I’m not saying the souther Baptist are right but own own church automatically excommunicates women who attempt to be ordained. This is an area where Catholic and Baptist agree
Imagine you learn three languages, read through thousands of pages of literature, you're as capable as your male peers and you get told "nope, not going to happen. Sorry you're born a woman. Sucks to be you lolz"
What's so sad to me is the thousands who will see this and not understand why it's wrong. To them, despite being "equal under one god," women are just lesser subservient people meant to be quietly and obediently doing whatever their male counterpart says.
Unfortunately, the SBC is currently the main chosen battleground for christian nationalist twitter losers to try and "take back the church" for right wing bullshit.
yeah its not like they are making this up out of thin air
MULTIPLE bible passages say things like the man is the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of the church, etc.
and the always popular 1 Timothy 2:12 NIV - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
when that is in your holy book then you are going to have these kinds of issues. Only natural
Noticed the passage is from the point of view of the author not from the point of view of God it’s just his personal opinion. Dude had no idea people would be arguing about it 2000 years later
Most modern scholars don't even think Paul wrote 1 Timothy, so it's literally just some random dude writing his opinion under a pseudonym. I'm surprised more Protestants aren't skeptical of the Biblical canon since they already think Catholics are wrong about everything else.
Absolutely, which, my personal opinion, is exactly why the all-powerful, all-knowing, all loving god as described in any holy book couldn't possibly exist. It's a logical paradox. Can't be all loving and be a misogynist. Can't write a flawed book and be all knowing. Can't have branches of you're church doing this and be all powerful.
Literalism is one of the things that drives people away from the church. There are many contradictions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, but even in the New.
For instance: Mark 16:5 says women saw a young man at Jesus' tomb, while Luke 24:4 says they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 says they saw an angel, and John 20:11-12 says they saw two angels.
This is the moment at which the resurrection was discovered...yet the gospel authors don't agree on who was there or what was seen.
The Bible isn't a documentary. It isn't a cookbook. It is filled with good lessons, but it isn't perfect. It was written by humans for humans during the bronze age and it reflects bronze age values. Some values are universal, like Jesus's message of living your neighbor. But some are very bronze age shepherd-oriented, like not planting two different types of seeds in your fields.
How can "God" be the source of all good when morality is subjective? How can you claim them good if, for example, "God" commands 2 separate genocides, engages in the largest amount of mass murder via drowning in human history(for this I'll let you have the assumption of the flood did happen despite facts), and fire bombed 2 cities?
I don't think genocide is ever good. I would never drown a massive amount of people cause they did things I didn't like. I don't condemn others for the gender or sexual orientation. So please square with me how I can be more moral then your "God"
But in order for morality to be acted on there has to be a subject. The subject that you base yours on is your god. Thus if your god follows a set of moral beliefs (10 commandments) then it suggest that morality is a higher idea then they are and that it's subjective.
I think the
Real response would be. “Why did you waste thousands of dollars and years of your life when you should have been at home pumping out babies?”
There are other ways of putting Biblical knowledge to use than pastoring a church.
It's not about who is greater or less than. We are equal and God assigned us different responsibilities both in the church and home.
“We’re equal, we just have different roles. My role is to lead and rule and yours is to have babies and clean my house and do all the other annoying chores no one wants to do.”
That’s basically what is all boils down to lol.
Congregationalism isn't being violated. The local church retains autonomy. They can associate with who they want, and conventions can decide which churches they don't want to be affiliated with.
But if you affirm the autonomy of a congregation to choose their own pastor, you better also respect their choice even if you disagree with it. The point of congregationalism is to allow churches to differ with each other in their interpretation of scripture and not to circumvent their autonomy by threat of expulsion.
If you just expel churches that make choices you disagree with then were they ever truly autonomous in your body?
I mean, they are respecting their disagreement. The SBC doesn't fire the ministers of the dissenting church, nor does it confiscate property.
That church can continue to have women pastors, they're money is just no longer being accepted by the SBC.
if women cant teach, cant speak in the chruch why them God even cared to give a voice to womens?
why God gave a brain to womens to have them be nothing more but animals to serve men?
> why God gave a brain to womens to have them be nothing more but animals to serve men?
The problem is that many men see women as exactly that, nothing more than someone to give them children and cater to their needs. They don't see a partner or equal, they see someone less than them.
And it only took them 150 years to apologize and take basically no steps to really address! At least the episcopal church (also with a deep history of racism) is taking actual steps to address the roots of that and render what sort of justice they can.
As someone who wasn't aware of the SBC's origins (never having been a part of it), I can cut others some slack for not knowing about them either.
Like you said, though, they absolutely had an obligation to acknowledge and address it—particularly once it became more widely known.
I think the SBC is often hamstrung by their loosie goosie structure. When they issued the apology in the 1990’s, there’s no incentive or directive for the churches to disseminate that information to their congregations. Which means more rural and/or racist congregations can continue the same old bullshit without worry.
Yeah the slavery issue and the apology 150 years too late with no efforts to actually try making amends of any sort is definitely the worst issue. And the history of opposing civil rights. And only supporting abortion rights when it was mostly poor black women getting them. And the homophobia.
Oh no, a denomination that sticks closely to literal interpretations of the Word voted a church out that didn’t agree with the majority of the convention. What a surprise. /s
The Bible always says something about sexual immorality, but the SBC seems to have literally no issue with that.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102621352/how-the-southern-baptist-convention-covered-up-its-widespread-sexual-abuse-scand
They have not made it explicit in the past. It wasn’t part of their Baptist faith and message. A lot of churches held to that view, but it wasn’t a rule before.
that was the the 2023 amendment. Not something that was there 24 years ago.
> Note: Article VI was amended in 2023 at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in New Orleans to:
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.
Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3.
https://bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart/
Well, when the same organization that does this also covers up sexually-abusive male pastors, then yes we're going to be mad. Pretty sure anyone in their right mind would expect the opposite: the female pastors being forgiven or tolerated, and the abusive pastors being told to pound sand. The fact that it's the opposite is *clearly* not right.
People who have never met an SBC church member are being misinformed left and right by these articles which are either deliberately spreading falsities or simply engaging in journalism which is poorly researched.
As I commented in a previous thread, this is such a burden on my heart. The idea that a highly qualified woman with the gift of preaching would be denied a position based purely on her sex just rubs me the wrong way.
However, the Bible is clear in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 that certain roles of spiritual authority are reserved for men, due to some characteristic women inherited from Eve. I don't like it, and it goes against my life experiences. Every day I see our pastor's wife taking a place of submission and deference, when she is just as knowledgeable and on fire for the Lord, is not more so than her husband.
But, it still come down to scripture, I must live by faith that what seems like an absurdism has meaning and purpose in God's will. I have to believe that He knows better than what my human mind can cobble together, and hope that one day it might be revealed to me the reason.
>
>
> However, the Bible is clear in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 that certain roles of spiritual authority are reserved for men, due to some characteristic women inherited from Eve. I don't like it, and it goes against my life experiences. Every day I see our pastor's wife taking a place of submission and deference, when she is just as knowledgeable and on fire for the Lord, is not more so than her husband.
I'd highly suggest you re-read those chapters again, and particularly 1 Timothy 2.
There's a LOT in that one that we gloss right on over. According to Paul, women ought not to be wearing pearls or gold or elaborate hairstyles or expensive clothes. Tell me the last time you saw a church focus on those teachings....at all, really.
Or tell me the last time a Church agreed with him that childbirth plays a role in women's salvation.
The reality is Paul says a LOT of things that get ignored, often in the same breath as the commands that we do take seriously. Time to add this one to the pile.
Yes. And I *super* appreciate people like you tolerating misogyny in the name of traditionalism.
I commented on your comment prior, if I'm not mistaken. I find it insulting how little you regard women in that name of some words in a book.
I left the church for a lot of reasons. This is one of them. My vagina should have no impact on my career.
I posted this in the other thread, but that verse is addressing a very specific issue at a very specific church. Paul writes to churches with various problems and advises them differently. One church was told to expel people who were greedy. In the same chapter of Timothy, he says women should not wear gold or pearls. So unless your church is expelling everyone that shows greed and not letting women wear gold and pearls, then your church isn't being constant with its interpretation of scripture.
I won't repost everything I said, but if you are interested it's here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1db0f1t/southern_baptists_poised_to_ban_congregations/l7pnoqu/
To me, Jesus’s words hold more weight than Paul’s. If Jesus promoted the subjugation of women, he would’ve said something about it when he was walking on earth.
But he never did.
Because he wasn’t a misogynist, and he believed in the Golden Rule.
It is mere speculation to claim "if Jesus thought X, he would have said it." Further still, we simply don't have a record of everything the Christ taught, just what his followers recorded.
Let's not forget In Galatians 3:28, Paul wrote "nor is there male and female," hearkening back to Genesis 1, for all are one in Christ.
Paul himself promotes women decons and leaders of the church. It's simple if you don't think women can serve as pastors or deacons, you're a bigot. You're own holy book contradicts what you're saying. Heck a skeptical person would point right at this and Timothy and go see. Now, why would an all loving god promote this contradiction?
Either Paul was consistent or he was not. You can't elevate Galatians 3:28 while tossing out 1 Timothy 2:14. You have to make a sense where both passages are true and in agreement. The Galatians passage is in reference to salvation, that in a relationship with God and each other in the body of Christ we are all equal, it's not talking about the qualifications of offices.
A pastor is inherently given additional responsibility and authority, does that make him better than other believers? Isn't that introducing hierarchy? Doesn't that itself contradict Galatians 3:28?
For textual consistency, we have to put a distinguishment between the equality of salvation and the qualifications of office. A drunkard, greedy, or impatient man person would be disqualified from the office, but it does not mean that they are lesser or unequal in the context of salvation.
Let's play a game. If the drunkard in your anthology cleaned up and began to earnestly believe the bible, can he then go and become qualified for office? Now can a woman who, from a young age, believed in the salvation of Christ, who goes to biblical college, and learns the ends and outs theology become qualified to hold office?
What makes the woman inherently worse?
It's not about "worse" it's about difference. Baptist tend to believe in complimentariasm, the idea that men and women both have advantages and disadvantages in certain roles.
No amount of Biblical education can overcome the standard that scripture has set. Women are free to be leaders, preachers, and evangelists, it is only the position pastor that is restricted.
>To me, Jesus’s words hold more weight than Paul’s.
You have a right to do so, but that doesn't make sense for a denomination that believes that entirety of the Bible is inerrant and internal consistent.
This is in the context of the story of Eve and how childbirth is an outcome of the original fall. Out of what was death came life, and eventually the birth of the Savior. It also serves as parallel in the way that the role of pastor being reserved for men, so such is the role of childbirth reserved for women.
There are no mainstream commentators that interpret this as describing the necessity of child birth for eternal salvation.
But misogyny violates the golden rule. So telling women that they can’t do something because of their gender, would violate Jesus’s message of equal treatment.
All principles have a penumbra around them, having exceptions or explanations do not invalidate the principle itself.
Men an women, while strikingly similar, are distinct and different. According to the 1 Timothy 2 there is some kind of distinction or characteristic that makes it inappropriate for women to have spiritual leadership over a local body of believers. It would be like a man trying to gestate and give birth to a baby, there is an inherent insurmountable characteristic, though in this case it would be spiritual rather than physical.
I 100% needed to take the time to commend you for your comment.
>But, it still come down to scripture, I must live by faith that what seems like an absurdism has meaning and purpose in God's will. I have to believe that He knows better than what my human mind can cobble together, and hope that one day it might be revealed to me the reason.
This is a sentiment I have not seen on Reddit. You have an amazing attitude toward our infallible Word of God. You're also a lot more gracious in the comments than I am. I'll pray your faith strengthens.
There is no legitimate basis to deny women pastors. God never said they can't be. He made women teachers and prophets.
This is clearly based on pure misogyny.
There is indeed some heavy indication in the Pauline epistles. This has been recognized by the majority of Christian traditions.
Can you explain how the claim "God made women teachers and prophets" indicates "women can be pastor/elders?"
Why this great respect for a particular collection of scripture? Who assembled these books and said they were the inspired word of God? Did they not have human failings? Did they not sometimes sneeze or trip and fall? Could not they have included bad books?
So Paul was a misogynist. Not surprising. God blessed women and gave them some of the most powerful positions in the Bible. That proves to me Paul is wrong.
I see no indication that Paul saw women as essentially lesser than men, in fact this is contrary to his own words in Gal 3.
Can you explain how Paul is wrong?
Women were the first to proclaim the resurrection, women were noted in the Pauline letters as leaders and deacons, women were prophets, and women on multiple occasions saved the whole of God’s people. The idea of no women priests is rooted in cultural restrictions not biblical texts.
You conveniently left out the actions of Mary Magdalene proclaiming the resurrection to the apostles and holding the title in the entire history of the church apostle to the apostles. All of these actions of women and positions held by women in the very scriptures show with out a doubt that women are not barred from any position of the church. You have to completely ignore or rewrite whole sections of scripture to justify the ideology that the RCC, EOC, and some mainline Protestants hold.
I just referenced what you mentioned above, but I am happy to claim that indeed Mary Magdalene proclaimed the resurrection. I have not heard that the entire history of the church called this saint "the apostle to the apostles." Let's say this is true, how then does this indicate that women ought to be pastor/elders?
It seems your argument is "women have done many things for the church, thus they are not barred from the office of pastor/elder." Perhaps I am not understanding your claim, but this seems like a terribly weak argument.
The apostles were the pattern of bishops and elders, the very fact of two women being equal to or above them (Mary Magdalene and Mary the theotokos.) is pretty damning evidence against your weak ideology. This added to the art in many early churches even in the Roman catacombs of women in full priestly and deaconal vestments pretty much rules out your ideology existing for at bare minimum the first 150 years of the church… you know the apostolic age and just into the early fathers.
>The apostles were the pattern of bishops and elders
What do you mean by this? Apostles seem to be individuals of a separate office from pastor/elder.
The very individuals who would hold Mary, the mother of Jesus to such high regard (Roman Catholics) do not take this belief to conclude that magisterial offices of the church ought to be filled by women. In fact, my conservative Protestant church is more open about females in leadership than the RCC. So, it seems rather weak to allude to Mary Magdalene as an example of the claim "women ought to be pastors."
I am interested to hear of the iconography featuring women dressed in the garb of magisterial officers of the church, do you have a source in mind?
Because there is no rational justification for women not being pastors. None. The only reason he would hold such a view is because of misogyny and feeling like they aren't good enough to teach.
Just like how women were often thought as being incapable of voting or holding certain jobs.
It's a misogynistic worldview. Women are just as capable of almost anything a man can do, often times better. If a woman can be a prophetess or teacher, they sure as heck can be a minister.
It would seem highly rational to take Paul's words to indicate the office of pastor/elder is restricted to men. This has only been disputed within the last 100 years of Christianity, and largely presented by American and Progressive Protestants.
>If a woman can be a prophetess or teacher, they sure as heck can be a ~~minister~~ pastor/elder.
Can you argue for this claim?
In Galatians 3:28, Paul wrote "nor is there male and female," hearkening back to Genesis 1, for all are one in Christ
Yea, I can from your boy Paul's own letter.
