About a woman being SBC presdent

[Tim Bonney]

This has all led to, according to Griffith, the remaining SBSers being susceptible to Trumpian authoritarianism. (I’ll note that this susceptibility is much less in more mainline denominations).

Maybe because the UMC is fairly evenly spread across the US, there are plenty of Methodists in the GOP as well as the Dems, etc. So even in my fairly liberal congregation, we do have some Trump supporters.

[KeithE]

This has all led to, according to Griffith, the remaining SBCers being susceptible to Trumpian authoritarianism. (I’ll note that this susceptibility is much less in more mainline denominations).

Maybe because the UMC is fairly evenly spread across the US, there are plenty of Methodists in the GOP as well as the Dems, etc. So even in my fairly liberal congregation, we do have some Trump supporters.

Being susceptible to authoritarianism is not so much about being conservative or liberal as it is being easily sucked into tribes not treating each issue separately. As the priesthood of believers (in particular) has been diminished in the SBC, it has conditioned the people to be subject to authority-claiming “leaders” to make up their minds.

My son Todd's UMC church is mostly Trump supporters (according to Todd) so much so that a youth minister was fired for merely leading a youth discussion about separating migrants families at the border (according to the youth minister Ryan who I know as a always super-prepared teacher - took a class from him on Early church fathers “Lessons from Dead Guys"). Ryan has found another UMC church here in Huntsville (Todd's old church). It will be interesting to see who gets the youth position to replace Ryan at Todd’s current church - more to come.

[Rvaughn]

That's a pretty thorough and interesting perspective. So if you apply these particular passages as literally as this interpretation does, then are all of the other cultural affects that were part of the first century Christian church to be taken and applied literally "in the church"? Actually, if you look at the original language, and the way the term "church" is defined or understood, the phrase "in the church" does not indicate a "church meeting" apart from the community itself. "In the church" meant within the body, since "the church" in many places, including Corinth, included "meetings" taking place in several different locations. So I have a few questions for those Baptists who think this ought to be the way it is. Where are the head coverings? Where are the men lifting their hands during prayer? Do women in your church wear jewelry or cut their hair? Are your pastor's children obedient followers of Christ now? Have they always been? Are there one or two individuals speaking in tongues in your worship time with interpretation? Is the bread at communion truly unleavened, and is their wine in the cup? Is your church taking care of the financial and household needs of widows past sixty or are you letting the government handle that with social security? When did the office of Apostle cease, where is that in scripture?

Let's take the hermeneutical principle that is used here, and apply it, as it should be done if you insist on a literal interpretation of this, to Revelation 1:1-3, and to Luke 21:32 and Mark 13:30, and Matthew 24:34.

I posted that link to show Leland that there are churches that take the "silent" command in some literal sense. For those things you question, there are folks who take these kinds of issues seriously, study them out and come to a conclusion of how to move forward, whether or not they satisfy your version of how you think they need to practice in order to be consistent. Here is, for example, a link to that same sight where one considers the head covering issue and writes of his conclusion of the matter.
https://ntrf.org/head-coverings/

[Sandy]

That's a pretty thorough and interesting perspective. So if you apply these particular passages as literally as this interpretation does, then are all of the other cultural affects that were part of the first century Christian church to be taken and applied literally "in the church"? Actually, if you look at the original language, and the way the term "church" is defined or understood, the phrase "in the church" does not indicate a "church meeting" apart from the community itself. "In the church" meant within the body, since "the church" in many places, including Corinth, included "meetings" taking place in several different locations. So I have a few questions for those Baptists who think this ought to be the way it is. Where are the head coverings? Where are the men lifting their hands during prayer? Do women in your church wear jewelry or cut their hair? Are your pastor's children obedient followers of Christ now? Have they always been? Are there one or two individuals speaking in tongues in your worship time with interpretation? Is the bread at communion truly unleavened, and is their wine in the cup? Is your church taking care of the financial and household needs of widows past sixty or are you letting the government handle that with social security? When did the office of Apostle cease, where is that in scripture?

Let's take the hermeneutical principle that is used here, and apply it, as it should be done if you insist on a literal interpretation of this, to Revelation 1:1-3, and to Luke 21:32 and Mark 13:30, and Matthew 24:34.

I posted that link to show Leland that there are churches that take the "silent" command in some literal sense. For those things you question, there are folks who take these kinds of issues seriously, study them out and come to a conclusion of how to move forward, whether or not they satisfy your version of how you think they need to practice in order to be consistent. Here is, for example, a link to that same sight where one considers the head covering issue and writes of his conclusion of the matter.
https://ntrf.org/head-coverings/

There are, and always will be, those who think that obedience to a list of specific "commandments" include all of the nuances of the various writings that found their way into the canon of the New Testament. I've read many of these sorts of things over the years. They all include a list of basic presumptive starting points regarding how to literally interpret and handle various instructive passages throughout the New Testament while ignoring what Southern Baptists once argued over in the BFM called the "Christ context." Few Christians, and I mean genuine Christians who are, by Biblical definition "regenerated and transformed spiritually" by the Holy Spirit, pay much attention to this type of legalism. By the same token that these authors write, there is no passage, citation, or reference that indicates anything being written is to be considered in a context universally timeless and beyond the scope of the local culture in particular which it addresses.

Southern Baptists, along with most of their other brethren in denominational groupings in this country, and now even among their Evangelical conservative brethren, have reached a point where the church culture and denominational identity they have created is no longer an effective vehicle for evangelism and in their current institutional form, they have shifted from being influences on the culture, to having been co-opted and inflluenced by the culture. And that means that Southern Baptist leaders look like dated, out of touch, hostile, agitated, turf protectors by having to consider the question of whether gender matters in considering operational polity of a convention that exists two days out of a year

[Dave Roberts]

Did anyone ever consider that Paul's command to the women in Corinth might have to do with the issue of the disruptions in worship that were taking place in Corinth? I don't know a way to be certain on this, but it makes sense in the context of the book. What do you think?

[William Thornton]

Did anyone ever consider that Paul's command to the women in Corinth might have to do with the issue of the disruptions in worship that were taking place in Corinth? I don't know a way to be certain on this, but it makes sense in the context of the book. What do you think?

My reading of it...

[KeithE]

Did anyone ever consider that Paul's command to the women in Corinth might have to do with the issue of the disruptions in worship that were taking place in Corinth? I don't know a way to be certain on this, but it makes sense in the context of the book. What do you think?

My reading of it...

That is just creating a context so that you can maintain the your precious view of an innerant, infallible, ever-applicable Bible.

Why not give up that view of the Bible and follow Jesus who instructed us to listen to the Spirit to garner “all truth”.

Consider the possibility that it is idolatrous to place the Bible as a higher authority than the Spirit of God.

Dave and William - I think you are trusting the Spirit in allowing women to speak at church; in William’s case just wish he would admit to that and give up the very tenuous claim of an inerrant, infallible, ever-applicable Bible when using a natural straight reading of the text without added context to make it more palatable today. Not sure of Dave’s thinking on this.

If you are free to add arbitrary context, you can ignore whatever the bible plainly says (by claiming some context that no longer exists) or make the Bible say whatever you want (most likely to march to the same tune of today’s traditions whichever tradition you are living in). That set of one’s traditional views is your real authority.

[Dave Roberts]

I have never believed in inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement of 1978 (which is the only definition with which I have to work). I am convinced that we often misuse Paul's letters by taking something out of the context of being part of a two-way conversation, the other side of which we do not have, and trying to universalize that which may have been given a completely different meaning by the receiving church. It's like listening to one side of a phone call. Paul contextualized his responses based on the situation of the church, and we are often left to wonder what he meant. If I have to take my stand by what would appear a universal word for the church, "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, the is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28 NRSV).

[Tim Bonney]

My son Todd's UMC church is mostly Trump supporters (according to Todd) so much so that a youth minister was fired for merely leading a youth discussion about separating migrants families at the border (according to the youth minister Ryan who I know as a always super-prepared teacher - took a class from him on Early church fathers “Lessons from Dead Guys"). Ryan has found another UMC church here in Huntsville (Todd's old church). It will be interesting to see who gets the youth position to replace Ryan at Todd’s current church - more to come.

Ouch! I assume you mean “youth director?” Clergy can’t be fired in the UMC. But church staff don’t have those guarantees.

Among all denominations of Christians, I have been terribly disturbed that our evangelical wing has succumbed to the politics of anti immigration.

[Rvaughn]

Few Christians, and I mean genuine Christians who are, by Biblical definition "regenerated and transformed spiritually" by the Holy Spirit, pay much attention to this type of legalism.

So would you say that most of those who think women should be silent in church, should wear head coverings, men should hold up holy hands during prayer, churches should take care of widows past sixty, and so on, are not genuine Christians who are regenerated and transformed by the Holy Spirit?

[JE Pettibone]

ED: Being an RE guy, that is another reason I wouldnt be a Methodist.

[Tim Bonney]

Did anyone ever consider that Paul's command to the women in Corinth might have to do with the issue of the disruptions in worship that were taking place in Corinth? I don't know a way to be certain on this, but it makes sense in the context of the book. What do you think?

A lot of theological interpretation issues come from taking a local issue in the Bible and trying to make universal significance out of it. I agree Dave that would you suggest seems entirely plausible.

[Tim Bonney]

That is just creating a context so that you can maintain the your precious view of an innerant, infallible, ever-applicable Bible.

Why not give up that view of the Bible and follow Jesus who instructed us to listen to the Spirit to garner “all truth”.

Consider the possibility that it is idolatrous to place the Bible as a higher authority than the Spirit of God.

Keith, I think you need to find some middle ground. Finding a valid interpretation for a local event in the Bible, like Paul telling women in one church to be silent while he tells other women to cover their heads while preaching, isn't about protecting inerrancy or infallibility. It is just using a good interpretative tools that I got taught in every Biblical studies class I ever attended in any denomination.

You need a matrix of authority, not an either/or approach. The Bible is authoritative, Christian experience through the Holy Spirit is authoritative, etc.

But if you go with the approach of the spirit moves me is the highest authority, you are down to an authority of personal preference.

[Tim Bonney]

ED: Being an RE guy, that is another reason I wouldnt be a Methodist.

What's an RE guy?

[KeithE]

That is just creating a context so that you can maintain the your precious view of an innerant, infallible, ever-applicable Bible.

Why not give up that view of the Bible and follow Jesus who instructed us to listen to the Spirit to garner “all truth”.

Consider the possibility that it is idolatrous to place the Bible as a higher authority than the Spirit of God.

Keith, I think you need to find some middle ground. Finding a valid interpretation for a local event in the Bible, like Paul telling women in one church to be silent while he tells other women to cover their heads while preaching, isn't about protecting inerrancy or infallibility. It is just using a good interpretative tools that I got taught in every Biblical studies class I ever attended in any denomination.

You need a matrix of authority, not an either/or approach. The Bible is authoritative, Christian experience through the Holy Spirit is authoritative, etc.

But if you go with the approach of the spirit moves me is the highest authority, you are down to an authority of personal preference.

Point is taken - riding with the Spirit can devolve into personal preference. But no one is claiming an Inerrant Spirit. And you know what - none us can rely on any “authority” without some degree of uncertainty - but we can find a sense of confidence.

The bible is authoritative in telling us about Christ - there is no better set of historical writings to tell us about Jesus. But the Gospels have differences that prevent them being classed as inerrant - and on important matters (e.g. the Resurrection accounts).

Sometimes context is clear and aids in a good interpretation / application. But really the verses that the SBC has used to say there "shall be no women senior pastors” is ridiculous - that comes from the social biases in the 1800’s.

I also like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (scripture, reason, tradition, experience) but I’d add that the Spirit (a God given internal sense found in listening meditation) is the combiner of all these elements of authority. As a “decision scientist” (one description of my work skills) I know with value of several angles to making good decisions.

Evangelicals/Fundamentalists (both) focus so much on just Scripture (often adjusted by favored interpretations) or so they say. They do not realize how afar from what God was inspiring the writers to portray gets muddled by the very human writer.

But what is very perturbing is that very often evangelicals/fundamentalists (not all of them) employ “inerrancy” as a tool to brand all who think otherwise as heretics complete with sour feelings towards others. They belie the major command from Jesus to love their brethren/sistern. This happened to me big time while in college living at a Christian frat at a state university - about half that frat said that God struck me with ill health (4 pulmonary emboli) due to my views (the other half as well as my home church were more understanding). I have made my peace with most of those evangelicals/fundametalists and just ignore them except herein on Baptist Life which is my place to speak my mind.

On another subject, boy was this some day - we saw collusion right there on TV. I hope we will discuss this further on the PPP Forum. I want to assess it all for awhile first.

[Tim Bonney]

I like the quatrilateral too Keith, all descriptors of religious authority have strengths and weaknesses. If I would place authority for Biblical interpretation in the hands of one person though, it would be Jesus. I thought the 1963 BFM making Jesus the criterion for interpretation of scripture was a good guide. Some Christians seem to act as if Paul trumps Jesus.

The whole inerrancy debate doesn’t carry much meaning for me any longer as it isn’t a part of the faith tradition i’m now in, though like you a took a lot of heat for that when I was a Southern Baptist years ago.

But any theory of Biblical authority has to take into account the falibility of human interpretation. That’s where inerrancy fails. Even if the Bible were perfect, none of us are perfect and so we can’t guarantee perfect interpretation. (And IMO only God is perfect.)

I like the doctrine of Biblical sufficiency. That is the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. Not all things. Just all things necessary for salvation.

As to the President’s actions today. They were horrible and predictable.

[KeithE]

I like the quatrilateral too Keith, all descriptors of religious authority have strengths and weaknesses. If I would place authority for Biblical interpretation in the hands of one person though, it would be Jesus. I thought the 1963 BFM making Jesus the criterion for interpretation of scripture was a good guide. Some Christians seem to act as if Paul trumps Jesus.

The whole inerrancy debate doesn’t carry much meaning for me any longer as it isn’t a part of the faith tradition i’m now in, though like you a took a lot of heat for that when I was a Southern Baptist years ago.

But any theory of Biblical authority has to take into account the falibility of human interpretation. That’s where inerrancy fails. Even if the Bible were perfect, none of us are perfect and so we can’t guarantee perfect interpretation. (And IMO only God is perfect.)

I like the doctrine of Biblical sufficiency. That is the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. Not all things. Just all things necessary for salvation.

As to the President’s actions today. They were horrible and predictable.

Amen to all of that.

BTW, Laura Lemley sang a solo yesterday at church - did not know she had that talent as well. If you didn’t know, she is a hospital chaplain at Huntsville Hospital; three kids, 1 in college (i think) and 2 in High School.

[Tim Bonney]

I didn’t know you knew Laura! We ran into each other again on Facebook after many years. She did some supply preaching for me once when I was in Petersburg, Indiana. That’s such a long time ago! A different state, different denominations, etc.

[KeithE]

I didn’t know you knew Laura! We ran into each other again on Facebook after many years. She did some supply preaching for me once when I was in Petersburg, Indiana. That’s such a long time ago! A different state, different denominations, etc.

We connected on this previously. That's why I gave an update. Great gal and she has been a source of comfort wrt my daughter's health.

[Lamar Wadsworth]

While nearly all Southern Baptists agree on no women pastors, there is great diversity about what women are permitted to do. We were not allowed to have my mother's funeral at the SBC church where she was an active member 52 years because I asked two women to read scripture at the service.

[JE Pettibone]

While nearly all Southern Baptists agree on no women pastors, there is great diversity about what women are permitted to do. We were not allowed to have my mother's funeral at the SBC church where she was an active member 52 years because I asked two women to read scripture at the service.

Ed: Lamar, while I would have to agree that "nearly all Southern Baptist" go along with the no women pastor dictate from the leadership, however I have encountered many who say they would have no objection BUT that they are not willing to buck the establishment.

[Sandy]

The "establishment" has no authority to tell a church who it can call as a pastor. If you do a search, you'll find that somewhere between 30-40 currently affiliated SBC congregations have women pastors. There'd be a lot more than that if favorability to the idea were more widespread among the current church leadership. If a church really had the will to call a female pastor, I don't think wanting to "buck" the establishment or not would be a factor. And even as the SBC appears to be emerging from the grip of the conservative resurgence leadership, and there was a spate of discussion about whether or not a woman could be elected president of the SBC, I don't see a lot to move it toward women serving as pastors.

CBF has had a female exec for more than half a decade, and has moved quite a bit to the left on LGBT issues, but with essentially no restrictions from anywhere on calling women as pastors, I don't see that there's been a rapid, widespread expansion of CBF congregations ordaining women or calling them as pastors. A few, mostly their core, spend a lot of time handing out certificates, but it doesn't seem that a large segment of the churches are all that open to the idea, at least, not enough to prevent a long line of ordained women from forming, and mostly moving out of denominational circles.

[JE Pettibone]

The "establishment" has no authority to tell a church who it can call as a pastor. If you do a search, you'll find that somewhere between 30-40 currently affiliated SBC congregations have women pastors. There'd be a lot more than that if favorability to the idea were more widespread among the current church leadership. If a church really had the will to call a female pastor, I don't think wanting to "buck" the establishment or not would be a factor. And even as the SBC appears to be emerging from the grip of the conservative resurgence leadership, and there was a spate of discussion about whether or not a woman could be elected president of the SBC, I don't see a lot to move it toward women serving as pastors.

CBF has had a female exec for more than half a decade, and has moved quite a bit to the left on LGBT issues, but with essentially no restrictions from anywhere on calling women as pastors, I don't see that there's been a rapid, widespread expansion of CBF congregations ordaining women or calling them as pastors. A few, mostly their core, spend a lot of time handing out certificates, but it doesn't seem that a large segment of the churches are all that open to the idea, at least, not enough to prevent a long line of ordained women from forming, and mostly moving out of denominational circles.

Ed: No authority? Yet some local associations and state conventions have disfellowshiped churches that have called women as Pastors and others that have ordained women.

By the way is ther any formal rule that the President of the SBC has to be a Pastor?

And when you say "A few, mostly their core, spend a lot of time handing out certificates" what are you saying?

Moving out of the denominational circles Just like yourself, right?

[Haruo]

My impression is that most pastorally inclined (called?) Baptist women either stuff it or move on to UCC or UMC or another denomination open to the work of the Spirit in their lives. We have quite a few female pastors in Evergreen, but I'm not sure how reflective that is of overall ABC trends.

[Jim]

This obsession with calling women as pastors, especially in CBF circles and especially as lead-pastors or senior-pastors, approaches ludicrousness and is demeaning to women. The SBC is constantly ridiculed over this but more than half of all SBC individual members are women who seem to be okay with the current protocol. Folks vote with their feet but these women (certainly not slavishly) stick with the SBC. This is not likely to change. This is not a matter of intellect, spirituality or most anything else. On a nit-picky note and as a personal observation, men's voices are eminently better collectively than women's for preaching. Dress-code is another area for thought regarding both sexes. Perhaps as generations morph into next-generations, this might change. This is doubtful but a look at churches/denominations now making homosexuality perfectly normal is suggestive of change for better or worse, depending on one's outlook.