Showndown in Texas Over a Woman’s Turn in the Pulpit.
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, August 28, 2008
- Viewed 564
- (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.
No Difference on Fri, August 29, 2008
IMHO, (as a man in ministry), women have been unjustly oppressed in many of our southern-based US denoms. Where are the biblical examples of women in ministry in today’s exposition?
-Junias (Rom 16:7) was an apostle
-Phoebe (Rom 16:1) was a deacon
-2 John was written to a female pastor
-Priscilla’s role in ministry is astounding (not to mention much scholarly debate surrounding the fact that she may have authored Hebrews)
These examples only scratch the surface. AND…this all took place in the Ancient Near East where repression of female authority was the rule.
When will we escape our prejudices and biases in favor of the “priesthood of all believers” that many of us claim?
No Difference on Fri, August 29, 2008
@CS… gune also is normally translated “woman,” not always “wife.” It’s a contextual call.
Leonard on Fri, August 29, 2008
ND, much debate from the early fathers over whether Junias was a man or a woman or whether it says Junias was an apostle or approved by the apostles. It is not an open and shut case concerning Junias.
Phil DiLernia on Fri, August 29, 2008
So is this what the other church meant by “slippery slope?” From preaching sermons to being the Vice President of the United States!
http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
... this is only a joke ... I repeat ... this is only a joke!!
Have a great day!
No Difference on Fri, August 29, 2008
@Leonard… Actually any biblical passage relating to women in ministry has become “much debated.” E.g., why would various translators translate diakonos as deacon in every occurence except when it is in the context of women. It then becomes “servant.”
Sherry Surratt on Fri, August 29, 2008
I applaud Irving Bible for their courageous stand and the God honoring attitude of their elders and staff. After reading their position paper on women in leadership roles, I was incredibly impressed with their humble, honest desire to seek God’s direction and wisdom through careful study of scripture. I’ve had the awesome opportunity to talk to dozens of women pastors and leaders across the country in the past four months, who lead in staff ministry positions and parachurch organizations. They lead from their heartfelt desire to serve God with all they have, every talent and opportuntiy atttributed to Him. They don’t seek to divide, they honestly desire to make Christ known.As Heather, a pastor on staff in Florida said, ‘I didn’t call myself to be a woman-leader in this world, GOD did. So I don’t see myself as a “SHE” who can lead. I’m a follower of my Savior and it’s HE who leads through me.’ Jackie, please know I’m lifting you, your elder board and pastoral staff in prayer.
Joe on Fri, August 29, 2008
I have always thought that the “woman should not hold authority over man” content in the Bible was proof that it was written by men and not the literal word of God.
If God wanted to divide up roles by the sexes, we’d also see things that men were forbidden to do.
The Bible was written by men, inspired by God surely, but men with the sins of all men just the same.
Phil DiLernia on Fri, August 29, 2008
And it is Joe’s previous comment that really sheds a huge cloud over the Egalitarian point of view. I believe that there is a sense amongst the Complimentarian side that the Egalitarian view is tinged with thoughts like Joe’s even though they won’t admit it.
I think that God has much to say about men and their shortcomings, errors, sins, et. al in Scripture. So Joe’s comments really don’t add anything, IMO only, to this conversation ... other than make the Egalitarians have to hurdle more obstacles than they should.
Wendi on Fri, August 29, 2008
Phil –
I’m afraid that your response to Nora betrays your prejudices and frankly, makes you sound like an arrogant chauvinist. You say: [She is teaching in the church, goes out on the road, etc. etc. so I found it interesting that SHE LET HER CHURCH GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS for so long, and to the point of ruining their relationship with DTS, when she claimed to sympathize with those who were uncomfortable with her preaching. Why not stand down? It would have, in my opinion, showed more maturity.]