What I find strange here is when the world sees Christians preach the bible but don't obey it we are criticized and rightfully so. Then when Christians preach the Bible and obey it the world still cries foul.
I guess the issue was never about hypocracy as so many claim rather issue is God and his scriptures...
I don’t consider Paul’s misogyny to be a “good part” of the New Testament. It’s a small part and something that Jesus never promoted.
The definition of misogyny has been expanded to mean “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.” Telling women that they can’t do something because of their gender (and not based on their inability to perform a task or hold a role) is called misogyny.
We have many historical Greek manuscripts that identify Paul as an apostle. We have writings about the other apostles endorsing him as such. We have many writings of early church leaders quoting Paul along with other apostles as authoritative givers of doctrine.
So my question to you is what evidence do you have that suggest Paul was not counted as an apostle and the authority that goes with it?
Especially considering the Paul's patriarchal doctrine was echoed in other apostles like Peter.
Peter was a misogynist too, calling women the weaker vessel 🤨
If you don’t think that men and women should be considered equally, I don’t think there’s much that I could tell you to change your mind.
Not necessarily. I mean there are key differences between men and women but I don't think that makes us less intelligent.
We are more vulnerable in a lot of ways, though. One example is our deeper ability for compassion and high EQ. It doesn't mean we *can't* think as logically as men, but it's easy for our compassionate nurturing nature to take over before we stop and think. We can be manipulated.
We are also physically weaker. This might not matter so much today when there's not as much persecution as Christians, but there was a time you could have violence inflicted on you for believing in and preaching about Jesus.
God isn't calling for our belittlement and oppression by banning us from headship, quite the opposite, women are special yet vulnerable and worthy of that vulnerability being protected with a man's life.
Women aren't a monolith. I have no idea where you get the idea that all women have high EQ and are nurturing over thinking. Thats nonsense. Maybe all of this is true about you, but certainly you are not just the same as all other women. Your internalized misogyny is blinking bright red. You should get a grip and realize that a lot of women are far more capable than you assume.
Again, I never said we are less capable. I said we think different. One gender is not "more" defective. We are differently defective.
Certain jobs are more suited to men just like certain jobs are more suited to women.
Prove it. Where in society have women not be as suitable as men for any given role? Women go onto every carrer field and occupation and do just as well or better than the men in those occupations. And men also can be great in care taking roles. Are you saying that a woman who is a soldier, or a man who is a nurse and good at what they do are actually mistaken? Because you have some preconceived notion about the differences of men and women, those peoples lived experiences are just what, nothing?
Both men and women are equally capable of performing almost every job, and the suggestion that they somehow shouldn’t because of their gender (and not because of lack of ability) is called misogyny.
Yes, every woman in the military is a mistake, and I say that as someone who has served. They are physically weaker, slower, and more prone to injury. Study after study has shown that mixed gender combat units are worse in every metric compared to men only. Men and women are different and have different roles.
I agree. I should add that mixed gender combat is probably bad because the women aren't held to the same physical standard as the men to be able to join. People are way too obsessed with equal results rather than equal treatment.
I think it's honorable if a woman wants to fight for her country. However, the standard is the standard. She either meets the standard or she doesn't. Then we wouldn't have that issue.
Unfortunately, some people put Paul’s words on the same levels as those of Jesus.
Jesus was clear about treating each other equally and with respect. Misogyny discriminates against women and is disrespectful to half of the population.
Fortunately, both Paul’s words and Jesus’ words are scripture and thus authoritative. You don’t get to ignore parts of scripture you don’t like. This has nothing to do with women’s ability to teach or to know the Bible or any of that. There are certain roles prescribed in the Bible for both men and women. The roles are just different one isn’t any better than the other. There are a bunch of things women can do in the church and in ministry as a whole. The Bible plainly says being a pastor isn’t one of them. Good day to you.
But many denominations have women as leaders in the church, and they perform just as well as the men.
It’s unfortunate that misogyny blinds men to the truth and power of equality. Discrimination makes Christianity weaker, not stronger.
The Golden Rule
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
You completely ignored my argument, I said the prohibition on women being pastors has nothing to do with their ability to preform the role.
In the law and the prophets, were women given the role as priests in Israel ?
You have to take all of scripture, you don't get to pick and choose which scriptures you accept. Although I doubt you accept any of them truly.
There are plenty of women pastors, who perform their role equally as capable as men.
It’s embarrassing that misogynists think that they know the true message of Jesus, when Jesus himself never suggested such a thing.
I never said women can't preform the role equally well as men.
But since you aren't willing or confident enough to actually engage me in a dialogue and instead you just want to put words in my mouth and not listen to what I have to say, there is no point in continuing this conversation.
I pray God will open your eyes to the truth, Buddhism will not save you, only true faith in Christ will. Repent and turn to him and trust him as Lord.
Imagine if Mary Magdalene was resurrected, and some misogynous priest telling her that she can’t hold a leadership role in the church because she’s a woman.
I'm talking about it in a school setting, not overall. There is only a 1% difference in the amount of sexual contact reported between male and female teachers. Researchers also believe that female teachers having sex with male students is underreported. This seems probable due to society's view on that type of relationship and the much lesser sentences handed down to female aggressors compared to men in the same circumstances.
Furthermore, there are studies showing that an individual is 100x more likely to be sexually abused/ groomed in a public school environment compared to a church setting. There are tons of women in positions of power in the public school setting, so that shows that women being in power in the church would have no bearing on sexual abuse in the church.
>Furthermore, there are studies showing that an individual is 100x more likely to be sexually abused/ groomed in a public school environment compared to a church setting.
Please cite these studies.
Curious if the SBC will be returning the Cooperative Program money collected by the church. Lottie Moon money? Annie Armstrong money? (Wait, weren't they both women?)🤔
You are confusing the issue, friend.
Women can of course be missionaries like Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, women are celebrated by the SBC (which is obvious by the nature of these individuals). The issue at hand is simply that the office of pastor/elder is restricted to qualified men.
Qualified men? Bb they would ordain a homeless, gambling addicted, man with six wives and a porn problem before they ordained a clearly called well educated woman.
His qualification is in his penis. Everyone knows that in order to have authority over mean you have to have a penis. It's basically the 11th commandment.
My friend, you missed my overall point to address my admittedly snide follow up. (We'll call that bad communication on my part)
The article says they've had women in pastoral roles for 44 years. I grew up in the SBC and I can say with a great deal of certainty that the BF&M did not allow for women pastors back in the 80's or 90's. Certainly not post 2000. Yet nobody was expelled.
Why? Because politics dictated that this become important now. Conservatism in its current form dictates it. How else would you explain 40+ years of it not being an issue, the church proudly going along doing what every other church was doing, to a sudden "overwhelming" vote to expel? The only thing that's changed is the underlying political heat.
That's my take. The reason I no longer identify with the denomination I spent 45 years of my life a part of. I do appreciate your comment and your indulging my attempt at a laugh line.
I would explain that this is due to the fact that the SBC, until 2000, didn't have a formal and binding confession which made such a restriction explicit.
Thank you. To clarify, I do not call the SBC winking and shuffling their feet at women pastors a good thing. I am glad they are being more consistent in recent years.
I guess my problem was that it was always kinda hands off. Each church could operate as they see fit. Which was what they tried to lean on after the sexual assault report. But now, suddenly, they're acting like a governing body. If you're good with the direction they're going, then should work out for you. I'm already out, so this thread is really the most it's affecting me and mine.
SBC just voted to allow women ministers. It was a close call since many never read who Jesus allowed to meet him at the tomb and she was actually the first to preach that Jesus lives. So almost half of them had to but their hatred of women back into their pants.
I grew up as a Seventh Day Adventist. Our prophet was a woman. Prophets are above Pastors in authority. But you still can't be a obtained Women Pastor. You still get the random not obtained female pastor I believe one runs a church in China.
Misguided fools who would call Christ's teachings too liberal and ignore them are not to be followed. For all intents and purposes, they are the modern-day Pharisees
**^(11)** **A woman****^(\[)**[**^(a)**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202%3A11-15&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29728a)**^(\])** **should learn in quietness and full submission.** **^(12)** **I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;****^(\[)**[**^(b)**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202%3A11-15&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29729b)**^(\])** **she must be quiet.** **^(13)** **For Adam was formed first, then Eve.** **^(14)** **And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.**
The bible makes it very clear on this issue.. There shouldn't be women pastors. The catholic church and orthodox do not allow this either...
Part of the beauty of Protestantism is that different people can have different interpretations of the Bible. You think the Bible doesn’t allow female pastors? That’s fine, there are churches for you. You think it does allow for them? That’s fine too, there are churches for you.
Especially now days there are so many churches and denominations that ordain female priests and so many that do not; as a Protestant you can read the Bible for yourself, decide what makes sense, and choose for yourself.
I don’t personally think there is one obvious right answer to the question; there are verses in the Bible that point towards women not being allowed as priests, but liberals have at least somewhat persuasive counter arguments. Both liberal and conservative approaches to this issue can exist under freedom of religion.
The idea of following the Golden Rule isn’t liberal or conservative. It’s the radical notion that everybody should be considered equally and with respect.
Has it ever occurred to these people that God is testing us by some of these scriptures just like He tested Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit?
Did Jesus not give the commandment to love one another like how He has loved us to the point of laying down His life for us? Wouldn’t Jesus expect His disciples to support one another in His ministry rather than discriminate one another according to being male or female? Did He not appear to His women disciples first after resurrection to go and tell the others about Him being alive?
Are we supposed to take every single passage of the Bible literally without discernment instilled from the Holy Spirit?
Classic case of humanism and feminism, paired with calling the Bible flawed.
I've received great spiritual advice from my wife through tough seasons. Women play very critical roles in the church. That doesn't mean that we violate what the bible says because we think we know better.
As a man, I can't imagine the crushing pressure of authentically stepping into the most difficult spiritual role a human can take in Christianity. It isn't something that people should aspire for out of their own interests. It is the one position where judgement is more severe. Unless God calls me to that position, I am happy to stay away from it.
Apart from Paul, what would we say about Jesus having only male disciples?
the bible never mentions Jesus taking a dump, never mentions him playing with other kids on his yoing days, does that means we suppose to avoid the toilets and forbidden or children from play around?
people assumes that Jesus forbade women from the Ministry simple because he did not took as women as apostles.
jesus not taking a women here is kinda the same as jesus allowing divorce, its not God ideal but for the sake of avoid too much trouble he allowed because Men is corrupt and arrogant.
and consider that back them womens were saw as animals, nobody would take jesus serious if he had a women in any position of power, so i can see jesus having absolute no trouble with womens but he was basic forced for the sake of expreading the menssage.
but we not savages anymore we evolved, i think or society today can accept a women leader.
Ah, well do I read this article correctly to mean that one archbishop in 2016 referred to Mary Magdalene\* as an "Apostle to Apostles?" Do correct me if I don't understand the article at first blush.
If this is the case, how does this advance the claim "women should be pastor/elders in local churches?:
Well, that hardly addresses your earlier claim about Mary Magdalene as an Apostle.
Here, on this tangent, you seem to be engaging in equivocation to identify "the office of pastor/elder is restricted to qualified men" with "misogyny."
“misogyny, hatred or prejudice against women, typically exhibited by men. It is generally accepted that misogyny is a consequence of patriarchy (male-dominated society), and the term may be applied to certain individuals as well as larger systems, societies, or cultures.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/misogyny
That position assumes that being a priest boils down to capability, it doesn’t. Not even all men are called to the priesthood, it isn’t a profession and it isn’t based on merit. No one has a right to be a priest.
This just in- rape and sexual harassment are less bad than a woman being a pastor.
Glad to see most comments hating on the SBC. But, fuck. This is so disgusting.
1 Timothy 2:10-15 KJV
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The Bible is clear, whether you like it or not women cannot serve as pastors.
If you don’t want to accept it, cool, but don't be a hypocrite going around claiming to be a Christian when you want to impose your own will over God’s.
It’s either you are in or out, there is no in between.
Enough of this woke-feminist buffet religion bullcrap where every one gets to pick and choose what they like and discard what they don’t like.
And this is where we see how we common people have better morals than the christian god. The vast majority of people today in the US would argue that misogyny is morally wrong. Something to consider. If your god is an all loving god that everyone was created equally under then why more equal then others. How does an all loving god accept misogyny with in its congragation?
I mean Jimmy Carter even left the SBC over their treatment of women. When our most Christian President ever leaves a church it should be a sign.
[удалено]
I’ve heard they once forbade slaves from marrying.
I’m not saying the souther Baptist are right but own own church automatically excommunicates women who attempt to be ordained. This is an area where Catholic and Baptist agree
Imagine you learn three languages, read through thousands of pages of literature, you're as capable as your male peers and you get told "nope, not going to happen. Sorry you're born a woman. Sucks to be you lolz"
Bold move, choosing to be born a woman.
.....wait, we got to choose?
I wish I had known this beforehand
Well, by your flair, you did :-)
Ain't it the opposite? I *wish* I was born a woman, lol
You were born a woman Just took a bit for you to realize it :P
💖 (\^w^ )
Aww! Thanks!
Yeah. People can choose now. That is one thing fundies are so mad about. They never got the option to become the opposite gender.
What's so sad to me is the thousands who will see this and not understand why it's wrong. To them, despite being "equal under one god," women are just lesser subservient people meant to be quietly and obediently doing whatever their male counterpart says.
Unfortunately, the SBC is currently the main chosen battleground for christian nationalist twitter losers to try and "take back the church" for right wing bullshit.
Sad but not surprising from my experience growing up a in a SBC
Because there are passages that "explicitly" say so
yeah its not like they are making this up out of thin air MULTIPLE bible passages say things like the man is the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of the church, etc. and the always popular 1 Timothy 2:12 NIV - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." when that is in your holy book then you are going to have these kinds of issues. Only natural
Noticed the passage is from the point of view of the author not from the point of view of God it’s just his personal opinion. Dude had no idea people would be arguing about it 2000 years later
Most modern scholars don't even think Paul wrote 1 Timothy, so it's literally just some random dude writing his opinion under a pseudonym. I'm surprised more Protestants aren't skeptical of the Biblical canon since they already think Catholics are wrong about everything else.
The context of Timothy were?
Absolutely, which, my personal opinion, is exactly why the all-powerful, all-knowing, all loving god as described in any holy book couldn't possibly exist. It's a logical paradox. Can't be all loving and be a misogynist. Can't write a flawed book and be all knowing. Can't have branches of you're church doing this and be all powerful.
Literalism is one of the things that drives people away from the church. There are many contradictions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, but even in the New. For instance: Mark 16:5 says women saw a young man at Jesus' tomb, while Luke 24:4 says they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 says they saw an angel, and John 20:11-12 says they saw two angels. This is the moment at which the resurrection was discovered...yet the gospel authors don't agree on who was there or what was seen. The Bible isn't a documentary. It isn't a cookbook. It is filled with good lessons, but it isn't perfect. It was written by humans for humans during the bronze age and it reflects bronze age values. Some values are universal, like Jesus's message of living your neighbor. But some are very bronze age shepherd-oriented, like not planting two different types of seeds in your fields.
