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

There's nothing in the Baptist Distinctives that prevents women from being ordained, and my understanding is that any policies set by governing authorities such as the SBC (of which I am one) are not binding to congregations as mandatory (as per the Distinctive of Local Autonomy).

Hence, if a woman was ordained in, say, the Presbyterian tradition, and was invited to paster an SBC church by its congregation, there's nothing preventing the SBC from recognizing her authority as pastor.

It's just a matter of time before this happens, and when it does, we as a people of God will be better off for it.

 

Johnv---your statement here is exactly the reason that I and the church I pastor just recently adopted the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as our basic core of doctrinal beliefs. The writings will send a future "Pulpit Committee" selected by the church a message---"This is who we're looking for in a pastor! Tell him this is what we believe! This identifies us as true blue Southern Baptists!"

And part of that document(the BF&M 2000) raises the SBC standard of pastoral responsiblity to the male gender only!

Brother David

 

Well said, Terry!

Diane

 

I wonder why those like John will not address the plane teaching of Scripture concerning a pastor being the "husband of one wife?" I guess what the Bible says is secondary to what they feel is right in their hearts. What a shame.

 

Hello.
Regarding Bishop, Overseer, Pastor...
I have not studied these words.

But what I would like to say to all the above...
Is that one must look at past Christian history to see what has happened, and why so many people are confused today.
The plain truth is that many churches and denominations have arisen out of arguments, splits, unreconciliation, and many such things.
Therefore, what ever the argument was over, the doctrine or issue, another church rose up and emphasized the point. Not realizing in doing so, other doctrines and issues were downplayed.
What also, as for myself included, I did not realize for years that I was a victim also of a doctrinal issue. I felt the rage, hostility, and anger coming toward me in a church because I asked some polite questions. I was troubled for a long time.
But now that I know (from God), I have peace.

When one looks at Scripture it is easy to see where a lot of doctrines began or developed from.
Whole houses were baptized in the book of Acts; hence, infant baptism. Yet, baptism is dying and rising into a new creature. Amish, for example, make vows when they get baptized.
It seems that every church is doing it a little differently.
Or how about the Trinity issue, I have definitely seen the extremes and radical views that are out there about it.
What about endtimes? Why everyone is supporting their views with Scripture.
Yet, many churches have started over these matters with great arguments and hostility.
Martin Luther may have been in God's plan all along, but it is documented and most Christians agree that if it was Martin's way, today we would not have Hebrews and Revelations.
Plainly, there is a lot of things that we have no idea why or what they were for in the Bible because of all these things.

For example, where it talks about women being silent, in the other verse it talks about Eve.
Most people never consider because of the church we are in and it is never discussed...is that we are no longer living as Christians with Eve and Adam who said no to God, but we are living with Mary and Jesus, who said Yes to God.
Do you see that picture? But most people don't give any credit whatsoever to Mary because that is a Catholic thing. Do you see my point? It is not about Catholic things, but Mary is dropped from our Scripture because we perceive it as non-essential Catholic stuff and have directly opposed any talk of Mary. But Mary is important in Scripture for she is a picture of the Woman in Genesis 3:15. And why do you think that Jesus called Mary Woman? If he did not how would we have known that this was her in Genesis 3:15.
My point is that don't you think it is odd that out of the blue, Eve is mentioned like that?
Do we identify with Eve? I say no, as Christians we are saying yes to God, yes?
I certainly do not know how to say this concisely and am doing a terrible job, I know.

In the case with leadership in the church, we must not forget that if the view that the top leaders of the church were to act as Apostles and like the miracle of the Feeding of the Thousands, and Jesus handed the food to the disciples, and the disciples gave out the food to the people...I can definitely see how this related to communion and such things.
But we must also remember that Jesus sent the Samaritan woman as a prophet to her non-husband/town.
And we all know that a prophet is a messenger, yes?
Furthermore, in the church beginnings, there was strong persecution, and, therefore, believers met in homes. Structure and hierachy was something we really have no comprehension of because of the 37,000 plus denominations that have arisen since then.

