SBC and Women Preachers???

Why?

Especially if a particular church existed before the SBC came into existence and already had an Articles of Faith in place 19 years before the SBC was formed. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your point, but if BF&M2K was agreed by the SBC in Convention, then that is the will of the majority of the Convention; the dissenting minority then have two choices - either submit to the will of the convention, or leave (they can either form a new association/ convention like the CBF did, or have no association at all and be completely Independent). That may seem a little harsh, but I don't think it is unfair; if we as congregations associate/'Convene' by agreement between us, then it is fair to say that when agreement can no longer be reached, then we should cease to associate in that manner or on that level.

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Matt, The only problem with your view is that the SBC did not make subscription to the BF&M2K part of the membership requirement for affiliated churches.

It is the Convention's Doctrinal Statement not the Statement of all the Churches.

If the convention requires subscription to the BF&M2K in order for a local church to be an affiliated church then I suspect many will leave as you are suggesting.

 

Oh, well, if it's not part of the membership requirement, then that means it's OK for SB churches to have women pastors, surely? In that case why are we (and I mean the posters on this thread, not you and me, HS ;) ) arguing about it - from the point of view of the SBC and BF&M2K, I mean, rather than what we as individual posters think on the subject of women pastors?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Okay. I will also attempt to less abrasive when/if I strongly disagree with you.

I must say though that I never felt like you were attacking me personally. We both have pretty much stuck to debating the issues. That is the way the debate forum is supposed to work.

 

Why do you make that assumption? Is it that far fetched to believe that there are Baptists who desire to understand other Christian movements (and be able to spot heresies) and who would want to have a Baptist store were they can obtain trustworthy information?

Hopefully they are receiving this type of instruction from their pastors and other mature Baptists at their local Baptist church.

Nope... besides the Mormons will give you one for free if you ask for it. ;)

No one is asking you to do so.

I did not say that that is the primary purpose of Lifeway either. I said one of its purposes is to be a resource for Baptists who want to be well educated and that includes knowing what the other side is teaching.

Right. However, the point is that not every Baptist lives within "Library range" of one of our SBC Seminaries. Lifeway has a much broader reach and is more available to the people out there who wish to conduct such research and build their personal libraries for their own studies.

Now, can we please return to the original question of this thread? Are there 11,000 "female pastors" in the SBC? I say no. There are no "female pastors" in the SBC (or anywhere else for that matter) because women biblically cannot be pastors. There may well be women who have usurped the office, but they are not pastors. They are usurpers.

[ December 12, 2003, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

In the days when Paul wrote this, common custom was that only men were in the congregation, and women in an adjoining room where they could see their husbands, but not necessarily see or hear the officiant. The instruction was given to the men, who were to hence later give instruction to the women. So, during the service, women would routinely call out to their husbands, who would answer them. This caused an ample amount of chatter. Paul's answer to this was for women to remain silent in the church, and to allow their husbands to instruct them as they were instructed to. Today, however, the social custom of women being barred from the pews has mostly gone by the wayside.

This verse DOES NOT address the issue of women as pastors, teachers, or leaders. It addresses a very specific problem at a very specific time. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey Johnv,

That is a nice cultural explanation. However, it does not square with the passages in Acts that tell us that all believers met together daily for instruction in the Apostle's teaching, fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread.

 

Hey Johnv,

Baptist Distinctives do not allow a church or an individual Baptist to do something that Scriptures say not to do. Likewise, "Soul Liberty" does not mean that everyone can interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean. The historic Baptist understanding of "Soul Liberty" refers specifically to a rejection of a state run/enforced religion or church.

[ December 13, 2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hey Michael,

I'm not saying you are a liberal either. However, it does appear to me that your preference for the SBC theology of the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s and your support for the idea that women can be pastors indicates that you favor a left leaning (more liberal) theology.

 

Hey Michael,

Sorry but, nope...

