Her argument was about abuse, but if a talented woman calls out a bunch of men who completely fumbled the ball, let's go to the playbook and not talk about the fumble at all.
Fun fact: In the early stages of the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the bi-laws set forth stated that women weren't allowed to pastor, hold any office, vote, voice an opinion,or even teach Sunday school. Over time these rules were reconsidered (by the men), and eventually amended to allow women, at the very least, to teach Sunday school because they couldn't get enough men to volunteer for the task.
Speaking of "staying with the argument," isn't BM shifting the argument? Isn't the SBC vote over the role of women in pastoral ministry? BM is the one who made it about abuse.
To be clear, abuse is wrong and needs to be proactively resisted. However, one can hold to the biblical roles of elders and be against abuse...and they can be dealt with separately. In other words, supporting the biblical position of male elders hip does not, therefore, mean you support abuse. It turns a serious issue into a red herring.
I disagree. The vote was happening and her comment was not on whether it was right or wrong but that they'll spend their time on that issue while continuing to ignore the sexual abuse. And, no, supporting the biblical position of male elders does not mean you support abuse. However, I do think that position can contribute to abuse. https://www.focusforhealth.org/the-role-of-patriarchy-in-domestic-violence/
Hey Jane. Abuse of any type and in any form is sin. I disagree with your argument, respectfully, as it still seems to posit a direct link between male elders hip and abuse.
Here's an example that may help simplify my point: Being a mother puts one in a position of responsibility and authority as she cares for and raises a young child. Motherhood is good thing. There are some women who use the high and holy gift of motherhood to abuse their children. This is not a knock on motherhood, in amd of itself. It is a sinful corruption of it. That doesn't make motherhood bad.
Likewise, sinfully abusive pastors doesnt mean that the office, as ordered by God, is wrong or bad. It means some evil men corrupt what is inherently good amd holy.
If you say, a woman can’t be a pastor, then you are telling them that they are less than a man. When you say only a man can do it, you are telling women that they don’t have the talent or the intelligence to do the job.
Hey Jean. That's not at all how the Bible says it, nor anyone trying to honor God's Word. That is simply how you see it. It doesn't mean women are less talented or qualified at all. The same is true for children and 95% of men in church not called to or qualified for pastoral ministry. They are not "less than."
God loves all His people, and your argument is ultimately against His regulated order in His church. With all due respect, your position completely misunderstands and misinterpret the Word of God.
What do you mean by "less"? Are men who are not called to be elders something less? Are stay at home moms less?
God calling husbands to be the head of their wices and calling qualified, called men to be elders over the church does not make wives and women anything less than. Different functions doesn’t equate to different value. The entire body of Christ is precious.
Well, you can say different functions do not equal different value, but that's not how that works in reality. If you're told all your life you can't be trusted in leadership because women are easily deceived, then you begin to think you aren't as good as men. If you lived as a women, you'd understand this better.
Also, you most certainly can, and do, have equality of value, personhood, and worth among varying functions. A husband is not more valuable.or better than his wife. A mother is not more valuable, or better, than her children. She has a different function amd role towards them, but she is not "greater." In the church, there is one body with many parts, I.e., functions, and they vary in differing degrees (see 1 Cor 12:12-27), but they are all one in Christ.
Not only is this principle found in the teaching of Scripture, but is rooted in the very nature of the Trinity. The Father is not "greater" than the Son in His divinity. The Son became willingly and joyfully subservient to the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit functions to bring glory to the Son, who brings glory to the Father. It's a profound, yet beautiful mystery.
So, yes, there can absolutely be equality in varying roles. It simply boils.down to one's definition of equality. Equality does not mean exact sameness in every way. Biblical equality is our equal value in Christ, our shared salvatiion, and call to treat all people with dignity and respect. It does not mean there are no varying degrees of authority and leadership at church, at home, and in society. That type of definition holds no weight in the light of God's Word. Grace and peace.
Hey Jane. Thank you for your response. Whoever said that women can't be trusted in leadership said something false. Many Christian women are incredibly trustworthy and godly people. The issue does t boil down to abilities, but to the explicit teaching of God's Word. Also, please consider that one doesn't have to be woman to make a biblical argument any more than being a woman limits one from making an argument. I find that to be a red herring. Grace and peace to you.
Fun fact: In the early stages of the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the bi-laws set forth stated that women weren't allowed to pastor, hold any office, vote, voice an opinion,or even teach Sunday school. Over time these rules were reconsidered (by the men), and eventually amended to allow women, at the very least, to teach Sunday school because they couldn't get enough men to volunteer for the task.
Speaking of "staying with the argument," isn't BM shifting the argument? Isn't the SBC vote over the role of women in pastoral ministry? BM is the one who made it about abuse.
To be clear, abuse is wrong and needs to be proactively resisted. However, one can hold to the biblical roles of elders and be against abuse...and they can be dealt with separately. In other words, supporting the biblical position of male elders hip does not, therefore, mean you support abuse. It turns a serious issue into a red herring.
I disagree. The vote was happening and her comment was not on whether it was right or wrong but that they'll spend their time on that issue while continuing to ignore the sexual abuse. And, no, supporting the biblical position of male elders does not mean you support abuse. However, I do think that position can contribute to abuse. https://www.focusforhealth.org/the-role-of-patriarchy-in-domestic-violence/
Hey Jane. Abuse of any type and in any form is sin. I disagree with your argument, respectfully, as it still seems to posit a direct link between male elders hip and abuse.
Here's an example that may help simplify my point: Being a mother puts one in a position of responsibility and authority as she cares for and raises a young child. Motherhood is good thing. There are some women who use the high and holy gift of motherhood to abuse their children. This is not a knock on motherhood, in amd of itself. It is a sinful corruption of it. That doesn't make motherhood bad.
Likewise, sinfully abusive pastors doesnt mean that the office, as ordered by God, is wrong or bad. It means some evil men corrupt what is inherently good amd holy.
I hope that helps. God bless!
This kind of thing makes my blood boil. And why do the women in SBC accept being less?
If you say, a woman can’t be a pastor, then you are telling them that they are less than a man. When you say only a man can do it, you are telling women that they don’t have the talent or the intelligence to do the job.
Hey Jean. That's not at all how the Bible says it, nor anyone trying to honor God's Word. That is simply how you see it. It doesn't mean women are less talented or qualified at all. The same is true for children and 95% of men in church not called to or qualified for pastoral ministry. They are not "less than."
God loves all His people, and your argument is ultimately against His regulated order in His church. With all due respect, your position completely misunderstands and misinterpret the Word of God.
I disagree.
What do you mean by "less"? Are men who are not called to be elders something less? Are stay at home moms less?
God calling husbands to be the head of their wices and calling qualified, called men to be elders over the church does not make wives and women anything less than. Different functions doesn’t equate to different value. The entire body of Christ is precious.
Well, you can say different functions do not equal different value, but that's not how that works in reality. If you're told all your life you can't be trusted in leadership because women are easily deceived, then you begin to think you aren't as good as men. If you lived as a women, you'd understand this better.
Also, you most certainly can, and do, have equality of value, personhood, and worth among varying functions. A husband is not more valuable.or better than his wife. A mother is not more valuable, or better, than her children. She has a different function amd role towards them, but she is not "greater." In the church, there is one body with many parts, I.e., functions, and they vary in differing degrees (see 1 Cor 12:12-27), but they are all one in Christ.
Not only is this principle found in the teaching of Scripture, but is rooted in the very nature of the Trinity. The Father is not "greater" than the Son in His divinity. The Son became willingly and joyfully subservient to the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit functions to bring glory to the Son, who brings glory to the Father. It's a profound, yet beautiful mystery.
So, yes, there can absolutely be equality in varying roles. It simply boils.down to one's definition of equality. Equality does not mean exact sameness in every way. Biblical equality is our equal value in Christ, our shared salvatiion, and call to treat all people with dignity and respect. It does not mean there are no varying degrees of authority and leadership at church, at home, and in society. That type of definition holds no weight in the light of God's Word. Grace and peace.
Hey Jane. Thank you for your response. Whoever said that women can't be trusted in leadership said something false. Many Christian women are incredibly trustworthy and godly people. The issue does t boil down to abilities, but to the explicit teaching of God's Word. Also, please consider that one doesn't have to be woman to make a biblical argument any more than being a woman limits one from making an argument. I find that to be a red herring. Grace and peace to you.
“Whoever said that women can't be trusted in leadership said something false”? Um, that’s what Paul said. 1Timothy 2:12-14.
Thank you. Hooray for Beth!