position of a woman leader.

Want to tell who really leads? Just watch and see who does the work. I have pastored enough SBC churches to know how frustgrating it was to get the men to take the lead. One time I complained to a man whose dad was a music leader in another chruch. His response was that is the way he had always seen it.

When I was in seminary they talked about SBC churches that were matriarchal and those who were patriarchal.

Over the years they have had single women who were missionaries. What do you think they did? They planted churches. Just ask some of the foreigners from other countries.

I can remember well the day a woman missionary came to a class to speak. One of the young seminarians asked her about what gave her the right to go as a missionary. Her response was classic. She said, "If there weren't so many lazy men like you we wouldn't have to go."

 

Well they certainly were not biblical churches were they, if the pastor was a woman? As a 'former' SBC pastor, you should know that. They also cannot be part of the SBC today, with a woman pastor.

Diane

 

Hi Ron -

While bishop is used synonymously with the terms "elder," "overseer," and "pastor," and "shepherd," I have not personally seen a Baptist congregation that uses this title. However, I suppose it could be proper.

This thread is kind of a mess, which has likely delighted you. However, misinformation is serving no one so I'll see what I can do to straighten the facts out.

Yelsew - This post is in error. All believers are priest 1Peter 2:9-10. I'm not sure what you mean by "area represenative." If by president you mean the president of a conventional affiliation, you are in error.

Beats me. I am unfamiliar with the term. I found one hit on Google using "Baptist" and "archbishop" and a story came up about some guy in Greneda who was archbishop of a single church. He got arrested for murder by the way.

I am theorizing that in the islands Protestant (please no one start a semantics game here, I use the term in the classic sense of non-Catholic) churches may have borrowed titles from the established Jesuit planted Catholic churches, but that is a guess. Each church is self-governing in a Baptistic system. The government of a Baptist church begins with the individual believer, quite similar to a democracy. For the sake of efficiency, as is the case in most democracies, committees are formed that are given power to implement decisions for the congregation. There is no such thing as a Baptist diocese, however.

Where on earth are you getting this, Yelsew? You are not describing a Baptist process here.

This is a very interesting topic. I wish I had more concrete facts to give you in this post, but as time allows, I am typing off the top of my head.

The largest Black affiliation is the National Baptist Convention which was formed in in the 1880's. After the Emancipation, many of the black community seperated into their own churches and later affiliations as a statement of their freedom. We have evidence of autonomous black congregations from the 1770's, however, the norm was that the slaves attended church with their owners. As I say, it's a fascinating subject but I am pressed for time on any research and far be it from me to give you information that was not factual.

Removing someone from a membership role and refusing to take funds from them is not exercising control, at least not on a spiritual plane.

As you know, the SBC has had a political coup in the past few decades. It only meets once a year so these changes take a long time to happen. There are shadow affiliations within the convention that will likely make a full break in the coming decade to maintain affiliation for these exorcised churches. It's a lot of politics. I'm not sure that anyone completely understands it.

It should be noted, however, that the decisions of the SBC are mandated by "messengers," the term applied to represenatives from local churches that make up the SBC. That includes the offices of the SBC, the wording of statements (including the Baptist Faith & Message), and doctrinal stands. Majority vote affects and enacts these decisions for the year to come.

I hope this clears things up for you somewhat.

 

Well they certainly were not biblical churches were they, if the pastor was a woman? As a 'former' SBC pastor, you should know that. They also cannot be part of the SBC today, with a woman pastor.

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]So was the SBC a biblical Church in the time that it allowed women as pastors? For a while they did from my understanding and then revoked it.

 

Diane, you asked for links:-

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/12/sbaptists/

And, in case you are worried that that comes from CNN, here's a couple from what appears to be an SBC site:-

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/Papers/SB_Women/sb_women.html

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/SBCLifeArticles/Oct_2000d/oct_2000d.html

My question is this: if you are saying that the SBC was wrong in failing to censure women pastors in the 1963 BF&M, how are you sure that it is right in censuring them in the latest BF&M?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, The BIBLE censures women from being pastors. I never said anything about the SBC failing to censure women in 1963. People here constantly put words in my mouth and I consider that lying.

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to really check them well right this minute but I will later today or after church tonight. All of those links are over 3 years old. The numbers are not correct now. If you notice, the numbers drop from 1,600 ish to 40 women pastors and one article mentions that most have now affiliated with that CBF or ABC that rev. Joshua's church is part of.

Diane

 

Diane, I said "if..." I just wanted to clarify your stance, I never intended to put words in your mouth and I apologise if that's how it came across. We will have to agree to differ on how to exegetise (sp?) the various passages about women in the church; I, with prayerful consideration have come to a different conclusion than you have with your no doubt equally prayerful consideration.

I agree the links are not bang up to date;it was the best I could do on a quick google search. The point of them though was to demonstrate that prior to the latest BF&M, SBC churches (albeit a minority) did have women pastors. My question (not necessarily directed at you) was along the lines of "if it was OK before BF&M 2000, why is it not now?"

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Clint Kritzer

I am simply illustrating terms of relativity. "Pastor" in a Baptist organization is a title equivalent to that of "Priest" in the Catholic organization, etc.

Again Clint, I'm simply looking at organizational structure, making simple comparisons. Yes, things do happen in a manner similar to that described, and within the Southern Baptist organization, which uses very similar rules of protocol to all multi-leveled organizations.

 

Thanks Matt. You asked:

My take as a SBC Baptist of almost 53 years.... It wasn't okay before, according to scripture, but it's only been recently that the SBC had to SAY it.

With my children, I didn't bother to tell them about certain things until they needed to be told. Why warn a child about something they will NEVER be exposed to? However, if that danger arises or the possibility of that danger arises, as a good mother I do warn! Now that 3 of them are grown, I offer advice or share what the Bible says about certain things according to what is appropriate in their lives NOW. Hope that explains my older lady thought process here.

Diane

 

Can you document this claim? I've never heard of a SBC Church with a woman pastor. It amazes me how a catholic is so aware of these oddities in the SBC and those of us who have been SBC for over 50 years are unaware.

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.baptist2baptist.net/SBCLifeArticles/Oct_2000d/oct_2000d.html

 

Matt, The BIBLE censures women from being pastors. I never said anything about the SBC failing to censure women in 1963. People here constantly put words in my mouth and I consider that lying.

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to really check them well right this minute but I will later today or after church tonight. All of those links are over 3 years old. The numbers are not correct now. If you notice, the numbers drop from 1,600 ish to 40 women pastors and one article mentions that most have now affiliated with that CBF or ABC that rev. Joshua's church is part of.

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]Diane I hope you are ready for the following: Over time as I have found out the truth I have also found out that there are some who have just simply taught what they wanted to teach in support of their personal theology. I found the people to respond well when you tell them the truth and how to deal with it. People want answers not just personal theology. In my first pastorate I asked a DOM, two seminary and university trustees and a pastor about how I should preach some of the tough issue that were ahead in the scriptures I was preaching from. The pastor gave me the best answer. But the others told me to avoid the issues. I told them that if I avoided the issues then what am I telling the people. I saw a church radically change when I began to deal with some of the tough issues and take a stance on some issues. It liberated the church and people began to share their faith. That church w\as in the midst of a revival. At the next church I pastored the same thing happened. People want to know the truth and how God works. The simple truth is that God cannot be contained by our theology or be put in a box. He will do what He wants.

You cannot change the history of the SBC. Dr. Leon McBeth wrote a book requested by the SBC on the role of women in Baptist history. To his amazement and many others they bought the rights and killed it. Very few copies had been printed.

If you are really interested you might want to check into some SBC history and see how many women started churches. It wasn't too many years ago that the SBC sent single women missionaries to do evangelism. Remember Lottie Moon? While I was in seminary a few foreign students told me that a woman started the churches they attended.

Not too long ago I wrote to Jerry Rankin about the issue of ordination and ordaining women as chaplains. He did not respond, but his secretary did in his behalf. In the letter is stated, "We do not appoint missionaries to the specific role of pastors, but rather to the more specifically missionary role of extending the Gospel to new areas through church planting. There would be some exceptions to this such as those who go to serve English language congregations. We would not appoint women for such roles Later in the letter he writes, "We believe that there is no New Testament teaching which prohibit women from exercising other gifts of ministry such as evangelizing with the expectation that new congregations will come out of the ministry. This obviously means that we do not see the roles of pastor and church planter as being identical."

Is there something that is strictly biblical about not appointing woman to serve in English speaking communities. Seems like men are men and women are women across the board where ever you go. I didn't know the SBC saw this stance as adhering to the Bible. Like so many other things in the SBC which are merely preferences that are too often presented as biblical.

While I attended SWBTS I cannot think of one professor who would have disagreed with the following statement. It is better to have a man serve as a pastor but there are cases where God has used a woman to do the work.

Read the book "And the Word Came With Power: How God Met & Changed a People Forever" by Joanne Shetler. It is about two women who were Wycliffe Bible Translators near the Philippines who sought to translate the Bible into the language of the people. They led some of the people to Christ and trained them to lead a church. For that time those ladies were their pastors until they could sustain themselves. That type of ministry is happening all over the world.

God is not bound to our American theology. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote to emperor Trajan. In it he writes, "This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. A deaconess worked with other women and children. They performed pastoral work with the sick and the poor and helped at baptism. From the earliest times deaconesses visited the sick, acted as doorkeepers at the woman's entrance to the church, kept order among church women, taught females in preparation for baptism and acted as sponsors for homeless children. They also carried official massages.

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is loads of evidence of deaconesses in the church. However the western Roman Catholic Church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did.

Almost every country outside the US has women deaconesses in Baptist Churches.

As I understand it in the early church the pastor would deal with the deacons who would deal with the deaconess who would deal with the women. Would be little chance for infidelity. A friend of mine has been a missionary for about 25 years in a country where this is practiced today. Also in that same country the women sit on one side and the men on the other.

That is evidence since 112 A.D. Who can interpret a practice better the Christians in 112 A.D. or today. The SBC does not support deaconesses. Almost every nation has Baptist churches that have deaconesses. Why not the US. It it superior in its interpretation of scripture? Seems kind of like the SBC follows the RCC of the west rather than the normative practice of almost every other country and as early as the record in 112 A.D.

Too many times preference are expressed as biblical until there is a greater challenge. I got quite a few shocks in seminary as I studied the documents. At first I did not believe very many of my professors at SWBTS. But when I began to check out the sources and ask other students I found myself tho be wrong and unexposed to the truth so many times.

 

And it was stil wrong and against scripture.

God says no women pastor's and I'll take HIS word for it.

Diane

 

Are there any priests who have ever left the church for sexual reasons?

Are there any priests who ever went into N.Y. for some 'relaxation'?

Are there any priests who drink too much?

Are there any priests........ Nevermind. We'll leave little children out of this.

When will the 'church' address those issues instead of reassignment or paying off the injured?