And above all, when Jesus said that those who wanted to be at the top had to be the servant of all.
Today also the pulpit or the platform can be quite the opposite of what Jesus intended...
for in some churches one can really see the folly of "one" person running the show, while everyone in the congregation are no longer participants but an audience, expecting him/her to dance and do gymnastics for "entertainment" or "to get excited" or various other expectations.
Was it God's intention to have one person leading the flock in a church? I sometimes wonder about that. What about all the other positions that are mentioned in Eph 4.
And what pastor in the world can do all that is expected of him today? I mean people fry him/her.
This does not look like it is suppose to be that way.

I don't think fighting over Bible words will ever resolve anything. Only God reveals truth anyway.

As for me, the Lord is giving me awesome peace about all this. Because now I know that many Christians today are victims of unlove of the past. Therefore, we can make a change. We can choose to love instead of getting hostile when someone does not understand or when someone does not agree or if someone sees Scripture differently. Instead, people should always be encouraged to go to God, rely on God to show them Truth. What are people so afraid of?

 

You are right about God revealing truth, Elk! BUT the truth He reveals, He reveals as Scripture, what we call the Holy Bible. His truth is revealed to us as the inspired, infallable, inerrant word of God!

Brother David

 

The Word of God Never contradicts itself. It is the truth. Junia(a contracted form of "Junianus"; in this case, it is a man's name). Research done. If it was a women then it would violate the other teachings of Paul and the Word of God.

The whole theme of this discussion is Charles Stanley. Stanley is wrong and is promoting heresy.

 

Dear Brother David,
Oh, yes! And Amen!
My point, perhaps not so clearly expressed, is that one must take all of the Bible and not just pick out various verses that support their doctrine. One must take the whole Bible.

A gentleman, a few years ago, elsewhere online, held a money bet and was open to all who would venture, for someone to find one verse that would support the view that faith alone is what saves us.
Most people applauded him, but I told him he was going to lose the bet even so (for I believe only Jesus saves... and what we "do" shows how much we believe).

But I also told him that it would be better to take the whole Bible and not choose to zero in on one verse, for what does that do anyway?
It is wrong to do that for one can make it into anything, yes? Can there be any resolve in that view?
We must take the whole Bible, every verse.
This is where we see if our interpretation of Scripture is correct or not. If it is not, it is our fault, not God's. If something does not seem right, it is us who are wrong, not God.
God's Word is perfect.
Atlas, some of the English interpretations may not be, but I believe that the Holy Spirit can still use them mightily.

We should really pray for those who interpret the Greek into other languages, yes?
I remember hearing years ago about Bible translators who translated a Bible for natives on an island. In the Bible there was that word "snow", and there was no point of reference for them to understand that word since they never had snow on their island, so they used some other item that was very white, was it a flower? I cannot remember what they used in place of snow.

Oh, and how funny, in KJV there is mention of Dragons (in various places of Scripture), and recently I heard on a Creation telecast that even as recently as in the 1800's in England there were sightings of huge birds they called Dragons (that glowed like fire), with 51 foot wing spans. They saw them migrating over England prior to extreme weather conditions.
And then they also said that even today people in Papa New Guinea are harrassed by 10 foot wing span birds, that are also another form of teradactials (forgive the spelling), who prey on funeral processions trying to get at a dead one.

But people have changed that word Dragon, yes? in new Bibles. Interesting, yes?

How sad that people don't believe the Word (and have to modernize it) just because people do not see evidence today.

 

No, the theme is about what Stanley is saying about the role and ministry of women, and in that regard the interpretation of Tauf and others is correct and the SBC Faith and Message 2000 is unfortunately wrong:-

1. I Tim 2 is dealing with the gnostic Eve cult at Ephesus-authentein , translated 'authority'in I Tim 2:12 has sexual connotations and has been found in secular Greek literature of the time to describe the techniques prostitutes used to seduce their clients. Nowhere else in the NT is authentein used; the usual word for 'authority', occurring countless times in the NT, exousia , is not used in I Tim 2. So, the question is, what kind of authority is Paul talking about here? Quite clearly he cannot mean the sort of authority a pastor wields - I don't know about your church but at ours the pastor certainly does not indulge in sexual seduction! So what does Paul/ the Holy Spirit mean here?

2. Junias is quite clarly feminine in the Greek and is not 'short for' anything; if it was, God surely would have said so! The Orthodox Church, in reliance of very early traditions of the church far closer to when these words were written than our somewhat poorer 2000-year old view, regards Junia as a female bishop. The fact that they don't have female bishops in their ecclesiology makes this all the more telling.

3. If women are not to preach and they are to remain silent, why do Philip's daughters prophesy in Acts 21:9? And why does Paul exhort women to cover their heads when they prophesy in I Cor 11?

I witnessed the kind of poor scholarship that leads to the erroneous prohibition of women preachers when I was in the charismatic movement and it lead to similar false teachings. I am very glad that I am now in a Baptist church which practises sound exegesis.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Here's links to the previous discussions on Junia. If you need to enter archives, each password is the 'year' of that archive; i.e. 2002, 2001, etc.

More Current Topics including Junia:

Was Junia a male or female?
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001744

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=003073


From the 2003 Archives:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000705;p=2


From the 2002 Archives:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000061

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=002661;p=2


From the 2001 Archives:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=57;t=000476

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=57;t=000864;p=3

 

Matt Black said:

Point 2. It is quite clear that Junia was a man.

Point 3. Prophecing has nothing to do with preaching or usurping authority over the man. This is quite clear.

Point 4. Poor scholarship comes from poor doctrine. See other post.

 

Point 2 - on what basis do you assert this?

Point 3 - what word in the NT do you translate 'preach'?

Point 4 (there wasn't a point 4 but never mind) - poor exegesis produces poor doctrine

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Most commentators believe they were men and that would also agree with the language and the customs as well as paul's teachings.

Matthew henry says:
Concerning Andronicus and Junia, v. 7. Some take them for a man and his wife, and the original will well enough bear it; and, considering the name of the latter, this is more probable than that they should be two men, as others think, and brethren. Observe, (1.) They were Paul’s cousins, akin to him; so was Herodion, v. 11. Religion does not take away, but rectifies, sanctifies, and improves, our respect to our kindred, engaging us to lay out ourselves most for their good, and to rejoice in them the more, when we find them related to Christ by faith. (2.) They were his fellow-prisoners. Partnership in suffering sometimes does much towards the union of souls and the knitting of affections. We do not find in the story of the Acts any imprisonment of Paul before the writing of this epistle, but that at Philippi, Acts 16:23. But Paul was in prisons more frequent (2 Co. 11:23), in some of which, it seems, he met with his friends Andronicus and Junia, yoke-fellows, as in other things, so in suffering for Christ and bearing his yoke. (3.) They were of note among the apostles, not so much perhaps because they were persons of estate and quality in the world as because they were eminent for knowledge, and gifts, and graces, which made them famous among the apostles, who were competent judges of those things, and were endued with a spirit of discerning not only the sincerity, but the eminency, of Christians. (4.) Who also were in Christ before me, that is, were converted to the Christian faith. In time they had the start of Paul, though he was converted the next year after Christ’s ascension. How ready was Paul to acknowledge in others any kind of precedency!

 

Well thank you, Jailminister, for at least quoting a commentator who agrees with me and my view! That's very fair and even-handed of you, and I appreciate it.

 

The only place Junia is found in the Bible is in Romans 16:7.

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (KJV)

What would make anyone think that Junia, male or female, is a preacher. It seems to me that this person simply kinds men to Paul, probably in a spiritual sense. Junia is said to be of note among the apostles. That could mean that they are faithful in what God has called them to do and the apostles, all of which are male, have noted their faithfulness to the Lord.

 

Because the Greek grammar allows, as Chrysostum understood it, that the verse says Andronicus and Junia were noteworthy apostles. It also allows for them to have been people well-regarded by the apostles. The grammar allows either view.

 

Poor research. Modern philology strongly disagrees. The "Junianus" hypothesis presupposes that Latin names were regularly abbreviated in the Greek fashion, which is not the case.

Or perhaps we are not understanding the other passages.

But what if Stanley isn't as far off in this as you say he is?

 

Which book of the Bible did Charles Stanley write? I forgot??

Diane

 

He wrote the one that says that Andronicus and Junia were noteworthy apostles.

 

Didn't his version say Julia?