The irony at my small, rural southern Baptist church is that women have been allowed to teach sunday school in the past decade because there aren't enough men willing to step up and do so. Of course, they are still officially dead set against a woman preaching, but there may come a day when they can't find a male pastor willing to come serve as minister at this small, poor church and then we will see whether they think Jesus would rather them let a church die than accept that women are called to the ministry too. And the bigger question is whether the SBC will allow the convention itself to wither and die rather than let talented, committed, holy spirit anointed women breathe new life into Baptist churches.

Pastor Setzer sez: "Yes, there are passages in the Bible that can be read as demeaning to women, as there are passages that can be (and were!) read as condoning slavery. But I choose to read such passages as speaking to a particular place and time while the universal word of the Gospel -- the really Good News, the Jesus-emblazoned truth that should guide our reading of the Bible and the living of our lives -- is this: "In Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female; for you all are one in Christ Jesus!" (Gal. 3:28)."

I believe that Pastor Setzer works from several flawed assumptions in his editorial essay that coalesce in the passage that I quoted in the opening to my comments. First, there is no good reason to equate different sex roles with slavery. Just because there is a division of labor in any endeavor along various lines, does not entail that some are reduced to the level of a slave. Slaves are considered to have either forfeited some of their natural rights or never to have possessed the full set of rights every human is endowed with by God. No one in this discussion is claiming that women do not possess the same rights or moral standing as men.

Second, in order to deal with the issue of women serving as head pastors (and slavery for that matter), Pastor Setzer resorts to denying the present applicability of biblical teachings on sex roles. I see no good reason to take this tack to address these issues. Even in the case of slavery, would Pastor Setzer deny that the constraints placed on masters in how they treat slaves are no longer applicable so that when slavery is practiced, which it is now more than ever, these biblical constraints should not be observed? I would hope he would not make that argument since the protections offered slaves in the Bible are certainly relevant to the everyday lives of slaves today. The Bible does not mandate slavery, but it does set limits on the power of masters over slaves when slavery practiced.

In the case of women in the ministry serving as senior pastors, I see no good reason to claim that the biblical guidelines presented by Paul do not apply today. The fundamentals of human nature and the relationship between the sexes are the same now as then and holds across cultures. On the other hand, these injunctions do not prohibit women from serving in ministerial roles including preaching. I see these restrictions only applying to head pastors of a church. As Pastor Setzer and others on this site have pointed out there are numerous examples of women in the New Testament serving in various other roles in proclaiming the Gospel.

Third, the passage quoted frequently by egalitarians to support their desire to abolish differences in sex roles as well as other differences that God has established in nature (Galatians 3:28) is not correctly applied to such natural differences in earthly roles. This passage is only addressing who can come to Christ. It can be reasonably extended to support the equal moral worth of each individual no matter their sex or any other distinguishing characteristic. To see my limiting this biblical principle only to equality of spiritual and moral standing, let us consider a church that requires an candidate to become a head pastor to hold a seminary degree or have so many years in formal church ministry. Would such requirements conflict with Galatians 3:28? Does any division of labor with differential rewards conflict with Galatians 3:28? I would hope that anyone would say, obviously not.

Finally, I would agree though with those who argue that local church autonomy should prevail on this and other non-essential controversies. Expelling churches over these issues that people can reasonably disagree over as we all affirm essential doctrines is unnecessary and clouds the open and respectful discussion of our differences.

The Bible teaches the sanctity of lawful slavery as certainly as it teaches the subservient role of women. Those who say that slavery is inherently sinful are just as disbelieving of the Scriptures as those who say that women are called by God to be pastors.

All of this reminds me of a scene from "The Ten Commandments" in which Charleston Heston, in the role of Moses visiting his Hebrew brethren in slavery, says something like, "no man should be a slave." This would be quite comical were it not so insidiously and ignorantly contemptuous of the Holy Bible.

In the real Ten Commandments the Lord, by the mouth of Moses, commanded the Jews to observe the Sabbath so their slaves could have a day off every week.

Of course, modernists, such as Mr. Setzer, don't believe God actually gave the Ten Commandments nor that Jesus Christ told Paul to command the women to be silent in the churches, like Paul claimed that Jesus did.

Herein lies the chasm between true Bible believing Baptist Christians and the fake modern day Baptist impostors - the one believes the Scriptures are true and the other doesn't. Therefore they can never and should never be reconciled.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

The ABP editorial disclaimer states:

"As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content."

I'm wondering of the head honchos at ABP have "actively" sought out someone to write an editorial defending the anti-women as pastors position? LOL!!!!!!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Mark, you are welcome to your interpretation. I don't think you are correct. But I will not call you names or question your Christianity because of your belief regarding women.
Mr. Setzer- I believe similar to you regarding the role of women in ministry. Thank you for the article.

"Those who say that slavery is inherently sinful are just as disbelieving of the Scriptures as those who say that women are called by God to be pastors." Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that you do not think that slavery - one person "owning" another and their offspring - is inherently sinful?

The Bible is very clear that slavery per se is not sinful. If it were, the Lord would have told the Jews, "Thou shalt not own a slave." Instead, He told them to give their slaves a day off every week. If you actually believe God gave the Ten Commandments you can't believe that slavery is inherently sinful.

Likewise, in the New Testament the Lord commanded the slave owners in His churches to treat their slaves with equity and told the slaves to be obedient to their masters. If slavery per se were sinful, the Lord would have commanded the masters to free their slaves.

Of course, the modernist approach to the Scripture doesn't accept that God spoke through Moses or Paul. The Modernist approach to Scripture says that Moses and Paul merely gave their opinion about God, which might have been right or might have been wrong, or maybe just dated.

But Moses and Paul both said that God commanded them to write what they wrote. You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it you are a Christian. If you don't, you are something else.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

"Of course, modernists, such as Mr. Setzer, don't believe God actually gave the Ten Commandments nor that Jesus Christ told Paul to command the women to be silent in the churches, like Paul claimed that Jesus did." Yes, because commanding women to be silent is so in character with Jesus of the gospels...the Jesus who encouraged Martha to join Mary in sitting at His feet, the Jesus who spoke in length to the Samaritan woman at the well, the Jesus who rescued a woman from stoning, the Jesus who appeared first to a group of women post-resurrection (although the men did not believe them) and told Mary Magdalene to go and evangelize, etc, etc, etc. I interpret all scripture in light of the gospels. What Jesus said and did is first and foremost in my mind when evaluating all other scripture. You may accuse me of being a "modern, fake, Baptist" because I put my Lord's words and actions first, but I am confident that I am in line with the will of the Lord and the words of scripture. I take my Bible seriously, but not out of context. I take my Lord literally, and all else I filter through His eyes with the help of the Holy Spirit. I am absolutely certain that Jesus has no problem with women preaching and hates slavery as the worst sort of sin.

Dr. J,

Whether or not you question my Christianity means nothing to me. However, I point out that Mr. Setzer did question the Christianity of those who accept what the Bible teaches about women pastors as well as those who accept what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of lawful slavery.

In fact, Mr. Setzer claims that "the church" was wrong on these matters for 1900 years. What an arrogant boast!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Paul would have a stroke if he saw a modern Baptist church, with its extravagant buildings, its well paid staff, its budgets. He might recognize a modern house church as something he could understand. The men and women (Romans 16:1-16) who made up his churches had no concept of a 'senior pastor' with a six figure salary, serving like a CEO of a 'company.' It's amazing that the 'corporation' model of church that American Christians have adopted hasn't completely destroyed Christianity in this country. To discriminate against a sister congregation because a 'sister' is pastor is sad and silly.

Jbird, do you think that the Bible prohibits hierarchy in church government? Is there textual evidence that the early church did not have an ecclesiastical hierarchy?

The scripture is clear. Just like any other debate over any other issue, if you dont recognize the authority of scripture, you will never be convinced. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. A woman pastor is contrary to scripture. That is probably alright for you and the liberal church in Georgia but I stand with the state convention because they stand on the solid ground of God's Word.

"But Moses and Paul both said that God commanded them to write what they wrote. You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it you are a Christian. If you don't, you are something else."
Where did Jesus say that in order to be saved, you must take the entire Bible literally, including the parts that hadn't been written yet, and interpret it out of context? Where did Jesus say in order to be His disciple you had to follow the cultural customs of that time, which included keeping slaves and women as chattel? If you believe that all the commands of MOses must be kept you are a Pharisee, not a Christian. If you believe that Paul has more authority than Jesus you are a disciple of Paul, not Christ. If you believe that Christ died for you sins and that you are a human being who can never understand the will of God perfectly and thus are totally reliant on the act of Jesus for salvation, you are a Christian, regardless of how you read and interpret the BIble. And that's scriptural.

So, you are the one who decides what part of scripture is authoritative and which part is not. Am I to believe that when Paul wrote Eph. 2:8-9, that we are saved by grace, through faith in Christ alone, he might have been wrong or that you may decide that he meant something different. Again, without the authority of scripture, your faith is not grounded on the only solid foundation. Paul never said women were second class citizens, as a matter of fact his teaching on the responsibilities of a husband on how he should treat his wife were radical in the culture in which he lived. I am not smarter than God's Word. All I can do is believe it and do my best to live by it, out of gratitude for His marvelous grace.

Now, the next serious debate should be: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If we have to consider seriously the morality of slavery, and women pastors, disregarding the context of the issues in the Bible. . . Let's start stoning disobedient children and lining up the concubines and staying within our courtyards on the sabbath. How embarrassing.

Be careful how you proof text. At least some of the Bible is the words of Satan, Job's unbelieving friends, Pilate, the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to the cross, the builders of the tower of Babel, etc., etc., etc.!!!

I think that some of Paul's writings are those of a good legal writer who first presents the argument of the other side of an issue and then presents the better argument of his side. Romans in places can be readily read this way. In it there are three distinct levels of argument, with the strongest last.

Another example is the portion about head covering. I believe that Paul was pointing out the ridiculous conclusions one could come to if they took the argument of some of the Corinthians seriously. Why would the Apostle who said circumsion was of no significance write that women's heads must be covered? Of course, few evangelical churches today require head covering.

However, I do believe that God intended us to have all of these words, including those recorded as spoken by the Deceiver, so that we would learn about such things.

Osgatharp makes clear the inanity of reading the Bible in literal piecemeal, instead of thoughtful totality. It leads one into defending the morality of slavery and keeping women (and other groups) as second class citizens. It leads to actions and moral positions that are antithetical to the fundamental moral principle of the prophets and Christ Himself: Love God, love your neighbor, do good.

Would you please cite passages where Paul counters his teachings on who should be a pastor or overseer?

