Mon 25 Aug 2008
First Female Preacher at Irving Bible Church
Posted by Denny Burk under Christianity , Theology/Bible
Last May, I wrote about the egalitarian shift at Irving Bible Church (IBC). The elders had just completed an 18-month long study
and had concluded that they would allow women to preach in their
church. Yesterday, IBC had a female preacher fill the pulpit for the
first time since the elders’ findings were published. The preacher’s
name was Jackie Roese (pictured at right).
Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News wrote Saturday about the changes at IBC, and he quoted from my forthcoming JBMW editorial on this topic. But the best lines from the entire news article come from Tommy Nelson, pastor of Denton Bible Church:
The Rev. Tom Nelson of Denton Bible Church said his friends in Irving are on “dangerous” ground.
“If the Bible is not true and
authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will
not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery
or any other moral issue,” he said. “I believe this issue is the
carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical
church.”
Mr. Nelson added that his church’s
recent sermon series on the Bible and gender roles came in part because
of Irving Bible Church’s conclusions about women and preaching.
Also of note, Hodges commented on IBC’s connection to Dallas Theological Seminary:
Another measure of the controversy is
that Mark Bailey, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has removed
himself from a team of regular guest preachers at Irving Bible Church.
The Dallas seminary, which supplies pastors to Bible churches around the country, has long had close ties with Irving Bible Church. But Dr. Bailey said that he and his wife, Barby, were amicably distancing themselves for “personal convictions and professional reasons.”
Dr. Mark Bailey has a note of clarification on DTS’s website that further explains his separation from IBC and DTS’s stance on the gender issue. This is worth your time to read.
One final word of clarification is also in order. Hodges quotes from my forthcoming JBMW editorial in which I say that the changes at IBC are “a matter of grave moral concern.” By that, I do not mean to say that IBC has suddenly descended into a tailspin of immorality. I don’t believe that at all. In context, that line actually addresses the deeper issue of how the IBC elders are interpreting the Bible. By adopting a trajectory hermeneutic, they set aside the clear teaching of scripture in favor of misguided hermeneutical criteria. In this way, the authority of the Bible is at stake in the changes that they have initiated. Their hermeneutic threatens biblical authority, and that is what I identified as the “matter of grave moral concern.” That will be clear when the editorial comes out this Fall. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Jackie Roese’s sermon is now available for download from the IBC website. You can listen to it below if you are interested.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Okay, before the comment war begins, I just want to say I agree with Pastor Tom. This is ‘dangerous ground.’
Dr. Burk, I hope you’re getting settled well in the new position.1
It’s kind of neat to be the first comment by the way. I have a feeling this will be a little nuts.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Thanks, Mike.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Denny,
Does anything in IBC’s action violate BFM 2000? What’s the standard here: BFM or CBMW?
Love ya bro
Mike Bird
August 25th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Having made their point by letting Jackie Roese fill the pulpit they will immediately pull back and only men will fill the pulpit in the coming year. They don’t want to lose the church. I suspect you’ll see a woman preach once-in-awhile but not at all regularly. They don’t actually believe in that.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Mike (in #3),
My major concern with IBC’s action is the adoption of a trajectory hermeneutic. I think it undermines the functional authority of the Bible.
From the sixth “affirmation” of the Danver’s Statement: “In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).” It appears that IBC’s findings are out of step with this point.
Thanks,
Denny
August 25th, 2008 at 9:33 am
My daughter goes to IBC and I am glad to see them moving in the egal direction, after a study of the relevant Scripture.
Once one sees that the (very) few puzzling verses do not need to be understood as CBMW claims, one can in good faith understand them in ways that align with the rest of Scripture as endorsing leadership based on giftedness by the Holy Spirit, and not restricted by gender, culture, wealth, race, etc.
I commend IBC.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
There’s a College I would not recommend anyone that I know to attend. If they have that low of a view of Scripture, then I will advise people to not go to that college, when I know that they’re considering it.
This is sad.
David
August 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am
While the storm is still brewing and people are readying all their comments on her gender, and whether or not that disqualifies her to teach in a church, I have some different questions. Was she any good? Was she a skilled expositor of God’s word? Did the Spirit work in her to illumine the scriptures in a way that inspired the hearers to live more Godly lives?
August 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Being an egalitarian does not mean having a low view of Scripture - a different hermeneutic for sure, but not a low view of Scripture. Not everyone holds to the literal, plain sense perspective. I think Don makes great points.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
The 66 books in the protestant canon of Scripture are the inspired word of God. They are definitive for our faith and practice. That is what it means to be a canon.
However, as humans, our interpretation may be mistaken, communication takes 2 and we can misunderstand what God intended. We do our best to try to understand Scripture in context, but also need to be teachable and perhaps change our understanding on something as we learn more. Some things in the Bible are simple and some things are not simple to understand.
Faithful people can have different understandings of some of the things in the Bible, we are to strive to keep the unity of the Spirit until we have unity of the faith.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:50 am
“they set aside the clear teaching of scripture in favor of misguided hermeneutical criteria. In this way, the authority of the Bible is at stake in the changes that they have initiated. Their hermeneutic threatens biblical authority”
I’m sure nobody in your camp is guilty of this. Their interpretations are always “clear” and “plain,” never twisting scripture and isolating verses to prove their points and agendas.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t think this is as big of a deal as you or Nelson make it out to be. I mean, the “carrier of a virus”? Give me a break. Talk about a brick wall view of doctrine at it’s finest.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Pastor Tommy Nelson: “If the Bible is not true and authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue,” he said. “I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church.”
Amen.
“Another measure of the controversy is that Mark Bailey, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has removed himself from a team of regular guest preachers at Irving Bible Church [for “personal convictions and professional reasons"].”
Amen.
Denny: “Their hermeneutic threatens biblical authority, and that is what I identified as the “matter of grave moral concern.”
Amen.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
FWIIW, I do not need to use any “trajectory hermeneutic” to interpret the Bible to support leadership based on giftedness, not gender.
Given that we are commanded to strive to keep the unity of the Spirit UNTIL we come to the unity of the faith, we need to discern who has the Spirit (which is a much larger group that all those that believe exactly as I do) and accept them as faithful believers who differ on non-salvation matters.
To use terms like “carrier of a virus” and “grave moral concern” is to use fear tactics. Rather, a teacher should tell us what he/she believes and why and ask us to be Bereans and search the Scriptures and see if what he/she taught is true.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Denny, I’ll be hosting Dr. Andrew McQuitty on “Live from Criswell” tonight, so I blogged a little response to their position paper on my website. Just thought I’d let you know. By the way, we’re waiting for a response from Mark Bailey, who we also hope to have on the air tonight. May the Lord bless you, even up there!
August 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Also, Denny, I don’t understand the big deal with you posting about Bailey and DTS. What’s your problem with your alma mater? He seems to be taking steps that I figured you would support, so why do I still get a negative vibe from you regarding DTS?
August 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
First, to say that the egalitarian position is liberalism is a stretch and to say that because a church is shifting to an egalitarian approach will automatically make them start teaching FOR homosexuality and pre-martial sex is also a stretch.
We cannot assume a church will automatically become liberal if they are moving in an egalitarian way. That is not fair. In a way we are playing mind readers or fortune tellers.
Second we need to give IBC a huge acknowledgment because they spent 18 months discerning what God wanted for their church. That is huge!!!! Why cannot we be supportive of their process? Instead we immediately attack the result of the process.
So if we think IBC is too liberal of a church now do we start praying for them? And do we dismiss their faithful journey in attempting to address the Women in ministry issue?
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
***Note to Biblical scholars reading this…I am simply a dumb musician who goes to church and loves God. This discussion is likely way over my head. However, my thoughts on this issue follow below anyway…***
I’ve always been intrigued by the egalitarian/complimentarian issue.
It’d be easy to write off what Paul says as strictly of the time and place it was written, and I’ve seen that point of view taken, and I have to admit, it’s hard to brush that off. After all, these were letters written to churches almost 2000 years ago.
However, what tends to lend some credence to the complimentarian side of the debate for me is this one simple fact: I’ve never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen an effective female preacher. They’re either super liberal and don’t even mention the Bible in their sermons, or in an attempt to prove that they can hang with the men, go so far over everyone’s heads that the sermon is pointless (hunt down Melissa Scott for proof of this).
So, to me, at the end of the day, when a church says, “whoopie! We’ve got a female pastor!” It simply translates to, “whoopie! I won’t go to that church!”
August 25th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I can learn from teachers of either gender. There are good teachers and bad teachers of either gender. I try to assess each teacher as an individual.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Don said, “FWIIW, I do not need to use any “trajectory hermeneutic” to interpret the Bible to support leadership based on giftedness, not gender.”
Don, Do you have a problem with IBC not allowing women to be elders? Clearly they decided to interpret the Bible to support leadership based on gender and NOT on giftedness. The leaders (ie. Elders) of IBC are currently all men unless that too has changed since I last looked; but I don’t believe it has.
Do you believe from ‘your’ reading/study of Scripture that women should also serve as Elders of a local church? How has the Spirit led ‘you’ personally in understanding this?
If 1 Tim. 2:9-15 was simply for that cultural time and place; and NOT intended as a prohibition for all churches; wouldn’t that same hermeneutic apply to every book in the Bible? So 1 Tim. 3:1-7 would also be culturally bound; clearly male leadership (ie. Elders) wasn’t God’s intention for all time and all churches either; if you apply the same hermeneutic consistently across the pages of all scripture. So, do you feel IBC missed it here? Or do you feel they are making their gender changes one step at a time and will eventually revisit their study and remove the “seems”/ “appears” language with regard to Elders needing to be men???
On page 21 of the “Women and Ministry of IBC” this is the language I’m referring to:
“…the role of elder SEEMS biblically to be relegated to men.”
“The New Testament APPEARS to leave with men the responsibility and burden of giving leadership as elders of a local church.”
August 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Benjamin A,
I do think church leadership based on giftedness is God’s ideal (women may be church elders if they have been given a leadership ministry Spiritual gift and a church recognizes them as having such), however, God works with individuals and groups of people where they are at, moving them step by step to be more and more in the Kingdom.
I do not see 1 Tim 2 or 3 as simply for that time and place, however it needs to first be understood in terms of 1st century culture, that is, what it MEANT to the original readers as best we can discern, then and only then can we try to discern what it MEANS for us today. We should have every expectation that it will mean something for us today and it does.
My hermeneutic is in trying one’s best to discern how the original readers would have understood the letter. This is AKA the historical-grammatical-literary method, but those are fancy words for “original readers”.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Paul #15:
I can’t say that I’ve heard many female preachers, but some that I have heard were very, very good. Some names you might want to check out: Anne Graham Lotz, Elizabeth Achtemeier (deceased now), Fleming Rutledge, Kay Arthur, Beth Moore. Some of these ladies’ styles are not to my taste, but their skill and care in handling God’s word is evident in all they do.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ditto to what Paul said.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Don,
Thank you so much for your comments. It’s so nice to see someone post here with integrity and humility.
I fear when posts here start about the issue of women in ministry as it can bring out a streak in people that is not very admirable. Let’s hope this one doesn’t turn out that way.
Paul, you must know some scary women. The conference I was just at had a woman speaker and she was truly incredible. She was so in love with Jesus and amazingly inspiring. It is such a shame that some men would feel that they cannot hear what God is saying to her. She is a wonderful mother to her kids, and has devoted her life to bringing the kingdom to the broken around her as she and her husband mutually respect and support each other in their ministry. They are a huge inspiration to me in what I would like my marriage to be like.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Paul,
Thank you for prefacing your insult to women by admitting you’re a dumb musician.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Paul.
give yourself some credit. You may be dumb, but you’re a great musician :o). I’ll buy your cd if you post to ireland!
August 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Denny,
Disclaimer: I am a complementarian. However, I wouldn’t say egalitarians set aside the teaching of Scripture. They may interpret it wrongly (and I think they do) but surely they are concerned with what Scripture intends to teach. This seems the more charitable way to address these brothers and sisters and does so in a way that recognizes our debate (within the evangelical community) is over what the Scriptures teach, not whether or they matter. In other words, it is an in-house debate. These folks are certainly wrong about gender issues but we need not imply they lack a sufficient appreciation for Scripture or orthodoxy.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Ferg,
I think you are confusing the issue.
Of course godly women and mothers are vital to the life of the church and are crucial to its growth and development. Those that are mature have a responsibility to instruct those that come behind them.
However, it does not follow that they MUST be pastors/elders because they are godly and have the ability to speak. (Actually, just because a man is godly and has the ability to speak does not mean he should be a pastor/elder.)
This is not/has never been an issue of godliness..it’s a matter of what Scripture teaches regarding the roles of men and women, in particular their roles within the leadership structure of the church.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Don said, “I do think church leadership based on giftedness is God’s ideal (women may be church elders if they have been given a leadership ministry Spiritual gift and a church recognizes them as having such), however,…”
Don, thank you for your reply, and I’m assuming you feel IBC missed it on the elder issue. I obviously take a different position than you are taking and would be interested in seeing how you make scripture say ‘women may be church elders if they have been given a leadership ministry Spiritual gift and a church recognizes them as having such”. What portion of scripture do you use to justify this position of yours?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I am confused as to how allowing women to preach means that the church is going to allow homosexual preachers or change their stance on adultery. I fail to see the logical progression in that. I agree that it seems like scare tactics to me.
I think that IBC did a wonderful job of having a council of trusted and educated leaders in their church that spent SO long debating, researching, and discussing this issue. I think that they put more effort into this decision than most churches do for the majority of their important decisions. It’s amazing how seriously they took this issue.
I think that their move to having women preach is a great step for the church. I also like the fact that they don’t feel like they have to defend their decision. They said in their Chatter that they feel like for this time period in the church that this is the best step for them. They don’t feel like they have to comment on other churches or ’solve’ the whole issue themselves. They made a decision based on what is best for their church and I think that’s very responsible and brave of them.
I am sad to hear that the President of Dallas Theological Seminary is going to boycott a church just because of an internal decision. I don’t feel like that is very mature of him. It seems to me that he is saying that we should not associate with people just because we don’t 100% agree with all of their viewpoints. As Christians, aren’t we called to do the opposite?
I am interested to know something from the men in this audience: If the Bible clearly stated (in your opinion) that is OK for women to preach, would you still have a problem with it? Please search your heart and give the honest answer.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
jeremy zach,
First, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding egalitarianism and liberalism. The 2 go hand in hand…in fact, I would venture to ask you to find examples of it NOT being the case. I know of none.
Second, We need not give credit to a church for taking a long time to consider carefully a decision. Why? It is their responsibility to carefully make a decision and take time doing so. Why be praiseworthy of something that necessary? But also, so what if you take a long time to make a decision and decide wrongly? This was a poor decision and the amount of time makes it worse, IMO. I don’t think their journey was faithful…seeing that their destination is not faithful.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Trajectory hermeneutics do not necessarily undermine the authority of the Bible. Many accept a trajectory hermeneutic on the issue of slavery, an issue that has many more verses that seem to support it as a non-sinful institution than the texts that deem women as pastors as unacceptable. William Webb has an article in JETS outlining the different scholars who accept Redemptive Movement hermeneutic on that issue, but don’t go so far to extend it to women. The point at issue has always been how much of the women-restrictive texts have cultural componets to them that make them more or less binding. The less binding they are the more the RM hermeneutic can apply. When I read the church’s statement on gender roles it seemed that their concern lied moreso with that, than “trajectory hermeneutics.”
August 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Moz (in #27),
I think egalitarians who advocate a trajectory hermeneutic are of a different sort than those who simply have a different interpretation of the relevant texts. The latter group looks at a text like 1 Timothy 2:12 and argues that Paul didn’t mean to prohibit women from teaching and exercising authority over men. The former group says that Paul did mean to prohibit women from teaching and exercising authority over men but that Paul’s meaning represented an inferior ethic that we have now surpassed.
The implication that trajectory hermeneutics has for biblical authority is staggering. We are only seeing the beginning of it.
Denny
August 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for the comment Adam. I totally agree with you and believe Denny and all the others here probably uses trajectory hermeneutics in the area of slavery to get around his “plain” meaning.
I would actually like to hear how others get around the slavery issue if trajectories are not used.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Denny,
Nobody seeks to undermine biblical authority, whether they use trajectories or not. “Biblical authority” is just a word used to back up what you believe anyways. If I wanted to be “biblical,” I would move to a country where I could have slaves or a dictator.
Also, I don’t understand the relevance of you mentioning Mark Bailey and DTS…could you please explain?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
On IBC, I see them following the Spirit, so I am NOT going to dink them for taking only one step when they might have taken 2 steps. Sometimes taking one step is appropriate. Go slow and evaluate can be wise.
Hey, I can be wrong and I admit it. I act in faith based on my current understanding (no analysis paralysis) but want to be teachable.
On what I use to justify women leaders, I have studied both sides and while I have learned from both sides, I find the egal position more compelling and more aligned with the other teachings of the Bible, esp. the new covenant. I recommend Bereans study both sides (p.s. do not let one side tell you what the other side says, you need to actually read both sides).
If you have a question about a specific verse, I can try to answer. A summary is:
1. Women were on occasion leaders in the OT. This is somewhat surprising as it was a very patriarchal culture with polygamy. Women were not Aaronic priests, but in the new covenant, every believer is a priest. This is good for most of us (not just women) as most of use do not meet the requirements for Aaronic priests.
2. Jesus had women disciples, this was incredibly counter-cultural. The 12 were free Jewish men to map to the 12 tribes.
3. Later, Junia was an apostle (not one of the 12, but still an apostle) and Phoebe was at least a deacon/minister. All the churches that met in the homes of a woman were likely led by that woman, that would have been the expectation. It is possible one or 2 were not and they were just the host, but not all of them. I agree this last is a probability argument, but sometimes that is the best evidence we have.
4. On the verses mentioning giving of spiritual gifts, there is not a hint of them being segregated by gender, culture, race, wealth or anything else. Contrast that with the verses on Aaronic priests where it is very specific when those are being inaugurated. In other words, the Aaronic priest verses show how God uses only men (etc, lots of other restrictions) for something, but we do not find something similar for the new covenant leadership ministry gifts.
5. There remain a few puzzling verses, but the puzzles can be addressed.
I understand that others can come up with different answers.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Could someone define “trajectory hermeneutics”?
August 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Never mind… looked it up.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
William,
Here’s a critical review of William Webb’s book: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Book-Reviews/Slaves-Women-and-Homosexuals-by-William-J-Webb-reviewed-by-Wayne-Grudem.
I think Grudem’s critique is spot-on.
Thanks,
Denny
August 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
John said, “I would actually like to hear how others get around the slavery issue if trajectories are not used.
John, I see a verse like 1 Corinthians 7:21 as a solution to the slavery issue without the use of trajectory;
Paul wrote, “Where you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if YOU ARE ABLE also to become free, rather DO THAT.”
You will need to read it all in context of course, but Paul clearly is saying to a brother of sister in Christ, who were saved (called) while in slavery (1) to not worry about being a slave (see v.22 for Paul’s reasoning) or (2) if your able to get out of being a slave (become free) to do that over not worrying about being someone’s slave. Free yourself if you are able to do so.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Jeremy Zach: “First, to say that the egalitarian position is liberalism is a stretch…”
No, it’s not.
“…to say that because a church is shifting to an egalitarian approach will automatically make them start teaching FOR homosexuality and pre-martial sex is also a stretch.”
You’re making a stretch because Denny never made that claim.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Thanks Denny.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
FYI. I just updated my original post. At the end, I posted a link to Jackie Roese’s sermon.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I do not think I was wrong over there. I do not claim infallibility or perfection, I can be wrong.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Don said, “If you have a question about a specific verse, I can try to answer.”
Don, thank you for your reply; I can tell you have thought through this issue and appreciate your humility regarding your own discovery. I was hoping you were able to put together some scripture supporting your belief that women should be elders. I realize your five point summary implies a lot from Scripture; but I was wanting to see even just one verse that said what you are claiming Scripture says; that “women can be elders…”. If it’s possible for you to provide just one verse that shows me how you understand the Scripture to say/mean that women should be Elders of local churches would be helpful.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“However, what tends to lend some credence to the complimentarian side of the debate for me is this one simple fact: I’ve never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen an effective female preacher. They’re either super liberal and don’t even mention the Bible in their sermons, or in an attempt to prove that they can hang with the men, go so far over everyone’s heads that the sermon is pointless (hunt down Melissa Scott for proof of this).
So, to me, at the end of the day, when a church says, “whoopie! We’ve got a female pastor!” It simply translates to, “whoopie! I won’t go to that church!””
I won’t say “whoopie” but neither will I join a church (or regularly attend one) that is led by a woman.
BTW, I don’t think Beth Moore or Annie Lotz pastor churches, nor does Kay Arthur. Pretty sure they don’t intend to either.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Benjamin,
There doesn’t have to be “one verse” (read: proof-text) for something to be right and true (e.g. Trinity). Agree? So while you may be trying to trap Don by him eventually saying “There’s not one,” this does not undermine his argument or give strength to yours. I say this with kindness and no arrogance.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Benjamin A,
OK, I will try. Here is a short take on my understanding.
The terms elder, overseer and shepherd are synonyms in the NT and prostatis used to describe Phoebe is also possible/likely. My understanding is that to be an elder you need to have one of the 5-fold leadership ministry Spiritual gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher. It is possible to have more than one, but rare; Jesus had them all. Apostles are often called missionaries today and prophets are often called preachers. It is possible to be given the gift but not be an elder in that area of gifting, it takes the recognition of a congregation of your gift to actually be an elder in a congregation.
As Junia was an apostle, she was also an elder. She did not merely have the gift of being an apostle, she was Greek en/within the apostles. As apostle is listed first by Paul in his list in Eph, all the rest follow as possibilities. In another letter, Paul says that apostles are first in a list.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
That’s because your definition of church seems to be “a building with four walls and a steeple with a hierarchal structure.”
Seriously, what constitutes a “church”? I remember Nelson mentioning something about this in his sermon a while back…something about how women can lead conferences and stuff, they just can’t lead in a church. What’s the difference people? Seriously? I would like an educated opinion.
By the way Benjamin, thanks for your answer about slavery. I will check that text out and have not heard it used before. Thanks for the civility as well.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
John,
Are you the same John I responded to in post #39?
August 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Also Denny, I don’t understand the relevance of you mentioning Mark Bailey or DTS. Can you please explain the relevance of you mentioning the president and the institution while your post was basically about IBC? I’m seeking clarification and am confused why you won’t answer me.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
That’s me
August 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Sorry for post #49. Post 48 wasn’t up when I sent it out.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Don,
Thank you for your reply; It helps me to see where you are coming from to make the claim that women can be Elders of local churches. Though I respectfully disagree with your understanding, I do appreciate your patience in filtering through all my questions. Your latest post however, has opened the door for all kinds of questions, all of which go beyond the scope of this thread and beyond our time to deal with in this forum. Thanks again for your generosity.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Denny,
It seems to me that most evangelicals would say that Paul’s prohibition was contextual. Are you saying this amounts to a trajectory approach? Even so, I want to say you can still value Scripture and think something that *was* taught is no longer applicable, such as observing the Sabbath, provided you ground the trajectory in Scripture itself. I am not endorsing the trajectory approach, but seeking to show that it is not obviously a matter of setting Scripture aside.
Thanks Denny,
Moz
August 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Yes, I agree that this is not a good forum to discuss these things in detail. P.S. This was just an example, I do try to integrate the whole counsel of Scripture.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Don, #43: “I do not think I was wrong over there.”
Even with your statement on Aug 6, 2008 8:10:07 PM: “Jesus submits to me by serving me and saving me, this is an example of submission. He is acting in my best interests, even if I am not aware of it or deny it. He died that I might live, that is true submission.”
August 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Denny,
Can you please explain the relevance of mentioning Mark Bailey and DTS in your post? I ask because it kind of seems out of place, yet you act like it’s pertinent information. I am puzzled as to why you won’t answer an honest question I have asked about 5 times now.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Yes, my understanding of Jesus dieing for me is a whopper of an example of his submission to me, in this case my best interests, doing something for me I could not do.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Don: “Yes, my understanding of Jesus dieing for me is a whopper of an example of his submission to me, in this case my best interests, doing something for me I could not do.”
Let’s say that a fireman died from the flames while saving me during his rescue effort.
I would not say that the fireman submitted to me.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Well, I would say that the fireman submitted to me.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Headline:
Conservative College Dean Allows Woman to Preach on Web Site
Dateline: August 25, 2008, Louisville, KY.
Dr. Danny Burks, Dean of Royce College, in a stunning twist of fate, has allowed a woman to preach on his conservative web site. The woman’s name is Jackey Rose.
Pastor Tom Nixon of North Texas Bible Church responded to Burks’ posting of Rose’s sermon by preaching a three week series called “Surfing the Slippery Slope: How to avoid Women Preachers on the Web.” Nixon went a step further and created his own web site to refute the vile action taken by Burks. You can view this site at http://www.knowyourrole.com.
Rumor has it that Dr. Mark Barley, President of Generic Conservative Theological Seminary, began having computer problems as soon as Mrs. Rose’s sermon was posted on Burks’ site. “I don’t know what happened”, said Barley. “My computer suddenly crashed. I think it fried the entire GCTS network.” IT personnel could not be reached for comment.
Dr. Burks, when asked about posting the sermon, said “The obvious trajectory of culture allows for equal opportunity web posting. Women can’t preach in pulpits, but they’re basically female versions of Billy Graham on the web. I can’t explain it, but it’s awesome!”
Disclaimer: The above news story is FAKE. None of this happened. It’s my attempt at sarcasm, so please don’t be offended by it. Laugh a little. It’s good for you!
__________________________________
Sorry, Denny, but I just couldn’t help myself. Please know that I’m just poking a little fun here. Question: does preaching only occur in a pulpit, or can you be accused of letting a woman preach on your web site? I think you should write a 25 page document explaining your stance.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Steve…
Priceless.
My favorite post ever on this blog.
P.S. - I’ve also burned all the “inspirational” and/or theology books on my shelves written by women.
God help us. Seriously.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Denny,
Can you please explain the relevance of mentioning Mark Bailey and DTS in your post? I ask because it kind of seems out of place, yet you act like it’s pertinent information. What is your problem with them? I am puzzled as to why you won’t answer an honest question I have asked about 6 times now.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
John,
Mark Bailey is a member of IBC, and was on the teaching team until recently. He recently wrote a letter explaining his resignation from the teaching team and posted it on the DTS web site. That’s why he’s mentioned.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I listened to her sermon and it was very inspiring. I recommend it.
One minor quibble, it was allowed for women to divorce back then, but many teach different as they do not know this. That does not change the substance of her teaching.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Dr. Bailey’s departure from the IBC teaching team seems to be being used at least indirectly to bolster the argument of those opposed to the IBC position in this matter.
It is no secret that Tommy Nelson, in his position of formal power (as a DTS board member) and otherwise put pressure on Dr. Bailey and DTS in this matter. (Yes, the same pastor who chose to deal with his disagreement with a sister church’s position by hosting a series of sermons in public opposition to it.)
It could well be that this pressure was the main reason for Dr. Bailey’s move more than the IBC position itself. One could note, for instance, that the IBC position had been known to Dr. Bailey as a member of the team long before Pastor Nelson or anyone else outside of IBC got wind of it.
I know what Dr. Bailey’s official statements are, and they are appropriate given his responsibilities to the seminary and its supporters, but I suspect there is more here than meets the eye.
I can’t speak for Dr. Bailey, so there is probably little to be discussed here. I simply wish that his resignation from the team would stop popping up as supposed ‘relevant material.’
August 25th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Steve (in #61),
You are hilarious! I laughed out loud. My wife could barely hear Michelle Obama over my cackling! Okay, maybe that’s an embellishment. But I really did laugh out loud.
I love you, bro.
Much luf,
Denny