I can’t remember former president Jimmy Carter being a careful exegete of Scripture, especially on a controversial issue as womanhood.
At any rate, he’s got some global leverage:
In his piece, Carter recalled his “painful and difficult” decision to sever ties with the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 after having been a part of the denomination for six decades.
The decision, he said, was “unavoidable … when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be ‘subservient’ to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service”. (Read rest of article…)
The former president certainly had an agenda and was shown to be reckless with it:
“By using words and phrases like ‘abuses’, ‘discrimination’, and ‘equal right’, Jimmy Carter is essentially combining the complementarians with chauvinists and even criminals,” noted Ben Mordecai, an engineering student at University of Georgia and an active contributor to the Rebelution forum for young Christians.
While chauvinism is the belief that one’s own gender or kind is superior to another, complementarianism is the theological belief that men and women are designed to complement one another and that differing, often non-overlapping roles between men and women – manifested in marriage, church leadership, and elsewhere – are biblically required. (Read rest of article…)
Well, I think the former president should stick to his humanitarian efforts and leave the above to those who are better qualified.
(Related post: Ben Mordecai on Former President Carter and the Elders)
Yes, keep that humanitarian mute and let the better qualified (like “Ben Mordecai, an engineering student at University of Georgia and an active contributor to the Rebelution forum for young Christians” and us bloggers who see much better than the former President does speak our minds)!
Or, maybe we all could listen a little more carefully.
I love how the phrase “designed for different roles” makes we gag every time I hear it. Complementarianism is chauvinism. We are all free in Christ except that some are more free then others!?! It makes no sense whatsoever that genitalia, innie or outie, determines the role you are allowed to pursue within the Kingdom of God. Sure glad Jesus wasn’t an gynecologist
Whether this Mordecai guy recognises it or not, complementarianism (as understood by many Southern Baptists) does keep women “subservient”, in marriage and in church, in that (on their view) the “head” in both cases has to be a man and each woman has to submit to a man. This is absolutely indubitably “discrimination”, and is a denial of “equal right”. As for “abuses”, that depends on what is considered correct use. Now Mordecai may hold a theological position that this subservience and discrimination are right and proper and that women do not have equal rights. But he cannot deny that this is what complementarianism involves.
J.K., we all can learn from each other but with well-crafted and well-informed contents. Both are missing, I feel, in what the former president is on record as saying.
Jerry B, How can you conclude that complementarians are chauvinists? Who is a chauvinist?
PeterK, for an egalitarian, I guess there’s no positive way of looking at the complementarian position, right?
This issue of “equal right” is being overplayed. Why do egalitarians insist that functional differences are discriminatory?
I appreciated very much what Carter had to say on this topic in his book Endangered Values. I think he is right on.
I have never met a complemenatarian that openly advocated non-overlapping roles. I am not aware of churched which actively disallow men from working in the toddler room, or bringing casseroles. I gruess some might do this. But the typical pattern in a church is that a man can do anything he is qualified for and a woman can do anything the men allow her to do. Women are in subservience.
In the home, don’t get me started “final say” will get me reaching for the barf bag. Sorry, TC, but keeping women in subservience is a human rights crime.
Complementarianism is not the middle, it is another word for patriarchy.
Making a distinction between men and women in terms of eligibility for certain roles is discrimination by definition:
One might argue that this form of discrimination is right and proper, as certain forms of discrimination, e.g. against children for positions of responsibility, clearly are. But it is impossible to argue that complementarianism does not imply gender discrimination.
I won’t push the “equal right” issue as in the church this should be more about equal responsibility.
Sue and Peter, I really have a hard time viewing complementarianism negatively.
Of course I’m aware of the “abuses” toward women because of this position. But I have a problem concluding that it is inherently discriminatory towards womanhood.
And to be complementarian doesn’t automaticly evoke emotive expressions like “subservient,” “chauvinistic, and so on…
I spent a lot of time on theelders.org and watch that video about 10 times because I wanted to make sure not to misquote him or misrepresent the elders.
Even if he is a humanitarian and an ex-president, it doesn’t mean that his ideas are above criticism.
Please at least read my full article:
http://founderandperfecter.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/a-critical-review-of-theelders-org-and-jimmy-carter/
Ben, thanks for stopping by. I’m going to edit in a link to your full post.
Anyone would think that complementarianism is hot from hell. I personally am tired of being treated like I hate women (which I do not), as if I believe women are cattle (which I do not) and as if I believe that in Christ, men are more acceptable to the Father than women (which I do not).