Please don't take that one sentence out of its original context within the entire statement by Armitage. In context he is clearly arguing that "Soul Liberty" refers to the Baptist rejection of the idea of a state run/enforced religion or church. Armitage is certainly not arguing that every Baptist can interpret the Bible in such a way as to mean whatever they want it to mean. The SBC and the BF&M 2000 fully argee with Armitage's statements when taken in context.

 

Bible-Boy

You wrote - "Baptist Distinctives do not allow a church or an individual Baptist to do something that Scripture say not to do."

Would you care to elaborate on this statement?

Especially the "do not allow" part.

Here's where I have some problems.....

(1 Cor 14:34 & 35 KJV) 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. 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.

And in Southern Baptist Churches every Sunday and Wednesday - Women speak.

(1 Tim 2:9 KJV) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

And in many Southern Baptist Churches on Sunday the parade of jewelry and makeup looks like a fashion show.

(1 Tim 2:11 KJV) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

And yet every Sunday in most SBC Churches women are anything but silent in class.

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

And in many SBC Churches women teach men in Sunday School Classes. And I mention again Beth Moore who is preaching and teaching to a greater male audience every day.

If all this is not allowed by the Baptist Distinctives because the Bible surely teaches against it, then why is it going on in SBC Churches?

It seems to me that a good argument can be made that in practice we Southern Baptists are guilty of permitting everything except women pastors.

Why? Because we've already accomodated what some would say are all the other violations of scriptural teaching pertaining to women and their role in the church and we simply cannot roll back our denominational clock.

 

Hardsheller,

Excellent points. It just proves that probably everyone is selective in how they interpret and apply scripture.

 

Bible-boy,

You're right; I wasn't attacking you personally.

I don't see that support of women pastors is a liberal position. There are many conservative denominations that have women pastors; they are very common and well-accepted in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, for instance.

I would say overall that I'm a moderate: Many of my beliefs are conservative, some are in the middle, and a couple could, I suppose, be called liberal. I'll list some of these beliefs, if you'd like. Then maybe you can decide what to call me--maybe a conservative heretic.

 

A conservative heretic :eek: Surely not on this board! :D

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Bible-boy (and others interested),

Here is an article which comes to a different conclusion from you about the SBC and whether it still adheres to the historic Baptist principle of soul liberty. Click on the highlighted "liberty of conscience" in the second paragraph: http://www.baptists.web.com

 

Brother Michael,

Who is telling you what you can and cannot believe as a SBC'er?

The BF&M 2000 was presented to the SBC floor in the year 2000 and was voted on and passes by MESSENGERS(folks like you and me) in attendance.

The BF & M 2000 names no hierchy---other than the Lordship of Jesus Christ---and in fact, strengthens the idea of the Priesthood of the Believer that many folks only think takes away from!

The B F & M sends the world a message that goes something like this---"This is what we believe as Southern Baptists!" Its not a creed but a direction that Southern Baptists can steer toward.

Another for instance I can give here---lets just say that you are Presbyterian---but you want to join my church--become a member. You want to become a Southern Baptist---I as pastor of the church would have opportunity to show you "This is what we Southern Baptists believe! We believe such and such and such and such!" And I take you though the basic SBC doctrine found in the SBC BF & M and then have opportunity to ask you if you are willing to receive the basic doctrine of the SBC--example--follow through in Believer's Baptism by full immersion in water, etc. -if not, well, I could not accept you for membership---you can keep being Presbyterian and keep coming to my church but cannot be received as a member---see?

Another example---lets just say that FBC, Charleston has amended the BF & M 2000 into their constitution(I don't know if they have or not)---and say, they are looking for a Senior Pastor---well, the FBC, Charleston congregation would be sending the Search Committee a message that the Senior Pastor is to be a man--based on that BF & M 2000 they established into their constitution. See?

Your buddy,
Brother David

 

I guess you don't know about Lottie Moon and many others who have been missionaries in the SBC who have started churches in foreign lands. Just ask a foreign seminary student about this. They can easily verify that. In 1998 I wrote Jerry Rankin a letter regarding ordination and the issue of women in ministry especially chaplains to women in the military. The following is a response from his office.