Conservatives quote the Bible and the other side follows the way of the world. Who is worldly here? The path is narrow, and not everyone who cries Lord, Lord enters heaven. If you argue just like the world then doesn't that make you of it?

I must confess that I'm staggered by the ignorance that has been flaunted in this blog over the past 24 hours. Let me remind you people that the Bible says that God wrote the Ten Commandments on stone. It doesn't say that Moses offered up an opinion about God. It doesn't say that Moses recorded contemporary cultural mores. It says that God wrote the Ten Commandments.

Here is what the book of Deuteronomy says that God said about slavery:

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."

When God led the Jews into Canaan He did so with the intent of overthrowing the cultural wickedness of that land and establishing His people in that land with ideal moral laws. If ever there were a time that God would have said that slavery was forbidden by His law this would have been it.

But God didn't do that. God told the Jews how to properly treat their slaves which was to GIVE THEM A DAY OFF EVERY WEEK.

Now you may not believe God said these things and if you don't it only proves you don't believe the Bible which is exactly what the Fundamentalists have been pointing up for the past 100 years. The only problem is that even some Fundamentalists are so stupid that they have swallowed the lie that slavery is inherently immoral while claiming that they accept the Scriptures literally.

Jesus explicitly said that those who don't believe the things that Moses wrote don't believe in Him, because Moses wrote about Him. Here are His words and if you don't accept them you are not saved:

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Paul clearly wrote that there was a higher standard, suggesting he believed that at least some of what he directed then was necessary to the culture of the day. Many of the restrictions in the NT are cultural accommodations to the period before the completion of our redemption. Paul said: "In Christ, there is neither . . .." That is a direct contradiction to any gender limitation for those who are "in Christ". If you want to stay outside of being "in Christ", please continue to practice gender discrimination. As for me and my house, we will strive to live and teach what it means to be "in Christ" and not of the fallen world.

Acre,

How come the gender equality passage is the better verse. Perhaps Paul's other quotes are higher than your quote above. Such theology as yours make you your own god because you choose what is authoritative. lol

Why read the Bible at all. If you take scripture out of context then you are just making up your mind by picking verses you like and ignoring ones you don't. Just admit you are following your own thoughts and then finding verses that agree with you. Is such a process faith? You trust your own mind over God's revelation.

American slavery and ancient slavery are very different things. Ancient slavery was akin to welfare and enabled people to get food rather than go hungry and die. The OT says if a slave runs away you do not return him. Such a law encourages the proper treatment of slaves. Its not like there is dollar bills floating around to pay workers. lol Slavery offers a pay system that does not need much money. Which the ancient world had very little of.

Mr. X, I don't believe in 'the early church'--I think some congregations were more episcopal, some more congregational, some more presbyterial. I don't think there is one uniform 'model' in the canon.
As time went on, I think, more second century congregations adopted the three-fold ministry (bishops/elders/deacons) which eventually prevailed in the third century and after. It's a historical judgment, not a theological one.

BTW, a while back, you mentioned Tom Wolfe's very disturbing novel, 'I Am Charlotte Simmons'. As a parent of younf adults and one who has worked with college students, I was simply unable to finish it, because it was so depressing. I kept asking myself, "Where is Campus Ministry? Where is a local church? Where is Jesus?" We are miles apart theologically, I know, but I appreciate your awareness of the young adult culture Jesus' people need to be reaching. Happy Thanksgiving.

"When God led the Jews into Canaan He did so with the intent of overthrowing the cultural wickedness of that land and establishing His people in that land with ideal moral laws." Now who is reading into the Bible what isn't there? And if you really believe this, I suppose you also think stoning your children for being disobedient is an ideal moral law, along with selling your daughters into slavery. And if the Torah were so ideal, why did Christ have to come and die on the cross? The purpose of the Law was to convict us of sin. The ideal state is the Kingdom of Heaven - you will find it described in the gospels, in red letters, and it has very little in common with the Torah. It you, Osgatharp, who is woefully ignorant of the Holy Spirit if you think being a good Christian consists of giving your slave a day off every week.

"Would you please cite passages where Paul counters his teachings on who should be a pastor or overseer?" Romans 16:1 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church at Cenchreae, 2that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well." [a] The greek word diakonos, also translated minister and deacon. In Romans 16:7 he sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia (a female name) and calls them apostles. So obviously, Paul knew and respected women who were preaching and teaching in their local churches and elsewhere.

"Ancient slavery was akin to welfare and enabled people to get food rather than go hungry and die." Total rubbish. Ancient slavery was as bad as modern slavery. It often consisted of people captured by conquering armies and forced into menial labor. It is distressing to see that the concept of "benevolent overseer" lives on. Slavery has been a sin that has existed from the dawn of civilization, and therefore it has been a part of the codes that have been written since the dawn of written civilization, but that does not make it right or moral or defensible. Would Christ own a slave? Is slavery present in the Kingdom of God? I do not understand how anyone can read the Bible and think that slavery is moral, any more than they can read the Bible and think that offerring your daughters to be gang raped instead of angels (as Lot did) is moral. The Bible shows a clear progression of humanity's relationship with God, yet certain people seem stuck in the early chapters and unwilling to move beyond the wilderness, spiritually speaking.

Kash,

Come on, you are not even consistent with your own words. How can the law "convict" us of sin if the law is sinful? Liberals are horrible at systematic theology because they believe scripture is wrong. Why read scripture at all if its like any other book filled with flaws?

Ancient slavery was a necessity. There was no such thing as modern money. Gold coins were few and far between. How does a society pay for labor? A servant/slave system develops by necessity. Slaves receive food and shelter and the master receives labor. Liberals cannot seem to think outside of the modern world. There was a time when paper much less dollars were nonexistent!

Hebrew slavery is very different from worldly slavery. If you read the Old Testament and history we will find agreement. Slavery also served as debt relief. To kill a slave was to be put to death under the law of Moses. The fact that no one has heard of these things shows how our pastors do not preach the Bible, and people never read the OT. . . nor the NT. Slavery was often a last resort to receive food for labor. Why else would one sell ones family into slavery?

"Is slavery present in the Kingdom of God?" lol The bible calls us "slaves of God!" How can people have such strong opinions when it is obvious they have not even taken the time to read the Bible!!!

Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life

There have been alot of reasons offered as to why we should not believe and submit to the authority of God's Word. All of the Bible is God's Word. You can follow the culture, the philosophers of the past or the pinheads of the present, you follow the intellectuals who believe they are smarter than God's Word. The bumper sticker says "God's Word said it, I believe It, That settles it" If God's Word says it, it's settled whether you believe it or not. You may believe that being the husband of one wife applies to women as well as men, if you do, that's another liberal battle you can waste your time fighting. It is time for those who don't believe and don't submit to God's Word to leave the S.B.C. I am sure there are now plenty of positions in the Episcopal denomination for heretics.

The writer of this article lost me when he quoted from Baptists Today. I recall an article in that publication which stated that Mid-America Seminary in Memphis was planning to merge with Southeastern Seminary. Supposedly, it was part of a grand scheme to give "bragging rights" to Paige Patterson, enabling him to point to Southeastern's "dramatic" rise in enrollment under his leadership.

That was seventeen years ago. Mid-America Seminary has still not merged with Southeastern, but Southeastern did see record enrollment under Paige Patterson. Interestingly enough, nobody on Baptists Today's editorial staff ever checked with anyone at Mid-America or Southeastern to see if the story was true. In fairness, Baptists Today printed a retraction after they heard from Mid-America's lawyer.

If I saw a story in the National Enquirer, and I saw a conflicting story in Baptists Today, I'd be more likely to believe the Enquirer.

Arce, in reply to your reliance on Galatians 3:28, see my remarks above. That verse only applies to who can come to Christ for salvation. There is no reason to believe that it is basis for a thoroughgoing equality of result. There is also no reason that think that any of Paul's statements throughout all of his writings that became canon contradict one another unless he clearly states that he is setting up an argument to refute it as he does in Romans 3.

I guess one thing that divides us on many of these issues is that I do not see culture as all that different then from now since culture is not completely distinct from nature. I reject the modernist view that people have gone though some sort of metamorphosis and are radically different now than in other time periods. There are differences and they are significant, but they are not transformative. Another thing that seems to divide us is my wholesale rejection of equality of result. I reject equality of result for the same reason that I reject the tooth fairy--it does not exist. In any society or culture with much of a division of labor, there will be inequality of result. What we do when we break down barriers of entry into some positions or areas of endeavor is to increase competition for those positions. That produces resentment and alienation. That dynamic includes the church since we retain our fallen nature until we are glorified. Women by nature are more cooperative and empathetic than are men. Why bring women into the competitive fray by allowing them to assume positions of spiritual leadership, which is unprecedented in the New Testament? Even mixing women into the competitive fight will still not achieve equality since some women are better at being a pastor than other women.

Kash, I don't see the verse you cited as support for women holding the position of pastor or overseer. As I said above, I do not see a problem per se with women teaching or preaching. There can be women teachers, evangelists, or deacons. I think the verse you cited does support women serving in these sorts of roles. In fact, I get a lot of listening to women teachers such as Nancy Lee DeMoss.

Jbird, I don't disagree with your comments above. So, hierarchy is part and parcel of the history of the church and was practiced as such early on. Certainly, hierarchy was practiced in the New Testament Church as it is and has been with all organizations in the history of the world, and men have always been atop that hierarchy.

And yes, I am horrified by what is and has been occurring on college campuses in regard to sexual exploitation of female students. It used to be that the faculty joined in, but that has been curtailed more recently. So, administrators can do something if they really wanted to. The drugs and alcohol are also out of control. We can also see that the moral principles laid down in the Bible still apply regardless of the culture or sub-culture. Universities generally are a sham, but that is another matter.

Thanks for the Thanksgiving wishes, jbird. I hope you, Arce, Kash, and all of our blog friends here had a Happy Thanksgiving.

if an apostle is one commissioned by the risen Lord to carry the message of salvation because of the resurrection, then Mary Magdelene or Mary Magdelene and other women, were the first apostles. BTW, I think that would qualify as the highest office in the church, other than the Trinity and in particular the Holy Spirit.

There is no reference to "Senior Pastor" in the NT, anywhere. So restrictions on that office are entirely man-made. There are many references to females as prophets, apostles, deacons in the NT, including in Paul's writings.

You cannot argue from absence of a clear statement that Paul was not setting up Corinthians, for example, in responding to their letter or other communication to him. If they had rasied an issue, such as a leader in their church saying "I permit no . . ..", then Paul would not have had to be explicit that he was parrotting their statement to him!

One has to take the Bible as a whole, the New Testament as a whole, and read and interpret all of it through the lens of the behavior of Jesus and his teachings. And of course, we know there were women disciples who traveled with Jesus and the "12" and actually were supporting the ministry. So don't argue from an absence of women among the symbolic 12 as indicating that there were not women of importance in the band around Jesus.

Patriarchy is of the Fall, not of the redemption! It is SIN, fed by male ego.

And I am male, not female, but that should not be relevant.

Thanks for your reply, Arce. I think it is a big stretch to claim that Mary Magdalene held the office of Apostle. Paul did claim authority as an Apostle in a strict sense of the word such as in I Corinthians 9. There is no evidence that Mary ever asserted such authority.

In I Timothy 3:2 Paul lays out the requirements for an overseer or bishop to lead the church. These pre-requisites clearly apply only to a man and applies to someone who holds a position of senior leadership in the church.

I do not believe it is sound hermeneutics to take one passage in the Bible or any text and then expand it to an abstract level of generality that is then used to override the specific declarations made in other parts of the text. One also has to consider how the principle appealed to was understood and practiced at the time it was written. Further, notice that you changed your interpretive strategy on this issue from saying that Paul sets up conflicting arguments only to more clearly refute the wrongly conceived one to saying that the general drift of what one can abstract from the overall text of the Bible overrides particular clearly stated teachings.

I do agree that there were women who followed Jesus in his earthly ministry and they played an important role. I do not see any evidence that they assumed positions of executive leadership at that time or after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension.

I am not sure if hierarchy is purely the result of sin. There is a hierarchy in Heaven, so inequality does not seem to be intrinsically evil. The forcible subjugation and disrespectful attitudes of those in authority shown toward those in their charge are the result of the Fall and is evil. Everyone no matter their station or earthly role should be treated as moral equals and their role should be honored and appreciated. I agree that those in leadership should follow Jesus' teaching and example on the proper attitude of those in authority, and that is to be see their position as one of service and not cruel domination. I suspect that much of the resentment that those who are excluded from certain positions feel stems from the arrogant attitudes of those in leadership. I agree that we must work to stop those attitudes and actions that breed legitimate anger in those who are less powerful.

One quick question and its answer just for thought. Which of the religious leaders of Israel did Jesus reprimand? It was those who 'knew' for absolute certainty just how the scriptures should be applied to their daily lives.
Paul was one of those at the stoning of Stephen. Paul went into seclusion for three years to think and study. Paul even changed a little as he grew older.
Maybe we should follow Paul's example and be a tiny bit more open to interpreting God's word for our day. (Tiny bit, not throw everything out, but be open minded and like Paul and willing to be taught.)
Charlie Mac

"Maybe we should follow Paul's example and be a tiny bit more open to interpreting God's word for our day."

Those who oppose women serving as pastors ARE following Paul's example. Read 1 Timothy.

"if an apostle is one commissioned by the risen Lord to carry the message of salvation because of the resurrection, then Mary Magdelene or Mary Magdelene and other women, were the first apostles."

ALL Christians are commissioned to carry the message of salvation to a lost world. I fail to see how this justifies ordaining women as pastors.

I remember reading a letter to the editor in a newspaper some years ago talking about this issue. The writer lambasted those who opposed the ordination of women, and pointed out that Jesus was never bound by cultural norms. The writer closed her letter by saying, "If Jesus chose twelve apostles today, at least six of them would be women."

This raises a question. The twelve apostles were chosen to be the leaders in the early church. Why didn't Jesus include women among them? It couldn't have been because of cultural norms. Is it possible Jesus didn't WANT women in this group?

I remember reading an article in college about Jesus only choosing men, but the author failed to mention that Jesus only chose Jewish men. What could that mean? The problem is that the canon doesn't come with a divinely-inspired rulebook for how to interpret the variety of passages spanning decades.

For example: "I do not believe it is sound hermeneutics to take one passage in the Bible or any text and then expand it to an abstract level of generality that is then used to override the specific declarations made in other parts of the text." Where do the scriptures suggest that either practice is wrong or right? What biblical support (book, chapter, verse) would you have, "Xenophon," to show someone they are wrong to do so other than your own belief?

If the scriptures don't provide obvious rules about which verses to take literally and others not (and I don't think they do), then who gets to determine the rules? "Context" (which is not demanded or practiced by a good many biblical authors)? Majority interpretation? Historical criticism? Literal sense? Others? Some mixture?
What we end up with is God's word too often held captive by some structure of interpretation that we come up with and then impose upon these ancient texts.

But, of course, some who comment here will probably argue that they are not guilty of this or that it's only so-called "liberals" or "conservatives" or "moderates" who do this. My hunch is that we're all guilty of imposing our own rules on what God's word does and can mean for the church.

It amazes me that some want to make a whole prohibition against woman teaching or leading men when the OT has no such prohibition. Some will make the argument about Levite Priests being only men...but what does that have to do with teaching and preaching? If there is a law from God in the OT about women specifically cannot teach men or lead them, please post them here.

If there is no prohibition in the OT then why would there be a more legalistic prohibition after Pentecost and the Joel prophecy?

Could it be errant TRANSLATORS? After all, the Word is inerrant but one must have the Holy Spirit or the Word becomes a history book or club to beat folks with. Or a club to shut up over half of all believers from sharing the Gospel with anyone reqardless of gender.

It amazes me even more that some want to make laws prohibiting women from proclaiming the Word based on ONE word that is only used once in all of the NT: Authenteo. Which does not mean authority over in 1 Tim 2 at all. they also conveniently ignore the grammar which is ONE woman in Ephesus teaching false doctrine who was deceived.

Of course, if I believe their interpretation of this text then I would have to believe that all women are saved by 'childbearing' which cannot be true because it is a work of salvation.

And for those who think women are prohibited from being elders then you must agree that single men are prohibited, too. But the verse says 'tis' which means anyone.

I can imagine if I were told all my life I was more important spiritually and in charge of others it would be hard for me to give it up, too. This entire issue is a huge sin trap for men. I pity you for the need to try and defend it. Tatoo servant on your forehead because if you are saved, that is all you are.

God told us in Gen 3 that women would turn toward their husband (badly translated as 'desire') the result being she would turn away from God and he would rule over her. So what they are teaching is sin as virtue. It is insidious.

But it is a good system for them. And it feeds lots of egos to be the big cheese in charge of another adult Christian in marriage and the Body.

The more spiritually mature a person, the more lowly sinner they know they are. Always remember that. They look more like Matthew 5 than the celebrities so many follow today.

The term "mias gunaikos andres" sometimes translated as "one-woman man" or "husband of one wife" was applied to both genders as seen on grave markers in Ephesus as reported in the ToB Bible Edition Integrale.

"How can the law "convict" us of sin if the law is sinful?" Try reading Matthew 23 and you might see what I mean. It is not the law that is sinful, but the way that humans wielded it as a weapon against others that became a problem. Those who try to keep women out of the ministry are using the law to protect their power. Christ fulfilled the law, and he had women in his following. Women who were allowed to sit with the men and listen with the men. He healed women. He spoke to women. He appeared first to women post-resurrection. And he told the women to go and spread the word, to the rest of the disciples. Thus, technically, the first evangelists were women.

KASH,

You said,

"....I suppose you also think stoning your children for being disobedient is an ideal moral law...."

Listen, if you are going to attempt to talk about the Bible, you really ought to learn something about it. The law did not command anyone to stone their "children" for "being disobedient." The law commanded parents to stone a son who was a incorrigible glutton and drunkard who, after having been given corporal punishment, refused to work.

I think if our government would execute a few such characters, instead of handing them welfare checks, the welfare roles would be cleaned out real quick.

You also said,

"......along with selling your daughters into slavery."

Your question is based on the unproven and unprovable presupposition that slavery is an inherently evil thing. The law to which I suppose you refer (found in Exodus chapter 21) was intended to protect women servants from being sold out of the nation and from being taken advantage of. And yet the law did not forbid the practice of servitude per se, and so for you to claim it is inherently evil is to put yourself above the Lord who gave the law, just as women who claim they are called to preach do.

You said,

"And if the Torah were so ideal, why did Christ have to come and die on the cross? The purpose of the Law was to convict us of sin. The ideal state is the Kingdom of Heaven - you will find it described in the gospels, in red letters, and it has very little in common with the Torah."

The things said in the law were given to the Jews so as to demonstrate their, and therefore our, inability to keep it and therefore see our need of Christ to redeem us from sin. The whole New Testament is based on and reflects the righteousness contained in the law. Not that we are bound by the law itself, but there is no difference in principle between the law and the gospels.

You aren't even being consistent, because you said (rightly) that the law was to convict of sin but then you say that the law didn't even get it right on moral issues. And the worst part about that is that the law was dictated by the Lord to Moses and therefore you have, in effect, said the Lord Himself didn't get it right on moral issues.

And by the way, since the whole Bible was dictated by Jesus to His prophets, your nonsense about "red letter" Scriptures is totally laughable. LOL!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

You quote "But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life" But you know very well that we are owned by God in this life as well as the next, but that no other man has the right to 'own' us. Talk about poor hemeneutics! As if there would be slavery in heaven, as in one human owning another. And i have bad news for you - there will be no patriarchy or hierarchy in the Kingdom, either - just all of us equally serving God.

Matthew 23:8-12 (English Standard Version)
"8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

Now does that sound like someone who is hung up on hierarchy?

KASH,

The Scripture to which you refer (Paul's letter to the church at Rome) actually proves what I said about the the righteousness of the New Testament being, in principle, no different from the law.

Yes, we (we believers that is) are "free" from the law in that having forgiveness of sins and being able to practice righteousness through Christ we can live free from the condemnation which sin brings.

But the passage just as surely states that the righteousness of the law was, and is, holy, just and good. As it is written:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."

And again,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

You said,

"And i have bad news for you - there will be no patriarchy or hierarchy in the Kingdom, either - just all of us equally serving God."

LOL! Which Bible have you been reading? Have you never read these "red letter" words in Matthew's gospel:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Or these in the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

No hierarchy in heaven? LOL! It ought to be against the law to have this much fun!!!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

"since the whole Bible was dictated by Jesus to His prophets" Dictated? Really? Word for word? Did they take it down in shorthand, especially Moses, wondering around in the desert without a notebook? And as far as Matthew 19:28-30, you read it like the mother of Zebedee's sons. You might want to read Jesus's answer to her in Chapter 20:22-28 before you get too excited about what sort of throne you think you are going to have. Our Lord spoke often in parable and metaphor, let those who have ears hear.

