HOME | CHURCH JOB OPENINGS | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT US

image

Showndown in Texas Over a Woman’s Turn in the Pulpit.

Orginally published on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 6:15 AM
by Todd Rhoades

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."

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?


This post has been viewed 1475 times so far.



  There are 62 Comments:

  • Posted by

    What’s next?  Inter-racial marriage?  Women cutting their hair?  Rich people selling all they have and giving half to the poor?

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Cheryl Smith

    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!

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by Josh R

    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:

    “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.”

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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?

  • Posted by

    Dear Matthew,
    I engage with you on this topic, not to change your mind, but to perhaps show you why and how “the other side” thinks the way they do.  Obviously, I Tim. 2 is the foundational scripture for your point of view.  With that in mind, let me ask you a few questions to see where you’re coming from:

    * Do you believe women are biblically prohibited from wearing braided hair, gold, or pearls, as outlined in verse 9 of that same chapter?

    * Do you believe women are saved through childbearing, as stated in verse 15?

    *If women are to be silent, and not to teach or have authority over men, do you allow them to teach both boys and girls, or only girls?  If you allow them to teach both genders of children, at what age do the boys become men, and thus no longer able to “sit at the feet of women”?

    * Do you believe that Christian women should not respond to sites such as this one, for fear that they may accidentally say something that “teaches” a man?

    *Is it okay for men to read books written by Christian women?

    I ask you these questions to show you some of the issues that Christian brothers and sisters struggle with in interpreting this passage, and also in a sincere interest to see how someone who interprets this passage strictly and literally handles these issues.

    Obviously, I applaud the Irving Bible Church, although, in my opinion they didn’t go far enough. smile

    Kindly,
    Nora Beerline

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Daniel

    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!

  • Posted by

    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!

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Phil DiLernia

    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.

  • Posted by

    A woman wants to teach in a church?  That’s wonderful.  Here’s the thing that gets me, though: the title of “Pastor” being applied to her.

    How do we get around the commands of 1 Timothy 3 and how it says that a bishop (pastor) must be the husband of one wife?  The ruler of his house?  Having children (since there are even pastors who have no kids)?

    --
    CS

  • Posted by

    A great read on this subject is a book called Women in Ministry: Four Views by Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse.  It is a collection of four essays of positions from the most conservative to most liberal views on this subject, each providing clear biblical support for their position, and each is responded to by the three authors with opposing views.

    Matthew – please read Nora’s questions again before responding yes to all.  You say women SHOULD be prohibited from braiding their hair, wearing jewelry?  You say women SHOULD be prohibited from teaching any male children (your children’s ministry is staffed fully by men???) Yet you say yes, men can read a book written by women?  How so?

    Regarding the “slippery slope” take on Irving’s statement: [the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom].  Is the implication here that there has been absolutely no further revelation from God since the written Word was given to us?  Come on now.  I agree that God will never reveal something different than what has already been clearly revealed in scripture.  But there are things in scripture which are not clear.  What I find is that those with the most fundamentalist of theological views tend to claim that their particular interpretation has been “clearly revealed,” whereas (on this topic for example), egalitarians tend to take a posture more like “a careful study of scripture has led me to the following understanding . . .” The fact is that are theological and hermeneutical issues about which very learned and very orthodox bible scholars disagree.  What’s the big problem with saying, “I see how you came to that understanding of scripture, but I have a different view.  It’s a good thing we agree on the things that matter the most.”

    And CS, to you point about the title “pastor” – this one really fries me.  In most churches, the person who gives oversight to the children’s ministry is a women.  She is called a director because she is a woman, even though her job description is virtually the same as the male “youth pastor.” Her constituency is younger, but it is probably also much larger than the youth ministry.  She oversees many more volunteers than does the youth pastor.  She is much more involved than is the youth pastor with families from the church, often providing all kinds of “pastoral care.” Chances are very good that although her ministry is twice the size of the youth department, she makes about ½ as much.  Churches claim that it is biblically acceptable for her to fill this role with children because it doesn’t involve authority over men, but children.  But we all know that a good children’s director (if she is an Eph 4 leader) doesn’t really exercise authority over the children as she carries out the duties of her job, but rather, over the people who volunteer to serve the children.  Unless there isn’t one single adult male working in the children’s ministry, the church has created a situation where a woman is in a position of authority over a man. 

    I say, put your money where your mouth is.  If it is not biblically correct for a woman to fill the role of pastor, then don’t allow her to fill such a role.  But don’t change the title of a clearly pastoral job, lower the pay grade and then smugly persuade yourself that you are following some scriptural mandate.

    Sorry for the rant, but hypocrisy and selective understanding of “clear biblical mandates” is one of my hot buttons.

    Wendi

  • Posted by

    Phil,
    You say, “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 guess you could say we are picking our battles.  Or maybe you could say we are trying to be “unifying,” which, apparently is out of character for us egalitarians.

    You also say, “Why do we think that submitting to authority means that we’re somehow “less than” or “less valued?” ‘To that I say, Phil, you are not the one who has been told that you cannot exercise your gifts or fulfill your calling. 

    And, Phil, with all due respect, the curse was put on the cross with Jesus—it is not a law that we have to adhere to.  By your logic, women should not be given painkillers during childbirth either.

    CS says, “A woman wants to teach in a church?  That’s wonderful.  Here’s the thing that gets me, though: the title of “Pastor” being applied to her.” So you selectively choose the portions of I Timothy that you wish to follow—the teaching part can be ignored, but the authority part must be strictly adhered to?

    Also, do you really believe that having children is a requirement for being a bishop/overseer?  I guess Jesus, Paul, and Timothy would be disqualified from church leadership on that basis as well.

    Matthew—I ask you the same questions that Wendi posed—and one more.  Do you really believe that women are saved through childbirth?  If so, what about single or infertile women?

    Wendi argued this much more eloquently than I, but the point is that it is a rare church indeed who is strictly and consistently faithful to a literal interpretation of I Timothy.  Why is this?  Because it is very difficult to keep 1/2 of your entire congregation from exercising their God-given gifts.  And here’s the other dirty little secret—if most churches attempted to do so, ministry as we know it would fail because we women are everywhere, doing just about everything!

  • Posted by Phil DiLernia

    Nora these strawman ... oops straw-woman ... arguments really don’t enhance your case at all.  I tried to give you a biblical analysis and even expressed I had no problem with the woman giving a message.  And I also express that at our church we have greatly increased opportunities for women in leadership of our church.  Why did you retort with snotty and inflamatory remarks?  Now let me respond to them.

    I never said that egalitarians are not unifying but I did say that I thought it was strange that nobody got heated up over this church’s stance on eldership while they were defending women’s rights ... etc.  I think the observation is a valid one.  That’s my opinion.  Your response about picking battles could have been debated but your childish addition of egalitarians not being unifying ... etc. ends all that.  While unifying commentary and analysis may not be out of character for egalitarians they seem to be out of character for you.

    You may find this hard to believe Nora but many men, including myself, have been told that they cannot excercise a “gift” for various different reasons in the church.  By the way, I’ve also experienced that in Corporations and Athletics as well.  One of the hardest lessons for humans to learn is to take a “no” with grace and trust in God as we move on.  So don’t feel so “special” that you’ve been told “no” on occassion.  You’re not the first, the last, nor is the female gender the only one to “suffer” such a horrible fate.

    Your last comment was preceded “with all due respect” and then you quickly disrespect me!  When did I say that women should not be given painkillers during childbirth!  If that’s your use of argumentive logic I hope and pray that you do not represent a majority of women because you would be doing them a disservice.  As a matter of fact this type of accusational, snotty, type of argumentation is probably what prompted Paul to tell women to “be silent in the churches.” You’re very 1st Century Nora.

    Where in scripture does it say that the “curse” was put on the cross with Jesus?  By that logic we would no longer be toiling for our work and earnings.  Huh?  Do you have experience with work?  If so then you’ll know that we are all toiling still.  In fact, women have joined men in their toil!

    Our sins were put on the cross with Jesus and not the curse given in the Garden of Eden.  Paul even says that those who depend on the Law live under a curse and this after Jesus’ death!  (Galatians 3:10) So, it cannot be that Jesus nailed any curse on His cross.

    Concerning the curse given in the Garden of Eden, The Bible says in Revelation 22:3 that AFTER we see Jesus in Heaven face to face that “there will no longer be any curse.” Until then we’ll be cursed with men and women arguing over who gets to do what, etc. etc.

  • Posted by

    If you kid’s don’t stop that bickering I am going to pull this car over and I will settle it… Oops, sorry I forgot what I was going to say.  Here it is.

    Phil, I think I have an answer to at least one of your questions.  You ask; 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.”

    I think one reason is the ones who are in “authority” have made it seem so.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I think we can see historically, societally, politically and religiously that men in power have a tendency to “lord it over” and give the impression that they really are better. 

    I also struggle with the “trajectory” of truth but I do believe in our understanding of the bible, we cannot ever forget the “who” in terms of time, place and audience. 

    I am good with the idea of women in ministry, women in the pastorate, women teaching and speaking in the church.  I am not good with a woman as a Senior Pastor.  I know it happens, I know some have much fruit, I know many who are and they are always welcome at my table and in my church, but my understanding has not sufficiently evolved to let me go that far.  By the way we do have women preach and teach from the pulpit in our church (no not just on mothers day) and we have done it in teams, solo with and without me there. 

