David Rogers Prays with Women Pastors

[David Rogers]

Ed,

1. How many truly convictional complementarian churches do you believe there are in the ABC-USA? That is an honest question, not just rhetorical. I honestly don't know.

2. I think the argument about "equal or superior skills, knowledge and abilities" is a red herring. I certainly don't believe all men, or even most men, have equal or superior skills, knowledge and abilities to all, or most women. And I don't think the vast majority of complementarians do either. As far as calling is concerned, a call to ministry is a very subjective thing. Personally, I believe much of church life down through the centuries, Baptist and otherwise, has squelched the legitimate ministry calling of women. It's just I don't see, due to my understanding of Scripture, how that calling must be fulfilled in the role of church pastor/elder/bishop. Also, I make a difference between a pastoral gift or ministry, and the role or office of pastor/elder/bishop in a local church.

And, yes, I understand I will one day have to give an account to God for my views. It is this conviction that leads me to be as careful as I can in my exegesis of God's revelation to us in the Bible. And, also, to be willing to hear other perspectives as open-mindedly and objectively as possible.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

Would you prefer me to say the Biblical view and the Non-Biblical view?

[Blake]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

One more relevant link:

[Ed Pettibone]

[Blake]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

[Jim]

Most of the complementarian/egalitarian stuff is so much nonsense when considering both the biblical and the “natural order of things” approach. With regard to the biblical approach, folks can read the same scriptures and arrive at different interpretations – fair enough, notwithstanding the claims of the “called” to perhaps have a special dispensation. I believe women should be ordained if “called” and serve wherever they are accepted. If they have to change churches and denominations because those entities do not respect whatever superiority in interpretation they claim, so be it…that would just be a facet of the “call,” a bit of sacrifice. The same is true for men who run into the same difficulties, i.e., congregations unwilling to accept their leadership. This happens all the time.

Complementarianism does have an interpretation biblically, however. Man and woman complement each other in having children and establishing a family. Survival, however, in biblical days (both OT & NT) depended most often on the skill-set (though he possibly be dumber than his wife) of the man, who, by definition, then became the dominant complementarian figure, thus the one to make decisions, since life and death depended not so much on who could read as who could break things and kill people and had to decide where and how best to do this. This, obviously, has carried over even to the present day, not in the matter of submission of woman to man but in the matter of common sense. Physically speaking, a woman standing 5-2 and weighing 120 is not only not as imposing on a battlefield as a hunk at 6-1 and 190, but is also nowhere near as effective, if at all. In this regard, she, whether she admits it or not, is dependent (not submissive-to unless he tells her to seek cover or die) on the man.

In the “natural order of things” (also a biblical matter but not popular in the area of political correctness and its key element – unisex), people decide the nature of that order within their demographics with regard to most everything. But one thing is certain, namely, that when all the facts are in and disagreement occurs over a course to take, one person usually must make the decision, which will please some and horrify others and will be right or wrong or some representation of each. Traditionally and still consensually, the man has made that decision, whether in a family or a government military action. This carries over to the church, as well, whether right or wrong. Men probably make up 90% of the called to the pastorate, even though more than half the population is female. Congregations have the option of feeling better with a female pastor or a male pastor, and blaming them for exercising either option is so much smoke. Women carried the fight for suffrage and prohibition and won both from men. Let them do the same in the matter of church/denominational leadership. It may be that the “natural order” will render their efforts sometimes fruitless, but they have won the opportunity to try. In the SBC recent history, it is seen how things can be changed. Let them note that and go and do likewise – if they can and if God so decrees. They certainly have the numerical advantage, and to constantly see them as “victims” worthy of some sort of affirmative action, whether in or out of the church, is to degrade them.

In the meantime, men should not – in the avowed interest of “fairness” – go slinking off, mumbling about equality or egalitarianism. In scripture, God is always referenced as male, notwithstanding all the “Sophia” stuff, but the fact that He is both male and female is part of TRUTH. God is definitely predominantly male complemented by a female side, an indication that the final word that sometimes has to be delivered is a male-word, right or wrong, not exhibiting an overbearing aura but a recognition of his responsibility, one that is being more and more relinquished these days in the interest of diversity or multiculturalism or political correctness, to the detriment of the nation, as well as the family.

[johnfariss]

[Blake]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I can't give the SBCers credit for inventing the term conservative resurgence.

It became a popular term in the early 1980s in reference to the "conservative resurgence" ushered in by Reagan.

I doubt anyone would be surprised to learn that SBCers adopted a term closely associated with the success of Reagan!

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

Blake,

Within Christendom, we already have thousands of different denominations and networks of churches, each with its own confession of faith, and guidelines for cooperation. Does it qualitatively change anything to have a few more? The problem, as I understand it, is not that we have so many different groups. We could all become Roman Catholics, or part of the Witness Lee Local Church movement, or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., and claim that we have a monopoly on the One True Church (TM). But, if we don't do that, I'm afraid the plurality of groups, with different confessions of faith, and different guidelines for cooperation, is here to stay.

The key to biblical unity, as I understand it, is recognizing this reality, and stop trying to make everyone else conform to our understanding, as a requirement for treating each other as legitimate members of the Body of Christ. But not by dropping our convictions, or making it taboo to amicably discuss our differences.

Another way to put it is I don't think denominational mergers will necessarily move us any closer to the unity that Christ desires for His Body. In many cases, they will actually move us away from it. However, attitudes of judgmentalism, and pejorative accusations, and false representations of each other do harm the unity of the Body.