I see that you are one of those who believes in the "Rambo Jesus" second coming, by reading Revelation as if it were literal fortune-telling (forbidden in Deuteronomy) rather than an apocolyptic vision. Judas was expecting the messiah to be a Rambo-type as well, and you can see where that got him.

Your verses from Romans support my view, rather than arguing against it, that the law was not able to bring life and therefore is not the moral ideal that you claim. Besides, 2 Corinthians 3:6: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." If you defend slavery you are living by the letter and are dead in Spirit, in my opinion.

The time has come for many to decide what they will will use for the authority on the decisions they make in their personal life, their home life, and the life of their church. I will use God's inerrant, infallible, inspired Word. There are plenty of denominations who choose to disregard, ignore, change, and oppose God's Word. If you want a woman pastor, join one of them. Dont try to drag Bible believing Southern Baptists into your disobedience to try to give legitamacy to you heresy. You are free to believe God's Word and you are free to rebel against it. Your explanations and excuses dont hold up. When we have pastors (men of God)who again stand in the pulpit unafraid to preach and teach God's word whether it offends this modern culture or not, then we will again see the church in America grow. when will we learn that compromise never works. Let us begin to be more Savior sensitive and less seeker sensitive. Let us proclaim the word and let Jesus draw all men unto Himself. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

KASH,

You said,

".....Our Lord spoke often in parable and metaphor, let those who have ears hear."

And,

".....by reading Revelation as if it were literal fortune-telling."

In other words, you know that the Bible say exactly what I said it says about hierarchy in God's kingdom (as surely as you know that the Bible says women ought to keep their flapper shut in the church). But you aren't going to have it so you just explain it away as being "figurative" or "metaphorical."

Did Moses need a notebook to take down the Ten Commandments? No, because God wrote them on rock Himself and He said to give your slaves a day off every week, not to set them free.

Most of the law is represented by Moses as word for word quotes from God. If Moses misrepresented His case, as you and the others on the Baptist left believe, then Moses was a lying hypocrite and no more worthy of our consideration than David Koresh, Pat Robertson or John Hagee. If Moses told the truth, then you better repent for having denied the words of God.

I remind you that Jesus said Moses spoke the truth and that if you don't believe what Moses wrote you can't possibly believe in Jesus, because Moses wrote of Jesus. His words again:

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

So far as the matter of our relationship to the law, Paul said that the problem with the law was our inability to keep it, not with anything about the law itself. The law was holy and just and good, but it was not the Lord Himself and therefore could not save us from our wretched condition. That is the teaching of Paul both in Romans and II Corinthians. To assert that Paul in any way said that the law misrepresented the will of God is to lie against Paul and against God who inspired Him.

Repent, Kash, repent, before it is too late!!!!!


Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

"The time has come for many to decide what they will will use for the authority on the decisions they make in their personal life, their home life, and the life of their church. I will use God's inerrant, infallible, inspired Word."

So do I. We just do not agree on the interpretation concerning women and probably disagree with preaching a culture war as so many of our SBC seminaries teach you guys to do. One can have a Leave it to Beaver home and not be saved.

" There are plenty of denominations who choose to disregard, ignore, change, and oppose God's Word. If you want a woman pastor, join one of them. Dont try to drag Bible believing Southern Baptists into your disobedience to try to give legitamacy to you heresy."

I am SBC. And I also have studied the Word with the Holy Spirit illuminating truth to me. Are you suggesting I cannot understand unless I attend seminary? Lots of pastors think that way. Ironically, like Rome.

" You are free to believe God's Word and you are free to rebel against it. Your explanations and excuses dont hold up."

How could it be rebelling against God's Word to teach/preach the saving Gospel to anyone reqardless of gender? Are you saying it is only a sin if a women does it behind a piece of furniture? Or perhaps in a third world country where the men are illiterate? And, at what age is it a sin for a woman to teach a boy? 12? 16? 18? 21? It would really help if you guys would put together a Christian Talmud for us to follow.

" When we have pastors (men of God)who again stand in the pulpit unafraid to preach and teach God's word whether it offends this modern culture or not, then we will again see the church in America grow."

1. Pastor is mentioned once in the NT and it is a spiritual gift. Man's traditions have made it some sort of celebrity/authority status of one man speaking to the pew sitters. It is quite dangerous because of all the false preachers out there. And to your advantage, very few pew sitters are Bereans. But, every single true believer is given spiritual gifts so that says a lot about the state of the Body of Christ. A better model would be 1 Corin 14 where several speak and others search the scriptures and judge what they taught.

2. It really disappoints me when I see a pastor say "men of God". There are NO men or women of God. You are trying to set yourself up as a special class of Christian. You are just like me: A depraved sinner saved by grace. there is no special 'clergy' class of Christians. If saved, we are all priests in the Holy Priesthood. A dose of humility is just the thing for you. Tatoo 'servant' on your forehead so you won't forget that you are a servant in the Body.

The more mature a Christian, the more lowly a servant they are because they know the depth of their own sin. They look more like Matthew 5 than what you have had modeled for you in the SBC hierarchy.

"when will we learn that compromise never works. Let us begin to be more Savior sensitive and less seeker sensitive. Let us proclaim the word and let Jesus draw all men unto Himself"

And women? Or were you taught that you are your wife's earthly priest?

Also, I noticed that you love rebuking and are quite proud of your man given title of 'pastor' but did not dare enter into content discussion of why we can be brothers and sisters in Christ yet have a different interpretation of a secondary issue.

I guess since I am a pastor of a First Baptist Church, you assumed I am a seminary graduate. You assumed wrong, the same way you assume you can use God's Word to suit your preconceived ideas. I never said women could not receive the gospel of grace. As a matter of fact I believe women have been carrying more than their share in reaching the lost, teaching the classes, and even supporting our missionaries. I hate to consider what shape we would be in as a denomination if it wasn't for great Godly women. Men have been lacking in their responsibilities in the home, the nation, and the church and the women have had to take up the slack. There are many wonderful things women can do and are doing for the Kingdom. Bur dont blame me because God's word says they cant be pastors or deacons, the same way it says that men who have more than one wife cannot be pastors or deacons. Call it legalism or being judgemental if you like. I dont have to judge because Gad's Word has already done it. I thank God for godly women who stand by their godly husbands bringing their children up in the nurture of the Lord and reach a lost nation for Christ. I also Thank God for Godly men who have not shirked their responsibilities. I was taught that the man is the spiritual head of his wife and his home, the way Christ is the head of the church. Read Ephesians 5, or is that more scripture that does not fit into your liberal feminist agenda. If you dont submit to the authority of God's word, you will never be convinced of the truth. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Phoebe was a deacon/diakonos, unless you use a Bible where the translation does not show that.

It is quite obvious that Mr. McCord is not a graduate of a legitimate seminary.

"Did Moses need a notebook to take down the Ten Commandments? No, because God wrote them on rock Himself and He said to give your slaves a day off every week, not to set them free." See? That is what I am talking about. You use the law as an excuse to deny liberty to fellow human beings, fellow made-in-the-image-of-God human beings. The law at best is a starting point for morality, but there is a morality that transcends even the law, and that is the morality of Christ: love God, and love others. You use the law to justify sinful practice, by saying that you are required to do no more than the law requires. Really, read Matthew 23 and see if you recognize anyone. And quit pretending that since I think Christ "trumps" the law that I don't think the law came from God. The 10 Commandments are from God, but they have been interpreted and translated many times since the original "written in stone" words given to Moses. Cultural context has been added. That is why there are slightly different versions in different parts of the Torah.

Where did Bobby McCord ever claim to be a graduate of ANY seminary? Please cite. Here are his exact words:

"I guess since I am a pastor of a First Baptist Church, you assumed I am a seminary graduate. You assumed wrong, the same way you assume you can use God's Word to suit your preconceived ideas."

Since you are apparently unable to read, I hardly think you have any room to criticize anyone's education.

"Repent, Kash, repent, before it is too late!!!!!" Repent of what? Disagreeing with you? You are going to be so disappointed when you get to heaven and find out that Christians who went to churches with female pastors are there.

"I see that you are one of those who believes in the 'Rambo Jesus' second coming"

I certainly don't find any scriptural support for the "Girlie-man Jesus" liberals seem to prefer.

Insightful. Jesus is neither Rambo nor "Girly-man," whatever the latter means.

I'm not sure what "Rambo Jesus" means. Perhaps you could ask "kash" to explain.

I'd welcome an explanation by both, but I'm especially intrigued by Ken's "Girle-man" Jesus who "liberals seem to prefer."

I don't know exactly what a legitimate seminary is. I don't have anything against a good education. What little education I have in my college and seminary experience has helped me tremendously. I do not have a masters or doctorate. I was called to preach when I was in my 30s and I have been trying to better prepare myself ever since. But God didn't call me to seminary, God called me to preach. We worry too much about the name of the institution on the degrees hanging on our office walls instead of the Name of the One who called us to preach. It doesn't take a degree from your legitimate seminary to understand that the husband of one wife is a MAN. It doesn't take a masters degree to understand that the apostles told the church in Jerusalem to call out seven MEN of honest report filled with the Holy Ghost. I dont claim to be always right. I only claim that God's Word is always right. Their are some things that we can disagree on and still be brothers, but there are also some things that we must agree on and must believe.

If you don't understand the term "girlie-man", I could never explain it to you.

Some worship the Bible; others, the God of the Bible: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." We have not forgotten.

Stop using Christ as your excuse for not obeying His Word. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandment." You keep using the word, interpret, when what you are really saying is, compromise.

Why not explain what you mean, Ken? Is this something you've made up or are you quoting someone else? Excuse me for not knowing what "Girlie-man Jesus" means. My hunch is that a lot of your so-called "liberals" wouldn't either. I've come to expect this kind of behavior of you. You may end up explaining yourself, but it will not be at first request.

"Why not explain what you mean, Ken?"

I told you why. Didn't you read my last post?

"Is this something you've made up or are you quoting someone else?"

The term "girlie man" is certainly not original with me. Is this the first time you've ever heard it?

Let me get this straight, Ken, so we all can try to see what you're saying and not saying:

You are using a phrase ("Girlie-man Jesus") which you "could never" explain to someone who is unfamiliar with the phrase.

I hope you don't often use words or phrases in conversation that you can't define or explain to those listening. That could make for some serious lack of communication.

But I'll give you this, you're consistent in your refusal to explain what you mean.

What are you two talking about? What does this debate have to do with the mistake of having women pastors? If you are saying that allowing women pastors will lead to even more serious departures from God's Word when filling the pulpits, I would agree. Ask the other denominations who are allowing "Girly Men" to be ordained as pastors.

Well, let's see. If your definition of being a "girly man" is loving your enemies, crying in public, compassion for those less forutnate for you, eschewing violence in favor of principled resistance, and, of course, wearing long robes and sandals, then yes, I think Jesus qualifies as a "girly man." Since when is worshipping the Jesus of the gospels (gentle Jesus, meek and mild) worshipping a "girly man"? Since when is the vision of a Jesus arming his people with machine guns and rocket launchers (aka "Left Behind" and all the other misinterpretations of Revelation) consistent with anything Jesus ever did or said? How can you claim to believe in the authority of God's word, but only read the parts that you can make line up with your patriarchal, power hungry, violence craving materialistic desires??? And Osgatharp thinks I need to repent, but he's got the inside track to a throne in paradise.

I remember the Jesus who whipped the corrupt buyers and sellers and kicked them out of the temple court. I remember the Jesus who kicked the hypocritical mourners out of the house of Jairius before He raised his daughter. I remember the Jesus who stood strong against the ones who opposed Him and His word. I remember the Jesus who said it would be better for someone to have a milstone around their neck and be cast into the sea than for them to offend one of His little ones or cause them to stumble. Jesus will come and judge His enemies. He did come as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. He will come as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

"Stop using Christ as your excuse for not obeying His Word. Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandment.' You keep using the word, interpret, when what you are really saying is, compromise."

A text out of context is a pretext -- the commandment of which Jesus spoke is to love one another, by that the world would know His disciples. Can't you just feel it in this forum?

Anyway, If God does prohibit women from serving as pastors or deacons, it is only because He wants the men to do something around the church.

BTW, Lydia is spot on with "authenteo" and the word "pastor." She can be this dude's teacher any day.

I am amzed at how you choose what to use out of scripture for your authority and what not to use. You are the one who chooses what scripture is relevant and which is not. You are the one who tells us what to believe when the scriptures tell us something we dont want to hear. you are the one who is smarter tha the Word when it clearly speaks. I am finally glad to know the one we can all come to when we dont want to submit to God's word. Can Lydia be the husband of wife? can Lydia be a MAN of good report filled with the Holy Spirit. Man means man in greek and aramaic and english. You are in rebellion, face it and own up to it and stop getting mad when it is pointed out.

Yes, Lydia can be a faithful spouse which is how "mias gunaikos andres" shoulod be translated as it applied to both genders as an idiom.

Yes, a woman can be filled with the Holy Spirit, all the disciples were at Pentecost.

Yes, a woman can have a good report.

"I remember the Jesus who whipped the corrupt buyers and sellers and kicked them out of the temple court." The text never says that he used a whip on any person, or engaged in any violent behavior. You don't seem to understand that strength does not equal violence. Jesus was the strongest man that ever lived, yet he never resorted to violence and scolded Peter when Peter did, then healed the ear of the soldier come to arrest Him. The Lion of Judah does not have to kill to judge. It is you who categorize strength through gentleness as being "girly", not me. And the very fact that you use "girly" as a perjorative shows how you disdain women, something that Jesus never did.

I do not disdain the word, I study it. All of it, in all of its complexity. I do not pick a few verses and run with them, over and over and over again, using them to justify an exclusivistic hierarchy counter to everything that Jesus said and did during his all to brief ministry on earth, before he was crucified by an exclusivistic hierarchy that knew the law forward and backward but had no Spirit in their hearts.

"You are in rebellion, face it and own up to it and stop getting mad when it is pointed out." I am not now nor have I ever been "mad" during this discussion. You do not have the power to convict me in any way, not do I have the power to do so to you. Only our Lord can convict us, and He convicts me daily in all the ways I fail to live up to His instructions especially as spelled out in the parable of the sheep and the goats. But I am entirely at peace and feel no conviction in being in "rebellion" in my support of women pastors, and know in my heart that God calls whomever He calls, male or female, black or white, slave or free. And I don't think He would be insulted by being called a "girly man".

"Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandment.'" Yes, and what was His commandment? To love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. He never commanded us to keep people divided into those who could preach, and those who couldn't, or those who could evangelize and those who couldn't, or those who could sit up front and those who have to sit in the back or the balcony.
"You keep using the word, interpret, when what you are really saying is, compromise." Why? Why is it a compromise to 'interpret' the scriptures? Every translation is an interpretation, and everything you read requires you to think about it and process it and synthesize it with previous knowledge and other facts. Why is thinking about scripture necessarily a negative? If you try to read the Bible without thinking, you will not get very far!

This is the result of the Patriarchal subtext being given full reign, and why Christ never endorsed it in word or action:

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/11/30/equality-in-the-beautiful-image-of-god-and-the-ugliness-of-violence-against-women/

In the parable of the lost coin in Luke 15:8-9 Jesus maps a woman to God and therefore also himself.

Kash,

You amaze me. Answer the man's objections. How can a woman be husband of one wife? Do you realize that if we were to take a vote of church leaders for the past 2000 years 99% would agree with the traditional interpretation? That does not make it right, but should make those of your position think twice. Not until the 1960s did people start arguing nonsense about woman pastors. Such ideas of women's liberation did not come from the church but the world. Then liberals tried all to successfully to bring their man made ideas in the church. What has happened to our culture since then. Families have fallen apart! You know a tree by its fruit. Women are on anti-depressants now more than ever. Women are abused by men who have never been taught to be men who protect vulnerable femininity. Once you understand the history of your feminist ideas, document their fruit, and see their origin one knows feminism is of Satan. Is this really rocket science?

If all the commandments we need are to love God and one another, then why did God give so many other commandments? Because love needed a definition! The other commands in scripture tell us how to love. To command others to love while failing to show them how is to make men lose the Way while the think they know where they're going.

A woman can be a faithful spouse, and faithful spouse is the most accurate translation of the Greek phrase that is sometimes translated as "husband of one wife". It was an idiom that applied to both genders as seen on tombstones at Ephesus.

He also must be able to teach, and Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 that women cannot teach men. The phrase "husband of one wife" is most certainly not an idiom: see 1 Timothy 5:9 "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man". If there was this idiom you speak of the text would say husband of one wife. There is no wiggle room for you liberal position. Paul also roots his gender role commands in creation in 1 Timothy 2:13. So the argument that Paul is conforming to his culture also falls flat.

By the way, 1 Timothy 5:9 also refutes those who are "husband of one wife" is speaking against polygamy not divorce. Women were not allowed to have more than one husband. 1 Timothy 5:9 speaks about divorce as does 1 Timothy 3 regarding pastors and deacons.

are = argue

The female form did mean female, the male form was applied to both genders. This is similar to the way Hebrew and Greek works for grammatical masculine plural forms are used when the group includes all males down to just one male.

Also, the terms does not deny divorced people from being pastors, what is needed is to be faithful to your spouse, whomever that is right now.

1 Tim 2:12 is very challenging to translate, there are many choices to be made; if some are made 1 way, one might think women cannot teach men, but in the Greek there is no direct object for teach, so either whomever Paul is talking about (perhaps a specific deceived woman) is not to teach anything at all while she is being taught; or there is only 1 thing being "not permitted" but this gets problematical as it is not clear authenteo has a good or bad connotation, let alone what it means in 1 Tim 2:12.

So under your logic giving commands to men only is impossible because it could always include women too. Greek is not that open. Idioms are not that broad. Clear language is clear. Is your position on 1 Timothy 2 we just don't know what it means? If only God were a better communicator! Come on, if Paul was aware of your idiom he would have said husband of one wife in 1 Timothy 5. Let the word of God give us life rather than reading tombstones of the dead.

Pastors and deacons are also to be blameless and the abomination of divorce does not leave one blameless.

Your translation of the genders is wrong and you know it. You remind me of Bill Clinton asking what the definition of is is. kt2005 has is right when he said the feminist movement came from the world not the church. False doctrine is false doctrine no matter who it offends. Again, until you believe the Bible to be true and the authority for the debate, you will never be convinced. Spouse is generic, husband is specific. Man means man, woman means woman even in the Bible. The way you translate is the same excuse Homosexuals use for being allowed to serve in the church without repentance from their sinful lifestyle. This is my last word. You cannot come to Christ any way you want to. You must come according to His Word.

Divorce cannot be an abomination as God divorced Israel. See Jer 3:8.

What is wrong is breaking marriage vows, when one does that, the other party may decide to acknowledge the breaking is permanent via divorce; this is not required but is allowed. God divorced Israel but did not divorce Judah, yet God cannot sin.

Words mean things based on how they are used. The term "mias gunaikos andres" was applied to BOTH men and women on tombstones in Ephesus, which is where Timothy was when Paul wrote 1 Tim. The term means "faithful spouse" in its most correct translation; you can choose to abandon your masculinist readings of the Bible and repent (like I did) or you can CHOOSE to continue in your elevation of men over women. It is your choice.

"You are using a phrase ("Girlie-man Jesus") which you "could never" explain to someone who is unfamiliar with the phrase."

Why are you twisting my words?

"If your definition of being a 'girly man' is loving your enemies, crying in public, compassion for those less forutnate for you, eschewing violence in favor of principled resistance, and, of course, wearing long robes and sandals, then yes, I think Jesus qualifies as a 'girly man.'"

That's not how I define a "girly-man." Like I said, if you don't know what the term means, there's no way I can explain it to you.

"Since when is worshipping the Jesus of the gospels (gentle Jesus, meek and mild) worshipping a 'girly man'?"

The Jesus of the gospels was not always gentle, meek, or mild. If He were, people wouldn't have crucified Him.

"Since when is the vision of a Jesus arming his people with machine guns and rocket launchers (aka "Left Behind" and all the other misinterpretations of Revelation) consistent with anything Jesus ever did or said?"

I've never read the "Left Behind" novels (and I doubt you have, either), so I can't comment on that. Since Jesus is Almighty God, I hardly think He has any needs for weapons. However, Jesus Himself said He would someday judge this world. To argue otherwise is to deny the very words of Jesus.

Ken, your twisted and convoluted attempt at a point (mis)speaks for itself. You've refused to explain yourself because you apparently can't explain yourself.

I'm sure we'll butt heads again, as you always seem to come on this site to take shots at "liberals." And in that you are, sadly, consistent.

Kash, I appreciate your effort to clarify the accusation being thrown at "liberals." Perhaps you could model what you seek by explaining what you mean by "Rambo Jesus." Don't worry if you can't, though, because you won't be expected to explain what you mean. I might try this approach at church soon: "If you don't understand it, I can't explain itand I won't try to explain it." This will get me out of many sticky situations.