I read and reread the article. Nothing indicates that Mrs. Roese even asked her elders to go through this process. How do you know that it wasn’t entirely initiated and carried out to its conclusion by the elders? Maybe she even cautioned them not to take this on, and they wouldn’t hear her because they knew God was leading them. Perhaps Irving men and women alike felt led by the Holy Spirit to study scripture and, based on their collective understanding, establish a policy for their church. And if this was the conclusion the elders reached in unity, should we not assume that the HS led them. And if we assume that all this came about at Irving through the leading of the HS (why would we assume otherwise?), then if the elders allowed her to “stand down” as you suggest, wouldn’t they be disobedient to the HS’s leading. Or if they decided to back away from the changes they had been led to make, just to retain their relationship with DTS, isn’t that selling out? And what business is it of Denton Bible leaders what the elders at Irving have carefully and prayerfully determined is right for their church. You don’t see the elders from Irving sticking their noses into the business of Denton Bible, being quoted in the Dallas Morning News criticizing the position of Denton Bible or DTS on this issue.
Later you say: [Why can’t we teach that the body is arranged as God has seen fit (1 Corinthians) in order for it to operate at maximum efficiency, unity, AND as a great witness to the world around us?] I think that this isn’t exactly what Irving is trying to do by making this decision? Why would you think otherwise?
And Leonard, yes indeed there is much debate among the church FATHERS (emphasis mine) about whether Junias (masculine) was really a woman. This is probably why many translations have changed the feminine Junia from original to Junias. And yes again, many modern interpreters have rejected Paul’s use of the feminine name or questioned whether she (or he) was an apostle, mainly (IMO) because they presuppose that women could never fill this office.
Wendi
Phil DiLernia on Sat, August 30, 2008
Wendi:
Your use of those words to describe me is sad but not surprising. You know me not but rather than defend them I’ll leave them out there for you to answer to them at some time in the future.
Lot’s of opinions but no use of scripture and certainly no response to the scripture I used. And further, no recognition to what I’ve said my position on women is.
Since it does neither of us any good, and since it seems to me that we are antagonistic towards each other (even when I’m not responding to you!) I would ask that you respect one request: Please do not respond to any of my posts unless I respond to you directly. This way we don’t dishonor God with mean spirited comments or thoughts. Thank you in advance for your understanding in complying with my request.
Tweed on Sat, August 30, 2008
Wow!
Phil: do you realize that while you may FEEL you are communicating in the most calm way and in the most biblical manner, you are actually exhibiting a huge amount of pride and arrogance? To post in a public blog and then to tell another person to not adddress you is outrageous. You cloaked it in christianease, but the bottom line you have been communicating in a manner that women should just be quiet and let men handle the real issues of understanding and applying the Bible. “Submit to one another,” I believe applies to all followers of Christ.
If you cannot accept that there are two schools (with shades and diversities) of thought on this issue and that good Christians can study the scriptures deeply and can still be on both sides of the issue, Maybe it is you who should stop addressing people in this blog.
I know already the response to this post…what is my scriptural response to your assertions? Well, I honestly don’t see you making any significant scriptural arguments accept those you are making subtly by your dialogue with those who disagree with you. I will leave this verse to ponder, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Phil DiLernia on Sat, August 30, 2008
Wendi:
It is nice to know that you can dig below my feelings and expose what is REALLY in my heart. It is nice to know that you are qualified to JUDGE me and to tell me that my words are plain ole’ “Christianese.” It is nice to know that no matter how much my entire life has been lived by treating everyone as equals, and no matter how many times I say that, that you no my true motivations as being a sexist. It is nice to know that you have the spiritual gift that can discern what it is “I am really saying.”
Proud? I guess to one degree or another we all suffer from it. However, it is only you, and you alone, that I don’t wish to dialog with, and was hoping, that you could at least honor that without resorting to calling me the same names that you did earlier, which offended me then, as if adding the word HUGE in front of them will allow me to understand them better!
Yes, this is a public blog but I was truly hoping that by us not addressing each other that BOTH of our hearts and words would be more honoring to God. I guess that wasn’t acceptable. Say what you will, judge as you must, but I will not be responding to you, and only you, again. Your mean spiritedness, your lack of biblical analysis or understanding, you seeing all things through only your own sexist lense, your attitude that somehow only you care for the less fortunate, that only Wendi somehow takes up the mantle of the oppressed, that only Wendi see things with the proper nuance ... etc. etc. The issue of pride in our responses is probably an issue that we each suffer from to one degree or another. What makes your attitude so poor, and why I desire not to dialog with YOU is that you seem to think it is always and only someone else who suffers from this sin.
nora on Sat, August 30, 2008
Phil,
Let me point out that your last post attributed comments to Wendi that were really made by a poster named Tweed. As such, you owe Wendi an apology.
That said, I have NEVER seen a poster on a blog tell another poster that they are only allowed to respond to their posts if they are directed specifically towards them. As Tweed succinctly pointed out, this is a public blog. All posts are subject to debate, discussion, and criticism. You do NOT have the right to make a post and then dictate who does and does not get to respond to them.
Nora
Wendi on Sat, August 30, 2008
Phil –
First, as to your request that I not post a response to you unless you make a comment directed at me . . . I think you misunderstand the format of a blog. This is a public conversation. Todd has provided a forum for us to talk as a group. I did not eaves drop on a private conversation you and Nora were having at Starbucks. If you want to have a private conversation with me or Nora or anyone here on MMI, you can link to our e-mails. Whenever either of us posts comments here, even if the comment we make is in response to someone else’s post, it is part of the open discussion.
You did not cite any scripture in the comment you made about Mrs. Roese having “let her church go through the process.” And note that I didn’t say that you ARE an arrogant chauvinist; I said your comments make you sound like one. Here is why. Despite the fact that the article clearly says that this whole thing was an action of the elders; even though there is nothing in the article which indicates Mrs. Roese had anything to do with it except to be the first “woman” to benefit from the new policy, you put the whole thing into her court. SHE should stand down, which would be showing maturity.
Why didn’t you answer my questions? How did you come to conclude that she had any say in this matter? That the elders were acting on her request instead of a leading from the Holy Spirit? It would be very short sighted and an example of poor leadership if the Irving elders made this decision simply to accommodate the wife of one of their pastors, who happens to be a doctor in theology student. As I see it, this was a careful and biblically grounded decision they made with an eye on the future ministry of the church. Your statement that she should simply stand down and make the whole thing go away is not only a slam on Mrs. Roese, it is a slam on the men because it implies that they were somehow manipulated into making this decision because she was campaigning for a turn in the pulpit. Wimpy men wrapped around the little finger of one of their pastor’s wives.
I’ve seen this posture from men many times and been the target of it, which is probably why I react strongly. Whenever otherwise smart and biblically thinking men say or do something that affirms women in ministry leadership, there is a militant and manipulative woman at the root of it. If these pushy women would simply “stand down” and leave the poor men alone, we could all get along and experience unity.
I’ve reread my comments (and Nora’s). I realize that I’m biased, but I don’t read anything that is mean-spirited or that “dishonors God,” except perhaps your comment to Nora that she is the kind of “snotty nosed” woman who prompted Paul to tell “women” to be silent in church.
You wanted scriptures, here is one: “Love patiently accepts all things. It always trusts, always hopes.” Let’s lovingly accept at face value, this decision about an issue which in no way compromises historical biblical orthodoxy, made by wise men with a history of biblical decision making. Let’s take the elders at their word, trust that the decision was made as they said it was, through careful study and prayerful consideration. Let’s hope that the Lord powerfully uses Mrs. Roese and the ministry of Irving Bible to expand the kingdom. We can differ in our opinion about women in ministry leadership and still demonstrate this kind of love toward one another.
Wendi
Phil DiLernia on Sat, August 30, 2008
Nora:
You were and are right. I attributed a post by Tweed to Wendi and I apologize to Wendi for that.
That said Nora, I never dictated anything to anyone and I don’t have the authority to do so. I only ‘asked” and I believe that it is your sensitivity that had you say I “dictated.”
I submit for your review what I said:
“I would ask that you respect one request: Please do not respond to any of my posts unless I respond to you directly.”
I would hope that my request ng would not be seen as me dictating anything to anyone and maybe I am owed an apology from you only if you feel that you erred in your assumption.
My error in assuming that Tweed’s statement was actually Wendi shows my obvious bias I have concerning her which drove me to make my request (which I will honor) in the first place.
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment