Southern Baptist Megachurch Makes History Electing Woman to Pulpit

What about Rick Warren?


EDITED BECAUSE I MISUNDERSTOOD WHO WAS MAKING THE POST

 

Nope, I think Rick Warren is fulfilling God's plan. Why? Does me mentioning his name bother you?

 

Okay, that's fine.

No it doesn't.

I'm sorry, I misread the header and thought that 2 Timothy was accusing Rick Warren of being a liberal who is attacking the old guard of the SBC. That accusation makes no sense, so I was baffled.

Turns out, I was simply wrong. I misread.

Sorry about that!

 

Let me explain why Rick Warren is fulfilling God's plan, he is helping usher in the One World Religion, the Church Age Movement. He is taking out doctrine and replacing it with his words, ignoring the word of God.

 

Okay...

While I'm not really a Rick Warren fan, I don't think this charge is accurate.

Why did you intially post the name of Rick warren without comment? What post were you responding to?

 

Nonsense, conjucture and most of all is questioning the faith of another believer, something against the rules of this forum!

 

I for one am thrilled with the call, mind you she was at a pretty good sized church in Waco, this isn't her first trip around the block.

I feel sorry for those of you so willing to discount the gifts and call of this woman to ministry. You are willing to judge her without knowing anything about her, you question her faith and malign her ministry all because she is a woman! There is something wrong with that. It reflects none of the character and ministry of Jesus, who elevated and included women in his ministry.

All God's blessings to her and the church.

 

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

 

Ministry? Yes. As pastor? No.

 

- please delete -

 

I would say the 'undefined' term of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'moderate' pretty much leave "the beauty in the eye of the beholder", since there is not clear-cut definition of any of them. And it is merely an opinion that the so-called "conservative resurgence" would not had happened had the internet been around then. ( Fortunately or unfortunately, Al Gore had not yet arrived on the scene to 'invent' the internet. :laugh: :laugh: Sorry, couldn't or wouldn't resist that opportunity!) In fact, the internet may just as well have hastened the "conservative resurgence" rather than just as easily hindered it. We shall never know, I guess, this side of eternity.

As to "hypocrisies", I suggest there are and have been enough from all sides to go around. And it seems a bit of a stretch to assume one side, which ever one, lied and the other did not, IMO.

There was, in fact, a real issue over the question of "inerrancy", especially as to what was predominately being taught in colleges and seminaries, that seems to get "swept under the rug" by many who do not want to see Scriptures defined in those terms, and so look for some other 'bogey-men' to blame for the controversy. (W. A. Criswell, Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, and Harold Lindsell are among those who come to mind quickly.) In fact, I suggest that issue was clearly 'defined' by two individuals a decade or two before, and it took a while for it to work its way to the forefront for the average Southern Baptist. They were Dr. Ralph Elliot, a professor at Midwestern Seminary, whose publication of The Message of Genesis showed "one side"; and Dr. W. A. Criswell, the Pastor of First Baptist, Dallas whose publication of Why I Preach That the Bible is Literally True showed the other. Regardless of the position one holds, one cannot fail to see the clear difference of the two positions, if one were to read the books. The very able and talented Dr. Duke McCall, longtime President of Southern Seminary, one of the SBC's premier flagship institutions along with Southwestern, (and much in the same vein as the equally talented and able E. Y. Mullins, and also President of Southern of two decades before) and himself a very conservative individual, but one who was unwilling to be so 'exclusive' in an academic sense (as also was Mullins), managed to keep things on an even keel publicly, there, even though there were things festering under the surface. At his retirement, it became far more apparent as to what was going on in the world of SBC academe. And it spilled out into the open.

Couple that with the the publication of The Battle for the Bible by the oft maligned Harold Lindsell, and "all hell" broke loose. (FTR, few have disputed or argued successfully against the 'facts' that Dr. Lindsell presented, only the manner in which they were presneted. The people understood, BTW.) No longer could the front be maintained, and the messengers spoke, and loudly! Had there not been the sentiment of the messengers, the so-called "conservative resurgence" would never have happened, and that attempt or what you are implying was a 'power grab' would been relegated to merely a footnote in the history of Southern Baptists.

Please get one thing right. The "small group of people who control the denominational structure" are those in the ever-changing 'group' known as the messengers to the annual meetings. They can and do mostly what they please and perceive in their collective wisdom or lack of the same. Those several thousand are and have the 'real power' in the Convention. And they can and do use it, when and where they deem it necessary.

And I am one of those "inerrantists" your mother warned you about. :laugh: :laugh:
And I'm personally glad of the "conservative resurgence" which has taken the Convention back, in the area of 'Biblical authority' from whence it came, to the days and likes of Boyce, the Manleys, Broaddus, Mell, Fuller, Johnson, and Howell, among others, to name a few.

I do not like or nor do I agree with the Biblical position of such as Toy, Elliot, Peter Rhea Jones (whom I personally argued with, when he denied the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, as a 19 year old UK student at Southern Seminary some 40 years ago, one time, after he invited the guests to join in just as if we were students. He asked my campus pastor to never again bring me back to Southern, BTW.), Stagg, Dale Moody, and Honeycutt, again, to name a few. Just to set all the records straight, including where I stand.

Ed

 

I have news for you. there are liberal bloggers and there are conservative bloggers. Neither one has a hold on the internet or blogging. I see Dr. Patterson is still taking a beating from the libs much as he always has since the 70's.

Colleges, Seminaries, same thing.

You brought his name into this I did not.


[/quote]Emergent Christians?[/quote]

That name is definitaly appropriate.

 

Wade Burleson is a staunch 5-point Calvinist. He has no part in a movement with a de-emphasis on doctrine.

 

We don't need to know anything about her or her calling to make a judgement, not against her but the position in which a woman is trying to fill.

There are many other avenues to reach people. There are women's ministries, that if she feels lead by the spirit to teach the word of God she can do that.

I am sorry, but I disagree

 

Um, you dodged the question. What is your definition of a "liberal?"

No they're not. A seminary is a place where you pursue graduate work. A college accepts students for undergraduate work.

Because you were talking about bloggers... He is among the most prominent of the bloggers that you were apparently calling "libs."

 

That's obviously true. That's why I'm confused by the accusations that the SBC bloggers were both liberals and emergent church proponents.

 

You better believe it. However, the liberals often hide behind the misnomer "moderate". Their definition of "moderate" would be Bill Clinton, who plans to be at the "Carter-Clinton Confab" next year, in which they'll lay out their radical agenda for Baptists in the South.

 

I was not talking about bloggers. I said liberals. A liberal is anyone with a diminished view of scripture and justifies ungodly behavior. However, it appears in these days the libs have taken up Calvinismn And then they justify women Pastors and serving alcohol at church functions. they are more concerned with liberty than holiness. They want to know just how little they need to do to pleae God and call that liberty. God calls it idolotry. But all of that may be for another thread.

 

You're correct. But sometimes it's hard to tell which way the wind is blowing with Wade Burleson.

According to my sources, Burleson SUPPORTED Frank Page in his first bid for SBC President.

I find it interesting that a staunch 5-pointer would support Page, who has written a book critical of the TULIP.

 

Thank you for the clarification. This is a different set of standards than the historical meaning of "liberal."