Showndown in Texas Over a Woman’s Turn in the Pulpit.
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, August 28, 2008
- Viewed 202
- (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.
Phil DiLernia on Tue, September 02, 2008
Hi Female Elder:
That’s a very simple problem or question. The simple answer is this: Following our hearts is not always correct. Following our convictions is not always correct.
I admit that neither of us knows “who” is impacting this lady’s heart; whether God or Satan. So since this was an article that was printed I’ll assume that it was done so in order to generate some thoughtful conversation.
In thinking about this I can only see this situation from my understanding of Scripture combined with my knowledge and experience with people.
It has been my experience, and the Bible verifies this reality, that most people seek the more public opportunities to serve in order to build or feed their own egos. Does this lady fall under this category? I don’t know. She may not even know. But God does.
I’m certain that she’s a wonderful speaker and Lord willing she is doing this from the right heart AND that the leaders of her church also have the right heart.
If you know me at all you’ll know that I believe that God is trying to stir lots of things up in churches today, especially in Europe and the USA. However, I don’t think God has ever demonstrated a desire to stir things up in a way, shape, or manner, that is against His Word. I would personally draw a line there. Not only is it a conviction but it can be backed by lots of Scripture so therefore I will assume that the conviction is from God and not my own heart, pride, etc.
Wendi Hammond on Tue, September 02, 2008
Leonard,
I could be wrong about where and why the confusion surfaced about whether Junia was really Junias. I’m anything but a Greek scholar. My statement comes from a reading of numerous commentators and scholars on this passage and their take. Truthfully, none of us, even the most learned of biblical scholars, will ever really know what motivated ancient scribes and bible translators.
But let me say that my comment about trajectory DOES come from the text. Here is another example (one I’m sure you’ve heard many times already). Neither Jesus nor Paul disparages the practice of slave ownership in any way. The leap they do make away from cultural norms is about the treatment of slaves, and the “equality” of slave and master in the kingdom. Based on what we now understand about Jesus’ message regarding justice, we know that it would be completely contrary to scripture for one human being to “own” another, regardless of how kind and benevolent the owner is. Two thousand years after Jesus entered humanity, we know this because of the trajectory of Jesus’ message (though it took about 1800 years for us to respond). Many will disagree, but I read the passages about women in ministry with the same contextual lenses and see His (contextually) amazing treatment of women as the trajectory He started and to which we must biblically respond.
I am curious about your response to Tweed’s question. If you don’t see scripture disallowing a woman to teach in a mixed gender group, and don’t see them as disallowed from serving as an elder (the final authority in the local church), what is your biblical reason for your position that a woman should not serve as a senior pastor (unless you see the senior pastor, not the elders, as the final authority).
I think I’ve said before on this forum, I am a practical egalitarian. For me, the furtherance of the gospel always trumps our liberty. On this issue, from a purely practical standpoint, I agree with you. Generally speaking, I don’t believe a woman in a senior pastor role would be as effective as a man, and so this is one role that she should probably not fill.
Phil – I’ll try to ask more respectfully this time. In your response to Tweed you say:
[I guess the only thing I would encourage anyone to do is to seek God’s truth in this matter and then after processing that truth to obey whatever it is that is put on their heart. The end result should be able to be clearly enunciated and explained through their understanding that they have prayed over and felt led by God’s Spirit to conclude.]
Do you agree that this exactly what the elders at Irving did?
And in your response to Female Elder you indicate again that you believe Roese has initiated a campaign for the pulpit. You say [It has been my experience, and the Bible verifies this reality, that most people seek the more public opportunities to serve in order to build or feed their own egos.] (Has this been your experience with every male seeking a senior pastor role?)
My main question again is – what in the article leads you to believe that she is seeking this? The article indicates that this is all the elder’s doing. I am still curious about what led you to the conclusion that she started something she could stop by simply “standing down?”
Wendi
Dr. James Willingham on Tue, September 02, 2008
Sirs: Sandy Creek Baptist Association had eldresses in the 1700s. How could they do that in a day, when they would never have dreamed of questioning the word of God or disobeying it? Well, it so happen that the Puritans raised some questions about the rule on women…as one, Matthew Poole, put it: A woman might not teach or usurp authority, except she be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person such as ..and he named all the prophetesses of the OT & NT. Some one in Sandy Creek must have had some knowledge of the Greek as eldresses is used in Tm.5:2 (aged women - KJV). When I dealt with this issue in 1985 in an address entitled, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses,” I ended more than a quarter of a century of belief that the Bible taught that only a male could serve as pastor/deacon, etc. A more careful study, a closer study, as well as knowledge of women in ministry who did a superb job with all humility and selflessness left me very much ashamed of my faulty understanding of God’s word. The depth of the Bible, being supposedly (I believe it is, of course) inspired by an omniscient God, must reflect a profundity of wisdom that virtually defies comprehension due to our limited perspectives and understanding, being so time based and biased by the Fall. My field of study was American Social & Intellectual History, and when I looked at the Bible in the light of the intellect I found it mind boggling. I also spent more than six years of research in Church History, accumulating more than 3000 5x8 notecard, covering over 250 sources. In addition to two seminary degrees, I possess one in counseling. The wonder of it all to me is the depth of the Book and how it can come home to the brightest mind as well as one with limitations. I think I shall never forget seeing it come home to a man with a third grade education who had been raised as an orphan, poverty-stricken, a share cropper, had a drinking poblem, and other troubles, yet he found peace and joy from that book.
I also knew one with a high school diploma, a body shop mechanic, whose love of the Bible led him to write a pamphlet which resulted in his being excommunicated by his church. I quoted his work in a master’s thesis in Intellectual History. HE ASKED ME ONE QUESTION THAT AOUT SEVEN YEARS LATER TOTALLY DESTROYED MY SYSTEM OF ESCHATOLOGY. Interesting what that so-called primitive book can do to people. I could discuss the women in ministry, but I defer. They will speak for themselves, when the time comes. Or better yet, God will speak for them. Then where will we be in our interpretations? AS ONE SAID, THE TROUBLE IS NOT IN THE STARS, BUT IN US. THE BIBLE IS VERBALLY INSIRED, INERRANT, AND INFALLIBLE. THE BOOK, THE PROBLEM IS NOT IN THE BOOK ;IT IS IN US, IN OUR MENTAL LIMITATIONS, IN OUR INTELLECTUAL METHODOLOGIES. EVEN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS FLAWED. NOT THAT I AM REOMMENDING THAT WE JETTISON IT. AU CONTRARE. I JUST ASK THAT WE BE AWARE THAT ALL OF OUR METHODS SUFFER FROM BEING LIABLE TO MISLEAD. RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN NEED OF IMPROVED METHODS OF INTEPRETING AND UNDERSTANDING. PERHAPS, A SYNTHETICAL METHODOLOGY THAT RECOGNIZES THAT A TRUTH MIGHT BE BOTH/AND INSTEAD OF EITHER/OR. AND THAT PARADOXES CAN BE THE MEANS TO TRANSCEND OUR NARROW LIMITATIONS. There is more, but I defer.
Leonard on Tue, September 02, 2008
Wendi and Tweed, not ignoring the question I am leaving for India in a few days and am getting ready.
I wont be back for a few weeks but I do have a view some particular scripture in this matter.
Thanks for your patience.
Leonard
Female Elder on Wed, September 03, 2008
Dr. James: Amen and Amen!
Phil: Wow, your statement “that most people seek the more public opportunities to serve in order to build or feed their own egos” kind of blows me away. While I know there are people who do so for selfish reasons, I think it’s too much to say “most” people fall into this category. I can tell you in my own experience that I did not seek out the elder position, but was nominated when the position was vacated by a male. I did not campaign for this position, but rather went home and prayed about it and felt compelled that this was something the Lord was calling me to do. Then and only then, did I accept the nomination and was subsequently voted in by the congregation. I have never been one to get on a soapbox about females in ministry. I have firmly believed in the scripture that your gift will make room for you (Prov. 18). And if God determines that He wants me in a certain role, I won’t have to fight for it. Interestingly you started off by saying feelings and convictions can be wrong (and I agree), however, this would mean you must also accept that your own conviction referred to in your last paragraph must could also be wrong. I haven’t read through all of your posts, but have you made much mention of the Holy Spirit? After all, without His illumination all of our interpretations will always fall short.
Phil DiLernia on Wed, September 03, 2008
Hi Female Elder:
If I said “most” please don’t look for one word to sort of tear away from the rest of the statement. My apology if “most” was too strong. However, it is Paul who says that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He decides to and that He does so in order to have the body function properly. Then Paul goes on to say that gifted people cannot tell people that we don’t need others with their giftedness. Then Paul says that we need to hold those with gifts that are not deemed to be as special as “ours” with more “special honor.” Reading 1 Corinthians 12 leads me to believe that the human “tendency” is to consider certain gifts as more “special” than others. Paul explicitly states that the gifts that peoplle deem as “weaker” should be given special attention and honor. Paul says that the parts of body that are more “presentable” do not need any special treatment (I assume that’s because they’re already treated well enough.)
Then Jeremiah says that our hearts are deceitful above all things.
I believe, even a cursory read of scripture would indicate that “many” people seek positions and GIFTS that are deemed to be more popular or valued based on human standards. I’d be sort of surprised that you wouldn’t agree with that.
Just for the record I don’t know you and have never interacted with you before and I don’t believe I ever questioned your motivation for being an elder. So your defense was unecessary.
You said that if God wants you in a role that you wouldn’t have to “fight” for it. I agree with that. I guess the question then is; “what does ‘fight’ mean?” Would it include an 18 month study, causing at least some rift within the congregation, and causing a rift with DTS? Please don’t answer that too quickly ... but think about it.
As for my mentioning the Holy Spirit I don’t normally seperate my conversations with Father, Son, and Spirit and I’m not sure why you asked me that question. Do you think I lack anything in the Holy Spirit? Do you think my views are not illuminated by the Holy Spirit?
For the record ... any of us at any time can be wrong. I have no problem with that. However, as I also stated I believe my views are backed scripturally and I believe I stated that our feelings and convictions must be consistent with Scripture otherwise they are not convictions based on the Spirit.
Truth be told, I’ve been consistently stating my feeling on Women in Ministry and it’s been a very expanded view with greater opportunities for leadership. The fact that I’ve been sort of looked upon as the enemy of some in this particular post gives ME the feeling that it’s not my heart that is wrong here. People picking on one word of a long post or one statement. People claiming they didn’t accuse me of anything which their posts clearly are accusing me of. I believe this topic is so septic that it brings out the motivations of people’s hearts.
That’s my opinion of why this post has degraded as it has.
Nora Beerline on Wed, September 03, 2008
Hello, Phil.
I would like to offer a few clarifications for the purpose of discussion. Your assumption seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong) that women are seeking positions of teaching, preaching, and general leadership because they are the so-called exalted positions in the church. I, like you, have seen people of both genders seek such positions for those very reasons. But I have also seen people of both genders serve in those same positions because of their gifting and a genuine desire to serve. And without information to say otherwise, and based solely on the article, I think it’s only fair to give Mrs. Roese the benefit of the doubt in this matter, and assume that, based on her background, qualifications, and gifting, she is teaching from the pulpit because she believes it is one of the best ways for her to serve.
The other thing I seem to be hearing you say is that if Mrs. Roese would just “stand down” so to speak, then the controversey would go away, and unity within the body would be preserved. I have read the article twice now, and I still see no mention of actual controversey within the body itself. The “disunity” seems to be coming from outside the body, in which other bodies are attempting to control the workings within Irving by severing their connection/support. But even if Mrs. Roese were to “stand down,” I submit that this issue would not go away. There would be other women who those within the church would recognize as being gifted to teach and lead. So the issue rests with the Elders, not Mrs. Roese. With all due respect to her, she is merely the figurehead, the poster child for this issue. She is not the issue itself, and the Elders have prayerfully and laboriously made their decision on this issue. So, I submit, your criticism should be directed towards the Elders, not Mrs. Roese.
Finally, Phil, you verbalize your support for “a very expanded view with greater opportunities for leadership,” but when it comes to the issue at hand, you criticize Mrs. Roese for “immaturity” in this situation. So, while not making you the “enemy” as you term it, I am confused about what “expansion” of leadership opportunities for women means to you.
Sincerely,
Nora
Female Elder on Wed, September 03, 2008
Phil, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you. My comments were in response to what “seemed” to be the offensive nature of your posts. If I have misread your intentions or sentiments, again, I apologize.
Phil DiLernia on Wed, September 03, 2008
Hi Noreen:
OK here we go ... first let me catch my breath here ...
I NEVER SAID that this condition of self-seeking is solely a women’s. Never. So if you misread that into my comments I would ask you to seek your own heart as to why you misread that.
BTW, some of this argumentation on the board is poor. Some say (maybe you?) that this lady never campaigned or caused any controversy or never really showed any agressiveness in wanting to preach at this church. Then Nora you say she is serving in this capacity because SHE BELIEVES IT IS A GOOD WAY TO SERVE THE CHURCH. That sentiment, if true, is inconsistent with someone who never showed an interest or never made a request or just sat in the background - without controversy - while the elders brought this to her. Nope ... either she pursued it (which makes sense since her husband is a pastor there) or she just sat there in the background and let it come to her. It can’t be both ways. Anyway, that’s the way my mind is wired to process it which I understand may not be the way you process it.
You’re right ... I assumed something that took 18 months to complete and caused other churches to comment, AND caused DTS to cut all ties, that all those things indicated that there was at least SOME controversy here. But if not, then so be it. By the way Noreen, my first comments that just never seemed to get addressed centered around my opinion that althought I DID NOT DISAGREE WITH THEIR DECISION (do I need to repeat that once again?) I did disagree with their Biblical analysis and how they reached their decision. Am I not speaking clearly here? Is that a criticism of the lady in question? NO NO NO ... it would be as you said a criticism of the analysis of the elders. Please let me know if I need to nuance this better because usually I’m considered a good communicator and very direct. Here it seems that one or two words get focused on at the expense of 100’s of others. This is not right or profitable in my opinion.
The post I commented on about her “standing down” (I’ve never had two of my words quoted more often ... I should feel special I guess!) was a commented directed to someone about unity. That’s all.
What is an expanded view of women’s roles in our church? I’m GLAD THAT SOMEONE FINALLY ASKED!!!
When I got here we had women Deaconesses and a male elder board. Reviewing Scripture has showed us that women as gifted as well as men (this being done by the Holy Spirit) and women should be allowed to serve in the capacity that they are called to and such calling should not be prohitibed by Scripture; if so then either our understanding of Scripture is wrong or the “calling” is not from God.
We got rid of the Deaconess Board ... we reduced our elder board from 18 (not including pastors) to 9 (including 3 pastors) - this is a huge drop. We now Ministry Directors which are leaders of various ministries that report directly to the elder board. These MD’s can be either male or female and can lead in any area of the church without restriction due to gender.
That is a far cry from what we had before and has opened up ministry to women in areas that were previously lead exclusively by men.
Female Elder:
Apology accepted and please try to read my posts in their entirety and rather than pick out a word or two please try and see the bigger picture.
The words “arrogant”, “offensive”, “prideful” do not taste any less bitter when predicated “seemingly.” Trust me, if I called you names and said “seems like” beforehand you would not take my comments as without malice.
I will tinge my words more gracefully when speaking with those whom I have issues with.
may on Wed, September 03, 2008
Did anyone look up the Greek word for authority? Just what does this verse really mean? This is the core of the problem. Why would a woman not be allowed to speak even in Paul’s day? Perhaps the latter is merely talking about a woman who supposes leadership over her husband in the manner in which she speaks, because I’m sure most men would not mind their wife merely asking questions in bible class, for instance, unless she’s trying to teach the whole class. My former fiancee and I had this discussion all too many times. It got to be crazy. He had no problem with me asking questions during class (after I asked him), but we left churches because they allowed women to read scripture before the lesson, another time because the pastor allowed a woman to preach the sermon and give a testimony one particular day. My fiancee got frustrated when he wanted me to read a passage in the bible to him, and I told him that I thought he was going against the bible then! By the way, I think it is natural as a woman to submit to a man. Perhaps when a man does not come up to the front and state his words, a woman might be more likely to feel the compulsion to “lord” over him. She should gently persuade him instead of coming across as the “boss.”
As far as a woman “being saved by childbirth,” I heard a pastor on Moody radio say this meant a woman gave birth to Jesus who saved all of us. This made the most sense to me.
Phil DiLernia on Wed, September 03, 2008
Hi May:
I’m sorry that you guys experienced such turmoil over this subject. In my opinion, there is no subject more divisive in the church today.
An interesting Biblical story to sort of back-up your understanding. Acts 18:24-26 tells of a man Apollos who:
- was a learned with with a thorough knowledge of scripture
- spoke with fervor and taught about Jesus accurately
- yet only knew of John’s baptism and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit
It goes on to say that “Priscilla and Aquila” took him to their home and instructed him so he could teach even better!
Many people believe that since the woman is mentioned first (a rarity) that this says something about:
- Priscilla’s personhood
- Priscilla’s lead role in instructing Apollos
- or both
Assuming the second one is at least true then this demonstrates a time where the more knowledgable person instructed the less knowledgable (but yet in a seeming position of authority as teacher/preacher) without causing dis-unity and in fact helped the spread of God’s Kingdom through her use of her gift in respect to the authority and position that Apollos was given.
The result? He immediately goes out and instructs others, proving from the Scriptures (I love that!) that Jesus was the Christ.
Now what this story has to do with our discussion here I’ll leave for others to discipher.
Nora Beerline on Wed, September 03, 2008
Hi Phil,
First off, for the record, it’s Nora, not Noreen. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Secondly, I really did not mean to inflame you. I am honestly trying to feed back to you what I hear you saying and then commenting on that. But so there can be no misunderstanding (or at least less), I will try quoting you directly.
Phil: “I NEVER SAID that this condition of self-seeking is solely a women’s. Never. So if you misread that into my comments I would ask you to seek your own heart as to why you misread that.”
But I didn’t say that you said that “this condition of self-seeking is solely a woman’s.” I said, “Your assumption seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong) that women are seeking positions of teaching, preaching, and general leadership because they are the so-called exalted positions in the church.” That assumption springs from your very first post where you say:
“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.”
And also here,
“Are we saying (against 1 Corinthians!) that if we cannot get the most public opportunities that somehow we’re “less than?”
So I guess it’s less an issue of me needing to “seek my own heart” for why I “misread that,” and more a reasonable – if inaccurate – interpretation of your exact words.
Then you say, “By the way Noreen, my first comments that just never seemed to get addressed centered around my opinion that althought I DID NOT DISAGREE WITH THEIR DECISION (do I need to repeat that once again?) I did disagree with their Biblical analysis and how they reached their decision. Am I not speaking clearly here? Is that a criticism of the lady in question? NO NO NO ... it would be as you said a criticism of the analysis of the elders. Please let me know if I need to nuance this better because usually I’m considered a good communicator and very direct.“
But this earlier statement by you is most definitely “a criticism of the lady in question:”
“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?”
All that said, Phil, I was fascinated to read about the leadership journey your church recently took, because it sounds very similar to the journey that my church recently took. We went from a large mixed gender Church Council to a smaller mixed gender Elder Board with a Ministry Leadership Team that sounds very similar to your Ministry Directors. The ride hasn’t been without its bumps, but ministry is now much more efficient, and the leaders in our church feel more empowered. I could go on, but that’s a subject for another day.
Have a good one,
Nora
Wendi Hammond on Wed, September 03, 2008
Phil –
I’m not sure why I am compelled to address you again in this thread since you seem to have determined not to respond to me. As a sister in Christ who has learned from similar situations in the past, I’m asking you to consider some commonality among those of us who have responded to you. Tweed, Nora, A woman elder and I have all perceived from your comments that you are criticizing Mrs. Roese. All of us have perceived that you are placing on her the blame for the consequences (separation with DTS and conflict in the church). I believe that Tweed and I both expressed that we sensed a tone of arrogance in your responses.
On more occasions than I care to remember my written or spoken words have been perceived differently than I [thought] I intended. Whenever there are a group of people who seem to misunderstand something that comes from me, I feel compelled to look into the mirror and ask myself two questions; 1) what part of my communication was inappropriate or incorrect, and 2) is there some truth in the perceptions about my intentions or motives which I need to do business with God about? I think these questions are similar to the questions you have suggested we ask ourselves and we consider might be appropriate for Mrs. Roese to consider. In light of the fact that several of us have detected the same tone in your posts, I would ask that you do the same.
I’d like to offer a personal experience that I believe relates to the specific suggestion you have made numerous times in this thread about Mrs. Roese “standing down” in the interest of unity. At a previous job I was hired as the person responsible for all the elements related to helping people become fully engaged in the body. When I was hired, my supervisors (Senior and X-Pastor), along with the elder board understood and agreed that my job description included some teaching to mixed gender audiences and all the elements relating to church membership. This was a new position for the church. Once my role became fully understood by the congregation, there was a faction that strongly disagreed with a woman having this type of responsibility. Some people refused to join the church unless I was removed from teaching the membership class. I recall having a heart to heart with my supervisors, suggesting that perhaps I had become more of a liability than an asset. Maybe I should resign, or at least “stand down” (I used different terminology but offered the same thing you’ve suggested for Mrs. Roese). I felt that people would not hear the message because they could not get past the messenger (which, I believe, is exactly why Paul to place restrictions on women in the first century). My pastor went to the elder board, and the response was unanimously “absolutely not – at this time, the messenger IS the message.” Had I resigned or “stood down,” I would have been acting independently and been unwilling to submit to the God-appointed leaders in my church. Yes, there was conflict, but it was conflict the elders believed we had to walk through in order to become the church God wanted us to be. The women’s issue was one example of several that was keeping our church stuck in “the way we’ve always done it.” Yes, some left the church. Those who stayed helped the church move into a new and much more outward focused chapter. In the end, it’s clear that the elders were acting on the leading of the Holy Spirit in alignment with the scriptures, and although unity wasn’t immediate, the eventual unity was much more real and authentic than what would have been experienced by my “standing down” so the problem would simply go away.
I choose to believe this is exactly what has happened at Irving. Even seminaries can become “stuck.”
Wendi
Phil DiLernia on Thu, September 04, 2008
Nora (got it right! Sorry!)
This subject was about a certain woman. I made a case by asking questions that you quoted. Therefore you assumed that I meant that these generic questions, which could have referred to both genders, only referred to women. Forgive me but I think that is poor reasoning and in my opinion only demonstrates a “sore spot” or “hot spot” within your heart that causes you to react or see things that aren’t there. That was the basis of my suggestion to look into your heart. If it is not a “hot spot” then my apology and now you know that I was not referring to one gender. We can move on from that now can’t we?
And to address the last point again I just disagree with your logic and conclude what I did above. You quoted my explanation of how I disagreed with the elder’s biblical analysis and then said I was inconsistent with quotes about the lady “standing down” (hey if that’s the quote I’m going to be known by then so be it! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif ) One quote had nothing to do with the other. Let me try to make myself clearer and more nuanced. I place the responsibility of poor biblical analysis squarely on the shoulders of the elder board and nothing to do with the particular lady in question. IF, and only IF, God would have wanted her to “stand down” then for that I place the responsibility with her. I hope that if fair.
As for your church I’m sure that change and transition will be difficult but continue in your struggle. It’s worth it and God will always bless those who are attempting to be a change agent for Christ-likeness! Good luck with it.
Now, I really believe in my heart that much of this post has not been honoring to God and for any part in that my words or heart had I apologize. I will not be posting anylonger on this thread.
God’s peace.
Rev.K on Thu, September 04, 2008
why isn’t the church united over BIblical issues? one answer is because of man’s sinful desires… I agree…man has his own agenda while God has made His agenda clear through the Bible…it isn’t a matter of clearity in the writtings of Paul, its a matter of belief/faith in what the Scriptures says… we agree that all (and I repeat “all) Scripture is given by inspiration through the Holy Spirit…if we agree that the Holy Spirit wrote through Paul, then why are many saying that Paul’s writings isn’t relevant for our times…that’s just like saying the Holy Spirit isn’t relevant for our times…
I have been studying this issue for some years now…and the more I study this the more I see man’s sinful desires to go against what the Bible has already said…(just like Satan tempted Eve by asking her, “did God really say?”) and that’s where we’re at today…with the same old question, “did God really say?”
many today are exegeting the Scripture by being blinded by vertical transference…many are allowing their beliefs to dictate the outcome of Scriptures…(example: feminism, liberalism…and all other isms…)...it’s hard to interpet Scripture holding on to one’s bias… when interpreting Scripture we must put our beliefs on the backburner and allow what God has already said interpet itself…
God using many powerful women doesn’t give validility to women usurping authority over men… if you study well, you’ll know that Mother Theresa never thought of herself as a woman preacher…she thought of herself as a servant…(she never sought to teach/preach before congregations…)…
In my understanding of Paul’s theology, it would seem that though women are completely equal with men in their standing before God, they are forbidden to be in a functional position of ecclesiastical authority over men, teaching them in a congregational setting. This implies neither the superiority of the male nor the inferiority of the female. Paul’s theology simply reflects the creation order established by God in which man was appointed to function as spiritual head.
Within that authority structure, both men and women are given the privilege of serving Him - but in different ways. Simply because Scripture says women can’t teach men in a position of authority does not mean that their ministries are unimportant. To Paul, all ministries were significant: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you.’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you.’ On the contrary, parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor” (1 Cor. 12:21-23a).
Women are not prohibited from teaching men on an individual basis - as apparently Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). (Priscilla was evidently teaching under the headship of Aquila, to whom the authority belonged.)
woe to the man who misuse and abuse God’s ordained authority structure to oppress and dominate women…
In an enlightening essay, John Piper said that manhood and womanhood are the beautiful handiwork of a good and loving God. Indeed, God “designed our differences and they are profound. They are not mere physiological prerequisites for sexual union. They go to the root of our personhood.”
Addressing the need for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity, Piper suggests that “at the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s different relationships. At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s different relationships.”
This call for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity led Elisabeth Elliot (one of the most influential woman evangeilist) to comment that “true liberation comes with humble submission to God’s original design.” Indeed, the noblest achievement of any human being - male or female - is to discover God’s design and fulfill it. Let this be our goal.
Page 4 of 4 pages « First < 2 3 4
Post a Comment