During the November 11, 2009 business session of the Georgia Baptist Convention, messengers to the Southern Baptist state convention dismissed FBC Decatur, Georgia from fellowship for the church's calling of Julie Russell-Pennington as Senior Pastor in 2007. The SBC will not establish a data base to track ministerial child abusers out of fear of "violating local church autonomy," but when it comes to a church calling a woman to preach the gospel, church autonomy is slain at the feet of conventional conformity.The notion that a woman cannot preach the gospel, or teach a man, or perform "pastoral" duties, is not biblical -- not even close. As time passes, more and more Bible-believing, conservative, Christ-honoring evangelicals are beginning to see that any prohibition against a woman ministering in the same manner as a man is a man-made restriction. God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by His Son's blood, has set His women free to function in the kingdom in the same manner He has His men.
As far back as the 1980's, conservative, Bible-believing men and women began voicing their beliefs that the inerrant, inspired Word of God declared full equality of men and women in creation and redemption. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, filled with Southern Baptist leadership, was formed to combat what they called "evangelical feminism." As I pointed out last week, Southern Baptists who wish to suppress women will even alter the sacred text to accomplish this goal. SBC Professor Dr. David Jones' article, posted by CBMW, alleges "scribal error" when Paul named a "female" apostle in Romans 16:7. I wrote that it is sad when inerrantist resort to pointing out error in the text to sustain a theological position. Dr. Bart Barber, an adjunct SBC professor himself and now a trustee at Southwestern Theological Seminary--a seminary at the heart of Southern Baptist attempts to anchor spirtual leadership within the male gender--was not happy with my post critiquing Dr. Jones' article. He commented:
Indeed, is there any published critical edition of the Greek New Testament that sides with Burleson and P46 in adopting "Julia" as the original text?
Suzanne McCarthey answers Dr. Barber's comment quite nicely in a comment of her own..
Let's examine (Dr. Jone's) statement (about Greek texts):
"... Greek minuscule manuscripts, which began having accents in the 9th century, all accent the name as though it were masculine -- without exception. It is interesting that Cervin catalogs so many modern editions of the Greek text, including the modern Greek translation, and shows how most support the feminine reading, and yet fails to mention the accentuation found in the older Greek minuscules dating from the ninth and tenth centuries, which support unanimously the masculine reading.55 The latter are certainly closer to the source and thus constitute more weighty evidence than modern editions. The fact that all of the manuscripts accented it the same no matter what part of the world they were found in suggests that the gender issue had been settled some time before. Thus, Tucker's tongue-in-cheek statement about the gender of Iounian being held unanimously as feminine up until her "sex change" around the 14th century is thus made at the expense of this evidence, which suggests otherwise."
It appears from this statement that David Jones article predates the UBS 1998 text of the Greek New Testament. In this text it is finally made clear that there is NO Greek minuscule which accents the name as masculine. Not even one, ever!
I don't fault Jones for not knowing this, depending on the date of his article. I am severely disgusted at his mockery of Brooten, Tucker, Grenz, Cervin, etc. when it now turns out that they are 100% accurate and he is 100 % wrong, due to the fact that UBS had previously published that there were manuscripts which accented the word as masculine, when there were not.
I think that the CBMW would do David Jones a kindness by removing such an outdated article from the internet.
The issue of women in ministry should NOT divide conservative evangelicals from cooperating in world-wide mission efforts, particularly when one side of the debate is having to alter the sacred text in order to sustain its position. When Dr. Barber, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Mohler, and other Southern Baptists, including messengers from the Georgia Baptist Convention, "disfellowship" and "severe relationship" with autonomous local churches who are following what they believe the Bible to teach, then they have placed others of us who wish to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in a very, very precarious position.
As I wrote two years ago:
If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to ‘question’ that Southern Baptist’s conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called ‘liberal’ when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it — in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call ‘a liberal’ someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!The Georgia Baptist Convention last week sent money back to First Baptist Church, Decatur--money that FBC Decatur had given them through the Cooperative Program mission efforts the preceding year. The GBC said to FBC, Decatur-- "Keep your money. We don't want it, nor do we wish you to be identified with us."
Well, I've got news for the SBC. If we have come to the time when a conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptist church cannot follow what she believes the Bible teaches, and is forced to either conform to Convention mandates or else be removed from fellowship, then the SBC has stopped being a legitimate, historical Baptist convention of cooperating believers and churches and we have become a cult.
I, and the church to which I belong, want no part of a cult. 100 years from now, if the Lord tarries, and another generation of Southern Baptists are allowed to arise, it is my prayer that they will see there were some Southern Baptists in 2009 who refused to stick their head in the sand when the Bible stopped being the standard of faith for Southern Baptists.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
397 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 397 of 397Brother KMC, I consider you a friend and love our occasional conversations.
However, independence is the cornerstone of Baptist life and indeed all protestants.
My ancestors include the preacher on the Mayflower and also one of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Both these founding preachers gave their lives to building the foundation of independence in religion and rejected ALL forms of religious big shots. No "top down" bosses. The local church was always "THE CENTER OF POWER" in the SBC before the extreemeist took over.
fearing only God, following only God.
Rex,
You said: Thanks for contradicting yourself.
Maybe I should have used the word "atonement" differently, or maybe you could have read the sentence more understandingly, but the point is, in light of all else that we have said, that the Doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is about direct access to the Father through the Son. It is because of this that our sins may be atoned for through forgiveness, because of what our High Priest has done. Anyway, we are jumbling several things together here and so the confusion is as it has always been: This beast called the Priesthood of all believers.
Finally, submission is another wild and hairy beast. If you and I sat down for a meal and discussed submission, I am quite certain we would be closer than you think. Let me give you an quick example. I have a growing accountability group of pastors, friends, parent, professors, etc. I trust that the Lord speaks to me through them at times. While I do not blindly follow all the advise I receive, I do accept it humbly, knowing that I must fear and tremble at the majesty of the will of Almighty God. It is usually not hard for me to capitulate to what others suggest, but at times I do not want to submit, my stubbornness is toward God and not them. We submit to those whom God has placed before us to more clearly see His image and His will. Submission is always voluntary.
My definition of sin is “Seeking Independence Naturally.” Yet we were made to be in relationship, male and female, to complement one another and to complete the image of God in mankind. Sin destroyed this. Only the cross reconnects it.
Karl Barth wrote in “Church Dogmatics”: “Whether in love or marriage or outside this bond, every woman and every man should realize that he is committed to live consciously and willingly in this interrelationship, not regarding his own being abstractly as his own but as being in fellowship and shaping it accordingly.”
K
Darby,
Please don't run away with the concept. You know, and I know, that the word for Phoebe the deacon, and the word for any other deacon, male or female, in Greek, was the same word. There is never any indication in the NT of two separate male and female kinds of deacon, or kinds of prophet, or apostle, or teacher or any other spiritual gift.
You know this. Please don't go off on a tangent.
Its true that I did not think through your argument from 1 Tim. 3 properly the first time. I admit that.
But please don't imply that the word "deacon" and the "deacon" are somehow "sugar" and "spice." There is no separate description of personal characteristics for men and women in the scripture.
In fact, many words in Greek are of "common gender."
Can someone help me out. Why is Karl Barth so important on female roles. Has anyone read his personal letters? His situation was not respectable, IMO.
Suzanne,
I agree with you. I'm happy calling Phoebe a deacon, and it has nothing to do with trying to put her a step below Philip. We at our church are trying to deal properly with texts, Suzanne, which is why we believe in female deacons in the first place, in spite of not being normal in our convention.
It just gets old having your motives questioned, and I'm sure you feel the same way-probably more often then me. Thank you for the gentle response. It's quite feminine of you. :) I could learn from that.
DT,
I admit I have struggled for sometime with local church autonomy. I confess I see many of our SBC congregation as groups of "dumb blind sheep"--many with no shepherds-- family owned and operated, and as Dr. McCoy said at the MBC-AM this year: Deacon-possessed. :)
I am a Southern Baptist and so do not have the liberty to personally experience other ecclesiastical governmental structures but I admit I "see" better ones out there. I see more biblical ones out there. May the Lord bless all those who are and have fought against the oppression of the Crown, and other spirits of antichrist. I would fight for all these freedoms for the Church Universal, but I do not have to--Christ already did and he was the Victor! The Church local is a physical, organic expression of the former which is wrought by sin and so must be restrained.
Please cast thy stones with grace. :)
Your friend and brother,
Kevin
Darby,
I wasn't aware of questioning your motives or attitude. But if I did I apologize.
The people that really concern me are those who should know what they are doing. Here is what worries me.
There is not even one occurrence of authenteo, the verb in 1 Tim. 2:12 meaning to have authority or lead in a positive way within several centuries of the NT. All the occurrences at that time indicate a negative meaning, that it is something that no church leader should ever do.
In spite of this, Don Carson recently stated that it had a positive use. I believe that the ESV Study Bible also contains this information without providing the examples. There aren't any, and those responsible know this. If you check no examples are given.
These are the people whose motives need to be questioned!
I cannot see that there are any scriptures which forbid female leadership. The most important reason that there should be female leadership is because men and womne are different. There should be equal female influence and participation, although, by equal I don't mean it in a rigid way. Perhaps only some women really sense the gift for full time leadership and perhaps not as many as men. Perhaps women tend to go into full time leadership when they are older. I don't know. But I do know that female leadership, full and equally authoritative female leadership is essential to the well being of women.
I think Jesus appointed the first 12 apostles to be male for one reason: He intended to send them as witnesses into the world, and he knew that the testimony of women was not commonly believed in the world. In fact, when the women who received the news of the Resurrection came to tell the male disciples, they were not believed.
But you know what? Jesus could have chosen not to give the news to the women. He could have waited for the male disciples to show up and see the tomb. He didn't. Why?
The message seems clear to me. It's as if He were saying, "The world will not believe the witness of these female disciples of Mine. But you are to be different. You have seen that their testimony is true. Now accept them as having equal power to testify of Me."
That's why Junia could be an apostle, later-- because of what Jesus showed the apostles when He sent the women to testify to them.
Wade, I haven't posted on your blog in quite a while. I just want to reiterate how blessed we have been to have Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell as our senior pastor these last three years. New Bible study groups have been formed, more mission teams are active, and we've had more baptisms more frequently than I can ever remember. If the LORD really disapproves of women senior pastors as many on this blog like to argue, one could ask, why is He blessing our church so much through Julie's leadership and ministry?
I'd also like to point out that through the years and even up to the present, our church's membership has included many retired IMB missionaries, NAMB employees, SBC seminary professors, and the extended families of five or six IMB missionary personnel. We have been generous to the SBC Cooperative program and frequent hosts of IMB missionaries on furlough, even in this past year. Our church has always been relatively conservative in many ways, although having many highly educated and accomplished women in our church, we have had women deacons for many years, including deacon's council chairwomen, and they have been admired and appreciated for their leadership, service, and wisdom.
The thing that I have enjoyed about FBC Decatur through the years is that more liberal and more conservative folk in our church have always gotten along. We have never gotten bogged down in disputes over politcal topics or tertiary doctrines such as the issue of women in ministry. It has been, and continues to be really wonderful that our liberal members and our conservative ones, our Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and whatever, have good fellowship together (sometimes debating our differences; sometimes laughing about them) and still get together for worship every Sunday, still get together to build a Habitat house, still go on mission trips together, and still eat the Bread and drink the Cup together. I think that some of the people here blogging really don't have much of a sense of what our church community is really like, what our identity has been, and what a blessing it is to live in a church in which one faction is not constantly at war or making war on persons with whom they disagree.
Kristen,
I like the way you explained why women have equal power to testify of Jesus.
It fits in with Jesus telling Martha; “You are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen what is best, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41)
Yes, Kevin, even before the curtain was torn from top to bottom, Jesus revealed that Mary had “Individual’ Priesthood. She had a right to CHOOSE not to rattle those pots and pans in the kitchen as the Georgia Baptist Convention would have her do.
She did not have to submit to the usual role of women in that day; nor would she today.
I believe Julie Russell-Pennington has chosen what is best and cult thinking is trying to take it away from her.
Kevin,
You said, “Maybe I should have used the word “atonement’ differently, or maybe you could have read the sentence more understandingly…”
Squirm – squirm –wiggle- wiggle.
No, the main word that contradicted Christians NOT being their own ‘High Priest’ was “revelation”.
‘Revelation’ means God is telling us directly without leaders/authorities telling us and us submitting to their doctrine/commands.
I’m not saying that we don’t learn from education/teachers/books/etc. The Holy Spirit has many ways to teach us.
Priesthood of believerS is majority rules, while Priesthood of the believer is you and God.
Jesus said the truth will set you free, but Al Mohler said:
“Conservatives believe in the priesthood of the believers but not the priesthood of the believer, because it leaves too much freedom for the individual…conservatives are the party of truth while the moderates are the party of freedom.”
I’ll say truth without freedom is not truth, and I’ll rest my case on that.
My goodness--you guys go late into the night. I have to hit the sack by 9:00 because our alarm goes off at 4:30!
I appreciate the intelligence of the discourse. It has become much more to my liking!
Rex Ray has proven himself to be a Conservative Republican because when the rational argument gets tough and they have nothing logical to add--they start calling you names and insulting your white hat!!! BUT, I forgive ya, buddy!
I hope everyone paid close attention to Liam as a current member of Decatur FBC. It gladdens me to know the church continues in its traditions of the 1960's when I was a member and was ordained. As President of the Emory BSU when Altizer did his "God Is Dead" stuff, it was through the Methodist Chaplain at Emory and our College SS Discussion Group, that we came to understand what he was really trying to say--AND it really was not as wild as you think!
Now to some issues:
Rex Ray tries to throw cold water on my statement that Jesus likely heard about the Woman at the Well as he traveled the roads and talked with men who knew her.
Rex wants to take common sense out of the discussion and substitute his miracle assumptions over any practical explaination. To realize Jesus probably found out what he knew from the male gossip circle in no way lessens the miracle. It just lets us know we can be like Christ by listening to gossip and going to help the one being hurt by it!
There are 2 important things being discussed:
(1) The "right" of the GA Convention to kick out Decatur.
(2) The place of women in church history and biblical days.
This "right" of a Convention to kick out participating churches is a new element of Baptist life totally against the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Until the last 20 years it was never heard of, but it rules the day right now.
I have had extensive discussions with the NCBSC leaders about how you CANNOT HAVE a statement on Autonomy alongside any credentials not good enough to let you participate. Ours is called the Financial Policy. It is totally inconsistent and would have never been allowed 20 years ago.
Why?
Our national and state bodies were simply a central receiving point for Cooperative Program giving. The right of a church to attend and vote was based SOLELY on that church's willingness to contribute and send messengers according to a formula of membership size and amount given. It was all a "local church up" relationship and not from "the Convention down."
The Founding Fathers and all the documents through most of my lifetime deplored ANY control of the local church. Autonomy was clearly stated in Constitutions and By-laws, meaning that any convention action was not binding on the local church. We could resolute all we wanted, but no church had to do what was resolved unless the congregation voted to do so. Many churches scoffed at stupidity and went on giving without prejudice.
Because of this giving there was adequate funding of missions and Convention / Agency Staff. Now CR clearly knows funds are short and the leaders are constantly trying to degrade CBF so the average church member thinks they are evil "liberal gay supporlters," to put it in a nutshell.
Well, that nutshell is cracking as people see more of the current dictates. In NC the WOM (WMU)have separated over control issues. All of our Institutions and Agencies have done the same--over control issues.
Us traditional Baptists who really know how important Autonomy and trust are to the operation spotted it long ago. The average church member was seldom informed because the Preacher didn't want trouble in his church. Many members, like my mother, still believe the SBC has not really changed and all my words to that effect have been ignored--until they started stomping on WOM. Now momma is beginning to see the light because she knows how important women and missions are to Baptists.
Stupidly, the CR crowd has climbed that monkey tree to where even she is seeing the tails of the monkey!
What the mind can deny and dismiss, the eye after seeing enough, begins to get that mind to reality: "The higher the monkey climbs the tree---the more you SEE his tail!"
The religious smoke of Inerrency is about blown away from the back room plotting!!!
Now, to the 2nd issue of the woman's place in religion.
Years ago my great grandmother, in her 90's (she lived to almost 101) asked my preacher father, "Claude, why are women not respected more in the Bible?"
She was a wise woman so my father asked her if she really wanted the truth. "That's why I asked you," she said, "because I know you are educated and honest and I want the truth!"
"Well, Mrs. Williams," daddy said, "In the times of the Bible men viewed women as a possession. They were alongside donkeys, gold, homes, etc. and--to be honest--most men thought no more of their wife, and sometimes less than a good donkey and gold."
Great grandmother looked him in the eye and said, "I'm glad I didn't know earlier or I wouldn't have believed the Bible on that one. I wish you had lied to me!"
Some in this blog would make good Jews rather than NT followers of Christ! Jesus valued women alongside men. He made no favorites among his disciples (John claims he was a favorite, but I doubt it). In a day when men were forbidden to speak publically with a woman, Jesus was sitting at a public well and talking with an "evil and sinful" known harlot about the "living water" she might have by faith in him.
If Jesus were so bold to honor women, why can't we, who claim to be his followers, do the same?
As I said before, even God chose a woman to participate in bringing his only begotten son into this world. Are you going to go against God in this as well????
The stuff about Eve leading Adam into sin and, therefore, women are lesser and evil creatures is just a cover by the man who willingly ate of the forbidden fruit by her side. Eve didn't make him do it, he willingly joined in!
Men are masters of trying to be on top when God created woman out of his rib to walk beside him. There is no real difference between us except the XX chromosome for women and XY for men.
Any Preacher who is stupid enough to tell the WOM what to do and not do is asking for a quick one way ticket out the door. Even if they cower before him, they are criticizing behind his back and his time is still limited. When women talk with their husbands who "supposedly" rule, they have a magic way of making him say the last word: "YES DEAR!"
I have been married 41 wonderful years, but that was my first lesson in getting along. Certain things are "yes dear" issues. That submissive little bride becomes a mother and grandmother who directs children more than fathers. Believe me, if the husband is stupid enough to tray the iron fist, every woman has a soft body which can deny him access. THEN he can't help but say, "YES DEAR!"
Capiche??????
Liam, How do you know God is blessing? Please Please Please Please Please do not take this wrong. The religion of Isalm could use the same argument that you are using. Please Please Please do not think I am saying that your church is Isalmic. I am making an illustration. BTW, I would apply this to KJVO churches who say we are growing because we have the right Bible.
Suzanne, Does the word servant ever refer to an non-deacon office in the N.T? Check it out,
Jeff
Gene, You are wrong. I value the role of women in my church very much. Plesae quit making general statements. Be as liberal in your love as you are in your theology. :)
BTW, I think you just supported Darby's argument about Jesus appointing women apostles.
Gene, You are wrong about when churches started getting excluded from conventions. You need to read and research more on baptist history. Read some stuff around the time of the civil war.
Jeff
I am thankful for Gene S. He reminds me to be thankful for the CR. :)
Amen.
Debbie K, No one has attacked Wade or Emmanuel.
If the LORD really disapproves of women senior pastors as many on this blog like to argue, one could ask, why is He blessing our church so much through Julie's leadership and ministry?
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Does that prove that Jesus is blessing Islam and it is a true path to God??
The LDS Church is one of the largest churches in the world. Does that prove that God has blessed that church??
Success=/=God's blessing or approval.
Jeff:
You said to Jeff"Jeff, it's no use. Debbie's just so happy to have found a church where it doesn't matter what you believe that she can't contain herself. She just reacts emotionally rather than being able to think critically about any issues."
Joe you really need to back off of Debbie. It really makes you look BAD.
Joe, I appreciate many of your comments, but my point to Debbie was not your point. I listen to Wade on a regular basis and am convinced that he has been called to be a pastor. His sermons have challenged me. I think you are wrong about Emmanuel. They do have standards at least there pastor does. He is wrong about women pastors, but He does preach the Gospel.
I also want to affirm the right of FBCD to have a woman pastor, but as I have written earlier I also affirm the right of baptist churches to set standards of cooperation.
Having a heart attack: I agree with Tom Parker. :)
Jeff--
I was not talking of ancient history at the beginning with the Civil War era. That was over the issue of slavery and us southerners wanted keep ours. My grandmother believed Negros did not have souls to justify southern white superiority.
That position was about as reality-altered as this current "put women down" stuff. It just does not make sense to me.
Joe--
I bet you can't wait to get up so you can try and slander me again!
The fact I haven't used blunt keon "tree talk" with you proves I can be more loving than you realize. If your current position makes you happy--and gives you the "joy of salvation" and a "peace that passes understanding," then rave on.
You don't really sound like a happy person to me, but I enjoy debating with you!
If CR is so great, then why is the SBC such a mess these days: 3 agency heads resigning / the winners now being eaten up by those wanting the positions / giving and attendance declining / so arrogant they won't associate even with the Baptist World Alliance. My isn't CR wonderful!!!
I really don't think you have seen anything yet. The more you guys kick churches out, the less they, and those like them, will support.
Remember, Decatur FBC was one of the big givers!!! It used to be that the only way a man--yeah, always men--became SBC President was if his church proved by giving their Pastor was worthy.
Now, seldom is the nominating speech able to boast about the level of giving of the candidate's church. When Charles Stanley became President, his FBC Atlanta had almost quit giving from the first year a new budget was adopted under his leadership.
Those who want to follow this and other mega-church examples are inviting foxes into the hen house and bank robbers to be bank president!
Not wise--following churches are paying attention--it will get worse! Those who are control freeks will find out too many of us Baptists are descendents of rebels and dissenters. We don't like to be told what to do or we will kick you out of our lives.
No church has to give and, now, being Baptist is a curse for churches wishing to be current with society's needs. Don't be surprised in the near future if "Baptist" is dropped from the Decatur name--why would they want to keep us when we kicked them out.
Another church with great community respect and heritage---GONE!!!!
Gene, The point is that baptists do have standards. They had standards. In the world of pre-cr. there were standards of cooperation.
In fact the very word cooperation not only denotes our differences, but what we hold in common.
You can disagree with the standards, but you cannot IMHO disagree with the right of conventions or associations to have standards.
Jeff
kmc
no stone intended at all.
grace
d
ps, restrained by who? the radical left and the radical right are the same in tactics
Jeff--
I certainly can disagree with any contention of turning the BR&M into a Creed, which it now is. Anything before that was clearly shown to be a "statement" which may or may not be agreed with by the local church.
Read it for yourself, if you doubt me. The new BF&M has not this clearly stated it in words--the leaders who are kicking out Decatur First, by their actions, ARE!
Listen--I am 63 years old. I was preaching to my teddy bears just like my daddy preached at FBC Tryon, NC, next door. My daddy came out of a rural ignorance-blessing little church outside Athens, Ga. He was told by some of the women that going to Mercer would ruin him. He begged to differ and was nicknamed "Socratees" by his classmates because of his wisdom and discernment.
What I discern, I am sharing clearly with you. It's your choice whether to take it of leave it. If it gives you peace to be your way, then blessings on you.
Others besides me will judge whether you make sense of not and whether you operate in a spirit of love. Just remember this, Jesus took a whip to the moneychangers at the Temple "in the spirit of Christ love." A loving parent sometimes has to use the paddle on wayward children.
Frankly, I don't think many of our dictatorial leadership has been told "NO" a day in their life. Without that word they have turned into spoiled children with no respect for any opinion other than their own.
They will now have the privilege of paying for it without Decatur First type churches supporting their temper tantrums!
Gene, One final question and I am moving on.
Who would you vote to exclude if you were part of the SBC today?
Jeff:
You said:"Having a heart attack: I agree with Tom Parker. :)"
Jeff: Say it aint so that you and I agree--wink wink.
Tom, I sincerely regret that my choice of words at times sound more harsh than I intend. This does not take away from my convictions.
Jeff:
My the Lord allow you and I to love each other in Christ as we are both passionate about what we believe the scriptures say about various important issues.
Jeff--
No one!!!
If they want to participate in missions and ministry, they are welcome. The choice is theirs alone!
Clear???
Gene, You would allow a lost person, a pagan, Muslim, LDS, JW? Is that what you are saying when you say no one?
Jeff
Paraphrase of Matthew 23:1-36
The Pattersonites and Presslerites control the SBC so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They make many rules and narrow theologies, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not live personal lives under them.
They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their designer ties bright and their expensive tailored suits sharp, and they love the place of honor at all Pastor’s Conferences. They love being recognized and called “Dr.” by their subservient masses. But you are all the same as Baptists: you have one master, Jesus, and one Father who is God in heaven. Neither be called President or Vice-President, for you have one master, the Christ... But woe to you, dictators to Baptists, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who follow you to go in.
You go on glorious and expensive overseas mission trips to make a single proselyte and then corrupt him. You make all kinds of Resolutions and use Robert’s Rules of Order in any way to get your way. You don’t care what promises you make or public statements as long as you sound politically correct. Your sermons are slick and designed to please men. You neglect the Gospels and the ideas of God’s love and forgiveness, replacing them with legalisms and judgmentalism to make sinful men feel worse.
You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Woe to you dictator pastors! You are like dishes and cups cleaned only on the outside while the inside is full of rotting food and disease. First cleanse the inside and the outside will clean itself. You take statements out of context from Baptist forefathers and act as if they applaud your mindless theology. You say you would love what the forefathers died for, but you take away the freedoms for which they would give their life. They went to jail and endured punishment so we could live in a land of freedom of religion and conscience. You would have been in the mobs which booed them and threw them in prison. You would have shot them rather than listen to their cries for freedom of individual churches and believers.
Many Baptists are saying we have deserted our heritage of freedom in recent years, but you call them “skunks” and “liberals” to anyone who doesn’t know what being free and Baptist means. The hottest fires of Hell wait for those who do not live in love and allow their brothers in the faith to be free. Anyone who claims to serve a God of love, but cannot love his brother who is different or uses different words, is a liar and a hypocrite destined for God’s harshest judgment.
Jeff--
What an overstatement!!
Do you really think any of these would want to join us???
That's not point. Gene what would you do?
"It always shocks me when people use the "Jesus had the utmost respect for women so they should be elders" line. It actually proves the opposite. "
He did not choose a slave, either. So that means slavery must be supported by the Word as what was taught for centuries.
Gene S: Well said Paraphrase of Matthew 23:1-36.
Jeff,
I think the fact that he won't answer is pretty telling. Someone who believed that Jesus and Jesus ALONE was the only way to get to heaven would quickly say "No" if they were asked about cooperating with muslims, mormons, etc.
KMC wrote:
Jesus said the truth will set you free, but Al Mohler said:
"Conservatives believe in the priesthood of the believers but not the priesthood of the believer, because it leaves too much freedom for the individual... conservatives are the party of truth while the moderates are the party of freedom."
Well, that has to be about the saddest commentary I've read in a long time. Not that I care what Al Mohler thinks, but this just further illustrates why the SBC is on a downward spiral. They care more about what Al Mohler says than what Jesus says. Apparently Mohler and the drafters of the BF&M 2K think the sheep are too stupid to study the Bible and come to their own conclusions with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now we need a decree from the Vatican on the Ohio to tell us what we believe.
"It just gets old having your motives questioned, and I'm sure you feel the same way-probably more often then me. Thank you for the gentle response. It's quite feminine of you. :) I could learn from that."
As an aside, I have noticed that many in comp circles describe the fruits of the spirit to be feminine when in actuality they are 'Christian' traits :o)
Interesting is that the Southern Baptist Convention wouldn't be here if it weren't for women. In the convention's early days, there were many times it should have folded, but continued due to the efforts of faithful women.
Jeff / Joe--
You both sound like 2 speculating old women with not 1 clue as to what you speculate---except your own evil thoughts!
You both need something to do or you might be lynching moderates---so-o-o-o speculate on!!!!
"You both sound like 2 speculating old women with not 1 clue as to what you speculate---except your own evil thoughts!"
Golly, Gene. Why insult old women that way? Why not call them what they are -- pugilistic, mysogynistic blowhards? Even many egals (which from your writings you seem to be) seem to think the worst insult they can hurl at someone is to compare him to a woman.
BBC--
I like your take and just checked your blog!
Your words are academic / mine are "tree talk."
Either way, I think "if it climbs like a monkey, eats like a monkey, poops with tail raised like a monkey---it might just be a Conservative Baptist high in the monkey tree!!!
They accuse me of being a "potty mouth"--this to disguise that they seem to be the potty!
Gene, You still haven't answer my question. I still like you and think your funny, but you still have not answer my question. Come on what's it going to hurt!!!!!
New BBC Open Forum,
You said, “That’s about the saddest commentary I’ve read in a long time.”
I knew you were wrong who quoted Al Mohler which influenced me to think you were saying MY comment was sad.
Not till I copy-pasted your comment and started writing did I realize the laugh is on me.
I could blame it on a pain pill I took for a tooth ache I’ve had over a month.
After three trips to a dentist, a Dr. told me today that the pain in my upper jaw was caused by a hole in a lower tooth known as ‘referred pain’.
The reason I’m telling this is because I see ‘referred pain’ in our churches caused by our leaders.
I agree with your comment 100%. The downward spiral of the SBC is sad indeed.
Gene,
I’ve not forgotten and have more cold water coming.
I thought you’d be drowned by now by others on your ‘slant’ of the woman at the well but you’ve said so much good stuff maybe they don’t want to dampen your spirit.
Excellent article! I am continually humbled, Pastor Burleson, by your gracious words and Christ-like worldview.
I haven't read all the comments ~ about the first dozen or so.
When I was growing up, my siblings and I sometimes argued over whose job it was to do certain chores. Whether it was washing dishes, folding clothes, watering the garden, all were sadly neglected while we bickered and debated until our parents would walk in and say, "It doesn't matter whose job it is ~ it just needs to be done!"
I find that the gender role debate is not unlike this.
Those in need are at risk of neglect while the powers that be wrestle with whether or not someone can spread truth, fulfill the GC, and do the work of God, based on their sex.
I think the enemy laughs.
Jeff / Rex Ray--
I don't intend to answer your question. You 2 little Pharasees are baiting and I don't bite. This old bass didn't get to be 63 by being a fool!!
Now, with respect to foolishness: My posts have not gotten much debate except from the "wet hen society."
On the other hand, I am getting lots of acolades for telling it like it is. Not all are on the blog!
Go figure!!!!
You're correct, Rex, and I feel your pain. I was responding to KMC's quote of Al Mohler's. I am assuming that was an accurate quote and did indeed come from Mohler since it had quotation marks around it.
Gene, You have answered it by not answering it. You know that you also believe in exclusion. You know that there must be exclusion. 63 years old!!! Why compare to Tom Parker you are a teenager. :) Have a great weekend.
Jeff--
I thank you for the weekend well wishing. I hold no animosity for you, but do wish you would quit trying to put any words in my mouth.
When I say "figure it out" that is just what I mean! Your words are your words and not mine!
My daddy always said, "If you draw a circle and exclude me, I will just draw a bigger circle and include you!" His real loving answer is mine when I speak for myself via a wise Baptist Preacher father who knew what prejudice and exclusion were all about.
You just can't beat an inclusive love and respect. You have every right to believe what you want and we can be brothers in Christ!
Love ya, man!!!!! Prayers for a good church service Sunday. Try preaching on loving women and their place in Jesus' life--starting with his mother who was required by God to complete the transfer of his transcendence to total immanence. (by the way, that was the nature of Altizer's "God is Dead" stuff)
New BBC Open Forum,
If you check Fri Nov 20, 04:20 AM you’ll see I wrote to KMC. what Mohler said.
I copied Mohler’s quote from a letter to the Baptist Standard June 11, 2001.by I.W. Sparkman – Kopperl, TX
New BBC,
While I believer the Mohler quote sheds some excellent light on the doctrine, it was not I who posted the quote.
K
Oops. I'm sorry, Rex. I didn't see Mohler's quote until KMC repeated it. I guess it was the now-deleted 10:20 a.m. comment since I can't find it tonight. It was Mohler's comment I thought was sad. Your 4:20 a.m. (!) comments were excellent. Perhaps we would both benefit from more sleep.
Darby,
You rock my brother.
"If one argues that he picked how he did due to cultural considerations, just realize you're making the Lord of the Sabbath, who gladly ruined almost every other cultural assumption of his day, cow down to the culture instead of Lord over it."
Bam!!! Bam!!! Bam!!! [am I being 80's??]
"We've (our church elders) come to that conclusion, not because we have an agenda to be 'fair to women' but because we are really trying to be faithful to the text and land wherever it leads us - even if it gets us kicked out of our convention."
Exactly. The "equality" agenda of egals [and I don't think all agendas are bad BTW] reminds me of an "equality" agenda that would reject God's particular love for the elect.
Beloved, "Equality" is not always all that and a bag of chips.
Ask you spouse "may I love you and others equally?" for details.
Benji,
If your wife says you can't love others with the same love you have for her, then you have a problem because the way she is viewing love is based on eros and not agape. If your love for her is agape, then that love can be given to all.
New BBC,
I did NOT repeat the Mohler quote. Geez! Stop misrepresenting me. Nor have I deleted any posts in so long I cannot remember.
K
Chris,
I totally disagree. The distinction is not between Eros and agape.
The distinction is between special versus less than special.
My wife should always be "the apple of my eye", if you will.
The same kind of thing could be said of my children. I might show love towards other children not my own. However, I am not interested in having an "equal" love between my own children and others.
I desire to have a special love for only my children.
In fact, even if [by God's grace] I ever dramatically rescued a child not my own from danger, that does not necessarily mean that I have an equal love between that child and my own children.
I desire that there not be equality there. I desire *inequality*. And the same example could be given concerning a women and my wife.
You guys ever think of how you come across to single women?
You gloat in your middle class, two parent families, where everything is A-okay.
Ever think that half of women my age are single and most women my age are the primary breadwinners for their family - the half that are single and some that are married.
We work, we are handymen, we parent, provide, protect and nurture.
And all we get is restrictions and being told to get back in our place. Ugh.
Want to know how it feels? It truly stinks. That's how it feels on this end.
As I explained in depth somewhere else, I don't want the high fashion, the new TV's (whatever they are called) for the men, and the hairdos for women, - all the trappings of complementarity - what I see anyay - I want to be able to pay for the dentist for my kids, and help them out in their own adult life.
I want equality for the same reason men want to be where they are at. I want to provide for and protect my children.
And all I ever hear is "We men are different. We deserve to be in charge. We want women who are complementary, that is different, opposite to us."
Does that mean that you think that my children should go hungry, no dentist for them, no university, no health care for those kids because THEIR PARENT is a woman?
Just stop talking as if it is disgraceful to be an egalitarian woman. If it is disgraceful for a man to not provide for his family, it is also disgraceful for a woman too.
Anyway, those are my feelings, and I don't like men mocking women like me for wanting equality so we can be a good parents. I don't like men talking about egalitarian women as if we are something dirty and disgraceful. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you should start to think about what it means to be a Christian.
There - I feel better for getting that off my chest. Thank you.
Gene,
You said, “Jeff/Rex Ray—I don’t intend to answer your question.”
The only question I’ve asked you on this post was Fri Nov 20, 12:34 AM:
“Jesus knew her [Woman at the Well] just as he knew Nathanael under the fig tree, or do you have an imagination to explain that also?”
I thought your tale of how Jesus knew the woman was so much out of line I expected another “Gottcha!”
Now that I was wrong, this “Pharisee…wet hen society “ will get serious about the way you’ve insulted our Saviour.
I was also raised by a Baptist preacher who taught us not to laugh or even listen to dirty jokes, language, or stories.
I remember one occasion in particular when I walked away from some men at a senior church league ballgame. The guy doing the talking died at the ballpark saying, “I’m dizzy” and he left this world not knowing he was going.
Do you think Jesus had less morals that what our father taught us?
You said, “Jesus likely heard about the Woman at the Well as he traveled the roads and talked with men who knew her.” “Jesus probably found out what he knew from the male gossip circle…” “She had a reputation for being a ‘hot momma’ and he got word of her as he talked with OTHER wandering salesman who had enjoyed using her for carnal pleasure.” (OTHER implies Jesus was a salesman and I won’t even say the rest.)
You said, “Rex wants to take common sense out of the discussion and substitute his miracle assumptions over any practical explanation.”
OK Gene, I’ll play your game. I’ll play like Jesus couldn’t walk on water or do any miracles, and we’ll just use COMMON SENSE.
1. “He left Judea and went again to Galilee. He had to travel through Samaria…Jesus worn out from his journey, sat down…It was about six in the evening…His disciples had gone into town to buy food. How is it that You a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?...For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.” (John 4:3-9)
2. The bitterness was so strong between Jews and Samaritans that most Jews wouldn’t get close enough to spit on a Samaritan so they would not go through their country but went the long way around.
3. Where did the woman’s lover and four ex-lovers live? Probably in town, but you have at least one of them being a salesman and the “gossip circle” between the well and Judea and TALKING with Jews about a “hot momma” in their town. That MIRICLE might even be greater than walking on water.
4. Since it was in the heat of the day, Jesus was probably alone at the well so who introduced them or told Jesus this is the woman the “gossip circle” told you about. Maybe she had a big sign around her neck “Hot Momma”.
Ok, Gene, here comes the big test. I believe how broad a man’s shoulders are is when he knows he’s wrong – he will admit it, but if he doesn’t, it shows how thick his skull is.
If you want to debate more…I’ll listen.
Suzanne,
I appreciate the honest feelings. However, I don't understand how my comp views contradict your desire to provide for your children.
I don't understand how my disagreement with "equality of submission" in marriage and "equality for both genders in Shepherding a church" has to do with your honorable love for your children.
However, I also understand that not all "comps" agree on everything concerning gender. I certainly don't agree with the teaching that says the husband is the "prophet, priest, and king" of his wife.
That's *absurd*, IMO.
Kevin,
I could have sworn I read that quote in one of your comments late this morning, but when Rex said he quoted it at 4:20 a.m., I was certain I'd seen it farther down the comment stream than that, specifically in one of your comments. Obviously I was wrong, and I apologize. I have no idea why I connected it to you.
Would you say you agree with Mohler's sentiments?
Gene S. wrote:
"Your words are academic / mine are 'tree talk.'"
Does that mean your "bark" is worse than your bite?
"Exactly. The "equality" agenda of egals [and I don't think all agendas are bad BTW] reminds me of an "equality" agenda that would reject God's particular love for the elect.
Beloved, "Equality" is not always all that and a bag of chips."
I felt that these statements made light of the desire for equality. It seems that some people don't understand that some women want equality for all the right reasons.
We have to do all the things that fathers do.
Then we have to listen to someone saying that men get to lead in church because they lead in the home.
No, half of homes are lead by women, both now and in the Bible. So, why are women told to be "different" or "complementary?"
Why is there zero respect for single mothers, and zero posts on CBMW for abused women. Why do books on marriage get published with zero advice for what to do when things go wrong.
Why are women who are not living the cookie cutter life, treated as if we do not exist?
Why is Christianity not for all women?
"Would you say you agree with Mohler's sentiments?"
I agree with Dr. Mohler even when he is wrong. :)
I had actually never heard this quote before nor thought of the difference between the plural and single use "believer(s)".
I have to say I agree with the spirit of the quote as it sheds light on the corporate nature of our salvation. I struggled all summer with the Westminster Confession's statement that there is ordinarily no salvation outside the church. My conclusion is that I agree--ordinarily. :)
Rogue Christianity is antithetical to biblical teaching. We are made to be in fellowship with man as much as God. Only within the church can we experience the full blessings of God.
That is to say that full harmony and unity with God's can only bring about the most abundant of blessings from a God who desires His people to be in fellowship with Him and each other.
k
All right, I sound like a three year old - why, why, why.
Jeff, earlier you posted:
>
Liam, How do you know God is blessing? Please Please Please Please Please do not take this wrong. Please Please Please do not think I am saying that your church is Isalmic. I am making an illustration. BTW, I would apply this to KJVO churches who say we are growing because we have the right Bible.
>
>
I'm really not sure what you mean when you say that "The religion of Isalm could use the same argument that you are using." Did you interpret what I said to mean that I think that God is blessing FBC Decatur because the church is growing? Because that is not all that I said.
What I said was, "New Bible study groups have been formed, more mission teams are active, and we've had more baptisms more frequently than I can ever remember," and "It has been, and continues to be really wonderful that our liberal members and our conservative ones, our Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and whatever, have good fellowship together (sometimes debating our differences; sometimes laughing about them) and still get together for worship every Sunday, still get together to build a Habitat house, still go on mission trips together, and still eat the Bread and drink the Cup together."
Jeff are not these things: devotion to the Word and to prayer, being active in missions ministry, having good fellowship together while avoiding divisions and a partisan spirit, receiving Holy Communion together, and working together to make the name of Christ known in our Decatur community signs of healthy church? And the increase in these Christ-centered and Christ serving activities have taken place under our pastor Julie's leadership.
Are you saying that some power other than the Holy Spirit is directing these Christ-centered activities that I described above and causing our church to grow? And if so, what power would that be? I remember that in the gospels, the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons." In other words, they were saying to Jesus that, yes, his ministry was growing, but not through the power of God but some evil power instead. Jesus replied that that wasn't possible. That Satan wouldn't and couldn't fight against Satan. What would be the point?
In the end, you may need to reconsider this question of whether or not God approves of women pastors. A good case can be made from the Bible itself for women in senior leadership positions, including the role of senior pastor. And the fact that God is indeed blessing our female pastor's ministry is further evidence that God approves of her.
The Wartburg Watch > THE DUMB AND DUMBER RULE BOOK FOR WOMEN.
Why all the ‘rules’? Perhaps women have been relegated to singing nice songs, baking brownies, and teaching the kiddos that they felt they needed to have ‘regulations’ just like women decide good and bad behavior from their kids. Spontaneity is discouraged because, as one prominent pastor’s wife told Dee, ‘You just never know what they are going to say.’ When Dee queried her about the role of the Holy Spirit, she did not respond. Better yet, when Dee asked her if she trusted the Christian women under her, her face turned red and she walked away. This pastor’s wife has recently contributed to a book, along with other well-known pastors’ wives, which instructs Christian women how to be quiet and submissive.
One thing that comes to mind in conversations regarding the SBC and the "Conservative Resurgence/Takeover" (depending on your perspective) is my disbelief that some congregations would still choose to associate with a convention that so obviously does not want them.
As a former Southern Baptist minister, I reached the point at which I could no longer come to terms with the theological orientation of the SBC, as my perspective had drifted over time. When I reached that point, I left the SBC. I am now a member of the United Methodist Church.
As a moderate-to-liberal, I feel so much more comfortable in a denomination that welcomes more diversity of opinion. By this statement I do not intend to denigrate more conservative denominations, but I do question the usefulness of remaining as a moderate or liberal "out of place" in an obviously conservative to fundamental denomination.
In my personal experience, it only led to bitterness and frustration. Now I can be open about my beliefs. Granted, I'm sure I'm incorrect in some of my beliefs, but at least I feel no pressure to "tow the line" on issues when I might believe something different. It is most definitely not healthy to remain in the theological closet.
FBC Decatur is probably better off apart from the SBC. At least now it can focus on doing God's work without being the unloved, unwanted step-child.
Stefan,
Taken in the abstract, your post makes a lot of sense, but the reality of FBC Decatur provides some alternative perspectives. For example, as I stated in my earlier post:
"Through the years and even up to the present, FBC Decatur's membership has included many retired IMB missionaries, NAMB employees, SBC seminary professors, and the extended families of five or six IMB missionary personnel. FBC Decatur has been generous to the SBC Cooperative program and frequent hosts of IMB missionaries on furlough, even in this past year."
In addition to those facts, at present FBC Decatur is home to the parents of one IMB missionary couple and the children and grandchildren of another. And for that reason, the GBC action seems especially mean-spirited, since it did not show any respect for those family ties.
Why would (or should) FBC Decatur leave the GBC/SBC when deep bonds of history, blood, and missions ministry bind it to the SBC? FBC Decatur did not want to leave, and the GBC shouldn't have forced it to.
Everyone who has argued that the GBC had a right to exclude FBC Decatur because it was not a cooperating church should consider all of the ways that FBC Decatur was actively cooperating in SBC-related ministries that I described above. I could ask some of the pastors who have posted on this blog and who approve of the GBC's actions: is your church doing as much?
And does it really make sense to cut ties with this church over one issue (female senior pastor) when the church has supported and was supporting SBC ministries and people in the various ways described above?
Susanne--
Thank you for your eye-opening comment. Sadly, most male cheuvenist pigs don't give a rip.
They live in a conjured "perfect" world where they are always the master.
Sartre had a character, Jean Claude Clamance, who put it perfectly for them:
"I had one great love in my life---of which I was always the object."
Liam and I seem to be the only 2 in this discussion who actually know Decatur FBC.
Best I can tell, this church is not one inch away from it's heritage as a model for what an SBC church should be. His description matches what my experience was in the 60's--a time when too many churches tried to be cool and use society as its model.
The church has been yeast in the dough of life! My father, who was assistant DOM for the Atlanta Association and pioneered Juvenile Rehabilitation for the HMB, considered them essential to the task of new missions as Atlanta grew beyond imagination to now become the largest city in the South.
Along with growth has come all the wacky things of any urban center: racial tension / sexual deviancy / extreme wealth alongside extreme poverty / major educational institutions / medical services which are unbelievable / etc.
As Atlanta grew and times changed, Decatur FBC was right there being leven in its society.
Have no fears about this church's relevence and real ministry. Never in my day to this has there been a denigration of women.
So why would any wise association of Baptist churches want to kick this flagship out of the fleet???
Jealousy
Stupidity
Longing for the "good old days"
Success under female leadership
The bottom line seems to me that this church has not changed, BUT our denomination certainly has--in my mind--for the WORSE!
Our "Contemporary Ancestors" are running the ship of faith these days. Get rid of the flagship with experience and the best compass--you might just have insured what is left of the fleet is headed to that great barrier reef only the Flagship had on its charts!!!
The UMC Flagship is still strong and finding new ways to grow with intelligence. Meanwhile, the Baptist Pirates are dancing and drinking their way straight toward the reef. They already don't have enough money to buy fuel for the next leg of the journey. Their leaders took all the gold from the lockers and spent it on corporate jets!
Susanne--
You have just cited the financial abuse of women which drives many of them to strip clubs as performers.
There, their beauty and intelligence are appreciated. The typical stripper makes at least $200 an hour which is enough to sustain getting an education for better and caring for a home and children which an honorable profession will not do!
Any religious man should realize--if he paid the minimum to women who really make his business flourish, he might as well have held the door for her to enter the world of Adult Entertainment.
Likely, that rich businessman is shelling out $200 per hour to keep her by his side. It's nothing but another fascet of the pimp keeping his ho's poor so he can drive a Cadillac--er, Bently these days.
My heart goes out to you and I am so very sorry. My daughter is in the same boat, but has risen to manager at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Otherwise, she might be stripping while her conscience killed her.
The Woman at the Well was just another degraded woman trying to upt bread in her mouth!
BBC--man, I love your sense of humor.
My "bark" is worse than my bite until I have to call in the crane and lift the monster a piece at the time to the ground!
Some of these male cheauvenists need the crane so I am warning them mentally of their diseased nature and threat to the beautiful souls living in houses below that tree.
If it is a choice of women living safely with their children playing in the yard being safer without the tree, then it goes.
I would much rather prune that old tree and let it have another 100 years of life because right now it has many rot holes and weak limbs!
I hope the imagery is understandable by everyone on this blog!
By the way--have you ever cut down a 20 ton tree and hit a drink can with it?
I have! Neighbors 3 blocks away came out of their houses thinking a small earthquake had come by. Nope--just me and my chainsaw. My small saw can be my surgical tool. My saw with the 4' bar can take down one with a 10'+ girth. Now that's a big tree.
Also, I always put the tree where I want it---on the ground!!!!!
Rex Ray says:
I thought your tale of how Jesus knew the woman was so much out of line I expected another “Gottcha!”
Now(sic) that I was wrong, this “Pharisee…wet hen society “ will get serious about the way you’ve insulted our Saviour.
I was also raised by a Baptist preacher who taught us not to laugh or even listen to dirty jokes, language, or stories.
I remember one occasion in particular when I walked away from some men at a senior church league ballgame. The guy doing the talking died at the ballpark saying, “I’m dizzy” and he left this world not knowing he was going.
My answer:
Rex, you have finally revealed the core of your problem to me---you have no sense of humor.
I think you might just be the living proof of what is said of the Puritans--"they lived in constant fear that someone somewhere might be happy!"
I was raised by a "somewhat" open minded Baptist Preacher father who enforced the rules with a belt. He taught me the Twist before the music was invented!
Where I found out what being "too stuck in the mud" meant was with respect to my high school friends playing football on Sunday afternoon across town. Their invitation to my brother and I went before daddy.
His answer: "NO--you will not play ball on Sunday!!!"
"Why, I asked, "Charles and I can throw the ball all we want in our back yard. I don't see any difference in playing here or going across town with our friends who went to church this morning just like us."
His response: "Because I said so!"
End of "discussion." BUT, in a few weeks he was out of town preaching a revival and momma didn't object to us riding our bikes to the great Clarkston backyard football field where we played tackle without pads or helmets!!! It was good and fun, AND no lightning struck us.
After that, daddy had a change of heart. Do you reckon momma encouraged him to lighten up on his good boys who were not going to hell for playing a little football on Sunday?
Rex Ray: Do you think Jesus had less morals that what our father taught us?
My answer: Jesus had but 2 basic commandments. He did not flush the OT decalogue, just made it simple enough for more people to follow.
My father's "inner Pharisee" was building a fence around the football field for some unconscious reason even he didn't know. It likely had to do with the Puritan Rule above!
Rex Ray says:
("I wish he could find other things to do so late at night!" Gene says)
You said, “Jesus likely heard about the Woman at the Well as he traveled the roads and talked with men who knew her.” “Jesus probably found out what he knew from the male gossip circle…” “She had a reputation for being a ‘hot momma’ and he got word of her as he talked with OTHER wandering salesman who had enjoyed using her for carnal pleasure.” (OTHER implies Jesus was a salesman and I won’t even say the rest.)
You said, “Rex wants to take common sense out of the discussion and substitute his miracle assumptions over any practical explanation.”
OK Gene, I’ll play your game. I’ll play like Jesus couldn’t walk on water or do any miracles, and we’ll just use COMMON SENSE.
1. “He left Judea and went again to Galilee. He had to travel through Samaria…Jesus worn out from his journey, sat down…It was about six in the evening…His disciples had gone into town to buy food. How is it that You a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?...For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.” (John 4:3-9)
2. The bitterness was so strong between Jews and Samaritans that most Jews wouldn’t get close enough to spit on a Samaritan so they would not go through their country but went the long way around.
3. Where did the woman’s lover and four ex-lovers live? Probably in town, but you have at least one of them being a salesman and the “gossip circle” between the well and Judea and TALKING with Jews about a “hot momma” in their town. That MIRICLE might even be greater than walking on water.
4. Since it was in the heat of the day, Jesus was probably alone at the well so who introduced them or told Jesus this is the woman the “gossip circle” told you about. Maybe she had a big sign around her neck “Hot Momma”.
My answer:
Typical Rex Ray tries to add words to my mouth to make me an "unbeliever" which I am not! There seems to be a disconnect between his reading eye and his thinking brain which adds stuff not on the written page. In a way, Rex, you are proving why there are variant readings among old parchments--the Scribe just couldn't help adding his own words because Jesus was not quite clear enough! (or I'll give you the "after 11:00 pm concession")
Let me be clear: I accept EVERYTHING which is in the Canon. The reason I do is faith on many things and a high degree of trust in the Council of Nicea which, by popular vote (good Baptist practice) decided what should be included and what should be left out.
Rex, have you ever read any of the Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrapha or Pseudepigrapha? They are real and had the same standing before canonization put them out. When Paul said, "All scripture is inspired..." he meant all writings in circulation in his day--that included the above!
When it came to my study of Form / Text Criticism, I laughed at the attempt to put all scripture under a microscope and somehow come up with a scientific explaination. It can't be done! Niether can you be so literal there is no room for the Holy Spirit to guide your mind to contemporary applications.
Jesus walking on water--I faith it!
Jesus' healing miracles--I faith it!
Jesus knowing what he did about the Samaritan women, however, has the logical explaination I gave! Just because she had several marriages she had no place in society and had to turn to whatever she could to live and eat.
In Jesus' day she would be like the single mother of 3 today who cannot make enough money from that tight fisted Baptist deacon owner of the business without becoming his mistress.
She has more morals than that so she goes to a Strip Club and entertains men without violating her conscience.
Many days more time is spent talking with the men than disrobing for them. Through those conversations they pay her 3 times the set cost of the naked dance because, believe it or not, some men, with morals, go to help and minister over leering at a beautiful woman without clothes!
They didn't have newspaper ads to draw men to the club, but the men told one another about the lovely lady who is willing to talk with ANY man without the usual hatred between Samaritan and Jew. "She's been married and now lives with a man. She won't go to bed with you, but she sure is lovely to talk to," might have been the "gossip."
By the way--6 in the evening is not mid day--I think we have an error here in your Inerrant text!
A beautiful woman needs no "hot momma" sign around her neck. Her beauty speaks for itself. Wouldn't you rather counsel a lovely lady than a fat old sweating man?
Now, don't lie to me of anyone else reading your answer!
Have I answered your questions clearly or not????
Lighten up and let's go play some Sunday afternoon football--it's fun!
Liam,
Personally I feel that there was no reason to dismiss FBC Decatur from the GBC, even if legal methods were used. Others may disagree. Of course, I don't have personal experience related to FBC Decatur, but from everything I am hearing it sounds like a vibrant church with important ministries.
While the SBC has most definitely undergone many changes over the past few decades, each church must still address the situation "as-is."
The reality is that moderate or liberal (not saying FBC Decatur is liberal; I'm just making a point) Baptist churches simply are not going to have the opportunities in the SBC that another denomination may afford them. Moreover, I cannot see how a church can come to terms with financially supporting a structure that questions the church's positions so much so that individuals who espouse the beliefs of the church may not be allowed to serve in denominational positions in the future.
This may sound a little bit like "Take your ball and go home" politics, but sometimes this method is appropriate. Looking at the future of the SBC, I see the denomination becoming more specific in theological positions, and dissenters will either be marginalized or kicked out of the convention altogether.
Off Topic:
Under Much Grace Blog [Cindy Kunsman] > Indefinite Internet Sabbatical.
Stefan,
I'm glad you posted because as I re-read your post last evening, I saw that you and I weren't really in disagreement. I ended up using your post more as a prompt to say some things that I had wanted to say anyway, and I do apologize for that. As I re-read your post, I can tell that you and I have much in common. When the SBC swung too far to the right for my comfort level, I spent some time in a Methodist church before moving to Decatur and finding the culture of FBC Decatur to be a good place to practice my traditional Baptist faith.
Fortunately, FBC Decatur is not really harmed by the GBC action. I can't recall a time when FBC Decatur recieved any help (financial or otherwise) from the GBC, rather it has been the other way around. So my postings have not really been about FBC Decatur being grieved over its own situation, rather I and like-minded folks, of whom I think you are one, are grieved about how our greater communal life (GBC & SBC) have been troubled and rendered less effective by an excess of partisan spirit and disputes over lesser (I would argue) non-essential doctrines, a rise of unBaptist creedalism, etc. (I know I don't have to enumerate all of that further because with your background, you already understand).
I think your analysis of the direction the SBC & GBC will go in is spot-on. The process of narrowing parameters, enforcing doctrinal "purity"--the narrowing that you and Wade have drawn attention to is likely to continue.
Fortunately, FBC Decatur cooperates well with CBF and Atlanta's McAfee School of Theology of Mercer University, receiving the many benefits of fellowship, resources, and partnership in ministry from positive relationship with those entities and other CBF churches, such as those in the CBF of Georgia network.
Among other missions ministries, in 2010, FBC Decatur is celebrating the 10th anniversary of an "adopted people" ministry to an unreached people group in Thailand and will send its fifth medical mission team to serve there. And FBC Decatur's Missions Development Council has just opened a new food bank to serve needy families in these hard economic times that we are living in. So, the good news is, that the missional heart of FBC Decatur has not skipped a beat because of what has occurred.
Thank you for your post. It's always good to hear from a fellow Baptist who "gets it."
Dear Gene,
In your post, you said:
"Best I can tell, this church is not one inch away from it's heritage as a model for what an SBC church should be. His description matches what my experience was in the 60's--a time when too many churches tried to be cool and use society as its model."
Thank you for that. It's good to hear from a fellow FBC Decaturite.
We share some background. My grandfather was a farmer in Elberton GA and my mom was born in Athens. I don't know much about Bath NC. As a student at Davidson College, I once served as youth pastor at Hopewell Baptist Church near Concord NC.
Once again, thanks for your posts and blessings to you.
Liam--
We might be cousins!!
My daddy came from Madison County outside Athens. My mother is a Picken County, SC, farm girl. My Uncle Allen Scarborough lived in Elberton for some years in the 50's then went down to Hileah, Florida outside Miami.
Nevertheless, we were raised in an era of Baptist cooperation instead of the dictatorship now reining. FBC Decatur always gave without receiving. Atlanta FBC did the same until Charles Stanley started spending it all on TV time when WTBS was just an upstart UHF station. When they hit the satellite at its technological beginning, Charles became famous nationwide. That church now is nothing more than a model mega-church with a king pastor.
Decatur, while close to as big, always was missional. Instead of making "satellite churches" to boost membership numbers or running buses as did Atlanta First, they established many new mission churches which soon pursued their own ministry.
Our strength in the past was diversity and a common cause of missions. In other words, we majored on mission and minored on theological differences.
Since inerrant theology became a theme of the SBC, it has been nothing but a fist fight. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship has picked up the slack and maintained a major in missions and minor in theology. Therefore, it is growing by leaps and bounds while the SBC continues to srink!
Keep the faith, baby!
Folks--a word from the Moravian inspirational daily devotion:
Psalm 132
Daniel 10:8-11:19; Revelation 1:1-8
Wash your heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved. How long shall
your evil schemes lodge within you? Jeremiah 4:14
See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one
another and to all. 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Forgiving God, by our sinful nature, we often hurt others. Our tongues speak
quick, harsh words that ultimately lead us away from you. Help us to see
ourselves and to hear our words in those moments. Make us a reconciliation
people. Amen.
Gene,
Please don't feel sorry for me. I do have a professional job. I also augment my income in other ways less exciting than working in a strip joint.
What bothers me is that some people feel free to insult a woman who goes after equality.
"However, what I cannot understand is why Georgia Baptists have acted quickly on this issue with FBC Decatur, GA and have failed to act on clergy sex abuse, sex offenders and ministers who commit adultery. What does that say when the SBC makes the former issue priority over the latter?"
No kidding! What DOES it say about their priorities? Well, for one, female pastors are more dangerous and repugnant than a child molester. For another thing, female pastors are to be exposed and gotten rid of where child molesters are to be protected and shielded from any criticism (aka "gossip" and "slander")...and by all means lets try and give these poor guys a chance and find them another pulpit or ministry to serve where no one will know about his problem.
Thank you, Corrie :)!
Gene,
You could be right about us being cousins. I have known some Elbert. Co. Scarboroughs, and I think some of them married with either my Mills, Dye, or Madden relatives. My dad (William Sr.) an Elbert Co. farmboy, for many years owned and operated a popular restaurant on the public square in Danielsville (Madison Co.) called "Bills in D'ville" where Kenny Rogers (who also had a horse farm in Madison Co. used to like to come and eat) Later my dad served as chair of Madison Co. govt. for three terms and paved a lot of Madison Co.'s roads. He still lives there, and I enjoy going over to visit him because a lot of Madison Co. is still woods, fields, and farming country. When I joined FBC Decatur, I thought no one there would have heard of Elbert Co., but it turned out that FBC Decatur men had been renting deer hunting land from my Hudson relatives in Elbert Co. for years. Small world indeed. Living in the city now, I miss the good old days of roaming Elbert Co's backroads and wooded areas with my high school buddies the same way I miss the good old days of cooperating Baptists.
I have to say this has been one of the more colorful comment sections in memory. Gene, I've laughed quite a bit at your comments.
Benji, you and I are usually on the same page with our theological views. I have often appreciated your humility toward those who disagree with you regarding the New Covenant, open communion, etc ...
Why the (seeming) arrogance when it comes to your "following the text" regarding women?
I, too, am following the text. My views on women are NOT culturally driven. They are TEXTUALLY driven. Just like our views on those other areas.
The fact that you don't agree with me is ok with me, and I would never quesiton your Christianity, conservative credentials, succombing to "culture" for disagreeing -- just as you don't on all the other issues.
Why the hardnosedness regarding women?
:)
Could you say that it is POSSIBLE that you are the one who might actually be in error REGARDING THE TEXT?
Just asking. I have no problem saying I could be in error as well, though I believe firmly in the sacredness and authority of the original text and believe my views are based on the narrative of the apostles.
Wade,
There are certain things that CANNOT be in error.
Since women bear children they are equally responsible for their children. Since they bear this equal responsibility, they bear equal authority. This is not debatable.
If a woman abdicates the responsibility/authority that she has for her children, she is doing something against her created nature.
There can be no such thing as the notion that men have authority over women.
Consider the woman standing in the intensive care part of the hospital trying to explain that it was the husband who allowed some dangerous thing to happen, and that although she had been present, she did not have authority to intervene.
This is impossible. There is no such thing as differential authority.
There is only the teaching that women should not live according to their right and proper nature, so as to make men feel big about themselves. This is sin.
This is not something that can be given up. Once a woman's eyes are opened to the responsibiltiy she bears her children, she can never say that she is open to having someone prove otherwise. It is impossible.
It is true that for much of history some women have been denied the right to carry out this responsiblity, but that is only the wrongs of history, it does not prove that the responsibiltiy is not innate.
Quivering Daughters said:
Those in need are at risk of neglect while the powers that be wrestle with whether or not someone can spread truth, fulfill the GC, and do the work of God, based on their sex.
I think the enemy laughs.
Here's the other thing about "those in need." Most of them, if they come across a website where Christians are arguing over just how far and to what extent women are to be subordinated and restricted, will wrinkle their noses and surf in the opposite direction. "Why should I want anything to do with a religion like that?" they think.
Paul told the women in his day to be submissive to their husbands "so that the word of God may not be blasphemed." ITitus 2) He didn't want the gospel hindered by Christians living in ways that offended the sensibilities of the time.
But what is it that hinders the gospel and offends people's sensibilities now? Are we focusing on the letter and missing the spirit of what Paul was saying?
Some may find this relevant. Sad, but relevant.
Wade,
Where did I question someone's Christianity or conservative credentials?
Where was I clearly communicating something concerning culture? I suppose culture could be legitimately inferred from what I said, but I don't think that "stands out" from what I said.
But let's assume, for argument's sake, that I did clearly communicate what you said I communicated concerning culture.
You said "Why the (seeming) arrogance when it comes to your 'following the text' regarding women?...My views on women are NOT culturally driven. They are TEXTUALLY driven...The fact that you don't agree with me is ok with me, and I would never quesiton your Christianity, conservative credentials, succombing to 'culture' for disagreeing -- just as you don't on all the other issues. Why the hardnosedness regarding women?"
How is what I said so different than what your father [whom I like] has argued for his position?
He said "When we do find a Grace prescription passage for family male/female relationships, [the Genesis 3:16 verse is descriptive of sin's consequence NOT God's intention as I've said] it will not be one of subordination at all. It will take us back to that partnership of Genesis. Where do we find it? Ephesians 5:21-31. But there culture will raise it's interpretive head too unless we are careful to let the text speak without reading into it our presuppositions culturally." [April 17, 2008 entitled "No Signs of Subordination Seen Originally"]
He also said "It is the understanding of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 against the backdrop I've just given. It is there [because we unfortunately try to make a hierarchical interpretation of those passages fit with God's purpose in creation when it doesn't at all] that major confusion is set up in New Covenant relationships if we're not extremely careful...It is true that redeemed Christians are living in a fallen culture with established 'rulers' authorities' and will until He returns and are to obey [serve] them. But it is inside out. It is a heart issue for us. Were we to operate the Church or family that way, [with rulers or authorities by virtue of position] we would be bringing our fallen culture into the meaning of scripture and not be letting scripture alone be our guide. You can see, I'm sure, that I do not believe the scriptures support a patriarchial approach to the family at all. You have to bring fallen culture in as a foundation for that kind of view...Culture does impact scripture but let's be sure we know how, why, and which one is doing the impacting". [April 19, 2008 "Who's the Boss?"]
God Bless,
Benji
Wade
Please stop commenting even on your own Blog - my Red Raiders just owned your sooners and for that you must be silent for a week!
: )
Hi Darby,
I think everyone knows that there are differences between men and women. Those differences are obvious just looking at men and women. But, beyond that, what other differences are there between men and women? When it comes to understanding spiritual things and applying them we are all on equal playing ground, no? I mean we all have the same measure of the Holy Spirit, right?
Could you outline some of those differences besides physical things that are obvious so that I can understand what differences you are talking about?
Some one already measured character qualities and how some are considered masculine and some are considered feminine. Well, I don't see it that way at all.
Also, the Proverbs 31 woman is described as a woman of "virtue" but when it describes a man the translators chose "valor". Same Hebrew word, though. How is it that men are valorous and women are virtuous when it is the same exact word? Can a female be a woman of valor? Can a man be virtuous?
Are women more emotional? Men more logical? Hasn't been my experience. I have known very emotional men and very logical women and very illogical men and unemotional women. I don't know any one woman or man that fits the stereotype often laid upon males and females by those in the church. I certainly can't identify, as a woman, with how I am supposed to think and feel as a woman according to the male teachers and eve the female ones.
Are we talking personality types? Sometimes I think that people who write books on these differences base it on the men or women that they are married to and think that all men and all women are just like their spouse. :-)
"Paul told the women in his day to be submissive to their husbands "so that the word of God may not be blasphemed." ITitus 2) He didn't want the gospel hindered by Christians living in ways that offended the sensibilities of the time.
But what is it that hinders the gospel and offends people's sensibilities now? Are we focusing on the letter and missing the spirit of what Paul was saying?"
Kristen,
Excellent point.
And why aren't men raising holy hands whenever they pray and why are we greeting each other with a holy kiss?
Gene, Gene, Gene,
It seems we have the same opinion on big issues, but we’re crossways on:
1. Jesus was limited to hearing vulgar talk to know about the woman at the well.
2. Being the Son of God he had knowledge beyond the power of man.
Gene, to know the answer listen to what the woman said:
Using #1; the woman would have said, ‘I see you’ve been hearing stories about me’.
Using #2; the woman did say: “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.”
Did this woman teach you anything, Gene, or are you one of those that don’t practice what they teach?
I wish you’d stop making statements like, “Rex Ray tries to add words to my mouth to make me an ‘unbeliever’ which I am not! There seems to be a disconnect between his reading eye and his thinking brain which adds stuff not on the written page.”
I quoted you quite a bit, but please name one thing I quoted you that was not correct or out of context that would even get close to what you accused me of?
In doing the above you used the old tired worn-out philosophy: if you can’t discredit a man’s words, attack the man.
Like a drowning man grasping at a straw, the only words you ‘corrected’ me on was “By the way—6 in the evening is not mid day… I think we have an error here in your Inerrant text!”
What does the time of day have to do with supporting your ideas? And BTW, the Holman and King James have six in the evening while others have about mid day or noon. And how did it get to be “your Inerrant text!” when I’ve written more than once: “:Inerrancy should go back to where it came from – the smiling lips of the devil.”
In replying to my sarcasm of the woman having a sign around her neck for identification, you said:
“A beautiful woman needs no ‘hot momma’ sign around her neck. Her beauty speaks for itself.”
Wow! Is that what you think about Jesus? Is that why you talk so much about Strip Clubs? How do you know the prices?
You said, “Now, don’t lie to me of anyone else reading your answer?” [huh?]
THERE! I’ve given your words as proof before I steal your quote: “There seems to be a disconnect between his reading eye and his thinking brain which adds stuff not on the written page.”
As to your first question; I have not read the Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigraph. (Spell check hasn’t either.)
As to your last question of “Have I answered your questions clearly or not?”
You don’t want to know; and I think your shoulders are about as broad as a toothpick and I won’t say what a brick refers to. :)
At my age, I’d rather play Sunday afternoon mumble peg.
I do want to clarify that my statement concerning "absurdity" in comment "Sat Nov 21, 01:13:00 AM 2009" was not in reference to something Suzanne said, but to the teaching that says the husband is the "prophet, priest, and king" of his wife.
"Could you outline some of those differences besides physical things that are obvious so that I can understand what differences you are talking about?"
Corrie, YOu ask the questions in your entire comment that have been a particular quest of mine for several years. One reason is because so much ado has been made of "Biblical" manhood and womanhood. As if there is a pink and blue Christianity and pink and blue fruits of the spirit. Which means a pink and blue way to salvation and a pink and blue way of sanctification. (as in roles)
This idea of 'Biblical' manhood and womanhood have entered the idolatry zone. How much of our non biological differences in these areas are a result of the fall? And centuries of teaching that all women are more easily deceived than men?
And the result of the sin of patriarchy starting with the fall and Gen 3 that teaches that women would turn from God and toward their husbands and as a result he would rule over her.
We see that happen right away in Genesis and for centuries to women. So still, many are teaching sanctified sin that benefit them as men. And too many love to hide behind that because a works 'role' is easier than abiding in Christ.
This is teaching the consequences of sin as virtue. And God said that women would turn from Him and toward their husbands.
What better marriages we would have if all women turned to God as their spiritual leader instead of their husbands who are just as depraved sinners as anyone else saved by grace alone.
Just take this very bad translation as an exmaple they use for the legalism of roles with pink and blue Christianity:
14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
The word "manage" the home is the same Greek word where we get 'despot' and means ruler. She is a co ruler of the home in a "one flesh union".
So what are the non biological/non physical differences between men and women? I would love to hear an answer to this.
ABP News > Opinion: Does the SBC respect local-church autonomy or not?.
Benji,
Thanks. I am probably misunderstanding. I apologize. I was reading not the absurdity comment, but the following:
"Bam!!! Bam!!! Bam!!! [am I being 80's??]
"We've (our church elders) come to that conclusion, not because we have an agenda to be 'fair to women' but because we are really trying to be faithful to the text and land wherever it leads us - even if it gets us kicked out of our convention."
Exactly. The "equality" agenda of egals [and I don't think all agendas are bad BTW] reminds me of an "equality" agenda that would reject God's particular love for the elect.
Beloved, "Equality" is not always all that and a bag of chips."
What I'm saying, like those of us who advocate "particular agenda," egalitarians advocate their position from the TEXT - not an agenda.
Well, I think I have had time to muse on Wade's post and I think I have come to this conclusion:
If I were at the Georgia Baptist Convention, I don't think I would have voted in favor of dismissing FBC Decatur on mere gender grounds.
I personally do not agree with it, but I think there is a sense in which the trend towards excluding needs to go in reverse.
I'm not saying there is never a time to exclude, but I don't understand the point in excluding this church if it was based on mere gender grounds.
I guess I am thinking [if I were a GA Baptist] "Is there not anything better to engage our time and energy than something like this?"
However, having said that, I will say that the thing that concerns me the most concerning the gender debate is how the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is being affected.
I am not interested in "either side" distorting those doctrines with the motive of defending their gender position if that is what is happening.
That's not good to me.
Wade,
"What I'm saying, like those of us who advocate 'particular agenda,' egalitarians advocate their position from the TEXT - not an agenda."
Well, it does ultimately come down to whether "equality" is derived from the text or is something not derived from the text and thus used as an interpretive grid by which to view the text.
If the latter, then I consider that an "agenda" driving one's interpretation.
Benji,
Your decision would be a wise, prudent and loving action toward a sister church in a cooperative convention.
It does ultimately come down to whether "equality" is derived from the text or is something not derived from the text and thus used as an interpretive grid by which to view the text.
Absolutely, I agree, Benji.
Could complementarians possibly have a "grid" imposed upon the text?
Just asking.
Wade,
Well, we all have a grid. I don't believe anybody brings a "gridless" mind to the Scriptures.
The challenge, however, is for the grid that we bring to Scripture to be derived from Scripture itself.
I'm not saying we ever meet that challenge perfectly, but I think that is what we should be shooting for.
If by complimentarian you mean "wanting the 1950's back", then I think yes [i.e., a grid derived from culture].
However, if by complimentarian you mean "wanting marriage to reflect the relationship between the sacrificial Christ and the submissive church", then I don't see how a grid from culture could produce that interpretation.
And I also don't see how a grid from culture could produce the interpretation that God has a special love for the elect either.
Wade,
You said, “I have to say this has been one of the more colorful comment sections in memory. Gene, I've laughed quite a bit at your comments.”
Wade, I hope you didn’t laugh at Gene’s comment on Thu Nov 19, 09: 11:00 PM that said:
“He sought out the Woman at the well in Samaria. She had a reputation for being a "hot momma" and he got word of her as he talked with other wandering salesman who had enjoyed using her for carnal pleasure. Jesus met her and offered the ‘water that never runs out’ in the place of her making a living off men and their lusts.”
And on Fri Nov 20, 08:43:00 AM, Gene said:
“Rex wants to take common sense out of the discussion and substitute his miracle assumptions over any practical explanation. To realize Jesus probably found out what he knew from the male gossip circle in no way lessens the miracle. It just lets us know we can be like Christ by listening to gossip and going to help the one being hurt by it!”
I don’t believe Scriptures teach Christians should listen to a “male gossip circle” for any reason, and to say Jesus did would get my dandruff up if I had any hair.
I like most of what Gene says even if he is long-winded.
Atlanta grew beyond imagination to now become the largest city in the South.
I think Dallas and Houston would both beg to differ. :)
Well, it does ultimately come down to whether "equality" is derived from the text or is something not derived from the text and thus used as an interpretive grid by which to view the text.
If the latter, then I consider that an "agenda" driving one's interpretation.
But then the abolition of slavery would be a grid imposed on the text. I suppose we ought to go back to the days of telling those who are enslaved in other countries that it is their Christian duty to be obedient and not to aspire to the freedom that a man has in America.
However, if by complimentarian you mean "wanting marriage to reflect the relationship between the sacrificial Christ and the submissive church", then I don't see how a grid from culture could produce that interpretation.
Submissiveness is the one characteristic most commonly expected of women in the porn culture and in almost every other culture since the beginning of history. I can think of few non-Christian culture that have not imposed the submission of women. It is assumed by the most sinful and opressive of all cultures.
No, the submission of women is a worldy concept. It is the sacrificial attitude of men that is Christian.
Unfortunately the behaviour of men cannot be monitored and just as the monarchy has gone the way of the dinosaur because of abuse, so ought the final say of the male.
How ridiculous to think that God gave men and women such different bodies and then gave men the final say, on how often to use the toilet for example. No, I don't think God is that kind of sadist, that it is his will to put men in charge of the bodies of women.
Well said, as usual, Suzanne.
Wade--
Hope Rex Ray and I haven't disgraced you too much on the blog. You just can't help what crazies you draw. I am certifiable in that I face trees every day which could kill or maime me and my men. At age 63, I ought to be flying a desk in A-C comfort rather than enjoying a Bobcat, bucket lift, and big chainsaw.
It just separates the crazy from the adventurous! A crazy man would be dead already. My 16 years as full time Baptist Pastor was good preparation for knocking trees. Just wish I had had the Vermeer Diesel Stump Cutter, which destroys stumps 5" at the swipe, to run after the Deacon's Meeting. You can borrow mine and print the offensive church member's names with magic marker before blasting it away--just save the hardest stumps for the most agrivating members!
Glad you like the humor--it gets me through my dangerous day!
Rex Ray--
Man, I'm getting to like this guy. Even with a pacemaker he swims 4 miles across Galilee and helps design the nose cone to the Space Shuttle. I want to invite him to put on the spikes and climb a tree for me! As a matter of fact I have a retired firefighter in his 60-70 age brake doing it! Keeps the hormones flowing seriously!!!!
He did get a little long winded on that last post to which I will respond--even if it takes 2 boxes!
Rex implies I might have too much familiarity to the strip scene. Actually, the majority of my detailed knowledge comes from TV interviews on the industry which, by the way, is becoming more socially acceptable these days.
Someone once said, "If you really want to minister to real needs you should be a barber, bartender, or stripper. Preachers always get lied to while the above hear the absolute hidden truth!"
Everyone can decide whether they like my imagery or not. With tongue in cheek, I am trying to share a Parable which asked the real question--"Do women have a place in Baptist Church Ministry?"
Box 2--beat ya on word numbers Rex!
The GBC has given a resounding "NO." I beg to differ! I grew up in the GBC and HMB. My dad worked with both along with the Atlanta Baptist Association from about 1958-1985+/-. He was personal friends with Sercy Garrison, Corts Redford, Arthur Rutledge, Walker Knight and the several Christian Index editors. The same was true in his earlier ministry in SC and NC. Daddy was the official first encourager of participation with the Annuity Board while he was in Western NC. These callings came his way because he was gragarious / wise / inclusive with people.
Here is an image of my heritage of compassion and wisdom: While at Tryon, NC, daddy got a late night call from the owner of the local "Road House" (means brothel / bawdy house / whore house--for you Texans). Her frantic voice said a girl was bleeding to death from a botched abortion and could he possibly come.
Daddy grabbed a Deacon to guide him (of course the Deacon "knew nothing" of the house location-wink/wink)and helped get her to a doctor's house before there was such a thing as an ER. She lived another day like the Woman at the Well. His prayer and presence comforted her in a time of need.
Here was my father's ministerial dilemma--
If his car were spotted there, the gossip tongues would wag (they did) /
If they thought enough of his down to earth ministry to call on him as Christ's representative he needed to go. He went!!!
For most fearful ministers it is easier to vote with the majority on Decatur FBC than to stand to the microphone and give adequate reasons why local church Autonomy is being violated by this stupid deed. My father would have been that lonely voice standing for GBC Constitutional integrity. It is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Wade Burleson and others like him are a lonely voice for integrity and fair play. My dad is gone. My generation is starting to fade.
Who will stand strong for ministry to the outcasts of society? Who will step out from behind the pulpit and get a whore's blood on the seats of his car to save her life? Who will ignore the leering eyes of the Pharisee and go to that Samaritan woman?
Herein, lies our real question!!!!
Forget the abstract and nit-picking theology. Jesus put it (more correctly translated) "SINCE you are going, go witnessing!"
"Unfortunately the behaviour of men cannot be monitored and just as the monarchy has gone the way of the dinosaur because of abuse, so ought the final say of the male. "
It is interesting that the Bible predicted you would say that.
Properly defined, submission is a biblical concept, not a worldly one. "Wives submit to you husbands" is not an issue of authority or power. That is the literal and damning interpretation that has led to male abuse for centuries--err all of humanity--a result of the fall. Biblical submission is nothing more than a desire for unity through love. But men and women come into a relationship from polar opposite ends of emtotion, desire and affection. The counterweight is Paul's adminishion: wives submit to your husbands (cuz I know you will try to rule them). Husbands love your wives (cuz I know you will try to dominate them).
Andrew Comisky writes in his book "Strength in Weakness":
"[The] pattern of innitiative and response grants us a powerful glimpse of gender wholeness. Man needs to express his power in blessing woman; woman needs to believe in the truth and integrity of that blessing. In response to it, she can rise up and bless him as well."
"Properly defined, submission is a biblical concept, not a worldly one. "Wives submit to you husbands" is not an issue of authority or power. That is the literal and damning interpretation that has led to male abuse for centuries--err all of humanity--a result of the fall. Biblical submission is nothing more than a desire for unity through love."
Very good, Crowder! You are exactly right. It is not submission to an authority in the text.
And because Ephesians 5:21 is in there early on, too, we know it is about unity and making others more important than ourselves.
" But men and women come into a relationship from polar opposite ends of emtotion, desire and affection."
Because of the fall. And now, it is not unusual to find that the man is more emotional and more affectionate than the woman. We cannot pidgeonhole people.
" The counterweight is Paul's adminishion: wives submit to your husbands (cuz I know you will try to rule them). "
Wrong. This is where you get it wrong. Let's look at factual history. Since the fall, women have been ruled but not because they tried to rule men. It is because they turned away from God and looked to their husbands instead of God.
Patriarchy is a result of sin. And both men and woman are responsible for the sin of Patriarchy. The OT we see God working through our sin regulating it the Law.
Can you give me an example of where Eve tried to rule Adam? That is read INTO the text. It is not there.
As a matter of fact, history is replete with exactly the opposite of women trying to rule men and it still goes on today in many countries where Patriarchy is the norm such as the Middle East. It is almost impossible for us now, in America, to understand this. So how could women rule men when they had no personal standing or legal rights and were considered property?
This went on even in the United States when women could not even have a bank account unless her husband signed for her. She had no vote and property ownership had to come from a husband or father's permission.
Where do we get this idea that women would, as a general rule, try to rule men? Very bad translations and interpretations of the Word.
Why does Paul tell women to submit? What else could they do? It was a step up for them because they understood that word to mean it was voluntary, in love and freedom in Christ. It was not obediance to a human as what their culture taught, but obediance to God.
"Husbands love your wives (cuz I know you will try to dominate them)."
Not necessarily so. Women were breeders for men. They had little social standing. The Talmud teaches that a woman's voice is filthy and lewd AND Better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman was the thinking. Both Plato and Aristotle taught that women were inferior beings, even intellectually.
So this attitude was the norm in the 1st century for both Jews and Gentiles.
Most marriages were arranged and the husband usually much older than the 13 year old wife. Yet he was to love this inferior being even if she produced no sons or was barren.
In reality, the idea that the wife could voluntarily submit to the husband had to outrage some. She was his property and was to obey him.
Patriarchy is sin. And this wrong belief has caused both men and women to sin for thousands of years.
Kevin,
The counterweight is Paul's adminishion: wives submit to your husbands (cuz I know you will try to rule them).
Where does the scripture make that last statement?
Andrew Comisky writes in his book "Strength in Weakness":
"[The] pattern of innitiative and response grants us a powerful glimpse of gender wholeness. Man needs to express his power in blessing woman; woman needs to believe in the truth and integrity of that blessing. In response to it, she can rise up and bless him as well."
We can do no less than learn from the pattern presented in scripture that EVERY conception of children which are in the genealogy or blessed by God, was initiated by woman.
There can be no blessing in violence, and any initiation without invitation is violence, by definition.
I don't know who that author is but the Twilight fad demonstrates that male initiation and female response is a worldly and non-scriptural cultural contruct. It is worldly not scriptural, no matter what it sounds like it has NO foudation in the Bible.
It is not gender wholeness but it is an appeal to our lowest nature.
The real problem with Comiskey is that he understands Gen. 3:16 to say that man is "commanded" to rule over woman.
Sorry, but there is no end of nonsense published by those who style themselves as theologians.
Who says man has "greater power to act?" Where does he get this stuff??
Gene S,
I received an e-mail from you this morning and just as I opened it my cat stomped across my keyboard sending it to e-mail purgatory. It's not in the trashcan or anywhere I else that I can find. Please resend!
I have found Comiskey in Google books and my jaw drops. I have to prop it up over and over again.
Please, somebody enlighten me. Who made Karl Barth an authority on women. I can't think of anyone with a more unhappy and bitter marriage. What a travesty of truth. It is incredible.
He has some things right, that masculine authority is bruising and once the woman realizes that this is wrong, that the man has sinned, she stands free of all this, she is released by understanding that his power play is sinful.
But when he says that feminism masculinizes women, enabling them to live without a man, let me say that as a single mother, I do NOT feel masculinised. I have not yet grown a moustache.
Its all a lot of nonsense with a few true statements here and there to make it convincing.
Poor old Barth, if only he knew the use to which his unhappiness would be put.
Lydia,
"Can you give me an example of where Eve tried to rule Adam?"
Well apparently there are a lot of men who think that serving lunch (giving them food) is trying to rule over them. Perhaps waking up in the morning is also considered is also practicing being a ruler.
Funny thing is that Adam, while he quickly blamed his eating of the fruit, not due to his own sin, but that his wife gave it to him, never blames her for taking a rulership over him. If Adam didn't even think of Eve committing that sin and God never blamed her for that sin, then how come we can charge her with such a sin without a single witness let alone the two or three witnesses required for a conviction?
I did an audio/visual talk that I put up on youtube on the subject of the trial of Eve. Here is segment 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b08ZkEzqvVU After listening to all 6 segments, comps who contacted me privately all voted that Eve was not guilty of the charges. I think that we need to be very careful to not charge Eve with sin in an area that God, Adam, Paul and all the other Apostles never charged her.
Suzanne,
"But then the abolition of slavery would be a grid imposed on the text."
Well, are you admiting this or not? If so, then please provide "chapter and verse", if you will.
If not, then you are admiting that you are for something that does not come from Scripture and is imposed on the text and thus you are being arbitrary.
My view on slavery could be called "not evil, but not ideal either" and I think I can justify that from Scripture. I'm glad it's gone in America and I hope it doesn't come back.
If you say that it was evil in Paul's time, then you will have to also say that Jesus via Paul and Peter allowed for evil.
Personally, I don't think Jesus was a compromising type person.
Suzanne,
I think I got my "If so/If not" backwards.
Suzanne,
"No, the submission of women is a worldy concept. It is the sacrificial attitude of men that is Christian."
I don't think you are against "submission". I think you are against one way submission like a one way conversation.
If you were against submission, then you would have to cut Ephesians 5:21 out of your Bible.
I think you are talking "boldly" against something you can't back up unless you are going to pull out some Greek sophistication to show that the English translations are wrong by saying submit, subject or whatever.
Suzanne, I did not mention submission based on the porn industry. I brought up submission as part of the picture of the relationship betwen Christ and the church.
I think that kind of submission is "other worldly".
One of the most surprising innovations recently has been the teaching that Eph. 5:21 means that some classes of Christian are to submit to other classes of Christian. This is what Grudem teaches and quite a few other complementarians.
If you can use exegesis to prove that, you can teach anything at all.
In any case, I mention the porn industry to demonstrate that the submission of women is not counter cultural at all. It is the most carnal desire of many men, and teaching it in church can attract men with this base desire.
"If you say that it was evil in Paul's time, then you will have to also say that Jesus via Paul and Peter allowed for evil."
Benji, I am confused. Jesus Christ did not overturn the civil laws. Jesus Christ said the obey the governing authorities knowing full well Nero and Caligula...two of the most depraved... would be it one day. How can you say they did not allow evil?
Did God "allow" evil in the OT?
BTW: Paul told Philemon to treat Oni as a brother in Christ. Radical! For at that time, Philemon could have put Oni to death as a runaway slave.
Suzanne,
So you aren't against submission, but against only some submitting to others.
Therefore, "submission" is not necessarily this horribly evil thing for you. As long as the men in the church submit to you as well, then you are OK with it.
I think Ephesians 5:21 is a wide angle lens view of the church. I think the verses that follow verse 21 zoom in to show what this looks like from a narrow angle lens view.
I think you have to *isolate* verse 21 from the verses that flow from it in order to justify your view.
If the two way submission view were correct, then we would expect the text to flow like this:
"submitting to one another...wives to your husbands...husbands to your wives [based on some supposed mutual submitting relationship between Christ and the church]"
But that is not how the text flows and the imagery needed as the basis for mutual submission is not provided.
Christ served/sacrificed for the church, but you can forget Him ever submitting to her.
And no amount of getting into the Hebrew language back in Genesis will ever trump Christ's via Paul's interpretation of marriage.
Benji,
Do I understand you correctly, that you think Eph. 5:21 means that some are to submit to others?
I wonder why this belief has only surfaced in the last twenty years. I have not found one commentator before Grudem who taught this interpretation.
Clement of Rome, Chrysostom, Calvin, they all taught that Eph. 5:21 says that ALL Christians must submit to other Christians.
Lydia,
I agree that Jesus did not overturn civil laws. And the example of Philemon is wonderful.
However, the fact remains that *in the church* Paul and Peter did not teach something like "Masters, let your slaves go free for slavery is evil" neither explicitly nor implicitly that I can see.
I think Paul had a radical view that "relativizes" everything in this life in the light of the world to come so that we are not to get too caught up in things that would eventually pass away.
So, I think Paul viewed slavery as something that was not exactly a nice existence for folks [of course], but was not absolute and would not last forever.
He doesn't teach "rebel" but he does teach if you can go free then go for it [rough translation] in Corinthians. And this latter teaching implies that Paul understood the "less than ideal" nature of slavery.
Suzanne,
"Clement of Rome, Chrysostom, Calvin, they all taught that Eph. 5:21 says that ALL Christians must submit to other Christians."
Did those folks teach mutual submission in the marriage relationship as well?
What if we had a Bible with these verses -
Some of you must carry the burdens of others,
Some of you must love others among you
Some of you must put others first
Some of you must defer to others
Soem of you must be kind to others among you
Are you really going to argue that the "one another" passages in the Bible have all been mistranslated?
No, all these commentators put a division in the text, so that they could teach that Eph. 5:21 means mutual submission, but this does not apply in marriage.
However, we know that there is no division in the text. We now know that the verb in Eph. 5:22 was inserted in later manuscripts. We have access to different manuscripts that these men.
But how can we simply say that the Greek does not say "one another." That is what it says.
How much better to simply acknowledge the paradox and wrestle with it, than to say that God's commands for Christian conduct only apply to women and not to men.
Suzanne,
Do any of those "other" verses have verses that teach one way submission after them?
I think you are trying to interpret "Ephesians 5:22-____" in the light of verse 21.
Well, you can try that, but I don't think you can ever make it "fit" with your interpretation of verse 21.
Better English:
Well, you can try that, but I don't think you can ever make them "fit" with your interpretation of verse 21.
Benji,
Did you not read what Suzanne said.
Verse 22 does not contain the word submit in it anywhere in the original Greek. It does, however, refer back to the verb 'submit' in verse 21.
When translators 'mess' with these verses...
When they slice verses 21 and 22 apart, they in essence, completely gut verse 22 of a verb.
But rather than being honest about it, they go ahead and keep those verses split apart and stick an extra verb in 22 that doesn't exist in the original Greek.
The reason I know this is true is because my Bible translation is at least half way honest with me and has italicized submit in verse 22 to say that it is implied but isn't really stated without referring back to 21.
It's these kinds of dishonesties in Bible translation that we find far too often.
And it's these kinds of dishonesties that make me realize that we need female Bible translators working along side the male translators to keep the male translators more honest, to keep them from putting too much of their male bias into the translations. These biases in turn hurts females and lie to the world about the heart of God toward women.
Hurting women look at Christianity and see, by translation and preaching, that men appear to be favored over them. So instead of giving it a shot they go onto something else.
Yes, verse 21 has everything to do with vss 22 and beyond.
Paul it trying to show people who live in a very 'unmutual' culture how to live as mutually as possible within the limits of that culture.
Yes, wives are to submit. To their husbands and mutually to the rest of the body of Christ.
But so are husbands to submit to wives as well as to the rest of the body of Christ, perhaps even more since they are called to look to the example of Jesus who laid His life down. Something completely unheard of in that culture.
Submission is not bad.
On the other hand, unilateral submission can do (and HAS done) a great deal of damage to many women.
Benji, Let me get this right if I can. You believe the text spells out that husbands are exempt from Ephesians 5:21 when it comes to their believing wives.
Would this mean they are NOT exempt from this verse when it comes to other believing women in the Body? But only exempt from it when it comes to their own wives?
"submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21)
This verse means what it says - Christians should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
But it doesn't make everything written after it a mere parenthesis. IOW it doesn't negate everything written after it. There are specific commands from God on how wives should treat husbands, husbands should treat wives, children should treat parents, parents should treat children, slaves should treat masters and masters should treat slaves.
I find it strange that those who want to conflate the relational commands concerning husbands and wives have no problem "keeping children in their place." Are parents supposed to submit to their children?
Of course, I'm expecting the response: You're such a pig; how dare you compare women to children! But Paul laid out unique ways for each group of people to act toward others within a household - women, men, children, parents, slaves, masters.
"On the other hand, unilateral submission can do (and HAS done) a great deal of damage to many women."
On the other hand, unilateral submission can do (and HAS done) a great deal of damage to many children.
Parents, obey your children in the Lord, for this is right.
Benji said,
"Christ served/sacrificed for the church, but you can forget Him ever submitting to her."
What do you think He was doing when He let her crucify Him? Or do you not agree that we are all responsible for the Crucifixion?
And if not-- do you not think that at least some in Jerusalem who cried "Crucify" later were among the 3000 who repented in Acts 2?
In fact, the Ephesians 5 passage focuses on Christ laying down His life, doesn't it? It doesn't talk about Him leading the church, commanding the church, being Lord over the church (though He in fact does all these things-- but they are not memtioned in THIS passage). Eph. 5:25, comparing how husbands are to relate to wives as Christ does to the church, mentions NONE of these things. Instead it talks about how Christ "gave Himself for her."
If "giving Himself for her" wasn't submission, I don't know what is. And THAT is where husbands are called to imitate Christ towards their wives. Giving themselves for their wives' good, that their wives might be glorious. Not leading their wives that their wives might be under their authority.
Or another example: what do you think Christ was doing when He girded Himself as a slave and washed the apostles' feet? Why do you think they didn't want him to? Because He was acting like a slave. And that's what slaves do-- they submit.
Yes, Christ showed us submission by submitting Himself. And that's why the apostle Paul says we're all to submit to one another.
"If "giving Himself for her" wasn't submission, I don't know what is. And THAT is where husbands are called to imitate Christ towards their wives. Giving themselves for their wives' good, that their wives might be glorious."
I think this is very well said. This is exactly how a husband is to submit to his wife.
Darby Livingston said,
"On the other hand, unilateral submission can do (and HAS done) a great deal of damage to many children.
Parents, obey your children in the Lord, for this is right."
Darby, look at the word "obey" in the original Greek. The word is "hupokoete," not "hupotasso." Children and slaves are commanded to hupokoete - "obey." Wives and all Christians are told to hupotasso - "submit." There is a difference.
(On a side note, I frequently do "submit" to my children. I do it whenever I yield to a request that really wasn't my idea, as any good parent does. "Mom, can we go for ice cream today?" "Mom, can you take me to the library?"
Many times I'd rather stay home and relax. But I often yield anyway, because their happiness matters more than my comfort. I "give in," because love them and like to see them smile. Submission-- unlike obedience-- is a two-way street.)
"Submission-- unlike obedience-- is a two-way street.)"
I agree 100%. And I've never said a woman should obey her husband. All I'm suggesting is there are certain practical aspects in relationships that keep things running smoothly. That's what Paul is addressing in this section of Ephesians.
I agree 100%. And I've never said a woman should obey her husband. All I'm suggesting is there are certain practical aspects in relationships that keep things running smoothly. That's what Paul is addressing in this section of Ephesians.
In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, the teaching on submission causes immeasurable damage.
Sometimes women need to learn to give in and be respectful, and other times they need to learn to set boundaries, hard and fast. Why not give equal press time to both of these aspects.
Anyway, I won't argue about the male female thing more at the moment. IMO, any arrangement set up by men, to benefit men, brings ridicule to Christianity. There is no way to tweak it to look unselfish.
Women need to have their own equal authority in order to be mothers, and in order to care for themselves and their family. I believe that 1 TIm. 5:8 was written for women.
Slaves - well I hope we can put that to rest.
But what about children? What should we do when we are contronted with parental abuse?
Darby, what counsel do you offer here?
Kevin, it’s probably been pointed out to you already but let me repeat ….. in the Greek, there is no such word as deaconess, teacheress, elderess, or even really prophetess. There are women deacons, women teachers, female elders and female prophets. The ‘ess’ thing is an English craziness. Whether one is a man or woman, the calling and gifts of teaching, prophesying, etc. are the same. Whether one is a man or woman the services of serving (deacons and elders) the body of Christ are the same. While men and women will exercise them differently to some degree because they are male and female, this is of little consequence. Each person also exercises their gifts and ministries differently because they are a unique individual.
Acknowledging that we are all first human, sharing human characteristics, is not conflating the genders. Rather it is acknowledging that our humanity is our shared commonality. Gender is something that all creatures from whales to bees, to mountainlions and birds, etc., share and is really not such a big deal as you seem to be trying to make it. Our humanity is primary for in that we are created in God’s image. Our gender is our tie to the earth’s creatures. Let us not make the mistake of treating men as if they are human, and women as something less than human needing to be separated from and subjugated to men.
"The counterweight is Paul's adminishion: wives submit to your husbands (cuz I know you will try to rule them). Husbands love your wives (cuz I know you will try to dominate them)."
Kevin...?
Aren't you basically saying that in your interpretation, men and women are trying to do the same thing to each other (each one trying to rule/dominate over the other one)?
...Yet you see the logical answer being that (to you) though the problem is that they both want power, the wife has to give up her power, but the husband does not?
I don't understand how that solves the actual problem. It seems like it would help allieviate *conflict*, sure, but it doesn't seem like it helps with the actual problem (which you've just defined as the desire to have power over the other).
If a man and a woman were fighting over who got to drive, a real solution wouldn't be taking away the driver's license of the woman (and telling her that God said she can't have one, ever again), and telling the man that he gets to drive, but make sure to drive "lovingly."
Yes, it would solve conflict... Gee, I guess no more arguing over who gets to drive...but that's only a real solution if a person thinks having conflict is the main problem.
Complementarianism seems like it sees conflict as the worst problem, and (metaphorically) refusing to allow women their licenses as a "godly" way to solve the problem.
But...no matter how "lovingly" we are driven around by men, the removal of conflict by removing our power doesn't feel very "loving."
Seems more like an effective way to do the very thing that Genesis 3:16 said men would do, now that sin dwells in the human heart. And just as Gen. 3:16 promised, women have been putting up with it (on both individual and societal levels), the deep desire for male companionship apparently worth the price tag of giving up personal power.
"But what about children? What should we do when we are contronted with parental abuse?
Darby, what counsel do you offer here?"
Abuse is wrong in all conditions and should be guarded against and punished. I see no excuse for not coming between an abusive husband or parent and victims.
If a person was being assaulted on the street, it would be the obligation of others around to put an end to it. I don't see how that obligation ends at the front door to a house. Some issues are not just personal or family issues, and we can't be afraid to speak out against it.
I'm not generally one to suggest a person remain in an abusive situation unless there is an overriding gospel-motivation on the part of the victim to remain as a witness. I don't think such decisions should be made by a pastor who recommends suffering from the peaceful safety of his study.
Rather than rehashing things I have already said, if anyone is interested, they can read my thoughts on this here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=7597238209717209296
In my comments I think you will see that I take the exact opposite view from Suzanne concerning who gets "benefitted".
If I am not mistaken, I think Piper takes the same position Darby does concerning submission [i.e., that the husband's sacrificial love for his wife is his submission] . I think that is a respectable position and I think it could be right even though I lean towards a "wide angle lens to narrow angle lens" view.
And yes, I am well aware that "submit" is not in the Greek in verse 22.
Suzanne,
You said "IMO, any arrangement set up by men, to benefit men, brings ridicule to Christianity. There is no way to tweak it to look unselfish."
I think you are coming very close to playing "shoot down the message by shooting down the messenger" here.
Hmmmmmmmm, perhaps any arrangement set up to benefit men AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DIGNITY AND HUMANITY OF WOMEN, brings ridicule to Christianity.
Example: The 'powers that be' in the SBC elevated patriarchy above Christianity when Paige Patterson eliminated Dr. Klouda from her position. The attempt may have been to show that she was not fit to teach at SWBTS, and thus to insult her dignity and her humanity.
But what happened instead, was a direct assault on the Laws of Christ Himself. Dr. Klouda and her family were made to suffer terribly.
So maybe Suzanne has a point.
I made a suggestion over at Debbie's blog that it might be the Christian thing to do to seek justice for her and to seek God's forgiveness for the SBC's part in her suffering.
All that did was to raise a fire-storm that was obviously an attempt to change the subject.
Bullies are bullies, not Christians. And when bullies harm people like Dr. Klouda and her family, what MESSAGE was it that was being sent?
And please don't tell me it was in the service of the Holy One.
No. Don't do that.
We know who was being served.
And why.
Great question, Lindon, that all the comps are ignoring. I will post it again:
Benji, Let me get this right if I can. You believe the text spells out that husbands are exempt from Ephesians 5:21 when it comes to their believing wives.
Would this mean they are NOT exempt from this verse when it comes to other believing women in the Body? But only exempt from it when it comes to their own wives?
Sun Nov 22, 04:26:00 PM 2009
So, based on Eph 5:21...is it yes or no that men should submit to other believing women in the Body that EXCEPT their wives?
Christiane,
While Suzanne's statement is general, I have not seen any statements relating it to Klouda until yours.
Accordingly, my concern is her general statement being applied to "actual" statements from "actual" persons in this comment stream.
Should we just say that male complimentarians on this comment stream are selfish and thus end it? The "nonselfish" egals are right? Don't trust comps because they want their benefits?
Is this really the direction this comment stream needs to go?
If I am not mistaken, I think there is something called "poisoning the well".
Benji, I am not responding to you personally at all.
I read Suzanne's statement and I thought about this from C.S. Lewis:
" For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. "
The implication is that no one can do something vile in the name of Christ and call it a 'Christian' action. It is charged to Satan's service, instead.
The reference is from C.S. Lewis'
'The Last Battle' in the Chapt.
Further Up and Further On.
Benji, you are not my target, dear one. Please forgive my thoughtlessness, if it seemed that way. I have been very thoughtless of late: many worries, but no excuses for it, I know this.
Love, L's
Lydia,
Since I don't believe it is jusifiable to have women elders, then there would be no justifiable women "leaders" for men to submit to.
And, of course, what I mean by leaders is this: Selfish tyrants who get their kicks from bossing people around for their benefits. :)
Benji: "And yes, I am well aware that 'submit' is not in the Greek in verse 22."
Fine. I'm glad you know this.
So how the heck can you ever come to the following conclusion?
Benji: "I think you are trying to interpret "Ephesians 5:22-____" in the light of verse 21.
Well, you can try that, but I don't think you can ever make it "fit" with your interpretation of verse 21."
It fits perfectly.
At the very least it fits with verse 22 like a glove.
You have simply been trained hard and long not to see it that way.
Why was Paul using the same word, not twice but once for two verses and then you say you can't interpret vs 22 in light of 21?
Paul may very well have written it this way to try to prevent the error being put forth, saying husbands aren't subject to vs 21 where wives are concerned.
Yet, amazingly, you can still say, "you can't make it fit."
Remove vs 21 and THEN it doesn't fit because vs 22 will have no verb. They fit together. If you are aware of it, why do you continue to take them apart and say you they don't fit.
Mara,
"You have simply been trained hard and long not to see it that way."
Wow, Mara, you must know a lot about me. Would you mind sharing where I have been trained and by whom and for how long? My social security number as well? :)
"Since I don't believe it is jusifiable to have women elders, then there would be no justifiable women "leaders" for men to submit to."
Ok then, According to you, the following are exempt from 5:21
Husbands
Elders.
Which means most men are exempt unless they are single and not elders.
Is that correct?
Maran,
You said "why do you continue to take them apart and say you they don't fit."
Please quote me where I "take them apart".
I actually believe the verses flow together as well. Although I guess we might have different ways of understanding how they flow together.
Christiane,
I responded to you, but I never claimed that you responded to me.
Grace to you,
Benji
Lydia,
If verse 21 did not have the kinds of verse that flow after it, then I think I would have to say that there would be mutual submission between the genders.
However, I think verse 21 is giving a general statement and the verses that follow after it provide the detail that Paul has in mind. Admittedly, I do think I could be wrong in my interpretation of verse 21, but that is where I am at now.
I think the kinds of relationships Paul has in mind he spells out [at least to a degree]. Accordingly, when it comes to relationships "beyond" what he specifies, I feel myself to be on shaky ground.
So, I think your questions might be taking me out of where I see Paul going and thus I'm not sure if it would be wise to provide dogmatic answers.
If I am not mistaken, I think Piper takes the same position Darby does concerning submission [i.e., that the husband's sacrificial love for his wife is his submission] . I think that is a respectable position and I think it could be right even though I lean towards a "wide angle lens to narrow angle lens" view.
I think this is a respectable position also. That is one reason that I am surprised that so many complementarian theologians deny it, and say that Eph. 5:21 means "some submit to others."
It is pretty fundamental, so perhaps theologically there are two subgroups among complementarians, those who believe that sacrifice is a form of submission, and those who believe that Eph. 5:21 is a command only to wives, slaves and children.
No, I am not applying anything I say in general to any person in this thread. I am rather thinking of the logical conclusion of some complementarian theology.
Suzanne,
"I am rather thinking of the logical conclusion of some complementarian theology."
I guess it would have been helpful if you would have explained how some complimentarian theology leads to the logical conclusion of men getting their selfish benefits.
However, earlier you spoke about "motive".
You said "IMO, any arrangement set up by men, to benefit men [this is "motive"], brings ridicule to Christianity. There is no way to tweak it to look unselfish."
So it seems, IMO, that what you have left readers with is an assertion about a bad motive and an absence of proof concerning how some complimentarian theology leads to the conclusion that you say it does.
Wade,
I just read your post. I am responding to your post only (and not any of the 300+ comments).
I humbly beseech you to recant of calling the SBC a cult.
My reason: the BF&M (a statment of faith adopted by autonomous SBC messengers) states that males, alone, can serve as a pastor. Each church is autonomous. Also the SBC is composed of autonomous churches. The autonomous churches sent messengers to the SBC, which is composed of autonomous churches. The motion [of dismissal] was brought to the floor. It gave the autonomous messengers the opportunity to speak to the motion. The autonomous messengers overwhelmingly voted to remove the church that had a female pastor from the SBC. What is cultish about that?
You also stated that you and your church are not going to part of what you consider a cult. Does that mean that you and your church are leaving the SBC?
You speak boldly that your church will not be part of a cult, in which you label the SBC as such. However, let me remind you that your congregation, made of autonomous members will have the last word; it will have to vote upon it in your business meeting. (The same way the SBC did to remove FB Decatur).
Bottom Line: You cannot speak for your congregation. It must speak for itself because of Baptist Polity. This can only be done in a business meeting.
What if a majority of your church DISAGREES with you and refuses to part ways with the SBC? will you leave your church?
Cordially,
chadwick
We say again Herr Vade:
DO YOU RECANT???
Chadwick,
Your characterization of the process of adopting BF&M 2000 vastly oversimplifies the issue. Surely you know, as almost everyone else does, that there was a significant dissenting minority in the BF&M adoption vote, with perhaps as many as 30%-40% not voting for it. Would it be your wish to see 30-40% of SBC churches excluded from the SBC on the basis of such a vote? Because that is result to which logic such as yours leads. Do you really think the kingdom of God is better served if the SBC is split practically in half as a result of such action and thinking? How could that be considered a "victory" for Christ?
As for the SBC taking on more and more cult-like characteristics, I'll let Wade argues his own case. But Wade's basic point (which was articulated in this and other blog postings) that when we have SBC scholars beginning to ignore some basic truths of scripture (such as Biblical testimony about a female apostle and a woman deacon) in order to support a man-made doctrine of male supremacy in church leadership, then yes, that shows some characteristics of a cult. While the Bible's testimony only shows women serving as a minority in ministry, it clearly does testify that they did serve. Why not just accept it, instead of arguing scripture must somehow be in error? I mean, that's a real shocker, coming from CR people. Wasn't the whole CR movement supposed to be about defending the Bible and by that, the whole Bible and its literal truthfulness. So, why come around on this one point and say, 'Oops, well the writers of scripture didn't mean that, or couldn't have meant that. It must have been a slip of the pen.' I mean, did the Holy Spirit go AWOL just for a second long enough for some poor scribe to get that wrong?
Also, you argued that the votes of the messengers validated the BF&M, so by your own logic, of course Wade can speak for his congregation. My question is: for whom are you speaking?
So, I think your questions might be taking me out of where I see Paul going and thus I'm not sure if it would be wise to provide dogmatic answers.
Mon Nov 23, 01:49:00 AM 2009
Therein lies the problem with CBMW. They have dogmatic answers.
The problem with your explanation as I see it is that it does not take into consideration all the 'one anothers' throughout the NT. Mutual submission is necessary for all those to occur in the Body and in marriage.
"Bottom Line: You cannot speak for your congregation. It must speak for itself because of Baptist Polity. This can only be done in a business meeting."
Perhaps it is one of the few left that is not run by an authoritarian pastor.
So it seems, IMO, that what you have left readers with is an assertion about a bad motive and an absence of proof concerning how some complimentarian theology leads to the conclusion that you say it does.
I have not ascribed this motive to any individual in the thread, but to the arrangement of male authority and female submission.
It does not require proof that it is selfish, but since the proof is inherent in the essence of the arrangement.
To be selfish is to put oneself first.
To assign oneself to be the leader is by definition to put oneself in the first position. That is why our leader is called the prime (first) minister.
If complementarian men intepret scripture in such a way as to make men leaders and not women, they are putting themselves first. Putting yourself first is selfish.
I don't see any other way of understanding this.
The normal way of assiging leadership in our society is either by merit, or by democratic means. We don't assign leadership by physical traits any more, either racial or biological.
But complementarian men are assigning leadership to themselves on the basis of morphology, that is biological characteristics, either form, which is shape and density, or by chemicals, that is hormones.
Suzanne,
"If complementarian men intepret scripture in such a way as to make men leaders and not women, they are putting themselves first. Putting yourself first is selfish."
Well, what is there to discuss or debate? All complementarians believe the Scriptures teach that men are leaders in the home and church and not women. Therefore, in your eyes we are DE FACTO selfish. Case closed. We have a bad motive. Why argue with us?
While men are certainly not "Jesus", it is worthy to note that after Christ washed the disciples feet, He still did not deny being "leader"--John 13:13.
In fact, He was "the leader" and they were not. That is how He "interpreted" it.
I would argue that because my comp theology requires husbands, for example, to sacrificially love their wives, then that theology is necessarily NOT selfish at that point.
There is no way to combine sacrifice with selfishness. They are polar opposites.
Jacob--selfish
Jesus--sacrifice
If like Jesus, then not like Jacob.
Benji,
I argue with this teaching because I lived my life in it. It is now a great difficulty to just leave it all behind me. It haunts me that other women may be living the life that I lived.
I can't understand how it happened. I just can't seem to reconcile what happened. You can't just say that the men who influenced me were not true Christians. You have to count among them Jim Packer and others like him.
They taught male headship, but they did not teach women what to do when men did not act like Jesus.
Is that realistic? How many men are like Jesus, not having sex, not bearing children - how many men are like him in these key areas, and have little invested in the household?
No, you cannot compare the husband, who certainly has expectations in marriage, to Jesus.
It will not wash.
It haunts me that women will live and die thinking that God wanted them to occupy the bottom rung of a ranked society in their own homes.
I realize that some men occupy this low place, because that is how the wife runs the home. I know there are two sides to this.
But the tragedy for the wife who is on the underside, is that she thinks that this is God's will for her life.
It is actually pretty hard to keep on wanting to live under these conditions, and for many years, I felt a waning desire to keep on living. I never imagined how it would be to really be a mother and care giver, as I am now.
The fact is that some women experience Christian teaching as a tragedy, plain and simple.
Have you seen the blog Submission Tyranny? I can only be grateful that the author is painting a picture I knew far too well.
Submission Tyranny, in Church and Society
THE BELIEF THAT BEGETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Suzanne,
I did read some over on the blog you alluded to.
Obviously men can be "selective" in what they read out of Ephesians 5. They might really like the "submit" part [possibly through a secular lens for some], but not the sacrificial love part. In other words, they might have a "buffet bar" approach to Eph. 5.
Sacrificial love benefits the one who is sacrificed for. Obviously the example of Christ is the supreme example of that.
That is the "only" kind of leadership that I see in Ephesians 5. However, just because men are selective and/or distort things does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think comp encourages abuse because sacrificial love is part of the "package deal" that comes with comp.
I also don't believe a husband is above being respectfully "corrected" by his wife. And I definitely don't think a husband is above being disciplined by the church if he is being abusive towards her.
Now, I acknowledge that a wicked husband can seriously mess up his wife's mind. She might be in reality one of the most beautiful women in the world, but believes that she is downright ugly because of her husband's influence [for example].
I think this is another reason why the church needs to live out her identity as the church. Wives do not need to face these things alone and I think the church needs to take care of their own.
Of course what I am talking about sounds nice concerning the church, but might not be the reality for many wives.
May God give the church His grace. We desperately need the power of His Spirit.
Chadwick,
While you’re thinking how to answer Liam Madden’s questions, here is another to ponder.
In court, how would you DEFEAT that SBC CHURCHES were NOT represented in the SBC when it accepted the BFM 2000?
1. Since Southern Baptists are to be ‘ruled’ from ‘bottom up’ and not ‘top down, Churches are to make their rules with their MESSENGERS.
2. The definition of a church messenger is one that delivers a message from their church, and they do that by voting the wishes of their CHURCH.