Saying that men and women perform different functions, as Mr. Robinson put it, is not saying that women are any less loved by God, pleasing to the Father or bound for heaven. These are value judgements stuck in people’s mouths and to be honest, they grow tiring after a while.
I’m with Mr. Robinson: Complementarianism is not equal to sexism. Trumpet it all you like – it doesn’t make it any more true, and those who would insist such are actually dividing the body of Christ.
Dividing the Body?!?! Like not allowing women to serve as they feel led, even if that is as a pastor?
There are examples of women be called and leading in scripture, silence was for those being disruptive, not because they had the wrong genitalia. Yes, there are roles that women and men have at home, but we are speaking of the church, where male and female stand on equal footing before the Lord. In scripture even the roles at home call for mutual submission, one to another.
Lets make this discussion about scripture. Between myself and Jimmy Carter, we can only offer opinions unless we are backed by the word of God.
Only God has authority to speak on this issue. We all must be willing to call ourselves wrong if the Bible declares us to be.
Therefore, personal comments about complimentarians and egalitarians are out of place. In my blog, I provide scripture for my position, and define the differences between the viewpoints.
If we make this about Bible, then we can take the relevant verses and place them in context, and read not only what God says about them, but also why he says it. Then the comparison is no longer about who you are, but about what the Bible says.
I’m waiting for Junia to be brought up.
Jeff
Frustrated Comp., I feel you. I too have the same struggles with what seem as caricatures.
Jerry B, I agree with mutual submission at home and so on. What I don’t agree with is sidestepping what Scripture clearly says about the different roles.
Ben, then it comes down to how we read those texts of Scripture.
Jeff, I hear you.
“Ben, then it comes down to how we read those texts of Scripture.”
Ok, well then lets have it. I’d rather disagree over scripture than opinion. Scripture can at least be approached objectively.
I’ll get us started:
1 Timothy 2
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Verse 12 is why complimentarians do not allow women to be pastors. It states outright that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men. Over women, that is fine. Over children, that is fine. Not men.
Lest anyone should say that this was a merely a cultural understanding or that this was not about their sex, verse 13 elaborates.
“For…”
For means “I’m going to explain the reasons for what I just said”
What are those reasons?
1). Adam was formed first, then Eve
2). Eve was deceived not Adam
Adam and Eve were the first people: they had no culture. Eve was made as Adam’s helper. Eve was deceived, but not Adam. This is just reading the text.
But again, this is not to say that women have no role in church. Look at verses 9 and 10, rather than women being property of men and only good for decorating (v.9) they should devote themselves to good works (v.10). In other words, women are not valued by the church for being decorated meat, they are valued in the church for good works.
I know that v.15 is controversial, but it is written. We know that Paul does not believe in justification by pregnancy. Just read any of Paul’s letters in a thousand places. Paul is talking about on going growth which combines faith (which justifies), love, holiness, and self control.
Ben, I’m a complementarian of sorts. I’m aware of the arguments.
And I do think this text is a lot cultural and wholeheartedly accept the TNIV’s rendering of v.12.
Just tonight at our fellowship I asked a sister to lead us in prayer.
In my complementarianism, only the pastorate/eldership is excluded from women. That’s what I’m convinced of from my reading of Scripture.
And I especially don’t like most complementarians reading of 1 Cor. 11:5.
I second what you have to say, TC.
The TNIV reads a lot like the ESV for verse 12.
I likewise believe that women can pray in church, because she is neither teaching nor exercising authority. You (tc) yourself asked her too, therefore you were the one in authority.
I even believe that women can be deaconesses as long as the deaconate are under the authority of the eldership/pastorate. I believe this because Pheobe was said to be a “servant of the church.” Deacon literally means servant. In one sense, all Christians are called to be servants, but not the “servants of the church,” which is a role which must be qualified for. This makes perfect sense, I believe, with complimentarianism, because we believe that the woman was tailor-made by God to be a good helper, and even 1 Timothy 2:10 calls them to be devoted to good work, and the deaconate are those appointed to serve the church, presumably with good works.
Carter is first of all protesting the statement that wives graciously submit to the servant leadership of the husband. Carter correctly protests this kind of unilateral submission. Complementarianism teaches that the husband initiates, leads, and has final say. The wife is clearly subservient and this is a human rights violation.
(So TC, I don’t regard you as a classic complementarian.)
Regarding 1 Tim. 2 we need some facts. Women are not more gullible than men. Study after study show that men have areas of serious vulnerability in this regard.
Ben,
You say that men can lead and women can perform good works. I have no argument with that as your definition but do you actually prohibit men from performing good works? If not, you cannot call this complementarianism.
I would like to ask this question. Why can’t we call slavery complementarianism? What if we said that some humans were created to be masters and others to be servants, and these were complementary roles? Isn’t this a beautiful picture of God and Christ, where God bears all authority, and the Son bears all submission? Why don’t men want to bear the image of submission, 24-7? Why do men assign this to women? Men who treat women in a way that they do not treat themselves, do not love women.
And no one has been able to demonstrate that authentein means “to bear authority” in a proper way as one leads in church. This is not possible, due to the lack of evidence. Authentein most likely means to treat someone the way that you would treat a slave. Somehow men have really got it into their heads that authentein is the proper role of men and not of women.
I would agree that a woman should not authentein. And men are heading down the wrong path if they appropriate this wicked verb for themselves. I would say that this kind of teaching, to authentein women and make them subservient is a form of anti-Christianity.
I hope the press gets this clear in their heads that complementarianism is not Christianity.
I think this is the blessing of what Carter is doing. He is clearly differentiating Christianity from complementarianism, just as Christianity needed to be differentiated from slave-holding culture. Its about time someone with enough status made this kind of statement.
If you guys are so excited about authority and submission you should ask someone to assign you to be a serf in a medieval society for about 30 years. Then you could return and report back on how wonderful it was and how loved you felt.
>>”Women are not more gullible than men. Study after study show that men have areas of serious vulnerability in this regard. ”
The passage says that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, and Paul considers this to be a reason that women should not be in the pastorate. So believe what you want, but that is not what the Bible teaches.
>>”but do you actually prohibit men from performing good works?”
No.
>>”Why don’t men want to bear the image of submission, 24-7?”
We do. Men are not head of the Church, nor of the home. Christ is. We are in submission to him. If we believe that women should not be in submission to the loving headship of their husbands, what does that say about our beliefs about the wedding of Christ and the Church? Does it not say that we wish to be in equal authority with Jesus? I don’t want that. That is what Satan wants.
>>And no one has been able to demonstrate that authentein means “to bear authority” in a proper way as one leads in church.
My Greek dictionary says, “to act of oneself” which is by nature under another’s loving orders. It also says that it can be used figuratively to talk about authority.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/831.htm
Nevertheless, suppose authentein does not mean that. What about didaskein? Doesn’t the text at least prove that she shouldn’t teach?
>>If you guys are so excited about authority and submission you should ask someone to assign you to be a serf in a medieval society for about 30 years. Then you could return and report back on how wonderful it was and how loved you felt.
You need to be mature here. This is not about “me being excited.” If I were interested in being served I would not be paying for missionaries out of pocket, I would actually use my engineering degree to start making 50k out of college and not look to seminary and church planting. I would not wire money to my friend who is a single mom who needed help.
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t insult people who you disagree with.
Do you see any complimentarians forcing their wives to work their fields in exchange for rights? No. Do you see any comlimentarians advocating slavery? No. Christians, like Wilberforce, were actually fighting it.
Submission is not slavery. The Son submits to the Father. The Holy Spirit submits to the Son. The Church submits to Jesus. The deacons submit to the elders. The congregation submits to the discipline of the pastors. All Christians should submit to the Bible. Yes, and women should submit to their husbands and the church.
Is Jesus a slave to the Father? No, he gave himself up freely. Is the Holy Spirit a slave to the the Son? No, the Spirit blows where it wishes. Is the congregation enslaved to the pastors? No the shepherds lay down their lives for the sheep.
Likewise, men, who lead women in voluntary submission, are to lay down their lives for their wives. Christ gave his life for his bride. If you want to call her submission slavery, you are insulting Christ.
So believe what you want, but that is not what the Bible teaches.
Eve was deceived first, in the same way that light was created before the sun. It is difficult to take this literally, although some do. I personally don’t believe that God created night and day before he created the sun, moon and stars.
>>”but do you actually prohibit men from performing good works?”
No.
Then what you believe is better called restrictionism and not complementarianism. Men can do anything and women can do what men tell them to do. These are not complementary roles.
We are in submission to him.
Men submit to their own interpretation of the scripture, not to the scripture. Wives, perhaps, could submit to their interpretation of what their husband tells them to do and not to what he actually says.
Nevertheless, suppose authentein does not mean that. What about didaskein? Doesn’t the text at least prove that she shouldn’t teach?
Kostenberger has effectively proven that both of these verbs need to the same connotation – they go together. If one is positive so is the other, and if one is negative so is the other. Here is an occurrence of authentein, Hippolytus, On the End of the World,
“Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will authentein their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.”
That’s one of the earliest non-fragmentary passages using the verb authentein.
There is no man who is without sin, or without error. To place women under men would be to propogate some of the errors men make. For example, we would all of us have to start spelling complementarianism as complimentarianism.
At university a student is under the authority of a professor regardless of gender. But in the church gender out ranks all other qualifications. Knowledge, training and ability are all placed second to gender. It is wrong.
Around the world,
Women do 80 percent of the labour and own 1 percent of the land in Africa.
About 100 million more female foetuses have been aborted than male foetuses in Asia.
Women suffer far more violence at the hands of men all over the world than men do at the hands of women.
So why are men exerting themselves to subjugate women instead of bettering the world in some way?
Well Sue, I can’t talk about it outside of scripture.
If you’re upset about what the scriptures say, I can’t help you. If you insist on seeing submission through the eyes of oppression, I can’t help you.
If what you think seems right to you is not in line with the scriptures, let God be true and every man a liar.
Ben, Sue (Suzanne) is a Greek scholar and has done a lot of detailed work on the primary sources for the meaning of this word, including recent inscriptional and papyrus discoveries. You will find a summary of this at her blog. Please don’t insult her by referring her to a poor quality dictionary which is well over a century old.
But even on your definition authentein is something which no Christian should do. All of us, male and female, need to submit to one another and to the leaders God has put over us, not “act of oneself”. That means that those who exercise authority in the church, male or female, should do so only because they have been properly appointed to this role, not because they have taken it upon themselves. This was certainly at least part of the error that Paul was writing to Timothy about. He made it specific about women, actually “a woman” (singular), because he was addressing a particular situation where, we must suppose, a woman was trying to act like this, setting herself up as a teacher without authority from Paul or Timothy. Verses 13-15 may be in response to this woman’s false teaching, which would explain these verses well.
Ben says to Sue:
“I can’t talk about it outside of scripture.
If you’re upset about what the scriptures say, I can’t help you. If you insist on seeing submission through the eyes of oppression, I can’t help you.”
TC and Ben – When another U.S. President (Abraham Lincoln) was speaking out in favor of racial egalitarianism, against slavery, Christians would turn to scripture. Those favoring the status quo would say the President should stick to his humanitarian efforts and leave good enough alone; they’d point to the many endorsements and regulations of slavery in the Bible and would accuse others of seeing slavery only through the eyes of oppression. It turned into a big bloody mess.
Pingback: On Jimmy Carter and the SBC « Jack Of All Trades
Ben says to Sue:
“I can’t talk about it outside of scripture.
If you’re upset about what the scriptures say, I can’t help you.
Ben: You are aware that there are egalitarian interpretations of this passage, aren’t you? We don’t just rip this one out of our Bibles, you know.
See http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm, for one, but Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, etc have all written on this.
It doesn’t mean they’re right, but this is not “Ben and scripture versus the egalitarians”…it’s a difference in interpretation.
Sue and Peter, here is Dr. Mohler:
Read his full post here
Justin, for me, it does come down to a matter of interpretation.
Carter doesn’t need to make an argument. Plenty of others have made the argument for him, in a way which convinces most people, including the leaders of a past generation of Southern Baptists who allowed women pastors.
I don’t think Mohler can actually back up with real data his “what the vast majority of Christians around the world believe even now”, unless he presumes to count every nominal Roman Catholic as well as every nominal Southern Baptist as on his side even though a large proportion of those who care at all about the issue would be quite happy to see women leading their congregations.
Peter said: “including the leaders of a past generation of Southern Baptists who allowed women pastors.”
This is news to me (and interesting). Can you point me to some infomation on this?
Justin, consider for example this from the Associated Baptist Press (2009):
See also this comparison of different versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, documenting the change, and this history of Baptist women pastors.
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
When I read what Paul wrote in Colossians 3:22 after reading verse 3:11, I cannot help but think there is either some contradiction here or something is being said that I do not yet completely understand. Is Paul speaking only of spiritual redemption in vs 11 but of a social hierarchy that is not to be challenged in vs 22? Could Paul mean that once one is born in a slave caste, they and their offspring must continue to be obedient slaves from generation to generation? Did God create any man with the birthright to be the master of another? If you do not believe that God created any man to be the slave of another, than how can do you explain the meaning of Paul’s commandment that slaves must obey their masters in everything. Is this order for slaves only a temporary order in a particular situation? Is this the order of God’s creation or is this the result of the fall. In the same way, do any of you have any scriptural proof that women are created less than equal to men? And please don’t give me any “equal, but different roles” rhetoric. Keep it simple! Will there be slaves eternally? Must women submit to men, more than men to women eternally?
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Jay, when I read texts like those, I do so within their contexts, and I usually come away with spiritual redemption. Every time.
As awkward as it sounds, Paul’s immediate concern was to regulate slavery for those who were masters, slaves and believers. Never to outlaw the thing.
Thanks for your response tc, but you did not answer my question as to whether these social hierarchy rules of Paul are temporary or eternal.
In the same way, do any of you have any scriptural proof that women are created less than equal to men? And please don’t give me any “equal, but different roles” rhetoric. Keep it simple! Will there be slaves eternally? Must women submit to men, more than men to women eternally?
Jay, I’m sorry I didn’t get to that question of yours. Here’s my effort to answer:
1. As a complementarian, I’ve never argued that women were created less equal than men. And I don’t think informed complementarian does.
2. Not “slaves” in an inhumane sense but of course of our loving master who redeemed us.
3. Men and women ought to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21).
But there’s a sense in which loving husbands have to make decisions for the ultimate good of the family.
TC Robinson, Thanks for your answer to my question. At the same time, your answer brought up a new question in my mind.
“But there’s a sense in which loving husbands have to make decisions for the ultimate good of the family.”
What advice do you have for widows with children in matters of family decision making. Should they seek to remarry in order that their decision making for the family is properly made by their husband, or if they chose not to remarry or during the time they have not yet found a suitable mate, should they rely on some other male spiritual authority, such as their pastor in making certain important family decisions.
Jay, a widow, as a woman is at liberty to make those decisions. I believe Lydia was one such woman in Acts 16.
And of course we both are aware of the importance of that male figure in the development of younger children. So seeking advice from strong, godly males would be a positive thing.
Should she remarry because she would not be able to make proper decisions without a husband? First, I need to analyze this question of yours, though I’ve rephrased it.
I do believe in male leadership, not male tyranny and so on.
A husband in tune with God is needed for each earthly family. But if such husband is not around, in this case, dead, then a widow has to decide whether to remarry or not.
But she should not remarry because she is incapable of making proper decisions without a husband around.
Even with husbands around wives continue to make those wise decisions. That’s a fact!
So women are not in any way better off if the husband makes the decisions. It is NOT for the ultimate good of the family.
I hope TC won’t mind me putting a question to the Greek geeks here (it seemed appropriate here as 1 Tim 2 has already been mentioned).
1 Tim 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to xxx authority over a man …”) is typically taken to mean that Paul is saying that a woman shouldn’t: (1) “teach … a man”, and (2) “xxx authority over a man”. However, what he actually seems to say is that a woman shouldn’t: (1) “teach” (absolutely), and (2) “xxx authority over a man”
I say that because here the Greek noun for “man” is in the Genitive case. Wherever the Greek verb for “teach” is used in the NT, the Accusative is regularly used for the persons taught and/or the subject matter: in one case (Rev 2:14) the Dative is used for the persons taught, but the Genitive never is.
So is it possible for “man” here to be the object of the infinitive “to teach” (as well as of the infinitive “to xxx authority over”)? If it is, examples of similar usage in the NT (with other verb pairs that require different object cases, with one “understood”) would be gratefully received.
Thanks in anticipation.
That’s an interesting question, John. Of course if an accusative were used the verse could be translated “I do not permit a woman to teach or a man to xxx authority …” I would somehow suppose that in Greek, as certainly in some other languages, the normal rules for the case of objects can be set aside when two verbs are coordinated in this way. But I can’t offer any clear examples. Nevertheless I think the standard parsing of this is correct – the issue is with the meaning of authentein.
Jay:
Not to answer for TC, but it seems to me that Paul is a little more concerned with practical matters on the ground than he is with writing a systematic code of ethics. I’m completely comfortable saying that just because Paul has commands for slaves/servants and how they are to behave as new believers, that doesn’t mean he is accepting of the social situation as an ideal. Paul was a persecuted apostle, not a powerful government official. I don’t think we should expect him to be writing social policy here.
So, Colossians 3:11 is the ideal.
Colossians 3:22 is the practical advice to slaves/servants in a social order that Paul was not in the business of, nor had the power to, overthrow.
I honestly don’t think that’s a cop out to read Paul like this. It just seems like the natural way to read these letters as…well, letters, addressed to real situations.
Back to the Presidents. Yes scripture speaks, but the issue you raise in your post, TC, is how whether President Carter is qualified to speak on how the scripture speaks.
We take for granted that President Lincoln is authoritative on abolition. But in his day, he was maligned by his opponents for how he spoke on scripture, for how he was “a poor hand to quote Scripture.” And yet, like President Carter, Lincoln realized that it is those who use scripture to maintain a hierarchical “complementarianism” are the ones “quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses.”
In addressing “the American Baptist Home Missionary Society,” Lincoln felt compelled to read a wide swath of scriptures and to discuss their implications for one person over another:
“To read in the Bible, as the word of God himself, that ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread’ [Gen. 3:19] and to preach therefrom, that ‘In the sweat of other mans faces shalt thou eat bread,’ to my mind can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity. When brought to my final reckoning, may I have to answer for robbing no man of his goods [I Sam. 12:3]; yet more tolerable even this, than for robbing one of himself, and all that was his. When, a year or two ago, those professedly holy men of the South, met in the semblance of prayer and devotion, and, in the name of Him who said ‘As ye would all men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them’ [Matt. 7:12], appealed to the christian world to aid them in doing to a whole race of men, as they would have no man do unto themselves, to my thinking, they condemned and insulted God and His church, far more than did Satan when he tempted the Saviour with the Kingdoms of the earth. The devils attempt was no more false, and far less hypocritical. But let me forbear, remembering it is also written, ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged’ [Matt. 7:1]23″
What is fascinating is how the Southern Baptist Convention, formed in part over the issue of slavery, has recently recanted their use of a few scriptures to support the enslavement of humans. Nonetheless, the “conservative” SBC men in the pulpits and in the seminaries and at the top side of their marriages, persist in using a few scriptures to justify their positions over women. I don’t know if Lincoln helped the SBC with their abolition views in any way. Or if Lincoln or Carter will help them with their views on women as co-equal creatures, created by God female and male in the divine image.
(source: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/23.2/schwartz_e.html)
JK, still playing the Lincoln card? I say rightfully so.
The SBC recanting was aware that Scripture was never really on its side.
As for the role of women in society and the church, I agree, we can learn a lot from both Lincoln and Carter, but not without ultimately siding with Scripture.
There are just over 1200 SBC local churches where women serve as senior pastors.
The presidents are not alone.
When you mention siding with scripture, does that mean that you have made the personal decision that authentein means “to have leadership” in the church? Why have you chosen this particular interpretation for this word rather than one of the other interpretations? What is it that guided your choice?
And why can a board of directors not choose a woman as pastor?
Perhaps that is what you meant. But why can a woman not be elected as an elder? The churches desparately need women elders or women will not be well served.
TC, see my series from three years ago about why “faithful to his wife” does not exclude women.
I don’t think so. It is an incidental comment. Nowhere does Paul say that the elder has to be a male. Think of Deborah. Does Paul set up the NT times as more pure by eliminating women?
When it comes to circumcision the text is explicit – that it refers to the males. It is not as if Paul could not have said that it had to be male.
“Sue, Paul specifically says that an elder/pastor must be “faithful to his wife” (1 Tim 3:2, TNIV and NLT). I believe this excludes women from this function.”
Phoebe is a deacon Rom. 16:1
Phoebe is a woman.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife. I Tim 3:12
???
Jay, 1 Tim. 3:11 addresses women who are deacons.
R, that’s my complementarian position.
Ben, yes, Phoebe was a deacon.
Sue, true, I do not view myself as a classic complementarian.
J.K., it seems like we can turn to Scripture to support any position.
But the question we must ask ourselves is this: When we let Scripture speak on a subject, where does it lead, whether slavery or womanhood?
Peter, I too wondered about that statement from Mohler. But that remains secondary right now.
At any rate, there are about 1200 SBC churches where women serve as senior pastors.
Sue, I believe a woman can teach a man in a church setting, but under the oversight of the eldership, hence my acceptance of the TNIV’s rendering “to assume authority over a man” (or KJV’s “to usurp authority over the man”)
Sue, Paul specifically says that an elder/pastor must be “faithful to his wife” (1 Tim 3:2, TNIV and NLT). I believe this excludes women from this function.
Sue, I don’t believe there’s anything incidental about Paul’s comment.
He repeats the same in Titus 1:3. We have the likes of Deborah in mention in 1 Cor. 11:5.
Peter, thanks for you response.