"Once you understand the history of your feminist ideas, document their fruit, and see their origin one knows feminism is of Satan. Is this really rocket science?" You are the one bringing up the label of "feminism". I am just talking about Jesus - what He said, what He believed, and how he behaved. He was not a moralist, He did not 'judge' people the way YOU are judging people in your posts. He spoke of and acted in accordance with the Kingdom of God already at hand, not as some far off in the future one-time event. That is why he was crucified. His words scared the powerful, just as they continue to scare those who want to stay in power as the world defines power. His words scare you, because they give you no false sense of security that if you do a,b, and c and refrain from doing x, y, and z you will be ok. They tell you that you must completely surrender everything - your very being - to serve others and serve God. You must give up your carefully constructed categories (men = pastors, women = subjects, patriarchy = good, feminism = bad) and deal with people individually, with all their virtues and vices. You are denying a certain group of people the full expression of their faith in God, something Jesus NEVER did in any manner.

"Families have fallen apart! You know a tree by its fruit. Women are on anti-depressants now more than ever. Women are abused by men who have never been taught to be men who protect vulnerable femininity." The rates of women (and men) on anti-depressants is the same for fundamentalists and non-fundies, the rates for divorce are also the same, and the rates of spousal abuse are higher among fundamentalist groups. So I am not sure how you can claim that lack of taking the Bible literally is the cause of these conditions. Besides, what are you comparing to? There were not as many anti-depressants available 50 years ago, correlation does not mean causation.

And by the way, if subjugating women and keeping them out of authoritative roles in the church was the key to spiritual enlightenment and domestic tranquility, the fundamentalist Muslims would be the model of such behavior. Is that what you consider the ideal male-female relationship, both in the home and in the church?

Our faith is nothing like the false religion of Islam. As a matter of fact the Christian church in america had a large part in getting women the rights they have in this nation. Somehow you think because we believe a woman should not be a pastor means that we have a lesser view of women than you. Again, you are mistaken. Compromising clear standards set forth in God's Word does not benefit the church or the woman.

No, McCord. I was responding specifically to the charges made by KT2005. I do think that progressive Christianity in this nation is largely responsible for many of the civil rights that all people have in the United States. But the Southern Baptist Church has not been on the forefront of any of these movements, and in fact have actively worked to hinder them in many cases.

"Compromising clear standards set forth in God's Word does not benefit the church or the woman." That is an easy aphorism to spout, but one that ignores the larger issue: if the standards were so clear, there would not be so many denominations and differences of opinions among equally committed Christians. Whenever someone starts claiming that another group is "compromising the clear standard of God's word" that is a pretty good indication that the person is more interested in their own preconceived notion than what the Bible actually says. Because face it: the Bible says different things in different places when it comes to specifics (as one would expect in a book made up of many books written and rewritten and redacted over thousands of years), but the overriding message is consistent: everyone is equal before God, everyone is equally able to experience God through the Holy Spirit without any earthly mediator, and nothing can separate us from God if we are willing to put our eternal lives in His hands.

"I believe the Bible is the sure and certain, inspired, infallible and inerrant fixed truth which can be known by man. But, there are a couple of points for clarification to help one better understand my high view of Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed, but it cannot be said all Scripture is of equal importance in terms of application for the New Covenant believer and Christ’s church. For instance, God’s covenant with Israel forbad the eating of pork, demanded the remembrance of the Sabbath, required the offering of sacrifices, etc… These commands, and others similar in nature, are part of the “infallible, inerrant, fixed truth” of God’s word—yet they are not commands given to a New Covenant follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ fulfilled and abolished the Old Covenant, and as a result, all the laws and commands associated with the Old Covenant are forever gone. Believers in Jesus Christ have been given “a new commandment” (John 13:34) to “love one another just as Christ has loved us.” It is this command to love others, which is the distinguishing mark of the follower of Jesus Christ, that differentiates Christianity from all other religions. Of course, it is impossible to love others as Christ has loved us unless we have a clear and comprehensive understanding of the eternal, unconditional, and personal love of God for us—thus the gospel (good news) is the preeminent message of the New Testament."

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/search/label/The Baptist Faith and Message

So you may argue with my interpretation of what I read and study, but you can not (if honest debate is your aim) accuse me of not respecting the scriptures. It would be a compromise if I believed the scriptures say what YOU think they say, but since when I read the Bible thoughtfully and prayerfully I in no way think that I should slay all the Amorites or make women remain silent in church, I am not compromising anything but YOUR self appointed authority.

"You've refused to explain yourself because you apparently can't explain yourself."

Isn't that precisely what I said? Here are my exact words:

"If you don't understand the term 'girlie-man', I could never explain it to you."

You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you?

Your citations from Wade Burleson are just more red herring. I don't think anyone on this site would dispute that we're no longer under the Old Testament covenant.

Most people who oppose the ordination of women base their views on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Last time I checked, 1 Timothy was in the NEW Testament (sarcasm intended).

Wow! We are setting a record for responses. lol

DonJ

God hates divorce Malachi 2:16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts. “ Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously" To commit this serious sin is to be disqualified from ordination because one is not blameless. Sorry for no mentioning divorce is acceptable in cases of adultery. . . which is what Israel did to God.

Do us all a favor and document your "faithful spouse" tombstone ideas. Gravestones were expensive in the ancient world and men and women were often buried together. One ancient tombstone does not an idiom make. . .

Kash,

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You have said the OT law is sinfully flawed. Then you say it is authoritative for identifying our sin. You say women have no specific roles, but offer no interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Can I dismiss your scripture quotes as you do mine by saying "I just don't know how to interpret that." If you think that feminism has not guided your whole theology, think again. Whoever taught you will probably own up to it. There has been moral decline in America for the past 50 years. You see it as does everyone else. Your theology has also taken root in churches during this same time. Coincidence??? I think not!

Where is faith in picking one scripture over another? Alas, if only God were a better communicator!!!

The Ephesian tombstone's are documented in the scholarly French La TOB: Edition Integrale.

http://www.amazon.fr/Bible-TOB-intégrale-Skivertex-bordeaux/dp/2204075671/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259703495&sr=8-4

It is discussed in Familiar "Leadership" Heresies Exposed by Bruce Fleming.

The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
kind of person.”

According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming

Also, the Hebrew in Mal. says "he hates divorces" it is an interpretation to claim that God is saying this, it is also possible that the (abstact) man is saying it as pointed out by Hugenberger. Even if God said it, God still did it, so it cannot be an abomination in some cases. He even gives the Biblical reasons plural in the prophets, but you need to know the other possible Biblical reasons to divorce besides adultery, but they all amount to breaking of Biblical marriage vows.

Think of it this way, if divorce for Biblical reasons disqualifies one from being a pastor, then God is disqualified, which is obviously false.

"You have said the OT law is sinfully flawed." Where did I say that? I said that in putting it into practice our sins will necessarily result in flaws. The law is used to justify sinful behavior by those such as Pharisees - even Jesus said as much. "You say women have no specific roles, but offer no interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12." I rarely offer interpretations of single scriptures out of context and without regard to anything else. But I also do not worship the words of Paul or any other words in the Bible in isolation from the words and actions of My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I think it very reasonable that if Timothy was having problems with some women in his church, Paul would admonish him to not let them teach, depending on what the nature of the problem. But I also recognize that 1 Timothy is not entirely consistent even with Paul's other letters, and that most scholars think that both 1 and 2 Timothy were written pseudoepigraphically and perhaps later, when the early church was becoming more influenced by culture and custom of the day.
"Can I dismiss your scripture quotes as you do mine by saying "I just don't know how to interpret that."" You may do as you please, we are Baptists, after all, and I would not try to force my understanding on scripture by any other way but healthy debate.

"If you think that feminism has not guided your whole theology, think again. Whoever taught you will probably own up to it." I find that entirely presumptuous. You know nothing about me except that I accept women pastors and believe that men and women are uniquely gifted before God to serve Him in any capacity to which He calls them. Yet from that you assume I am a "feminist", which I can only assume you mean as a perjorative.
"There has been moral decline in America for the past 50 years. You see it as does everyone else." There has been a moral decline in America since America was founded. Read the sermons from 100, 200, 300 years ago and you will find the same moaning and groaning about the moral decline of America. Mostly what has happened is the sins that used to be done in the dark are now done in the light and are less likely to get you kicked out of your church and community, but people are largely the same and claim to hold the same values even while they do not live up to them.
"Your theology has also taken root in churches during this same time. Coincidence??? I think not!" I know of no church where my theology is taught exactly. Especially not the small conservative rural church I attend where my views are in the minority. My theology, as such, comes from reading the Bible and many different commentaries from Spurgeon to Stott to NT Wright to RObert Funk.

Ken, you are free to belittle my mental capacity all you want, but considering that you use terms you can't even define, I'll take your insult as a compliment.

Also, if my theology resulted in moral decline, then I would be in moral decline. Yet my agnostic parents reared me in a much stricter environment than most of my (church going) friends. My parents had left the Baptist faith as young adults because of the intolerance and stand against civil rights that the southern church was taking at the time. It is a fallacy to think that those that are more thoughtful in their approach to the scriptures are less moral. I find that many people are quite comfortable claiming to take the Bible literally while their personal lives are a moral quagmire. You simply can not generalize in that way that those who claim a fundamentalist view of the Bible are more moral. The facts do not support it.

"Where is faith in picking one scripture over another?" But you do the same! You pick the ones that support the subjugation and limitation of women in the ministry, and ignore those that encourage exlusiveness. I do not pretend to have the best or the only interpretation of the scriptrues, only God has that - but you are quite certain that you know exactly which ones God wanted us to follow literally and which ones to ignore or take as a spiritual metaphor. I am not so arrogant.

Well, that is what happens when typing in a hurry between appointments. Obviously, I meant "ignore the ones that encourage inclusiveness."

DonJ,

Points for a point well made. That said if one participates in a Biblical divorce then one is still blameless, but they are no longer husband of one wife or a one woman kind of man. God is using marriage immagedry and all immagdry can be pushed to extremes resulting in false ends. Like this for instance: Jesus is the Lamb of God. If Jesus is a Lamb then he is not a human. Therefore Jesus did not become a man or human. Such logic is false.

Your comment on Malachi says so much. The whole system of scripture is based upon belief in prophesy. That God can speak through people/prophets perfectly. This is the Bible's position. . . thus a prophet says "thus saith the Lord". You reject this position and therefore can pick the text you like and ignore the ones you do not. Please understand that a conservative does not have this luxury. We must fit all of scripture together perfectly. This is what separates our two positions.

Kash,

Making one scripture more important than another makes you God. You can do anything you want with that kind of systematic theology. I'm sure you see what I am saying. You follow the spirit. . . too bad it is your own.

When the term is seen as faithful spouse, then it is accurately translated. A person might be a widow(er) and marry again and be a pastor. The marriage covenant was ended by death.

