Southern Baptist Convention says "no" to women pastors

[Evangelicalhumanist]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/us/southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting/index.html

The question is often asked, can the words in the Bible actually do any harm? Guess what -- yes, they can.

"The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm a decision made earlier this year to remove Saddleback Church, a major southern California congregation founded by the pastor and author Rick Warren, due to its having women pastors."

This comes, I've no doubt, from the words of 1 Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Bible has declared that women -- slightly more than half of all humanity -- for some reason have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, about the problems facing the entire human race.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible has declared that women -- slightly more than half of all humanity -- for some reason have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, about the problems facing the entire human race.

Seems to me that being a Southern Baptist pastor is more about creating problems for humanity than helping to solve them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The question is often asked, can the words in the Bible actually do any harm? Guess what -- yes, they can.

By whom?

 

[Callisto]

I didn't vote because Biblical hermeneutics is not of particular interest and, it appears to me, interpretations are subjective on what it "does" or "does not" say on the matter. In general, not of SB specifically, I can see both sides of the argument. You have the Convention being conservative and unmoving on wanting to maintain SB tradition, then you have churches who want to change the tradition. I think the core reasons for either should be examined to determine who's "right" or "wrong". If either is motivated by sociopolitical reasons rather than religion and spirituality, they're likely in the wrong on whether the tradition should change or not. E.g., are the churches adhering to a different but recognized interpretation of Scripture than the Convention is, or is the core underlying reason "hey, it's the 21st century, female rights, etc. that supersedes Scripture"? Is the Convention truly motivated by Scripture or it's more that they're simply a bigoted faction who won't admit women can be pastors because they fear to do so would be the dreaded slippery slope to accepting other changes (like accepting gays and same-sex marriage)? As always, true motivations, goals, and context matter.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By whom?

By those who use those words to belittle or harm or exclude or target others.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Different religions have their right to do what they want about this, however, it is our rights as individuals in America to choose the religion that best suits us. I'm actually glad that some Christian denominations do this, because we need diversity in religion and although this issue is mostly under the radar for me, it at least gives people more options to decide which religion they want to follow. The fact that most of this country is still Christian is staggering to me, but at least with the liberal sects I can somewhat agree on their metaphorical interpretations of the Bible.

 

[DNB]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/us/southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting/index.html

The question is often asked, can the words in the Bible actually do any harm? Guess what -- yes, they can.

"The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm a decision made earlier this year to remove Saddleback Church, a major southern California congregation founded by the pastor and author Rick Warren, due to its having women pastors."

This comes, I've no doubt, from the words of 1 Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Bible has declared that women -- slightly more than half of all humanity -- for some reason have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, about the problems facing the entire human race.

Yes, the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.
Capability or competence is only partially the issue for the grounds that exclusively men are to hold positions of authority and instruction.
It is more a matter of dignity and hierarchy.

For example, although a child may outgrow their parents in maturity and pragmatism, it is never acceptable that they should defy or challenge their parents authority.
Same with civilians, even though some may be more law abiding then many of those who are on the police force, this does not justify them showing contempt or insolence towards an officer of the law.

Man was created before Eve, and it was Eve who succumbed to the temptations of the devil - this Paul states clearly in his defense of the precept that he lays down in 1 Tim 2:13-15.

Also, throughout the Bible, we see that man has precedence over women in roles of authority and leadership:

All the Levitical priesthood were men.
All the Kings were men except for the one occasion where Athaliah illegally usurped the throne - and she was cut down in a most ignoble fashion.
All the judges were men. For even when Barak refused to go to battle without Deborah, he was humiliated by the notion that he had to be lead by a woman (Judges 4:9),
The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:3).
The woman of old were praised for their obedience towards their husbands (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Paul stipulates that the bishops/presbyters/elders are to a man married to one wife (emphasis on man and wife)

 

[We Never Know]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/us/southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting/index.html

The question is often asked, can the words in the Bible actually do any harm? Guess what -- yes, they can.

"The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm a decision made earlier this year to remove Saddleback Church, a major southern California congregation founded by the pastor and author Rick Warren, due to its having women pastors."

This comes, I've no doubt, from the words of 1 Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Bible has declared that women -- slightly more than half of all humanity -- for some reason have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, about the problems facing the entire human race.

Oh a poll....
Why limit peoples choices to only five?
My choice isn't there!
More choices should be available!

Based on that I cant answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.
Capability or competence is only partially the issue for the grounds that exclusively men are to hold positions of authority and instruction.
It is more a matter of dignity and hierarchy.

For example, although a child may outgrow their parents in maturity and pragmatism, it is never acceptable that they should defy or challenge their parents authority.
Same with civilians, even though some may be more law abiding then many of those who are on the police force, this does not justify them showing contempt or insolence towards an officer of the law.

Man was created before Eve, and it was Eve who succumbed to the temptations of the devil - this Paul states clearly in his defense of the precept that he lays down in 1 Tim 2:13-15.

Also, throughout the Bible, we see that man has precedence over women in roles of authority and leadership:

All the Levitical priesthood were men.
All the Kings were men except for the one occasion where Athaliah illegally usurped the throne - and she was cut down in a most ignoble fashion.
All the judges were men. For even when Barak refused to go to battle without Deborah, he was humiliated by the notion that he had to be lead by a woman (Judges 4:9),
The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:3).
The woman of old were praised for their obedience towards their husbands (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Paul stipulates that the bishops/presbyters/elders are to a man married to one wife (emphasis on man and wife)

You make a decent case that the Bible is consistently sexist, but I don't see anything that would imply that the Bible is wise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.
Capability or competence is only partially the issue for the grounds that exclusively men are to hold positions of authority and instruction.
It is more a matter of dignity and hierarchy.

For example, although a child may outgrow their parents in maturity and pragmatism, it is never acceptable that they should defy or challenge their parents authority.
Same with civilians, even though some may be more law abiding then many of those who are on the police force, this does not justify them showing contempt or insolence towards an officer of the law.

Man was created before Eve, and it was Eve who succumbed to the temptations of the devil - this Paul states clearly in his defense of the precept that he lays down in 1 Tim 2:13-15.

Also, throughout the Bible, we see that man has precedence over women in roles of authority and leadership:

All the Levitical priesthood were men.
All the Kings were men except for the one occasion where Athaliah illegally usurped the throne - and she was cut down in a most ignoble fashion.
All the judges were men. For even when Barak refused to go to battle without Deborah, he was humiliated by the notion that he had to be lead by a woman (Judges 4:9),
The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:3).
The woman of old were praised for their obedience towards their husbands (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Paul stipulates that the bishops/presbyters/elders are to a man married to one wife (emphasis on man and wife)

Yup! Dang uppity women. I want a sammich and a beer!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh a poll....
Why limit peoples choices to only five?
My choice isn't there!
More choices should be available!

Based on that I cant answer.

Polls have to be limited. You could always post your choice.

Dammit! Where's mah beer?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For example, although a child may outgrow their parents in maturity and pragmatism, it is never acceptable that they should defy or challenge their parents authority.

You are mistaken here. Let's say that Jane is 30 years old and wants to marry Joe. Her parents tell her this is a bad idea and to please not marry him. She is under no obligation to obey them. They no longer have that authority over her.

 

[We Never Know]

Polls have to be limited. You could always post your choice.

Dammit! Where's mah beer?

Went over your head. I used to post polls with up to many choices. Even added choices as it went. My favorite choices I used to add were "oh no not another poll" and "who cares"

But people complained....
Why limit peoples choices?
My choice isn't there!
More choices should be available!
Based on that I cant answer.

So I quit doing polls

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All the judges were men. For even when Barak refused to go to battle without Deborah, he was humiliated by the notion that he had to be lead by a woman (Judges 4:9),

You just contradicted yourself. First you said all judges were men, and then you acknowledge that Deborah was a judge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Went over your head. I use to post polls with up to many choices. Even added choices as it went. My favorite choices I use to add were "oh not not another poll" and "who cares"

But people complained....
Why limit peoples choices?
My choice isn't there!
More choices should be available!
Based on that I cant answer.

So I quit doing polls

No, you just do not know how to tell a joke.

 

[DNB]

You are mistaken here. Let's say that Jane is 30 years old and wants to marry Joe. Her parents tell her this is a bad idea and to please not marry him. She is under no obligation to obey them. They no longer have that authority over her.

A 30 year old is not considered a child.

 

[DNB]

You just contradicted yourself. First you said all judges were men, and then you acknowledge that Deborah was a judge.

She was a prophetess (nor did I call her a Judge) - do you not know your Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

She was a prophetess (nor did I call her a Judge) - do you not know your Bible?

And a judge too. Do you think that she couldn't be both?

Who Was Deborah in the Bible and Why Was She So Important?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

She was a prophetess - do you not know your Bible?

And a judge.
Judges 4
4Now Deborah was a woman prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth; she judged Israel at that time.
5And she sat under the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Beth-el, in the mountain of Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a judge.
Judges 4
4Now Deborah was a woman prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth; she judged Israel at that time.
5And she sat under the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Beth-el, in the mountain of Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Dang it! People being snarky and wrong make me break character. I am supposed to be on his side. Maybe I should change my vote to "A woman's place is in the home". I might finally get my beer then.