"There is a serious question in my mind as to whether our whole understanding and practice of ordination is being guided by New Testament practice or by U.S tax law which provides certain benefits for ordained persons."

Later in the letter he writes:

"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.

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." </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for bringing up Lottie Moon.
She was regarded as a Pastor. This cannot be denied. The word "Pastor" is synomous with "shepherd" which is someone who leads the flock. If Lottie Moon lead the flock then she was a Pastor. Maybe a rose by another name !

 

I have pastored enough churches to know that there are some exceptions but to know that most of the time it is the women who do most of the work. For example years ago a woman called me from a church asking me if I was interested in their church and I told her. "Yes.'

When she called the second time I kind of wondered why a lady woulkd be caling me each time. It caused me to wonder about the men. While she was talking with me I could hear her husband in the background. She asked me if I visited people. I told her I did. She told me that was good, because the men in the church were so busy that they didn't have time. They were busy with other things that won't last for eternity. They were too lazy to do God's work is what underlied that comment. I told her I was no longer interested and she asked why and told me that I told her I was interested. I told her that the church did not need a pastor where he did al the work and they watched. I also told her of a churh that I have known about for years that is a brethern church that has never had a pastor but has men who lead and teach others to do ministry.

The SBC may like having a woman as a pastor but it is the woman who actually do most of the ministry. So in a practical sense it is the men who are being led around.

The men need to come alive and lead their faimilies in outreach evangelism and discipleship. They need to quit leaving it up to the preacher or pastor and take ful repsonsibility. I have never seen a church that has plenty of men who will lead that lacks in oiutreach and discipleship. Those kinds of churches have women who lead women and children and men who lead the congregation. I have found very few women who would rather lead than let their husband lead. I say if the men won't lead then let the church die. But when women take a step back and encourage the men to lead it is amazing how the men will take it to task. Men learn leadership by seeing other men lead and being encouraged by other men to lead. Mend won't lead just by saying it is biblical. Knowledge does not promote leadership. Leaders build more leaders. Leaders recruit other leaders and make them better leaders. Every strong leader can name a few other strong leaders who have led them and influenced them. I believe women pastors is typical of weak men. But I also believe that when the men don't lead and they want to be lazy and not accept responsibilty for that role then God will use a woman to lead them.

The man who was mostly responsible for my encouragement was a builder. He led a Sunday Schol class of about 40 for those considering missions. He also met with several of those during the week in Bible study and personally. At his funeral the room was filled with about 640 people most of whom he had met with over the years. Many could not be there because they were on the mission field and other places. His wife worked full time. He gave to missions one half of their pay. There were always people at their home. One time when I was there I counted 25 people for lunch. His wife had cooked the meal that morning and the rest was cooked int he overn while they were at church. He was a major leader in the church.

Whenever I hear people say they don't have time to reach out to others I think of others who have encouraged me over the years and who have had time for me. I did not growup in a Christian home. It was through those Christians that I saw what a difference Christ made in their marriages.

How sad that we have men who are ambitious at work to neglect the most important job that lasts for eternity. They are about geting a big paycheck but are bankrupt about leading the church and their own homes. I have never heard a dying man ever say how he wished he had more money to give to his family. So often they have regrets about not doing things or spending time with their family. One time I had the privilege of listening to the children of some parenst talk about what they rememebr most. Their parents were the youth leaders, had an insurance business and were foster parents. What their children remembered most was how their parents to them with them to do ministry.

A few years ago I was visitng a man who was in the discipleship group I was leading. At his house was a friend of his son's. I struck up a conversation with the friend and began to share the gospel with him. Three years later the dad told me about the impact that had on him and his son.

We need men who will lead. We need men who will provide the greatest gift a father and husband can give--godly leadership. Children don't need to be spoiled with gifts and things. But rather with the gift of love and most importantly to understand the love of God and his eternal care and wisdom. That's what makes churches.

 

Kinda a mute point since the SBC is kicking churches out that have women pastors, don't ya think!?!

 

Another irony to this is that each SBC church is suppose to be autonomous and resolutions are suppose to be non binding.