You should check what the Hebrew in Mal. actually says before you make your claims. I do not reject what Mal. says, I try to understand it as best I can as the original reader would.

"Making one scripture more important than another makes you God." Making scripture more important the Christ Jesus makes you an idolator. Thinking that some parts of scripture are more important than others or more consistent with the teaching of Christ than others is simply being honest in my approach to the Bible.

Eeerg, should have been "Making scripture more important than Christ Jesus makes you an idolator." Sorry for the typos. Gotta go for now...

DonJ,

I agree with you that a marriage covenant ends at death. I would also argue that divorce always results from faults on both sides. I have yet to meet a divorced couple who disagrees with this. Being that fault is on both sides warrants disqualification for leadership due to a lack of blamelessness. That said, the Almighty is without fault. After all sinful men do as sinful men do and Holy God is who He is. . . I am that I am.

Wouldn't Paul have made life easier had he given qualifications for women pastors? After all if he meant to suggest what you say, Paul and the Holy Spirit did an awful job of communication! Practically the whole church for 2000 years has reserved the pastor office for men. Why wouldn't they, the Old Testament reserved the office of Priest to men. Such a huge break with the Old Testament would need explicit communication. Such clarity is not given and you must read tea leaves and grave stones to support your position. Doesn't this make you doubt your position just a bit?

I also have a hard time understanding your idiom argument in light of 1 Timothy 5. If Paul had used your idiom in chapter three why not again in chapter 5? The puzzle pieces simply do not fit.

Kash,

A conservative does not make a distinction between God's word and God. Doesn't the Gospel John say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." What God has spoken is a part of Him. . . His Word represents Him perfectly. At least that is what the Apostle John thought. . . perhaps he was wrong. What does he know anyway? He only walked with Jesus and was the beloved disciple.

And the Word became flesh . . . .

Jesus does not equal the Bible!

Pastor is not an office, at least not in the Bible. It is one of the 5 fold ministries of an elder/overseer.

Junia was an apostle and Phoebe was at least a deacon, and the woman that 2 John is addressed to was an elder. You need to repent of your masculinism, like I did.

The priesthood in the Mosaic covenants was only for descendents of Aaron along with other restrictions. In the new covenant we are all priests, so that Mosaic covenant restrictions do not apply for new covenant priests.

Everyone sins but there is a difference between being blameless and sinless. Paul was blameless in regards to Torah (Phil 3:6). There can be one or both parties that broke marriage vows that resulted in a divorce, this is not that hard to see. If a wife commits adultery, for example, this does not automatically disquality the husband from being an elder.

"masculinism"

I don't plan to repent of it, in fact I plan to embrace it. I am a man after all. The CBF's biggest problem is a lack of men. Men lead, take charge, make things happen. Men fight for justice and fight the good fight. Men who do the opposite aren't men and lack fulfillment. I would use the phrase "girly men" but we have already had enough written about that above. lol

an advocate of male superiority or dominance
— masculinist adjective

I am masculine but not a masculinist. Being a masculinist is something to repent from. I hope you figure this out someday.

Don J wrote: "an advocate of male superiority or dominance
— masculinist adjective."

Paul wrote: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

Paul also wrote: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Liberals and feminists who are not willing to submit to the authority of God selectively cherry pick Paul's words from Galatians and force them into unwilling service for their perverted and ungodly concepts of egalitarianism. Those who take the authority of the Scripture seriously interpret each statement in the Bible in the context of every other statement in the Bible.

Paul certainly did not teach that a male is morally superior to a female or that women are of lesser value to God than men. The value of a man or a woman was the blood of Christ.

Paul just as certainly taught that God created man as the head of the woman, just as surely as God the Father is head of God the Son. Note that Paul's reasoning on this matter does not appeal to the curse placed on Eve after the fall, but on the man's priority in God's good creation. His words are:

"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

The order of existence is this:

God the Father first

God the Son second

Man third.

Woman fourth.

I don't say that in anyway denigrates woman. Rather, it puts her very near the top. But some people can't be happy being where God put them, even if it is fourth down from God. They, like Satan who sought to supplant God, must be on top of everything.

The feminist movement is, therefore, every bit as evil as Satan and his minions who kept not their first estate, and those who uphold it are the sort of which Jude warned who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.

For anyone who doubts the malignancy of feminism, witness the current moral, spiritual and familial chaos that exists in this nation and among the Baptist churches since we embraced feminism.

And lest anyone accuse me of blaming all of our problems on women, let me point out that feminism is as much a malady of men, perhaps more so, than it is of women. Men like to shirk their spiritual duty because it absolves them of taking responsibility for the moral and spiritual well being of their families and churches. Furthermore, men, quite frankly, are willing to bow to women so long as they can get what they want out of a woman.

God have mercy on this generation of effeminate and sin crazed men and masculinized and impudent women in which we live.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Mark, I find it surprising that the Holy Spirit doesn't even make it into your top five. More dangerous, however, is the heretical "ranking" of the Godhead. God doesn't finish in second place to God! God have mercy on heretics.

For one, Paul did NOT say what you claim he said, as he wrote in Greek. You are using a TRANSLATION of the Greek (and all translation involves interpretation) and then further interpreting it to fit into your masculinist framework. Being the work of humans, it is possible that your translation has mistakes and/or your interpretation of the translation you choose has mistakes.

I try to understand 1 Cor 11 as the original readers would have, even tho I do not live in 1st century Corinth. Paul is FORBIDDING men from wearing a headcovering in congregration, while allowing women to each make a choice whether to wear a headcovering or not. This is because a headcovering had cultural meanings plural in that culture and the principle is that one should not dress in a way where the implicit message of one's clothes deny the truthes of the faith.

However, I find it ironic that verses that give female believers freedom are sometimes used to deny them freedom. And the verses that denied male believers that same freedom (in that specific 1st century culture) are simply not discussed much.


Also, my understanding of the Godhead revealed in the Bible is that Father, Word and Spirit co-existed eternally before Creation and that all explanations of God are metaphors, except perhaps holy.

Equating the Bible to God is idolatry. It is worshipping an inanimate object instead of the ineffable God. The Bible is inspired by God, but it is not God. The Bible does not claim to be God, or equal to God, or deserving of worship. The Bible simply claims to be the inspired word of God, useful for teaching and guiding behavior. Of course, the verses that describe it as such were not part of the scriptures at the time they were written. The Bible was canonized over thousands of years by humans, and what is "in" and what is "out" has changed and continues to change. So although the underlying theme of the Bible is unchanging, our understanding of it most certainly has changed (even among fundamentalists) so to worship it as God is idolatry. Plain and simple. If you put certain verses in the Bible above the clear teaching and example of Christ you are making a serious spiritual mistake. Jesus never put the words of scripture before the needs of humanity. It was one of the many reasons the Pharisees (fundamentalists of the day) hated Him and wanted Him dead.

ABP READER: "More dangerous, however, is the heretical 'ranking' of the Godhead. God doesn't finish in second place to God! God have mercy on heretics."

THE SCRIPTURE: "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

DON J: "This is because a headcovering had cultural meanings plural in that culture and the principle is that one should not dress in a way where the implicit message of one's clothes deny the truths of the faith."

ME: Amen! And the truth of the faith which Paul said a man or woman's dress should not deny is: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

KASH: "Equating the Bible to God is idolatry."

PAUL: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."


LOL!!! It ought to be illegal for a sinner such as I to b having this much fun on a cold and rainy Wednesday morning in east Arkansas! LOL!!!


Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

” The order of existence is this:
God the Father first
God the Son second
Man third.
Woman fourth. “

Interesting term, “order of existence”. But it isn’t accurate. God from the beginning was always one, yet included God the father, God the Word (YHWH), and God the HS. God the Son, did not happen until approximately 2000 years ago. So, it is true that God is first and foremost, and we should always consider Eloheim first and foremost. Yet, we should never consider God, the Son (the YHWH of eternity as well as the perfect Human) second or beneath God the Father. They are all one as Jesus said when he prayed that we all might be one as they are One!.

And it is true that humans including women came into existence second. And it is also true that the first woman came into existence from the first man, but not all women.

These are important occurrences in our history and deserve some form of honor, no doubt. What kind of honor did you have in mind, Mark O. from Arkansas?

I don't follow how your scripture verse equates the Bible to God. It just says the scriptures predict what God is going to do (of course, not in such a way that anyone was certain before the fact of HOW He would do it).

Perhaps it is time for ABP to have a point/counterpoint opinion piece on the issue of women in ministry. This would be similar to what they did with George Guthrie and Peggy Campolo on the issue of homosexuality. I think that ABP readers need to understand the arguments of both sides, rather than engaging in unproductive arguments.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul is giving us his rationale for giving women the freedom to decide whether to wear headcoverings when he prohibts men from wearing them in the congregation.

"I don't say that in anyway denigrates woman. Rather, it puts her very near the top."

Slaves are never on top. And that is what we are if we are saved: Slaves. Just depraved sinners saved by grace.

You sound like the Rabbi's that thanked God for not being born a woman.


"
The order of existence is this:

God the Father first

God the Son second"

Hmm. So, who is the Lord of Hosts Who was at Creation? And where is the Holy Spirit in your chain of command structure? Who does the Holy Spirit "report" to?

And why is Messiah referred to as "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9?

Some people on this thread say they prefer Jesus to the Bible. I wasn't aware that Jesus and the Bible were on opposite sides.

Just who is equating the Bible with God? That is another straw man.

Answer this question: how can a person truly know God apart from His written Word? How can anyone know about Jesus apart from the New Testament?

Ken, your points are just straw men as well.

Besides, you may have to live without answers to your questions. Perhaps folks on here have answer they know to be right, but if you don't already know the answers, they could never explain them to you.

What we are seeing is the formation among Baptists of a supposed Magisterium. Historic Baptists must be gagging.

I saw your post yesterday, and I was going to let you have the last word. Unfortunately, you seem determined to make a fool of yourself, so I guess I'll just have to accommodate you.

"Ken, you are free to belittle my mental capacity all you want"

I did not belittle your mental capacity; just your attention span.

"I'll take your insult as a compliment."

If that makes you feel better, go for it. However, you have to admit you walked right into it.

"Besides, you may have to live without answers to your questions."

I can believe that. I've been asking liberals that question for over twenty years, and to this day none have ever given me an answer.

"Perhaps folks on here have answer they know to be right, but if you don't already know the answers, they could never explain them to you."

They can't explain it because they don't know.

Ken, then we can safely conlude that can't explain what a "Girlie-man" is because you don't know. And your accusation about the "liberals" holding to a "Girlie-man Jesus" is a just a straw man or your complete ignorance. I suspect it's both.