3. Since the BFM 2000 was kept in SECTET, the MESSENGERS had no message from their Church.
4. Therefore, there were NO legal messengers qualified to vote, and with no legal messengers, the passing of the BFM was illegal and should be kicked out the window with the bathwater.
Wives do not need to face these things alone and I think the church needs to take care of their own.
You make it sound as if you are actually aware that marriage is a special burden to women - something that they cannot face alone.
I admit that for both men and women, it is better not to face it alone, but why should women carry the heavy burden of suffering?
Rex Ray--
As usual, you cut through the nit-picking and ask about legal issues in this matter.
We have a precedent in NC from the late 1950's. I wrote the analysis as I complained to our Convention's insertion of an exclusive Financial Policy alongside the clear statement on Autonomy:
In 1953 the church I pastor, North Rocky Mount Baptist Church, faced a great dilemma. An independent, fundamentalist pastor had come disguised as a regular clergy-man. This Bob Jones educated--seminary and college basher--modern Bible translation trasher--led a slight majority voting to leave the SBC and NCBSC. The minority took them to court over who was the true Baptist congregation and who should maintain their rights to the property and buildings. The case set a precedent and was upheld by the N.C. Supreme court. Its primary purpose was to define “Baptist Church” and examine the Constitution and Bylaws of NRMBC. The conclusion was those wanting to be indepen-dent would have to leave, and the minority who wished to remain associated with the state and national conventions would still own the property.
During the case, Douglas Branch, pastor of Rocky Mount First Baptist and President of the NCBSC, was called to testify as to the nature of Baptist work. He later became Executive Secretary of the NCBSC. On page 212 of the transcript he cites the same Article III as above. Then he goes on to explore its implementation. He describes how the annual session of Convention and Association meets: this is the real “convention.” Then, how the General Board / Executive Committee of each deals with between-session matters. He says: “If an individual church wanted to withdraw fellowship, it would not have to wait until the next convening of an association. If a church voted unanimously to withdraw from association with any other Baptist body, or with the Roanoke Association, and so notified the Chairman of the Executive Committee, the Chairman of the Committee could take note of the fact and call a meeting together and declare that this church, by its own action, was not any longer a part of the association. Practice is my authority for that.”
(testimony continued)
Asked if he could name instances where churches had been excluded he states: “I can’t name instances where churches have been excluded . . . I don’t know of any instance when an Executive Committee has been called on to declare a church out of fellowship.” He goes on to talk of churches which voted to withdraw from the association. He says: “I have known of a number of cases when the associations would not recognize a withdrawal of the entire group unless it was unanimous. . .The only group you could recognize would be which ever one wanted to stay in the association.” It is obvious throughout his testimony that churches do the deciding and associa-tions do their bidding.
The Doctrine of Authority is the next issue. Dr. Harold W. Tribble had written a book entitled. “Our Doctrine,” in which he states: “The local congregation is autonomous. It derives its authority from within.” Doug Branch states he is in agreement with that concept and spells it out: “What I am saying is that my church is free, entirely free and independent, except that as a cooperating Baptist church we necessarily, and in the home, as in the State and elsewhere, have to have certain self-imposed limitations which make it possible for us to work with other Baptist bodies. With that qualification, I agree.”
The most important statement relative to our current condition follows on transcript p.219: “When Dr. Tribble says in his book, speaking of the associations and the Southern Baptist Convention, that neither the association nor the State Convention nor the Southern Baptist a Convention can exercise the least authority over any individual church; that this principle sometimes works to produce temporary embarrassment but in the end it works for the best; that we may well adhere to it for it is a New Testament principle and it has been tried and found worthy; as to that statement, I would say that no association or convention can exercise any authority over a local church except in those areas in which the churches in cooperation have delegated it to the larger group.”
Those who claim a "right" to exclude any local church are totally turning around this concept of our growing days!
Now, rather than take the SBC to court, numerous churches are holding court where it should be--at their church conference. They are joining the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship by the dozens. Others are simply sending their own mission teams and deleting the State Convention and SBC from the budget.
If a local church still wants to participate, they give the required minimum to send messengers. Also, most church give the members the right to designate their gifts if they still want to support the SBC. This is the true spirit of Autonomy. Whenever it is set aside, "Baptist" comes out of the concept just as many churches are removing it from their sign out front.
"The higher the monkey climbs the tree---the more you see his tail!"
I appreciate the majority of comments in the last 3 days where highly intelligent individuals are "parsing the verbs" on what the Bible says. There is little ignorance here!!
Back up just a minute, though, and recognize the most important concept of following Christ: actions speak louder than words!
Take, for example, the account of Jesus and the children when he said, "Anyone who harms a child would be better off to have a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the middle of the sea." That was the electric chair and gas chamber of Jesus' day! In this instance ONLY does he advocate capital punishment--the death sentence.
Now, back up to the scene depicted before Jesus welcomes children to his lap: The disciples are fussing with each other over who will be sitting on Jesus' right and left place of honor. They are so busy fighting amongst themselves, they ignore the children wanting to love Jesus and touch him.
There are adults present who are new converts or seekers. Just as the children are small and innocent, these adults are spiritually innocent children. They are adults physically, but their knowledge of religious matters is that of a newborn. I call them spiritual children alongside the physical children.
Jesus was preaching love and forgiveness--his disciples, by the actions, were preaching the opposite. They had most of their training in "eye-for-eye-tooth-for-tooth" legalities. This same attitude is at the root of our troubles with terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan with bomb squad cells who knows where in this country and around the world.
We have let terrorism creep into the SBC since 1979 and before--just as in the case cited above. In 1979 at Houston with Pressler and Patterson in their sky box, our "Twin Towers" of AUTONOMY was hit by a commercial aircraft. It destroyed the rules of proper local church representation because the Credentials Committee trusted churches to be fair and honest abiding by the By-laws of the SBC--they didn't!
After a spoiled Presidential vote, Adrian Rogers became President and appointed a fundamentalist Committee on Committees 1/3--to be rubber stamped into place the next year. After 3 years of these "appointments"--even with wide complaints of moderates not being represented--the fires in the "Twin Towers" continued to burn. After 3 years of burning, the structure crashed to the ground. We had a Committee on Committees totally fundamentalist and then the planes were sent in the form of "New Trustees" to destroy every Agency and Institution of the SBC with a new weapon: BF&M having Inerrancy as its core and "no female ordaination" as its clear statement demeaning an equal place for women in every church.
The Decatur First situation is but one example of how the Weapons of Mass Destruction conceived by W.A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, and Paul Pressler are still exploding today. It is too late to stop. Wade Burleson tried to stop it in the IMB and they voted to stop his blog--he didn't.
Try as you might, the truth always comes out sooner or later!
Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!!"
My father: "It's not how high you jump, it's how straight you walk when you hit the ground!"
Thanks, Wade and all you bloggers, for speaking the truth in love (most of the time)!!!!
Thy Peace--
Would appreciate an invite to your blog.
The piece you linked recently from an abuse sufferer was the most enlightening thing I have read recently.
My own daughter, after 15 years of abuse, is now deciding to invite the abuser out. She is just waiting until he finishes a drug rehab round into which he admitted himself.
There have been nothing but empty promises for all the years, but when her 4 sons, ages 12-5 are cussing, throwing excessive tantrums, and disrespecting their mother as taught by their father--it's time for him to take his sickness elsewhere.
The bottom line is that he hates himself and therefore cannot love others.
Could this be the problem with many of these self-righteous fools who say no woman can have any authority over men or--God forbid--be ordained?????
Gene,
A lot of amens would not contain near as much as:
WOW!
Liam:
I am speaking for myself. :D
1) The BF&M does not state anything about women deacons: IT ALLOWS women deacons. It states that the office of pastor is for men (with Scriptures to back it up).
2) As you stated so elequently: "there was a significant dissenting minority in the BF&M adoption vote"
Baptist Polity is what it is: Majority (not minority) Rules (whether good or bad).
Rex:
Are you Baptist?
You stated:
"Since the BFM 2000 was kept in SECTET [sic.], the MESSENGERS had no message from their Church."
BF&M of 2000 Preamble states:
"The 1999 session of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, adopted the following motion addressed to the President of the Convention:
"I move that in your capacity as Southern Baptist Convention chairman, you appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message statement with the responsibility to report and bring any recommendations to this meeting next June in Orlando."
1)The motion was made (by a messenger) from the floor.
2) The messengers approved the motion.
2) The president, fulfilling the wishes of the SBC messengers, appointed a committee to study the BF&M.
3) The committee had the RESPONSIBILITY to report and bring any RECOMMENDATIONS to the SBC the following year.
4) The committee made the RECOMMENDATIONS.
5) The recommendations were left for the SBC messengers to ACCEPT the recommendations and/or amendments.
6)NOTHING WAS DONE IN SECRET. Everything was done according to Parliamentary Procedure. The rest is history.
7) Please refer to reference #2 to Liam.
Cordially,
chadwick
Chadwick,
I know you mean well, but you missed the whole point entirely. So a majority voted for BF&M 2000, but is it really good for them to force an interpretation of a doctrine (which was and should be open to interpretation) onto the dissenting churches? And to begin disfellowshipping churches and firing missionaries that don't conform. I think you know well that the Southern Baptist Convention was not designed to function that way, with that kind of top-down authority over local churches. I agree with Wade that disfellowshipping should be an action of last resort aimed at correcting deadly sin or serious theological error. It is not an inappropriate action to apply to tertiary issues or scriptural matters that are open to interpretation.
In his EXPERIENCING GOD study guide, Henry Blackaby wisely warns pastors against applying principles of secular politics to church leadership. Blackaby says that if you are a pastor, and you only have a simple majority on a major issue, then it's better to table it, and pray, and wait for the HS to lead the church to a true consensus on an issue--not force it to a vote, forcing it to be defined with the majority as "winners" and the minority as "losers." Because that's a sure way to split a church, or cause division in a congregation. You seem like someone who is untroubled by the divisions that have grown up in Baptist life as the result of such thinking that you champion. But in the story of King Solomon, he sided with the woman who would rather give up control of her child rather than see it split in half. But fundies are the opposite. They'd rather see the SBC split in half than give up control.
Suzanne,
"You make it sound as if you are actually aware that marriage is a special burden to women - something that they cannot face alone."
"You" alluded to the blog submission *tyranny*. That blog communicated that *women* are being abused. I am simply talking about women who are being mistreated in a marriage relationship.
If you and the blog had communicated that both men and women were being abused in a marriage relationship, then maybe I would have talked about something along those lines as well.
In Christ [the Prime minister],
Benji
I am simply talking about women who are being mistreated in a marriage relationship.
I would have to advise women at this point to go outside the church, to make decisions on their own, and to act on their own authority.
Women need to break out of the thinking that there is such a thing as "male" authority.
A husband who is being abused is not tortured by thinking he is going to hell for his rebellion - not at all - he is free to feel sorry for himself if he likes.
It is the spiritual tyranny that women need release from. The teaching that male authority exists and is a spiritual value is simply a joke played on women. And not funny at that.
Gene S: All I have is a test blog and it is mainly used to debug blogger features and never used to post content.
Gene S: Also, the link I posted was suggested by Suzanne. All I did was hyperlink it.
Gene,
One of Thy Peace's nicknames is Thy Link. He is our go to guy for links and we appreciate him very much.
:o)
Chadwick,
If you were a lawyer, your client would probably sue you since you gave no facts of what was done AFTER 1999.
You sound like a long winded preacher beating a dead horse to death in the way you talked what happened in 1999.
You stated, the SBC asked the President [Paige Patterson] to appoint a committee to review the BFM and make recommendations.
You did not tell that Patterson deviated from choosing ALL the presidents of State Conventions as in 1963 for that committee, but chose a small committee of 15 that PROBABLY agreed with HIS thinking.
Instead of me telling what “the rest is history” was, I’d like to hear your version of how the meetings of the “blue ribbon committee” were NOT in secret, and what was meant by “We can’t tell you, but you’re going to like it.”
I know that Darby is going to forever after class me with the earthworms - but I have to ask this question -
Thy Peace,
Are you a "he" or a "she?"
Suzanne: I am a he. I love your posts.
Gee golly - I guess Darby won this round - I am an earthworm after all. ;-) I didn't pick up on your puppy dog tail or however that goes.
Thank you very much for your ongoing support.
Gee golly - I guess Darby won this round - I am an earthworm after all. ;-) I didn't pick up on your puppy dog tail or however that goes.
Thank you very much for your ongoing support.
Tue Nov 24, 10:12:00 PM 2009
Suzanne, You just made a point that is interesting to me. If we all used genderless monikers, it would be interesting to see how many could guess the correct gender by reading comments?
This follows along with my question of what are the specific non biological differences between men and women BEFORE the fall?
Lydia or Suzanne,
What are your thoughts concerning these verses?
"A continual dripping on a rainy day and a quarrelsome wife are alike"
"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
Darby,
I'm neither Lydia or Suzanne, but why do you ask?
Proverbs is one of my favorite books. It is full of wisdom.
And guess what?
The insight provided from a man's point of view (pov) concerning a quarrelsome wife is equally applicable to the quarrelsome husband.
When my dear one gets quarrelsome, guess what? I'm looking for a corner somewhere to get away from him.
Or do you think that because the writer of Proverbs is male and knows only the male pov that that somehow is proof that men aren't ever quarrelsome with their wives?
AFA the men lusting after women thing...
It's a good verse for women because far too many cultures blame the woman for lust in men. Their solution is to keep covering them up until in some places women can't be seen in public unless every part of them is covered including their eyes with some mess. In those cultures they blame the woman. In Christian cultures there is no excuse for it.
Sure, women DO need to be responsible for how the dress, and out of love, cover appropriately.
But Jesus calls men into account for their own lusts and tells them to stop blaming women for it.
The lust originated in their own hearts, not in what the woman is wearing.
Did that help?
Or were you thinking of something else.
(P.S. Benji, I wanted to continue to engage in discusion with you but time got away from me. In spite of our disagreement I found you to be decent to talk to.)
(P.S.S. Thy Peace, I had no idea you were male. You were the first follower on my blog. And that blog exists for the particularly wounded females trying to cut through bad teaching to find the Lover and Healer of their souls. Some of their comments are not very nice towards men. They are comments good men don't deserve to see since it wasn't the good men who wounded these women so deeply. I've gained a new respect for you. You are both courageous and gracious. Don't mean to gush. This is just my way of reorienting to this new info. And it has blessed me.)
"A continual dripping on a rainy day and a quarrelsome wife are alike"
"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"
Wed Nov 25, 09:54:00 AM 2009
Solomon had 600 wives. That is my thought.
Oh and in my volunteer work in abuse shelters, pastors used these verses all the time to shame women into going to their husbands.
Thanks, Rex--I love ya' man!!!
Our relationship on this blog proves how people who think they are enemies because of first words---find out they have more in common than they realize.
I hope everyone has seen in what I wrote, a glimmer of truth shared in a different way.
Most of all, I hope you see in the hurt of my own daughter with a verbally abusive, drug using husband how awful this male arrogance can become. The saddest thing of all with my daughter's, otherwise attractive husband, is that his sickness comes from a mother pretending to be "super-righteous" at her church while ending up with a "miracle" 6 month pregnancy. HeR hatred for her failure was taken out on that innocent boy baby she brought into this world.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself," presupposes you love yourself!
It would have been so much better if she was honest with herself and the church folks that her lusts had consumed her and she did what a "good girl" should never do. Then, if the church people were real Christians, they would have forgiven her and encouraged her to raise that child with all the love and compassion any "9 month pregnancy" would have.
EVERY child has his basic concept of love / trust / learning to be less demanding attitudes laid down in the first 5 years of life. Frankly, I think most of the leaders in the SBC today suffer from some sort of distorted upbringing which is far too typical in today's society.
Pretense and false righteousness always bring out the fires of Hell, itself, in the decisions and leadership of people raised by sick people who, in turn, become sick people---and the beat goes on!
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. I give thanks for the opportunity to express our gratitude for a free country where everyone has the legal right to believe and worship as he pleases. Also, with the freedom of speach and worship, we have the legal right to "tell it like we see it" extended to all.
This blog proves the one corner of our freedom of expression still exists---despite the SBC trying to rule us all.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder what might go on in the head of an unchurched person reading this blog and the comment thread?
Post a Comment