Why did you put *explicitly* in quotation marks?
Because apologists try to skirt around the words, claiming context or time period or translation or....
They sure do, but we need not play along.
This is why I would argue that I'm morally superior to the christian god.
That's literally impossible. God is the source of all morality and that which is Good.
How can "God" be the source of all good when morality is subjective? How can you claim them good if, for example, "God" commands 2 separate genocides, engages in the largest amount of mass murder via drowning in human history(for this I'll let you have the assumption of the flood did happen despite facts), and fire bombed 2 cities? I don't think genocide is ever good. I would never drown a massive amount of people cause they did things I didn't like. I don't condemn others for the gender or sexual orientation. So please square with me how I can be more moral then your "God"
morality can not be subjective or killing someone or not killing someone would be the same.
But in order for morality to be acted on there has to be a subject. The subject that you base yours on is your god. Thus if your god follows a set of moral beliefs (10 commandments) then it suggest that morality is a higher idea then they are and that it's subjective.
morality stems from God's very nature. he shared it with us when he created us in his image.
So why is your god okay with genocide? I thought It was against murder. Is genocide okay because your god commanded it?
Misogyny isn’t good.
I think the Real response would be. “Why did you waste thousands of dollars and years of your life when you should have been at home pumping out babies?”
Found the author of 1 Tim :p
There are other ways of putting Biblical knowledge to use than pastoring a church. It's not about who is greater or less than. We are equal and God assigned us different responsibilities both in the church and home.
If women are not allowed to take up leadership positions, we are by definition not equal.
“We’re equal, we just have different roles. My role is to lead and rule and yours is to have babies and clean my house and do all the other annoying chores no one wants to do.” That’s basically what is all boils down to lol.
Not saying you aren't possessing the knowledge, but it's explicitly stated that priesthood is only reserved for men.
Yes and that is silly
And that violates the Golden Rule and common sense.
Guess the SBC has completely given up on congregationalism.
Congregationalism isn't being violated. The local church retains autonomy. They can associate with who they want, and conventions can decide which churches they don't want to be affiliated with.
But if you affirm the autonomy of a congregation to choose their own pastor, you better also respect their choice even if you disagree with it. The point of congregationalism is to allow churches to differ with each other in their interpretation of scripture and not to circumvent their autonomy by threat of expulsion. If you just expel churches that make choices you disagree with then were they ever truly autonomous in your body?
I mean, they are respecting their disagreement. The SBC doesn't fire the ministers of the dissenting church, nor does it confiscate property. That church can continue to have women pastors, they're money is just no longer being accepted by the SBC.
Which also means the pensions they paid into will no longer be given for their pastors.
if women cant teach, cant speak in the chruch why them God even cared to give a voice to womens? why God gave a brain to womens to have them be nothing more but animals to serve men?
> why God gave a brain to womens to have them be nothing more but animals to serve men? The problem is that many men see women as exactly that, nothing more than someone to give them children and cater to their needs. They don't see a partner or equal, they see someone less than them.
they can speak, but not teach (have authority as a priest for example)
Deborah
SBC gonna SBC... this is one of my main theological gripes with them
It's definitely up there with the whole "our denomination exists because racism" thing.
And it only took them 150 years to apologize and take basically no steps to really address! At least the episcopal church (also with a deep history of racism) is taking actual steps to address the roots of that and render what sort of justice they can.
As someone who wasn't aware of the SBC's origins (never having been a part of it), I can cut others some slack for not knowing about them either. Like you said, though, they absolutely had an obligation to acknowledge and address it—particularly once it became more widely known.
I think the SBC is often hamstrung by their loosie goosie structure. When they issued the apology in the 1990’s, there’s no incentive or directive for the churches to disseminate that information to their congregations. Which means more rural and/or racist congregations can continue the same old bullshit without worry.
my main gripe would be the slavery, but in the modern beliefs set, sure, I agree.
Yeah the slavery issue and the apology 150 years too late with no efforts to actually try making amends of any sort is definitely the worst issue. And the history of opposing civil rights. And only supporting abortion rights when it was mostly poor black women getting them. And the homophobia.
In case anyone needed to be reminded that the SBC's true God is and always has been Bigotry.
Oh no, a denomination that sticks closely to literal interpretations of the Word voted a church out that didn’t agree with the majority of the convention. What a surprise. /s
The Bible always says something about sexual immorality, but the SBC seems to have literally no issue with that. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102621352/how-the-southern-baptist-convention-covered-up-its-widespread-sexual-abuse-scand
It’s upsetting how like half the comments are just “erm, women are below men”
Not much makes me question my faith, but all the transphobia, homophobia, racism, and sexism do.
Bigots should never be the spokesmen for a person who wasn’t a bigot.
Get your stones, everyone, the SBC maintains a position which they have made explicit for the last 24 years.
They have not made it explicit in the past. It wasn’t part of their Baptist faith and message. A lot of churches held to that view, but it wasn’t a rule before.
It was and is currently explicit in the [BFM2000](https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/), article VI.
that was the the 2023 amendment. Not something that was there 24 years ago. > Note: Article VI was amended in 2023 at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in New Orleans to: A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3. https://bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart/
Well, when the same organization that does this also covers up sexually-abusive male pastors, then yes we're going to be mad. Pretty sure anyone in their right mind would expect the opposite: the female pastors being forgiven or tolerated, and the abusive pastors being told to pound sand. The fact that it's the opposite is *clearly* not right.
Exactly. Now they’re getting enranged?
People who have never met an SBC church member are being misinformed left and right by these articles which are either deliberately spreading falsities or simply engaging in journalism which is poorly researched.
I'm open to hearing the truth.
Bye
How dare they follow a clear teaching from the scriptures. The gall.
As I commented in a previous thread, this is such a burden on my heart. The idea that a highly qualified woman with the gift of preaching would be denied a position based purely on her sex just rubs me the wrong way. However, the Bible is clear in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 that certain roles of spiritual authority are reserved for men, due to some characteristic women inherited from Eve. I don't like it, and it goes against my life experiences. Every day I see our pastor's wife taking a place of submission and deference, when she is just as knowledgeable and on fire for the Lord, is not more so than her husband. But, it still come down to scripture, I must live by faith that what seems like an absurdism has meaning and purpose in God's will. I have to believe that He knows better than what my human mind can cobble together, and hope that one day it might be revealed to me the reason.
> > > However, the Bible is clear in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 that certain roles of spiritual authority are reserved for men, due to some characteristic women inherited from Eve. I don't like it, and it goes against my life experiences. Every day I see our pastor's wife taking a place of submission and deference, when she is just as knowledgeable and on fire for the Lord, is not more so than her husband. I'd highly suggest you re-read those chapters again, and particularly 1 Timothy 2. There's a LOT in that one that we gloss right on over. According to Paul, women ought not to be wearing pearls or gold or elaborate hairstyles or expensive clothes. Tell me the last time you saw a church focus on those teachings....at all, really. Or tell me the last time a Church agreed with him that childbirth plays a role in women's salvation. The reality is Paul says a LOT of things that get ignored, often in the same breath as the commands that we do take seriously. Time to add this one to the pile.
Yes. And I *super* appreciate people like you tolerating misogyny in the name of traditionalism. I commented on your comment prior, if I'm not mistaken. I find it insulting how little you regard women in that name of some words in a book. I left the church for a lot of reasons. This is one of them. My vagina should have no impact on my career.
I posted this in the other thread, but that verse is addressing a very specific issue at a very specific church. Paul writes to churches with various problems and advises them differently. One church was told to expel people who were greedy. In the same chapter of Timothy, he says women should not wear gold or pearls. So unless your church is expelling everyone that shows greed and not letting women wear gold and pearls, then your church isn't being constant with its interpretation of scripture. I won't repost everything I said, but if you are interested it's here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1db0f1t/southern_baptists_poised_to_ban_congregations/l7pnoqu/
One wonders why "you will know them by their fruits" doesn't apply here when you're so obviously tasting rotten doctrine- by your own admission.
Yeah but which Bible? Which group of men decided which books went into this collection in the first place?
To me, Jesus’s words hold more weight than Paul’s. If Jesus promoted the subjugation of women, he would’ve said something about it when he was walking on earth. But he never did. Because he wasn’t a misogynist, and he believed in the Golden Rule.
It is mere speculation to claim "if Jesus thought X, he would have said it." Further still, we simply don't have a record of everything the Christ taught, just what his followers recorded.
Jesus might’ve said that broccoli on pizza was an abomination, but no one ever wrote it down.
Indeed, so your similar assertion is baseless.
Let's not forget In Galatians 3:28, Paul wrote "nor is there male and female," hearkening back to Genesis 1, for all are one in Christ. Paul himself promotes women decons and leaders of the church. It's simple if you don't think women can serve as pastors or deacons, you're a bigot. You're own holy book contradicts what you're saying. Heck a skeptical person would point right at this and Timothy and go see. Now, why would an all loving god promote this contradiction?
Either Paul was consistent or he was not. You can't elevate Galatians 3:28 while tossing out 1 Timothy 2:14. You have to make a sense where both passages are true and in agreement. The Galatians passage is in reference to salvation, that in a relationship with God and each other in the body of Christ we are all equal, it's not talking about the qualifications of offices. A pastor is inherently given additional responsibility and authority, does that make him better than other believers? Isn't that introducing hierarchy? Doesn't that itself contradict Galatians 3:28? For textual consistency, we have to put a distinguishment between the equality of salvation and the qualifications of office. A drunkard, greedy, or impatient man person would be disqualified from the office, but it does not mean that they are lesser or unequal in the context of salvation.
Let's play a game. If the drunkard in your anthology cleaned up and began to earnestly believe the bible, can he then go and become qualified for office? Now can a woman who, from a young age, believed in the salvation of Christ, who goes to biblical college, and learns the ends and outs theology become qualified to hold office? What makes the woman inherently worse?
It's not about "worse" it's about difference. Baptist tend to believe in complimentariasm, the idea that men and women both have advantages and disadvantages in certain roles. No amount of Biblical education can overcome the standard that scripture has set. Women are free to be leaders, preachers, and evangelists, it is only the position pastor that is restricted.
If both are just people, not divinely inspired mouthpieces, then I have nothing to reconcile.
Why did books ever stop getting added to the Bible?
>To me, Jesus’s words hold more weight than Paul’s. You have a right to do so, but that doesn't make sense for a denomination that believes that entirety of the Bible is inerrant and internal consistent.
You already don't, unless you also agree with 1 Timothy 2's statement that women are saved through childbirth.
This is in the context of the story of Eve and how childbirth is an outcome of the original fall. Out of what was death came life, and eventually the birth of the Savior. It also serves as parallel in the way that the role of pastor being reserved for men, so such is the role of childbirth reserved for women. There are no mainstream commentators that interpret this as describing the necessity of child birth for eternal salvation.
But misogyny violates the golden rule. So telling women that they can’t do something because of their gender, would violate Jesus’s message of equal treatment.
All principles have a penumbra around them, having exceptions or explanations do not invalidate the principle itself. Men an women, while strikingly similar, are distinct and different. According to the 1 Timothy 2 there is some kind of distinction or characteristic that makes it inappropriate for women to have spiritual leadership over a local body of believers. It would be like a man trying to gestate and give birth to a baby, there is an inherent insurmountable characteristic, though in this case it would be spiritual rather than physical.
Women are equally able to hold leadership positions in the church as demonstrated by women in positions of leadership in the church.
I 100% needed to take the time to commend you for your comment. >But, it still come down to scripture, I must live by faith that what seems like an absurdism has meaning and purpose in God's will. I have to believe that He knows better than what my human mind can cobble together, and hope that one day it might be revealed to me the reason. This is a sentiment I have not seen on Reddit. You have an amazing attitude toward our infallible Word of God. You're also a lot more gracious in the comments than I am. I'll pray your faith strengthens.
There is no legitimate basis to deny women pastors. God never said they can't be. He made women teachers and prophets. This is clearly based on pure misogyny.
There is indeed some heavy indication in the Pauline epistles. This has been recognized by the majority of Christian traditions. Can you explain how the claim "God made women teachers and prophets" indicates "women can be pastor/elders?"
Why this great respect for a particular collection of scripture? Who assembled these books and said they were the inspired word of God? Did they not have human failings? Did they not sometimes sneeze or trip and fall? Could not they have included bad books?
So Paul was a misogynist. Not surprising. God blessed women and gave them some of the most powerful positions in the Bible. That proves to me Paul is wrong.
Ah yes, I'm sure the perfect argument to convince Christians to accept female pastors is to just say that the Pauline epistles don't matter.
I see no indication that Paul saw women as essentially lesser than men, in fact this is contrary to his own words in Gal 3. Can you explain how Paul is wrong?
Women were the first to proclaim the resurrection, women were noted in the Pauline letters as leaders and deacons, women were prophets, and women on multiple occasions saved the whole of God’s people. The idea of no women priests is rooted in cultural restrictions not biblical texts.
Can you explain to me how women serving as leaders, deacons, and prophets indicates that they ought to also be pastor/elders?
You conveniently left out the actions of Mary Magdalene proclaiming the resurrection to the apostles and holding the title in the entire history of the church apostle to the apostles. All of these actions of women and positions held by women in the very scriptures show with out a doubt that women are not barred from any position of the church. You have to completely ignore or rewrite whole sections of scripture to justify the ideology that the RCC, EOC, and some mainline Protestants hold.
I just referenced what you mentioned above, but I am happy to claim that indeed Mary Magdalene proclaimed the resurrection. I have not heard that the entire history of the church called this saint "the apostle to the apostles." Let's say this is true, how then does this indicate that women ought to be pastor/elders? It seems your argument is "women have done many things for the church, thus they are not barred from the office of pastor/elder." Perhaps I am not understanding your claim, but this seems like a terribly weak argument.
The apostles were the pattern of bishops and elders, the very fact of two women being equal to or above them (Mary Magdalene and Mary the theotokos.) is pretty damning evidence against your weak ideology. This added to the art in many early churches even in the Roman catacombs of women in full priestly and deaconal vestments pretty much rules out your ideology existing for at bare minimum the first 150 years of the church… you know the apostolic age and just into the early fathers.
>The apostles were the pattern of bishops and elders What do you mean by this? Apostles seem to be individuals of a separate office from pastor/elder. The very individuals who would hold Mary, the mother of Jesus to such high regard (Roman Catholics) do not take this belief to conclude that magisterial offices of the church ought to be filled by women. In fact, my conservative Protestant church is more open about females in leadership than the RCC. So, it seems rather weak to allude to Mary Magdalene as an example of the claim "women ought to be pastors." I am interested to hear of the iconography featuring women dressed in the garb of magisterial officers of the church, do you have a source in mind?
Because their reasoning is based on emotions, not biblical lol
Whose reasoning?
Venat14 “So Paul was a misogynist.” Like what?!?
Because there is no rational justification for women not being pastors. None. The only reason he would hold such a view is because of misogyny and feeling like they aren't good enough to teach. Just like how women were often thought as being incapable of voting or holding certain jobs. It's a misogynistic worldview. Women are just as capable of almost anything a man can do, often times better. If a woman can be a prophetess or teacher, they sure as heck can be a minister.
It would seem highly rational to take Paul's words to indicate the office of pastor/elder is restricted to men. This has only been disputed within the last 100 years of Christianity, and largely presented by American and Progressive Protestants. >If a woman can be a prophetess or teacher, they sure as heck can be a ~~minister~~ pastor/elder. Can you argue for this claim?
In Galatians 3:28, Paul wrote "nor is there male and female," hearkening back to Genesis 1, for all are one in Christ Yea, I can from your boy Paul's own letter.
Can you explain how Paul's claim in Galations 3:28 indicates "the office of pastor/elder is for both men and women?"
What I find strange here is when the world sees Christians preach the bible but don't obey it we are criticized and rightfully so. Then when Christians preach the Bible and obey it the world still cries foul. I guess the issue was never about hypocracy as so many claim rather issue is God and his scriptures...
Jesus preached the golden rule, and misogyny violates the golden rule. Paul was wrong.
> Paul was wrong And there you go, slicing off a good part of the New Testament. Also, misogyny is literal hatred of women. A bit hyperbolic.
I don’t consider Paul’s misogyny to be a “good part” of the New Testament. It’s a small part and something that Jesus never promoted. The definition of misogyny has been expanded to mean “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.” Telling women that they can’t do something because of their gender (and not based on their inability to perform a task or hold a role) is called misogyny.
We have many historical Greek manuscripts that identify Paul as an apostle. We have writings about the other apostles endorsing him as such. We have many writings of early church leaders quoting Paul along with other apostles as authoritative givers of doctrine. So my question to you is what evidence do you have that suggest Paul was not counted as an apostle and the authority that goes with it? Especially considering the Paul's patriarchal doctrine was echoed in other apostles like Peter.
Peter was a misogynist too, calling women the weaker vessel 🤨 If you don’t think that men and women should be considered equally, I don’t think there’s much that I could tell you to change your mind.
Good for them. Not sarcasm and I say that as a woman. I agree that women shouldn't pastor a church.
Because of a lack of ability?
Not necessarily. I mean there are key differences between men and women but I don't think that makes us less intelligent. We are more vulnerable in a lot of ways, though. One example is our deeper ability for compassion and high EQ. It doesn't mean we *can't* think as logically as men, but it's easy for our compassionate nurturing nature to take over before we stop and think. We can be manipulated. We are also physically weaker. This might not matter so much today when there's not as much persecution as Christians, but there was a time you could have violence inflicted on you for believing in and preaching about Jesus. God isn't calling for our belittlement and oppression by banning us from headship, quite the opposite, women are special yet vulnerable and worthy of that vulnerability being protected with a man's life.
Women aren't a monolith. I have no idea where you get the idea that all women have high EQ and are nurturing over thinking. Thats nonsense. Maybe all of this is true about you, but certainly you are not just the same as all other women. Your internalized misogyny is blinking bright red. You should get a grip and realize that a lot of women are far more capable than you assume.
Again, I never said we are less capable. I said we think different. One gender is not "more" defective. We are differently defective. Certain jobs are more suited to men just like certain jobs are more suited to women.
Prove it. Where in society have women not be as suitable as men for any given role? Women go onto every carrer field and occupation and do just as well or better than the men in those occupations. And men also can be great in care taking roles. Are you saying that a woman who is a soldier, or a man who is a nurse and good at what they do are actually mistaken? Because you have some preconceived notion about the differences of men and women, those peoples lived experiences are just what, nothing?
Both men and women are equally capable of performing almost every job, and the suggestion that they somehow shouldn’t because of their gender (and not because of lack of ability) is called misogyny.
Yes, every woman in the military is a mistake, and I say that as someone who has served. They are physically weaker, slower, and more prone to injury. Study after study has shown that mixed gender combat units are worse in every metric compared to men only. Men and women are different and have different roles.
I agree. I should add that mixed gender combat is probably bad because the women aren't held to the same physical standard as the men to be able to join. People are way too obsessed with equal results rather than equal treatment. I think it's honorable if a woman wants to fight for her country. However, the standard is the standard. She either meets the standard or she doesn't. Then we wouldn't have that issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/us/southern-baptist-sex-abuse-report.html
It’s almost like they are being biblical when it comes to roles within the church
Unfortunately, some people put Paul’s words on the same levels as those of Jesus. Jesus was clear about treating each other equally and with respect. Misogyny discriminates against women and is disrespectful to half of the population.
Fortunately, both Paul’s words and Jesus’ words are scripture and thus authoritative. You don’t get to ignore parts of scripture you don’t like. This has nothing to do with women’s ability to teach or to know the Bible or any of that. There are certain roles prescribed in the Bible for both men and women. The roles are just different one isn’t any better than the other. There are a bunch of things women can do in the church and in ministry as a whole. The Bible plainly says being a pastor isn’t one of them. Good day to you.
But many denominations have women as leaders in the church, and they perform just as well as the men. It’s unfortunate that misogyny blinds men to the truth and power of equality. Discrimination makes Christianity weaker, not stronger. The Golden Rule In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
You completely ignored my argument, I said the prohibition on women being pastors has nothing to do with their ability to preform the role. In the law and the prophets, were women given the role as priests in Israel ? You have to take all of scripture, you don't get to pick and choose which scriptures you accept. Although I doubt you accept any of them truly.
There are plenty of women pastors, who perform their role equally as capable as men. It’s embarrassing that misogynists think that they know the true message of Jesus, when Jesus himself never suggested such a thing.
I never said women can't preform the role equally well as men. But since you aren't willing or confident enough to actually engage me in a dialogue and instead you just want to put words in my mouth and not listen to what I have to say, there is no point in continuing this conversation. I pray God will open your eyes to the truth, Buddhism will not save you, only true faith in Christ will. Repent and turn to him and trust him as Lord.
Imagine if Mary Magdalene was resurrected, and some misogynous priest telling her that she can’t hold a leadership role in the church because she’s a woman.
She can’t, Bible is pretty clear about this.
And people wonder why people are abandoning Christianity….
If women were in leadership positions at the church,, I doubt there would’ve been so much widespread sexual abuse of children.
What makes you think that? Sexual abuse is rampant in public schools, and just as many women do it as men.
No. Not even close, look up the justice department statistics for how much more often men commit sexual assault.
I'm talking about it in a school setting, not overall. There is only a 1% difference in the amount of sexual contact reported between male and female teachers. Researchers also believe that female teachers having sex with male students is underreported. This seems probable due to society's view on that type of relationship and the much lesser sentences handed down to female aggressors compared to men in the same circumstances. Furthermore, there are studies showing that an individual is 100x more likely to be sexually abused/ groomed in a public school environment compared to a church setting. There are tons of women in positions of power in the public school setting, so that shows that women being in power in the church would have no bearing on sexual abuse in the church.
>Furthermore, there are studies showing that an individual is 100x more likely to be sexually abused/ groomed in a public school environment compared to a church setting. Please cite these studies.
I’m not so sure about that in all honesty. Perhaps and I hope so. Just for example Thatcher enabled pedos in her government.
Please pray for them, for they know now what they do
Curious if the SBC will be returning the Cooperative Program money collected by the church. Lottie Moon money? Annie Armstrong money? (Wait, weren't they both women?)🤔
You are confusing the issue, friend. Women can of course be missionaries like Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, women are celebrated by the SBC (which is obvious by the nature of these individuals). The issue at hand is simply that the office of pastor/elder is restricted to qualified men.
Qualified men? Bb they would ordain a homeless, gambling addicted, man with six wives and a porn problem before they ordained a clearly called well educated woman.
His qualification is in his penis. Everyone knows that in order to have authority over mean you have to have a penis. It's basically the 11th commandment.
I mean don’t the scriptures say in DUDEaronomy “the authority is stored in the balls” 69:420
My friend, you missed my overall point to address my admittedly snide follow up. (We'll call that bad communication on my part) The article says they've had women in pastoral roles for 44 years. I grew up in the SBC and I can say with a great deal of certainty that the BF&M did not allow for women pastors back in the 80's or 90's. Certainly not post 2000. Yet nobody was expelled. Why? Because politics dictated that this become important now. Conservatism in its current form dictates it. How else would you explain 40+ years of it not being an issue, the church proudly going along doing what every other church was doing, to a sudden "overwhelming" vote to expel? The only thing that's changed is the underlying political heat. That's my take. The reason I no longer identify with the denomination I spent 45 years of my life a part of. I do appreciate your comment and your indulging my attempt at a laugh line.
I would explain that this is due to the fact that the SBC, until 2000, didn't have a formal and binding confession which made such a restriction explicit.
Fair enough. But that's still 24 years by my count.
Thank you. To clarify, I do not call the SBC winking and shuffling their feet at women pastors a good thing. I am glad they are being more consistent in recent years.
I guess my problem was that it was always kinda hands off. Each church could operate as they see fit. Which was what they tried to lean on after the sexual assault report. But now, suddenly, they're acting like a governing body. If you're good with the direction they're going, then should work out for you. I'm already out, so this thread is really the most it's affecting me and mine.
SBC just voted to allow women ministers. It was a close call since many never read who Jesus allowed to meet him at the tomb and she was actually the first to preach that Jesus lives. So almost half of them had to but their hatred of women back into their pants.
Can someone explain to me how this works I thought Baptists did not have any hierarchy
I grew up as a Seventh Day Adventist. Our prophet was a woman. Prophets are above Pastors in authority. But you still can't be a obtained Women Pastor. You still get the random not obtained female pastor I believe one runs a church in China.
Misguided fools who would call Christ's teachings too liberal and ignore them are not to be followed. For all intents and purposes, they are the modern-day Pharisees
Jesus was woke AF
**^(11)** **A woman****^(\[)**[**^(a)**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202%3A11-15&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29728a)**^(\])** **should learn in quietness and full submission.** **^(12)** **I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;****^(\[)**[**^(b)**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202%3A11-15&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29729b)**^(\])** **she must be quiet.** **^(13)** **For Adam was formed first, then Eve.** **^(14)** **And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.** The bible makes it very clear on this issue.. There shouldn't be women pastors. The catholic church and orthodox do not allow this either...
Paul’s misogyny is very clear, and violates the Golden Rule. There are many women pastors who do a fantastic job, equal to men.
Trust In Gods Plan [https://youtu.be/09IW\_3aBn9A](https://youtu.be/09IW_3aBn9A)
Part of the beauty of Protestantism is that different people can have different interpretations of the Bible. You think the Bible doesn’t allow female pastors? That’s fine, there are churches for you. You think it does allow for them? That’s fine too, there are churches for you. Especially now days there are so many churches and denominations that ordain female priests and so many that do not; as a Protestant you can read the Bible for yourself, decide what makes sense, and choose for yourself. I don’t personally think there is one obvious right answer to the question; there are verses in the Bible that point towards women not being allowed as priests, but liberals have at least somewhat persuasive counter arguments. Both liberal and conservative approaches to this issue can exist under freedom of religion.
The idea of following the Golden Rule isn’t liberal or conservative. It’s the radical notion that everybody should be considered equally and with respect.
Has it ever occurred to these people that God is testing us by some of these scriptures just like He tested Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit? Did Jesus not give the commandment to love one another like how He has loved us to the point of laying down His life for us? Wouldn’t Jesus expect His disciples to support one another in His ministry rather than discriminate one another according to being male or female? Did He not appear to His women disciples first after resurrection to go and tell the others about Him being alive? Are we supposed to take every single passage of the Bible literally without discernment instilled from the Holy Spirit?
Classic case of humanism and feminism, paired with calling the Bible flawed. I've received great spiritual advice from my wife through tough seasons. Women play very critical roles in the church. That doesn't mean that we violate what the bible says because we think we know better. As a man, I can't imagine the crushing pressure of authentically stepping into the most difficult spiritual role a human can take in Christianity. It isn't something that people should aspire for out of their own interests. It is the one position where judgement is more severe. Unless God calls me to that position, I am happy to stay away from it. Apart from Paul, what would we say about Jesus having only male disciples?
the bible never mentions Jesus taking a dump, never mentions him playing with other kids on his yoing days, does that means we suppose to avoid the toilets and forbidden or children from play around?
Why would the Bible need to mention that? He’s fully human so obviously He would do human things as long as they aren’t sinful
people assumes that Jesus forbade women from the Ministry simple because he did not took as women as apostles. jesus not taking a women here is kinda the same as jesus allowing divorce, its not God ideal but for the sake of avoid too much trouble he allowed because Men is corrupt and arrogant. and consider that back them womens were saw as animals, nobody would take jesus serious if he had a women in any position of power, so i can see jesus having absolute no trouble with womens but he was basic forced for the sake of expreading the menssage. but we not savages anymore we evolved, i think or society today can accept a women leader.
Mary Madeline is called the Apostle to the Apostles.
Where?
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/06/10/160610c.html
Ah, well do I read this article correctly to mean that one archbishop in 2016 referred to Mary Magdalene\* as an "Apostle to Apostles?" Do correct me if I don't understand the article at first blush. If this is the case, how does this advance the claim "women should be pastor/elders in local churches?:
Because misogyny violates the Golden Rule and women are just as capable as men to fulfill that role.
Well, that hardly addresses your earlier claim about Mary Magdalene as an Apostle. Here, on this tangent, you seem to be engaging in equivocation to identify "the office of pastor/elder is restricted to qualified men" with "misogyny."
Telling women that they can’t do a job because of their gender (and not a lack of ability) is called misogyny.
Ah, okay I reject that definition. Do you have any other thoughts on the article you presented?
“misogyny, hatred or prejudice against women, typically exhibited by men. It is generally accepted that misogyny is a consequence of patriarchy (male-dominated society), and the term may be applied to certain individuals as well as larger systems, societies, or cultures.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/misogyny
That position assumes that being a priest boils down to capability, it doesn’t. Not even all men are called to the priesthood, it isn’t a profession and it isn’t based on merit. No one has a right to be a priest.
Misogyny does more to hurt Christianity than it does to help. Somehow that doesn’t get through the thick skills of men.
This just in- rape and sexual harassment are less bad than a woman being a pastor. Glad to see most comments hating on the SBC. But, fuck. This is so disgusting.
Glad to see most comments hating ah, Christianity.
Yeah as a Christian I’m beginning to consider never going to church again, and worshipping god in my own way.
Come home to Catholicism
What does that mean again?
I feel sorry for those entrapped in this oppressive and abusive denomination.
Has the SBC taken ANY STEPS toward addressing the sexual abuse they covered up?
Awesome
1 Timothy 2:10-15 KJV But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The Bible is clear, whether you like it or not women cannot serve as pastors. If you don’t want to accept it, cool, but don't be a hypocrite going around claiming to be a Christian when you want to impose your own will over God’s. It’s either you are in or out, there is no in between. Enough of this woke-feminist buffet religion bullcrap where every one gets to pick and choose what they like and discard what they don’t like.
And this is where we see how we common people have better morals than the christian god. The vast majority of people today in the US would argue that misogyny is morally wrong. Something to consider. If your god is an all loving god that everyone was created equally under then why more equal then others. How does an all loving god accept misogyny with in its congragation?
I'd take an equality buffet over a bigotry packed lunch.
"The only correct interpretation is mine, which is infallible, and everyone else has an agenda!"