I've seen you disregard questions on this site many times. You and your favorite targets, "liberals," are evidently quite similar.

Ken, one last thought before this "fool," as you refer to me, quits this little back-and-forth: it's quite possible that you've mistaken the theological identity of all those you've been branding as "liberals" since your your early twenties.

I suspect that you've been carrying a desire to expose "liberals" for what you think they really are for a long time. That is basically all you try to do on this site.

As one Baptist messenger to another, let it go.

On occasion, I comment in the comment section on this site. Most of the time I simply read the "back-and-forth." Wow, this one really became a doozy (No, I will not define "doozy." If you don't know what it means, I certainly can't explain it to you :) ).

Today, I feel compelled to answer Ken's question(s), since he feels they have never been answered by his "liberal" friends. I suspect Ken means "I've never gotten an answer I like," but we'll leave that for another discussion. Go ahead and blast me for "assuming"; I'm a big boy and I can take it.

Ken, you are asking two very different questions. "Knowing" God and "knowing about" God (or Jesus) are two very different things.

1)"how can a person truly know God apart from His written Word?"

I've certainly never been accused of being pentecostal, but I pity you if you've never encountered God's Holy Spirit through worship, through prayer, through God's creation, and through both giving care to others and receiving care yourself. I do hope your spiritual growth in the future allows for these to happen.

2)"How can anyone know about Jesus apart from the New Testament?"

Who would claim to know "about" Jesus apart from the witness of the New Testament? Mormons, perhaps? Big Josephus fans? Certainly not Christians. However, this does not require me to fraudulently claim that my own ability to interpret scripture is somehow inerrant (which is, in practice, what fundamentalist believe about scripture).

I love scripture. I've spent a large portion of my life, academic, professional (as a minister), and personal, studying scripture. However, I will not worship my own interpretation of the Bible. And I'm sick of fundamentalists claiming they hold the Bible in a higher regard than do I. You do not. In fact, refusing to read the Bible first in its own context, recognizing it is written by human authors and reflects multiple perspectives in various genres, does harm to scripture and insults our God to which it bears witness. Scripture is in conversation with itself. If we do not hear it, it may be because we hear a bit too much of our own voice.

I'm tried of hearing from supposedly "conservative" Christians who "really believe the Bible." What I hear from a lot of "conservative" and "liberal" Christians alike is "I really believe the Bible says what I already decided it says."

No humility, only arrogance. I look forward to what God will continue to say to me through the Bible -- and those ways God will show me I still have so much to learn. Shouldn't we all feel this way?

Yes, I have encountered the Holy Spirit through worship and through the study of God's Word. Yet how do you know the Holy Spirit even exists? Let's all say it together: THE BIBLE SAYS SO. Thus, your whole argument collapses under its own weight.

Here's an interesting quote:

"Christ and the Bible are indissolubly linked together. If you can get rid of the Bible, you can get rid of Christ. If you can get rid of Christ, you can get rid of the Bible. The one is the complement and counterpart of the other. Christ and the Bible are the binomial word of God...You are done with Christ, if you are done with the Bible..."
- George W. Truett, The Quest for Souls, pg. 84

Sounds like Truett was one of those despicable "bibiolaters", huh?

You said a couple more things that demand a response:

"However, this does not require me to fraudulently claim that my own ability to interpret scripture is somehow inerrant (which is, in practice, what fundamentalist believe about scripture)."

Is that so? Would you cite some examples? I went to a so-called "fundamentalist" seminary. Professors differed over the chronology of the Second Coming, the nature of election, etc. Thus, your statement is nothing but slander.

However, some things are non-negotiable. When a church or denomination abandons the inerrancy of Scripture, it's only a matter of time before they abandon other doctrines such as the virgin birth, the atonement, the deity of Christ, etc. I defy you to show me one instance where that has not been the case.

"No humility, only arrogance."

On that point, I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black.

"Ken, one last thought before this 'fool,' as you refer to me"

I did not refer to you as a fool. I said you seem determined to make a fool of yourself. You have a habit of twisting my words. That's why I did not respond to your question, because I knew no matter what I said, you'd twist it and make it into something I did not say.

You call my comment about a "girlie-man Jesus" a straw man. It was a perfectly fair response to Kash's straw man about "Rambo Jesus." Most people on this site seemed to understand that. You were the only one who made an issue out of it.

You said, "However, this does not require me to fraudulently claim that my own ability to interpret scripture is somehow inerrant (which is, in practice, what fundamentalist believe about scripture)."

Here are a few quotes from some notorious "fundamentalists":

"Dr. B.H. Carroll believed an altogether different interpretation about the second coming of Christ than I believe, but the point is, he believed the Bible literally, faithfully, devoutly. Thus, many of us differ in our interpretation of the Word of God. But as long as we have the Bible as our ultimate authority, we have a common ground on which to stand" - W.A. Criswell, Look Up, Brother! (Broadman Press, 1970; paperback edition, 1973) p. 98.

"I may add that the question of pre-millennialism or post-millennialism does not enter into this discussion. Both schools rely upon the Bible as their authority; it is not a question of inspiration but of interpretation" - William Jennings Bryan, Seven Questions in Dispute, (Fleming H. Revell Co., 1924), p. 9.

And here's an interesting selection from "The Fundamentals" (which first gave rise to the term "fundamentalist"):

"However great the divergence of views among students of prophecy may seem to be, and in spite of the many varieties of opinion among the representatives of the two schools which have been mentioned in passing [i.e., pre-millennialism and post-millennialism], the points of agreement are far more important. The main difference is as to the order, rather than as to the reality of events" - Charles H. Erdman, "The Coming of Christ", The Fundamentals, (Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917; reprinted by Baker Book House, 2000) vol. 4, p. 312.

Thus, James, your statement seems to be based more on your own negative presuppositions than on fact.

...but where, oh where, did I suggest dismissing the Bible? I would never propose such a thing. All I have a suggested is a little more humility while interpreting scripture. Since I do not believe my own interpretations of the Bible to be inerrant, I am not "a pot calling a kettle black."

Your entire argument appears to be, "See, Fundamentalists aren't arrogant when interpreting scripture because we can respectfully disagree on our eschatology." Heaven help anyone who dares disagree about anything else...

Ken, I would not assume (if I were you) that the silence you now hear from others on this board who disagree with you to be evidence of your "winning the argument." You and I have disagreed on this site before, and the discourse can become tiresome. Do you simply enjoy arguing? If everything on ABP is so "liberal," why are you reading editorials on this site?

And I promise not to even start on the crock that is dispensationalism.(Actually, that's not true because I just did, and it came off as a bit too passive aggressive. Sorry about that.)

I make no argument which "collapses under its own weight," or under any other weight. You may disagree, but there is no gap in logic in my statements.

The Bible is essential to Christian faith and practice. I will absolutely agree that authentic Christian faith can not dismiss scripture. And any knowledge of God (including Christ) is incomplete apart for the Bible. Now, having said that, God (God as Christ or God as Spirit included) is not bound to scripture - and God can be and is experienced apart from it. (Ken, you will want to seize on this last sentence, pulling it out of the context of the two sentences before it. I challenge you not to do this.)

We know the Holy Spirit exists because God wants us to, and for no other reason. Scripture bears witness to the existence of God, as Father, Christ, and Spirit. It is not the entirety of the evidence for God's existence.

"Your entire argument appears to be, 'See, Fundamentalists aren't arrogant when interpreting scripture because we can respectfully disagree on our eschatology.' Heaven help anyone who dares disagree about anything else..."

Wrong again. Eschatology is only one example where so-called "fundamentalists" disagree. I thought you were intelligent enough to pick up on that, but I guess I was mistaken. There's a huge difference between interpreting Scripture and denying the very nature of Scripture. Liberals do the latter.

"And I promise not to even start on the crock that is dispensationalism."

I'm not a dispensationalist myself, but I find it intriguing how people who make such a big production of "diversity" are so quick to bash this kind of theology. I guess your talk about one's "right to interpret Scripture" is not entirely sincere, eh?

"The Bible is essential to Christian faith and practice. I will absolutely agree that authentic Christian faith can not dismiss scripture."

Yet when so-called "fundamentalists" make that same argument, they're accused of worshipping the Bible. Why the double standard?

"Scripture bears witness to the existence of God, as Father, Christ, and Spirit. It is not the entirety of the evidence for God's existence."

But you said yourself that the Bible is essential to Christian faith. Thus, you cannot truly know God apart from Scripture. If the Scriptures are not a reliable witness, how can we truly anything about God apart from our own speculations?

P.S. It's no use trying to throw me off by attacking my motives.

Oh, I see. Because you are unclear and I did not assume you meant something other than what you wrote, I must be unintelligent. That is an interesting assessment. And I find it comical that you can resort to insults and name-calling (earlier in the thread) and then criticize another post for "attacking my motives." Beautiful.

Ken, you consistently miss the points of others. I can only hope other readers of these posts (there can't be many left at this point, can there?) have more accomplished reading comprehension skills. If the fault is actually in my ability to communicate through writing, then I apologize. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I think enough has been said.

"Oh, I see. Because you are unclear and I did not assume you meant something other than what you wrote, I must be unintelligent. That is an interesting assessment."

I was not unclear. You claimed that "fundamentalists" insist on no one's interpretation but their own. To which I replied:

"Is that so? Would you cite some examples? I went to a so-called 'fundamentalist' seminary. Professors differed over the chronology of the Second Coming, the nature of election, etc. Thus, your statement is nothing but slander."

I then cited a few examples of "fundamentalists" disagreeing on eschatology to prove my point. I suspect you didn't misunderstand me at all. Rather, I suspect you deliberately twisted my words to mean something I did not intend.

"And I find it comical that you can resort to insults and name-calling (earlier in the thread) and then criticize another post for attacking my motives.' Beautiful."

You're twisting my words again. I didn't criticize you for attacking my motives. I simply said such diversionary tactics won't work.

"Ken, you consistently miss the points of others."

...says the man who consistently misses my points (or more likely, purposely dodges them).

"If the fault is actually in my ability to communicate through writing, then I apologize. However, I do not believe this to be the case."

Nor do I. The fault is your making untrue statements and invalid arguments, and then ducking out when your arguments are disproven.

"I think enough has been said."

That's what I mean by ducking out.

I think the sunject has been adressed to the extreme. Neither side will ever be convinced to change. I praise God for all who are willing to stand and proclaim God's Word. I praise God for every Church that is Glorifying God and reaching the world for Christ. I don't agree with having women pastors but I believe every soul that she leads to Christ is gloriously saved. Merry Christmas