Southern Baptists are poised to ban churches with women pastors. Some are urging them to reconsider
Southern Baptists are poised to ban churches with women pastors. Some are urging them to reconsider
The Southern Baptist Convention is preparing to vote on a proposed constitutional ban on churches with women pastors.
From its towering white steeple and red-brick facade to its Sunday services filled with rousing gospel hymns and evangelistic sermons, First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia, bears many of the classic hallmarks of a Southern Baptist church.
On a recent Sunday, its pastor for women and children, Kim Eskridge, urged members to invite friends and neighbors to an upcoming vacation Bible school — a perennial Baptist activity — to help “reach families in the community with the gospel.”
But because that pastor is a woman, First Baptist’s days in the Southern Baptist Convention may be numbered.
At the SBC’s annual meeting June 11-12 in Indianapolis, representatives will vote on whether to amend the denomination’s constitution to essentially ban churches with any women pastors — and not just in the top job. That measure received overwhelming approval in a preliminary vote last year.
You're viewing a single thread.
1 Timothy 2:12 is fairly clear on the matter.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
but the flip side is they can ignore that just like they ignore prohibitions on eating shrimp and wearing polycotton blends.
As an atheist I don't have skin in the game either way.
As an atheist I don’t have skin in the game either way.
You do, because religious extremists constantly use their texts as an excuse for why they have to support certain legislation.
Everyone that say they have to be against abortion or LGBT people existing because their Sky Daddy said to, also think other stuff like what you quoted needs to be law too.
They just know they don't have the political power yet.
But if they could, they'd push for women to not be allowed to hold office, have a management position, or even vote.
This 100% effects all of us, regardless of if we believe in their Sky Daddy.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
-Matthew 5:17
Christians interpret this as stating they don’t need to follow the Old Testament rules as Jesus has fulfilled them and has established a new covenant with his death on the cross.
Yes. This. What was considered clean and unclean to eat was amended in Peter's vision in acts 10. So was clothing and much else of levitical law during jesus' gospel.
Even Paul's writings about women speaking above men needs to take into context that the church in Ephesus (modern day turkey) was led by young Timothy. The theme was pretty strict to reestablish a baseline of roles and law to apply to Ephesus, which was seen as very immoral, murderous and rebellious. I mean Paul says people should stay celibate and not marry because this can complicate a person's relationship with God.
Without going too deep, no, this doesn't mean women shouldn't teach because "god" demands women to be inferior/subjugated.
If that was so why did God use women as prophets and leaders?
What Paul supposedly wrote in Timothy, if he even wrote it, was meant to address a problem occurring in that specific Church. As I was told that Church was being hijacked by one or two particularly wealthy and influential Women donors. As you pointed out Timothy was young and new to the work so he wasn't able to handle the situation and appealed to Paul for guidance.
Paul then supposedly attempted to smack down the troublemakers with some Doctrine in his response letter.
However there's long been contention that Paul either didn't actually write that line or that if he did the surrounding context was cut out in order to make it seem much farther reaching than it was meant to be.
While there's no way to really know the truth I personally find it impossible to believe that after the long and involved history that women had in the OT that the NT would suddenly require their total subservience. It simply makes no sense.
I agree that it doesn't make sense. There was nothing in Jesus's gospel that would imply such standards to take place in the church. It's even written that there is no man or woman, but all are followers of Christ. Equality.
In my experience growing up southern baptist Christians only bring up that interpretation when convenient. The Old Testament is completely valid when they want it to be, and invalid when they don't.
Also explains why Christians work on the sabbath, because Jesus did
Christians interpret this as stating they don’t need to follow the Old Testament rules
Except for stuff like Leviticus 18:22 (the oft quoted anti-gay one) ofc.
Religious hypocrites will say the bible says X about things and pick some vaguely related verse or story to justify it. From the Curse of Ham justifying slavery to Leviticus 19:19 being used to justify miscegenation laws.
Not all branches have a hard on for Old Testament stuff that validates their regressive ideas, but yeah you’re right that many do, especially the evangelical thumpers
Which is a really weird interpretation considering the very next sentence in Matthew 5:18:
"18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
but the flip side is they can ignore that just like they ignore prohibitions on eating shrimp and wearing polycotton blends.
Because Paul threw out the rules but added in a few of his own. Also to be fair this isn't really Paul this is a guy pretending to be Paul.
It's funny rereading all his tiresome letters and remembering that all the arguments he is presenting he claims to have gotten in one blinding vision.
Paul, or rather the amalgamation of Paul and the various authors of the texts canonized as the Pauline epistles, was a
fuckin' dickman of his place and time, and including the letters in the Bible really fucked up Christianity over the long-term.Except the rest of the Bible is just a reflection of his work so not sure what would even be left.
Much of the laws in the epistles (letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament) are cultural, related to their time in the Roman Empire. This is why plenty of churches feel comfortable saying women can be pastors, gay people are totally fine, etc.
Just not the loud, shitty ones that make all the news and try to force their religious restrictions down the throats of others.
Why does that Bible have restrictions on textile blends? I can rationalize most of the others as generalized health restrictions but that one baffles me.
Someone once explained it to me like this:
The Ancient Hebrews really only had access to two types of fabric, linen and wool. A person could wear a garment made of one or the other or even wear two garments with one made of linen and the other of wool. The reason they couldn't wear a single garment made of both was because the High Priests garment was made of Linen with a dyed Wool fringe and it was the only garment that was supposed to be made that way.
So anyone wearing a single garment made of both was trying to rise above their station by pretending to be something that they weren't.
Back then having such clothes was a big luxury.
I don't care what they do as long as it doesn't affect me or people who don't believe as they do.