TO IKIND: After reflecting on my response to your postings, I realize I made a serious error. While I can acknowledge your apology, I cannot actually accept it since I was not the one(s) harmed by your comments. Please prayfully consider making amends directly to those who were actually the subject of your remarks.

I have had an opportunity to review the 24-page paper that has been submitted by the elders of Irving Bible Church.

I grew up in a very fundamental church where women were not allowed to speak from the pulpit. A number of years ago I moved Dallas and since have worked with an organization that allows me to speak to thousands of churches annually. My eyes and heart have been opened up to a number of new ideas and practics showing how God can work through all types of churches and people. Strict Fundamentalism has problems.

I have been careful in the last number of years to not judge through my fundamental heritage.

However,....

The 24-page document does a poor job of convincing me in the validity and ethic process which the elders are claiming. The arguments are weak and shallow. The impression I am left with is the elders were trying to force fit their wants into God's Word.

I have heard that Jackie is a wonderful speaker and teacher. For her to speak from the pulpit should be a non-issue. However, for the elders and leadership to develop a theological case for "preaching" and present it as part of their church doctrine will leave some questioning the elders judgement and theological knowledge.

This could have been handled differently.

I'm glad that Irving Bible Church was bold enough to finally allow a female to preach. As the son of a Baptist Minister, and a Minister, myself, I have always felt that we were allowing 50% of our preaching resources to be unused by holding to a non-Biblical tradition. As the article so eloquently stated, how many of the "men only" churches hold to the teaching found in the same passages by the same author (God - through Paul) and don't even let a woman speak in church. Paul said it best "and if this teaching seems unreasonable to you, let the Holy Spirit reveal to you what is right." I am however saddened that the same elders who discoverd that it isn't wrong for a woman to preach also determined that "Elders" have to be men. I understand their discovery is a "work in progress", but I would hope that soon they would discover that as our Lord himself said "in the kingdom there is neither male nor female."

While it is exciting in a way that there is so much talk on this subject, I hope that the actual message that was delivered was heard by many. Yes, Jackie is a gifted teacher. Yes, she is also a woman. But the message is from God, through her. I pray that we don't get so wrapped up in our own opinions that we miss his message to us. To fight for the heart of our King. Jackie, Steve, Andy, and many others are great examples of that, and our world needs more people like that.

Three things I think you may find of great value and interest related to this discussion:

1) a clear, concise, non-offensive summary of the two main views of women's role in ministry and the church. It is entitled "Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry". It cites supporting scripture for the two views and is one of the better resources I have found to shed light on both perspectives on the topic (see http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions)

2) A statement of clarification to the DMN article by Mark Bailey of DTS ( see http://www.dts.edu/about/news/20080823_dmn_clarfication )

3) I think it is the nature of a newspaper article to emphasize the "controversy" related to a news item - it increases the "buzz". I think one thing is clear: well-intentioned believers who have extensively studied the scripture related to this area have taken different positions.

You take a look at the IBC's statement of beliefs for one way of addressing the issue of differing beliefs. It states, in part,

"In presenting our beliefs we keep in mind the following 3 principles:

In all essential beliefs--we have unity. “There is one Body and one Spirit...there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of us all...” (Eph. 4:4-6)

In nonessential beliefs--we have liberty. “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters...Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his master he stands or falls...So then each of us will give an account of himself to God...So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” (Rom. 14:1,4,12,22)

In all our beliefs--we show love. “...If I hold in my hand not only all human knowledge but also the very secrets of God, and if I have the faith that can move mountains--but have no love, I amount to nothing at all.” (1 Cor. 13:2)
(see http://www.irvingbible.org/index.php?id=1280 )

LKIND: I just wanted to respond that I accept your apology and feel it is heartfelt. It seems that in retrospect you might of expressed yourself differently and held back certain personal opinions. I know it is easy when emailing/commenting online to express oneself without fully thinking thru the implications (it is how "flame wars" get started online.)

I also respect your right to differ with my belief regarding the role of women in ministry and the church. I hope we can agree to disagree on this point, and acknowledge the key point: our shared belief in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

I wish you well.

Oh the conundrum.

Mrs. Roese is asked by the elders of her church to, as part of a multi part series on what the members of the body dream for their church going forward, to share her personal dream. If she refuses she is disobedient to the wishes and desires of the board of elders of her church.

As elders they are held to the highest standard of the New Testament church, much more so than you, I or Mrs. Roese and are ultimately responsible for the sheep that they are charged with shepherding.

If she is obedient to the wishes of the board she puts herself in the gunsights of those who feel she's biblically unqualified to do so (by some who who seem to have the gift of criticism and self righteousness as opposed to her gift of teaching and exhorting) - and bears the brunt of personal anguish over the harsh words of critics and commentators.

Yet she agrees and does so with grace, humility, openness and even humor all the while sharing the truth of the resurrected Christ and that it is open to all who believe.

Yes - it is quite the conundrum . . . or is it?

Oh the conundrum.

Mrs. Roese is asked by the elders of her church to, as part of a multi part series on what the members of the body dream for their church going forward, to share her personal dream. If she refuses she is disobedient to the wishes and desires of the board of elders of her church.

As elders they are held to the highest standard of the New Testament church, much more so than you, I or Mrs. Roese and are ultimately responsible for the sheep that they are charged with shepherding.

If she is obedient to the wishes of the board she puts herself in the gunsights of those who feel she's biblically unqualified to do so (by some who who seem to have the gift of criticism and self righteousness as opposed to her gift of teaching and exhorting) - and bears the brunt of personal anguish over the harsh words of critics and commentators.

Yet she agrees and does so with grace, humility, openness and even humor all the while sharing the truth of the resurrected Christ and that it is open to all who believe.

Yes - it is quite the conundrum . . . or is it?

FYI/FWIW I attended the 9 A.M. service to hear Mrs. Roese speak. (It was my first time at IBC.) Her sermon/message was personal and Biblical and challenging, and I do not think that the fact that it was given by a woman made much of a difference (except for some of Mrs. Roese's details about her personal history in relation to the point(s) she was making about the Samaritan woman), either positively or negatively.

I.e., IMO the same message could have been given by either a man or a woman, and the content, impact, relevance and applicability would have been the same.

Which, I think, is something of what the elders at IBC had concluded from their study of whether or not a woman can preach and/or teach from the from the pulpit to a mixed-sex congregation.

I have been a happy member of IBC for over 10 years. I started attending the church as a high schooler and am now several years out of college. Anyone who has attended IBC knows that this church does everything with the purpose to glorify God and represent His kingdom. To those who did not show to service today or have decided to leave the church(you would be a minority as the sanctuary was almost filled to capacity): you missed out on a profound and fulfilling message that applies equally to everyone, men and women. Mrs. Roese spoke with passion, fervor, elegance and intelligence. I am a man and it was a delight to hear her speak. I would welcome her back any time and hope that this was not just a one-time engagement.

To those accusing the church of wasting time researching this issue, accusing us of allowing this to overshadow our community service: Clearly you do not know IBC. For you would know that although they spent a great deal of time researching (which, by the way, was something hardly publicized to the church aside from the occasional mention in the past few months), the church did not falter in its service to others. Attend one service at IBC and you will get only a glimpse into the many, many ways my church helps those in the community, across the nation, and around the world. A servants heart is something IBC does not lack in the least.

In turn, despite modern social and political climates and the explosion of feminism in our society which immediately scoffs at religious traditions of this nature without analysis, the church spent the time it did researching so it was able to present to the congregation a breakdown on this issue. Many rooted in tradition, a large part of Southern church-goers, need this sort of analysis to accept a 'progressive' move of this nature. I do not put myself in this category. Despite opinions, this is a progressive move on the part of a southern church. Do not be offended that they spent this time conducting this research. This isn't the first time that IBC has stepped beyond the bounds of tradition, despite opposition from congregation members. I applaud my church for its notions and constant innovation.

Finally, to those offended by the Biblical principles underlying this issue: A verse on paper is only skin deep. Much misinterpretation of the Bible has come from taking what is said at face value. A true understanding of the Bible comes with intensive study of verse context. Historical, societal, cultural factors will most often clarify a true meaning of a verse or passage (something that Mrs. Roese highlighted in her message today). Do not automatically dismiss the Christian faith because some misinterpret the message of the Bible (i.e. the Bible supports slavery). Open your own mind and do your own investigation. Support that investigation with church attendance and you will learn so much.

In sum, be open to change within the church. In an ever-changing society, if the church is going to keep up, we must be able to evolve (uh oh, scary word for many Christians). This doesn't mean we have to blend into society or follow its demands, but we must make our mark. At the same time, do not be afraid to keep or question traditions. At the same time do not be afraid to hold onto some tradition. Tradition connects the modern-day church to its past. Most importantly, the church needs to stay in God's word. The church must be unafraid to change, but not compromise.