    CS – I think the words of Paul were not meant as a check list of markers but rather a description of the places where character is revealed.  I do not think Paul was saying must be married, must be a father, must be a man… but rather if he is married, he should only have one wife at a time, if he is a father he should have a healthy home… Paul would never have written if HE/SHE because his time and culture could not sustain that thinking.  The description of a pastor/elder IMO are markers of character not markers of gender, social status, fertility…

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Leonard,

    Thanks for not pulling the car over. Are we there yet? Huh?

  • Posted by

    Phil,
    First of all, please let me apologize for what you characterize as “snotty and inflammatory remarks.” In a blog, or any written communication, tone is always difficult to convey and read, and perhaps we have misunderstood each other.  Let me clarify a couple of things. 

    You said, “I never said that egalitarians are not unifying,” but let me point out in your first post that you said, “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” (emphasis added).  This is where I inferred that you felt that her refusal to “stand down” as an egalitarian was not UNIFYING, your word, not mine.  Quite frankly, you touched a hot button there for me, because often times, when egalitarians try to exercise their gifts, they are painted as being divisive, hence my response.  Now if I read something into your comment that was not there, I do apologize, but it did sound as if you were villifying an eminently qualified teacher for wanting to minister to her congregation in the way that the Lord had equipped her.  Also, the article stated that the Elders had spent 18 months studying and praying about this issue, which sounds like a good thing, so why would she interfere?

    Then you say, “ If that’s your use of argumentive logic I hope and pray that you do not represent a majority of women because you would be doing them a disservice.” Agreed. I would absolutely be doing women a disservice if I claimed to represent a majority (or even minority) of them.  There are many, many women far more able than I to defend their gifts and abilities.  It is interesting to note that you extrapolate my comments to be representative of a majority of women, however.  I never took your comments to be representative of a majority of men.

    “As a matter of fact this type of accusational, snotty, type of argumentation is probably what prompted Paul to tell women to “be silent in the churches.” You’re very 1st Century Nora.” Wow.  That’s just plain hurtful, Phil.  I am sincerely sorry that my comments were so hurtful to you that they elicited that type of a response.  (Of course, I have never seen any “snotty type of argumentation” from any of the men on this blog, so that must be why they are allowed to speak freely.)

    As for the “curse” subject, I have already made this post too long, but I do feel that you are greatly reading into Genesis 3:16. In your earlier post it sounded to me as if you were suggesting that the curse of Genesis was a law or commandment that had to be followed, which is why I responded the way that I did.  If my understanding was incorrect, I do apologize.

    I don’t know you, Phil, but I do know that I do not want to enter into a hurtful conflict with a brother in Christ.  For jumping the gun earlier, again, I am truly sorry.

    Nora

  • Posted by Phil DiLernia

    Hi Len!  You never gave me an answer about those Starbucks coffees!

    About your analysis that men have a history of lording their leadership over women ... who can argue that?  Jesus addressed it so I’m guessing that this has been a problem for over 2,000 years and quite frankly since the beginning of human history.  Isn’t that what God said would happen in the curse of Genesis 3?

    At the same time, however, we need to teach the truth that submissiveness is a dirty word in the human genetic and yet a beautiful thing in God’s Kingdom.  Hence, Jesus’ submissiveness results in the Name that is above all others and a person whom every knee would bow before!

    Why can’t we teach those in authority NOT to lord it over those they are in authority to while at the same time teaching those that are under authority to be so in a loving submissive manner?

    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 hope we can agree that man’s sin against women in the past does not give women the right to sin in the present against men?

  • Posted by Phil DiLernia

    Nora:

    Now that we’re talking with each other let me clarify what confused you about my original post.

    My comment about this lady was not meant to be stretched across the universe of egalitarians.  It was an observation about her.  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.  That’s my opinion only and I do not speak for the universe of men.

    I’m sorry that I sinned when I said that comment about 1st Century women.  It was meant to be snotty in return and I guess I succeeded.  Please accept my apology.

    But can’t you see that your use of the following comment about men’s attitudes as an excuse for your own is not the way to dialog?  That renders your previous apology as somewhat tainted.  Can’t you see that?  If you can’t then I’m sorry again but I’m really trying to point something out.  BTW, it’s just as wrong if and when men do it.

    If you understood my comments on the curse as something to be “followed” then, in my opinion, that just exposes that this subject is a hot button for you and maybe too hot.  In my opinion this is an opportunity to review your own heart as to why this subject means so much.  Is it God’s calling or your own pride?  Only honest reflection in prayer AND bible study can tell you which.  I’m not qualified to do so.

    However, just to be square, the curse is not something to be followed.  The curse is an explanation for the reality which we face every day.  And that reality of the human condition will not change, as I stated earlier, until we see Jesus face to face in Heaven (Revelation 22:3)

    ALL THAT BEING SAID ... I’m for women increasing their use of gifts however this church’s biblical analysis, in my opinion, was lacking. 

    Let’s shake hands and move on.

  • Page 1 of 3 pages

     1 2 3 >
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: