Showndown in Texas Over a Woman’s Turn in the Pulpit.
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, August 28, 2008
- Viewed 651
- (60) comments so far
Another measure of the controversy is that Mark Bailey, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has removed himself from a team of regular guest preachers at Irving Bible Church.
The Dallas seminary, which supplies pastors to Bible churches around the country, has long had close ties with Irving Bible Church. But Dr. Bailey said that he and his wife, Barby, were amicably distancing themselves for “personal convictions and professional reasons.”
The newspaper article continues: According to the elders, the Bible presents “an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.”
But the elders also concluded that their office “seems to be biblically relegated to men.” So Mrs. Roese will preach at Irving Bible Church under the authority of an elder board that will continue to be all male.
That’s fine with Mrs. Roese, who noted with a laugh that she already works for her husband. Steve Roese is the church’s executive pastor.
Mrs. Roese is a seasoned women’s conference speaker who has preached to churches in the Northeast.
She said she has had much encouragement from women and men in the church but is aware of the controversy caused by the elders’ decision to have her preach.
“There are great theologians in the conservative evangelical world who come down on both sides,” she said. “I do want us to be loving in our disagreement. There’s something powerful in that.”
In summary, here’s what the elders concluded:
Elders of Irving Bible Church spent 18 months studying the question of women in ministry, including whether women should be allowed to preach. Their key conclusions:
•The accounts of creation and the fall (Genesis 1-3) reveal a fundamental equality between men and women.
•Women exercised significant ministry roles of teaching and leading with God’s blessing in both Old and New Testaments.
•Though the role of women was historically limited, the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.
•Key New Testament passages restricting women’s roles were culturally and historically specific, not universal principles for all time and places.
•Though women are free to use all of their giftedness in teaching and leading in the church, the role of elder seems to be biblically relegated to men.
Click here to read the whole story...
What do you think?
According to the Dallas News, the all-male elder team at Irving Bible Church spent 18 months studying the Bible, reading other books, hearing guest speakers and praying about the possiblity of having Jackie Roese, the church's teaching pastor to women (and a doctor of ministry student) preach from their pulpit on a Sunday. They concluded that despite "problem" passages, the Bible doesn't prohibit a woman from instructing men in theological matters. Last Sunday, Roese spoke, for the first time, to all 3,500 plus people who attended Irving Bible Church.
According to Senior Pastor Andy McQuitty, "She's an eminently qualified and gifted preacher."
But in nearby Denton, TX, the Rev. Tom Nelson of Denton Bible Church begs to differ. He said his friends in Irving are on "dangerous" ground: "If the Bible is not true and authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue," he said. "I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Richard on Thu, August 28, 2008
What’s next? Inter-racial marriage? Women cutting their hair? Rich people selling all they have and giving half to the poor?
christine on Thu, August 28, 2008
Sometimes I just marvel at what we Christians will say and do to each other. I strongly believe that the whole point of the scriptural passages regarding women and leadership in the church refers to authority over men and was written in a culture when women were thought of as little more than domestic pets at best.
Thank God for the Lottie Moons and Mother Theresas of the world. Most missionaries I have known tell me that if it were not for Godly, women who boldly and effectively write Bible lessons and deliver them our efforts to evangelize the world would be greatly lacking.
I am pretty conservative and thank God I have a male Pastor, but also believe that we have some incredible female Bible teachers who can ‘rightly divide the Word of truth’ and should be allowed to even if their audience is composed of both men and women.
Cheryl Smith on Thu, August 28, 2008
Great post! I’m so pleased to hear the elders in the church spent significant time studying and praying about this issue. Regardless of position, holding onto old ideas, simply for the sake of tradition, is not nearly as significant as looking to the Bible for answers, and praying for God’s leadership in the process.
Ms. Roese’s words about being loving in disagreement show a great maturity and sensitivity to people with whom she disagrees. Kudos to her and her church for tackling the issue with intellect, faith, grace and love.
Thanks for the post!
Joaquin on Thu, August 28, 2008
I love how the Denton pastor compares women teachers to “any other moral issues.” My hope is that if Jackie is getting her M.Div. from DTS, she is able to transfer her degree program to a seminary worthy of her gifts and abilities.
Matthew M on Thu, August 28, 2008
The apostle Paul didn’t forbid women to teach simply because it wasn’t culturally acceptable. Paul forbids the actions of the Irving Bible church because of the creation account, which has nothing to do with first century Roman culture.
Note Paul’s statement in I Tim 2: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
It seems that Rev. Nelson’s concerns over the actions of Irving Bible Church are well-formed.
deaubery on Thu, August 28, 2008
in 1 tim.paul was talking about the woman not usurping authority over her husband, it does not say [a man] it says [the man] then go to 1 peter 3ch. 4verse, it is talking about the womans own husband. a woman can not take authority over a man by preaching the gospel , the gospel is the authority.if a woman saw a man drowning would she throw him a life line or just stand and let him drown because she could not help him, but as a pastor of a church i do not know BUT to preach the gospel i believe god approves.
Wendi on Thu, August 28, 2008
I appreciate several of the elder’s statements:
[Though the role of women was historically limited, the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.]
My experience has been that most who hold the most conservative views (Like DTS and Denton Bible) ignore biblical and recorded history and especially the trajectory instituted by Jesus and continued through the establishment of the church as recorded in the NT.
[Though women are free to use all of their giftedness in teaching and leading in the church, the role of elder SEEMS TO BE (emphasis added) biblically relegated to men.]
This statement acknowledges that there are different views about how the very limited scriptural references to “eldership” should instruct the leadership structures within our churches. It respects brothers and sisters with different views. It shows grace and humility, seems (to me) to communicate “this is what we believe scripture says, but we acknowledge this is a disputable issue and we might be wrong. In the interest of order within this local church and in keeping with our understanding of the bible’s instruction, we have established this policy regarding eldership.”
Whereas, the brothers from Denton show a lack of grace through their unwillingness to acknowledge that this is a disputable issue. [“If the Bible is not true and authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue”]
This is the kind of statement that fails to show the kind of unity in diversity which we are called to in the New Testament. I know of no drift toward “moral liberalism” among evangelical (as opposed to mainline) leaders who move toward more liberal views regarding the PARTICULAR issue of women in ministry leadership. Unless and until there is evidence that this is a result, can we stop the sensationalist public statements? It is mean spirited and does not show the “love in disagreement” which Roese herself calls for. She and the leaders from Irving stand taller here.
Wendi
Josh R on Thu, August 28, 2008
I don’t think I disagree with their action, I do think that the one point that they used to justify it was pretty dangerous:
The idea that the bible teaches us one thing, but assumes that we will evolve to the point where we know the bible’s teaching is wrong, is just plain dangerous. Tommy Nelson is on the right track with this point. “progress of revelation” can be used to justify whatever is culturally acceptable at any time.
I do think there are times when it is appropriate for a woman’s perspective to be shared, and if qualified elders make that decision, I don’t think there should be a big issue about it.
Linda Stanley on Thu, August 28, 2008
Kudos to Irving Bible Church. I applaud the time and prayer they devoted to study this matter and the courage they demonstrated by acting on their convictions. My prayer is that more churches will follow IBC’s lead. There is still much work to be done. Women can certainly lead and contribute.
Matthew M on Thu, August 28, 2008
Its hard for me to understand the hermenuetic that states that we are to see a “projectory ethic” in the NT, especially when Paul’s projectory isn’t forward, but backwards - to the creation story. Hence, Paul states, “ I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve….”
As far as “love in disagreement” goes, I love all of you, but what does that have to do with Paul?
So, again, I call you attention to the word “For” in I Tim 2:13, and ask. what is the “For” for?
My pastor is a woman on Thu, August 28, 2008
I have friends that go to the local Bible-based mega-church, where they do not allow women to preach. They keep inviting me but I always have an excuse.
The one time I introduced them to my pastor, a woman who helped me find God after 30 years of thinking Christians were brainwashed fools, they were rude to her.
They believe she is flouting the Bible. I believe they are using the Bible as a weapon to justify oppression, using the same type of thinking that got Southern churches to support slavery before the civil war.
I would never attend a church that did not believe that in Christ there is neither man nor woman.
Just my $0.02.
Daniel on Thu, August 28, 2008
The progressivist line scares me. It seems many evangelicals have latched on to William Webb’s “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” to justify the move, but it’s a bad reading of Scripture as far as I can tell.
As a flaming feminist and egalitarian, I’m entirely in favor of the church letting this woman preach. The basis of the decision does seem odd though.
On the exegetical question, I’ll just say that I sympathize with those who don’t believe the author of I Timothy could be the same as the author of Galatians or Colossians.
The question is not “can we find a Bible verse to throw at others?” but rather, “how are the various comments in the NT about women authoritative for us today?” The latter question requires a solid look at the various writings attributed to Paul, the Gospels, and the historical context. The cumulative case, in my opinion, supports egalitarianism, but it’d be impossible to summarize that case in a single comment.
As for the ‘slippery slope to liberalism’ argument, that’s just silly. The world is more complex than conservatives and liberals. In many cases those aren’t helpful categories.
Take me: I read Anabaptist theologians and became a Mennonite. I’m a feminist, a pacifist, an exclusivist, believe in believer’s baptism, Christ’s Resurrection, his Lordship, the unity of the Church, open theism, evolutionary biology and something like annihilationism. I believe Christians should either be celibately single or monogamously and heterosexually married.
Am I liberal? conservative? neither? both?
Who gives a flip?
The key question is: am I being faithful to Christ and his Church????
On this particular issue, Irving Bible Church is being faithful. Praise God!
Matthew M on Thu, August 28, 2008
Yes to all of Nora’s questions!
One of the assumptions that is made is that if a woman is not allowed to perform the same role as a man, then that must mean that they are inferior. Not true.
Different functions has nothing to do with equality of essence. Both male and female are made in God’s image, saved in the same manner, and have equally important roles in the church and family, but male and females have different roles, according to the Bible.
Now that is true unity in diversity!
Jan on Thu, August 28, 2008
And those who disagree would probaly have no issue with sending her off as a missionary to teach men somewhere else.
She could also get up and sing a solo, all the while teaching theology and that would be okay too (even though the song wasn’t pre-approved by a man) I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve sung and the pastor following said “Wow! Maybe I should just not preach today. THAT was a sermon!”
And the list goes on and on in the church.
If you are going to take this stance then at least be consistent. I am sooo weary of the hypocrisy in this area in the American church.
I recently sang at a pastor’s conference for a denomination that was very conservative. The women had seperate sessions even and at one point while the men listened to the speaker, the wives were off making birdie houses. Now the wives were very frustrated, and as an outsider I heard a lot on the side.
Many of them were at their churches holding the ministries together, but at these conferences the men didn’t want to recognize the fact.
One woman who was on furlough from missions in Africa, and was single, shared with me that she had just led a Catholic Bishop to Christ. She shared this also with a table of pastors and one piped up with this gem “That cannot be possible. Catholics cannot become Christians and especially if a woman tells them.”
I often times think that this has become and American cultural value vs what is really taught in scripture.
What other issue do we throw away all the rest of scripture based on a few verses?
What about the examples of women in leadership throughout scripture?
You should hear my husband get going on this one, if you think I’m radical. He gets really torqued by the men around him at times.
Phil DiLernia on Thu, August 28, 2008
I’m not in any major objection over the lady preaching but the biblical analysis of this church is so sorely lacking that the pastor who is worried that this begins the slippery slope may have some legitimacy.
- The Genesis account not only does not promote the view of men and women being the same it actually tells us directly that women will “desire” to rule over her husband. In other words the “curse” included a human condition where men and women would be doing exactly what we’re doing now!
BTW, this word “desire” is the same exact word used by God when describing Cain’s spiritual situation where sin is “desiring” to have him and God says Cain must overcome sin’s desire!
The same word should be interpreted the same way ... women would be challenged to overcome their desire to have whatever role God gave to the man.
- Believing in progress of revelation is great when what you’re saying is that in later times we may be more aware of the cultural situations which may lead us to see God’s promises coming to fruition.
However, when progress of revelation means we can subjugate biblical teaching to our own cultural whims that is dangerous territory that I would never lead my congregation in.
- I believe we can all agree that some biblical restrictions are meant for certain “times” and others are valid across all “times.” Sometimes it can be confusing to decide when to view certain restrictions in either manner.
However, in this case, the Apostle Paul makes his case about the authority of women by going back to the Genesis account thereby rendering all “it was for that particular time” arguments as wrong in my opinion. BTW, he makes the same points in 1 Corinthians so it’s not just in Timothy. And one more point, his letter to the Corinthian church was to a fully gifted church that was acting carnal ... not Christlike!
- This church, which is being cheered by most, has restricted women from being elders! Why isn’t there an outcry about that from the egalitarian side of this argument? I’m shocked actually.
I believe this debate boils down to a few arguments:
1- Why do we think that submitting to authority means that we’re somehow “less than” or “less valued?” That is at the heart of all of this.
Jesus, who Philippians says, submitted Himself even to dying on a cross, was rewarded with the name is above all names!
Why do we fight against submitting?
2- Why do we feel that someone who is under authority of another is somehow “not as gifted?” Why can’t someone who is MORE GIFTED than their authority offer their giftedness in unity to help without insisting on using their gifts the way that “they want.”
Paul says that gifts are given for the “common good” and not to edify ourselves.
3- If this lady understood the controversy and was as gentle and unifying as she seemed to come across why would she have allowed her church to spend 18 months on this issue? And now they’ve lost their relationship with DTS. I’m not sure why it was so important to “preach” when she already was being used to “teach” in many venues?
Are we saying (against 1 Corinthians!) that if we cannot get the most public opportunities that somehow we’re “less than?” Paul says to treat those with the less public gifts with even MORE HONOR! Why do we treat only the preacher that way?
That’s a church problem or should I say that’s promoting sin in the church?
All that said, women are underutilized and under appreaciated. Our new Church Constitution provides MUCH MORE leadership opportunity than existed before.
But this church’s biblical analysis was way off. IMO.
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment